Thursday, June 5, 2008

Lucky and Strange

Alright so here's what I'm thinking after a little internal debate with my split personalities and the Squash Monster.

Seven character "classes," based on the seven character attributes...

Strong (Strength)
Quick (Dexterity)
Tough (Constitution)
Smart (Intelligence)
Wise (Wisdom)
Charming (Charisma)

... and Lucky (uh, Luck).

The only thing I'm sorta stuck on is the Arcanum thingie, with Technology and Magic for the Smart guys.

'Cause Smart is Intelligence, your knowledge of trivia and facts, and your understanding of complex and arcane and unnatural and high level systems.

Where Wise is more of an understanding of natural things, although Wise people tend to be Smart and vice versa, there's some folks that lean one way or the other really hard heh.

Y'know, like Farmers are Wise, there's "Farmer Wisdom," and City People are Book Smart, but that don't work the other way around ahaha.

That works for all the other ones too, y'know, 'cause Quick guys are gonna be kinda Strong and kinda Tough and kinda Smart and kinda Wise and all that too (I need to work out some kinda table for that, for giving you attribute points as you level, y'know, like, Quick guys get a point of Dexterity every level, and a point of Smart and Wise every other level, and a point of Strong and Tough every three levels, and a point of Lucky every four, or something, I dunno yet, but I gotta figure it out before I change the database over to the New Stuff and get the game running again or the "game" part won't work heh).

It looks like there's three Physical Stats and Three Mental ones, and Lucky, which is an Existential Stat or something, so far, all by itself.

Ah, its a Metaphysical Stat, that makes it sound cooler and more Kosterian to boot heh.

Anyways, going back to the Magic Versus Tech thingie, my own opinion in Real Life is that Magic is just Badly Explained or Misunderstood Technology.

But there's the argument that Magic is Magic and sorta the opposite of Technology.

I'm starting to think that maybe I should add an Eighth attribute, "Strange," and have that be the attribute for Wizardry and Sorcery, insteada having them share Smart with Mad Scientists and trying to treat Magic like Science (although, if the Astral and Etheral Planes exist, then they have a physics that can be handled scientifically, too, imho).

"Strange" might be the thing for Greek Oracles and any of that kinda weird "stuff of the gods" crap too.

And that fits pretty good, 'cause magic, when it isn't like a science, is almost always about some dude getting "powers" from some kinda supernatural being, y'know, like the Swamp People where I came from believed in Black Magic and White Magic and spirits that you couldn't trust that were responsible for all the mischief and random acts of kindness in the world.

Plus Doctor Strange is the Sorcerer Supreme and all that, so "Strange" fits pretty nice.

And so if I add Strange as a stat, for Arcane Stuff, then I'd have eight stats, y'know, Quick, Smart, Strong, Tough, Wise, Lucky, and Strange.

And if I got eight, I kinda want Nine.

I dunno know why I want nine, I just like that number better than Eight.

Things Come In Threes or something.

Plus if I come up with another one, then there'll be Three Metaphysical Stats, Three Physical Stats, and three Mental Stats.

I got nuthin' ahaha.

Hopefully something will occur to me as I proofread this heh.

Hmm, I guess I should either stick with seven stats and "make it fit" somehow, or do some kinda metaphysical wisdom thingie for magical healer types like hippy Druids or something.

Mmm, I dunno 'bout that.

I like Strange but I dunno if I like it enough to monkey around with Wise being for Doctors and Druids and junk, if I switch that to be some kinda "strategy" pool of "specials," like, something for officers in an army or something, then the non-magical healing Doctors won't have any place to go.

Yah, naw, I think I'll just stick with seven attributes and classes for now and try to deal with the Magic and Tech thing separately somehow.

No comments: