If I can just quote my earlier post:
Quote:
... I am more than happy for anyone to come up with a list of verbal descriptions for the numbers... They could be quite useful to some referees ...
Nevertheless, let us continue the discussion ...
Daeruin wrote:
A particular attribute score indicates the likelihood of a character achieving various feats over the course of a campaign.
1) In our games, a particular attribute is unlikely to have the same score at the end of the campaign that it had at the start of the campaign. Those 100+ SA points the player earns during the campaign have to go somewhere...
2) In my games it is rare for a player to make a roll without SAs firing. As such the likelihood of a character achieving an attribute-check based feat during a session, scenario, or campaign has as much to do with the SA score as it does with the attribute score.
3) We allow automatic successes to be bought with Luck before the roll is made. This makes the TN of the roll irrelevant. As TN reflects difficulty, this aspect alone would seem to call into question the statement above.
Daeruin wrote:
A campaign in which a small child consistently performs feats of strength that the circus strongman cannot match would simply be ridiculous. It would need some other in-game explanation, like supernatural powers or a comedic setting--or lots of SAs firing (which is essentially an in-game story factor).
Hmmm -- I'm not sure what to make of this. In TRoS if the players are following the plot then they'll always be in scenes where their SAs are firing. So I guess that is the circumstance where it isn't ridiculous that the small child consistently performs feats of strength. Phew! We're on the same page!
Daeruin wrote:
A player (in my game) assigns lots of points to an attribute because they want their (player) character to be more likely to perform those feats than another (player) character.
I've edited it this one in an effort to get to a single meaning. If I'm wrong with the interpretation then please correct -- and ignore what follows.
That's cool how your group builds their characters and I have no issue with it. I would simply say that it's not a universal rationale for the allocation of the numbers.
Daeruin wrote:
If you take Ian's point of view that the value of an attribute essentially doesn't matter, then why have attributes at all?
This is not my point of view.
Ian.Plumb wrote:
If a man has ST of 4 this does not mean a boy has an ST of 2. There is no relative measurement here. The boy can have an ST of 6. Does this mean he can bench-press more than the man? No. Does it mean that in a scene he has some statistical chance of performing a feat of strength? Yes it does. Does that mean the boy is stronger than the man? No it doesn't.
higgins wrote:
I couldn't agree more with Ben here. Also, if you claim that ST 4 man is stronger than ST 6 boy, then you also claim that CP 8 warrior is a better fighter than CP 20 peasant, which (PAs aside) just isn't true!
I am not claiming that an ST 4 man is stronger than an ST 6 boy. Just as importantly I am not claiming that an ST 6 boy is stronger than an ST 4 man. And most importantly of all, an ST 4 man is not stronger nor weaker than an ST 6 man.
What I am claiming is that who is "stronger", who is "statistically" more likely to succeed in a feat of strength, depends on which character has the larger dice pool (and that means knowing SA/PA involvement) and who has the most Luck/Drama to burn.
In the end the only thing that tells us whether a character is strong or weak is their performance within the scene.
higgins wrote:
Rating means the number of dice, number of dice mean the probability of success, probability of success over time means general capability. PAs modify the probability of success without altering the general capability.
I can honestly say I don't agree with any point within this paragraph. How funny is that!
The attribute rating contributes a number of dice to a dice pool. The dice pool is augmented by the SAs/PAs applicable to the scene -- the context in which the roll is being made. The majority of those dice in that dice pool may or may not come from the attribute.
The total number of dice in the dice pool produce a probability of success. The number of dice within the dice pool will change between scenes because the applicable SAs/PAs change. Even if the feat being performed is exactly the same, the probability of success can change dramatically. In addition, attributes change over time through SA/PA expenditure. As a result of both of these points the concept of probability of success over time is largely meaningless. General capability means exactly nothing under these mechanics. All that has meaning is capability within the context of the scene.
But like I've said, I don't really get what the fuss is about. I hold a view that SAs/PAs add so many dice to the dice pool that they often outweigh the base dice allocation -- wherever it may have been derived. I am only interested in what the character achieves within the game -- the character sheet is an abstraction from which it isn't possible to determine relative merit (such as my character is stronger than yours). But if you hold a different view then that's fine by me. As I've said, I really don't mind where you take EoS on this issue.
Regards,