The voice thing probably deserves it's own thread... I'll start one. :)
Rail Play?
Yes but many of us are embarrassed by voice acting, and lets face it if i wanted to be embarrassed I could go hang out on greek row instead.
This did actually made me laugh... The later part of it, we play a D&D spin off. You hang out on geek row every time you step into a game session. Embrace it, love it, stroke it. Let the geek (or greek for that matter) flag fly!
In all seriousness I play with two groups, one consisting of my close friends and well all use voices. It makes it easier to figure out what is happening in-game vs. out of game. The other group is one were I am a relative outsider and only voice actor, I knew one person prior to playing with them. They do not voice act. It is really difficult to tell when the are "in character." At one point I even thought I was personally attacked, it took another game session to figure out it was her character not her. I guess I didn't really have a point besides it is easier to tell what is going on.
One must play how they feel most comfortable and rock on with their bad selves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, I guess you didn't bother to visit Jiggy's Wikipedia link which defines min/maxing precisely in the manner I and others have understood it to mean.
Quite the contrary. I'm going by the exact same wikipedia link. Which notes "Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game, wargame or video game with the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired or unimportant traits and maximizing desired ones". In 3.x/PF, there are generally a few undesired/unimportant traits for each class (Str for sorcerers, Cha for fighters, etc).
The point is, if you're deliberately gimping your character, exactly what are you maximizing? It's certainly not effectiveness. Look up any guide to min/maxing, and it discusses how to make your character more effective. Gimping your character does not make you more effective. Gimping your character is the OPPOSITE of min/maxing.
An example of min/maxing in 3.x vs gimping. Someone who wanted to min/max two-weapon fighting will look for stuff like static modifiers and bonuses that apply to each attack, and try to make the utmost use of those; while focusing on making up for the loss in accuracy. For this reason they may favor Ranger or Paladin (for favored enemy or smite bonuses to hit and damage), Fighters (weapon specializations applies to each hit and improves your chances to hit), or might try to min/max a rogue (extra attacks potentially leading into more instances of sneak attack). You look at the things that are and aren't going to help with this. On a Paladin, Charisma is going to help big since it improves your bonuses to hit vs smite targets, while on a Fighter you decide Charisma doesn't help so you are okay with having a weaker Charisma in favor of a higher Strength (which does help hitting).
Your definition of "min/maxing" is completely redundant with "optimizing" and is therefore totally unnecessary. However, there DOES need to be a term which describes what I am talking about and since "min/maxing" is redundant in your definition, I propose we adopt it universally to mean my definition. That way, at least, "optimization" and "min/maxing" won't mean the same thing.
The term optimizing sprang up from min/maxing. At least, that has been my experiences in the past 12 years. The term "optimizing" and "min/maxing" were used synonymously through the early 3.x, and caught on as the primary name for it because of anti-min/maxing sentiments similar to ones you see today; with people trashing having usable characters as opposed to one-legged fighters who can't lift swords but smile and say "I'm better than you because I have a +2 to diplomacy and writing poetry, naturally; so I'm a better role player!".
When I see a character like that I just can't respect it. No one who is serious about RP is going to make such a sub-human, and sense they aren't here to RP, I might as well use their character as a punching bag.
I can respect them more than I can respect people making stupid associations about ability scores with roleplaying. You see someone incapable of RPing. I see someone who has real human weaknesses, and isn't a Mary Sue that's the best at everything. I see someone who spent more time learning martial combat and woodland survival than reading books or learning to dance.
Something that gets glossed over pretty hard is that in 3.x, it's clearly noted that 3-18 is the range for normal human capabilities. Ability scores are not meant to account for things like mental retardation. 10-11 is the average for all of humanity, but the range for functional human beings runs between 3-18 in every ability score (3-20 in Pathfinder due to +2 racial). It's insulting to call someone sub-human because they're only 10% less capable than the average person at a given task. Hell, a human with a 3 Wisdom is only 20% worse than someone with a 11.
You go on not respecting characters like that. I'll go on enjoying the fact they're overcompensating for their natural flaws like real human beings. I'll go on enjoying the fact that even in the 2E books they encouraged you to have fun playing the characters with the 4 in an ability score. I'll go on enjoying the fact that ability scores don't mean crap on their own and only influence what your character is capable of doing, and that the natural range for normal humans is between 3-18, and only accounting for a 20% difference in either direction.
Ever get to the party late and skip EVERY single post except the last 3? If so I now empathize...
Some part of this thread is about food and which is the best. I look at the menu and say "ok"
FYI - Bacon is Meat Candy. Unless it's Kevin Bacon. Then it's Eye Candy (Rawrr...)
As for the point of this thread it's kind of like asking what kind of ice cream is better (still about food dang it) and I say WHO CARES? You're doing what you promised yourself and your parents you'd do when you finally moved out from under their oppressive rules... YOU'RE EATING ICE CREAM!
Here's the thing: I've played these games for 30 years, to the exclusion of all other types of games. I didn't become a board game geek, never got sucked into consoles or PC gaming; I'm not even overly fond of chess or poker. But I LOVES me some RPG's!
For me it's 'cause its me, and a bunch of my friends, hanging out and doing RIDICULOUS things. In these games I've borne witness to fictional moments like a halfling fighter kicking in a door and in the same round acing 2 pit fiends from surprise; seen a guy save his own father from flaming death by charging an ancient red dragon, head on, flying, hasted with 2 +3 swords; sat in awe of a samurai, with 1hp, scream himself to 18/00 str, tear himself free from a post, drop onto a pair of ninja guards, and take them down... only to continue the epicness by hurling wakazashis at the ropes of his teammates and NAIL it so they were free, at which point these 3 freaking HEROES plowed through a dozen more ninja minions and the samurai intimidated the warlord into simply backing away and LETTING them leave ninja island.
It hasn't always been pretty; our entire party died at 19th level in the heart of an undead horde, I've seen grown men around the table weep over fake loved ones and curse pretend injustices.
And yes; we've had funny voices.
But the joy I get is from, at the end of the night, all of us leaning back in our chairs, heaving a sigh and saying "that was AWESOME!" That shared experience is, IMO, the best part of this whole hobby, and anything that gets you there is gold.
I now want to make an role-playing game about bowling.
OK, now that we are entering the "I can play my character however the hell I want, and to hell with their actual statistics!" zone, it's time for me to bow out.
Been there, got the T-shirt, spent too much money trying to get the bloodstains out...
When I see a character like that I just can't respect it. No one who is serious about RP is going to make such a sub-human, and sense they aren't here to RP, I might as well use their character as a punching bag.
This is just strait up wrong. Min/Maxing (or Optimization) is generally about not gimping your character by understanding priorities and how things work. Here's one that seems to ignite a fire under people's keisters on these boards.Ranger: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 15, Cha 7.
This seems to piss people off really bad, because they believe they know the "one true way", and...
I disagree. Such low mental stats characters can be fun at the table, especially when they are played as intentionally obtuse. Now if the player is ignoring mental stats..............
I now want to make an role-playing game about bowling.I'd play it.
I'm seeing something with d10 pools.
That's not really saying anything.There's nothing to say about bacon.Yes there is.
ICK!
Bacon is Icky!
There, that's saying something about bacon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The CHA and INT = 7 puts him only a single step above this guy so unless the player wants to see the result of adventuring when you are as dumb and offensive as a troll while having 1/5th the HP at level one as an experiment to see how far he gets, more power to him. I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.
Wow. Just wow. Trolls are trolls. If you want to try and use monsters to define ability scores, instead of what the actual mechanics define, I'll see your troll and raise you "if your Charisma is 16, you're one step below this gal in terms of being a socialite who makes people really like you".
Heck, wyverns are described as nasty, brutish, violent, reptilian creatures. They actually have MORE CHARISMA than the average DWARF, and the same INTELLIGENCE as harpies who do not seem stupid at all judging only by their descriptive text.
I'm sure we could play Monster-tag all day long. You are looking at monsters with similar ability scores, and you are trying to push the traits of those monsters to define ability scores--which is very clearly wrong.
A troll is a troll; a wyvern is a wyvern; a harpy is a harpy; and a human is a human. Since monsters have their own racial stat ajustments, there are probably plenty of wyverns with different ability scores, with lower or higher Intelligence scores, just as there are probably a few trolls lurking about who have 14 Intelligence scores. But having the same ability score as something else does not by any means suggest that you are the same as that creature at all. Anyone with eyes in their head can look at the game and tell that is true.
The CHA and INT = 7 puts him only a single step above this guy so unless the player wants to see the result of adventuring when you are as dumb and offensive as a troll while having 1/5th the HP at level one as an experiment to see how far he gets, more power to him. I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.Wow. Just wow. Trolls are trolls. If you want to try and use monsters to define ability scores, instead of what the actual mechanics define, I'll see your troll and raise you "if your Charisma is 16, you're one step below this gal in terms of being a socialite who makes people really like you".
Heck, wyverns are described as nasty, brutish, violent, reptilian creatures. They actually have MORE CHARISMA than the average DWARF, and the same INTELLIGENCE as harpies who do not seem stupid at all judging only by their descriptive text.
I'm sure we could play Monster-tag all day long. You are looking at monsters with similar ability scores, and you are trying to push the traits of those monsters to define ability scores--which is very clearly wrong.
A troll is a troll; a wyvern is a wyvern; a harpy is a harpy; and a human is a human. Since monsters have their own racial stat ajustments, there are probably plenty of wyverns with different ability scores, with lower or higher Intelligence scores, just as there are probably a few trolls lurking about who have 14 Intelligence scores. But having the same ability score as something else does not by any means suggest that you are the same as that creature at all. Anyone with eyes in their head can look at the game and tell that is true.
For some reason monster tag seems like it could be a messageboard game where you roll dice and then the next poster gives you a monster with a random stat of that.
As long as I get to be a ridiculously hammy pro bowler with an equally ridiculous mustache.
And a sponsor's name on your shirt that no one has ever heard of.
I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.Because farmers make a habit of killing strangers.
Edit: Wait, I remember now, your farmers are the evil xenophobes.
Why not just drop a fiat panda on his head?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.Because farmers make a habit of killing strangers.
Well obviously that farmer must have a 7 Int as well! I mean, the farmer obviously must act like a wyvern, and thus run about not talking and just killing anything it thinks it can; not bothering to actually communicate with the ranger unless it believes it can neither kill nor flee from the ranger. Also, since Cranewings thinks 7 Int is sub-humanly stupid, the farmer is probably also trying to defend his territory from something that smells different than its family; and doesn't really realize that the sub-human ranger has humanly-sharp weapons. Cranewing's world is full of special folk indeed.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well obviously that farmer must have a 7 Int as well! I mean, the farmer obviously must act like a wyvern, and thus run about not talking and just killing anything it thinks it can; not bothering to actually communicate with the ranger unless it believes it can neither kill nor flee from the ranger. Also, since Cranewings thinks 7 Int is sub-humanly stupid, the farmer is probably also trying to defend his territory from something that smells different than its family; and doesn't really realize that the sub-human ranger has humanly-sharp weapons. Cranewing's world is full of special folk indeed.I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.Because farmers make a habit of killing strangers.
I wonder if he forces bards to RP being about as attractive as a slime-covered demon.
TriOmegaZero is a comic genius. :P
The CHA and INT = 7 puts him only a single step above this guy so unless the player wants to see the result of adventuring when you are as dumb and offensive as a troll while having 1/5th the HP at level one as an experiment to see how far he gets, more power to him. I guess that qualifies as RPing but I'd probably just kill the Troll ranger with an angry farmer that assumed he was there to raid and pillage.Despite their cruelty in combat, trolls are surprisingly tender and kind to their own young. Female trolls work as a group, spending a great deal of time teaching young trolls to hunt and fend for themselves before sending them off to find their own territories. A male troll tends to live a solitary existence, partnering with a female for only a brief time to mate. All trolls spend most of their time hunting for food, as they must consume vast amounts each day or face starvation. Due to this need, most trolls stake out large territories as their own, and fights between rivals are quite common. While these are usually nonlethal, trolls are aware of each others' weaknesses and will use such knowledge to kill their own kind if food is scarce.I have not seen anything saying trolls are stupid. If they can care for their own offspring and tenderly teach them how to survive i'd say that is within Human range. Even today some human parents can't achieve that.
And Charisma doesn't necessarily equal ugliness. I've seen players play with a 7 cha and their characters were socially awkwards. Seriously tho how many of us would actually have a Cha of 10 if we were to calculate our stats.
Judging by looking back on my natural progression, I'd have to stat myself as having a 7 Charisma or less, and having to make up for it in hard spent skill ranks (which works since I'm pretty sure my Intelligence is my strong stat). Took effort to go from the awkward person who didn't socialize, wasn't very assertive or strong willed, to someone who will happily dance in public no matter who's watching and walk up to someone and strike up a conversation. Sometimes I still find that it would be all to easy to just let my natural inhibitions flow and be a wall flower; but conscious effort and practice has made me at least average--if not a bit above average--in most things Charisma defines in game.
My father is either a mad genius or has levels in expert. He has more professional skills than most people have in a lifetime, and he's officially an auto mechanic (auto mechanic, degree in accounting, can build furniture, build half our house by hand with me assisting, etc). He seems a simple man and he doesn't talk a whole lot and tends to have some social difficulties except when with other people much like himself; which leads me to believe he has a strong Int and low Cha, much like myself; but I think it manifests differently in him. He's definitely got a higher Wisdom than me though. ^-^"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making cross-species comparisons that make everything look like nonsense is unnecessary, because they game rules already tell us how much less charismatic a Cha 7 guy is compared to a Cha 10 guy: almost imperceptibly less charismatic. If Cha 7 means that random farmers will kill you for no other reason, Cha 10 means that random farmers will usually kill you for no other reason. Life must be tough for Dwarves in that world, since any dwarf with even slightly below-averge Charisma for their race can't go anywhere without getting jumped by farmers.
Fun fact: Golarion's agriculture is purely crop-based, as its farmers can't control their murderous hatred of uncharismatic, uncharismatic livestock well enough to properly husband them.
A player should utilize the mechanics to
(1) further his or her concept of the character, and
(2) play the same game as the rest of the people at the table, and
(3) share spotlight time.
If the table is mainly tactical, then playing something with limited tactical options is playing something against the focus of the group. If the group is softer, then playing something that regularly dominates spotlight time is playing against the ficus of the group.
A charisma of 7 means that you and the troll have the same base chance of influencing someone's starting disposition toward you. The crusty jerk of a dwarf with 7 probably has an indifferent, while the troll probably has a hostile. However, if both can talk fast enough to get a minute with diplomacy, they can try to influence the farmer. If the Troll has a diplomacy of +15, and the dwarf has one of -2 (no ranks), then what's likely to happen is the Troll can talk his way into not getting treated hostilely, and the dwarf is likely to flub it and tick off the farmer and get run off.
However, they are both inherently uncharismatic to the same amount. There's a reason why people consider dwarves to be dower grumpy little gets.
By the same token, take a fighter with a 7 int, and a troll with a 7 int, and absent some training, both of them are just as slow at dealing with situations. They both have the same cognitive ability, they both have the same penalties, and neither one is what one would consider a rocket scientist or a brilliant conversationalist. Both probably ignore such niceties as grammar and subtlety.
Now, if the troll has spent his few points on Knowledge (Local), while the fighter hasn't, then he's going to be a lot better at knowing where he can go and what he can say without getting in a fight than the fighter does. By the same token, if the fighter puts some points into diplomacy, then he can at least come across as that really nice guy who's just not too bright.
Either way, it is perfectly correct to say that a 7 Int is the same as a 7 int is the same as a 7 int. Doesn't matter if it's a human, a dwarf, an elf, an outsider or a troll. They all have the same basic level of cognitive ability. Same for every stat. Nobody would be insane enough to argue that a 17 str on a troll would somehow not be equivalent to the same 17 on a human I hope. All stats are the same for all characters (PC and NPC) if the numbers are the same.
A lot of the fluff on trolls acting like jerks is, just like dwarves, socialization and nurture, not inherent 'I am a jerk because I am a troll'. It is more 'I am a jerk because I was raised by jerk trolls'.
As a player I tend to think of anything below a ten as "super low" but that is actually not really the case. 9, 10 & 11 are the average if you look at the 3d6 roots of character generation. So yes 7 is low. Though I would imagine a 7 int would be more debilitating than a 7 cha. Either would be far more survivable than a 7 con or save dedependant stat.
|
Half the world is below average. 7 is low, but isn't non-functionally low.
You probably wouldn't want them as a Maitre Dee, but they could probably pass as a mediocre greeter at Walmart. They are fine, no one wants to kill them, but prom was probably sad for them, and they may not have as many facebook friends as they would like.
7 to 14 is probably dweeb to home coming queen, with anything above or below being somewhat actually exceptional. The 7 to 14 range is just the range of your average high school. No one gets killed on cite, put that straw away.
However if this distinction has no impact on how your run your NPC's as a GM, well...I expect more out of my GM.
1) Neither is "better" - it all depends on what you prefer. Which is "better", Indian food or British food?Indian. Definitely Indian. :)
+1
Either way, it is perfectly correct to say that a 7 Int is the same as a 7 int is the same as a 7 int. Doesn't matter if it's a human, a dwarf, an elf, an outsider or a troll. They all have the same basic level of cognitive ability. Same for every stat. Nobody would be insane enough to argue that a 17 str on a troll would somehow not be equivalent to the same 17 on a human I hope. All stats are the same for all characters (PC and NPC) if the numbers are the same.
Actually... *wiggles in strait jacket* a troll with a 17 Strength is stronger than a Fighter with 17 Strength. Trolls can lift and carry a lot more. *falls down and flops like insane fish*
A lot of the fluff on trolls acting like jerks is, just like dwarves, socialization and nurture, not inherent 'I am a jerk because I am a troll'. It is more 'I am a jerk because I was raised by jerk trolls'.
This reminds me of the artwork in the 3.x DMG about monster PCs. There's a troll dressed as a Fighter, wielding a sword, wearing armor, and I think carrying a shield. I always thought it was a really cool picture. ^-^
Dwarves aren't known for eating people. So while the 5 cha dwarf will likely move the Inns residence from "indifferent" to "will spit in his beer" after putting up with his obnoxious behavior, the starting attitude for folks seeing a troll is either "torches and pitchforks" or "Ruuuuuuuun"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves aren't known for eating people. So while the 5 cha dwarf will likely move the Inns residence from "indifferent" to "will spit in his beer" after putting up with his obnoxious behavior, the starting attitude for folks seeing a troll is either "torches and pitchforks" or "Ruuuuuuuun"
Exactly. Your ability scores only go so far. I mean, you could have someone with a 3 Charisma and everyone treats them really nice, hangs around them, and flatters them at every opportunity. Of course, that might be because the person with the 3 Charisma is...
A) A noble or royalty whose title demands respect.
B) A local hero who saved you from all the goblins, and you may want him or her to do it again.
C) Rich and gives out gifts when words fail them.
D) Is a friend of someone who is important or noteworthy and is being treated well out of association.
E) Is really pretty, despite having self esteem or personality issues, and others are looking to take advantage of your low sense of self for their own ends (the classic person is hot, doesn't know it, and due to the -4 to Diplomacy DCs is really quick to get out of their clothes for people to like them).
F) Has legitimately made friends due to emphasis on certain social learnings (for example, having diplomacy as a class skill, trait bonuses, a few ranks, etc). They still suck as singing though. :P
G) Has amazingly pimped outward appearances providing circumstance bonuses to such things (parade armor, for example, provides a +2 bonus to social skills and such). You at least look important.
H) You are surrounded by other people of low Charisma, who are more likely to group with you. Similar to clicks in high-school, the Pathfinder rules assume that lower Charisma also makes one easier to befriend (as in, it's easier to make a friend of someone with a 7 Charisma than someone of a 10 Charisma), and two Cha 5 people are as matched as a pair of Cha 12 people.
This also makes tons of sense to me, since I live with several people in the military; so the idea of a martial character with a 7 Charisma seems perfectly normal to me. They get along with each other swimmingly, but most of them tend to forget that there's a time and a place for certain jokes that are tossed around the barracks, and that certain stories are not befitting a 5 year old's birthday party (leaving people walking away wanting to facepalm).
EDIT: Also, it's worth noting that these are starting attitude things. A lot of low-Charisma people will have difficulties influencing people's attitudes towards them in positive ways. In most cases, they probably strive to simply avoid rocking the boat, for fear of messing up a good thing. If someone begins with a friendly attitude due to circumstances, they're likely going to leave well enough alone and avoid trying to adjust the person's attitude. If they encounter someone who isn't at least indifferent, they're more likely to try and find someone else who's more willing to help.
Also, there's always the case where someone is treated nicely because of many of the above reasons, and is talked about behind their backs. The spoiled princess whose maid spreads rumors and gossip about her behind her back, for example. The princess might only have a 6 Charisma. Sure, she's well dressed, and she's pretty, but her spoiled attitude and self-important mannerisms only serve to hide her own insecurity or apathy while pissing off everyone around her (except perhaps the other low-Charisma person who seems to enjoy the princess' attention because of their own low-Charisma).
|
As a new DM, I'm pretty loosy goosey.
If you can make a good argument and it fits in lore, sure go ahead. But I'm gonna make you roll for it, I then describe, in detail the results of said roll. The more extreme the roll, the more extreme the results.
(Like doing 15 more damage than a creature has health = splattered remains of said creature all over the party, though the elf gets hit more than anyone else.)
So, I suppose it's a mix, and that's a good way to run it I've found.
Constantly shilling for them when interviewed.As long as I get to be a ridiculously hammy pro bowler with an equally ridiculous mustache.And a sponsor's name on your shirt that no one has ever heard of.
Earning more from your endorsement deals, letting you buy better equipment, like.... wristguards? Then we can have debates over the christmas tree effect in bowling.