should characters ignore mental stats?
How could they.
Players shouldn't ignore their characters stats either. Players should keep there characters stats in mind when roleplaying there characters.PS:Of course answering a question is not the same as figuring out the answer. Anyone can answer a question, but figuring it out means you used your abilities to get the correct answer. To be clear when people say answer they question we are assuming the correct answer is being given, not just any answer.
Answering a question correctly is not the same thing as figuring out the correct answer.
There are many ways in which a stupid character could believably answer a riddle correctly. That's roleplaying! It's fun!
If we can use our out of game abilities to apply to in game problems am I allowed to walk over and kick down your house's front door to pass str checks on my spindly wizard because that is essentially the equivalent action to using my intelligence to pass int checks on my stupid character.
I never said you used your strength for in game abilities. Please respond to what I am saying not what you project me as saying.
And as I told you before it is the DM's job to keep people in character and no you don't get to randomly decide the person your character is during the game because that is just begging for people to be metagaming.
I never suggested that you get to randomly decide who your character is. In the example I gave was simple. It was an example of something that could happen in a game if the characters did have the abilities they had. Certainly you can't change where you character comes from.
Fighter: Can I use this wand I just found?
DM: Alright take a Use magic device roll.
Fighter: Rolls short by 1. Wait I'm from Magicwandland so I get a +1 to my roll right?
DM: I thought you were from Hangarb.
Fighter: Shut up I decide where I'm from!
DM: ... The f%@&?
It the example I gave (which you seem to be mocking) the idea was simply to run a rope across a river.
That seems simple enough. Just in case you didn't think running a rope across something I let the player give an example of why his character would know about.
It's running a rope across something. Something anyone should be able to do. It's the kind of knowledge that anyone should know. "Hey I could run a rope across that."
It's not using a wand.
There are traits that might allow you a bonus to use magic device.
Most traits are chosen when you make your character not interchangeable throughout the game.
I don't think that running a rope across something is worthy of being a trait. *lol*
If you have a player who likes to randomly add new abilities he's probably five years old and your should stop playing cops and robbers with him.
Irontruth- you're stuck in a bad situation there no matter what you do: If you DON'T intervene and help out, you've got a 50 year old 30 int wizard who can't act in character with the int and maturity such a character should have. If you DO intervene, your nephew will likely feel that you're railroading his PC. My suggestion would be to give your nephew a younger wizard character with a closer to normal int score. Why would a 10 year old be playing a 50 year old? If you're set on this path... don't intervene, it will just ruin his fun, and you'll have to be content to have a 50 year old wizard who acts as if he's 10. If it's a combat centered game, it probably won't matter anyway.
I don't actually need advice, I'm rather sharing a situation I've encountered and curious how other people would apply their concept to that situation.
should characters ignore mental stats?1.How could they.
Players shouldn't ignore their characters stats either. Players should keep there characters stats in mind when roleplaying there characters.PS:Of course answering a question is not the same as figuring out the answer. Anyone can answer a question, but figuring it out means you used your abilities to get the correct answer. To be clear when people say answer they question we are assuming the correct answer is being given, not just any answer.2.Answering a question correctly is not the same thing as figuring out the correct answer.
There are many ways in which a stupid character could believably answer a riddle correctly. That's roleplaying! It's fun!
1.It is easy for a GM or player to ignore a character's mental stats.
2.As to your second comment I am not just talking about riddles, and neither are the others, at least from my understanding anyway.
As a general idea, whether it be a riddle, complex tactics, and so on should the character's mental stats be ignored if the player would know the proper/better response is the heart of the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, another point to add:
Personally I dislike riddles in games. Riddles and puzzles can be very difficult, even when they seem easy to the person presenting them. Riddles particularly require a certain level of mastery of language, skill at manipulating words and specific knowledge that is applicable to the riddle at hand.
For instance, not necessarily a good one for Pathfinder, but one I heard on NPR the other day.
Take the name of a singer. Subtract the first and last letter of their first and last name. The first word will be the name of a company, the second will be a description of their first logo.
Patty Labelle
ATT "a bell"
Now, if you've never heard of Patty Labelle, you're going to have a hard time finding the answer. If you never saw ATT's old logo (they've been using one similar to their current one since 1984), you probably wouldn't think of the answer either.
That's a relatively difficult one, but it illustrates my point I believe. If the riddle is necessary for the plot, than there has to be multiple solutions, or if something sounds plausible, you have to accept it as an answer. I've seen DM's let sessions die while they wait for the players to get the correct answer.
should characters ignore mental stats?
How could they.
It is easy for a GM or player to ignore a character's mental stats.
You didn't ask if a GM or players should, you asked if characters should.
As to your second comment I am not just talking about riddles, and neither are the others, at least from my understanding anyway.
Fair enough. Riddle was just an easy example. Although, generally, no better or worse an example, so I don't see any reason not to use them.
As a general idea, whether it be a riddle, complex tactics, and so on should the character's mental stats be ignored if the player would know the proper/better response is the heart of the matter.
A character's stats should never be ignored. All of the stats for every character, NPC and Monster are supplemented by the skills of the player or GM playing that part. Trying to separate them is superfluous and doomed to fail.
The character doesn't, however, KNOW everything the the player knows.
A character might not know how to kill a troll. A DC 15 Knowledge Local check. If a character manages to kill a troll. Whether or not he was the one who actually rolled the knowledge or not(a party member told him to use fire.) he will know how to kill a troll again if it comes up.
"Troll means hit them with fire!"
He might not know that trolls can also be killed with acid.
"You's stupid no kill troll with acid kill troll with fire!"
A characters intelligence does effect the amount of strategy that he can use. A dumb character would have trouble disarming, feinting and tripping.
A dumb character could take the Mathematical Prodigy trait. There are no intelligence prerequisite against this. As GM you could tell the character that his character was to stupid to take that trait but you would be changing the rules of the game if you did this.
If being stupid stops to form making intelligent decision does being smart someone stop you for making stupid decisions?
GM: I'm sorry I'm not going to allow you to do that because I think it's stupid and my Job as GM is to make sure you play your character the way I decide you have to play them.
PLAYER: But it's what I want my character to do and it's completely within the context of the rules and it makes sense for my character.
GM: I'm sorry a smart character would never do that.
PLAYER: What about *mentions a intelligent character in famous fantasy novel doing something similar*
GM: Well, I didn't like that book.
PLAYER: The books cover is your desktop wallpaper?
GM: I didn't like that book in that book.
When you're replying could you shorten down your quotes to the topics you are directly addressing?
Uhhh combat maneuvers don't rely on intelligence sure some of the feats to get bonus ones may but the actual maneuver does not and that isn't what strategy is.
I didn't say combat maneuvers rely on intelligence. I consider getting an attacked every time you try to do something trouble. Either way you seem to have missed the point. There are specific combat abilities that require high intelligence.
Other feats are not subject to the characters intelligence. Feats which could be useless if your GM decided that you could use common strategies related to that feat.
Sure am changing the rules of the game. But since you already decided to give modifiers for out of game actions you're already changing the rules of the game so that's irrelevant.
What is this in reference to? Modifier has a specific meaning when talking about the rules in Pathfinder. A modifier is a number that is added to a roll. I have never suggested a change in the rules. I'm not fond of changing rules. I do it sparingly.
If the character doesn't know how to kill a troll he doesn't know if it's come up before and he was told it's common knowledge the roll is there to show that someone learned it and the other players only know if that player tells them. I don't see what you're trying to prove with this.
Mostly I wrote that to cover any confusion. Which seems to happen a lot or people are purposefully trying to be misleading. One or the other.
When I said:
All of the stats for every character, NPC and Monster are supplemented by the skills of the player or GM playing that part.
I didn't want you to think I was talking about the specific knowledge of a player.
Also as I mentioned earlier if I go kick in your front door do I get a bonus to str checks in the game?
No, that's ridiculous.
If yes then fine you're applying bonuses to all stats based on out of game ability this is in fact not in the rules but if you want to houserule it that way then fine. But if you aren't going to do it that way then you're just devaluing the non physical stats in your game and that isn't okay.
How exactly give me example so I can set you straight. I don't mind helping you if you're having trouble understanding.
Lastly intelligent people do stupid things more rarely than stupid people...
Did you mean that:
Smart people do stupid things less frequent than stupid people do smart things.
or
Smart people do stupid things less frequent then stupid people do stupid things.
I would agree with the second one but the first one is not something that can be verified.
"stupid" things you think they do in books are actually foolish things which is to say things which are not wise.
Who said that his character didn't have a high wisdom?
Who said that the character in the book wasn't wise?The question still stands unharmed.
If being stupid stops to form making intelligent decisions does being smart someone stop you for making stupid decisions?
I read about a dozen of the 100 posts. This is one of the toughest parts of role playing. When, I was in high school I probably had a 16 or 17 strength (higher in my dreams). I could easily imagine having a 20-23 strength. I'd like to think my INT and WIS were similarly high. If they are not, how can I really roleplay such a character?
I meant to respond to this yesterday but I got sidetracked
Karlgamer,
You are correct in that the player's intelligence will always have a bearing on real life. We play the game during the course of real life, so their knowledge and skill with the game will impact that. This is similar to pointing out that your ability to see will have an impact on your ability to drive a car IMO.
I don't think that a player's intelligence simply impacts the game. I think it's part of the game.
Here's a scenario:
I'm GM'ing for my nephew, it's a solo campaign.
He's 10 years old and of average intelligence (goes to a normal school, not in any special classes)
He's playing a wizard with a 30 Intelligence who is 50 years old.
I think it's awesome to try to teach your nephew how to game.
Which of the following is the most prudent course of action:
-pretend that the intelligence of an average 10 year old is the near pinnacle of intelligence of mortals in my campaign world
-treat the wizard as if he made all the mistakes a normal 10 year old would make
-give my nephew information I might not to another player in the same situation to help simulate his high intelligence
I see nothing wrong with you kibitzing your 10 year old nephew. Players and GM are always giving each other advice. You could actually pair him with a more experience player.
You shouldn't make his character do or say anything that he wouldn't want his character to do or say. Good roleplaying etiquette starts young.
You didn't ask if a GM or players should, you asked if characters should.
Ok, since we feel like playing the semantics game I will rephrase it. Should the individual controlling the character ignore the mental stats?
A character's stats should never be ignored. All of the stats for every character, NPC and Monster are supplemented by the skills of the player or GM playing that part. Trying to separate them is superfluous and doomed to fail.
I see you want me to spell everything out, fine.
With this intelligence issue I am only speaking of extreme cases, and yes I know it is subjective for you.If someone drops the int to 5 as an example should they be coming up with complex tactics.
In short at what point would you think it is not ok with regard to mental stats and figuring things out? What is an example of your limits on the issue.
You keep saying people should not ignore stats, but your previous statement contradicts that.
As far as the GM saying "no you can't do that", it should only happen in extreme cases. If it is something that is always happening then the GM should not have allowed you(the player) to drop the stats the low if he was going to have an issue with ordinary decisions.
As far as to limiting what a smart person would do that is terrible logic(the GM in your example) because you can make a bad decision even if you know better. I see the point you are making, but a high score is an enhancer, and a low score is a limiter so the GM should not be limiting anything. That example is like saying I must use all of my strength all the time just because I can lift 500 pounds, when in reality me being able to lift up to 500 pounds only means that is my limit, not what I must always do.
I don't think that a player's intelligence simply impacts the game. I think it's part of the game.
I disagree, it's part of how some people play the game.
In addition, I wouldn't classify it as intelligence, it's actually a skill (building a character, selecting feats/spells, tactical choices in game). I have friends who have PhD's, who would flounder at this game for a long time compared to my friends who press sheet metal for a living, because the latter have a greater degree of skill with the game at this time.
I've also seen the game played in ways that don't emphasize most of the facets of what you've described as intelligence (or skill). I've seen people with unoptimized characters have fun (sometimes even more fun) when paired up with a party of optimized characters.
I agree that part of the design of the game is to account for a certain level of skill on the players part. This skill represents knowledge of the rules and the ability to make good choices of how to interact with those rules, but that isn't the only way to play the game and since there is no wrong way to play (unless you're causing actual harm to real people), they are also valid.
Karl,
You seem like you're being purposefully obtuse. It really appears that you're playing a game of pedantry and semantics and it's rather irritating. I have attempted to engage you reasonably, and instead you hand wave things away and claim to cite RAW while you deviate from it.
Sense Motive, for example: doesn't help with riddles, per RAW. Social situations opposed to bluff or in dealing with noticing mind-affecting affects. So, feel free... but again, you're not relying on the player's abilities, you're granting them benefit for having skill ranks and ability scores beyond RAW. Which is exactly what the majority of us have been saying we do.
I'm saying: sometimes people can play characters with ability beyond their personal ability. In some instances, they cannot do thing their character reasonably should do. It makes sense in said instances, that those people would gain assistance in figuring things out and, if their fellow players can't help out, the GM can.
Sometimes people can play characters with ability less than their own. In some instances their characters cannot do things they reasonably could do. It makes sense in said instances, that those people would play their character "down" from themselves.
This is how we play our game. You've apparently identified this as "wrong". It is not. This has been my entire argument.
Ok, since we feel like playing the semantics game I will rephrase it. Should the individual controlling the character ignore the mental stats?
Semantics are actually very important when talking about the rules to a game. They are especially important when taking about the differences between players and characters.
I had felt that I had given sufficiently evidence of where I stood on the question you were intending me to answer. I felt that the wording of you post must have indicated where your understanding was regarding my opinion on this. In case you didn't, I did reiterate my stance.
If someone drops the int to 5 as an example should they be coming up with complex tactics.
A character with a low intelligence is already limited in what they are capable of. Intelligence in Pathfinder mostly deals with knowledge. It certainly deals with the number a skills ranks you receive each level. It doesn't effect your eventual modifier in every single particular skill.
As an example a character with a high enough perform "Keyboard instruments" skills could play Rachmaninoffs Piano Concerto No. 3 in D minor despite having a 3 intelligence. Sure he would have to know it but he could learn it and play it.
As another example a character with a high enough heal skill could treat a patient who was poisoned by Dragon bile(DC 26) despite have a 3 intelligence.
I think the problem is that people are trying to apply their idea of what intelligence means to the pathfinder rules as opposed to looking at how the pathfinder rules apply to intelligence.
For instance no matter how low a characters intelligence is, as long as it isn't 0, he isn't necessarily suffering from a disorder, diseases, or curse. The player might decide that a disorder is the reason for his characters low intelligence stats but that decision is his not the his GMs. No one should be describing your character as braindead, drooling or stupid, unless that's how you have described your character.
Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.
I see the point you are making, but a high score is an enhancer, and a low score is a limiter so the GM should not be limiting anything.
This is a good point, but, then again, we know how an ability score enhances and limits what a character can do.
For instance a character with a 18 intelligence gets 4 extra skill points every level(they have no choice!), but the same character doesn't have to put those points into skills that will be useful(they have a choice). A character with a 3 intelligence gets only 1 skill point every level(They have no choice!), but the same character doesn't have to put that point into a skill that will be useless.(they have a choice.)
You seem like you're being purposefully obtuse. It really appears that you're playing a game of pedantry and semantics and it's rather irritating.
I would venture to say that most of the rules question, problem and suggestions on this forum are highly related to semantics. Semantics are important for games because words in games have specific meanings.
I have tried to keep to semantics in my posts, not to sound pedantic, but to keep me form having to make corrections.
In cases where I haven't been sure of what the poster was asking I have tired both, to answer the question as it was written, and to answer the question as I thought they might have meant it. I try not to answer post simply as I think they might have meant it, because I have often been wrong.
I have attempted to engage you reasonably, and instead you hand wave things away and claim to cite RAW while you deviate from it.
Sense Motive, for example: doesn't help with riddles, per RAW.
Oops, on further reading of Sense motive, you're right. You hear that? You're right, hunch has a specific meaning and it isn't what I thought when I first skimmed over it. It specifically says "social situation." Do you see, now, how important semantics are?
but again, you're not relying on the player's abilities, you're granting them benefit for having skill ranks and ability scores beyond RAW. Which is exactly what the majority of us have been saying we do.
I said: "I might allow." Now that you've pointed out that it's indeed not RAW I wouldn't allow it. Of course this wouldn't stop my players from trying to get a
I'm saying: sometimes people can play characters with ability beyond their personal ability.
Certainly. I know I can't personalty cast fireball.
In some instances, they cannot do thing their character reasonably should do. It makes sense in said instances, that those people would gain assistance in figuring things out and, if their fellow players can't help out, the GM can.
"reasonably should do" is a strange phrase. It kind of implies obligation to do the task.
I think that players are obligated to play there characters according to there stats. I also feel that it's the players responsibility to decide how their stats effect their characters decision.
The CRB is filled with descriptions to help them decided how to play their characters but in the end it's up to the players to decide. I don't strictly feel that all flavor text is RAW. If that is the heart of your argument I concede, but I would love to discuss it in another thread perhaps?
This is how we play our game. You've apparently identified this as "wrong". It is not. This has been my entire argument.
Well, I don't think it's wrong for players to help other players, for GMs to help players, or for Players to help GMs. I don't think it's wrong for players to look for ways of using their characters skills and abilities to help them complete tasks. I don't think it's wrong to keep players true to what there characters, should, understandably know.
I feel that reducing a fun roleplaying moment to a series of skill/ability checks is wrong. I don't just think it's wrong because your making a character act a way which the characters player might not feel is appropriate, I also feel it's a flawed view of how the game is suppose to be played. I am not saying this to offend you. It is sincerely in defiance of roleplaying, and how it applies to Pathfinder.
One GM I know used the Int stat as an idicator of thinking time, if your character had high Int you got more time to make decisions (simulating quick thinking) if it was low you got less (slow thinking) as a system I thought it worked well.
c
Semantics are actually very important when talking about the rules to a game. They are especially important when taking about the differences between players and characters.
If you truly did not understand me than that is one thing, but if so you should just answer the question. If you think I am the type to change the definition of what I stated after the fact then ask for a more precise answer. It is a lot more honest than answering a question one way if you know I had a different idea in mine than the way you choose to prevent an answer.
A character with a low intelligence is already limited in what they are capable of. Intelligence in Pathfinder mostly deals with knowledge.
Here we go with the semantics again. You know that wisdom and intelligence simulate real life "smartness", and nothing in the game world says if you need an int of X to do Y, but if I have lions(feel free to insert other creature that could not do such a task) planning ambushes and war strategies with the intent to take over the world, people will look at me like I am crazy.
With that having been said I will ask again what would you consider to be reasonable from someone who is not smart/low int and low wis in game terms.
At what point do you start looking at players funny as a GM if they are supposed to RP their stats.
I feel that reducing a fun roleplaying moment to a series of skill/ability checks is wrong.
Which is exactly what no one here is arguing for. That said: no. It's not wrong, if that's what a particular group of people want to do with their game.
I don't just think it's wrong because your making a character act a way which the characters player might not feel is appropriate, I also feel it's a flawed view of how the game is suppose to be played. I am not saying this to offend you. It is sincerely in defiance of roleplaying, and how it applies to Pathfinder.
That's fine, but if a given group's social contract indicates this is what they want to do, than clearly your way is against their local social contract. You indicating "that's boring, I don't like it" isn't a good stance at all.
RE: Semantics. I disagree entirely. I love semantics, but when they are being used to argue a clearly incorrect thesis, it becomes pedantry instead and frustrating. To add to this point:
I said: "I might allow." Now that you've pointed out that it's indeed not RAW I wouldn't allow it. Of course this wouldn't stop my players from trying to get a
IF we are going to argue semantics, we need to be complete. Your quote, sir, is incomplete. You left an incomplete sentence. This is the reason I'm getting frustrated: you ignore RAW, but claim it, you insist on certain things, but then don't follow it up with the full weight of what you can do.
I don't care about being correct on Sense Motive - that's a tangent to this whole argument: I only pointed it out only because you claim to use RAW, but you didn't in that instance.
Now, what you did with Sense Motive? That's great! It's called "house rules" and it's a perfectly fine and valid thing to do. Alternatively, if you don't want to use Sense Motive anymore, feel free to use just Wisdom itself. It's even in the RAW: as the infamous "Rule 0". James Jacobs has said that local play style (i.e. the "social contract" term we've bandied about) trumps developer rules (i.e. "RAW"). Your insistence on nothing but RAW + player ability is incorrect, and isn't even RAW. There are such things as intelligence checks and wisdom checks. What do they apply to? Using intelligence and wisdom. In what, specific situations? The rules don't actually spell that out. Instead, again, the rules indicate that it's up to a local gaming group.
Being a roleplaying game, Pathfinder players are (presumably) there to play a role. What role? The role of their character. What character is that? A character defined on their sheet of paper and by the ideas they have. Will a player use their own (the player's) abilities? Certainly. Should they be limited to that, if their character is not so limited? No. Your insistence on this is incorrectly applied. I've no problem with groups that choose to play this way - that's fantastic! But other groups don't - and that's also fantastic! Saying "only one way to play is correct" is... well, incorrect.
|
I have followed this argument a bit and I have to say I favor Karl's position to a certain extent. Low attribute scores are often used against characters in ways not supported by RAW.
Let us take the example of the human who dumps charisma. I mean really dumps it. He has a charisma of 3 (-4). Why? Maybe his DM uses the roll 3d6 take them as they roll rule. Now he likes to have a charismatic character so he tries to make up the deficiency in other ways. He decides to go nuts with diplomacy and makes a rogue.
He takes skill focus diplomacy (+3) and Persuasive (+2) as feats.
He takes Ease of Faith (+1) and Charming (+1) as traits.
At 1st level he puts 1pt into diplomacy giving him (+4)
So his total skill bonus is -4+4+3+2+1+1=+7 at 1st level for diplomacy.
So the first game they meet some bandits (unfriendly attitude) and he tries to get their assistance. He role-plays it great and makes a 20 on his Diplomacy roll for a total of 27 which moves them to indifferent.
His DM interrupts and says, "ooooh, sorry due to your terrible Charisma they do not even want to listen to you."
That is a patently unfair ruling. The character has done everything he can to help his abysmal score. By RAW his actions and roll give the correct results.
So Karl's basic point is that to do most things in the game you only use the attribute score to help modify it (skills being a relevant example). Characters with a terrible governing attribute can still be good at things that attribute governs.
|
|
I have followed this argument a bit and I have to say I favor Karl's position to a certain extent. Low attribute scores are often used against characters in ways not supported by RAW.
Let us take the example of the human who dumps charisma. I mean really dumps it. He has a charisma of 3 (-4). Why? Maybe his DM uses the roll 3d6 take them as they roll rule. Now he likes to have a charismatic character so he tries to make up the deficiency in other ways.
His DM interrupts and says, "ooooh, sorry due to your terrible Charisma they do not even want to listen to you."That is a patently unfair ruling. The character has done everything he can to help his abysmal score. By RAW his actions and roll give the correct results.
So Karl's basic point is that to do most things in the game you only use the attribute score to help modify it (skills being a relevant example). Characters with a terrible governing attribute can still be good at things that attribute governs.
Sorry but this assumes that the DM has already forced the character to choose to dump CHA and the only way this is possible is if you do roll stats in order then pick class.
If he does this then clearly the DM doesn't really care what the players want to play. But based on just about the way everyone else ever plays the game nowadays they get to choose where their stats go either through point buy or by assigning your rolls to the stats you choose.
This means if you wanted to be charismatic you could have chosen to put a decent score into it, the fact that you didn't should be a limiter on how you play your character.
That does not rebut my point. The reason why the CHA is low does not matter.
I have followed this argument a bit and I have to say I favor Karl's position to a certain extent. Low attribute scores are often used against characters in ways not supported by RAW.
Let us take the example of the human who dumps charisma. I mean really dumps it. He has a charisma of 3 (-4). Why? Maybe his DM uses the roll 3d6 take them as they roll rule. Now he likes to have a charismatic character so he tries to make up the deficiency in other ways. He decides to go nuts with diplomacy and makes a rogue.
He takes skill focus diplomacy (+3) and Persuasive (+2) as feats.
He takes Ease of Faith (+1) and Charming (+1) as traits.
At 1st level he puts 1pt into diplomacy giving him (+4)
So his total skill bonus is -4+4+3+2+1+1=+7 at 1st level for diplomacy.
So the first game they meet some bandits (unfriendly attitude) and he tries to get their assistance. He role-plays it great and makes a 20 on his Diplomacy roll for a total of 27 which moves them to indifferent.
His DM interrupts and says, "ooooh, sorry due to your terrible Charisma they do not even want to listen to you."
That is a patently unfair ruling. The character has done everything he can to help his abysmal score. By RAW his actions and roll give the correct results.
So Karl's basic point is that to do most things in the game you only use the attribute score to help modify it (skills being a relevant example). Characters with a terrible governing attribute can still be good at things that attribute governs.
karkon... I don't know if you're referencing me, but this isn't what I'm suggesting at all. In those situations where a particular bonus or penalty should be used, by all means it should be used. In fact, your suggestion here is the opposite of what I'm saying... and you're seemingly supporting the opposite of Karl, too.
Instead, what I'm saying is that when he's playing up the "man, look at me, I'm outgoing wooooooooooo!", that's not roleplaying his character. If, however, he's put ranks into using his CHA-based skills (such as diplomacy) instead, that's fine. But he has to make the check. If he fails his diplomacy check, oh well. That's part of the game. I, personally, would see if there's something I could do to help him out, but there might not be anything due to a low attribute bonus.
Karl's specified that he wants to stay RAW. He's also specified that he wants his players to use their own intelligence instead of their characters'. He's also stated that simply rolling things isn't fun. He's indicated that the right way to play the game is the way he plays the game. While all of these apply perfectly at his table, they are not universally true.
The utilization of characters' attributes is part of the game. That's what ability checks are for. I agree that, in our games, where skills are concerned, the skills rule. Specific trumps general - it's part of the game rules, incidentally. But the general rules are there for all the other situations.
This is the place that we differ - I cite the ambiguous (but still) RAW ruling that ability scores can and do affect more than just skills and can assist the player in role playing. In other words, the player is not limited by his sheet, but his sheet is a tool that assists him beyond his means. I also say that our local group enjoys using the ability scores (mental and physical) to good effect for role playing and mechanical benefit outside of skills. He indicates that doing so is not the correct way to play.
If you truly did not understand me than that is one thing, but if so you should just answer the question.
I did. I answers both the question you asked and the question you intended.
How could they.
and
A character's stats should never be ignored.
but, of course, I have said this several times so you will forgive me for assuming you must have asked something different.
I even extend my explanation
All of the stats for every character, NPC and Monster are supplemented by the skills of the player or GM playing that part. Trying to separate them is superfluous and doomed to fail.
If I have lions planning ambushes and war strategies with the intent to take over the world, people will look at me like I am crazy.
I think it would be hard for a lion to take over the world because it doesn't have opposable thumbs. I agree this isn't listed as a rule but I really don't think it's worthy of discussion.
A lion also can't understand speech
Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3.
With that having been said I will ask again what would you consider to be reasonable from someone who is not smart/low int and low wis in game terms.
I think that it would be reasonable for a character/NPC/lion to do the very best with their stats it has. It's stats include but is not limited to it's Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, cha, Hp, creature type, Movement, SA, EX, Senses, Ac, saves,Feats, skills, and history. I don't think that a Character/NPC/Lion should ignore any of there resources.
At what point do you start looking at players funny as a GM if they are supposed to RP their stats.
If you had a character who played a rather stupid character as if they were a genius could be rather memorable. Like Zack Galifianakis The Pretentious Illiterate. Certainly he wouldn't gain any useful benefit for such an act. It would make even more sense if he had a high Charisma but a low int and wisdom because he could actually be convinced that he was intelligent yet still managing to fail at any int related skill.
I do think that on the whole we should reward clever ideas by our players as opposed by limit them. Mind you that this isn't a benefit that would simply be granted to players of stupid character but to any player who had a clever idea.
|
|
Characters with a terrible governing attribute can still be good at things that attribute governs.Sure, because there's a difference between innate ability and trained ability. People can train themselves to be good at things for which they have no natural aptitude. That's represented by investing skill ranks and so on. And it's a bad DM who penalizes a character for having no innate ability despite being well trained.
But the natural aptitude is what attributes are for, and they should be roleplayed accordingly. The character who has dumped charisma but invested heavily in diplomacy isn't charismatic, he's an uncharismatic wallflower who happens to have overcome this handicap to be a reasonably decent diplomat.
It's an issue, basically, of suspension of disbelief. Every the barbarian with the muscles of a god loses an arm-wrestling competition to an average halfling, it breaks immersion. Every time the urbane, sophisticated, erudite socialite turns out to, mechanically, be a cretin with the personality of a petunia, it ruins immersion. And ruining immersion is, for the most part, bad.
You can't talk about immersion and then go on about attributes. Everytime you talk about attributes you are not immersed.
How would your example be accomplished in RAW? I can think of several ways. The most basic is an opposed STR check. In that case the halfling could roll a 20 (with -1 for STR) and have a 19 and your barbarian with an 18 STR could roll 10 which comes out to 14. Depending on the method you use you could come up with a result that "breaks immersion". I just tend to come up with a reason for it to work.
The halfling distracted him. The halfling's shorter arm allowed him to get better leverage. The halfling moved quickly enough to pin the barbarian's arm before Conan could react.
In a game where even a 20th level fighter misses 5% of the time regardless of the opponent then you will get weird results. If you want to keep immersion you need to work at it.
Sure, because there's a difference between innate ability and trained ability. People can train themselves to be good at things for which they have no natural aptitude. That's represented by investing skill ranks and so on. And it's a bad DM who penalizes a character for having no innate ability despite being well trained.
Combat tactics and riddle solving don't have assigned skills.
This isn't to say that skills couldn't play a role in either.
I have already given a few examples.
|
|
I do think that on the whole we should reward clever ideas by our players as opposed by limit them. Mind you that this isn't a benefit that would simply be granted to players of stupid character but to any player who had a clever idea.
This is my general theory of running a game. If a player has a clever idea then see how you can make it work.
I don't care about my player's intelligence vs the character's intelligence. Why? Because each group has mixed attributes in characters and in players. The guy who plays the super intelligent wizard might not be so bright. The guy who plays the dumb fighter might be brilliant. But even then some people are better at some things than others. One guy might be great at tactics but plays a cowardly wizard. The fighter might be some guy who stinks at tactics. I could go on.
By letting the players cooperate my group more accurately simulates the strengths of each character on the player side. To do otherwise creates a game environment where the DM has to give information and exposition that certain characters should know. It gets boring just like exposition gets boring in books and movies. By letting the players support each other you are increasing immersion as the players discuss the game and what to do. By placing restrictions on player interaction you actually make them less interested in the game. It is almost like making people wear horse blinders and head restraints to a movie.
Karl's specified that he wants to stay RAW. He's also specified that he wants his players to use their own intelligence instead of their characters.
This actually angers me.
I never said this. This is a caricature of me. Please stop.
This is my general theory of running a game. If a player has a clever idea then see how you can make it work.
That's totally fine!
I don't care about my player's intelligence vs the character's intelligence. Why? Because each group has mixed attributes in characters and in players. The guy who plays the super intelligent wizard might not be so bright. The guy who plays the dumb fighter might be brilliant. But even then some people are better at some things than others. One guy might be great at tactics but plays a cowardly wizard. The fighter might be some guy who stinks at tactics. I could go on.
This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying.
By letting the players cooperate my group more accurately simulates the strengths of each character on the player side. To do otherwise creates a game environment where the DM has to give information and exposition that certain characters should know. It gets boring just like exposition gets boring in books and movies. By letting the players support each other you are increasing immersion as the players discuss the game and what to do. By placing restrictions on player interaction you actually make them less interested in the game. It is almost like making people wear horse blinders and head restraints to a movie.
This is where we differ. You presume that...
<snip> a game environment where the GM has to give information and exposition that certain characters should know.
... yields ...
It gets boring just like exposition gets boring in books and movies. ... placing restrictions on player ...
... and negates...
... letting the players cooperate ... [to] ... accurately simulate[s] the strengths of each character on the player side. ... [and] ... letting the players support each other...
... which is simply not true.
Can it? Yes. Does it do so automatically? No. Feel free to ask my gaming group sometime.
ALSO, you presume that all "groups" have the luxury of having enough people with few enough distractions to come up with things. This is not always true, either. Further, occasionally, because people in one of my groups had sometimes altering schedules, the group tended to fracture - none of them want to stop gaming, but many times they couldn't do so together very effectively. This in turn prevents adequate communication and thus causes the stagnation of ideas, when one character (or even two) hit a brick wall and can't question others. Should we just give up the games entirely, despite the fact that it's a leisure activity? Should I make them work harder (as obviously they just weren't trying, right?), despite the fact they went to midnight and got up at five two nights in a row for work? This is my problem with Karl's assertions. In such scenarios (and probably others, as I, being fallible and limited cannot think up everything) restricting things the way he indicates is doing more harm than good.
IF his aim is only to say "players use their own scores too", then yes, that's fundamentally true of every game ever played for all of history. There's never a question of that. But what he seems to be indicating in addition to that claim is that, outside of certain prescribed (by his interpretation of RAW) limits, the scores play no role. I dispute that.
SEMI-EDIT/ADDENDUM
Okay, Karl, just read that you were angered by a caricature. It was entirely unintentional to misconstrue you, and certainly not a caricature in any way, nor attempting to anger you. I don't have the time to show you how I got that impression now, but I will do my best later. As I'm heading out of town tomorrow (Saturday), I don't know if it will be before Monday that I can construct that picture. I am NOT interested in mocking people, but AM interested in communicating with them. I will attempt to construct how I got that impression when I have time. That will allow us to clear up what we're actually talking about.
|
|
You can't talk about immersion and then go on about attributes. Everytime you talk about attributes you are not immersed.Nonsense. Attributes represent natural abilities. It's simply that innate abilities are not the only factor to be considered.
In fact, however, you're missing my point, presumably because I didn't make it crystal clear.
Let's say I describe my character as being able to do X. It then breaks immersion every time I fail to do X. Sometimes that happens, because 1d20 has large variance on the scale of typical ability score modifiers. But it's going to happen very frequently to a character who mechanically is very bad at doing X, and relatively infrequently to a character who mechanically is not. One character breaks immersion occasionally, the other routinely. You're equating the two when there's no reason to do so.
I'm utterly unsympathetic to the argument that if there's not a mechanical consequence, there's no need to roleplay it. That seems to be at the heart of Karlgamer's approach. You can, as Tacticslion notes, play the game however you want to play it, and I'm not here to tell you that you're having wrong fun. But it's not at all to my taste, for reasons I've already explained.
Immersion. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I think the word you are looking for is drama or tension. Movies, books, and plays are filled with examples of characters who are good at things and then fail at that thing. Then they have to resolve the reason why they failed or overcome it. Having a character who is super good at something is not fun or interesting if all he does is steamroll over everything. How long would it be fun for you to play a 20th level barbarian fighting 1st level bandits? Not very long.
If your massive barbarian who is super strong fails at something he is good at it creates drama and tension. Especially if he or other characters were counting on him to succeed. Maybe it lets other characters step in to find another way. It helps advance the story and make it interesting. If several characters fail then the players get nervous and possibly more immersed. It has happened in many of my games. Then when one guy pulls through every one cheers.
As far as not roleplaying things that don't have mechanical consequences I do not see where you get that from anything I wrote.
I love role-play. I love for my players to be enough into the game and their character that they can role-play it. I put a lot of effort into getting players information they need to role-play their characters. As I write this I have on my desk the following things I have written for a game: a brochure describing Andoran history and customs, house rules including traits just for my game, a page of expendable magic items issued by the group for which the characters work, a one page newspaper The Andoran Free Press published on parchment style paper which has one story element and a bunch of setting elements.
You are also confusing role play and immersion. The players can be immersed in the world and game even while not role playing their characters.
I create brochures and newsletters about the game world to give players information their characters would have available. These are not handouts that exist just to give out one plot point. They exist to set up the world. The brochure gives summaries of history of Andoran; current life; and customs.
The newspaper I am making for this game lists the date, the day, the price (in caps the Andoran slang for coppers). It mentions the Goblin Market on Sunday and how Independence Day items will be available. Since Almas is a port town it has a ship report saying what ships arrived and from where and what ships left and for where plus the tide. It has a story about something that is happening in a different game to different characters so as to give the feel of a larger world. It has an article on independence day to give the players that information. It has three ads. One mentions special swords made for Indpendence Day again (not a story element but a game element). Another ad is for the oldest bank in the country. It mentions all the slang terms for money in Andoran. It mentions how money changing is governed by law to give a sense of the laws of the nation. I publish a newspaper like that for every game.
Giving players the feeling that they exist in a large world and giving them the information to inhabit a character who lives in that world is immersion. I have used these same tools in several games and they are extremely effective. It gets them involved in a way that the rules never could. The "fluff" that many players deride is there for immersion. The rules are there to help move the story along.
Okay, Karl, just read that you were angered by a caricature. It was entirely unintentional to misconstrue you, and certainly not a caricature in any way, nor attempting to anger you. I don't have the time to show you how I got that impression now, but I will do my best later. As I'm heading out of town tomorrow (Saturday), I don't know if it will be before Monday that I can construct that picture. I am NOT interested in mocking people, but AM interested in communicating with them. I will attempt to construct how I got that impression when I have time. That will allow us to clear up what we're actually talking about.
Okay, I understand. It wasn't just you saying this, but you happen to have been the straw that broke the camels back.
I remember once telling my Oma that I didn't like coleslaw. She then assumed that I didn't like cabbage. I do like cabbage but I don't like coleslaw. If we were talking about something as simple as cabbage and coleslaw I'm sure that everyone would understand exactly what everyone meant. I am not sure that everyone would attempt to represent everyones elses opinion correctly.
I assume that you aren't purposefully trying to misrepresent me, and if you feel that I have either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented you I am sorry and I will try to be clearer in future posts.
|
|
Snipped a lot of stuff
Tact, I am not sure I followed what you were saying. If I am not getting the gist here then you will have to restate.
But as I understood it you were saying that exposition does not always yield boredom. I really should have modified that to say excessive exposition. Some exposition is necessary to advance any story. The DM does have to tell you if you walked into a bedroom or a dining room (simple example). Should the DM help when players are stuck? Absolutely.
Really, I was talking to immersion though and just playing a character is not immersion. Understanding your character's world and his place in that world is immersion.
I got a little lost in your discussion about your group and me and Karl. While I agree with a lot of Karl's points I can't be responsible for points he has made.
Regarding RAW and scores we are having two discussions here. One is that RAW treats scores a certain way and if we are just talking about RAW that is all you can consider. A lot of Karl's points have been to this exact issue.
In an actual game that is not true. No game runs by RAW. You can't. You can use RAW to do the mechanical bits but personal assumptions and group preferences change the game.
So the second discussion is how scores can be played in a game which as I have pointed out is never played by RAW. That is a fertile territory for discussion as personal assumptions, group dynamics, and other factors will affect how they are used. A nice example is puzzles and riddles. No rule or skill explicitly covers them so everyone is using their own preferential method. I use Linguistics. Some people like Know(arcana) or other skills. Some prefer straight INT or WIS checks (I played with one DM who used an average). Outside of RAW it just comes down to personal tastes and dynamics.
Finally, am I the only one who reads Karl's posts in an english accent?
edit: took out one extraneous bit.
|
|
Immersion. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
<snip>
You are also confusing role play and immersion. The players can be immersed in the world and game even while not role playing their characters.
I know exactly what the word means, and it's precisely the word I meant. You, apparently, are reading "immersed in the world" when I mean "immersed in the narrative."
If I read a book and I am consistently told that a character is a great warrior but consistently shown that he is not, it breaks my immersion in the narrative. Similarly, if a character who is portrayed as being particularly intelligent or particularly strong consistently fails at doing things that particularly intelligent or particularly strong people should be able to do, it breaks my immersion in the narrative. For me, it creates neither drama nor tension, but disbelief. If it works differently for you or Karlgamer, more power to you.
Immersion in the character and immersion in the narrative & setting are intertwined. Your character cannot exist in a void. Just saying your character is a barbarian assumes that he comes from an uncivilized area and that people who are civilized call him that. If I say your character is a city cop then certain images are stirred up just from that. I say he is a cop from the 1920's corrupt Chicago and that affects your character. Now if I say he fights corruption in Chicago you get a certain vision of him. Those ideas you get about the character are not divorced from the setting or the narrative.
Describing attributes and such only tells us a few things. Your character is kinda strong. He is rarely sick. He dislikes book learning but has a lot of common sense. Girls always liked him and he could talk his way out of stuff easily. That description gives you no real way to immerse yourself in a character. Just putting him into a setting gives you a certain set of ideas and values. These help when constructing a narrative.
My 1920's cop who fights corruption. If you see him taking a bribe does that take you out of immersion? It shouldn't. You might not have all the information. What if his wife has been kidnapped, what if he is doing a sting of sorts?
If Conan fails something strength related then maybe there is more to it or maybe not.
In a game where you roll dice and not write a book you have to make allowances for the dice. If a halfling beats the barbarian in an arm wrestling contest due to dice rolls and luck then you need to come up with a reason to make it work narratively. Otherwise you might as well play Amber the role playing game. The mechanic there is that your attribute measures you relative to other players and characters. If you have a 87 strength you will always beat someone with a lesser strength in a strength contest. No one else can have an 87 strength. They can have 86 and be weaker or 88 and be stronger. Booooooooring.
The key word in the previous paragraph, incidentally, is consistently.
As far as not roleplaying things that don't have mechanical consequences I do not see where you get that from anything I wrote.Feel free to substitute "portray" in lieu of "role play" if that is more to your liking.
Perhaps an example would help. I am, for example, unsympathetic to the following argument: "The fact that my character has Int 3, Cha 3 is irrelevant in determining how urbane, erudite, and sophisticated I portray him as being because there are no mechanical rules for being urbane, erudite, and sophisticated."
Kindly note, however, that I did not impute this argument to you. It may not be what Karlgamer is trying to say either, of course, but it's certainly how it comes across to me.
I would like to make certain we are separating role play (RP)and playing the game (PtG). When PtG I think your character's attributes are irrelevant for non-rule situations. If the party is confronted with a puzzle and the DM does not allow rolls to solve it then I think the whole group should be allowed to help to solve it.
In situations where rules are involved but the player who is struggling I think it is fine to let other players help. This comes up a lot. The guy who has high CHA and diplomacy but stinks at RP is a common example. Another example is when a cleric uses speak with dead or some divination. A lot of players have trouble forming the best questions so I let him group source it with the other players. For me that is all part of PtG.
As far as RP goes attributes play into it a lot. Many players use low or high attributes to form a role playing hook for the character. The jerk with low CHA is super popular as is the dumb fighter/barbarian. A character with a low charisma will have trouble being witty and urbane. But in my previous post example of the guy with a 3 charisma who took feats and traits to max his diplomacy I might let him get away with it.
The point is that attributes represent natural ability. Skills represent training and knowledge. Feats and traits represent a bit of both. Taken together they represent your character's capabilities. If a player in my game wanted to play his low charisma, low intelligence, low wisdom barbarian as witty, urbane, and wise I would let him. I can have the NPCs react to his actual stats, he has to roll with his actual stats, skills, and feats. So while he might act one way in the game world he will be perceived another.
Sorta like the oily used car salesman. He thinks he is turning on the charm but really comes off as pushy.
A character who is portrayed as being the strongest man in the nation but routinely fails when he tries to do things that a strong man should be able to do, because this character is actually (game mechanics alert!) weak breaks my immersion in the narrative!
I think that a character, and indeed people, have a pretty good understanding of the limits of there strength and movement. If a character thought he was strong and continuously failed at strength checks I wouldn't think "This breaks immersion" I would think "this character must have a mental disorder."
I would personally rather the PCs in my game not have mental disorders. Disorders aren't to my knowledge in the game mechanics. Changing the disorder to a curse or diseases would stop any break in immersion that you have, but since you would be in charge of giving said curse or disease I would have no problem with you simply asking the player to stop. Although, if they aren't disrupting the game in any way that removes the fun for your players then you might wish to let the player have his character concept however annoying you might personally find it.
As a general rule though whether or not someone is roleplaying or not if they are being disruptive you should stop this form happening, and not playing with them is a viable solution.
I prefer that players role play their character's attributes because I find that it helps maintain my immersion in the narrative... and your conclusion is to tell me that many players role play their character's attributes?
A character doesn't exactly know, however, what their abilities are. Social interaction and correctness vary. If you feel, as I do, that an immersive world is a believable one then certainly smart people can act stupid and stupid people can act smart. I could give you examples in my life and I would hope that you could give examples in your life. I could also give you examples in popular media.
Thinks he is smooth and charming,
check
comes across as smooth and charming to the viewers of the drama
Unavoidable. You should never rely on the quality of you players actually acting ability to effect your immersion. And I would be surprised if your players actually act out every line of dialogue, and in an immersive manner. Then again, I don't know, perhaps you play with a bunch of trained thespians.
Because mechanics have in-universe consequences, when the role play says one thing and the mechanics routinely say the opposite, there is an inconsistency which breaks my immersion in the narrative, and I don't like it.
You seen to think there is a inflexible one to one relationship between the mechanics of the game and roleplaying. Although I think that Pathfinder and the people who worked on 3.5 created a wonderful facsimile of life it is clear that it focuses on the combat in particular. The roleplaying aspects are unsurprisingly vague because the adventure that the players are going on is a story. As GM you have a lot of input on how this story turns out, but the players are also important to the story, It is up to them to decide how there players fit into the story. It feels like you are having trouble handing over the reigns of story telling over to your players.
|
I have a friend of mine who plays infrequently, mostly because of family and work commitments. He is, however, a very intelligent man. Because he plays so infrequently, the characters he tends to run are meat shields. His last long term character was a barabarian. We played in Eberon and his barbarian was a shifter. He had low Cha, and low intelligence, but the guy playing him loved the challenge of investigation games and battle strategy. He brings a level of planning to my game that forces me to step up my GMing skills as well.
Now, to cater to his interests, I'll happily let him talk out of character to plan this stuff, and make strategic moves akin to a genius general, because otherwise his fun would be ruined.
I can actually justify the battle planning as purely instinctual for the barbarian.
For the problem solving, well I give clues out that need to be solved. In order to get the clues, characters come up with plans, but quite often still need to roll. It is rare that the barbarian character himself finds the clues or wins people over with a smile, but once the clues are in, it is regulalry my part time player who manages to piece them together. Again, we then hand responsibility of in game solving the problem to a brighter character.
This is what Karl is discussing I belive, and I see no reason why players shouldn't use their own intelligence to enjoy the game. It does in fact, heighten roleplay in games as we very clearly separate in character and out of character knowledge and actions. This serves the purpose of enhancing the moment when the barbarian is being obviously stupid or crass, rather than ruin the verisimiltude.
cheers
|
|
Glenwydr, do you do a lot of play by post? I ask because the play style is seriously different than at the table. If so you may actually like Amber RPG.
Regarding your numbered sections I totally agree with 1-5.
6} As a DM I do put limits on role play. Usually the limit is play nice , your character is a friend with the other characters.
7. Sure he can. As DM I control how the world perceives him and can adjust accordingly. Heck, I am glad if a player even role plays.
8. I would modify that to say NPCs. As DM I don't control PCs.
9. Here we are talking personal preferences. Even when I am a player I try to make my immersion work regardless of rolls. That means if someone routinely fails INT checks despite saying they are a genius then my character will just cease to see them as such a genius. Ooo look game results changing role playing. It is almost as if narrative and immersion are intertwined.
Regarding a. I just think you are wrong.
Regarding b. sometimes it is fun to take a contrary position to see how strong an argument really is. Not doing it here but sometimes I do. Especially when I find a person's point unpersuasive.
Perhaps I need to use more sentences.
- Mechanics have in-universe consequences.
- A character who is, mechanically, a dullard will routinely fail at Intelligence-based tasks.
- While in the real world, a genius will occasionally fail at simple Intelligence-based tasks, the hallmark of a genius is that he or she routinely succeeds at such tasks.
- So a person who routinely fails at simple Intelligence-based tasks is not a genius.
- Separate from mechanics, there is role play.
- A player can role play his character however he wants.
- In particular, a player can role play his character as being a genius.
- If a player adequately role plays his character as being a genius, the character will be perceived as such by other characters.
- I personally find it disruptive to my immersion when the "genius" routinely fails at simple Intelligence-based tasks.
As opposed to evaluating this list I'll present a parallel list so that you might compare and contrast. I will invariably state the same thing, that you were, perhaps, intending, my own way, this isn't so, to say, that I think you were meaning something different.
- A characters stats effect how that character interacts in it's world.
- A character with a below average intelligence score will roll below average on an unmodified intelligence based check.
- A character with a above average intelligence score will roll above average on an unmodified intelligence based check.
- A character who routinely rolls below average on unmodified intelligence based rolls will likely have a below intelligence score.
- Separate from mechanics, there is roleplaying.
- A player can roleplay his character however he wants within the characters limitations.
- In particular, a player can roleplay his character as being a genius.
- If a player roleplays his character as being a genius/stupid/sexy/shy/etc, the character will not necessarily be perceived as such by other characters.
- I personally find it immersive, when the character, who was acting in opposition to his abilities, fails at a task, involving that ability.
Now, as for a character who was acting in opposition to his abilities, routinely failing the task involving that ability. Have you actually been through a such a situation? I would venture to say that if you had there was probably more to it then simply a character having a strange character concept. Not all roleplaying is good roleplaying, because, I know, sometimes a players ego takes over.