So here are my questions in regards to representing/understanding a characters capabilities/potential.

What do you find most effective. #,word,d.type,picture,a mix..why?
 
How much do you like to know about the game world before you decide on the character spacifics?

Does genre/style have any bearing, How so?
( in particular does it matter if the character is for a one shot/short game or a 'campaign')

Hope that is framed in a way everyone can respond to.Thanks for taking the time to answer!

What exactly do you mean by "capabilities"? DO you mean stats/powers/mechanics and the "optimal character build" sort of viewpoint?

Or do you mean roleplaying potential?

Or something else?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;393459What exactly do you mean by "capabilities"? DO you mean stats/powers/mechanics and the "optimal character build" sort of viewpoint?

Or do you mean roleplaying potential?

Or something else?

RPGPundit

By capabilities I do mean stats/powers/mechanics, though not necessarily in any "optimal build" sort of way. It could be totaly random, "DM" assigned or what have you.
Roleplaying potential could also be a consideration for many.

To put it in other terms. Do you prefer 'hard' detail (#'s, d.types.) or innuendo (words, phrases,pictures,backstory) to express the stats etc.
This  ties into what sort of resolution mechanic do you like and how do you like it to be represented on a character dosier/sheet if one is even required.

Does that clarify any?

Guess I'm a numbers guy as far as figuring out capabilities goes.

Pictures...not so much...I usually have a hazy mental picture but any actual drawings I make of my characters are going to get ridiculed ("What the hell is that?" and "He looks like a gay lumberjack", are both comments I've received, for example).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;39350
Pictures...not so much...I usually have a hazy mental picture but any actual drawings I make of my characters are going to get ridiculed ("What the hell is that?" and "He looks like a gay lumberjack", are both comments I've received, for example).[/QUOTEThank you for replying Bloody Stupid...the pictures do not have to be of your own making. Much like the avatars I see used here they can be culled from many sources, even stick figures can be used and a picture can include background elements as well.

Does this have a bearing on your reply?

Can you comment on the second question?
How much do you like to know about the game world...

I don't care how it's setup as long as it makes sense at a glance and it's easy to tell where your strengths and weaknesses are.

But I will say that I dislike descriptive terms for values when you must in turn, turn that description back into a value when it comes to the mechanics.

For example if you have Strength: Good and good really means +2 and that's the only purpose of putting the word Good in there, to tell you it means +2.  That just bugs me.

Quote from: kryyst;393565I don't care how it's setup as long as it makes sense at a glance and it's easy to tell where your strengths and weaknesses are.

But I will say that I dislike descriptive terms for values when you must in turn, turn that description back into a value when it comes to the mechanics.

For example if you have Strength: Good and good really means +2 and that's the only purpose of putting the word Good in there, to tell you it means +2.  That just bugs me.

Thanks for the input! A very concise reply

Can you comment on the second question.
How much do you like to know about the game world...

Quote from: skofflox;393541Thank you for replying Bloody Stupid...the pictures do not have to be of your own making. Much like the avatars I see used here they can be culled from many sources, even stick figures can be used and a picture can include background elements as well.

Does this have a bearing on your reply?

Can you comment on the second question?
How much do you like to know about the game world...

Probably my characters are just weird enough that I couldn't dig up something that feels quite right.

As far as information goes (about the world or campaign) the more the better, really.

Quote from: skofflox;393483By capabilities I do mean stats/powers/mechanics, though not necessarily in any "optimal build" sort of way. It could be totaly random, "DM" assigned or what have you.
Roleplaying potential could also be a consideration for many.

To put it in other terms. Do you prefer 'hard' detail (#'s, d.types.) or innuendo (words, phrases,pictures,backstory) to express the stats etc.
This  ties into what sort of resolution mechanic do you like and how do you like it to be represented on a character dosier/sheet if one is even required.

Does that clarify any?

For representing a character, my ideal system (I'm writing it) has skills like SAGA (sort of exist in three states: you suck, you're competent, and you rock... all scale with level) and perks like Fallout 3 (You just get another cool thing every level... no class restrictions, but there are skill prereqs sometimes). As for pictures... no system's gonna utilize them, and you can't draw a pic that shows everything your character might do, but they do make great game aids IME.

EDIT: Numbers for the randomizer, basic concepts / broad strokes for any decisions I gotta make, and pics for the hell of it.

Quote from: skofflox;393697Can you comment on the second question.
How much do you like to know about the game world...

As a Player that is entirely subjective to the story at hand and what assumptions the GM is making that we know of the setting before hand.  As a GM if I'm running a game in a prefabbed setting then I'd want to have as much detail as possible, whether or not I'd use it that's beside the point.  It's better to have to much then to little.

Quote from: kryyst;393565For example if you have Strength: Good and good really means +2 and that's the only purpose of putting the word Good in there, to tell you it means +2.  That just bugs me.

Yes, me too. Its one of my few pet peeves with Starblazer, for example. If you mean "5" then just put 5, don't write "Total Awesome" and then force the guy reading to have to go look up if "total awesome" is 5 or 6 (when 6 is ·"extreme awesome").

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;393824Yes, me too. Its one of my few pet peeves with Starblazer, for example. If you mean "5" then just put 5, don't write "Total Awesome" and then force the guy reading to have to go look up if "total awesome" is 5 or 6 (when 6 is ·"extreme awesome").

RPGPundit

So what about the # of tags used giving some benefit but not a particuler #?
For example giving the character with the most relevent tags the option of challenging the initial roll but if they fail the second throw the remainders (the original+new) are added, thereby creating a nastier result. This could be tied to having a higher tag total in another sphere such as "speed" or whatever.
Thoughts?

Quote from: skofflox;393868So what about the # of tags used giving some benefit but not a particuler #?
For example giving the character with the most relevent tags the option of challenging the initial roll but if they fail the second throw the remainders (the original+new) are added, thereby creating a nastier result. This could be tied to having a higher tag total in another sphere such as "speed" or whatever.
Thoughts?

What?

I'm sorry it might be the lateness of the hour or so, but I have no fucking clue about what you're talking about.  

What I was talking about was how the difficulty numbers in Starblazer (good, fair, legendary, etc) are all described with words and not numbers, and to find the numbers you have to go look them up in the section where the concepts are introduced, or in the appendix, rather than putting the number next to or in place of the word.

Its like if in D20, instead of saying DC15, you said "average", and instead of DC20 you said "tough" and then every skill, feat, or action description said "you have to beat an Extremely Difficult DC to succeed at x"; and you'd either have to memorize the name of each DC rating, or you'd have to look up, every fucking time, that "Extremely Difficult" means DC30.

What the fuck were you talking about?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;393824Yes, me too. Its one of my few pet peeves with Starblazer, for example. If you mean "5" then just put 5, don't write "Total Awesome" and then force the guy reading to have to go look up if "total awesome" is 5 or 6 (when 6 is ·"extreme awesome").

RPGPundit

For anyone that doesn't know...Starblazer uses the same difficulty scale/names for attributes and tasks...so we've gone from talking about characters to talking about task difficulties?

Quote from: skofflox;393868So what about the # of tags used giving some benefit but not a particuler #?
For example giving the character with the most relevent tags the option of challenging the initial roll but if they fail the second throw the remainders (the original+new) are added, thereby creating a nastier result. This could be tied to having a higher tag total in another sphere such as "speed" or whatever.
Thoughts?

[comprehend languages GO!!]
I think he's assumed you're trying to give multiple names to the same number, or maybe that "Total" and "Extreme" are evokable traits (tags) rather than really being codewords for different numbers ??

Quote from: RPGPundit;394236What?

I'm sorry it might be the lateness of the hour or so, but I have no fucking clue about what you're talking about.  

What I was talking about was how the difficulty numbers in Starblazer (good, fair, legendary, etc) are all described with words and not numbers, and to find the numbers you have to go look them up in the section where the concepts are introduced, or in the appendix, rather than putting the number next to or in place of the word.

Its like if in D20, instead of saying DC15, you said "average", and instead of DC20 you said "tough" and then every skill, feat, or action description said "you have to beat an Extremely Difficult DC to succeed at x"; and you'd either have to memorize the name of each DC rating, or you'd have to look up, every fucking time, that "Extremely Difficult" means DC30.

What the fuck were you talking about?

RPGPundit

My apologies for an ambigious example, here is another.
What if the "description" did not relate to a spacific number (this seems to be the crux of your dislike)  but instead gave you the ability to challenge (re-roll) or modify the initial difference of,for example,an opposed roll(s).

Example.
Combat situation using %d. for mechanics. Player A %d=70 vs player B %d=40...30 difference, a light wound or weak effect (on a 0-100 scale) Player B has word description that is construed as 'better' than the opp. (more depth/ backstory/experince, established going into the combat) so he decides to challenge the initial remainder (30) because he does not want to give his opp. any edge. He does not look up a # or anything he just throws the bones again...

So no looking up a specific term or need to memorize #= word stuff,which seems to be the root of your dislike in regards to the original thread topic..
Using words to represent. att./character potential  or #, which do you prefer and why?
Does that preference change with style/setting?
etc. or something like that.