Playing the real life you as a PC, is it practical / possible?


Advice

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hi everyone. Any one among us pathfinder players knows that in any character we make a small bit or even a whole lot of us as individuals become part of our characters. Some will be actors and stick with a character very deeply and others bring their personality into another setting almost entirely. Both of these are fine but I found myself being invited into a group with an unusual but interesting premise...

I as a player will generate my starting stats based off what I and I alone think my real world self's stats are. So if I think that I'm a super genius I could just say my stat is an 18 and no questions are asked as long as I give a reasonable roleplay of being intelligent. Furthermore the GM asks that you try to represent your class and skills as close to real life as possible as well. If your a Sunday school teacher be a cleric, a book reader could be a wizard, or a pharmacist an alchemist. Your not expected to stay that class forever as you can change with the story but the motto is "be you".

While I find this interesting I'm also worried about saying yes to this experiment. In theory everyone could have super high stats when I being truthful may stink or vice versa. The GM may well kill very one on first session because he has false expectations or whatever. I'm also interested in has anyone ever tried this? I would welcome tips on how to go about this or if I should just run away, politely of course. Finally, if I do makeup a representation of myself what then? Do I check it with you guys who read this and offer advice on its "accuracy"? I'm a little confused and need assist.


Renegadeshepherd wrote:


While I find this interesting I'm also worried about saying yes to this experiment. In theory everyone could have super high stats when I being truthful may stink or vice versa. The GM may well kill very one on first session because he has false expectations or whatever. I'm also interested in has anyone ever tried this? I would welcome tips on how to go about this or if I should just run away, politely of course. Finally, if I do makeup a representation of myself what then? Do I check it with you guys who read this and offer advice on its "accuracy"? I'm a little confused and need assist.

I've seen this experiment done several times. It's fun for a short while (in my experience) but it never lasts and it generally doesn't end well.

You've put your finger on one of the issues -- trying to figure out just what "you" can do, especially in a fantasy setting. I can point to IQ tests that suggest I should have a high intelligence, and I can point to courses I've taken suggesting I should have skills of various sorts, especially Knowledge skills. I've played music on stage and people paid to listen to me, so I should have Perform (strings), right? I can point to several years of martial arts that should at least be Improved Unarmed Strike.

But I don't know that I can call myself a Bard, and I certainly have no idea if I'd be a first or fifteenth level bard. I don't know if I have any Monk levels, and I'm fairly certain that I don't have any Wizard levels as I can't cast spells.

I don't know of any tests that I've taken, or indeed can take, in order to determine if I have Dex and Wisdom of 8, or of 16. I have no idea how many hit points I have, and finding out sounds, frankly, unpleasant. I'm also not sure what my Reflex save is and hope never to find out.

So who am I? Am I a truly epic Bard 15/Monk 5, or am I a commoner 1 with a point in Perform (strings) and Knowledge (random trivia)?

Dark Archive

Did a whole campaign on this in 3.5(I was a clericzilla type character in plate, but I was the only one in the group with healing and it was a no magic items campaign so I ended up using my spells to keep my friends alive a lot) It's fine as long as you aren't playing with a group of people that has "that guy" IE the dude who thinks he is better than everyone at everything even when proven wrong on multiple occasions because of mommy/daddy issues. It can be really, really fun. Especially because if you actually like the people it puts more urgency on death cuz nobody wants to be the one to die(at least to be temporarily out of the campaign) and being hurt actually means more.

For reference, this campaign went on for about 2ish years so I will have to disagree with you Orfamay. It works if you have good friends and a good DM, it ended up stopping because the DM got bored of it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally a bad idea. People end up getting offended when you have to tell them that, no, they don't in fact have a 17 intelligence or charisma.


I've done this sort of thing with my group and found that I'm a more modest person than my fellow players. This led to a power disparity and eventually the game dissolved with a bitter feeling. If I were to try it again I would rather build a fantastic representation of myself, thinking more about what my strengths and weaknesses are in broad strokes as opposed to what my exact scores are.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

the truth about stats:

Most people unless you are a cut above the rest, most people runs around with the average npc stats.

13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.

Now for being human , you get +2 to one of these stats.

People could b~~#~@!% some stats but the truth is...unless you are amazing at doing something and clearly a cut above the rest (professional athlete, world renown doctor/scientist) your normal stats would never go above regular basic npc stats.

In our modern era, most people tends toward expert (Lawyer, doctors, architects...), we still have our warriors (Soldiers, gangbangers, etc...) and commoners (average joe so to speak).

Who gets an Heroic array? 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.

Celebrities, World champions in sports, Legendary figures (Rasputin), so if you aren't an exceptional specimen...you probably aren't rocking a heroic array.

Of course, the problem , you obviously want to have fun...it's a game after all. Which means you might inflate your stats to boost your ego but the truth is...someone with a strength +0 modifier for example, has a 40% to break a wooden door and we all know in real life, it isn't too hard to do. Since you are supposed to play a heroic class...you might as well pick the heroic array but it is an exaggeration of your stats.

So is the setup of the game, like is it yourself transported in a fantasy world like the dungeons and dragons cartoon or you just happen to play someone who lived and grew in a fantasy world?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
If I were to try it again I would rather build a fantastic representation of myself, thinking more about what my strengths and weaknesses are in broad strokes as opposed to what my exact scores are.

This is the way to make it work. The "action movie" version of you, as opposed to the real version, is the way to go.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It shouldn't be an exact science that you need to get checked and re-checked by other people. Get a 20 point buy and distribute your points as evenly as you can across the stats for whatever you think fits you best.

If your int becomes 16 because you know you're pretty quick (14) because you're pretty sure you're smarter than you are quick, it doesn't matter that you're not a world renown genius.

Don't bother questioning stats and whatnot. Set it up and play the "character" to have fun with it.


There is a reason you don't wrestle alligators in the sewers right now. Because you wouldn't do that.

Play someone who isn't you. Playing yourself gets uncomfortable really quickly, if not outright boring. I've made that mistake too many times, and if I'm honest, the real reason I did it was because I didn't want to go outside of my comfort zone.

Grand Lodge

Well, we can narrow down class quite a bit. What weapons are you skilled in? Can you cast spells of any sort? What about armor?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with playing myself as a PC is that my ability scores are bad:

Self-computed score; Score computed according to the DND Stat Calculator:
Str: 8; 9
Dex: 8; 8
Con: 9; 9
Int: 12; 15
Wis: 12; 13
Chr: 10; 9
PointBuy: -3; 4

Self-computed: This just isn't survivable.
DND Stat Calculator: I would have to be a really badly optimized Wizard, Investigator, or Sage Sorcerer (without much sagacity). Witch is right out, since although I am of below the modern average for weight for my height, I still weigh more than a duck.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Look up the RPG from Fantasy Flight Games called "End of World: Zombie Apocalypse." You create characters based on your own abilities as a person, and gain equipment that you have on you when play starts. Of course when playing a game like this you need a group of mature players who don't take the game, or themselves, too seriously. If not you can have players with some hurt feelings.

Dark Archive

I can agree with the not an exact science thing, especially because pathfinder makes some things much harder/slower than they are in real life, and makes other things much easier/faster. Design yourself based on a 20 PB is good as Avatar-1 says, also you could base it off of what the stats effectively get you.
Examples:[trying to get a 20 pb]

Strength
Having to carry 40 lb boxes at my work often, I can definitely say I am slowed down if I carry more than one but not significantly slowed when carrying only one so I'd say my strength is probably 12 based on carrying capacities.

Constitution
I have been exposed to many diseases through school and have gotten sick more often than others, but I don't get hurt very easily and I don't get sick at all anymore so I would probably go with a low con 7 or 8 but choose a class that has a good fort save and good hit die

Dexterity
I was naturally rather quick at typing and I was pretty good at futbol/tennis/badminton/basketball as a child in addition to being rather good at dodging in dodgeball so I would put a 13 or 14 in dexterity. I do tend to have trouble of slipping often and not catching myself though, so a bad reflex is most likely in order

Intelligence
I picked up reading extremely quickly and have read at a university level since the age of 10, as well as being offered to skip grades and was able to enter college at a young age so I would put my intelligence at a 15 or 16 and put my +2 here(I have invented new stuff, so I am confident in this... It may not have been great new stuff, but I did invent it)

Wisdom
I tend to be able to pick up on when things aren't out of the norm, but have been known to be extremely oblivious at other stages and easy to manipulate. I have grown out of being easy to manipulate, so I would probably go with a 7 or 8 Wis and a class with good will saves.

Charisma
I am not a good judge of this, but the people that know me say I am very charismatic when I want to be so I'm only going based on their judgements. I would give myself a 16 in charisma as I do get greeted by strangers and brought into conversation with people I don't know very easily.

Class
We have determined that I should have a d8-d12 hit die, good fort saves, good will saves, and bad reflex saves already. Next we just have to determine what I like and what I have done with my life. I am religious, but not zealous and pathfinder has no way to switch casting stats so that basically removes all divine casting classes. My ending result choices are Skald and Magus, and since I write poetry and sing as well as tend to be more skill focused in my life I would choose Skald. I am studying to be a neurobiologist so I might VMC or take an archetype that gives me psychic casting or something similar.

Feats
I just pick whatever for this. Feats are supposed to be like crazy abilities you have above the norm and if I became an adventurer you could bet your bottom dollar that I would retrain what I'm good at so I could survive more.


Dafydd wrote:
Well, we can narrow down class quite a bit. What weapons are you skilled in? Can you cast spells of any sort? What about armor?

99% of us are commoners by that metric. Almost no one is trained in archaic weapons and armor any more, and spells,.... well, this is the real world. James Randi has a million bucks for anyone who can cast mage hand.


Well I'd admit the reason I never play humans, is because unfortunately, no matter how much I beg the cosmos and whatever force maybe listening, in real life I'll probably never be a catfolk.

Because real life no one is anything more then a commoner, or if in a position of power, multiclass noble/commoner. Yet the game can give some 'vague' ideas of stats. My carrying capacity and max lifting I am probably a 13 str. I'm a frickening klutz though, and while not a 'bad' shot with a bow or gun I'm not making marksmen in anything. So Dex 8, I'm pudgy, tough, and stubborn, and survived car wrecks, bullies in school trying to kill me, and tanked a snake bite and have a resistance to poison ivy, so my CON is probably solid 14-15.

I put my foot in my mouth a lot and tend to get talked into doing stupid things by my friends, and me and common sense never see eye to ey, so Wis is a 9 or 10.

I'm college educated, ba degrees in history and political science. And I've always surrounded myself with books, and absorb knowledge like a sponge, so INT is definitely my defining stat in the 16-17 range at least.

My friends like me, and yet I can spur a burning passion of either love or hate, depending on how preachy I get on a subject, so CHA is maybe a 12-13.

If magic existed in the real world I'd of thrown my heart and soul, blood and tears into being a wizard, (probably evoker with some necromancy on the side.)

But as magic sadly doesn't exist I'm just a commoner with a decent INT, who makes furry and fantasy art, and argues on the net about politics and rpgs. :P


I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."


Hey guys thx for the advice so far and feel free to keep it coming as I'm getting good second hand experience. Some clarifications on a few specifics....

I personally do have experience with a large array of weapons and have minor experience with armor because I have been a martial arts enthusiast and participant for most of my life. By the strict rules of weapon prof I would say I'd have several exotic prof because of my eastern weapon katas but I shall digress.

Secondly Helcack I want to thank you for an example of a well thought out process or meter stick by which I can judge things. That must have taken a little bit to type and it's appreciated.

Third: the situation isn't me being transported into Golarian but is my personal traits and choices in life be remade as if I had been born in that world. I realize I could have been born a farmer and never had the chance to ever read a book let alone study them as a hobby but I just as easily could have.

Finally, I'm working on what I feel my own stats are now and tryin to be objective about it.

Grand Lodge

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Dafydd wrote:
Well, we can narrow down class quite a bit. What weapons are you skilled in? Can you cast spells of any sort? What about armor?
99% of us are commoners by that metric. Almost no one is trained in archaic weapons and armor any more, and spells,.... well, this is the real world. James Randi has a million bucks for anyone who can cast mage hand.

I did not mean just swords, axes and hammers. Pathfinder has Guns, and obviously, if this is the RL you and you know how to handle a gun, you are likely Proficient in them. Few people have never picked up a broom and not pretended it was a weapon (in essence, a quarterstaff).

Personally, I am proficient in Bows and most simple weapons. No shields and no armor.

I would actually put it more at 20% experts/aristocrats, 30% (maybe 40%) warriors and the rest of us are commoners.

Sovereign Court

I did this once for modern d20 - but it was a one-shot zombie apocalypse game - for what it was it worked pretty decently though. The session opened with them in the common room of the dorm (where we met to game) - and I - the GM - was really late. Then zombies started showing up etc. - and they all were themselves. They made their way to Wal-Mart for supplies, and they eventually discovered that my in-game persona was behind all of the horrific zombie stuff etc. Fun - silly - and wouldn't have made a good campaign.

It's also easier to do with modern d20 as the game is inherently more mundane, especially for the first few levels.

Point of note - don't just let people pick whatever stats they want. Give them all a point buy, and have them ball-park their own stats as well as they can, with slight tweaking to make themselves playable.

Also - for Pathfinder - you'd probably want to do the classic 'transported to a magical world' trope as the reason that they suddenly have magical powers etc.


Dafydd wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Dafydd wrote:
Well, we can narrow down class quite a bit. What weapons are you skilled in? Can you cast spells of any sort? What about armor?
99% of us are commoners by that metric. Almost no one is trained in archaic weapons and armor any more, and spells,.... well, this is the real world. James Randi has a million bucks for anyone who can cast mage hand.
I did not mean just swords, axes and hammers. Pathfinder has Guns, and obviously, if this is the RL you and you know how to handle a gun, you are likely Proficient in them.

"Guns Everywhere." Guns are simple weapons.

Quote:
Few people have never picked up a broom and not pretended it was a weapon (in essence, a quarterstaff).

And very few of those people actually have proficiency with that quarterstaff. Watching Star Wars and waving a broomstick around while making sound effects is not skill.

Most people aren't even effective with their fists, as any boxing instructor can tell you.

Quote:


Personally, I am proficient in Bows and most simple weapons. No shields and no armor.

I would actually put it more at 20% experts/aristocrats, 30% (maybe 40%) warriors and the rest of us are commoners.

Still not a very exciting adventuring group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've done this before, complete with actual tests to measure your abilities. We lifted weights on a bench press to determine our strength, did some IQ tests, etc.

Overall it is a bad idea. People's opinions of themselves are often very tightly-held. Telling someone who thinks they're a 15 intelligence that they're actually a 9 intelligence isn't going to go well. They will usually immediately defend them self by attacking the test even if they agreed to it beforehand.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."

This may be true. But I honestly could see that being the case because we nerds, I mean table top gamers, tend to be interested in such intellectual games a bit more than the normal sampling of the population. Where I think some of the players may go wrong is sticking to arcane representations of themselves versus a mundane rogue or someone else who appreciates scholarly knowledge.

Sovereign Court

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."

My guess is that most if not all are overestimating their own Int, and probably every other stat. Notice how everyone is far higher than the 3-6 point buy that most people in the world would be going by Pathfinder rules? People dropping themselves down to 10 in a stat because they're weak? 10-11 is average!

(Unlike the rest of you plebs - I'd totally be a 30pt buy! Totally! Maybe 35!!)


Renegadeshepherd wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."

This may be true. But I honestly could see that being the case because we nerds, I mean table top gamers, tend to be interested in such intellectual games a bit more than the normal sampling of the population.

It still doesn't make for a very good game, though. One of the things you need for a successful game --- or indeed, for a successful performance in almost any medium -- is an interesting set of characters with abilities and personalities that fit together to make a good ensemble.

Personalities you'll probably have -- after all, this is a group of people that like hanging out with each other in meatspace, so they'll probably like hanging out together in headspace. But if everyone has the same in-game abilities, it turns into a picnic where everyone brought the potato salad.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."

My guess is that most if not all are overestimating their own Int, and probably every other stat.

My guess is not. The problem is that at least some of the stats have clear-cut interpretations in the real world -- I can actually measure my Strength in a gym, for example, by figuring out how much weight I can lift over my head. I can use IQ tests to determine where I am on a percentile basis and compare that to the distribution of rolling 3d6. I can test my standing broad jump ability and determine my Dexterity score.

The idea that most of the population has 3-6 point buy is a simplification for the GM's convenience to save her the trouble of creating dozens of characters with realistic stat distributions. If you look at the math of a simple 3d6 distribution, 70% of people have at least one score of 13 or higher.

Sovereign Court

fantasy stats reality check:

The average adult elf has 12-13 for his dex, with the ones focused on dex going to 15. Some of the best archers out there.
The average dwarf has 12-13 con.Tough people living in hard conditions and mining/digging all the time.
Intelligence of 16-17 is about as smart as the average Aboleth, smarter than the average elf even.
Charisma of 15 is like a storm giant...let that sink in for a moment.

Just saying that in reality...our stats really do suck.


Eltacolibre wrote:


Intelligence of 16-17 is about as smart as the average Aboleth, smarter than the average elf even.

Fair enough. With that said,.... Intelligence of 16 is also barely in the top 5% of the distribution of stats if you use straight-up 3d6 to generate them, as in old school D&D. There's a lot of variance around that average.

The smartest person in your 5th grade class probably had an intelligence of 16, and if it was a large class, probably a 17. Your high school valedictorian had an 18 if not more.

If most of the nerds on this forum were the smartest person in 5th grade, it's likely they really do all have 16+ for Intelligence.

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I think there's enough evidence on this thread to show another problem with the "let's all play ourselves" game. Notice that everyone on this thread has listed Intelligence as their highest stat?

You end up with the all-Wizards-all-the-time party. "Two wizards, an alchemist, and a witch walk into a bar...."

I would agree with renegadeshepherd in that is may be partly because we are nerds, and mine was specifically trying to get about a 20 pb, I would be fine with admitting that my abilities could have come from just having a lot of skill points from my class(probably actually expert) and maybe having a 9 int and I just got lucky.

If I were to measure my stats against commoner pb then according to what others have told me it'd probably be more like
Str 12
Dex 12
Con 7
Int 14
Wis 7
Cha 14(after bonus)
This would put me at a 3 PB, the same as a commoner.

I actually think most people are above 10 Int but that could be my aforementioned most likely low wisdom showing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Try this website. http://www.easydamus.com/character.html


But but but I actually am proficient with a weapon... Unarmed. No way could I fight against armed assailants though. No one can do that except in the movies.

Would I get Improved Unarmed Strike? No idea. The AoO rules, while central to the game, make no damn sense. You use a full round worth of actions that all happen simultaneously, but you suddenly gain an extra second during this when someone else moves...?

I guess this thread depends on ignoring turn-based in-combat oddities.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

The problem with playing myself as a PC is that my ability scores are bad:

Self-computed score; Score computed according to the DND Stat Calculator:
Str: 8; 9
Dex: 8; 8
Con: 9; 9
Int: 12; 15
Wis: 12; 13
Chr: 10; 9
PointBuy: -3; 4

That test gave me 9 DEX. I have incredibly fast reflexes, can run 100 meters in 12 seconds, and can throw 4 punches in 1-2 seconds... but I can't juggle, so I get a 9... :X

I was told a couple years ago that real world intelligence is simply the score multiplied by 10. This makes perfect sense because the average, 10=100 IQ, is correct, and it gives you an idea of just how handicapped having 7 intelligence really is. I've used this metric when deciding how to role-play my characters ever since.

Ever since I was a kid, my IQ has fallen just short of MENSA; I even at one point literally got a 129 on an IQ test. (Not that IQ tests are a good way to measure psychometric intelligence anyway...) 12 was therefore the conclusion.

I have no idea about my STR. I am in pretty good shape and practice full body calisthenics, but I don't lift, so I don't know what the measurement of how strong I should be really is... Honestly, even when I was doing sports I never gave a sh** about lifting. It seems like a completely arbitrary way of measuring strength, and likely misrepresentative at that. If I'm being even more honest, I also didn't like it much because I wasn't very good at it... My center of gravity is at my core, not the shoulders like most men.

Here is what I gave myself after some thought:

Strength 12
Dexterity 14
Constitution 10
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 9
Charisma 11

I've always liked Rogue/Fighters, and I think if I were fictionalized I would be a Rogue/Fighter. No matter what, DEX would be the stat I focused on.

And do I really have to mention this rule?:

Core Rulebook Spellcasting:

Core Rulebook wrote:

Abilities and Spellcasters

Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells
Ability Score Bonus Spells per Day (by Spell Level)
Modifier 0th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
1 –5 Can't cast spells tied to this ability
2–3 –4 Can't cast spells tied to this ability
4–5 –3 Can't cast spells tied to this ability
6–7 –2 Can't cast spells tied to this ability
8–9 –1 Can't cast spells tied to this ability
10–11 0 — — — — — — — — — —
12–13 1 — 1 — — — — — — — —
14–15 2 — 1 1 — — — — — — —
16–17 3 — 1 1 1 — — — — — —
18–19 4 — 1 1 1 1 — — — — —
20–21 5 — 2 1 1 1 1 — — — —
22–23 6 — 2 2 1 1 1 1 — — —
24–25 7 — 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 — —
26–27 8 — 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 —
28–29 9 — 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
30–31 10 — 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
32–33 11 — 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
34–35 12 — 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
36–37 13 — 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
38–39 14 — 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
40–41 15 — 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
42–43 16 — 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2
44–45 17 — 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See individual class descriptions for additional details.

To cast a spell level 1 or higher, you need to have the teen equivalent; 11=1, 12=2, etc. This is the most basic requirement. Average people aren't adventurers for a reason. Because they can't be.

But hey, at least we aren't being murdered by our cats anymore...

Sovereign Court

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Try this website. http://www.easydamus.com/character.html

Sure did entertain this:

True Neutral Human Monk/Wizard (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 10
Dexterity- 11
Constitution- 11
Intelligence- 16
Wisdom- 12
Charisma- 15

Alignment:
True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:

Monks- Monks are versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. Good-aligned monks serve as protectors of the people, while evil monks make ideal spies and assassins. Though they don't cast spells, monks channel a subtle energy, called ki. This energy allows them to perform amazing feats, such as healing themselves, catching arrows in flight, and dodging blows with lightning speed. Their mundane and ki-based abilities grow with experience, granting them more power over themselves and their environment. Monks suffer unique penalties to their abilities if they wear armor, as doing so violates their rigid oath. A monk wearing armor loses their Wisdom and level based armor class bonuses, their movement speed, and their additional unarmed attacks per round.

Secondary Class:

Wizards- Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar- a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. Glancing at this thread, the trend continues.


Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. Glancing at this thread, the trend continues.

I for one would have said 14 INT, 14 WIS, and 8 charisma but the test gave me 15 INT, 14 WIS, and 6 charisma. If I had charisma I'd be spending less time on forums and spending it in face to face encounters.


Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. Glancing at this thread, the trend continues.

I was going to say the exact same thing.

This whole thread is like a case study in why it is a bad idea to do "play with yourself" campaigns.


I took the test and became:

Neutral Good Human Ranger/Rogue (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 10
Dexterity- 10
Constitution- 13
Intelligence- 13
Wisdom- 14
Charisma- 12

I remember an old Time-traveling RPG (Can't remember the name right now)were you by default played yourself. You got your stats by doing several tests like weightlifting for strength and IQ tests for intelligence. I remember getting horrible stats in that game.

You also have This line of games from FFG.

In the real world I would guess most educated people would be experts (which would be the majority of Western society), uneducated people might be commoners or warriors. Only highly professional people would have anything that would resemble a PC class. Like special forces having fighter, ranger and/or rogue levels and rock-stars having bard levels (sans the magic).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. Glancing at this thread, the trend continues.

I was going to say the exact same thing.

This whole thread is like a case study in why it is a bad idea to do "play with yourself" campaigns.

How lewd...


Castilonium wrote:
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. Glancing at this thread, the trend continues.

Of course, that might be a valid representation of the gaming subgroup (although by popular reputation, low charisma is also appropriate). If you walk into a classroom at U. Chicago, you expect to see a lot of people with very high Int. If you walk onto Soldiers Field during a football game, you expect to see a lot of people with very high Str and Con. If you walk into the locker room at a Cirque du Soleil performance, you expect to see a lot of people with high Dexterity and Charisma.... and Strength and Constitution, too.

What kind of people play TTRPG?


Well there is a definite way in which you can find out how high your strength is. Just see how much you can bench press or something and compare it with the encumbrance table. Maybe multiply the heavy load by two or so to compensate for traveling weight as opposed to "the max you can bench without moving" and you can perhaps find out your strength.

As for the other stats, I hear that in the olden d n d days, each INT point above 10 represented another 10 points of iq. So if you had 14 INT, your iq is 140.

As for con, you can perhaps find out how healthy you are by checking how often you get sick, if you are diabetic or things like that. Dexterity for your reflexes and perhaps sportsmanship in certain activities. Wisdom by how much you avoid vices like drunkenness while driving and other such things. Charisma by how well you are liked by others I suppose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Domestichauscat wrote:


As for the other stats, I hear that in the olden d n d days, each INT point above 10 represented another 10 points of iq. So if you had 14 INT, your iq is 140.

That's not actually a very good conversion if you use the old 3d6 base. About one person in a 1000 has an IQ of 150 or more when measured by the Stanford-Binet test. About one person in 216 can roll 18 on three dice. So anyone with a measured IQ of 150+ (or in the top 0.5 percentile) should have at least an 18 Intelligence. Anyone Mensa qualified (top 2%) should have a 17+.

If you do the curve fitting yourself -- and there's no reason you should, as the stats wonks have long since worked this out -- it turns out that every two points of Intelligence away from the score of 10.5 is roughly ten IQ points. 10-11 corresponds roughly to IQ 100, 12-13 corresponds roughly to IQ 110, 14-15 corresponds to IQ 120, 16-17 corresponds roughly to IQ 130, and 18 is IQ 140. If you like, multiply your Int bonus by 10 and add 100, and you'll be righter than if you just use the multiply-by-ten rule.

Quote:


As for con, you can perhaps find out how healthy you are by checking how often you get sick, if you are diabetic or things like that. Dexterity for your reflexes and perhaps sportsmanship in certain activities. Wisdom by how much you avoid vices like drunkenness while driving and other such things. Charisma by how well you are liked by others I suppose.

The problem with these is that there's no accepted norms to compare against. I'm not even sure how to measure "how well liked you are," and I'm not sure if driving drunk once a month would put you in the 70th or the 7th percentile of Wisdom.


IQuarent wrote:


I was told a couple years ago that real world intelligence is simply the score multiplied by 10. This makes perfect sense because the average, 10=100 IQ, is correct, and it gives you an idea of just how handicapped having 7 intelligence really is. I've used this metric when deciding how to role-play my characters ever since.

Ever since I was a kid, my IQ has fallen just short of MENSA; I even at one point literally got a 129 on an IQ test. (Not that IQ tests are a good way to measure psychometric intelligence anyway...) 12 was therefore the conclusion.

See my previous post. The averages are the same, but the variance is way off. If you really are "just short of MENSA", you should have an intelligence of at least 16 as you're near the top 2% of the bell curve.


Generally a bad idea. The inflated self-image issue aside, it is really hard not to take things personally that occur in-game. Very few people can pull it off when events or rulings go against them and remember that this is "just a game" when it is YOU supposedly in it!


My strength is 11, My dexterity is 13, my constitution is 12, my intelligence is 22, my wisdom is 18, my charisma is 16....

What does that make me?....a liar!


As others have said, this is generally a bad idea.
I have gamed with egomaniacs who claim that in 6-seconds they could swim to a cliff and climb it and attack someone.
I have also gamed with people with such terrible self-esteem that they strictly play "support" characters.
I have also also gamed with people who have serious self-hatred issues, and they just use the game as an outlet to escape themselves to become someone "better" for a little while.

Honestly, if you're going to do this don't even use the Heroic NPC stat array, use the basic NPC stat array. Have everyone start as level 1 commoners, and then you, as the GM, enable them to retrain to other NPC classes based on what they do, just remember to be basic about it. If a player is using skill checks a lot they might become an expert, if they are trying to heal people then they become an adept, if they try to fight monsters and defend their allies then they become a warrior.

The simple reality is that we are not exceptional people. I'm not exceptional, but instead I just want to teach English for a living while writing novels. I'd probably become an Expert with ranks in Profession: Sage and Craft: Novel. I am told that I can be sneaky when I want to be, so maybe ranks in stealth.

Keep in mind that when you are making a character as someone they tend to get defensive about the character. If someone says, "Well, skill X is useless," that might end up being taken personally. As the GM you have no control over this, but at the same time if Mr. Taku Ooka Nin the Expert gets jumped by a pack of large ravenous kittens and no one comes to save him, he might die. It isn't a leap of logic that maybe the reason they let the kittens have their way with him was because people who can sneak but not sleight of hand, teach common and write novels is kind of useless in the boundaries of what makes Pathfinder, well, Pathfinder.

At its core this is a game about killing enemies. Unless you are gaming with Police officers (insert derogatory Nickname here if you please), veterans or master martial artists, this system probably isn't going to go well for you.

Instead, if you must build these characters on the real-life you, ask your players to build an idealized version of themselves in the game world. Most people do this automatically without realizing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My real life self is not playable due to deities not having stats in Pathfinder.


What Kind of D&D Character Would You Be? (Version 5.1EZ)

Str: 10
Dex: 9
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 10

True Neutral Human Wizard, 7th Level

Thing is, I have a hard trouble trusting these sites. A previous one (I think it was an older version of this one) said I was a Chaotic Neutral Sorcerer(!), and one before that said I was Lawful Neutral (but did not specify a class).


UnArcaneElection wrote:

What Kind of D&D Character Would You Be? (Version 5.1EZ)

[...]

Thing is, I have a hard trouble trusting these sites. A previous one (I think it was an older version of this one) said I was a Chaotic Neutral Sorcerer(!), and one before that said I was Lawful Neutral (but did not specify a class).

I couldn't even get through it. Some of the questions were too badly written for me to take seriously.

E.g.

Quote:


18. When it comes to hand-eye coordination...

I'm horrible at video games.
I could be an Olympic marksman.
I'm about average.
I can juggle well.

Goodness, I could be a world-champion dart player, but if I can't juggle, I'm at best average.

Quote:


44. I work out...

...so that I will be healthier.
...so that I will be more attractive.

Why not both?

Quote:


59. I would rather live...

...in the city.
...in the country.

I can't be the only person who's heard of suburbs. Or small towns.

Quote:


85. I would rather spend...

...a night on the town.
...a day riding horses.

How about ...an hour pounding my tongue wafer-thin with a meat tenderizer?

Quote:


6. The following statement most accurately describes my health.

I am sick most of the time.
I seem to get sick as often as most people I know.
I have never missed a day of work due to illness.
I can't remember ever being sick.

Well, I missed one day two years ago.... Where does that fall?

Sovereign Court

Yeah - that thing pegged me as a Lawful Neutral sorcerer/paladin (how does that even work?) I don't think I got up to 'good' because I don't give $ to panhandlers. :P


Well said orfamay. Those questions were not well thought through.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Try this website. http://www.easydamus.com/character.html

I took that quiz. I got.

Lawful Neutral Dwarf Bard/Sorcerer (3rd/2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength- 15
Dexterity- 17
Constitution- 19
Intelligence- 12
Wisdom- 13
Charisma- 12

The stats seems sorta right, though maybe a bit exaggerated.

I'm a decent hand to hand fighter, was a squad designated marksman in the Army, can take a punch better then most I know. I've won not through being a better fighter, but by attrition most of the time.

I like to believe I am a bit smarter then the norm, but I know I am no Einstein, I try to have situational awareness and while sometimes I can make funny comments at perfect times, or lead a squad of men if I have to, I'm not a movie star or a politician.

With that said, I definitely think the alignment is on point. I'm no saint. I won't comment on the dwarf part, and I'm by no means a Bard or Sorcerer. Sure, I'm slightly sociable, and I may know a few magic tricks that the ladies like, but I'm positive I'd be a single classed Gunslinger.


The measure of whether it works or not is if the players and GM have fun. I ran a similar concept once, everyone created a character based on themselves with a heroic array as first level experts. This makes for PCs who can function in a fantasy world but have a lot of skills that won't be useful (drive automobile and repair personal computer are good IRL but not in Forgotten Realms). It was inspired by Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flames series, the PCs woke up as if they had been transported from the real world to the Sword Coast. After a few encounters, they ran into a group of adventurers and were allowed to level up to expert 1/PC class 1. It worked well enough for two sessions, the group rotated GMs and the next GM in the rotation was going out of town for a few weeks. We had fun, it had a reasonable amount of balance with arrays of stats but let players decide where the stats went and what skills to take. It was a chance to explore 'what would I do if I were in a fantasy world' but gave PCs a fighting chance.

My real world stats would be below average strength compared to PF/D&D PCs and average Con and Dex. Even if I gave myself above average Int and Wis, the real world me probably would not make it to third level in a fantasy world.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Playing the real life you as a PC, is it practical / possible? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.