This is on something I've noticed over the years in gaming, and how I overcame it recently as the DM.
Ability scores, they shape what our characters are good at. Almost everyone wants them to go higher and like xp, they can be a matter of dispute and argument, but mostly one-upmanship. See it often seems to me, that players feel this great need to really have high scores, to be the absolute best they can be at a variety of attributes for their level. Exceptionalism, whatever you want to call it.
Now I like some high ability scores too, but when players get there, when they are 20 at level 1, 24-26 at level 9, they are often dicks about it. Asking and comparing with other players, "what is your dex?", "I have a thirty int, what's yours?". Players have complained to me about this, and as the one-uppers go ahead with this, they take away from game time, take away from playing as their character and accomplishing other things.
I have no problem if Carl playing Carolingus the barbarian says, "I am mighty, my strength is unrivalled" after killing a dire creature. What I don't like is if Carl (not a real player) says to another player, my character's strength is 22, what is yours?"
Holy shattering verisimilitude batman!
So a focus on ability scores and on them being as high as possible can turn dnd into the spread sheet you play, not a game you are a part of (you stare at that character sheet a lot, and put all your focus into making sure those stats are truly high). That is what I want to avoid.
Speaking of focus, another way ability scores get in the way of the larger game is crafting characters that become obsessed with raising them higher, via items. Abilities scores in dnd are not very fluid so they go out to get the money and materials to beef them up and up. The true purpose of ability score focused players is making sure that prime state (and the next important one, and the next and the next) is well on the way to the 30s. It is so wroughty it annoys me a great deal.
Those that don't go this way, I've seen sigh as they wait for the crafter to get their shit together, submit their crafting/shopping list to the dm, who then looks it over, and then sighs because the crafter has taken a few feats and can now make themselves into megaman.
Diablo-like fixation with gear can swallow whole game sessions. Crafters will often play the most selfish of characters, characters will be highly similar with the same intentions, and their wealth is not really spent on the world, to donations, or other projects except crafting. Crafting is a cruel but rewarding mistress, and their wealth flows in thick streams to get the "bonuses". Helping and interacting with npcs, rebuilding something damaged, starting a guild? Crafting comes first.
So those are a few of my problems related to ability scores in game. I got round them by shaking things up a bit, and making some changes. Here are the changes:
Ability scores are fluid.
You roll your stats yes, but what you do in game can change them for good or ill. Ability scores become more dependent on role-playing, not roll-playing. So if you are physically weak but really fight hard, those physical stats will go up. If you are a high charisma spellcaster who treats people like shit, your charisma will go down. How easy it is to improve an ability point is determined by the focus of the player in game, and how high the stat is. A truly high strength can be very hard to improve, but it can happen with enough fighting, lifting, labour and a non-deficient diet. This isn't temporary, they change for real; but they can also change back and go down. Long periods of inactivity or imprisonment can really lower many of them.
3d6 ability score generation. 1s do count.
Yes, I went back to the old means of generating the core abilities. Players start with strengths and weaknesses. It is my belief that it is essential for characters to have some weaknesses, nothing is more boring than a 16 stat average character with three 18+s. They are hollow stat blocks. Now as the first point stated, stats are fluid. So as the players strive they rise in abilities quicker. Those that make really high rolls, rise slower.
1 extra ability point every 4 levels.
Yeah I stuck with that, keep customisability options in the hand of the player. If they are at a rut, where it is difficult to beef a stat in game, get the levels and they proceed.
No magic item shops.
They make games boring, they waste my time with more accounting, I'm not a fan. Completely avoids the situation of players asking me, "are there boots of speed and a circlet of intellect +4 available?". Go out and find them "hero", earn it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you make some interesting points there, you really do, but I can see several potential problems there.
First of all, 3d6 stats, counting 1s represents the equal of a commoner. That means that the average PC is nothing more than an average guy who learned to do some difficult things (represented by his heroic class). That might be a problem because heroes are supposed to be better than normal people. Players are happier and adventure stories are better when the protagonists are stronger, faster, better. It won't help that the game is designed on the assumption that stats are much higher than they would be under that system, either.
3d6 is also a phenomenally harsh system of generating those 6 most important stats. Players who try to maximise their intelligence do it because they like playing characters with high intelligence. If they roll nothing above a 13, they'll be deeply unhappy. You'll also have an even less equal party, which will certainly lead to even more stat-related bragging if your power gamer wizard rolls an 18 and the rest of the party are below average.
Making scores fluid is an interesting idea, but your method of managing it seems tyrannical.
If you don't think the way someone's playing their sorcerer is appropriate, you'll reduce the most important number on their sheet, weakening their character significantly. There is no clearly defined rule about what constitutes "too mean" or "too gruff" or whatever to have high charisma, because there can't be. It will always be a matter of opinion, specifically, yours. And that's terrible.
What you're doing by holding that threat of reduced charisma over sorcerers is telling them how they must role-play, which is pretty much doing their role-playing for them. What you're going to get is players saying "May I be rude to this guy?". It doesn't even makes sense to base Charisma on how well you treat others. You have it confused with diplomacy. Charisma is the ability score for intimate too, after all.
The same applies to all other scores, but in slightly different ways. Apparently, a rogue has to "fight hard" to get stronger. You're pretty much telling people how to fight there, which means your deciding what kind of tactics everyone should use too.
How does one get more intelligent in this system? By declaring "I read 100 books"? By solving your puzzles using the player's real intelligence? Both of these seem to completely miss the point in what you're trying to achieve, but I can't imagine how else it could work.
No magic item shops could work. I'm sure that for many people it does. The real problem though, is that when it comes to magic items, boring is better and optimisation is reasonably easy but quite time consuming. You won't really solve the problem by choosing the player's magic items for them, especially if you let them sell those items, since they'll just spend the money on crafting what they actually wanted. If you don't let them sell, congratulations, you've just completely taken over another important aspect of character growth. The fact that you think collecting enough money to pay for something isn't the same as earning it does little to endear you to me. There are guidelines in the rules for how likely they are to have those items in town. While those aren't rules and it's fine to alter them, "I don't think you deserve it" is a terrible reason to deny them that chance.
Overall, you see to have lowered the score average because your players players like high scores too much, upped the luck factor in score generation because you dislike the decisions your players are making, taken a lot of character control away from the players to no recognisable benefit to anybody and taken away any significant control over character equipment, because some of your players were taking too long and then bragging about the results.
You may have a point about item stores, but the rest looks nothing short of aggressive to me. It's like you've looked at your Pathfinder games, cried "This is why we can't have nice things!" and put yourself in charge of the party to make sure nobody acts up or does something you wouldn't. I'm not convinced you've thought this through.
Better solutions might be:
Use point buy and insist on everyone having a low score or two, or possibly limit the number of high scores they can have. I still think that's enforcing your personal tastes on the party, but it achieves your goal without taking away anything else significant.
Make crafting cost 70% of the item's base price. This lets people use limited magic item shops, like the ones the core book assumes, and sell their gear without turning the game into a free-for-all. It means the players can make whatever they want, given signification downtime, but not without real monetary cost. When they find a helm of speak with frogs or whatever crazy thing you want to give them, they still get to decide what to do with it, but they won't be so quick to swap it for things they make themselves, because those things will be less valuable.
Make character sheets secret. Maybe tell the group, right at the beginning, that somebody is not what they seem. That they cannot see each others sheets because somebody has a horrible secret and they aren't allowed to prove themselves innocent or other's guilty until it comes out in play. Maybe just say "I'm fed up with all this penis-size comparison, so your sheets are now secret information. Make use of this new tool to surprise the hell out of the others."
|
Use point buy and insist on everyone having a low score or two
It's like saying "play a fighter who doesn't cast spells". Point-buy always give you one or two low scores, except in the exceptional case someone with low common sense or expectations tries to play with 14 as it's higher stat. ;)
20-point buy is really nice. And if anyone wants to play at who has the bigger one, remember them their achievements. You may have 24 strength and your pal 23, if he killed more foes and did an awesome stand holding rocks or falling roof for the group, well, he's more impressive than you, period. Our group likes to play this game of "who's better", but it never goes long since everyone acknowledges and respects each other's achievements and roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for your response.
3d6 still gets some high stats. Out of the party of five, two have had really nice rolls, and started with the type of stats as if they rolled 4d6. This got balanced by them not moving so much, and the others are gaining. If they are a terrible bundle, yeah they can roll again. I like the idea of heroes, especially at the start of their careers, being good, but not the best straight up on the ability scores, even perhaps their primary scores (how many level 1 rogues really would have 18 dex?).
Putting it another way, Achilles at level 1 probably shouldn't have three 18s. He can become better as he levels, he should do so. It feels more intuitive, more realistic. You are as good as you are. If someone doesn't use an ability score for a while, it goes down (I gave the charisma example).
"Players are happier and adventure stories are better when the protagonists are stronger, faster, better."
High stats can make them happy, but it's a nervous, fixation type of happy. Got to be the best, got to get it higher. By making things a little more average, true exceptionalism shines more. The high con fighter is really tough, the high strength gnoll seems even more monstrous. They don't seem bland beside a wizard with the fighter's con, and a ranger sitting on almost the gnoll's strength, with a host of other abilities he is just great at.
"Making scores fluid is an interesting idea, but your method of managing it seems tyrannical."
Don't be too quick to assume I am a tyrant. In the alterations I've put together the player chooses what they excel in ability wise. If they really emphasise beefing strength and con (fighting, rarely resting, saving against diseases, training, always moving, sleeping in harsh climates), and haven't had a boost in a while, a simple moment of persuasion and bringing up what they have done will get a boost.
"If you don't think the way someone's playing their sorcerer is appropriate, you'll reduce the most important number on their sheet, weakening their character significantly. There is no clearly defined rule about what constitutes "too mean" or "too gruff" or whatever to have high charisma, because there can't be. It will always be a matter of opinion, specifically, yours. And that's terrible."
It's a role-playing game, and I am sick and tired of people having high mental stat characters and not thinking. High charisma, but never using diplomacy or intimidate because they didn't take those--they just have the stat for the spell bonus.
Movement either way is very steady, I don't drop ten off and call it a day. One party member, a marshal is really close to losing a point of charisma, the first loss; mostly there have been gains, and I'll tell you why:
1) Not being an effective leader.
2) Barely talking to pcs. Not coordinating plans with the other pcs and relevant npcs.
3) Talking to npcs, but faffing about and being indecisive.
4) Assuming he will be followed and aided, but he didn't talk to the pcs.
5) Failing at diplomacy checks towards npcs (yeah I was surprised at this one, marshals get +3).
6) Playing a silent and moody character, which is quintessentially uncharismatic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Continuing on...
A high charisma person isn't just skilled at diplomacy, or etiquette, or getting on with people. You could pull it off being a really threatening con-man intimidator, or a charming bluffing rogue. But if you ain't any of these, and your stat is high, errrr, how does that make sense?
Role-play better or face a CHARISMA PILE-DRIVER! :D
"Apparently, a rogue has to "fight hard" to get stronger. You're pretty much telling people how to fight there, which means your deciding what kind of tactics everyone should use too."
Well if a rogue sat on his arse and was truly lazy for a really long period, their dex or con shouldn't certainly improve. If they are smoking opium pipes all day that isn't good for their lungs. And even if they lose a tiny bit of some of these stats, they can still cut it up and go sneak, I'm just making small alterations.
"How does one get more intelligent in this system? By declaring "I read 100 books"?"
Well yes, if you had a 22 int character, and he never read books anymore or no new tomes, or discussed learning with people, how does it make sense for the stats to rise? Perhaps they should fall is my thought.
"optimisation is reasonably easy but quite time consuming."
By Lamashtu it sure is. Makes you want to tear your eyes out.
"When they find a helm of speak with frogs or whatever crazy thing you want to give them, they still get to decide what to do with it, but they won't be so quick to swap it for things they make themselves, because those things will be less valuable."
... That's genius! Yes the helm of speak with frogs is going into the game. I have actually been throwing in some small magic items, huge amount of flavour. They scouted far and wide and then almost killed themselves with two anti-grav potions (point where you want to go).
"You may have 24 strength and your pal 23, if he killed more foes and did an awesome stand holding rocks or falling roof for the group, well, he's more impressive than you, period."
I entirely agree. He is now 24 (if there were a lot of foes and those rocks were really big) ;)
"tell the PCs they get to choose, say, two stats where they roll 4d6 and discard the lowest. You still leave a fair chance of some bad stats, but allow their strong points to roam around the 15-16 range for most rolls.
That said - I too find it difficult to like a PC who's got 13 as his lowest stat. At least point-buy, much as I dislike it, gets rid of that problem."
That's actually a really good suggestion Lincoln. Agree on the 13 lowest. I've seen it worse. I've seen a 14 as the lowest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3d6 for ability scores is the lowest average for ability scores but why would a hero or group of heroes start with a set of scores significantly better than commoners? It is a question I have pondered over for several years. Do all player characters automatically get the "destined for greatness" sorcerer bloodline the moment they're born? Even assuming they were, as ridiculous as a stretch it may be, I hardly think that Subotai had an average physical ability score of 17 the moment he came into existence. Characters are meant to be more powerful based the number of levels they have attained and not because they have half-god stats of 18s and 20s all over the place at level 1.
As a player in 3.5 loyalist's game, I have to say it adds a bit of flavour to the campaign. Ability scores which are fluid is a an interesting concept. It is very much a survivability game. I play a bard who is by far the weakest in damage dealing potential. The thing was he copped so much damage over the last couple of sessions that it toughened him up. Yes, the con went up a point from 8 to 9. The character uses perform and diplomacy alot to try to entertain the crowd. Since its a neutral good naive farmboy concept I'm playing. His charisma is 20 just the previous session from hitting level 8. Frankly speaking, I'm somewhat having trouble trying to role play the 20 charisma. However, that is what somewhat with such a high charisma would expect to behave. Regardless of whether he's a charismatic or intimidating, saying he has an 18+ charisma but only uses it for primarily spellcasting is laughable. Roll-playng not role-playing.
I saw examples of this in a dread necromancer character who made no diplomacy or perform or any skill checks which rely on charisma. Very silent, moody and despite being chaotic good decided to try and kill the entire city. CG indeed! I digress. The other example I saw was a warlock with at least a +5 modifier to charisma. The interesting thing was despite having that and a high diplomacy modifier, he proceeded to indirectly insult the entire party by proclaiming himself as mysteriously powerful and potentially the most lethal. I was playing vow of poverty ninja who proceeded to ponder afew possibilities:
1) the poor fellow is completely smashed
2)the poor fellow is high
3)poor fellow is drunk and high
4)poor fellow needs to do alot of self-reflection (severely lacking in
the wisdom department)
5)This is the first or 2nd time he is speaking to someone in his
lifetime.
The point which I am trying to drive at is ability scores may not be as fixed as they are. The fact that they are fixed is a somewhat failsafe. "My charisma is 22 and it'll never go down regardless of how offensive and out of line my behaviour is". Thats one thing. The other thing is as loyalis has stated. Playing a wizard with 18 Int but just completely being screwed over by arrogance and meagre amounts of pondering. Or the cleric with high wisdom but "fails" to see through his own hypocrisy. You get the point.
You are wrong.
Subotai had 17 str, 22 dex, con of 16 (since he never seems to tire) at level 1.
:)
"I play a bard who is by far the weakest in damage dealing potential."
When you strafed those zombies down the street, for a moment, you were Max Pain.
I too remember the dread necromacer. A charismatic individual who hated everyone, plotted against his superiors, turned on the party and their city of allegiance. Moody as they come. We should have killed him sooner.
Lolll on Haru's inner thoughts on the warlock.
"Or the cleric with high wisdom but "fails" to see through his own hypocrisy."
My personal favourite. Or so high wisdom, but forgets what their religion even stands for and what it's taboo behaviours are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"When's the last time you heard a player say, "While the others break camp I'm going to flex out my joints and take a few practice shots. Trying to improve my Dexterity."
I think you exactly get it, and what I am trying to promote.
"That said, you should limit this sort of thing to only happen once in a great while, and possibly require the PC to train different stats each time."
It is rare, but they have been really gunning it in late autumn Isger. So they have been getting beefs, all beefs and losses are permanent. Beefing the highest is hard if it is 16 or above (but it can still happen, if the gnoll keeps rolling 11 on their d12 for damage and rushing into combat, something is going to boost).
"I'm also at a loss to how you train something as vague-yet-pervasive as Wisdom."
I've got an example. In a game I ran a high wisdom Kelesh ninja called Muunokhoi (Subotai that could go invisible). He travelled around a lot, met all manner of peoples, cultures, religions and view-points. He didn't have a great charisma, but he always tried to learn something from them, let them speak, listen to what they had to say, help them out if they needed.
He studied at the small feet of a brownie druid, learning about the natural and beyond the natural.
He debated ki with monks, travelled to other ninja villages and learned some of the oldest teachings.
He joined a cause to ridding the region of evil selfish spellcasters, and was always on the look-out for their kind, perceptive to understanding what made the dick-wizard or dick-cleric, the signs as it were.
His fighting style was purely about misdirection, stealth and killing as quickly as possible, which as Miyamoto Mushashi said: "Think neither of victory nor of yourself but only of cutting and killing your enemy". So he fought in a wise fashion, with little pride or faffing about.
The above seems like a character of some wisdom to me.
A bad example of how stuck in the mud dnd stats can be is that no matter what a character encounters, what they experience, what they survive, see, do, learn, if they start with a low wisdom stat, it always stays that way unless they put points or items to beefing it. I wan't something better.
Yeah I once had a 7 wisdom character, a Galten fighter/barb called Stavrogin in the Runelords campaing. It was run by a very harsh dm. Now he was the only survivor from two tpks, one in which he refused to go in, because it was suicide, another the last person alive to stumble out of a goblin lair. He realised a giant conspiracy was in play, ran into all types of friends and foes. Solved a murder mystery (eventually), coordinated an attack on a castle (crossbow skirmish, wall rush), turned to the worship of Lamashtu after really experiencing the horror of fighting, the power of monsters, that only violent killing is the way to get out of some situations--other types of people had been killed in droves.
So he pretty much had gone through a Lovecraftian torture-session, with all that death and conspiracy. And he never got a wisdom bonus, it never went up until I used one of the four a level bonuses to do so. The guy mentally aged from just an adult to a real veteran who had seen things most wouldn't even believe, and his wisdom never got even to ten.
The Dm wasn't open to experiences improving wisdom, well I am.
In earlier editions of D&D ability stats mattered less than they have since 3.0 -- there was little difference between having a strength of 9 and having a strength of 14. This pattern was repeated for all the stats as well -- a wisdom 7 wasn't so different from a wisdom 15, and a Dexterity of 11 compared to a Dexterity of 15 wasn't going to show much mechanical difference.
So in order to distinguish one character from another it was necessary to assign more role play weight to these scores. I think this is one of the biggest differences between 'old' D&D and the 'new' generations.
I would suggest that if you wanted to change the feel of ability scores in your game changing the interval between bonus increases might be the way to go.
Say put the average at 11 and then have the adjustments be every 3 points instead of every 2.
1~3 = -3
4~6 = -2
7~9 = -1
10~12 = 0
13~15 = +1
16~18 = +2
19~21 = +3
22+24 = +4
25~27 = +5
Etc.
You cool b**tard, that is a retro suggestion.
Loyalist, it seems we see the nature of ability scores quite differently. I don't see charisma as being about how well you conduct yourself, but as the raw, untrained force of your personality. If somebody often says exactly the wrong thing, or doesn't make use of the stat much, they wouldn't be exploiting its full potential, but I wouldn't consider them to be acting like a low charisma character. They do have the charisma, but they're applying it wrong, like a strong character who lifts a stone without any technique and puts his back out.
I don't see a low charisma person as somebody who says something offensive to the girl he's trying to pick up, both he and a high charisma person would probably say the same thing. The difference, in my mind, is that a high charisma person sounds better doing it.
I didn't call you a tyrant, I said the rule seems tyrannical. I didn't think you really wanted to control what people did, I just predicted that's how it would end up. Maybe it works in your game, but in most of the games I've been in, I'm certain that questions like "Would it be charismatic to do this thing I've just thought of?" and "How should I be fighting to get my strength up?" would be asked before very long, at which point the GM would have an authority over the PCs that he never actually wanted.
You talk about a nervous, fixated kind of happiness with high abilities, but you keep thinking and talking of scores, as though it's only the mechanics that matter to players. For some, I'm sure that's all there is, which is presumably the origin of your problem, but there's so much more to scores than that. People want to play smart, funny, competent people. Or at the very least people who have amazing talents to make up for their glaring flaws. There's nothing wrong with being as strong or as tough as a horrible monster and there doesn't have to be anything dull about it either. It can be awesome. It can, in fact, be the whole point, without even considering the actual numbers.
Look at white Wolf's Scion for an example. I'm currently playing a demigod who can tear down stone walls with his bare hands, leap up cliffs, hold his breath for days at a time and outrun cars. That all comes from what pathfinder would call ability scores. Yesterday, he lept onto the face of a mile-long monster and stabbed it in the eyeball with a magically enhanced shovel. It dinged off. How awesome is that? That's true high ability score happiness right there. I'm not competing with anybody, I don't give a damn what number it says on my sheet and I'm happy that other creatures have awesome stats too, but I'd be sorely disappointed if some mere giant could beat me up just because he's big.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example of a high charisma person could be the person that always says just the right thing to royally piss everyone off... on purpose. It's not an accident the guy goes out of his way to upset people and irritate them. He's able to get exactly the response he wants, and he just knows how to do it without getting the stuffing knocked out of him while doing so -- it takes all the 'social' conventions and turns them on their head either for his amusement or to simply prove he can. IF he decided to use his abilities for another purpose he would be scary good at it -- as it is he's simply playing everyone for fools.
"People want to play smart, funny, competent people."
Funny and competent isn't an ability score. Players can be smart and competent on 3d6 modified by their accomplishments and focuses. To be competent, 4d6 isn't needed. Understanding the system, making a concept work and throwing effort into the game will lead to competence and beyond.
The most competent person in the latest party where these rules applies, has thus-far been the bard. Who has very low physical stats, and there has been a lot of fighting and struggles. He uses his strengths, and adapts when they aren't in play.
"An example of a high charisma person could be the person that always says just the right thing to royally piss everyone off... on purpose. It's not an accident the guy goes out of his way to upset people and irritate them. He's able to get exactly the response he wants, and he just knows how to do it without getting the stuffing knocked out of him while doing so -- it takes all the 'social' conventions and turns them on their head either for his amusement or to simply prove he can. IF he decided to use his abilities for another purpose he would be scary good at it -- as it is he's simply playing everyone for fools."
Tyrion Lannister.
If a high stat character used their charisma this way, or any mental stat in an unusual but magnificent showing, I'd be pleased as a dm. People make sense motives, well what about making many, over time, with investigation and research, till you know this person and can predict their behaviour like a virologist knows a virus. Or, a high int character who uses free time and finances to ensure that his knowledge and areas of expertise, are up to date.
Players also make their own charisma checks during the game, but the best thing, and what should be rewarded is effort and great characters.
|
I don't think that changing the point buy or other stat-generation method is going to stop a player from sneering at his fellow players' perceived weaknesses.
If a guy is scoffing, and saying, "really, your Int is only 26? Mine is 28!", he's being a dick.
If his quote was, "really, your Int is only 15? Mine is 17!", he'd be every bit as much of a dick.
Dicks will be dicks. There is no known cure for dickery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loyalist, I know competent isn't an ability score, believe me. I also know that 4d6 scores are not required to be competent. I'm not an idiot here.
If you think about it through, scores in general add up to a mechanical representation of competence. You're supposed to be able to buy them and depend on them so you can play somebody who's mental capacity is greater than your own, and if you're unconvincing, you just goofed that time and there's no consequence, except perhaps a penalty to the one thing you did badly.
When I said smart, funny and competent, I meant generally good at doing things. Not-super human as such, but super-normal. Heroic, in the mythic sense of the word.
Ability scores together are the numbers that make you better at all things. They represent your natural ability.
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between buying a headband of intellect and using your finances to up your intelligence between adventures? Both can be as exciting or as flat as you like, so why encourage one and ban the other?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a good reason for point-buy systems - giving everybody more-or-less equal footing goes a long way to make the game more enjoyable for everybody.
But you do raise a good point with the crafting; it is a dangerous mistress and should be handled with care. In most games we play we simply do not allow it - but when I GM we typically use these rules:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Dicks will be dicks. There is no known cure for dickery."
I once had a ranger with favoured enemy: dicks. It was a joke the DM and I colluded in. See once when travelling in the real backwoods, Ryszard had found a cave system and in it, a very old shrine. It took him some time to decipher it's meanings (the ranger had linguistics moderately heavy) and he realised, it told the tale of the first cities and the dicks that rose within them. The dicks who tried to seize power, terrorise or exploit their fellows and generally be... dicks.
Did it apply to all foes? Nope. Monsters? Only if sentient and real dicks. Wizards and spellcasters? Yeah often.
He knew what he had to do. He trained with his polearms and practiced his charging (to get powerful charge), and off he set to help the world by ridding it of dicks.
And what else was awesome? The Nemesis feat allowed him to detect dicks within 60. He sensed a disturbance in the force of decency.
"You're supposed to be able to buy them and depend on them so you can play somebody who's mental capacity is greater than your own"
I hear what you are saying Mort, but...
I don't always play characters with a greater mental capacity than my own. 16, 16, 16, is not common in my characters. I like somewhat flawed characters, and wisdom dumped can be fun to play. It has been anyway, charisma is usually pretty useful, a slightly deficient int can be a fun challenge and something you can get away with, allowing you to boost some other stats.
If you are talking about what is heroic in the mythic sense, than you should acknowledge all heroes always had a flaw or flaws in the literature and in history too (Achilles could be shot to death from surprise and was a violent psychopath, Heracles had the flaw of a short, destructive temper, Alexander the great killed his lover in a fit of rage too, Japanese heroes often had an insatiable lust for vengeance or preserving their honour, Hamlet the thinking man's hero could not bring himself to act, Solomon's wisdom was his undoing and he made a lot of mistakes in the Christian and Jewish traditions (not the Islamic), Moses was tortured by his past, Darcy was stubborn and proud, Lieutenant Boyd in Ravenous was a coward. Caesar's flaw was becoming a despot, so much so that even his best friend killed him.
Aristotle called it hamartia if they were tragic. Sometimes being too good is their flaw, they become proud and stupid. Dnd heroes are profoundly unrealistic when they have no flaws. I've known players to become uncomfortable at the idea that their characters have flaws, I also use a large flaw system (feats for flaws).
"I meant generally good at doing things."
I hear you, but...
A commoner with a rank in a class skill, a 12 stat and a skill focus is generally good at that skill (+8). It is that simple to be competent. You don't need 18s. The usage of feats and skills can be more important. I've seen players try to rely on stats or "ability" rather than "focus" and it doesn't always end well. My dex will save me, or because I have a high int or charisma I'll be fine at that. You can be competent a few different ways, but you become damn good when you make some choices. Barb, greataxe, powerful charge to get the damage out. Two feats and ranks on a skill to make it really good and reliable.
Having lower ability scores than say the average game doesn't matter, because the setting is one without enemies with three 20+s, two 16s and a 13. Stop the arms race and all is well.
"what's the difference between buying a headband of intellect and using your finances to up your intelligence between adventures?"
Role-playing for one, and the extent of the bonus secondarily. You need to explain how you are improving, put time and effort and perhaps money, and even then, you won't get +2-+4, you will get +1 if your int isn't really high, because a high stat is even harder to improve, and later you may get +2. Quick beefs of something already good is not easy.
I do like point buy lorekeeper, I have gone with it a bit before. Players then always want 20 though.
Indeed. I have seen a high strength monk with 18 strength and 80+ hp at level 10 who never trained or gave the example of meditation or doing kata. Yeah, good con and strength but not role-playing those ability scores. What was even more amusing was after an encounter with yetis, he had lost about half his hp and proceeded to put the back of his hand to his head and collapse in a "I'm a delicate flower" fashion. The fact that he was role-playing the oposite of his 14+ Con at that point was funny.
The idea that all heroes should have high ability scores all round is an intriguing issue. Of course if the ability scores are lowest something like a 13, then in a sense an 18 stat is no longer as impressive compared to a party of heroes which have some high stats and some low ones. The high scores like the 18 and 20s get to really shine as they should. The point I'm driving at is that with an abundance of high ability scores, the high scores become genric of each other and while a 14 stat is well above average, its now crap. The chasing of pushing ability scores even higher but not enough role-playing of it is the main issue here.
|
I understand the frustrations, and agree with them for my personal case. However, I have learned that every player plays for a different reason. All I can do is play my style and hope to inspire my fellows to chime in, to join in the role playing...
I would enjoy playing in your game, sir! Alas, it is likely not possible.
^_^
Quite possible if you are in Melbourne, Australia. ;)
Gaming in Hawaii sounds awesome. Did you run the Sargavan adventure path or Sasserine (from 3.5)? Any pirate games?
Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70K9xSwE50g
The Dm wasn't open to experiences improving wisdom, well I am.
Another (often overlooked) aspect of wisdom is thoughtful discernment, looking before leaping, or thinking before speaking. Not only is it wise to defer to greater knowledge, but also to think carefully about whether or not something is best learned by taking part in it. It is wise to plan a battle before charging in. (It is possible to know what to do without planning; one player I have likes to keep his advice to himself and frequently denies the party of his insight where it's applicable.)
I like the idea behind ability scores growing as they're used, but there is a lot of micromanagement in such a system that I would not be willing to deal with. If I did, I would probably start by telling players that they were responsible for notifying me of their actions directed towards a goal (combat actions would not count for this purpose). They would be required to write down a short description of those actions and the date of the session to be turned in when they reached enough XP to level up.
My players wouldn't go for it.
With one exception, I haven't experience a problem with players comparing and making fun of each other's scores since the 'eighties, when we were teenagers. Even then, it was hardly a game breaker. The one exception was when we were in our twenties and we had a guest player (same age as we were) who acted a lot like a spoiled little kid. He was not asked back.
If anybody has mentioned somebody's low score since then, it was a shared joke that ensued, usually the person with the low score was the first to think it was funny.
That does not mean that I haven't had a player in the game who tried (more than once) to abuse character creation. I have. He abused rolling a character. He abused point-buy. Somehow he just found a way to "compromise his integrity" and get something outrageous for a character.
My solution was to cap individual scores with a point-buy system. I explained out loud to the whole group that we were playing a reasonable game, and there would be no more breaking everything just to try to eliminate challenge before it began. (I really do not understand why a player would want no challenge in the game, but that does seem to be this particular player's goal). I did not single the guy out.
Thing is, PCs are exceptional compared to the world, anytime they have a score over 10. You have to put this in the right perspective. Players are out for power, but in comparison to what? You have to make them understand that it is in comparison to Str 10, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10. Therefore, Str 17, Dex 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 12 is a completely reasonable fighter type (for example). It's a freakin' superhero, in fact.
I have no problem capping this stuff. It is not a gimp. I run a reasonable game, and I have to manage a player who will otherwise do his best to ruin it for everyone else. I manage him well, and I feel no guilt because my head is in a reasonable place on this stuff.
Ya know I kinda like the sound of this. I'm all for stuff that puts an emphasis on role-playing. I'm very interested in the mechanic you use to decide how quickly abilities can be raised/lowered. I've got a player that consistently says "Since we've got time I'll practice my (fill in the blank"- archery/hunting/swordsmanship) the other players basically chastise him because there is no "reason" for him to do it.
That said... When I play I strive to role-play the character I'm playing, and it doesn't matter if the stats are high or low. Low wisdom means I do things that may mean my character suffers (and I've caused more than a little trouble for my companions) Just when opportunities present themselves I use a 2nd edition wisdom check roll (my stat score or under on a d20) otherwise I've got to do something.... unwise.
I got a lot of guff from players when I recently altered our previous rolling system (4d6, 6, reroll 1's and 2's) to a flat 4d6. I've also done the % game (like cavaliers from the 1st Ed UA), also the 3d6-9d6 from that same UA. 3d6, 5d4, and so on and so on. Yes, ability scores matter, and while everyone was getting accustomed to having lowest scores of 14, they were simultaneously complaining that enemies' scores were too high.
The arms race, in point-of-fact.
Now, with their own scores much lower ("A NINE?!? I have to have a NINE?!?") and consequently, the NPC's as well...they're having more fun than before. And, it was quite refreshing for me, given that I was weaned on 3d6 6 in order THEN choose your class with what you got.
Sounds like a fun game Loyalist, wish I were an Aussie. Cheers, mate.
In AD&D, there was for some inexplicable reason an XP bonus if your key stat was 16 or higher. That's right - if things were already mechanically easier for you, you'd also go up levels 10% faster than the guys who were struggling with 13s and 14s as their good stat.
I always wondered if it wouldn't have been good game design to do the opposite: reward PCs who keep characters alive without the crutch of powerful stats by improving their XP progression. Wouldn't that make all those folks with a 20 strength froth at the mouth?! (heh)
People that are better at things often find such things easier to do and learn. People that are not as good often have a harder time learning and doing things they are not good at.
Anything else breaks verisimilitude: "Guys I stink at being a wizard so I'm going to gain levels 10% faster than Joe over there who is possibly the best wizard in the world!"
It's like saying getting an idiot to perform quantum physics will result in break throughs 10% faster than having Stephen Hawking doing it -- it simply doesn't make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What makes sense in real world terms is not always best for the game. In some cases, it's the opposite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I got a lot of guff from players when I recently altered our previous rolling system (4d6, 6, reroll 1's and 2's) to a flat 4d6. I've also done the % game (like cavaliers from the 1st Ed UA), also the 3d6-9d6 from that same UA. 3d6, 5d4, and so on and so on. Yes, ability scores matter, and while everyone was getting accustomed to having lowest scores of 14, they were simultaneously complaining that enemies' scores were too high.
The arms race, in point-of-fact.
Now, with their own scores much lower ("A NINE?!? I have to have a NINE?!?") and consequently, the NPC's as well...they're having more fun than before. And, it was quite refreshing for me, given that I was weaned on 3d6 6 in order THEN choose your class with what you got."
Yeah, that's my situation too apotheosis.
"I always wondered if it wouldn't have been good game design to do the opposite: reward PCs who keep characters alive without the crutch of powerful stats by improving their XP progression. Wouldn't that make all those folks with a 20 strength froth at the mouth?! (heh)"
That's a very good idea, and yes, the more of a challenge it is, the weaker you are, the more xp you get. In this ability scores are fluid game, one of the two high stat characters was a bit bitter that the very low stat bard was two levels above him. When the high stat char had rested, the bard led the rest on to completing more missions, take higher risks, get more xp. Consequentially, his low stats rose a bit and he got two levels ahead.
"People that are better at things often find such things easier to do and learn."
In my experience, people who are quite good at something and accomplished do seem to slowly stagnate. They know the answers, they have the skills, they don't go looking to really improve what they have. If they get high up, they spend more time abusing their authority than becoming better.
For the game you can get some funny situations. Where the middling mental stat low level sorcerer can seem smarter and more adept, if he really thinks, if he really strives and aims to solve problems than the old retired high mental stat wizard. That's why stats should be fluid.
In game, we can get high mental stat characters that rarely learn from others, because they are so damn arrogant at this stage. The players "know" they have a 20 int and feel brilliant. The character then acts in a very un-wise or un-intelligent fashion. Now something can always look stupid after the fact, but diving into behaviour that looks stupid before the fact? For that you need a 20 int wizard or a 20 wis cleric.
The character then acts in a very un-wise or un-intelligent fashion. Now something can always look stupid after the fact, but diving into behaviour that looks stupid before the fact? For that you need a 20 int wizard or a 20 wis cleric.
I disagree with half of the "answer" there. If you have character with a high Intelligence and a lower Wis score, then I would say they are more prone to look at what's in front of them, make a snap judgment, and act on it. They would absorb more immediate detail than others, but they wouldn't take the time to process all of it (which is also Intelligence, but knowing when or how to apply it is the wiser part).
A character with a high Wisdom and a lower Int score might not get all of the details right away, but they would stop and consider multiple possibilities with that data and consult with their group before acting (if possible).
I would think it's something like choosing between one super-fast processor (Int 20+) and several slightly above-average processors (Wis 20+).
I once heard Wisdom compared to the pauses between the notes in a musical composition (Intelligence being the notes, of course). I thought that was an interesting concept.
Why is there not a giant red button on my keyboard that says "NO"?
Is your answer to the higher mental capacity than the player issue really "I personally sometimes choose not to do that, so there's no reason for it to be catered to"? Am I missing something?
You give all those examples of mythic heroes and their flaws (plus some I wouldn't count as heroic in the mythic sense), but you've missed the point. Most of those mythic heroes are way beyond ordinary people either in a few scores or in most of them. On average their great prowess is not cancelled out by any below average capabilities they have in other areas. I'd definitely not try to build them on 3 point buy/3d6 rolls.
They are flawed, yes, and the flaws are what give them character, but none of the flaws you've listed are examples of low scores, save for Boyd's cowardly nature (which is a partial example since it's handled by will saves). All the other flaws are about imperfect personalities, alignment, back-story and role playing. They're shining examples of how to make a character interesting through true character flaws, not statistical flaws or mere lack of natural talent. They work regardless of the numbers written on the sheets.
You're telling me that a commoner is "good at things" because if he puts his one feat into a specific skill based on an above average score, he can be good at that specific skill. That's a very different kind of "good at things" than the one that describes, say, Odesseus, or the protagonists of your average fantasy adventure novel.
Lastly, you say the difference between paying money to train up your intelligence and buying a magic headband is role-playing. That is not true and your idea will not solve your problem. Either method of raising scores can by as interesting or as soul-crushingly dry as you like.
What's to stop a colourful and interesting exchange taking place as the player tracks down a magic shop, haggles with its demented old wizard shopkeep, gets led down to the secret room in the cellars, worrying that he'll be murdered for his gems and finally exchanges a dead kings ransom for a dead kings enchanted crown?
What's to stop the player who pays for training from just saying "I buy a bunch of religious books and stuff, to raise my Wisdom" and leaving it at that?
The interaction is the same except the game explains how you get from point A ("I wish I had something of immediate use instead of this money") to point B ("This is awesome! But now I have no money... Time for an adventure!") in different ways. The only thing that decides how much role-playing goes on is how you run that same interaction.
Well, I play an AD&D game with a very old school DM. This game has been going on for 10 years and it uses a modified version of AD&D that EVERYONE likes more then the original, but no DRASTIC change there.
In my opnion, my DM is a freaking genius and although we disagree on ocasion, the game is fun cause it's ALL about the roleplaying and we don't worry too much about the rules, cause we are sure he is gonna be fair, and that's key. If your players don't trust you, the game will suck for them, been there, done thar. If they do, they won't mind you controling something like the ones you proposed.
Now, for a way I love to increase atributes. In that game we gain "Character points" when we do cool actions, gain level and stuff, there are several ways they can be spent but for ability scores is a simple way.
You pay the number of CP you want your ability score to go to, and then comes the fun part.
The DM has a sheet or something in his mind about how you've been roleplaying and performing in each ability score, and he has something predetermined of how easy it will be to go up on said ability score.
Going from 9 to 10 will have a 70% rate of sucess (or something of the like) plus bonuses or penalties depending on how you acted on said ability score. Going from 18 to 19 will have a probability of 5% or something.
With that in mind, after you pay your CP you roll the percentual dice with the probability the DM sees fit. It is AWESOME for us, and we love it.
The cool part is, you don't lose the points, everytimes you gain a level or pay some extra points you have another chance at it, and this chance is improved, cause you he considers you are actually trying to improve that Stat and if you do stuff in game to improve those odds it will too.
Consider something around those lines and be fair, I assure you, it's awesome, and to see everyone at the table cheering for you to roll that die and get to Strength 20 is serious fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"That is not true and your idea will not solve your problem."
It actually has. I'm a lot happier with ability points, as a part of rewards, I get to boost the abilities of players that have earned a stat boost. They really grow and improve as they level, or what they don't use diminishes. I can keep the game away from many types of bland boosting items, one player has expressed real approval of the change, there is no opposition to it yet, characters gradually change to emphasise their play style--the marshal rogue is really blossoming physically, but is moving away from a charismatic commander as a consequence.
That is a rather sexy change Xum. Isn't it grand? :)
"What's to stop the player who pays for training from just saying "I buy a bunch of religious books and stuff, to raise my Wisdom" and leaving it at that? "
Does the character read them? (because books sitting on a shelf do not improve anyone, they just look good) Does he put aside the time? (I once had a friend want a summary of Greek stoical thought to solve some of his problems, he couldn't be bothered to do the reading, so found no answers and did not improve) Are they accurate? (news just in Thilobeoul's ten tours of ghastly cults is made-up, this happens) This isn't enough by itself to get a boost, I have never liked the 24 hour service station convenience of magic item shopping to beef stats. It seems ridiculous to me.
Back on topic, I'd want the player to also interact with literati, or some of the wisest of minds and learn, to get a boost. And added depth is imparted to a fighter that consults sages and philosophers in his attempts to develop himself. It's win-win and you can't be lazy for results.
If he got a hold of the best books, by the best minds, then reading some of them might get a +1. If he is already a 19 on the related stat, he is going to need something else.
To beef charisma, maybe the character should run a speakeasy for a while. Anything can be done, the only rule I can think of is that it has got to make sense. :)
=1= Ability scores are fluid.
You roll your stats yes, but what you do in game can change them for good or ill. Ability scores become more dependent on role-playing, not roll-playing. So if you are physically weak but really fight hard, those physical stats will go up. If you are a high charisma spellcaster who treats people like s%#&, your charisma will go down. How easy it is to improve an ability point is determined by the focus of the player in game, and how high the stat is. A truly high strength can be very hard to improve, but it can happen with enough fighting, lifting, labour and a non-deficient diet. This isn't temporary, they change for real; but they can also change back and go down. Long periods of inactivity or imprisonment can really lower many of them.=2= 3d6 ability score generation. 1s do count.
Yes, I went back to the old means of generating the core abilities. Players start with strengths and weaknesses. It is my belief that it is essential for characters to have some weaknesses, nothing is more boring than a 16 stat average character with three 18+s. They are hollow stat blocks. Now as the first point stated, stats are fluid. So as the players strive they rise in abilities quicker. Those that make really high rolls, rise slower.=3= 1 extra ability point every 4 levels.
Yeah I stuck with that, keep customisability options in the hand of the player. If they are at a rut, where it is difficult to beef a stat in game, get the levels and they proceed.=4= No magic item shops.
They make games boring, they waste my time with more accounting, I'm not a fan. Completely avoids the situation of players asking me, "are there boots of speed and a circlet of intellect +4 available?". Go out and find them "hero", earn it.
I can't see point #1 working out well at all. Maybe your players are more easy going than mine, but I doubt it because then you wouldn't need these rules anyway. My players would present a detailed list of how they are spending every off duty moment raising up ALL SIX stats. In effect the rule would kill off any actual roleplay and turn the game into a continuous self help session for PCs. And ANY time you gave one character a boost and not another, players would get upset and accuse you of playing god with their stats. This would be a mess all around.
Point #2 is harsh on builds. If very few people have even modest scores then they will not qualify for all those feats and classes they want to try out. Secondly since you don't have any drop dice then it will enlarge the already noticeable luck difference between the characters. The last thing you want is bored characters and when some of your players have to play straight classed characters without any fancy feats while their friends play godlike characters by comparison, then you are asking for bored and upset players.
Point #3 sounds cool. It should get easy player approval and makes improvement more noticeable. Just be sure as a GM to boost monster stats by a similar amount to help balance the challenges.
I already use a rule similar to house rule #4. In my game I restrict magic item shops to minor magical items only. It does actually help keep treasure under control... at least till a player makes a magic item crafter. But that's a whole different issue that's fixed by keeping downtime under control. If you don't give your characters months of downtime then they will have to choose between crafting that more powerful item and sitting out of several adventures. No player I played with would choose to sit out of adventures.
Min, I'm pretty sure his players really are happier with this than yours and mine would be. He says it solved the problem, after all.
Loyalist, I stand by my earlier assertion that swapping the magic item shops for ability score shops cannot solve your problem and has nothing whatsoever to do with role-playing. Your changes may well have fixed your game, but your reasoning there is absurd. Both are just ways of buying intelligence. The difference is that you and your players are only role-playing one of those things to your collective satisfaction.
As for your question about whether he reads the books, you're clearly still missing the point somehow. Of course he reads the books. He performs whatever token actions are required, spends the minimum amount of time necessary to gain the maximum allowable benefit and generally does everything except being interested or interesting, just like your players did with magic item shops.
You can have shops take time to find, you can have items be fake, you can point out that they don't do anything unless the player uses them. Every single virtue of your system of investing resources in ability scores can be found in item shops that stock score boosters.
Having said all that, I do like the idea of rewarding the players for investing their interest and resources in things that have nothing to do with adventuring.
I plan on adopting a house rule I read somewhere on these boards which awards 1 exp for every gp spent lifestyle upkeep and other things that can't help you succeed as a band of travelling killers.
...Having said all that, I do like the idea of rewarding the players for investing their interest and resources in things that have nothing to do with adventuring.
I plan on adopting a house rule I read somewhere on these boards which awards 1 exp for every gp spent lifestyle upkeep and other things that can't help you succeed as a band of travelling killers.
Woot! Can I transfer my sorceress to your game? I spent 100,000 gp last game on a new home, furnishings, House Guard, and servants. =)
"And THAT, students, is how I went from level 4 to level 14. ALWAYS tip well!"
(But I really did spend that much. =) )
"My players would present a detailed list of how they are spending every off duty moment raising up ALL SIX stats."
You can't improve all of them at the same time, although you can work towards improving them all, your progress will be slow.
Examples:
Say you have two weeks down time and you want to improve strength. Now two weeks might not be enough to get 1 point, but they try. They describe their training, their tavern brawling (lolz) and anything else they come up with. At the end they may deserve it, or they may not.
Now someone wants to improve strength and dex through a regimen of high damage sparring and archery practice. All good, but you never get a boost of two stats at one time. Eventually this will earn a boost in one and a boost in the other later with additional input.
Now say someone wants to boost all six. Over two weeks they have made almost no progress in either stat boost since they are spread very thin. There is not enough focus or time in each stat.
If the players want to be heavily invested in self improvement, then that is fine. It is as it should be, there should be pay-offs. Beefing what they are already great at is very hard remember?
Improving some of these will really involve a fair bit of roleplaying, not drawing up tables. It is not a simple matter of throw a plan, receive stat boosts instantly. There are a lot of factors in play, and as a dm you balance it until they earn it.
"Point #2 is harsh on builds."
Players can still specialise and tailor their characters. I am not taking away skills or feats. So they don't have three 18s. You don't need three 18s to get into prestige classes.
"Loyalist, I stand by my earlier assertion that swapping the magic item shops for ability score shops cannot solve your problem and has nothing whatsoever to do with role-playing."
Except it does involve role-playing in that in-game actions can be rewarded with stat boosts, so you reward or alter their character based on their role-playing, and down-time actions can also be rewarded with stat boosts. Their choices in game determine how their character develops ability score wise.
"He performs whatever token actions are required, spends the minimum amount of time necessary to gain the maximum allowable benefit and generally does everything except being interested or interesting".
Thus far, that is not how it has gone. Those that are getting the most improvements are not lazy about it. You are not describing how it has so far occurred. When the weak bard earns a beef to strength and later con, because he keeps throwing himself into melee combat to be heroic, to do the right thing, he is not uninterested and it is not uninteresting. He got the boosts whereas another character who split off, fought then rested, fought then rested, never driving himself onwards, never pushing hard enough didn't. This other character also had far better physical stats, so improving them was harder, but he is due for one next game.
"I spent 100,000 gp last game on a new home, furnishings, House Guard, and servants. =)"
A noble lady warmage character I ran once spent about 80,000gp on a giant golden fish reward and an elaborate fishing competition. The loot was piling up, I didn't need or want it, hated magic item shopping (we had plenty of loot already) and the people we were protecting were getting restless.
Some old fisherman guy won it. My item-shopping and loot-obsessed fellow pc was horrified. Schadenfreude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The gold fish is genius. Ridiculous, but very funny :)
I got halfway through a post responding to your response, but you're not getting what I'm trying to say, I'm not being eloquent and it's a small thing anyway.
Lets just say that while I disagree with your reasoning in one part of your explanation of how you made things better, I'm glad it worked.
Encountering a lot of power-gaming on these forums of late. Very high stat characters, with magic items that take them even higher, with 150 damage averages a round with all the buffs on.
:(
Sigh, why do people keep piling on the cheese. Power gaming is a problem, not a solution.
|
|
I like how the name of this is "roleplaying, the problem is often ability scores." and one of the first things mentioned, isn't that a player cannot act his stats, like being dumb when he's a wizard, but that the players want to know each others' stats. This strikes me as a diversion tactic.
Not once have you concieved that high stats, being a combat monster, and killing monsters as quickly as inhumanly possible, is simply a way to get back to the more interesting parts of the game: the roleplaying. Like all things this varies from player to player.
If you don't want your players to compare stats, don't show them, give them a skill list(and a spell list with the names of their spells on it), don't have any numbers on it, just what they are trained in, and put stars next to things they are really good with.
Another thing you could do is play another system. Like Teenagers from Outerspace. Yes, it's incredibly dumb, but it's very heavily roleplaying oriented, in fact it punishes players for min-maxing, but always in a comedic manner.
Encountering a lot of power-gaming on these forums of late. Very high stat characters, with magic items that take them even higher, with 150 damage averages a round with all the buffs on.
:(
Sigh, why do people keep piling on the cheese. Power gaming is a problem, not a solution.
What you see isn't power-gaming cheese but people playing using the PF rules effectively.
We use a 15 point but...Crafting...limited stuff for sale...and 150 damage a round at 9th with buffs running and standard WBL within the rules is not uncommon.Could you point out the "power gaming" that you speak of?