Re: call for duelmasters help

From: johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu (John White)

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1992 19:36:21 +0000

In article <900667c.22.720318179@ace.acadiau.ca> 900667c@ace.acadiau.ca
(GERALD RICHARD CAMERON) writes:

>Dennis, look in your (gaming) dictionary at the definition of factor.  Then
>look up stat or characteristic.  They're not the same thing.  What your
>arguing for is a definate number that says character X is this lucky.  What
>RSI has admitted to is that the program is based on something other than
>straight strategy and stats.  Can you find me a direct quote to clarify
this
>point to the contrary?

Hmmm... I too, don't really buy into the -15 to +15 luck characteristic that
just gets flat out added to all your rolls (Gerald, have you seen ANY of my
posts in the last week on this subject?).

On the other hand, I do believe that there are probably hidden
characteristics that effect how a warrior fights.  Does that make sense?

>>I've never been certain that having a "lucky" char-
>>acter matters or not, however I have had a few characters who seemed to
defy
>>the odds time after time, especially one mediocre lunger who was able to
squeak
>>out quite a few fights over superior foes.  His main strength?  An awesome
>>favorite weapon (LO), and the ability to knock foes down just when he
needed
>>it (also the fact that, in those days, if you got knocked down by a LO,
>>you couldn't get back up again).
>
>Hmmm... if anything that seems like a point in my favour.  You just
admitted
>that this guy succeeded because he got lucky on something random OTHER THAN
>HIS LUCK STAT.

Hmmm... I think Dennis was referring to a luch stat being added to
knockdowns.  I actually believe that this supports MY contention about
hidden characteristics like knockdown ability, for example.  That way, he
could even have a lousy skill base, and _still_ do well.

>>2)  Each character is an individual.  If there were no luck factor, and
I'm
>>speaking from the point of view of a guy who has done a lot of programming
>>here, then each character would come out down an "assembly line" that
would
>>quickly be dissected by number-crunchers.

>Oh come on, Dennis.  Even I know that skill base is based on four things:
>1) A character's stats (ie. WT, WL, ST, etc.)
>2) A character's style (ie. LU, BA, PR, etc.)
>3) A character's WT comments
>4) A random factor (I would argue not a luck stat) that adds
>or subtracts a few skills to each area.  I'd say this isn't a flat
>bonus or penalty across the board because I've had characters who
>excelled in one area, but were at the same time shafted in another.

I agree with Gerald here (except for wit comments.  I don't think they
affect your starting skill base).  Take two hypothetical warriors with
exactly the same stats.  If we agreed on an across-the-board luck stat, then
the bases of these two warriors would differ in all the different skill
areas in exactly the same way, i.e. if one started with one more attack
skill than the other, then he would start with exactly one more skill in ALL
areas, not just attack.  Since that doesn't happen, a better hypothesis
would be a separate, random bonus or penalty in each area.  Does that make
sense?

>As for the other factors, people are fairly sure that there are character
>stats which aren't visible, even on an AD overview.  One RSI has admitted
to
>is how talkative a warrior is.  Other possibiities I can think of that come
>from real sports or sports entertainment (ie. wrestling) include the degree
>to which he gets pumped up by the cheers of the crowd, and how well he can
>handle an opponent who is a lefty or a righty (ask any boxer about the
>relevance of that one).  Those alone could take the game out of the hands
>of the number crunchers.

Ok... then what's wrong with a bunch of OTHER hidden stats, like crit
ability, etc?

I think you're wrong on the number crunching, though.  If we can get a
definite range on the possible skills, that gives us that much more control
over the outcome of a given warrior.  We can't control anything besides 14
points of stats, and a style.  If we can maximize the ability using these
two things, then we're making better warriors.

I think it was Ben who mentioned that whatever charts we might have just
aren't accurate, useful, or whatever.  I don't quite agree with that.
Seeing these charts was probably the turning point in my DM career (that,
and talking to Dennis! :-))  Even if things aren't completely correct,
number crunching turned me on to a lot of subtleties like starting skills,
and more importantly, skill bonuses...

>>PS  Some of you may have seen the Enquirer story where LaToya Jackson
>>claims I threw Marla over for her.  It's entirely untrue.  I threw Marla
>>over as soon as the publicity died down, and as for LaToya, I only talk
>>to her so she will introduce me to Janet. :)
>
>You didn't put in enough smilies there, pal :) (After all, who would WANT
>to meet Janet Jackson).

A good looking, rich woman?  Good point.  Not me, and definitely not Trump.

John
--
John White
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu
|===============================================================|
|                          What the HELL?!                      |

References

Re: call for duelmasters help
900667c@ace.acadiau.ca (GERALD RICHARD CAMERON)
Thu, 29 Oct 1992 00:22:59 +0000