The Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy?


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'd say if a person playing a character witha low cha spends skill points to raise his diplomacy, bluf and or intimidate, than he's playing within the rules. The character has obviously recognized he had a deficiency interacting with people, and learned from others how to compensate. Further penalizing a character beyond that isn't necessary, imho.


memorax wrote:
His diplomacy skill would be at 5 as I add in a -5 penalty to the skill roll.

Presumably, you provide all these houserules explaining this new math ("-3" actually means "-8"!) in advance?

memorax wrote:
How often does the player with a cha of 5 boost his diplomacy skill with so many ranks.

When he's using point-buy for stats and sold down his Cha in favor of Int?


Kryzbyn wrote:
I'd say if a person playing a character witha low cha spends skill points to raise his diplomacy, bluf and or intimidate, than he's playing within the rules. The character has obviously recognized he had a deficiency interacting with people, and learned from others how to compensate. Further penalizing a character beyond that isn't necessary, imho.

Then in the areas covered by those skills, he has indeed learned coping mechanisms. But that doesn't mean he has become just as adept at all other methods of interpersonal interaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't say it shouldn't mean anything, but a character with the lowest possible Cha in the game (that is, Cha 1) has a -5 modifier. If you're not "unconscious and unable to exert yourself in any way" (Cha 0) your dealing with a penalty that can be overcome by 2 skill points and class bonus. My point is, given how stats function in the game, you can't design a character who's so incapable that they auto-fail at a task of average difficulty.

Oops, that was a reply to Memorex; I was not optimized for posting speed.


voska66 wrote:
Optimization gets in the way of taking interesting feats for role playing purposes that don't optimize the character. Same goes for magic items or stat distribution and skill choice.

I'm curious. Can you point out a feat that exists purely for roleplaying? Or even a feat that enhances roleplaying without enhancing the mechanical aspect of your character in some way? Because unless you're just being silly and acting like Skill Focus (Profession [Sailor]) is somehow a great roleplaying tool, you've lost me.

Quote:

If you optimized you can still role play you character the way you want but you limit yourself to optimized version of that.

Now I don't have an issue with that. Where I do have an issue is when those who optimize complain about another player's choices that they take to flavor their character for role playing vs optimization.

It's my experience that optimization and mechanical mastery lends itself to better roleplaying because you know how to get exactly what you want out of the resources available to you. It's about efficiency. It's about calibrating your expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
For the specific function of things covered by the diplomacy skill, your stat is your skill bonus plus or minus your stat bonus, and I don't see anyone in the thread who has argued different?

One post above yours is a guy saying he adds an extra -5 on diplomacy for anyone who dumps charisma.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Presumably, you provide all these houserules explaining this new math ("-3" actually means "-8"!) in advance?

Of course I do. I'm not one of those DM who likes to surprise players with hidden houserules.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
For the specific function of things covered by the diplomacy skill, your stat is your skill bonus plus or minus your stat bonus, and I don't see anyone in the thread who has argued different?
One post above yours is a guy saying he adds an extra -5 on diplomacy for anyone who dumps charisma.

Then I disagree with him. To be fair, I didn't see that at the time I posted. Then consider it amended to "one guy has .."

(In other words: I pressed reply, answered the phone, said a few things, types up my line, pressed submit not seeing the intervening post.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Then in the areas covered by those skills, he has indeed learned coping mechanisms. But that doesn't mean he has become just as adept at all other methods of interpersonal interaction.

OK, Bob has an intelligent wizard (Int 18, Cha 6), and Pete is playing a trustworthy cleric (Int 10, Cha 14). They're 10th level. Bob's PC, with Int 18 and 2 skills/level, maxes Spellcraft and a Knowledge and still has points to burn. He takes 10 ranks each in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. His bonus in every form of social interaction covered by the game rules is at least +8 (and probably higher for Sense Motive).

Pete's PC doesn't have skill ranks to spend; his bonus in all those forms of interaction is +2 (and, again, higher for Sense Motive).

Those are the rules of the game: the Cha 6 character is better at social interaction than the Cha 14 character. Either the rules are self-contradictory and need to be amended, and/or the description of Charisma isn't really working.

As DM, RDM42 is looking for ways to penalize Bob beyond his "coping mechanisms," but has trouble coming up with them. Memorax has evidently invented a new branch of mathematics in order to do so. I look at the definition of "charisma" and see a meaningless mishmash of vaguely-written fluff, and opt to go with the actual mechanical penalties assigned to it. Who is "right"? I'd answer "All of us, as long as it's made clear beforehand how this works."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Then in the areas covered by those skills, he has indeed learned coping mechanisms. But that doesn't mean he has become just as adept at all other methods of interpersonal interaction.

OK, Bob has an intelligent wizard (Int 18, Cha 6), and Pete is playing a trustworthy cleric (Int 10, Cha 14). They're 10th level. Bob's PC, with Int 18 and 2 skills/level, maxes Spellcraft and a Knowledge and still has points to burn. He takes 10 ranks each in Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. His bonus in every form of social interaction covered by the game rules is at least +8 (and probably higher for Sense Motive).

Pete's PC doesn't have skill ranks to spend; his bonus in all those forms of interaction is +2 (and, again, higher for Sense Motive).

Those are the rules of the game.

As DM, RDM42 is looking for ways to penalize Pete beyond his "coping mechanisms," but has trouble coming up with them. Memorax has evidently invented a new branch of mathematics in order to do so. I look at the definition of "charisma" and see a meaningless mishmash of vaguely-written fluff, and opt to go with the actual mechanical penalties assigned to it. Who is "right"? I'd answer "All of us, as long as it's made clear beforehand how this works."

Who said I am "looking for"? If you take a suite of skills that covers every form of personal interaction possible in the game, then you have covered yourself under "skill plus stat is your relevant stat." You have specifically accounted for how the character overcame their natural disabilities.

You don't like people imputing motivations to you in threads, perhaps you can stop doing it yourself?


RDM42 wrote:
Who said I am "looking for"? If you take a suite of skills that covers every form of personal interaction possible in the game, then you have covered yourself under "skill plus stat is your relevant stat." You have specifically accounted for how the character overcame their natural disabilities.

OK, cool -- we have no disagreement then.

Liberty's Edge

To clarify I only add the -5 to difficult social situations. I don't do it all the time. Espcially not for routine social interactions. I still think a person who dumps stats should not be as effective as someone who invest the points in a stat. To me it's unfair to a player who did invest in a high cha. Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen. At the expense of other skills. It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

My problem is not a player trying to roleplay a low stat of 7 or 8. It's when a person tries to roleplay a 5 like a fifteen. To me that's trying to cheat the system.


memorax wrote:
Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen.

See the wizard example above. It's easy to make it happen.


RDM42 wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
For the specific function of things covered by the diplomacy skill, your stat is your skill bonus plus or minus your stat bonus, and I don't see anyone in the thread who has argued different?
One post above yours is a guy saying he adds an extra -5 on diplomacy for anyone who dumps charisma.

Then I disagree with him. To be fair, I didn't see that at the time I posted. Then consider it amended to "one guy has .."

(In other words: I pressed reply, answered the phone, said a few things, types up my line, pressed submit not seeing the intervening post.)

Happens to anyone who posts in a forum enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

To clarify I only add the -5 to difficult social situations. I don't do it all the time. Espcially not for routine social interactions. I still think a person who dumps stats should not be as effective as someone who invest the points in a stat. To me it's unfair to a player who did invest in a high cha. Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen. At the expense of other skills. It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

My problem is not a player trying to roleplay a low stat of 7 or 8. It's when a person tries to roleplay a 5 like a fifteen. To me that's trying to cheat the system.

It might be difficult. But if the person makes the investment, they make the investment. That person spent time learning coping mechanisms at the expense of learning other useful things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
I'd say if a person playing a character witha low cha spends skill points to raise his diplomacy, bluf and or intimidate, than he's playing within the rules. The character has obviously recognized he had a deficiency interacting with people, and learned from others how to compensate. Further penalizing a character beyond that isn't necessary, imho.
Then in the areas covered by those skills, he has indeed learned coping mechanisms. But that doesn't mean he has become just as adept at all other methods of interpersonal interaction.

That's true. It means he / she is probably more accepting of others and is less likely to be self-important. More likely to offer a helping hand to people who ask them. More likely to like you even if you have flaws. Because that's what low-Charisma people do. They more easily appreciate you.

The to make requests or to befriend NPCs is modified directly by their Charisma modifier. It is easier to ask a low Charisma character for directions, or to make a call on their cell phone, or for money for a cab.

Which reflects reality pretty well. I was socially awkward, had trouble talking to people, was worried about saying the wrong thing and looking dumb (which only made me more awkward). I adapted to that which sometimes took some conscious effort to put myself out there, ignore my insecurities, etc. And after a while they go away. Now I can comfortably deal with people, crack like I was wise, and get points across with verbal inflections. However I'm patient with the awkward and I'm more accepting of people who irritate or annoy others or seem to do things that upset people. I'm thick skinned and I forgive easily.

In Pathfinder I would be a character who began with a penalty in Charisma and made up for it through learning by investing skill points. I find myself pretty comfortable with characters like that too (perhaps I am woefully unoriginal since it's loosely inspired by my own experiences). My witch that I've been playing for the past several months has a 7 Charisma and a +9 in both Bluff and Diplomacy and a +12 Sense Motive. I'm considering dropping some points into Intimidate as well, but she's not much of a bully so I haven't bothered yet.


memorax wrote:

To clarify I only add the -5 to difficult social situations. I don't do it all the time. Espcially not for routine social interactions. I still think a person who dumps stats should not be as effective as someone who invest the points in a stat. To me it's unfair to a player who did invest in a high cha. Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen. At the expense of other skills. It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

My problem is not a player trying to roleplay a low stat of 7 or 8. It's when a person tries to roleplay a 5 like a fifteen. To me that's trying to cheat the system.

Cheating generally leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
See the wizard example above. It's easy to make it happen.

I did not say impossible. It is. It is at the expense of other skills. Good at diplomacy less good at other skills. There is always give and take. Not to mention Wizards don't get Diplomacy as a class skill. A DM can allow it but it's not on their list of skills.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
memorax wrote:
Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen.
See the wizard example above. It's easy to make it happen.

You missed the part:

memorax wrote:
It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

He's made it clear in his game, as the GM, he's going to tweak the system so that you have to play the stats his way.

Ashiel wrote:
I'm curious. Can you point out a feat that exists purely for roleplaying?

Most applications of Exotic Weapon Proficiency. I believe the developers said at the time when PF was created that exotic weapons should be for flavor and not function. Thus you could burn a feat for an inferior weapon and it was not a flaw but a feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Not to mention Wizards don't get Diplomacy as a class skill. A DM can allow it but it's not on their list of skills.

In 3e that was meaningful, because it limited the wizard to 1 rank per 2 levels. In PF it's less meaningful past 6th level, because it just means you don't pick up the +3 class skill bonus. In some ways, I still have lingering suspicions that the 3e skill system was better.


memorax wrote:

To clarify I only add the -5 to difficult social situations. I don't do it all the time. Espcially not for routine social interactions. I still think a person who dumps stats should not be as effective as someone who invest the points in a stat. To me it's unfair to a player who did invest in a high cha. Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen. At the expense of other skills. It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

My problem is not a player trying to roleplay a low stat of 7 or 8. It's when a person tries to roleplay a 5 like a fifteen. To me that's trying to cheat the system.

How is the -5 penalty you're describing different from a higher DC for a harder task? Also, if a player with a 5 Cha is is applying the appropriate penalty to his rolls, how is a person who dumps a stat not less effective than someone who invests in them? I'm asking because I think that skill progression in PF surpasses tasks of average difficulty pretty quickly, but assigning further penalties in addition to stat based ones seems like overkill, given skill check DC increases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I believe the developers said at the time when PF was created that exotic weapons should be for flavor and not function. Thus you could burn a feat for an inferior weapon and it was not a flaw but a feature.

Yeah. This really grinds my gears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Its a quibble with a difference; I've run into people that create someone with a five charisma, then literally try to act as if that low stat didn't exist and that they were positive in all the manifestations of the stat, and consider it unfair when you ask for rolls in social situations.

Well they can complain all they want, but them's the rules of the game, so assuming your not playing fast and loose with the social skill rules (e.g. upping the DC and/or penalties because you don't like how a character was built), there isn't too much room to call something unfair.

RDM42 wrote:
If you don't manifest your low stat in some way - whatever that may be- in play, I'm going to make you manifest it by calling for rolls.

Well, I am fine with this to a point. Do you call for everyone to make rolls or only players who aren't playing their stats the "right way"? If you don't hold everyone to the same standard for when to roll or not roll, then yeah, they can legitimately claim you are being unfair. A character with a high Cha can still roll poorly and a character with a low Cha can still roll really well.

Now if you make everyone roll, then I'm all for that. Use mechanics for mechanical issues. But if you never do anything directly with the numbers written on the page, then don't complain when people don't worry about those numbers on that page.


pres man wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Its a quibble with a difference; I've run into people that create someone with a five charisma, then literally try to act as if that low stat didn't exist and that they were positive in all the manifestations of the stat, and consider it unfair when you ask for rolls in social situations.

Well they can complain all they want, but them's the rules of the game, so assuming your not playing fast and loose with the social skill rules (e.g. upping the DC and/or penalties because you don't like how a character was built), there isn't too much room to call something unfair.

RDM42 wrote:
If you don't manifest your low stat in some way - whatever that may be- in play, I'm going to make you manifest it by calling for rolls.

Well, I am fine with this to a point. Do you call for everyone to make rolls or only players who aren't playing their stats the "right way"? If you don't hold everyone to the same standard for when to roll or not roll, then yeah, they can legitimately claim you are being unfair. A character with a high Cha can still roll poorly and a character with a low Cha can still roll really well.

Now if you make everyone roll, then I'm all for that. Use mechanics for mechanical issues. But if you never do anything directly with the numbers written on the page, then don't complain when people don't worry about those numbers on that page.

I wouldn't call for rolls in situations where their combined bonuses make it impossible or near impossible to fail.

If, however the bonuses make it so it's effectively impossible to take ten, or five, or whatever the appropriate dc is you roll. Because there is a reasonable chance of failure. So, yes, the low charisma unskilled guy might have to roll in some situations where the high charisma skilled guy wouldn't.


memorax wrote:
RDM42 wrote:


Its a quibble with a difference; I've run into people that create someone with a five charisma, then literally try to act as if that low stat didn't exist and that they were positive in all the manifestations of the stat, and consider it unfair when you ask for rolls in social situations. If you don't manifest your low stat in some way - whatever that may be- in play, I'm going to make you manifest it by calling for rolls.
So have I. I'm not saying a person with a low cha can't roleplay. It's when they take a low stat then try to act like it's not a penalty and expect to be as successful as someone else in social encounters with a charisma of 14 or higher. They can try like everyone else yet will probably not succeed as someone with the higher stat.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I know you and I clashed on this topic before Memorax so I'm here to present my side of it.

Some of us DON'T expect to be as successful as someone else of equal training in social encounters. The cha of our character doesn't dictate their personality/identity (or their appearance either!) but what it does do is influence their diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, as well as their ability to resist a charm spell they've already failed, as well as their ability to pursue a career as a spontaneous arcane caster or a Paladin.

Quote:
It's one thing to say that you have a low stat then roleplay it. It's another to have a low stat then say it does in anyway penalize the character. If that's the logic then high stats should not give your character a bonus either then. If a cha of 7 is meaningless then so is a str of 20.

It DOES penalize. In the same way that a Strength of seven limits your ability to carry s#@* without being weighed down, and limits your ability to break things or hit it with a stick, a Cha of seven limits your ability to manipulate people (I say manipulate in this context to mean changing their position, be that in a sneaky way or sincere way)

Quote:
While I think the next edition of Pathfinder will have stats I don't think they will be tied into the system as much as the current version or older versions of D&D. So if someone wants to play a ugly character with a good chance of succeeding at social encounters they can.

They already can. Charisma isn't appearance, or personality, or identity (that's all flavor). It's a bunch of game mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

To clarify I only add the -5 to difficult social situations. I don't do it all the time. Espcially not for routine social interactions. I still think a person who dumps stats should not be as effective as someone who invest the points in a stat. To me it's unfair to a player who did invest in a high cha. Some here mention skill points to get around a low stat. Well unless your playing a Bard or Rogue good luck. Unless a player invests just in diplomacy for a couple of levels that stat of 10 is just not going to happen. At the expense of other skills. It's possible of a DM alters the amounts of skill points given.

My problem is not a player trying to roleplay a low stat of 7 or 8. It's when a person tries to roleplay a 5 like a fifteen. To me that's trying to cheat the system.

And to me - putting on my GM cap for a moment here - my problem is when players let their roleplay get bogged down by numbers on a sheet of paper.

To me, that's not what roleplay is about. It's about pouring a piece of yourself into a fictional identity. The sheet is mechanics charisma and strength are BOTH penalized or rewarded depending on which is high and which is low (although honestly, if you wanted my opinion as one familiar with the game, I'd say high Charisma is rewarded FAR more than high Strength is, you just have to build for it) but that's all they are, rules.

Now, there are aspects of roleplay that the rules dictate. Things a character can and can not do. (For example, a low cha character who hasn't invested in the relevant skills isn't convincing anybody to be her friend if they didn't already want to be) but what they do not dictate is a character's identity, which is precious me and other roleplayers of my type.

Scarab Sages

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I say "lazy" because it implies you just don't care enough to try to make what your character is match what you say he is.

"I want to make this barbarian a frail glass cannon sorta guy, but that's a real pain to build effectively. I'll just say he's frail, give him 18 Con, and go nuts!"

It could be subverted, to make a character who is a hypochondriac, or who knowingly puts on affectations of being frail, while being strong as an ox.

Guillaume d'Averc, from Moorcock's Hawkmoon series, is a prime example of such.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:


In 3e that was meaningful, because it limited the wizard to 1 rank per 2 levels. In PF it's less meaningful past 6th level, because it just means you don't pick up the +3 class skill bonus. In some ways, I still have lingering suspicions that the 3e skill system was better.

I do agree that the 3E skill system was better. I miss my cross class skills. I get your point that it can be done even if it`s no a class skill. Imo it weould still be more difficult and possibly not worth the effort.

Liberty's Edge

kyrt-ryder wrote:


And to me - putting on my GM cap for a moment here - my problem is when players let their roleplay get bogged down by numbers on a sheet of paper.

To me, that's not what roleplay is about. It's about pouring a piece of yourself into a fictional identity. The sheet is mechanics charisma and strength are BOTH penalized or rewarded depending on which is high and which is low (although honestly, if you wanted my opinion as one familiar with the game, I'd say high Charisma is rewarded FAR more than high Strength is, you just have to build for it) but that's all they are, rules.

Now, there are aspects of roleplay that the rules dictate. Things a character can and can not do. (For example, a low cha character who hasn't invested in the relevant skills isn't convincing anybody to be her friend if they didn't already want to be) but what they do not dictate is a character's identity, which is precious me and other roleplayers of my type.

I still think that if a player wants to make a character that is good at social encountes than his stats should reflect that. One should not have a cha of 5 then get around it by ignoring they value and roleplaying like it`s a 15. It kind of screw over someone who has spent the time to build a character with a cha of 15. Roleplaying is one thing. Trying to make a perfect character without acknowledging his faults and weakness is cheating the system through roleplaying. Would anyone here consider it fair if I had a str of 5 yet wanted to hit and do as much damage as someone with a str 0f 20 because I decided to roleplay a stronger character.

I get what people are saying. I`m actually agree with some of it. I don`t agree with tossing out mechanics and elements of the game just through roleplaying. If this was Fate or a more narrative style of rpg it could bne done. In my experience most DMs kind of frown at players who optimize then try and get around negative scores through roleplaying. Again I allow it at my tables I do give better results to someone who has a postive attribute and skill points.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Auto fail on 1 is not a rule for skill checks.
It couldn't be even if you wanted it to -- then what would happen when two people both got a 1 on opposed checks? Do they out-fail each other until they both fall into a black hole of failure?

My ex-wife and I would say yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the Stormwind Fallacy, but I don't think the Fallacy covers the full scope of RP-ing. Specifically, HOW a player roleplays is independent of his optimization, but WHAT a player roleplays is dependent on optimization.

Examine a hypothetical TRPG called "Wizards are better than Fighters". In this game, there is only one rule. If you're a Wizard, you succeed at whatever you're doing. If you're a fighter, you fail at whatever you're doing.

According to the Fallacy, an optimized player picks wizard and can roleplay a great Wizard. But even with the Fallacy, a player can't both optimize and roleplay a great Fighter.

Now, going back to Pathfinder, I think that the classes aren't entirely balanced. I think some classes are stronger than others. Not to the extent of "Wizards are better than Fighters", but I see arguments like "Rogues suck" fairly often. The Stormwind Fallacy might say that you can optimize and RP great. But perhaps it's impossible to optimize by picking Rogue and RP a great Rogue, though a player COULD optimize by picking Wizard and RP the Wizard great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


This isn't something I've had personal experience with yet.

There HAVE been times I've seen optimizers say they wouldn't want to play with a character who couldn't pull his weight, but ninety-nine times out of one-hundred, these optimizers would have been more than happy to help their fellow players up their game.

AKA make the other players play their way. Kind of jerk-ish, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
I believe the developers said at the time when PF was created that exotic weapons should be for flavor and not function. Thus you could burn a feat for an inferior weapon and it was not a flaw but a feature.
Yeah. This really grinds my gears.

The fun part is they use the opposite logic for Simple weapons.

"They're simple, so they're supposed to suck. Nobody needs a Feat for those."

Take it all with a grain of salt. It's just an easy way to justify putting poor options in and shut up the person asking questions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


And to me - putting on my GM cap for a moment here - my problem is when players let their roleplay get bogged down by numbers on a sheet of paper.

To me, that's not what roleplay is about. It's about pouring a piece of yourself into a fictional identity. The sheet is mechanics charisma and strength are BOTH penalized or rewarded depending on which is high and which is low (although honestly, if you wanted my opinion as one familiar with the game, I'd say high Charisma is rewarded FAR more than high Strength is, you just have to build for it) but that's all they are, rules.

Now, there are aspects of roleplay that the rules dictate. Things a character can and can not do. (For example, a low cha character who hasn't invested in the relevant skills isn't convincing anybody to be her friend if they didn't already want to be) but what they do not dictate is a character's identity, which is precious to me and other roleplayers of my type.

I still think that if a player wants to make a character that is good at social encounters than his stats should reflect that.

Dingdingding, we have a winner!

If the character has a low cha, they're bad at social encounters, not because of some facet of their identity, but because they have a penalty to charisma-based checks. Gee, who'da thunk it?

Quote:
One should not have a cha of 5 then get around it by ignoring they value and roleplaying like it`s a 15.

I roleplay my character, his mechanics dictate success or failure in mechanical endeavors. Whether my cha is 5 or 20 (which varies from character to character, based on the mechanics said character needs) means abso-fricken-lutely nothin'.

Quote:
Roleplaying is one thing. Trying to make a perfect character without acknowledging his faults and weakness is cheating the system through roleplaying. Would anyone here consider it fair if I had a str of 5 yet wanted to hit and do as much damage as someone with a str 0f 20 because I decided to roleplay a stronger character.

Perfect character my ass. If I wanted a perfect character I'd write some mary sue fanfic or original novel(la) about some perfect character where everybody loves them while they save the world because they're so damn f#&~ing perfect.

Every quality character has a distinct identity. A personality, past, present, and plans of his or her own. This has jack-all to do with stats. If you're going to play in my games, I expect you to create a character not a piece of paper.

Quote:
I get what people are saying. I`m actually agree with some of it. I don`t agree with tossing out mechanics and elements of the game just through roleplaying. If this was Fate or a more narrative style of rpg it could be done. In my experience most DMs kind of frown at players who optimize then try and get around negative scores through roleplaying.

I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't seen anybody in this thread try to 'Get Away With' negative scores through roleplaying. If a score is negative, you take the f@+#ing penalties to the f$%~ing checks to which said stat applies.

I'm not 'tossing out the mechanics' if I were doing that, I WOULD play one of those games of which you speak. I run PF because I LIKE the mechanics. I just don't want mechanics getting in the way of story, which exactly what demanding somebody 'RP their stats' does. There's nothing wrong with having stats which match your RP, but to restrict someone to that goes against everything I believe in regarding roleplaying.

disclaimer: this post is a little heated, but it is directed entirely at concepts and practices, not at any individual. I'm not mad at anybody, just trying to get my points across.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


I run PF because I LIKE the mechanics. I just don't want mechanics getting in the way of story.

There, we have common ground :D

I have a story, and I force the mechanics to sit beneath that and support it (and I'll be the first to admit that sometimes that doesn't work, so I have to change the mechanics accordingly.)

You have a story, and you don't allow the mechanics to interfere with it by trying not to associate them too closely.

We have the same desire for the story, we just have different approaches in how we achieve getting the mechanics to work alongside it :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I still think that if a player wants to make a character that is good at social encountes than his stats should reflect that. One should not have a cha of 5 then get around it by ignoring they value and roleplaying like it`s a 15. It kind of screw over someone who has spent the time to build a character with a cha of 15. Roleplaying is one thing. Trying to make a perfect character without acknowledging his faults and weakness is cheating the system through roleplaying. Would anyone here consider it fair if I had a str of 5 yet wanted to hit and do as much damage as someone with a str 0f 20 because I decided to roleplay a stronger character.

Then the answer is to use the mechanics in game play. You don't want that Cha 5 character running round like a Cha 15 character, great. Make everyone roll social skill checks. And over time you'll see that the Cha 5 character is falling behind, just like you think they should. There in absolutely no need as a GM to force a consequence, when the consequence comes about natural anyway. If the low Cha player invests their skill points and the high Cha player doesn't, then not doing skill rolls is punishing them for using their limited resources appropriately.

memorax wrote:
I get what people are saying. I`m actually agree with some of it. I don`t agree with tossing out mechanics and elements of the game just through roleplaying. If this was Fate or a more narrative style of rpg it could bne done. In my experience most DMs kind of frown at players who optimize then try and get around negative scores through roleplaying. Again I allow it at my tables I do give better results to someone who has a postive attribute and skill points.

I may be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone claim that the mechanics should be tossed (unless you count people saying they would change the rules because they don't like that players can do things they don't like). I have seen people saying, if you don't want people to get away with a penalty, then the GM should use the actual mechanics. GMs that allow diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, etc interactions and don't require rolls and then complain that players are dumping Cha for skills only have themselves to blame.

I would also suggest that GMs that allow players who just put a high stat in Cha at the beginning of the campaign, but never require them to improve their social skills of the character are "cheating" the system.

voideternal wrote:

Examine a hypothetical TRPG called "Wizards are better than Fighters". In this game, there is only one rule. If you're a Wizard, you succeed at whatever you're doing. If you're a fighter, you fail at whatever you're doing.

According to the Fallacy, an optimized player picks wizard and can roleplay a great Wizard. But even with the Fallacy, a player can't both optimize and roleplay a great Fighter.

Seems there is still some confusion about the Fallacy. Let me try to clear things up a little.

If someone claims (using your example), that a player can only either roleplay with a fighter or optimize with a wizard, then that person is making the Fallacy. The Fallacy doesn't say anything else except that the other options {not roleplay a fighter and roleplay a wizard} are also possible. The Fallacy makes no judgement on which play style is better or anything like that. Merely that there other options.

Compare it to alignments. Say someone said that you could only either be Lawful Evil (optimize and not roleplay) or Chaotic Good (unoptimized and roleplay). Clearly that would be flawed. You could be Lawful Good (optimized and roleplay), Chaotic Evil (unoptimized and not roleplay), Neutral Good (semi-optimized and Roleplay), Neutral Evil (semi-optimized and not roleplay), Lawful Neutral (optimized and semi-roleplay), Chaotic Neutral (unooptimized and semi-roleplay), and Neutral Neutral (semi-optimized and semi-roleplay).

The Fallacy says all of those (and others) are possibilities. Just because someone chooses to play "Neutral Good" (Semi-optimized and roleplay), that doesn't disprove the Fallacy, but the fallacy just says that is a possibility.

voideternal wrote:
The Stormwind Fallacy might say that you can optimize and RP great. But perhaps it's impossible to optimize by picking Rogue and RP a great Rogue, though a player COULD optimize by picking Wizard and RP the Wizard great.

It doesn't say anything about any particular character and design choice. One can choose to play a less than optimal choice and roleplay it well. The Fallacy makes no judgement on those choices. It merely says that if someone else chooses to play a more optimal choice, that decision doesn't effect how well the character will be roleplayed. If someone makes an even less optimal choice, that also has no effect on how well the character will be roleplayed. The fact that some choices are less optimal to other choices is irrelevant to the Fallacy itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
memorax wrote:
I still think that if a player wants to make a character that is good at social encountes than his stats should reflect that. One should not have a cha of 5 then get around it by ignoring they value and roleplaying like it`s a 15. It kind of screw over someone who has spent the time to build a character with a cha of 15. Roleplaying is one thing. Trying to make a perfect character without acknowledging his faults and weakness is cheating the system through roleplaying. Would anyone here consider it fair if I had a str of 5 yet wanted to hit and do as much damage as someone with a str 0f 20 because I decided to roleplay a stronger character.
Then the answer is to use the mechanics in game play. You don't want that Cha 5 character running round like a Cha 15 character, great. Make everyone roll social skill checks. And over time you'll see that the Cha 5 character is falling behind, just like you think they should. There in absolutely no need as a GM to force a consequence, when the consequence comes about natural anyway. If the low Cha player invests their skill points and the high Cha player doesn't, then not doing skill rolls is punishing them for using their limited resources appropriately.

I would say that it's fair to make the Cha penalty folks makes rolls even in easy cases where others don't have to. Essentially "Your Take 10 isn't good enough for this." Obviously, putting points in the skills would remedy that. Probably best to make it clear that's what's happening.


pres man wrote:

Seems there is still some confusion about the Fallacy. Let me try to clear things up a little.

If someone claims (using your example), that a player can only either roleplay with a fighter or optimize with a wizard, then that person is making the Fallacy. The Fallacy doesn't say anything else except that the other options {not roleplay a fighter and roleplay a wizard} are also possible. The Fallacy makes no judgement on which play style is better or anything like that. Merely that there other options.

Compare it to alignments. Say someone said that you could only either be Lawful Evil (optimize and not roleplay) or Chaotic Good (unoptimized and roleplay). Clearly that would be flawed. You could be Lawful Good (optimized and roleplay), Chaotic Evil (unoptimized and not roleplay), Neutral Good (semi-optimized and Roleplay), Neutral Evil (semi-optimized and not roleplay), Lawful Neutral (optimized and semi-roleplay), Chaotic Neutral (unooptimized and semi-roleplay), and Neutral Neutral (semi-optimized and semi-roleplay).

The Fallacy says all of those (and others) are possibilities. Just because someone chooses to play "Neutral Good" (Semi-optimized and roleplay), that doesn't disprove the Fallacy, but the fallacy just says that is a possibility.

I agree that's all the fallacy formally says. However it's often used to imply a much greater reach.That's where the Fallacy fallacy part comes in. The implication that since it is possible to roleplay any optimized character well, there are thus no drawbacks to optimization.


thejeff wrote:
The implication that since it is possible to roleplay any optimized character well, there are thus no drawbacks to optimization.

I'm not sure there is a drawback to optimization if the system is clean. I do think that certain poor building practices get mistaken for optimization so maybe it's a definition issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:


In 3e that was meaningful, because it limited the wizard to 1 rank per 2 levels. In PF it's less meaningful past 6th level, because it just means you don't pick up the +3 class skill bonus. In some ways, I still have lingering suspicions that the 3e skill system was better.
I do agree that the 3E skill system was better. I miss my cross class skills. I get your point that it can be done even if it`s no a class skill. Imo it weould still be more difficult and possibly not worth the effort.

Off Topic but I have to say, I LOVE what they did with the skill system in PF. I find it light years better than 3.5 and was one of the main things that made me totally go bonkers about PF.


Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The implication that since it is possible to roleplay any optimized character well, there are thus no drawbacks to optimization.
I'm not sure there is a drawback to optimization if the system is clean. I do think that certain poor building practices get mistaken for optimization so maybe it's a definition issue.

I find there to be plenty of drawbacks to optimization taken. Obviously, as many point out, there is always some level of optimization and it's when it's pushed too far that the problems show up.

Essentially the problems come down to power creep. Skilled optimizers often complain about lack of challenge, pushing the GM (and adventure designers?) to increase difficulty to compensate. Power imbalance within a group makes it very difficult to balance encounters. As the needed power levels escalate, less potent classes and concepts become even less viable.

That said, it's really only when optimization is applied to already powerful concepts that it's a problem. Pulling out all the tricks to bring a monk up to the level of say a basic 2-Hander barbarian doesn't really bother me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I agree that's all the fallacy formally says. However it's often used to imply a much greater reach.That's where the Fallacy fallacy part comes in. The implication that since it is possible to roleplay any optimized character well, there are thus no drawbacks to optimization.

Only in so much as making any choice about any thing has drawbacks. It is basically the whole Cost-Benefit analysis we all must do when making any choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:


They can both roleplay. The one with a lower cha has a penalty to his diplomacy skill. Sorry getting around the penalty of low stats with high skill points does not get used at my table. His diplomacy skill would be at 5 as I add in a -5 penalty to the skill roll. The character with the high cha also has less of a chance to succeed at diplomacy because of a lack of skill points.

I love these almost unrealistic examples people use. How often does the player with a cha of 5 boost his diplomacy skill with so many ranks. How often does a character with such a decent score in cha not boost his diplomacy. If people want to make characters with low attribute scores go right ahead. Don't expect every DM to allow you to ropleplay with them effectivelty. Want to cheat the system by ignoring low stats through roleplay and skill points go right ahead. I'm not the DM to do it with.

What's unrealistic about it? The low charisma character has invested in training to overcome his natural deficiencies. He's not getting a better modifier to use diplomacy for free or just because the player role plays better - he's getting it because he sunk a lot of work into it in the form of skill ranks.

Piling on an additional -5 seems pretty shady to me. The low charisma character is already hampered with the lower modifier compared to someone else of similar training. If the naturally talented guy with the high charisma decided to just get by on his good looks without actually spending any effort, that's his hard luck if my diligence enables me to excel past him despite less inherent talent.


Bill Dunn wrote:
memorax wrote:


They can both roleplay. The one with a lower cha has a penalty to his diplomacy skill. Sorry getting around the penalty of low stats with high skill points does not get used at my table. His diplomacy skill would be at 5 as I add in a -5 penalty to the skill roll. The character with the high cha also has less of a chance to succeed at diplomacy because of a lack of skill points.

I love these almost unrealistic examples people use. How often does the player with a cha of 5 boost his diplomacy skill with so many ranks. How often does a character with such a decent score in cha not boost his diplomacy. If people want to make characters with low attribute scores go right ahead. Don't expect every DM to allow you to ropleplay with them effectivelty. Want to cheat the system by ignoring low stats through roleplay and skill points go right ahead. I'm not the DM to do it with.

What's unrealistic about it? The low charisma character has invested in training to overcome his natural deficiencies. He's not getting a better modifier to use diplomacy for free or just because the player role plays better - he's getting it because he sunk a lot of work into it in the form of skill ranks.

The unrealistic isn't the idea that a character could do that, it's the idea that it's at all common for a player to build a face character with a heavy charisma dump.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
If, as some have posited on this thread, all the mental stats are really just meaningless, they why exactly do they exist? I mean this as an honest, serious question: Why bother?

They aren't any more meaningless than your physical stats. Just because they don't dictate RP doesn't mean they don't matter.

Quote:
Why didn't they just limit skill ranks to those given by your class
Wizards. The staff designing 3.0 had a raging boner for Wizards, therefore they wanted to give something good to them beyond spells. Thus, skill ranks from Int was born. (Honestly this is a rule I've been contemplating houseruling out, in favor of something like a +50% increase in skill ranks per level to all classes, along with handing the casters Spellcraft for free and increasing Fighters to 4 skill points per level before the multiplier.)

Cool idea.

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:


What's unrealistic about it? The low charisma character has invested in training to overcome his natural deficiencies. He's not getting a better modifier to use diplomacy for free or just because the player role plays better - he's getting it because he sunk a lot of work into it in the form of skill ranks.

As the Jeff says how often does a player build a character with low cha

with the intention of being the face in the party. It's like I want to engage in social encounters but I'm going to dumop my primary stat to do so and hop0e that skill points can make up the low stat penalty. No more often than it's to get more points to spend into other attributes then wanting to be as good as the guy with high cha. Then cry foul when they get penalized.

Bill Dunn wrote:


Piling on an additional -5 seems pretty shady to me. The low charisma character is already hampered with the lower modifier compared to someone else of similar training. If the naturally talented guy with the high charisma decided to just get by on his good looks without actually spending any effort, that's his hard luck if my diligence enables me to excel past him despite less inherent talent.

For routine social encounters I don't penalize a player. A player trying to convince a king to lend them a army or reinforcements is not suddenly going to ignore a low cha character lack of social graces or looks because he has a high ranks in diplomacy. He can still try to convince the king. The character with a good cha and skill ranks stands a better chance. Again no cheating the system with low attributes and skill points at my table. A player wants to build a character that can do it all then don't dump stats. Which I tell my players before any new campaign starts. Low stats don't get a free pass at my table with skill points or roleplaying

Liberty's Edge

I suggest some players here never play in any Gurps or Hero system games. There is no roleplaying negatives stats or disadvantages away with roleplaying or skill points. If one builds a Superman style character with a weakness to leads or a character with a bad body odour. There is no "I know I have a weakness to lead but I roleplay that away by wearing a necklace made out of lead a few hours a day". Or "I know my character stinks but I roleplay that away by washing in bleach and tomato juice on a regular basis". It pretty much is written in the book. A disadvantage is a negative thing for a player. If it stops being negative the players loses any benefits from the disadvatage.

If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points. Having to alter his character no exceptions. Or if a player has 5 experience points can buy off the disadvantage. That's why I tend to like point based systems more. No loopholes like roleplaying to get around a characters negative aspects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:

I suggest some players here never play in any Gurps or Hero system games. There is no roleplaying negatives stats or disadvantages away with roleplaying or skill points. If one builds a Superman style character with a weakness to leads or a character with a bad body odour. There is no "I know I have a weakness to lead but I roleplay that away by wearing a necklace made out of lead a few hours a day". Or "I know my character stinks but I roleplay that away by washing in bleach and tomato juice on a regular basis". It pretty much is written in the book. A disadvantage is a negative thing for a player. If it stops being negative the players loses any benefits from the disadvatage.

If a player with a weakness to lead is a minor one and gets 5 extra points to spend during character creation. Either he roleplays the disadvatage or loses the 5 points. Having to alter his character no exceptions. Or if a player has 5 experience points can buy off the disadvantage. That's why I tend to like point based systems more. No loopholes like roleplaying to get around a characters negative aspects.

OTOH, A character with a 7 Cha has a weakness regardless of how many points he puts in Diplomacy. Essentially a -2 on social skill checks compared to a Cha 10 character who's invested the same number of skill points. Even more compared to a character who's actually put points in CHA, which a real face is going to do. Plus a handful of cases where the raw Charisma value is used.

Even in GURPS, the disadvantage is essentially a penalty. You can still be good at things you're penalized at, it just takes more investment to overcome it. You still stink, but you've trained yourself to become very persuasive so people will listen to you anyway. You're not as effective as you would be if you didn't stink, so it's still a disadvantage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So a player comes up with a non-standard idea that their low Cha character could still participate effectively in social encounters, by instead focusing on raising some of their social skills. The GM then feels compelled to not only apply the normal penalties, but to go beyond and apply additional penalties because they feel the player is "cheating", despite the player being the one applying the RAW and the GM fudging stuff.

If I was in a group with a GM like that, I'd have to start considering if the GM has control issues.

I mean, I don't how many times I've heard people complain that fighters don't do jack out side of combat, but just stand there. Or worse, they try to "interact" with their horrible Cha and just make things worse. The idea that you could have someone with a bad Cha that could still meaningfully aid the party in social encounters is ... amazing. I don't see the logic in actually hampering that, instead of nurturing it. "You used your extremely limited number of skill points to increase skills that can make you useful in social encounters. What an a-hole you are! How dare you not conform to my limited perception of what a character with the ability scores your's has! -20 to all checks cheater!"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
As the Jeff says how often does a player build a character with low cha with the intention of being the face in the party.

*ahem* My 9th (now almost 10th) level Psion in our current Reign of Winter campaign has a 7 Charisma. She has also been acting as our party face as well (she was the #2 until our Bard retired, and now she's #1 with I think the stupidly-high-Charisma Paladin in the party being #2).

Quote:
It's like I want to engage in social encounters but I'm going to dumop my primary stat to do so and hope that skill points can make up the low stat penalty.

Most people aren't complete a~!**&*s. I mean, most NPCs don't just hate people for no reason so the DCs are pretty reasonable. I mean, in general I can take 10 with someone whom I've just met to reach Friendly (because over time my character has become quite social). The DC to ask for simple advice or directions is 5 + their Charisma modifier, simple aid or detailed advice 10 + their Charisma modifier, give lengthy or complicated aid or reveal an unimportant secret 15 + their Charisma modifier. Dangerous aid or important secrets is 20 + their Charisma modifier. Aid that could result in punishment is 25 + their Charisma modifier (I'd need to roll to possibly succeed on this one usually). >_>

Quote:
No more often than it's to get more points to spend into other attributes then wanting to be as good as the guy with high cha. Then cry foul when they get penalized.

Who cries foul? I've got a -2. Nobody is crying or crying foul. Now if the GM applied an additional penalty (such as increasing the DC) because I have a low Charisma (which is already) accounted for then I'd be crying foul ('cause cheating is cheating), but my GM is neither a jerk nor an asshat.

301 to 350 of 537 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.