Author: byline (---.pacbell.net)
Date: 12-16-2005 21:33
After reading through your attributes and characteristics, I can't help but think you might have overthought a few of them. One thing that would help put them into proper context is knowing what kind of scale you plan your stats to have (i.e. 1-5 or 1-100). The smaller your scale, the more your stats are going to run into one another. Though you haven't mentioned it, I'm curious what kind of range you're looking at.
I also noticed that a couple of your secondary attributes and characteristics won't allow someone to be strong in two of the three and weak in the third. For example, you have separate secondary characteristics for Toughness and Endurance. Since all three primary characteristics are involved in the calculations for both, one is going to suffer over the other. With a low stat range this won't matter all that much, but the higher you get the greater the disparity between them, which would be unfortunate because there are situations where someone can be both tough and enduring (taking into your consideration the definitions for each).
One other thing you might want to clarify is the calculation. I'm guessing you intend to average the sum of the two primaries listed, yet the way you wrote the calculation makes it look like only the second primary attribute listed gets halved: (ADR + COM)/2 instead of ADR + COM/2. Unless you want only the second value halved, you should make it clear to take the average of the two.
Just some thoughts that came up while reading your article. Hopefully the criticisms don't overstep any lines. :)
|
|
