I hate optimization


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 656 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Again... this is a case of "RPers" being handicapped in RP because "the class write up says so!"

So I take it to many of you that if a guy plays a ninja he has to run around in pajamas and be asian and use a Kusari-gama?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh! and for those who STILL don't understand a cloistered cleric, they would be very much like the Archivist from Heroes of Horror in 3.5.


Tormsskull wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

@Torm

So what your saying is that the High orc Warlord chieftan with a high Cha, High Strength, and Intimidating Prowess must also be very pretty?

What is attractive for one race is not necessary attractive for another race. A positive appearance for an orc may be just as you described (scars, etc.) BIt it is still a positive appearance.

So, in other words, he is "orc pretty".

it goes a little deeper than that. in every measurable way he IS more attractive. Regardless Of how you might describe him the effect of the rules is such that any attrsctiveness related role, he will out perform other members of his race by significant msrgains.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:
So I take it to many of you that if a guy plays a ninja he has to run around in pajamas and be asian and use a Kusari-gama?

No, not at all! If someone has an idea that...

Reskins ninjas as a secretive desert cult whose cloistered followers learn to harness malevolent spirits for supernatural abilities of stealth...

Or they want to make a type of monk whose abilities mimic the legendary powers of the Leopard Men of the deep jungle...

Or they envision the "Behirin Brethren", sorcerers whose bloodline takes on aspects of the draconic and serpentine bloodlines...

I'm all for that.

What I'm not into is the guy who carefully plucks forth the most powerful elements from a dozen books, assembing them into some chimeric travesty in hopes of maximizing his power level. That guy has crossed the line between reasonable optimization and blatant powergaming. An egrigious example I once encountered was a player in a 2nd Edition AD&D game who wanted to play a female drow ranger with one of the fighter class "Kits", with a Native American religion (So he could use the potent "medicine pouch" found in the original Deities and Demigods book), armed with an "improved masterwork katana". I really didn't know what to say to this outrageous display.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Anyone else remember the substat system from 2nd edition?

Nice catch Abraham,

Yes I remember it. We used the Charisma sub stat exclusively just to avoid these types of nonsensical arguments. It worked well.

The best I've seen done in regards to personality vs. beauty was done by Palladium games. They had a PB (Physical Beauty) stat and a MA (Mental Affinity) stat. If I recall PB cave you bonuses to charm/impress and MA gave bonuses to trust/intimidate.

I'm not saying that Palladium games was a great system, but I liked the simple way they handled it.

-MD


to Explain Tsundere's and Himederes

Tsundere

Himedere's are merely highly demanding Tsunderes with an aggressive spoiled princess attitude

they don't have a trope entry

but a Tsundere, to be quick to explain, swaps between 'hot' and 'cold' states of personality at the slightest provocation, able to swap between friendly and hostile unprovoked.

it's an anime inspired disorder with roots in the bipolar spectrum

Scarab Sages

I look to history, its rife with fellows and ladies whom were not the most beautiful (as most would see it) person who brought nations and the world to their knees. Anyone ever hear of that Austrian guy who took a nation called Germany and made the world tremble for almost a decade? The one with the almost Bowl cut and the funny little mustache? Charismatic as heck I bet, not very attractive even by the standards of that day. Oh also from that time period even there was this short stubby little bulldog of a fellow who defiance of said scary guy incited a much smaller nation to its very best. I could go back and find many other examples Im sure, if you would like I could also find very pretty people with almost no personal effect on people at all. Heck there are plenty of actors or actresses who fit that description...


I just assume all of the PCs in my games are "attractiveness neutral" so any attempts at seduction or diplomacy rely purely on their social skills,. The rules of the game work that way (despite the one note about appearance in the summary of Charisma). Also, there's a reason protagonists are not horribly disfigured to the point of being hard to look at, unless their disfigurement is a part of the story. Also, if low Charisma means low attractiveness:

1. How does having a disfigured face make one less adept at magic?
2. What happens if you just put on a mask? Does your Charisma shoot up since no one can see how ugly you are?
3. Couldn't being horribly disfigured (like having a chunk of your face missing) actually HELP in the case of Intimidation, instead of hurting it?


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:

So deities cannot favor common-sense lacking, cloistered minister, pastor, vicar, rector, presbyter, celebrant?

Because the word "cleric' has a specific meaning in D&D*, so the term you might be looking for is friar or priest or minister, pastor, vicar, rector, presbyter, celebrant, deacon, etc.

Thus a holy man who is common-sense-lacking may have a high int and cast arcane spells, or be a oracle, or ......

In any case, the various churches in Golarion have many servitors, a good number of whom of whom can't even cast the simplest spell.

* Just like the term "Priest" has a specific meaning in IRL RC church. Same as "monk". A member of a monastic order might not know any martial arts....


Abraham spalding wrote:

Anyone else remember the substat system from 2nd edition?

I will typically use an informal version of that for my games. Informal in that you still only have one stat modifier.

I remember it fondly. I it would work well here, I think.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sir_Wulf wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
So I take it to many of you that if a guy plays a ninja he has to run around in pajamas and be asian and use a Kusari-gama?

No, not at all! If someone has an idea that...

Reskins ninjas as a secretive desert cult whose cloistered followers learn to harness malevolent spirits for supernatural abilities of stealth...

Or they want to make a type of monk whose abilities mimic the legendary powers of the Leopard Men of the deep jungle...

Or they envision the "Behirin Brethren", sorcerers whose bloodline takes on aspects of the draconic and serpentine bloodlines...

I'm all for that.

What I'm not into is the guy who carefully plucks forth the most powerful elements from a dozen books, assembing them into some chimeric travesty in hopes of maximizing his power level. That guy has crossed the line between reasonable optimization and blatant powergaming. An egrigious example I once encountered was a player in a 2nd Edition AD&D game who wanted to play a female drow ranger with one of the fighter class "Kits", with a Native American religion (So he could use the potent "medicine pouch" found in the original Deities and Demigods book), armed with an "improved masterwork katana". I really didn't know what to say to this outrageous display.

unfortunately, the latter happens far too often in my experience to simply assume the best when someone comes to the table with a beautiful character with a charisma of three or a lithe, well built character with a constitution of four.


Ellis Mirari wrote:

Also, there's a reason protagonists are not horribly disfigured to the point of being hard to look at, unless their disfigurement is a part of the story.

What reason is that? Also, keep in mind that a charisma of 5 does not equate to "horribly disfigured" but it probably equates to "not attractive."

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Also, if low Charisma means low attractiveness:

1. How does having a disfigured face make one less adept at magic?

It doesn't. Attractiveness is simply one aspect of charisma. One of the other aspects of charisma controls the "good at charisma-based magic" part. But, for simplicity, these aspects are all rolled into one stat.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

2. What happens if you just put on a mask? Does your Charisma shoot up since no one can see how ugly you are?

No - but people may react better to you depending on the situation. If you're very ugly, a mask may call for a GM situational modifier at certain times. Basically this is offsetting some of the penalty "non attractiveness" was causing your social skills. This of course falls under GM's call and is not codified anywhere.

Ellis Mirari wrote:
3. Couldn't being horribly disfigured (like having a chunk of your face missing) actually HELP in the case of Intimidation, instead of hurting it?

I suppose it is possible, but not a guarantee. Again, GM's call.


DrDeth wrote:
Because the word "cleric' has a specific meaning in D&D*,

I meant cleric. My question was: do deities not grant spells to people lacking in common sense?


TheNine wrote:
I look to history, its rife with fellows and ladies whom were not the most beautiful (as most would see it) person who brought nations and the world to their knees. Anyone ever hear of that Austrian guy who took a nation called Germany and made the world tremble for almost a decade? The one with the almost Bowl cut and the funny little mustache? Charismatic as heck I bet, not very attractive even by the standards of that day. Oh also from that time period even there was this short stubby little bulldog of a fellow who defiance of said scary guy incited a much smaller nation to its very best.

It occurs to me that both of your examples come from a time in history before the television was widely available. As such, the message that these leaders handed down was generally not in a format that allowed the masses to see their leader.

That aside, keep in mind that Pathfinder is a game - it doesn't attempt to perfectly reflect real life, it simplifies things for the purposes of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:

Also, there's a reason protagonists are not horribly disfigured to the point of being hard to look at, unless their disfigurement is a part of the story.

What reason is that? Also, keep in mind that a charisma of 5 does not equate to "horribly disfigured" but it probably equates to "not attractive."

Ellis Mirari wrote:

Also, if low Charisma means low attractiveness:

1. How does having a disfigured face make one less adept at magic?

It doesn't. Attractiveness is simply one aspect of charisma. One of the other aspects of charisma controls the "good at charisma-based magic" part. But, for simplicity, these aspects are all rolled into one stat.

Ellis Mirari wrote:

2. What happens if you just put on a mask? Does your Charisma shoot up since no one can see how ugly you are?

No - but people may react better to you depending on the situation. If you're very ugly, a mask may call for a GM situational modifier at certain times. Basically this is offsetting some of the penalty "non attractiveness" was causing your social skills. This of course falls under GM's call and is not codified anywhere.

Ellis Mirari wrote:
3. Couldn't being horribly disfigured (like having a chunk of your face missing) actually HELP in the case of Intimidation, instead of hurting it?
I suppose it is possible, but not a guarantee. Again, GM's call.

situational modifiers and DM discretion used to be a regular part of the game. Nowadays they are verboten due to overzealous players, who are more often than not optimizers trying to run the game from the other side of the screen.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Because the word "cleric' has a specific meaning in D&D*,
I meant cleric. My question was: do deities not grant spells to people lacking in common sense?

See "oracles".

Also Wisdom is more than "common sense" :"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. "


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Because the word "cleric' has a specific meaning in D&D*,
I meant cleric. My question was: do deities not grant spells to people lacking in common sense?

Would you give the power to alter reality on a whim to someone lacking common sense?


DrDeth wrote:
Also Wisdom is more than "common sense" :"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. "

Yes, that's rather the point. Mental stats are supposed to represent an aggregation of multiple characteristics. Someone with high willpower, intuition and awareness but low common sense would probably have decent Wisdom. Similarly, someone could lack personality, be a terrible leader, and be unsociable (that is, they could have low Charisma) yet still be physically attractive.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Would you give the power to alter reality on a whim to someone lacking common sense?

If I were a CE deity of trickery, chaos, and destruction? Hell yes I would.


Tormsskull wrote:
What reason is that? Also, keep in mind that a charisma of 5 does not equate to "horribly disfigured" but it probably equates to "not attractive."

People don't want to look at heroes that repulse them. Given the basis roleplaying games have in narrative storytelling I see no reason why the trend would have to stop, but I'm getting off topic with this one. My only point here is that heroes are, on the whole, attractive people in virtually all romantic/escapist fiction or mythology.

Tormsskull wrote:
It doesn't. Attractiveness is simply one aspect of charisma. One of the other aspects of charisma controls the "good at charisma-based magic" part. But, for simplicity, these aspects are all rolled into one stat.

This is the only stat, then, that lumps two completely unrelated traits into one. Core attributes are supposed to represent generalities, skill and class bonuses represent the minutia of ability.

For example, Strength. The human body has loads of muscles that may be stronger or weaker for someone else. You might not be very not very strong overal, but you've trained as a climber (climb skill) and have enough strength in the right muscles to do that well. That makes sense, as being physically weak in general would mean you could never be as good a climber as some others.

With Charisma, though, the abstraction of lumping attractiveness in makes it impossible for someone who is an adept sorcerer to also be unattractive, or vice-versa.

Why tie two completely unrelated things together when an arbitrary one, like attractiveness, can just be ignored? Especially since physical attractiveness, being a physical trait, should by it's very nature not be attached to a supposedly mental attribute.

Now on the subject of Situational Modifiers:

They're well and good, I use them all the time. But using them to solve the problems cause by a flawed abstraction is pointless. Attaching Charisma and Attractiveness creates a disconnect whenever you come across a situation where one would be a factor and the other wouldn't, just as it does when you invariably have all sorcerers being attractive regardless of their physical scores. Just separate them and you won't have to bother thinking about who gets a bonus when and how much they should get.


Ellis Mirari wrote:
This is the only stat, then, that lumps two completely unrelated traits into one. Core attributes are supposed to represent generalities, skill and class bonuses represent the minutia of ability.

Wisdom does the same thing. "Willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" aren't as unrelated as charisma's components, but it's pretty bad. Strangly, Int isn't actually too bad. It's just "how well your character learns and reasons".

But this only adds to your overall point. Reducing someone's entire mental state to three small numbers is going to have to oversimplify things. If you insist a character with a high ability be good at all traits listed in the ability score (or similarly for a character with a low ability score), you throw out a wide swathe of possible characters. It's even worse when you consider that the mental stats affect other things (spellcasting!) as well.


i usually base what a character looks like off the general summary of their physical attributes, but certain aspects of their personality, i base off their charisma.

usually, every character description i have used, has been something that could be considered pleasing to a specific demographic, usually, some less known anime subculture. some more common than others

but usually, they wouldn't be widely considered attractive outside that demographic, whom in some cases, would prefer those traits to be restricted to fiction.

Hazuki from Moon Phase, could be considered cute in the Moon Phase series when we watch it, but some of the things she does, hint at a starting charisma of 7 or even 5. despite being cosmetically cute by Weeaboo standards

she develops diplomacy ranks over time, and learns how to fake manners to get something she wants, but she is a demanding and spoiled vampiric brat whom nobody would want living in their home for free in the real world. calling everyone 'Slave' using mind control to milk favors, and generally not contributing anything besides occasional cooking and preparing boxed lunches for everyone. in fact, she holds her preparation of boxed lunches hostage as a means to manipulate

she learns social skills later on (diplomacy and bluff ranks), but her natural charisma isn't very high, and yes, the family in the show accepts her, because she is the protagonist and they needed to give her a support base. but most realistic families wouldn't be letting her stay for free with no fear of consequence.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Ellis Mirari wrote:
This is the only stat, then, that lumps two completely unrelated traits into one. Core attributes are supposed to represent generalities, skill and class bonuses represent the minutia of ability.

Wisdom does the same thing. "Willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" aren't as unrelated as charisma's components, but it's pretty bad. Strangly, Int isn't actually too bad. It's just "how well your character learns and reasons".

But this only adds to your overall point. Reducing someone's entire mental state to three small numbers is going to have to oversimplify things. If you insist a character with a high ability be good at all traits listed in the ability score (or similarly for a character with a low ability score), you throw out a wide swathe of possible characters. It's even worse when you consider that the mental stats affect other things (spellcasting!) as well.

I do agree with you, thought there is still some correlation between those things. They are, after all, all mental traits, and it is sort of forgivable since the types of characters that prioritize Wisdom (monks and clerics) generally fall into the "sage" character role.

In my own game design tinkerings, I break down mental stats into Acumen (ability to percieve and learn), Discipline (will power and focus), and Charisma (as normal). "Intelligence" and "Wisdom" are both loaded words that imply more things about a character than the stat alone would suggest.

Even those are still flawed generalizations, but there has to be some trade-off somewhere, but the things that get lumped together need to actually be related for me to be okay with it.

Scarab Sages

Tormsskull wrote:
TheNine wrote:
I look to history, its rife with fellows and ladies whom were not the most beautiful (as most would see it) person who brought nations and the world to their knees. Anyone ever hear of that Austrian guy who took a nation called Germany and made the world tremble for almost a decade? The one with the almost Bowl cut and the funny little mustache? Charismatic as heck I bet, not very attractive even by the standards of that day. Oh also from that time period even there was this short stubby little bulldog of a fellow who defiance of said scary guy incited a much smaller nation to its very best.

It occurs to me that both of your examples come from a time in history before the television was widely available. As such, the message that these leaders handed down was generally not in a format that allowed the masses to see their leader.

That aside, keep in mind that Pathfinder is a game - it doesn't attempt to perfectly reflect real life, it simplifies things for the purposes of the game.

No but the radio was, and their spoken words inspired the masses. You want modern examples, how about miss Twilight then, Kristen Stewart,the general concensus i have seen or heard is she can't act her way out of a wet paper sack, but she is pretty enough. Or even those movies were models are cast in roles and they dont pop on the screen. Since Perform is a charisma skill attractive people must be able to act no? since by your standards charisma = attractiveness.

via some book named Webster: cha·ris·ma noun \kə-ˈriz-mə\ : a special charm or appeal that causes people to feel attracted and excited by someone (such as a politican)
Just because your pretty doesnt mean i would follow you anywhere or do what you want me to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:

In my own game design tinkerings, I break down mental stats into Acumen (ability to percieve and learn), Discipline (will power and focus), and Charisma (as normal). "Intelligence" and "Wisdom" are both loaded words that imply more things about a character than the stat alone would suggest.

Under different games or if we change the rules significantly, we can divorce attractiveness from charisma. But the default is that attractiveness is represented in charisma.

TheNine wrote:

Since Perform is a charisma skill attractive people must be able to act no? since by your standards charisma = attractiveness.

That's not a very good example. A person that has an above average charisma but doesn't invest any points in the relative perform skill is not going to be that much better than someone with an average charisma without any points in the relative perform skill.

And its not my standards that say charisma affects attractiveness, its Pathfinder's core rulebook that says so:

CRB wrote:
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

I'm not suggesting that removing appearance from charisma somehow breaks the game, I'm just wondering how it is represented mechanically. If it is not, then appearance doesn't really matter.

A player can say that their fighter character is a great leader. But if the character has a 5 charisma and no other mechanical way of nudging the dice in their favor - then they are objectively not a great leader.

I really think the roots of the reason for wanting to divorce appearance from charisma is that players generally want to play attractive characters, but they don't want to expend the stat points into charisma. I don't see the difference in this versus a player wanting their character to be built like a bodybuilder and only have a strength of 5.

As a roleplaying game, these things matter. Even before a die is rolled for any kind of skill, NPCs will react based on how they view the PCs. A thug would be far more likely to try to rough up a weak looking character rather than a bodybuilder type. A merchant would be far more likely to stop to assist a beautiful woman than he would an average looking woman.

These attributes of a player character are represented (admittedly, not perfectly) in the six stats. If you strip any of them out without assigning them to a new stat, then you have two options. Make them not exist - no benefits of any type for being beautiful or being muscle-bound, etc. Or allow the players these benefits without having to have the corresponding stat, which just seems nonsensical.

The Exchange

i say make charisma the mental stat it is meant to be and use traits like charming as a way of mechanically making the character pretty or ugly (cannot remember that traits name)


Tormsskull wrote:
If you strip any of them out without assigning them to a new stat, then you have two options. Make them not exist - no benefits of any type for being beautiful or being muscle-bound, etc. Or allow the players these benefits without having to have the corresponding stat, which just seems nonsensical.

Which of the six stats does skin color relate to? gender? height? weight?

Do these not exist? Does not having them directly related to a specific stat make it nonsensical that players should be able to "benefit" from being male or olive skinned or whatever?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:


Let's take a look at another stat:
CRB wrote:
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance.
Would you allow a character with a 5 dexterity to RP his character as agile, even though his reflexes and balance are poor? That doesn't make sense, and the mechanics would then also not make sense. A character is agile but has a -3 on Reflex saves?

So what gather from this is you don't let low Dx characters:

-Take the Lightning Reflexes Feat
-Take any trait that boosts Ref saves
-Be a class with a good Ref save

You won't let low Cha characters:

-Put ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.

You won't let low Int characters:

-Put ranks in Linguistics, Knowledge skills, craft skills and so forth

Because by your logic a person has to be good at everything to be good at any one thing. A master craftsman must be of above average intelligence, every public speaker must be the most handsome man in the room, etc.

I find this to be very silly.

Tormsskull wrote:


And its not my standards that say charisma affects attractiveness, its Pathfinder's core rulebook that says so:

CRB wrote:
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

But you know what it doesn't say?

"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, all in equal measure with no variation among individuals with the same stat score."


A world like Tormskull's sounds like an interesting thought experiment.
Musicians and public speakers and people who need to have powerful personalities or be well liked wouldn't need to go through time consuming job interviews or auditions: they would just send the directer/employer a photograph of the applicant. Since appearance is perfectly in synch with personality and leadership in that world, a picture would tell the employer everything they needed to know. A person's common sense and intuition, something which is normally extremely difficult to determine, could be easily measured by giving the person an eye exam. Someone like Franklin Roosevelt would be a highly charismatic politician and leader...until he got polio and was partially paralyzed, after which, due to a reduction in his physical attractiveness, his political and leadership skills spontaneously went down.
I might try something like that for a silly game....

However, it's not something I would ever consider as a viable candidate for telling a serious story. Good characters are very complex, and no simple finite set of numbers could represent the complexity of one character, let alone the full range of possible characters. The D&D rules are designed to be only rough approximations. Most well crafted characters in literature don't have perfectly equal personality, personal magnetism, leadership, and appearance. It's often the opposite--for example, many characters have very powerful personalities (high charisma) that are widely hated and/or annoy a lot of people (low charisma). You can still approximate such a character in D&D, you can just assign them a charisma score somewhere in the middle.

Now, you can create a highly simplistic world in which someone's personality can be gleamed from a photograph. Or you can create a world like DrDeth's or Sir Thugsalot's in which intricate characters are replaced by "character concepts" (i.e., caricatures), all perfectly defined by one of 15ish classes.

And either of those worlds might be fine for games. They won't allow you to tell good stories. An interesting story starts with interesting characters, and that requires characters who are far more complex than what will fit on the boxes in a character sheet.

I guess I just happen to be a lot further on the role-playing side than a lot of other people in this thread, but when I make important NPCs (I usually end up GMing, so I don't get to make PCs as often as I would like), I start by designing a hopefully interesting psyche for the character. Then, I flesh out the character's personality, traits, and ability as much as possible. Then I'll come up with a backstory for the character.
I do all of that without thinking about mechanics, what class or level the character is, or what is "optimal" (obviously, the above process in reduced substantially for minor/thowaway NPCs who only show up once or twice, what I described in the previous paragraph is the beginning of the process for making a major character or PC).

Once I have a full character, then, and only then, I think about how best to approximate the character using the D&D/PF rules. The rules are an approximation to help simulate characters and stories--they don't dictate what characters or stories can exist. They are there to help tell a story, not to make it harder.

What I gather from this thread is that some people go in the opposite direction. They write down six integers for ability scores, and then decide what the character should be like based on those numbers. They see a "15" in the charisma box and use that to determine the personality, skills, and appearance of their character.
And that is fine. There is no One True Way to play the game, if the developers thought that they would have no customers. It does mean those people won't enjoy the serious games I run (you might like the silly ones...), or most other story-intensive campaigns.


pres man wrote:
Do these not exist? Does not having them directly related to a specific stat make it nonsensical that players should be able to "benefit" from being male or olive skinned or whatever?

Again, its a game, the mechanics of the game are not perfect. If you want to allow "strong" 5 strength characters, and "beautiful" 5 charisma characters into your game, you can.

The description of the charisma stat specifically calls out appearance as being something that it measures. Going back through the various editions of Dungeons & Dragons, a high charisma has always been tied to attractiveness.

If you want to allow otherwise, it would seem you would also allow a character with a 5 intelligence to be a masterful tactician. The stat in the core rule book states:

CRB wrote:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

So you can decide that your character's reasoning is flawless, he just learns slowly. Of course, when you have to roll any check that is actually tied to reasoning, you're going to suffer a penalty, even though your character is flawless at it.

CRB wrote:
Strength measures muscle and physical power.

So you can RP him as having poor physical power, but muscled like an ox. Of course, even though your muscled like an ox, you can only carry 16 lbs or less before you become encumbered by weight.

To me it is much simpler to assume that a character that has a low strength is actually not strong. And a character with a low charisma is not especially attractive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

A world like Tormskull's sounds like an interesting thought experiment.

Musicians and public speakers and people who need to have powerful personalities or be well liked wouldn't need to go through time consuming job interviews or auditions: they would just send the directer/employer a photograph of the applicant. Since appearance is perfectly in synch with personality and leadership in that world, a picture would tell the employer everything they needed to know. A person's common sense and intuition, something which is normally extremely difficult to determine, could be easily measured by giving the person an eye exam. Someone like Franklin Roosevelt would be a highly charismatic politician and leader...until he got polio and was partially paralyzed, after which, due to a reduction in his physical attractiveness, his political and leadership skills spontaneously went down.
I might try something like that for a silly game....

However, it's not something I would ever consider as a viable candidate for telling a serious story. Good characters are very complex, and no simple finite set of numbers could represent the complexity of one character, let alone the full range of possible characters. The D&D rules are designed to be only rough approximations. Most well crafted characters in literature don't have perfectly equal personality, personal magnetism, leadership, and appearance. It's often the opposite--for example, many characters have very powerful personalities (high charisma) that are widely hated and/or annoy a lot of people (low charisma). You can still approximate such a character in D&D, you can just assign them a charisma score somewhere in the middle.

Now, you can create a highly simplistic world in which someone's personality can be gleamed from a photograph. Or you can create a world like DrDeth's or Sir Thugsalot's in which intricate characters are replaced by "character concepts" (i.e., caricatures), all perfectly defined by one of 15ish classes.

And either of those worlds...

It sounds like you do think there is one true way to play the game, despite your protests.

Shadow Lodge

Freehold DM wrote:
It sounds like you do think there is one true way to play the game, despite your protests.

You mean there isn't? *monocle*


I can't see your monocle through that hooded robe.

Shadow Lodge

If you were optimized you could.


TOZ wrote:
If you were optimized you could.

shakes fist

TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!


Lots of big muscles doesn't imply being strong. While people that are strong tend to have big muscles, these tend to be hidden under more flesh (I would recommend watching an episode of the Strongest Man contest or any Olympic heavy weight lifting competition). Body builders don't tend to be the strongest.

And why care if someone claims their character is strong looking? If they fail all the strength checks appropriately based on their actual score? Why the need to have such control over fluff? Seems a mite petty, IMO of course.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perception, if nothing else. It's deceiving and something that many players would be upset about if the GM did likewise to them -- that is, an NPC or monster described as strong looking and yet was far weaker, while a seemingly weak-looking individual was actually very strong.

While the stats aren't a full indicator of description, they should at least tie into them somewhat I'd hope.


Freehold DM wrote:
It sounds like you do think there is one true way to play the game, despite your protests.

Please explain...

I mean, I've said repeatedly that I personally prefer to be in/run at least two completely different games at once, and that I may try running a game like how tormskull described, and referred positively to other playstyles I enjoy earlier in this thread and elsewhere on the forums...
and elsewhere on the forums I've discussed other play-styles that I don't enjoy but appreciate that a lot of people do...

I'm having a hard time seeing how you could get the idea that I would think there is only one "correct" way to play.


Andrew R wrote:
i say make charisma the mental stat it is meant to be and use traits like charming as a way of mechanically making the character pretty or ugly (cannot remember that traits name)

charisma is a mental stat, how about we let the physical attributes determine a physical feature such as appearance?

the standards of beauty vary from culture to culture. region to region, period to period, and circle to circle. even anime geeks have varying opinions on what anime girls they prefer.

there is no general set of features that transcends time and culture as the perfect features. it doesn't exist

an aggressive, abusive, and strong orcish male might like a fragile framed woman with poor strength because she is less apt to fight back, a helpless and idealistic young woman may want a chivalrous, kind, and heroic knight in a partner out of a desire for security.

there are many personality facets and physical traits that could encourage different people to feel different sets of emotions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
It sounds like you do think there is one true way to play the game, despite your protests.

Please explain...

I mean, I've said repeatedly that I personally prefer to be in/run at least two completely different games at once, and that I may try running a game like how tormskull described, and referred positively to other playstyles I enjoy earlier in this thread and elsewhere on the forums...
and elsewhere on the forums I've discussed other play-styles that I don't enjoy but appreciate that a lot of people do...

I'm having a hard time seeing how you could get the idea that I would think there is only one "correct" way to play.

Your dismissal of other ways of playing as silly and your own as serious seems to encourage the idea.


Freehold DM wrote:
137ben wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
It sounds like you do think there is one true way to play the game, despite your protests.

Please explain...

I mean, I've said repeatedly that I personally prefer to be in/run at least two completely different games at once, and that I may try running a game like how tormskull described, and referred positively to other playstyles I enjoy earlier in this thread and elsewhere on the forums...
and elsewhere on the forums I've discussed other play-styles that I don't enjoy but appreciate that a lot of people do...

I'm having a hard time seeing how you could get the idea that I would think there is only one "correct" way to play.

Your dismissal of other ways of playing as silly and your own as serious seems to encourage the idea.

I said that I prefer running a silly game and a serious game at the same time.

One isn't better than the other. Tragedy is not "better" than comedy.

Obviously, that means that I think that I am playing the game wrong. I must hate me. And that means war on everyone who plays differently than me, especially me! <--sarcasm


137ben wrote:

I said that I prefer running a silly game and a serious game at the same time.

One isn't better than the other. Tragedy is not "better" than comedy

If you weren't intending to insult, you need to work on your sentence structure:

137ben wrote:
A world like Tormskull's sounds like an interesting thought experiment.

Followed by an incorrect and dismissive explanation of my position, followed by:

137ben wrote:
I might try something like that for a silly game....


If you interpret "I want to play a game like yours" as dismissive, or as saying "playing games like you do is wrong", I'm not sure I can do anything about that. It sounds like you are just fishing for a fight at this point.

Shadow Lodge

137ben wrote:
If you interpret "I want to play a game like that"

But that's not what you said, is it?


TOZ wrote:
137ben wrote:
If you interpret "I want to play a game like that"
But that's not what you said, is it?

Well, I said I "might" want to play a game like that. So yea, if you want to argue semantics about the exact wording of what I said, then no I didn't write that exact phrase.


knightnday wrote:
Perception, if nothing else. It's deceiving and something that many players would be upset about if the GM did likewise to them -- that is, an NPC or monster described as strong looking and yet was far weaker, while a seemingly weak-looking individual was actually very strong.

PCs get upset when the big strong monster does LESS damage then they were expecting?

In a setting where wizards tell reality to suck it, I'm thinking any perception issue is probably only a passing issue. I mean, when someone puts on a belt of giant strength, do they suddenly have to get more muscular so that this increase in strength has an outward physical manifestation?

knightnday wrote:
While the stats aren't a full indicator of description, they should at least tie into them somewhat I'd hope.

I would agree, that they SHOULD USUALLY do so. I disagree that they MUST ALWAYS do so.


pres man wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Perception, if nothing else. It's deceiving and something that many players would be upset about if the GM did likewise to them -- that is, an NPC or monster described as strong looking and yet was far weaker, while a seemingly weak-looking individual was actually very strong.

PCs get upset when the big strong monster does LESS damage then they were expecting?

...

Life is unfair. I deserved more pain from that monster.

Shadow Lodge

137ben wrote:
Well, I said I "might" want to play a game like that.

You seem to be forgetting the 'silly' part.


TOZ wrote:
137ben wrote:
Well, I said I "might" want to play a game like that.
You seem to be forgetting the 'silly' part.

I like comedy...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
137ben wrote:
I like comedy...

But if I call your serious games 'silly'...

351 to 400 of 656 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / I hate optimization All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.