Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fireinthedust" data-source="post: 4925497" data-attributes="member: 51930">QqWow, ummmmm1)&nbsp;&nbsp; the 6 stats were around for 1e.&nbsp; Yes, it was wierd, but they worked2)&nbsp; 10 is average.&nbsp; If you have a 10 Int, you have 100 IQ, which is average (take psych 100).&nbsp; If you have 18 Int, you have a 180 IQ; not that most PCs are played as such, but it could be there (just saying).&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; The point here is that they are representational for who the PC is, before we decide what they can do.&nbsp; I've toyed with Tri-stat systems, including one I fiddle with.&nbsp; Six stats is handy, and just wieldy enough that you get more than *only* generalizations; not perfect, but not as clunky as Palladium, or as basic as classic tri-stat.basically, it lets me have room for a penalty rather than go into negatives.&nbsp; By contrast, what if you compared dumb critters the way some people compare smart ones?&nbsp;&nbsp; Like, is an OOze smarter than, say, another Ooze?&nbsp; Hom max Negative can a critter get than 0?&nbsp; Seriously.&nbsp; You can't do more than 0 damage,&nbsp; &nbsp; Ergo, we have a reason for having low stats (dumb barbarian) without an INFINITELY NEGATIVE scale to dray on for badnes.&nbsp;&nbsp; ARE YOU AS DUMB AS AN OCHRE JELLY?&nbsp; OK, WHAT ABOUT BRITNEY?!3)&nbsp; Your complaint was already dealt with in TRUE 20.&nbsp; Look it up.&nbsp; It is a good system, by the guy who did M&amp;M (which is True 20 but more so).&nbsp; It's a 3e system, but fun.&nbsp; I approve, and I like 4e a lot more than 3e.&nbsp; Green Ronin.&nbsp; Good company.Ultimately, I see what you're saying.&nbsp; Maybe you're right, but they'd still go 6 stats; just the 1, 2, 3, etc bonuses.&nbsp; That's what we get from the stats.However, as someone who's played 2e back in the day, there is something to having the 6.&nbsp; Having a penalty is superfluous, compared to asking &quot;well, how much of a total bonus are we talking here?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fireinthedust, post: 4925497, member: 51930"] [b]Qq[/b] Wow, ummmmm 1) the 6 stats were around for 1e. Yes, it was wierd, but they worked 2) 10 is average. If you have a 10 Int, you have 100 IQ, which is average (take psych 100). If you have 18 Int, you have a 180 IQ; not that most PCs are played as such, but it could be there (just saying). The point here is that they are representational for who the PC is, before we decide what they can do. I've toyed with Tri-stat systems, including one I fiddle with. Six stats is handy, and just wieldy enough that you get more than *only* generalizations; not perfect, but not as clunky as Palladium, or as basic as classic tri-stat. basically, it lets me have room for a penalty rather than go into negatives. By contrast, what if you compared dumb critters the way some people compare smart ones? Like, is an OOze smarter than, say, another Ooze? Hom max Negative can a critter get than 0? Seriously. You can't do more than 0 damage, Ergo, we have a reason for having low stats (dumb barbarian) without an INFINITELY NEGATIVE scale to dray on for badnes. ARE YOU AS DUMB AS AN OCHRE JELLY? OK, WHAT ABOUT BRITNEY?! 3) Your complaint was already dealt with in TRUE 20. Look it up. It is a good system, by the guy who did M&M (which is True 20 but more so). It's a 3e system, but fun. I approve, and I like 4e a lot more than 3e. Green Ronin. Good company. Ultimately, I see what you're saying. Maybe you're right, but they'd still go 6 stats; just the 1, 2, 3, etc bonuses. That's what we get from the stats. However, as someone who's played 2e back in the day, there is something to having the 6. Having a penalty is superfluous, compared to asking "well, how much of a total bonus are we talking here?" [/QUOTE]

Verification