I felt like adding this as it's own thread because it did not belong in the "Rolling Stats" thread at this point.
What do you folks think about your stats' function in role-playing?
I.E.
Character with a 6 CHA delivers an amazing speech.
Character with a 9 INT makes a pulley system that wedges open a sealed stone door.
Character with a STR of 8 stands around until he can hit a 20 to burst down that same door.
ETC...
I felt like adding this as it's own thread because it did not belong in the "Rolling Stats" thread at this point.
What do you folks think about your stats' function in role-playing?
I.E.
Character with a 6 CHA delivers an amazing speech.
Character with a 9 INT makes a pulley system that wedges open a sealed stone door.
Character with a STR of 8 stands around until he can hit a 20 to burst down that same door.
ETC...
Depending on how they roll, they may be able to either get to an "average" result at best.
In those situations, I'd add a bigger chance for the speech to critical fail, the pulley system to fall apart and possibly something snap in a way that hurts a random party member slightly, and a good chance the guy charging the door may pull a muscle.
Sorry but with below average stats on something, you have a chance to fail, a chance to fail hard, and a small chance to succeed. imho.
edit: Exception being skill checks. If someone maxes out and fully invests in a skill, even one that they have a poor stat for, they can reliably perform as well as other people. Especially at higher levels. A 4-6 point difference on a skill is a lot, but when your total roll is 26-30 before rolling, you can still pull off some awesome things.
In the situation where someone has no skill, and a crappy stat.. but still tries to roleplay it out to the best of the player's ability.. I don't mean to sound mean to the player bearing their heart.. but the player may be Shakespeare and their character may be slurring their speech and vomiting all over royalty.. Just sayin.
That depends first on how stats are picked. If the players get to choose stats, you as a DM should remind them to stat out the character as they intend to RP them. Aside from this, the stat represents just one aspect of the dice roll. A character with 9 INT can still have a +2 racial, +3 class, +3 from skill focus on craft or knowledge (engineering) . In cases where RP elements and rolls are combined, I recommend the roll is made, and the RP is done according to the roll. This is a player preference, and not something that is easily enforced as a rule at the table.
If the player delivers a legitimately well delivered speech in character, don't punish them for it, instead reward them with a circumstance bonus for incorporating RP and being able as a player to perform well where the character may not. (eg; I saw a DM give a huge bonus to a player's perform check when the player actually wrote a song and the roll was terrible)
I guess my point is: don't let the numbers dictate the character's capabilities and personalities more than the players do.
PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. YOU KNOW NOT WHAT YOU HAVE WROUGHT.
That depends first on how stats are picked. If the players get to choose stats, you as a DM should remind them to stat out the character as they intend to RP them. Aside from this, the stat represents just one aspect of the dice roll. A character with 9 INT can still have a +2 racial, +3 class, +3 from skill focus on craft or knowledge (engineering) . In cases where RP elements and rolls are combined, I recommend the roll is made, and the RP is done according to the roll. This is a player preference, and not something that is easily enforced as a rule at the table.
If the player delivers a legitimately well delivered speech in character, don't punish them for it, instead reward them with a circumstance bonus for incorporating RP and being able as a player to perform well where the character may not. (eg; I saw a DM give a huge bonus to a player's perform check when the player actually wrote a song and the roll was terrible)
I guess my point is: don't let the numbers dictate the character's capabilities and personalities more than the players do.
I'm def cool with circumstance bonuses to the roll based on roleplay of the player.. however I've seen some DM's take it out of proportion and on something that would normally be a 25-30 DC the player had an 8 charisma and 0 ranks in diplomacy.. they were playing a Dwarf and negotiating with an Elf.. yet somehow, they were granted a success without a roll. Imo, that's a bit overkill.
I also know players who specifically ignore diplomacy and other social skills because they know that they can back it up with roleplay. And imo that is not okay.
I guess my point is: don't let the numbers dictate the character's capabilities and personalities more than the players do.
If this was the case, then the bigger players should hit harder, correct?
RELEAZE ZE HOUNDZ!
I've seen some DM's take it out of proportion and on something that would normally be a 25-30 DC the player had an 8 charisma and 0 ranks in diplomacy.. they were playing a Dwarf and negotiating with an Elf.. yet somehow, they were granted a success without a roll. Imo, that's a bit overkill.
I also know players who specifically ignore diplomacy and other social skills because they know that they can back it up with roleplay. And imo that is not okay.
That thing he said
If you want to play the type of game where the numbers don't matter as much as the roleplay of the players, then use the campaign setting and toss character sheets and rolling aside. At that point it becomes more of an interactive story then a tabletop RPG. Sorry, but I think the numbers are important and there for a reason.
RELEAZE ZE HOUNDZ!
I see that the role-playing aspect is shyed away from, and often, but if you just want the numbers to make sense, there are video games that do the math for you.
If a player is unwilling to play by their personal numbers then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"
|
The way I handle it is I'll allow the Player to do their speech (or whatever), usually also involve a few skill checks as well, and though they may have given a great speech, their lack of Cha (or whatever) just doesn't carry over to the listeners. Maybe the character didn't realize that heir voice didn't carry, so no one heard half of what they said or they used terms they didn't know are offensive to the listeners. Maybe they fell back on that stutter without even realizing it.
Maybe they forgot one of the pieces to the pulley, and when they actually use it, it falls apart, embarrisingly.
But at the same time, it isn't something I direct at the player, but rather their character. Also, skills and other abilities might play a part. If that character with 8 Cha also maxes out Diplomacy/Bluff/Perform (oratory), well maybe they don't have a lot of natural talent, but they sure have studied to compensate.
I don't appriciate players trying to min/max around stats and trying to cheat the system via RPing, but I don't mind a little creative interpritation sometimes either. Sometimes the stats can mean different things. A low Cha doesn't mean that they are not charismatic, but might mean they have very low self estime, or a speech impediment, or are just socially unremarkable.
That thing he saidI've seen some DM's take it out of proportion and on something that would normally be a 25-30 DC the player had an 8 charisma and 0 ranks in diplomacy.. they were playing a Dwarf and negotiating with an Elf.. yet somehow, they were granted a success without a roll. Imo, that's a bit overkill.
I also know players who specifically ignore diplomacy and other social skills because they know that they can back it up with roleplay. And imo that is not okay.
Also, on the flip side of the coin I've seen DM's punish people that aren't too great at roleplay but still are into the game.. I've seen a guy with a 20 charisma, 16 ranks in diplomacy, skill focus diplomacy, and silver tongue.. attempt to quell a situation.. tried to take a 10 on the check, but the DM made him roleplay it out. He was willing to, and did.. but the result that was obtained was not too favorable and was not what the guy was looking to do. It was quite annoying to him.
He wondered why the guy fighter with 8 charisma and 0 ranks in diplomacy was able to be more diplomatic in scenes then he was. He almost quit the game several times.
I don't appriciate players trying to min/max around stats and trying to cheat the system via RPing, but I don't mind a little creative interpritation sometimes either. Sometimes the stats can mean different things. A low Cha doesn't mean that they are not charismatic, but might mean they have very low self estime, or a speech impediment, or are just socially unremarkable.
So, a high Strength doesn't mean that their strong?
If this was the case, then the bigger players should hit harder, correct?
Doesn't work so well for physical stats, but if a player wanted to juggle balls for me, I'd give him +5 to dexterity, yes I would.
personally, I demand rolls more readily if the player couldn't take 10 and succeed. The silver-tongued paladin doesn't need to roll diplomacy to give a grand speech, but the CHA 8 rogue without ranks might need to roll first to see how he does. this is an example where I'd take exception to what I said above; let the rolls guide the roles.
let the rolls guide the roles.
nice
No, in the spirit of anime, a 14 year old girl could have an 18 strength. The higher carrying capacity is a function of will power and the strike and damage bonus is due to force over time. She isn't strong as much as she is really, really fast and has a lot of commitment to her strikes - putting the damage over her tiny little knuckles. Strike and damage is pretty abstract, sense a 14 year old girl with no strength could kill any living man by stabbing him with a sword. Speed, accuracy, and an obsessive will power explain her bonuses - not muscle.So, a high Strength doesn't mean that their strong?
But carrying capacity, strike, speed, and accuracy are not abstact in this game. They are all strictly defined by numbers. Only Wisdom, Charisma, and Intelligence remain uncertain. Able to be tossed aside so long as no spell saves or extra slots are in question.
You start running into issues with "Letting the rolls guide the roles" in high level campaigns where it's not all 'uncommon' to see a roll of 50+, where by most people's standards is not possible to reach in any form of roleplaying. At least, not by anyone other then very experienced roleplayers, actors, and other professionals who are used to doing it.
Because no-one can RP stats over 16, I don't penalize those with stats under 10.
Funny how this stuff irrevocably seems to go one way and not the other.
And most stuff is covered by a skill. If you are worried about "cheating" RP, ask them to roll the damned skill (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Perform: Oratory etc) and RP to reflect what they rolled.
Better than what keeps happening to me, where I deliver some awesome in-character angle, only to roll a 1 on the d20, and have it all invalidated.
As for strength 8 flinging his body against the door until he gets a 20 to break down something with DC19: So what? A str 22 needs to do the same to break a DC26 door. Only a difference of numbers.
As for strength 8 flinging his body against the door until he gets a 20 to break down something with DC19: So what? A str 22 needs to do the same to break a DC26 door. Only a difference of numbers.
Wouldn't he hurt himself?
Because no-one can RP stats over 16, I don't penalize those with stats under 10.
Funny how this stuff irrevocably seems to go one way and not the other.
And most stuff is covered by a skill. If you are worried about "cheating" RP, ask them to roll the damned skill (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Perform: Oratory etc) and RP to reflect what they rolled.
Better than what keeps happening to me, where I deliver some awesome in-character angle, only to roll a 1 on the d20, and have it all invalidated.
As for strength 8 flinging his body against the door until he gets a 20 to break down something with DC19: So what? A str 22 needs to do the same to break a DC26 door. Only a difference of numbers.
Situations like this, you apply a circumstance bonus based on creativity and execution.. and in most cases you can take a 10, if you'd succeed then I wouldn't even have you roll.. If you are close but don't make it, I'd have you roll and if you rolled under 10 i'd let you stick with whatever the result of 10 was. Just my opinion anyway.
Wouldn't he hurt himself?
As for strength 8 flinging his body against the door until he gets a 20 to break down something with DC19: So what? A str 22 needs to do the same to break a DC26 door. Only a difference of numbers.
A good makeshift mechanic I'd use in situations where I see people getting stubborn like that, is if they're using their full strength to attempt to break it down.. for each point that they fail the check up to the hardness of the door, I'd cause to them in non-lethal damage.. :P
edit: Of course, I'd only use it when someone was obviously cheesing the system, and in a low level campaign obviously tone it down a little bit to not make it immediately lethal.
edit edit: Another optional mechanic for people using stuff like Crowbars/Battering Rams.. use the objects hardness as DR when resisting damage from the door. If you use a battering ram to batter down an adamantine door, it's possible that you may end up destroying your tools after too many failed attempts.
Wouldn't he hurt himself?
No more than would the STR 22 fighter taking 20 at the more difficult door. I suppose injuring yourself doing straining activities is more of a CON thing. I usually house rule that taking 20 like that leaves you fatigued for a few minutes. It seems to be an overlooked mechanic. (or one intentionally left out. )
If a player is unwilling to play by their personal numbers then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"Wait, so there IS a 'right' way to play the game now?
No, there is a standardized way to play the game, if you want to do something other then the agreed upon standard then it should be discussed and agreed upon by the gaming group before the campaign.
In my situation I'm good with numbers, good with mechanics and rules, but I'm sorely average when it comes to roleplay and personal charm. If I was gaming with someone who was going to shakespeare to get through all diplomatic situations, yet was going to invest 0 points into diplomacy.. why should I bother investing into it if I know he is going to be able to get us through all the situations reliably and I'll just end up getting frustrated failing because I can't hit some theoretical DC because my roleplay isn't "good enough".
Wouldn't he hurt himself?No more than would the STR 22 fighter taking 20 at the more difficult door. I suppose injuring yourself doing straining activities is more of a CON thing. I usually house rule that taking 20 like that leaves you fatigued for a few minutes. It seems to be an overlooked mechanic. (or one intentionally left out. )
Is it even possible to take a 20 on a check where failure is a possibility? Taking 10.. sure, that's just taking the average result.. but taking 20 is a much more "incredible" thing.
If a player is unwilling to play by their personal numbers then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"Wait, so there IS a 'right' way to play the game now?
Nahhhhhh....
Don't get me wrong. But you wouldn't go all javelin crazy with a DEX of 7 would you?
So why would you go all talk crazy with a CHA of 8?
I'm just saying that we inherently stick to that which we are best at. But since social, intuintive, and mechanical issues in an RPG rarely cause us numerical strife, we tend to overlook our shortcomings.
Just seems unbalanced to me.
|
No, there is a standardized way to play the game, if you want to do something other then the agreed upon standard then it should be discussed and agreed upon by the gaming group before the campaign.
Oh, so that should have read like this?
If a player is unwilling to play by my view of the game then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"
Oh, so that should have read like this?
If a player is unwilling to play by my view of the game then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"
So...Javelins should be thrown by good role-playing?
Oh, so that should have read like this?
If a player is unwilling to play by my view of the game then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"
TriOmegaZero.. seriously from the posts I've read of yours, you know better then this. If you have a DM that will let you do things, or if you are the DM and you want to run it differently.. then do whatever is fun for you and your group. That's what the game is about, having fun.
If you start to get into standards then yes. There are standard ways to play. If there weren't then there wouldn't be rule books and mechanics. The DM always has the ability to add in or ignore whatever they want to.
There are lots of people who don't have the natural ability to do something, but enjoy it anyways and pursue it despite their inability. I have a friend who loves playing chess even though I beat him every time.
" going javelin crazy" is not really clear. are you talking about one well placed shot, or specializing in and claiming talent in something where none exists.
In situations where a low stat char attempts a challenging task for them, its alright to let roleplaying give a circumstantial bonus. BUT in situations where a characters wants to constantly up their rolls without spending the in-game costs, you have to knock them down a peg and make them pay if they want consistent success. we are dealing with heroes and magic here. Great stories are built around protagonists overcoming their shortfalls when they need to most. that doesn't mean that they become masters of that domain, unless they invest further into it.
There are so many social and RP feats seemingly slapped into this game.
Why isn't eveyone just playing 4th ED.?
Probably because of the role-playing...
So...Javelins should be thrown by good role-playing?Oh, so that should have read like this?
If a player is unwilling to play by my view of the game then "why not just lay in bed and think up awesome things?"
Dex 7: -2
BAB: Up to 20Feats: Up to +2
Weapon Training: Up to +6 with the APG gloves
Morale bonus: Up to +6
Haste Bonus: +1
Fervor: +2
Magic javelins: Up to +5
And if you are playing with 3.5 splat, you can take a feat to use strength instead of dexterity.
No hard to be "good" with them. Not gonna be optimal, but there are mitigating factors. This is why I rule hard and final that social skills can be applied to ALL aspects of interaction, as there is otherwise no mitigation to be had. And if someone has an idea that seems far too complex to come across without any manner of education (pulley system above) I ask said player to roll a Knowledge check(engineering in this case).
If you feel like your players are abusing the game, there is a rule I like to apply: "I wear the GM hat, your argument is invalid."
|
What do you folks think about your stats' function in role-playing?
I think by stats, you mean abilities. Stats include all sorts of things including abilities, skills, hit points, etc.
Once upon a time, the abilities basically defined the capabilities of the character. A character with high strength was good at all things that needed strength. A character with high charisma was good at all things that were based on charisma. Then we got a system where the basic doing of things were defined by skills, not abilities. Under the skills system, the abilities give a character a tendency toward being better in some areas, but the math works out so that the skill ranks drive the capabilities and abilities are gravy.
I have a relative who was a horrid student as a child. Low grades. Low aptitude. After high school, he spent five years at a junior college. He started with math classes covering material usually covered in elementary school. A lot of this time was covering material that was basically learning material that a stronger student learned in junior high and high school. He went on to university, got a degree in applied mathematics, and has spent the last 20 years as a programmer and consultant working with mainframes. I have tremendous respect for him.
Viewed as a child or teen, his intelligence score wouldn't have been high in game terms. As an adult, I wouldn't say he has a keen intellect. He is also very good at an occupation that is highly dependent on analytical skill, a hallmark of intelligence to the traditional western view.
Were I to model him in game terms, he might have a lowish initial score in intelligence, leveled as an expert, put his level bumps into intelligence, and put his skill ranks and feats into skills associated with his chosen occupation. Talk to him today and he knows his stuff in his chosen field, but is by no means broadly read. His choice of how he spends his time are not the geekish things that many of us who like geekish things would spend our time with.
I guess the point is that there are many ways to skin the proverbial cat. But, just because someone knows how to skin a cat doesn't necessarily mean that they know how to skin a bear, nor make a freakishly weird cat-skin hat.
Disclaimer: I love cats. No cats were harmed in the writing of this musing.
"I wear the GM hat, your argument is invalid."
Unfortunately my players balk at unreasonable rules, such as the universe failing in consistency.
That stuff I said
Semantics...
What do you folks think about your stats' function in role-playing?Stuff
My point had more relevance to roleplay games then to a real life scenario. To compare it to your situation, lets place the friend of yours that you were talking about into a character sheet format. Instead of actually raising his intelligence, and his skills in mathematics/computers, and the feats that help his profession.. Lets say that the player of said character has some computer knowledge and a perpensity for roleplaying.
Do you think that the player should be able to play his way from level 1-20, in the same progression as your friend, and end up at the same place in the same situation, without ever raising intelligence, computer or mathematic skills, and getting the profession related feats?
Because the issue that I have, is that some of the DM's I'm used to are doing just that. :P
Sorry that's all you got out of it. Not sure there's much room for discussion here. Good gaming!
I like you.
Not that you care, but your anecdote is great, unjadedly inspiring, and well composed.
But it doesn't absolve players who stint their stats for better power attacks.
Bed.
"I wear the GM hat, your argument is invalid."Unfortunately my players balk at unreasonable rules, such as the universe failing in consistency.
You ARE aware of the fact that we are discussing Pathfinder here, right? A heroic fantasy game where flying elves are fighting fire-breathing dragons?
Edit: Also, it is d20. Make a bard with cha 20, and stick a rank in diplomacy (+9 total at lv1), and you STILL have a chance to offend the average barmaid on a 1 and get a drink to the face. How is that consistent? You are by the virtue of your base stat the most charismatic guy in a 100 mile radius. She should be clawing her way through all the other women in town to be graced with the blessing of getting even a "Hello" from you.
And how is it inconsistent to overcome ones lack of base talent? If I train hard at something I am currently quite bad, and over time become good at it, how is that inconsistent?
I am beginning to feel trolled for even replying constructively here, what with the disregard of entire posts.
But it doesn't absolve players who stint their stats for better power attacks.
Oh, so you are just butthurt that optimization works, and wish to punish them for being good at their role. Good to know.
Low Str: Cannot fight well. No effect on a dedicated caster beyond the first few levels where CMD is relevant.
Low Dex: Lots of effects on most everyone. That is why it is hardly ever dumped.
Con: Your staying alive score. Obviously never dumped.
Int: Skill points and skills for non-casters. Don't feel like you need lots of skills? Dump away.
Wis: Most used skill in the game (Perception) and will save. Even non-divine casters should think twice about dumping it.
Cha: Sweet for spontaneous casters, clerics and paladins, as irrelevant for a blunt force character as strength is for a wizard. Does nothing but add to social skills.
And that's all fine. In a game that is 80% about killing stuff, getting to and from the places where you kill stuff, and so forth, the social aspect is obviously shirked.
@ sloppycrane: I see you're playing devil's advocate here.
@Howie23: I have to agree and I really enjoyed your example. Ability scores are only a very limited part of what the character is. To answer the broader question of this thread; I think that roleplaying should be used in integration with the statistics of the characters. If you want a character who has a silver tongue, give him the silver-tongued feat. If you need your character to dance a tango despite his two left feet, the player needs some dancing shoes for a circumstance bonus or the dice needs a nice big number to reflect the needed success. Priority should always go to: a) the positive and fun experience of all members
b) The telling of an engaging and interesting story.
If a low stat doesn't jive with an RP aspect, then change it. you can change the stat, or you can change the RP. It can be just as entertaining to perform the natural 1 diplomacy as it can be to revel in the natural 20.
And you wonder why I mock your thread?
I never wondered.
But I'm wondering now.
@ sloppycrane: I see you're playing devil's advocate here.
@Howie23: I have to agree and I really enjoyed your example. Ability scores are only a very limited part of what the character is. To answer the broader question of this thread; I think that roleplaying should be used in integration with the statistics of the characters. If you want a character who has a silver tongue, give him the silver-tongued feat. If you need your character to dance a tango despite his two left feet, the player needs some dancing shoes for a circumstance bonus or the dice needs a nice big number to reflect the needed success. Priority should always go to: a) the positive and fun experience of all members
b) The telling of an engaging and interesting story.If a low stat doesn't jive with an RP aspect, then change it. you can change the stat, or you can change the RP. It can be just as entertaining to perform the natural 1 diplomacy as it can be to revel in the natural 20.
The original point of this thread was not to complain about people who had high stats, it was also not about punishing those with low stats. It was to acknowledge the skills, feats, stats, and overall mechanics of a particular character.
The issue that I and Sloppycrane had was that there are players who bypass every mechanic and stat and simply want to accomplish stuff out of roleplay and roleplay alone. An example I gave earlier, was in a game with a 16th level Wizard, the Wizard with 8 charisma, and 0 ranks in diplomacy, without magical assistance.. would frequently and successfully roleplay a highly diplomatic character. The 16th level bard in the group, who specialized in diplomacy and had a pretty high check in it, but was not as skilled in roleplaying.. frequently failed at his attempts for diplomacy in similar situations.
I'm sorry, but in no way should that ever be possible in my opinion.
On one hand you have a Wizard with a net -2 to diplomacy, on the other a bard with a net +34 in diplomacy.. the only difference between the two is the one is better at diplomacy through roleplay then the other. The one with the 36 higher points in diplomacy should ALWAYS do better then the other.
I'm sorry, but I can't disagree with my point there.
"I wear the GM hat, your argument is invalid."first few levels where CMD is relevant.
Low Dex: Lots of effects on most everyone. That is why it is hardly ever dumped.
Con: Your staying alive score. Obviously never dumped.
Int: Skill points and skills for non-casters. Don't feel like you need lots of skills? Dump away.
Wis: Most used skill in the game (Perception) and will save. Even non-divine casters should think twice about dumping it.
Cha: Sweet for spontaneous casters, clerics and paladins, as irrelevant for a blunt force character as strength is for a wizard. Does nothing but add to social skills.
And that's all fine. In a game that is 80% about killing stuff, getting to and from the places where you kill stuff, and so forth, the social aspect is obviously shirked.
There's the problem.
Responding to the original question:
I handle it all mostly this way:
- Dealing with Intelligence: The characters in the game have their intelligence. If it's high, they get the primary benefit of more skill points. If it's low, they get less skill points. I separate the players' knowledge from the character - I let my smarter players benefit from their own personal intelligence. So, the 7 INT fighter could make the pulley system in my game.
- Dealing with Wisdom: Every character benefits from not dumping wisdom due to will saves, but also perception checks and other certain on-the-fly checks I may need from time to time. I think this penalty is enough, and I haven't seen a situation where a player's wisdom was so intuitive that the character couldn't have figured it out, too.
- Dealing with Charisma: So the 6 CHA wizard makes the big speech, because the player has a thing for such things. Awesome. Roll Diplomacy. Oops! -2 modifier. No ranks? Too bad. Charisma is everyone's dump stat 90% of the time - really, only 3 core classes need it (Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer), and few others benefit from a decent score (Cleric, Druid, Rouge), and most martial classes (the type most played, in my experience) don't get any benefit, save the Paladin. So I don't give handouts for Charisma.
I'm not really sure how to sum things up, or provide a general "idea" for my thread. Basically, I don't penalize character's intelligence, Wisdom has been a non-factor, and charisma is poor enough without me mucking it up more by giving bonuses because you can talk well.
EDIT: Gloom, you are 100% right. That's simply...different DMing than I would allow. RP should be used, at it's most extreme, as a minor benefit from exceptional performances. To let that happen is simply robbing the character of what he wants to do the most - talk.