Is Stuff an Absolute, or a Bell Curve?

[RPGPundit]

For me, its always a bell curve.  If you have 5 players who's stuff is in the +10 to +15 range, and then one player who's stuff is -10, that guy is way more fucked than if the rest of them were all in the 0 to -5 range.

Likewise, if most people are in the -5 to +5 range, and you have one guy with +30, he's going to be very lucky indeed.

RPGPundit

[finarvyn]

I'm not sure I follow your use of the term "bell curve" in this instance, but Stuff certainly is relative in my campaign. If everyone is at +5 then bad things get distributed equally, but if one is above another then the bad things tend to get deflected toward the low-stuff guy evem if the low-stuff guy is in the positive range.

[Otha]

Yeah, I don't understand "bell curve" in this instance either.  

It kind of implies a kind of mathematical function between stuff and bad luck, which is so antithetical to the style of Amber play that you espouse that I'm gobsmacked you would use the term.

I'm not really a big fan of Stuff.  It implies a hero/villain dichotomy that I think is too simplistic and can't readily be applied to the characters in the book.

[RPGPundit]

What I mean by "Bell curve" is very simply that the group of players who are in the middle will all get lumped together in getting the same kind of luck, while any who are on the two extremes will get a more extreme level of good or bad luck.

Just like how a bell curve works... :confused:

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Uh, no.  That's not how a bell curve works.  It's a function (AKA "normal distribution") that's used to define standard deviations, and for modeling certain kinds of "random" phenomena statistically.

Maybe you're talking about "grading on a curve" where raw data (such as test scores or stuff scores) are transformed into a final value that causes the raw data to conform to a curve?

I don't think anyone could argue against the idea that characters with similar stuff scores should get similar luck.  That's not "using a bell curve" that's just common sense.

The thing is, depending on the shape of the curve and the input data, transforming the data to conform to a curve can cause results that are contrary to this ideal.

For example, if stuff for PC's were, say, -10, -9, -8, +8, +9, and +10, then if you made this data conform to a bell curve then the +8 and the -8 would have ordinary average luck, very similar to each other.

Do you see why I was confused?

[finarvyn]

I agree with Otha on this one in terms of the mathematical definition of the function. On the other hand, I was pretty sure what you meant, which is why I answered as I did earlier. :cool:

[RPGPundit]

Ah, well I should have meant "relatively weighted" then, perhaps?  Where the actual stuff values are not "objective" values, but values that are similarly "ranked" in the sense that a guy with -4 stuff in a party where everyone else has good stuff will be relatively far MORE fucked than a guy with -4 stuff in a party where everyone has worse stuff than he does.

That's what I was trying to get at.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

What you seem to be saying is that "stuff"  becomes another ranked attribute, with the highest value (no matter what it ends up being) having the best luck and the lowest having the worst.

Interesting.  

Do your players know you do this?  Because if so, then the players have no incentive to STOP bidding on attributes.  They could collectively agree that, for example, they'd like to work on 200 points instead of 100, and give themselves 100 points of bad stuff (on average) knowing that it won't hurt, at least not 100 points worth.

With an enlightened group of players you could wind up totally breaking the auction system.

[JongWK]

When we played, Bad Stuff had a -10 limit during the bidding. Afterwards, if you went lower (by using a Blood Curse), you died.

On the other hand, there was nothing stopped characters from reaching +53 Good Stuff. I remember a certain time when one character had that score, the rest was average, and one guy had -10. :heh:

[finarvyn]

What you seem to be saying is that "stuff"  becomes another ranked attribute, with the highest value (no matter what it ends up being) having the best luck and the lowest having the worst.

Interesting.  

Do your players know you do this?  Because if so, then the players have no incentive to STOP bidding on attributes.  They could collectively agree that, for example, they'd like to work on 200 points instead of 100, and give themselves 100 points of bad stuff (on average) knowing that it won't hurt, at least not 100 points worth.

With an enlightened group of players you could wind up totally breaking the auction system.

:jaw-dropping: Wow. I never thought of it that way. Unless the GM imposes a maximum amount of Bad Stuff a character could have, it does look like the players could manipulate the system. I applaud you for your insight.

However, I might counter that a GM could determine that if the entire group was burdened with excessive Bad Stuff that bad things would happen to everyone and no one would ever really succeed at anything attempted. In other words, the NPCs would keep winning the lottery while the PCs would all get dumped on -- just some more than others.

[RPGPundit]

What you seem to be saying is that "stuff"  becomes another ranked attribute, with the highest value (no matter what it ends up being) having the best luck and the lowest having the worst.

Interesting.  

Do your players know you do this?  Because if so, then the players have no incentive to STOP bidding on attributes.  They could collectively agree that, for example, they'd like to work on 200 points instead of 100, and give themselves 100 points of bad stuff (on average) knowing that it won't hurt, at least not 100 points worth.

With an enlightened group of players you could wind up totally breaking the auction system.

My players DO know this about how I do stuff.
Typically, as I mentioned before, my games have a cap on how many points of bad-stuff you can end up having, at least initially during character generation.  That pretty well prevents the scenario you're imagining there.

RPGpundit

[Otha]

Still, it can blunt the impact of bad stuff.

[RPGPundit]

In my experience, it tends more often to increase it.

RPGPundit

[Otha]

Hm.  Perhaps it would either blunt bad stuff or blunt good stuff, then, depending on where people were clustered.

[RPGPundit]

Nope, it really doesn't.

RPGPundit