|
There have been quite a few threads that seem to stray into the area of low stats, particularly when it comes to discussing dump stats and the limits of point buy.
The arguments seem to relate to what it means to have a stat of 7 or less, the lowest you will come accross in point buy.
It is difficult to determine objectively what most stats represent, and how low 7 really is. This is particularly so when you have a braod category such as Charisma, or other mental stats such as intellegence or charisma.
Some have argued that a score of 7 is very low, representing a significant disadvantage, but what does a 7 really represent?
The human range in Pathfinder with point buy rates from 7 to 20. The lowest an NPC gets in an attribute if using a standard array is 8. This would suggest a stat of 7 to be very low, especially when you consider every 4th level you can increase a stat by 1 point, for a maximum of 25 at level 20. You can also add age modifiers into this for mental stats, offering up to a score of 28 for a level 20 human with a maximum mental score. At this point 7 seems pretty bad...
However the average score is 10, and the average NPC, even a powerful one can't get a starting score above 17 using the basic profile (15+2 racial mod). Most people in the world are below level 4 according to the Inner Sea Guide, so the rare (PC classes aren't that common) maxed out NPC is going to have 17 modified by age and at least one stat at 8 modified by age. This gives us a range of 2-17 for physical stats and 8-20 for mental stats for the majority of people in the world.
Pathfinder is based off previous incarnations of D&D which used the 3d6 generation system for most individuals in the world. Thus a 7 would not be particularly low, just a little below average.
But how does this actually reflect in the statistics?
The most objective is Strength. The Carrying capacity table on p171 and gives a good objective measure of what a 7 strength represents. You can lift your maximum load over your head, so a character with 7 strength should be able to lift 70lbs over their head, thats 31.75kgs. There are a lot of people I know who are unable to lift that weight above their head free (not on a machine). To me that suggests a score of 7 is not that low.
On the opposite side, the world record for the clean and jerk is 586lbs or at most a strength of 23. That assumes that specialising for a particular feat of strength does not enter the equasion.
Intelligence is another statistic with a defining feature. If you posses a high intelligence you should be able to speak multiple languages. I see a lot of people talking IQ, suggesting that intelligence x10 makes a good interpretation as 100 is average. An IQ of 50-70 suggest mild leraning disability. However is this really the case? Most people I know don't speak more than one language (I'm English...), which would place them in the 11 or less category. I have an IQ of between 125-130, but no second language so I would suggest in light of the Strength scores above, and the lack of second languages that the x10 IQ is not a realistic representation.
So the most arguamentative of stats, as its most frequently dumped and has no impact upon combat, Charisma. This is the most abstract of the statistics. I have seen it suggested that if you have a charisma of 7 then you are repugnant, hideous to the eye, and provoke hatred on sight. In light of the other statistics I would not see this as the case however.
I don't want this to turn into a purely charisma driven debate however, so bear in mind when posting what that 7 represents in strength. Can you shoulder press free 32KGs? Who do you know who can't? I consider myself pretty strong (above average) and can't easily lift more than 130lbs over my head (I scrape a 12 stat in straight terms).
So do you think a stat of 7 is a real outstanding disadvantage or is it simply a -2 penalty to a stat?
It can't be quantified. It will vary by GM. That is my 2 cents on the subject.
whether or not a 7 is a significant disadvantage is a matter of opinion. I, personally would not want to play a character with below an 8 stat, or allow it if I am GMing. Most people who want to represent a penalized character from an RP perspective can do so with an 8, a 7 typically means they are dumping for points, not for roleplay. A 7 int would be about a 70 IQ, Which means borderline mental retardation (anything under a 70, wikipedia). A 7 str is a little more than 2/3 as strong as the average person, and would not be able to lift anything of significant weight. A 7 con would put the average peasant at 1 hp (instead of 2), -2 fort saves, and dead a -7 hp. This kind of person would succumb to poisons, illnesses, and diseases easily.
|
|
But an Int 7 isn't 70 IQ. A Str 7 can still lift 5 stone (32KG) above their head, or walk indefinately with a 5 stone (32 KG) pack.
Its an interesting point about the HP of a commoner with a con 7 however. Average commoner 4 HP, -2 con would give them 2 HP. Bear in mind this is the average however for a human over 53 years old (-3 to str, dex and con in total when old).
But an Int 7 isn't 70 IQ. A Str 7 can still lift 5 stone (32KG) above their head, or walk indefinately with a 5 stone (32 KG) pack.
Its an interesting point about the HP of a commoner with a con 7 however. Average commoner 4 HP, -2 con would give them 2 HP. Bear in mind this is the average however for a human over 53 years old (-3 to str, dex and con in total when old).
NPC classes have average hp (2.5 for a commoner) -2 =.5 (minimum of 1).
The average human Int is 10, the average iq is 100.
I think that the number of languages is a rule based artifact, rather than something strongly linked to reality. If I told you there were three people you had never met in the next room and you needed to determine who had the highest intelligence, would you just ask them how many languages they knew? (This is in real life, not the pathfinder universe.)
How many languages you know also has a cultural influence. Many (most?) Americans only know English, but many people most of the rest of the first world know English, their local language and possible another language. Do you really think the average intelligence of Americans is 10, while in rest of the first world, it is 12-14?
Also, in most RPG's that have a concept of carrying capacity, how much you can carry is related to whatever stat they use for strength. I don't think the intelligence/extra languages link is nearly that strong.
Within a d20 system, even extreme differences in stats have fairly minor differences in your likelihood of succeeding at a specific task. Consider two character built identically, except one has a 20 in a stat while the other has a 7. If the better character succeeds 50% of the time, the poorer character will still succeed 15% of the time. If the better one succeeds 90% of the time, the poorer still succeeds 55% of the time.
The main difference between them will be qualifying for feats and prestige classes (if the stat is Strength, only one of them can Power Attack or Cleave) and when you can take 10 and succeed.
But an Int 7 isn't 70 IQ. A Str 7 can still lift 5 stone (32KG) above their head, or walk indefinately with a 5 stone (32 KG) pack.
Its an interesting point about the HP of a commoner with a con 7 however. Average commoner 4 HP, -2 con would give them 2 HP. Bear in mind this is the average however for a human over 53 years old (-3 to str, dex and con in total when old).
NPC classes have average hp (2.5 for a commoner) -2 =.5 (minimum of 1).
The average human Int is 10, the average iq is 100.
Commoner hd is d6 I think.
Average human IQ is 100, but, int 17 does not represent an IQ of 170 mainly because statistically it's a lot higher occurrence to have int 17 through rolls(3d6 based - if we presume all people generate int that way) than it is to have an IQ of 170 in actual human population. IQ in human population does not progress linearly.
But an Int 7 isn't 70 IQ. A Str 7 can still lift 5 stone (32KG) above their head, or walk indefinately with a 5 stone (32 KG) pack.
Its an interesting point about the HP of a commoner with a con 7 however. Average commoner 4 HP, -2 con would give them 2 HP. Bear in mind this is the average however for a human over 53 years old (-3 to str, dex and con in total when old).
NPC classes have average hp (2.5 for a commoner) -2 =.5 (minimum of 1).
The average human Int is 10, the average iq is 100.Commoner hd is d6 I think.
Average human IQ is 100, but, int 17 does not represent an IQ of 170 mainly because statistically it's a lot higher occurrence to have int 17 through rolls(3d6 based - if we presume all people generate int that way) than it is to have an IQ of 170 in actual human population. IQ in human population does not progress linearly.
Good point... and you are right about the commoner HD, still 1 hp for a 7 con, though.
I did a little research, the Highest IQ was 210 and the lowest IQ you can measure is a 20 (this would be a person with no ability to learn). So, if we say that the Highest "natural" int score is 21 (assuming 18 base, +2 human, cap at level 4 (see first post)) and the lowest is a 0 (as a character with a 3 int can learn)...
Stats are stats. For me, a stat represents directly the aspects of it that are relevant to the system. I'm not saying that you should neglect the stats for the role playing part tough since the "game relevant stats" are somewhat correlated to the role playing part.
If there were no borders downwards (CON or STR = 0 -> death), I could even imagine the stats to be unlimited downwards.
As for intelligence, it works well as a game stat but comparing intelligence as ONE stat to more objective stats like strength is not representing the real world so stop using real world arguments on it.
It's not a sound attribute for a medieval setting - imagine the brilliant, highly intelligent general who wins battle after battle who has no academic background at all, in skill terms about 4 with ranks in them. In a modern setting, different types of intelligence become more and more visible. (modern psychology has a great variety of discriminations between types of intelligence)
ad languages: in a fantasy/medieval setting, adding int mod languages makes some sense, especially if the heroes are supposed to come from towns on trade routes - there were no schools for commoners so as a child of a more wealthy family you had plenty time to learn languages from travellers. Especially because english wasn't the standard, one had to accomodate by learning various different languages.
(it's more strange that you can use a high int mod to boost skills like climb or perception)
ad IQ: please don't use the IQ when talking about intelligence. The IQ is defined as "ability to solve the IQ test" plus it's measured against the average - but the average intelligence of a modern state should be high above the intelligence of medieval times!
People with academic backgrounds are more used to the kind of exercises found in IQ tests, so a intelligent but more practic than academic man will suck (there was this one time they tested a highly regarded, highly intelligent shaman of some hidden tribe, well he performed really bad)
I would say that the simplest way of conceptualising it is on the 3d6 bell curve with the proviso that we're in a fantasy world where people can step off the bell curve in a big way. So, for Int, if you have an intelligence of 18 you're in approximately the top 0.5% of the population for humans (however you choose to measure intelligence - ye olde intelligence quotient test). (Languages is a poor measure of intelligence - go to the Netherlands, everyone speaks about four languages perfectly, go to the UK, you'll be lucky to find anyone who speaks two (actually, you might be lucky to find someone who speaks one fluently) - it's just a useful game mechanic).
Stat arrays for npcs seem to be intended to ensure npcs are fairly non-descript and have the 'right' stats for their role. If your gm is creating the village idiot or the Magister of the University of Petra s/he probably shouldn't use a stat array. There are people out there with stats below seven, it's just that using point-buy a pc isn't allowed to do so because otherwise a mini-maxer just would to the irritation of the non-mini-maxers.
I would say that a seven stat is 'low but functional'. I can't do the maths in my head, but I think you're probably talking about 15% of the 3d6 bell curve at 7 or below.
|
|
Thanks for your points :)
I take what Uldalrich said about languages as a poor comparison, I did think it was an interesting point however. I think IQ is likely to run off an average of int and wis. Wis adds to your profession skills, so technically you could be a master scribe with an int of 7, your knowledges would just be disadvantaged at -2.
I think as Cassia suggested, the bell curve argument is fairly strong, suggesting the 7 isn't that poor.
For physical stats, a 7 is average for most people over 53. There is a -1 to physical stats at middle age (35 for humans), and a cumulative -2 (for a total of -3) at old (53 for humans). This also suggests to me that a 7 isn't really that low.
It is difficult to bring things back in to real world, particularly for things like intelligence and charisma. In game terms the -2 reflects the skill areas that it has a real impact upon. Low intelligence? Your not very academic, you have problems with languages and following instructions (craft skills?). You can still hold down a profession that requires a high degree of mental ability if you have wisdom.
As has been pointed out in other threads, the 3d6 approach to ability scores is only applied to PCs and a few NPCs. The vast bulk of humanity in the fantasy realms we play in don't roll for their stats, if they have any stats at all, they come from a standard array, which would probably cap int with racial bonuses somewhere around 16. So intelligence of above 16 is so uncommon as to be statistically insignificant in dealing with the general population, so comparing int scores to IQ is simply pointless from a game mechanic perspective. Although there are some interesting parallels that you can draw from that comparison.
The issue of dumping stats is that some of us consider it to be effectively cheating to dump charisma and then buy skills to overcome the mechanical disadvantages of a minimum charisma score. Others consider it to be smart gaming. I really doubt there is any way to bridge that gap short of Paizo implementing attribute based limits to skills. Which I don't think would be a bad idea, and could apply to more than just the typical dump stats. I mean if someone has a strength of 5, I don't care how much he invests in the "climb" skill, he should suck at climbing just because he can't lift his own sorry ass up the tree. The same goes for charisma, if you have a charisma of 5 your diplomacy skill should probably max out too. It might be as simple as saying that your raw attribute score is the actual limit of skill points you can apply. If you have a charisma of 5, then your max diplomacy skill is 5. Even that may be too high.
Unless there is a mechanical rule written the arguments will never stop.
And you can put me down in the group that considers taking a minimum attribute score and then boosting skills in that area to overcome it as pure and simple munchkin cheating.
|
|
I think the skill cap is a good mechanic. If you have a low stat then there should be only so much you can do about it.
Cha 7 = max 7 points in say Diplomacy. If it were a class skill this would still give a skill of 8, but that would be your max.
The limits of point buy are mixed, its balanced but it will always encourage stat dump. In a 15 point standard fantasy game, you can have 3 stats at 14 the rest at 10. If you want to get to 18 with your racial mod, you need a 16 in the stat, only another 14 if you don't want to dump. This is perfectly viable, but if I take a 7 and a 9, or two 8's I can have the other 14 too.
When creating a point buy fighter, I wanted combat expertise, to get the 13 in intelligence required a cut somewhere. Dex is counter productive (less AC ever round to get a bouns when I reduce my attack score...) as is strength and constitution. Where should the points come from? My physical stats or one of my other mental stats?
The point buy makes creating characters interesting, but will encourage low stats. If you feel dumping stats is munchin cheating, then I can see why you would wish to punish it with additional limitations. However would you give people additional benefits for greater skill stats? High strength means its easier to initimidate? I wouldn't go that way, I also wouldn't grant extra penalties to those who have low stats. Just remind them of their limitations perhaps...
I disagree with brassbaboon for the exact reason he mentioned. I dont consider a 7 to be all that awful, considering a trained person in a skill that uses said stat would still have a net +2 at level 1. So, a 7 isnt that terrible, because with enough will and ability to learn, people can overcome vast and significant deficits.
I never said a "7" is all that awful.
In the other threads, the charisma in question that drove all the debate was a "3" not a"7".
A 7 is low enough that I would expect some significant role playing consequences, and some mechanical disadvantages, but it is a solidly playable stat.
A "3" is a joke.
|
.
Intelligence is another statistic with a defining feature. If you posses a high intelligence you should be able to speak multiple languages. I see a lot of people talking IQ, suggesting that intelligence x10 makes a good interpretation as 100 is average. An IQ of 50-70 suggest mild leraning disability. However is this really the case? Most people I know don't speak more than one language (I'm English...), which would place them in the 11 or less category. I have an IQ of between 125-130, but no second language so I would suggest in light of the Strength scores above, and the lack of second languages that the x10 IQ is not a realistic representation.
I would not use the number of languages know as an indication of intelligence.
I did know I guy with a certified Down syndrome, with a serious mental disability, that was "fluent" (as much as it was possible with his intelligence) in 2 very different languages, one was his native dialect from the village where he was born, a Slavic dialect, the other was Italian, the language of the nation were he was born.
As children we can learn new languages with ease, even people suffering for mental disabilities.
That said, the effect of the physical characteristic in D&D is linear while the mental characteristics follow a curve.
INT 3 allow a person to operate in society, albeit as the "village idiot" level. A guy with Int 3 is capable to live alone hunting and foraging, learn skills and not killing himself picking up a club.
He will be at the level of the above mentioned guy with the Down syndrome, noticeably less intelligent than the average guy, but still operative.
The problem are the player that pick 2, 3 stat at 7 (or even less after racial modifiers) but at the same time pretend to compensate all the negative effects with some diplomacy skill and the player intelligence.
Playing a 7 int character like he was the 13+ int player is what strain the system.
Similarly constantly using diplomacy to compensate for the low charisma is hardly credible. The guy that can keep up a charade for years isn't one with a low starting charisma. He is someone that already has a facility into influencing people.
|
|
Its also difficult when a player has a character with mental stats in the high teens or perhaps even a 20, when they aren't that clever. Most of us by definition will be average playing the game. It can be equally frustrating when the player with the slowest mental agility has the highest intelligence stat.
Charisma, Wisdom and Intelligence are at times very hard to play. As a GM you don't wiash to be constantly reminding players they are too stupid, abrupt etc, to do what they just did.
I played a dwarf with rolled stats, I put a 9 into charisma for a stat of 7. I had a high int and wisdom, 13 and 17 I believe. When we were making plans I would quietly state them, and if ignored wouldn't repeat them unless requested. I felt the character didn't have the charisma to shine among the other characters. The other players got frustrated with me being quiet at the table and found it hard to accept when I said I was roll-playing my charisma
Isnt that the GM's responsibility to call for Int checks and enforce the results? The same goes for high Int characters. I, as a person, have no concept of investigating, leads, or clues. Doesnt my herlock Holmes character get to make a roll?
Playing a 7 int character like he was the 13+ int player is what strain the system.
Actually, yes. In my games a high int character's player can say "I can't figure this out, but my character is much smarter than I am. What's the DC on this puzzle?"
And I'll roll it, after setting the DC. If the player makes the roll, they figure out the puzzle.
|
|
What about wisdom and making smart choices? When do you start influencing most of your PC actions.
"Bob, your character wouldn't do that, he has a wisdom of 12, but Joe, your barbarian would, he only has a wisdom of 7 so you should do it..."
"So who is the villian behind the plot? I have an Int of 23, I should be able to work this out..."
"The answer to the riddle is the moon."
"Shut up Bob, you only have an average Int, your character would never work that out..."
What if as the DM you aren't that clever... Again most of us will fall in the average bracket... Granted you have inside information, but playing NPC's with high or low stats can be equally difficult, if less problematic.
What about wisdom and making smart choices? When do you start influencing most of your PC actions.
"Bob, your character wouldn't do that, he has a wisdom of 12, but Joe, your barbarian would, he only has a wisdom of 7 so you should do it..."
"So who is the villian behind the plot? I have an Int of 23, I should be able to work this out..."
"The answer to the riddle is the moon."
"Shut up Bob, you only have an average Int, your character would never work that out..."What if as the DM you aren't that clever... Again most of us will fall in the average bracket... Granted you have inside information, but playing NPC's with high or low stats can be equally difficult, if less problematic.
When thinking about stat lows, I find it helpful to look into the GMG at The Village Idiot. TVI has an Int of 4 and is described as a physically functional character, but barely capable of handling himself as his primary income is through menial labor or by occasionally killing game with a sling. Optional changes in stat line discuss savantism, such as the Horse Whisperer version that trades a high Con over to Cha. The picture associated with TVI is that of a drooling idiot.
Most animals, including animal companions, have a 1 or 2 Int. Foot Soldiers and Cavalry (also from GMG) have an Int of 8. This would suggest that an 8 is not particularly crippling in terms of military service. Similarly, Cultists (from the Heretics section of the GMG) also have an 8, possessing Cleric levels.
In terms of how that comes across in PCs, YMMV. A character could easily show a low Int score through superstition, false understanding of concepts or misremembered things, the inability to lead and tendency to follow orders, adherence to dogma, or ineptitude.
A mental stat of 4 appears to be the lowest you will find in NPCs, and it signifies borderline non-function as a humanoid. None of the standard races allow for anything less than a 7, but you can take the Orc template from Bestiary (per the core book) to get down to a 5.
Charisma is a bit trickier, as it is supposed to be one's force of personality. A low Cha is indicative of a weak sense of self, poor social awareness, an inability to convey one's thoughts, fugliness, low self esteem, a lack of empathy, or similar. An NPC with a Cha of 4 would have trouble identifying "I" as a concept, or differentiating between oneself and one's desires. Dwarves can get as low as a 5 in player characters under point buy, but typically exhibit this through the fugly and lack of empathy. A college friend played a Barbarian at one point whose low Cha led him to do incredibly socially inept things constantly. A typical 7 Cha character might have difficulty conversing with others in general, or latch on to the group to create a sense of self.
Wisdom tends to be more about mental stability and physical awareness. The lowest PCs get a 7, which tends towards gullibility, mental imbalance, aloofness, and similar. NPCs with a 4 or 5 might not be able to understand that there is a difference between fantasy and reality or have a crippling mental disorder.
What about wisdom and making smart choices? When do you start influencing most of your PC actions.
"Bob, your character wouldn't do that, he has a wisdom of 12, but Joe, your barbarian would, he only has a wisdom of 7 so you should do it..."
"So who is the villian behind the plot? I have an Int of 23, I should be able to work this out..."
"The answer to the riddle is the moon."
"Shut up Bob, you only have an average Int, your character would never work that out..."What if as the DM you aren't that clever... Again most of us will fall in the average bracket... Granted you have inside information, but playing NPC's with high or low stats can be equally difficult, if less problematic.
As a GM if Bob had an int 10 character and kept solving extremely difficult puzzles, I'd have a discussion with him about the meaning of "role playing" and ask him to stop doing so in character.
This is one of the fundamental disagreements between play styles I see on the boards. I have pointed it out many times before.
Some GMs see "role playing" as a substitute for following the character's actual attributes and reward behavior that is counter to the character's concept, attributes and skills as "great role playing."
Some GMs see "role playing" as actually diligently attempting to have your character act according to their actual concept, stats, ability and skills, and reward behavior that is consistent with the character's concept, attributes and skills as "great role playing."
I fall into the second camp. I don't see the first camp as "bad wrong fun" but I do see it as a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "role playing."
|
|
Thanks for your thoughts. I think I'm of the general opinion now that 7, while a poor stat, is certainly not disabling, but should encourage roleplaying in a particular way. Thanks for your insight Serisan.
Roleplaying mental characteristics is often going to present a challenge, I agree that people should be rewarded for playing their stats, but not perhaps that they should be punished for not doing so (not that you suggested that brassbaboon).
Fortunately I've not had to GM a player with a 5 stat character yet. I'm sure the time will come, but I'll be a little better prepared following this thread :)
|
|
Heh, years upon years ago, I had a dwarf who actually had a Charisma of 4 (it was rolled). The whole party had fun playing with it. The GM allowed him to be a fighter-cleric, and he would go off on long, bash-your-head-against-the-wall boring stories about the dwarven gods. Regularly. He used to be a blacksmith, and took up the fight when his home was raided by orcs, and one of them cut off the majority of his nose, leaving him with a huge lump of scar tissue in the middle of his face. Furthermore, he had sworn an oath never to wash until every orc was dead.
The other players had fun, fun, fun with him. They heaped all the abuse they wanted to on him. Every time we came across a body of water, the other PCs threw him in. Somebody always came this close to trying to kill him in every adventure. Thankfully, he always proved steady and helpful enough that everyone was willing to keep him around. Even if they despised him.
I ignore stats for roleplay, keep you imagination off my mechanics (character) sheet.
Usually I act how I want my character to be portrayed and as long as my actions back up my words/attitude then my negative whatever to anything shouldn't play a part in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ignore stats for roleplay, keep you imagination off my mechanics (character) sheet.
Usually I act how I want my character to be portrayed and as long as my actions back up my words/attitude then my negative whatever to anything shouldn't play a part in it.
I most sincerely hope you are being ironic. Most sincerely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying can be done in any medium. From video games, to LEGO toys, to tabletop RPGs. Mechanics are a tool to assist roleplaying by expanding a world where the roleplaying can exist in a quantified environment. Mechanics did not create roleplaying, and roleplaying the mechanics seems like doing it backwards to me.
The mechanics exist to build the character that you envision in the world, not the other way around. I feel that building a character around a set of numbers might be an interesting exercise, but it's not something I would want to do very long. At that point, I'd go get my brother and play an adventure with LEGOs and flip a coin to resolve outcomes during the story (I'm 24 and he's 12, for the record).
Roleplaying is about getting into the mindset of a character that you create, and making choices, or experiencing the world from a different perspective. It's also, in our games, about having fun with your friends.
The mechanics are fairly vague in how much something means outside of the direct mechanical effect, and that's a good thing because it gives more room to create believable characters from a variety of backgrounds.
If X ability means Y, specifically, then there is instantly far less room for character creation as people fall into very specific categories. In my practical optimization thread, there were no less than 4 characters that had nearly identical ability scores (though different classes) that had vastly different personalities, and reasonings behind their strengths and weaknesses.
I can roleplay without mechanics, but the mechanics aid. If the mechanics cannot aid my roleplaying, then I don't want them. If I feel too much is being lost because the game becomes overly specific, then it's time to find a new game or whip out the LEGOs and old Spiderman action figures, or boot up Neverwinter Nights and play on a persistent world or something.
Roleplaying exists without the mechanics.
I most sincerely hope you are being ironic. Most sincerely.
Sorry to disappoint, if I want to play the leader/representative of a civilized-ish barbarian tribe (gotta keep the peace with the local town and all) I'm not going to put a 14 in CHA to do it. If I want to play a cleric with anger issues that does stupid things because of it he'll still have a WIS of 18.
I don't see why a sheet full of mechanical rules should have any effect on my options for roleplay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I most sincerely hope you are being ironic. Most sincerely.Sorry to disappoint, if I want to play the leader/representative of a civilized-ish barbarian tribe (gotta keep the peace with the local town and all) I'm not going to put a 14 in CHA to do it. If I want to play a cleric with anger issues that does stupid things because of it he'll still have a WIS of 18.
I don't see why a sheet full of mechanical rules should have any effect on my options for roleplay.
.... because those mechanical rules define the ROLE that you are supposed to PLAY.
But since this concept appears to be completely foreign to some people....
Have fun making your character be mechanically ideal for one purpose and then pretending he's something entirely different when you want to.
Good thing we don't play together...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get a 5 Strength score.
Trust me, you will notice it.
When you are a caster, having to count every pound becomes insane
I do it for this guy RIGHT Here, and ya know what? I love it. It makes it so much more challenging.
.... because those mechanical rules define the ROLE that you are supposed to PLAY.
But since this concept appears to be completely foreign to some people....
Have fun making your character be mechanically ideal for one purpose and then pretending he's something entirely different when you want to.
Good thing we don't play together...
Shown by that -2 you get. If the mechanics aren't proving your concept wrong then why worry about it.
Turns out my character will be effective at his chosen profession AND have an interesting personality.
Your character on the other hand can either act out the stats of an effective fighter (every time you roll one up) or you can be a hunk of dead weight because you wanted to be the scrawny guy with a big heart that wants to help the world and your crap 7 str reflects that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't need to see your posts Ashiel, I am well aware of your position on this issue. I respectfully completely disagree with your position pretty vigorously. I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
I know you don't agree. You've written the equivalent of a small novella on the subject.
I just don't buy your arguments.
I don't need to see your posts Ashiel, I am well aware of your position on this issue. I respectfully completely disagree with your position pretty vigorously. I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
I know you don't agree. You've written the equivalent of a small novella on the subject.
I just don't buy your arguments.
Well I disagree with your concept of stat playing, my role is a cleric, how I play that role has nothing to do with how good I am at being a cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am an avid LARPER. In my LARP we have skills but no real attributes. We roll play our characters the way we see fit, but our characters are limited in part by us. In Pathfinder, or any game that defines our characters mechanically, I feel it is "proper" to roleplay based off of your characters stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I disagree with your concept of stat playing, my role is a cleric, how I play that role has nothing to do with how good I am at being a cleric.
I don't need to see your posts Ashiel, I am well aware of your position on this issue. I respectfully completely disagree with your position pretty vigorously. I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
I know you don't agree. You've written the equivalent of a small novella on the subject.
I just don't buy your arguments.
My last word on the subject, because it is clear that this fundamental disagreement about the very definition of the game we are playing is a gap we will not bridge.
Your mechanics defines the abilities of your character. Your role is dependent on those abilities. When you play your character in accordance with the mechanical abilities you have defined for that character, you are "playing your role." When you ignore the mechanical aspects of your character to play your character in complete opposition to your character's concept, abilities and stats, you are no longer "role playing" you are "play acting".
Have fun. But as I said, I am just glad that I play with people who see this fundamental concept the way I do.
I would like to point out that while I feel that my way is "proper" and encourage others to follow suit, I don't hold others to the high standards that I hold myself.
I would like to point out that while I feel that my way is "proper" and encourage others to follow suit, I don't hold others to the high standards that I hold myself.
And I'd like to point out that boards like this are not individual disagreements, but opportunities to make a case for the hundreds of lurkers who read the boards and I will make a forceful case for my point of view for their benefit because I think their gaming will be richer for it. That's why I post on public boards, not to get Ashiel to agree with me, but to reach out to others who might at first think Ashiel is "right" but when presented with an alternative will see the other side and make their own decision.
I don't need to see your posts Ashiel, I am well aware of your position on this issue. I respectfully completely disagree with your position pretty vigorously. I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
I know you don't agree. You've written the equivalent of a small novella on the subject.
I just don't buy your arguments.
So basically, you don't need to see my post to know that it is wrong? Good logic there dude. Perhaps you could explain where the problem is, right here, please.
Roleplaying can be done in any medium. From video games, to LEGO toys, to tabletop RPGs. Mechanics are a tool to assist roleplaying by expanding a world where the roleplaying can exist in a quantified environment. Mechanics did not create roleplaying, and roleplaying the mechanics seems like doing it backwards to me.
The mechanics exist to build the character that you envision in the world, not the other way around. I feel that building a character around a set of numbers might be an interesting exercise, but it's not something I would want to do very long. At that point, I'd go get my brother and play an adventure with LEGOs and flip a coin to resolve outcomes during the story (I'm 24 and he's 12, for the record).
Roleplaying is about getting into the mindset of a character that you create, and making choices, or experiencing the world from a different perspective. It's also, in our games, about having fun with your friends.
The mechanics are fairly vague in how much something means outside of the direct mechanical effect, and that's a good thing because it gives more room to create believable characters from a variety of backgrounds.
If X ability means Y, specifically, then there is instantly far less room for character creation as people fall into very specific categories. In my practical optimization thread, there were no less than 4 characters that had nearly identical ability scores (though different classes) that had vastly different personalities, and reasonings behind their strengths and weaknesses.
I can roleplay without mechanics, but the mechanics aid. If the mechanics cannot aid my roleplaying, then I don't want them. If I feel too much is being lost because the game becomes overly specific, then it's time to find a new game or whip out the LEGOs and old Spiderman action figures, or boot up Neverwinter Nights and play on a persistent world or something.
Roleplaying exists without the mechanics.
I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
"If you don't think the way I do, you're not role playing" is pretty much the height of RPG messageboard arrogance.
Unless you've had your sense of shame surgically removed you probably owe Ashiel an apology.
I believe you are completely at odds with the very fundamental concept of "role playing."
"If you don't think the way I do, you're not role playing" is pretty much the height of RPG messageboard arrogance.
Unless you've had your sense of shame surgically removed you probably owe Ashiel an apology.
Think what you like.
So basically, you don't need to see my post to know that it is wrong? Good logic there dude.
No Ashiel, I did read them. I don't need to read them AGAIN. They aren't any more convincing no matter how much repetition you try to force on the readers.
No Ashiel, I did read them. I don't need to read them AGAIN. They aren't any more convincing no matter how much repetition you try to force on the readers.
So basically, you don't need to see my post to know that it is wrong? Good logic there dude.
So please explain the problem, right here, please.
Roleplaying can be done in any medium. From video games, to LEGO toys, to tabletop RPGs. Mechanics are a tool to assist roleplaying by expanding a world where the roleplaying can exist in a quantified environment. Mechanics did not create roleplaying, and roleplaying the mechanics seems like doing it backwards to me.
The mechanics exist to build the character that you envision in the world, not the other way around. I feel that building a character around a set of numbers might be an interesting exercise, but it's not something I would want to do very long. At that point, I'd go get my brother and play an adventure with LEGOs and flip a coin to resolve outcomes during the story (I'm 24 and he's 12, for the record).
Roleplaying is about getting into the mindset of a character that you create, and making choices, or experiencing the world from a different perspective. It's also, in our games, about having fun with your friends.
The mechanics are fairly vague in how much something means outside of the direct mechanical effect, and that's a good thing because it gives more room to create believable characters from a variety of backgrounds.
If X ability means Y, specifically, then there is instantly far less room for character creation as people fall into very specific categories. In my practical optimization thread, there were no less than 4 characters that had nearly identical ability scores (though different classes) that had vastly different personalities, and reasonings behind their strengths and weaknesses.
I can roleplay without mechanics, but the mechanics aid. If the mechanics cannot aid my roleplaying, then I don't want them. If I feel too much is being lost because the game becomes overly specific, then it's time to find a new game or whip out the LEGOs and old Spiderman action figures, or boot up Neverwinter Nights and play on a persistent world or something.
Roleplaying exists without the mechanics.
Please pick apart as you need to. Shoot holes in it. Whatever you like. But if you're going to provide a fair and balanced viewpoint as you suggested, please do so, right here.
Please pick apart as you need to. Shoot holes in it. Whatever you like. But if you're going to provide a fair and balanced viewpoint as you suggested, please do so, right here.
I have no need to "pick apart" the argument. The argument has a fundamental bias towards a definition of role playing that I disagree with, and that I think is diametrically opposed to the very concept of "role playing games."
I've made that clear. People who want to make their own decision have what they need. I clearly am not going to convince you or your allies. I don't care about that. I just want the people who might otherwise have said "Hey, someone on the boards said it was OK to...." to see someone challenge that concept so they can ask themselves "Hmmm... well, what IS the real definition of 'role playing?' Does it mean playing my character according to his/her actual abilities or playing my character however I like for the individual circumstances that I encounter?"
I am trusting that quite a few people will see it my way.
Some will see it yours too. But I simply hope more see it my way after seeing your assertions challenged.
That's all.
'nuff said on this.