Someone else already mentioned this, but if 7 is mentally retarded, 14+ is genius level. No wizard with an 16+ intelligence can ever be roleplayed correctly unless you're playing with someone who graduated college at the age of 15, so I don't get why you would try to argue that you have to roleplay the 7 as a retarded person. If so, that seems like a double standard to me. Besides, if someone has to roleplay a 7 cha, there's a good chance that that would translate to them being a complete jerk, and no one likes playing with that. That player would be throwing insults at people all the time, and then justify it because "it's what his character would say."
Besides, everyone's got their own play style. Whatever you enjoy, right?
I covered the playing a higher stat above, which is the same as most players can not represent their characters skills either, which again all of it requires social interaction with the gm and other players to represent it.
Well if you want to dump cha then yes, you are a jerk. The reason everyone dumps cha because they think it is in the game to be dumped for more stats, when well guess what, it is there to show your character, appearance, your likability and leadership ability. If you want to dump it then yes, you should be an unlikable person that is a jerk and always throws insults at everyone, including your part. If you dont want to have to be that guy, then dont dump cha.
Ok, can I ask you one question Nether? How many people in Golarion do you envisage as being "mentally retarded"?
Also, here is a good link discussing the distribution of normal humans' Int scores in PF and IQ. Check it out. It's pretty interesting, whether you decide to agree with it or not.
...This goes right in the middle of role player and roll player. This is what many, or the very least I have been of the opinion of from the beggining of this thread, that if you dump stats, then you need to roleplay it.
Posters like Seranov have said they dont understand why they should have to role play stat dumping. Role playing dumped str is easier over all because if playing by the rules, your encumberance ext suffers, but it also is very hard to not play that. But in the case of Int,Wis,Cha which require the player to represent them, they can be ignored completely and the minuses ignored. So a player could play his Int 5 character far smarter and clever than he prolly should be.
All i ask of my players or any group i am in, is that players play their stats. If they have dumped stats, that is completely fine as long as they represent that in character. But it has been my experience at the gaming club that majority of the players there do Not at all.
Just to raise the old counterargument here:
If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?In this i can see where it goes to interpretation of 'representing' that stat. What should that stat also represent is not clear either.
But just like skills, most players will not have the skill or same lvl of skill, but they make some kind of effort and allow the stat / skill to compensate the rest of the way.
So say you play 18 cha, but you are not a very social person, which i have had people like in game before, but as long as they make an attempt then they have tried to represent, then as gm you should let the stat / skill carry the player thru.
Of course how you do this is subjective to different groups, but in regards to not even attempting to role play it, you are breaking game rules. Ie, Str doesnt require alot for
Ok, that is not what I was saying per say.
So when you play a character with a +20 bluff, how do you play that? What about +20 diplomacy? Stealth? Craft? Profession? ext.
It is the same as playing a high stat.
You need gm help to play it, as chances are you cannot describe how you do those skills either. Sure you roll and decide outcome, but how do you describe what you just did? There is no difference in playing the high stat or skill, both need gm/player help to be described in game world.
Again with a great tactician, you might not know much about tactics, nor gm, so he iether assigns you some bonuses to represent or tries to give you favorable postion.
Trying to correlate 3d6 standard distribution to IQ seems tempting but is actually kinda a bad idea.
But plenty of people are using bad math in this thread so if you have do it this is how it should look.
10.5 is the median value for 3d6. For the sake of argument we'll agree that 10.5 represents 100 IQ.
With the standard deviation of 3d6 being nearly 3 then the range of 1 standard deviation for Int is 7.5 to 13.5 meaning 66% of all expected values exist within this measurement. If one standard deviation of IQ is 15 points then this represents the range of 85-115 IQ.
Using that scale a character with a 7 is just outside of the 85 IQ range meaning low average.
A second standard deviation expands the range to 4.5 to 16.5 meaning that 96% of humans would have a score between these ranges. This corresponds to an IQ of 70 to 130. 70 is borderline 130 is very superior.
So a character with a dump stat of 7 in INT is certainly no rocket scientist but is hardly functionally impaired and even characters with 5s (7 with a -2 racial modifier) are still safely within the borderline retarded area.
That's generally about the limits as 3d6 doesn't produce enough values to compare well to more extreme IQ scores.
Now you could suggest that heroes aren't regular 3d6 characters and indeed no PC generally gets built with 3d6 ability scores anymore but even if you use 4d6 drop lowest the mean shifts to 12.25 or so and the standard deviations are 2.85 meaning that a 7 dump stat is still within 2 standard deviations of the median value.
7 in a stat is admittedly low but we shouldn't think of it as incredibly handicapped.
Personally I think most of the issues with dump stats can be avoided if the group just settles on 1-3 arrays that the entire group can arrange as needed. If people think sub 10 stats are horrible then don't allow an array with 10s before racial modifiers. By a similar token you don't absolutely need to have a primary stat above a 15 as that pretty much the baseline assumption for the game math.
How did role play end up in a min/maxing argument?...
Oh yeah, it was being used as an excuse for stat dumping.
Either it's OK to have unequal stat points or it's not.
People who dump stats have more points to spend on their primary stats than people who don't dump them. Role play is kind of irrelevant is this argument. If your table is fine with unfair stat distribution than you really don't need to justify your buy downs at all. If fair stat distribution is enforced at your table than there really is no excuse to try to get extra points.
|
Ok, can I ask you one question Nether? How many people in Golarion do you envisage as being "mentally retarded"?
Also, here is a good link discussing the distribution of normal humans' Int scores in PF and IQ. Check it out. It's pretty interesting, whether you decide to agree with it or not.
Excellent link! Cheers, LH. : )
Although I think this idea can be taken too far, it does show that those with Int of 9, 8 or even (gasp!) 7 are not mentally handicapped and we can play them as 'refreshingly uncomplicated' without worrying!
|
|
I work with people who say dumb stuff; Int7 people are all around. Roughly one-in-six of us are Int7 or less! Do you know more than five people?
For those of us in Britain, what Int did Jade Goody have? Like her or loathe her, she functioned in normal society without needing adult supervision!
What Int is a person who says stuff like, 'I can see Russia from my house'?
Dump stats are only an issue when the negatives never enter the game.
If your wizard dumps his CHA and STR to boost his INT yet somehow can never keep up with his encumbrance (he's a genius now) or plays his character as a charmer or at least as not a boor. I see this a lot.
A 7 STR is detrimental considering we are talking about people who carry their gear on their person as well as several days of food and the monetary reward they are seeking is an incredibly heavy metal.
I've been accused of being a d$@k GM because I use encumbrance. It is NOT an optional rule. It can be set aside at times but it shouldn't be ignored.
I've also been insulted when I make everyone roll for social checks. Just because one guy in four is charming enough to sweet talk his way into a building or situation doesn't mean that he's good enough to get his ragamuffin, ne'er do well buddies in.
Skills are important. I've seen a bunch of people state that Appraise is worthless. Of course it's worthless when the DM says "You find a jewel encrusted dagger, it's worth about 250gp."
GONG!
Amateur hour. The RP opportunity of selling stuff back in town may be dullsville for the group but just giving away the full retail/wholesale value is lame when the players live in what is essentially a barter society.
Now I fully agree that it's hard to adjudicate an astronomical INT score, so don't. If the player wants a character that would make Einstein feel like an idiot child, its up to that player to make it work. WIS is even worse, since that score should mean that the character has enough common sense to avoid 95% of all PC activities.
I've played with one guy that is frankly not the sharpest crayon in the box. He only plays "god wizards" and he is kinda bad at it. I've just adapted to his style (which is essentially the same character everytime with a different backstory (which is very thorough and unique to each new incarnation)). That's just gaming.
I prefer rolling. It's more interesting. It's more varied and it produces opportunities that just wouldn't exist otherwise. If someone gets lucky and rolls really well, they can play one of these MAD classes that just didn't work out before. If they roll horribly I'll let them reroll, but most people will play a total deficient if they can ham it up. It's a good way to intentially get yourself killed too. And as someone above mentioned, Death is an awesome RP opportunity.
Actually, many heroes of myth seemed to lack dump stats. Arthur, Beowulf, Hercules and Gilgamesh didn't have huge weaknesses from what I know.Arthur was a gullible sucker (wis dump)
Beowulf was arrogant, cant plan, nor control his emotions (Int and Wis dump)
Herc was insane, brash and rude (wis & cha dump)
Gilgamesh was essentially a tyrant and a coward, happy to insult goddesses, and many other flaws. Basically, all mental stats were a dump.
When was Arthur being gullible?
Beowulf's culture kinda affected that. And did he not rule a kingdom competently before the dragon showed up?
Hercules did a lot of good stuff (his deeds) after that momentary insanity of his, if I recall right. Also, Hera's at fault there.
Gilgamesh rejected a crazy and clingy goddess KNOWING that she's bad news. He also managed to kill some divine beasts, too.
4d6, reroll 1's, drop the lowest.
Wash, rinse, repeat six times.
No dumping necessary.But oh god the odd numbers.
This TClifford person makes sense. I like his style. I like his moves.
Did that for my two children, each running to PCs. They each have a character with 2 '8's, and that was after ditching some sets of rolls for being completely hopeless.
Although there seems to be disagreement over how low a dump stat is, and a lot of disagreement over what the numbers should mean in practice.
The 'village idiot' from the GMG has an int of 4, not 6 or 7. An int of 7 isn't the 'village idiot'.
Having thought hard about about my son's two halfling sisters, one a monk having an int of 8 and the other a rogue/sorcerer with an int of 14, my thoughts are that the monk lacks knowledge because she dislikes and actively avoids reading (perhaps she's long sighted or dyslexic) so she lacks even a basic education. I think a high intelligence should not just be the PC's innate ability but also how widely read they are and how well they remember the details. You can't link facts together if you don't know the facts.
PC's are assumed to be literate. So the int 8 character could be someone who skipped schooling or never worked and consequently has a poor basic education.
Every char I have played with one weak stat, has been a joy to play. Low wis is fun, low con is challenging, low dex is rare but can be pulled off if you have the means to move around a lot and protect yourself in unusual ways, low cha is more normal but great if you have an insane sense motive but no one pays attention (I told you Frank!), low str cuts down on item book-keeping, low int makes skills a very short part of the character sheet.
Dumping goes way back, and can be loads of fun.
Believing that Guinevere and Lancelot were "just friends". Leaving Mordred as regent when he want abroad. Those are the two most obvious examples.When was Arthur being gullible?Actually, many heroes of myth seemed to lack dump stats. Arthur, Beowulf, Hercules and Gilgamesh didn't have huge weaknesses from what I know.Arthur was a gullible sucker (wis dump)
Beowulf was arrogant, cant plan, nor control his emotions (Int and Wis dump)
Herc was insane, brash and rude (wis & cha dump)
Gilgamesh was essentially a tyrant and a coward, happy to insult goddesses, and many other flaws. Basically, all mental stats were a dump.
Could have just been bad luck on his Sense Motive rolls.
Since he was otherwise a good king from what I heard, and that requires Wisdom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with dumping stats, but if you do you must know the weakness and not get huffy when things go wrong...
One player I know has a dex of 8 and a str of 18, low level druid. Trouble is he was playing it like a fighter, running in on his own and attacking stuff. When he hits he does a ton of damage (Scythe) but the trouble is with just hide armour his ac is terrible and gets wacked back all the time (negative HP on numerous occations, dead one occation hero points and a bit of DI brought him back), said player was getting VERY huffy when things went wrong.
I told him I saw a problem when he made the pc but was adament he wanted to stick with it so went with it.
After his death and return we all spoke to him and suggesed he works with what he has, we gave him a feat swop out (Improved initative to get the first wack in) and said maybe use cats grace and barkskin (all he used was offence spells). He is now very cautious, attacking first for lots of damage and moving out of harms way if possible, the rogue flanks him (the rogue before this tried to help but had problems getting into flanking postions or gettig there too late).
I think it comes down to knowing the role and being able to play to strengths and weaknesses.
A low Strengh, dex or con can cause major problems for melee players who dont know what they are doing, if the player does know what they are doing they can be a lot of fun though.
Does that statement apply to D&D/Pathfinder characters as well?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to raise the old counterargument here:
If I'm required to roleplay my low Int or Wis, am I also required to roleplay my superhuman Int or Wis when I'm playing that character?
And how?
When players with high wisdom and intelligence (in game) do something unwise or unintelligent, I generally give them more leeway with the "Are you sure?" kind of stuff.
Quite a times at the table we have had the "My player is Smarter/wiser/more charismatic than I am so therefore he would do something smarter/wiser/more charismatic than I can think of at this moment, so help me."
My favorite being one brother GMing said to his brother who was playing. "Since yout character has more common sense than you do, I'll let you think about that for a second."
At the end of the day, you are creating a "thing". That thing has some defined qualities.
A GM should never say a player "can't" do something, but a GM can interpret. If a PC who has a 20 charisma is run by a player who says "If there are any girls there, I want to do them" the GM doesn't automatically interpret the horrible line the player just said into the game. They go "Well, he has a 20 charisma unlike the guy with cheesey poofs all over his face..."
|
|
@vuron - 7 isn't handicapped, but it is below average. 6 is basically qualifying for disability benifits, but still functional in general life at the "I can read and write...kinda" level.
5...well now you are getting special.
Looking at the IQ scale for intelligence works really well. It is a nice bell curve.
Applying the same conceptual level also works well.
Many keep applying the strawman of "social pariah" to low charisma and such and that isn't the case. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of people on here are in the 6-7 range of charisma off the boards. Not pariah, but not exactly Mel Gibson in Braveheart either.
But if you have a low score, deal with it until you can fix it. Even a 6 charisma can be made above average with a single (albeit expensive) item. By 20th level they could have an 18 in that stat with tomes and an item. You literally can go from Rain Man to Tom Cruise over the course of a campaign, just using items as intended.
Where the issue comes in for me is when people try to find loopholes around limitations, rather than using the existing rules as they are written and intended.
|
|
But if you have a low score, deal with it until you can fix it. Even a 6 charisma can be made above average with a single (albeit expensive) item. By 20th level they could have an 18 in that stat with tomes and an item. You literally can go from Rain Man to Tom Cruise over the course of a campaign, just using items as intended.Except no one is likely to invest that much in their dump stat. They want to spend the points and later the cash elsewhere.
Because they choose not to do something doesn't mean it is unavailable to them as an option.
If someone says "I can't hit things because my strength is too low" you don't advise them to invest in climb, do you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.
Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.
Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.
The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.
Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.
Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.
I wonder if it would be feasible to assign DCs for spells by associating a stat to each specific school of magic, as opposed to giving each spellcaster a single stat that affects their DCs.
For instance, a high Dex might boost illusion DCs, while a high Wisdom might boost evocation DCs.
I've played around with the ideal of making save dc the average of (int/wis + cha)/2 in order to give Charisma more utility.
Still doesn't help with martials though, for that you need to mess around with saves
|
|
The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.
Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.
Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.
It does if you realize that people at a table aren't actually interacting with NPCs directly. They are talking to a GM about what they say, and the GM is interpreting that into the world.
If you play a half-orc talking to an NPC who hates half-orcs, we all know the GM calculates that into his thoughts.
If a GM, as common sense to me would seem to dictate, considers the charisma of a player when making social interactions, Charisma as important, if not more important, than any stat in the game.
Why a GM wouldn't consider that factor, in the same way you would consider any other variable, is something I just don't get.
Strength is less useful for full casters simply because encumbrance is so rarely enforced and you can pretty much get haversacks by 3rd level.
Underwater adventures and lots of climbing can help prevent excessive strength dumping but it's still an issue.
Int can definitely be gamed.
|
|
If you're a primary caster the only problem with dumping Str is encumbrance and a couple of skills.
And spells that remove strength. And if you find yourself under something heavy. And any other scenario where being stronger would help you.
It is a more easily mathmatically converted, but part of what separates a table game from a computer game is the element of interpretation by the GM.
The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.
Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.
Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.
It does if you realize that people at a table aren't actually interacting with NPCs directly. They are talking to a GM about what they say, and the GM is interpreting that into the world.
If you play a half-orc talking to an NPC who hates half-orcs, we all know the GM calculates that into his thoughts.
If a GM, as common sense to me would seem to dictate, considers the charisma of a player when making social interactions, Charisma as important, if not more important, than any stat in the game.
Why a GM wouldn't consider that factor, in the same way you would consider any other variable, is something I just don't get.
This seems to be a perpetual issue but a good percentage of people feel like the charisma issue is factored into the charisma penalty to a charisma skill check, there shouldn't be a double penalty imposed.
Or do you increase the skill check required for a low dex character to do an acrobatic maneuver? Or make is so that low strength character have a double penalty for strength while swimming or climbing?
I'm not sure I see the need to be vindictive towards a fighter that has a 7 CHA but has maximum intimidate. They have so few skill points that they should be able to intimidate people if they invest in it.
|
|
It is factored in to skill checks in the same way strength is factored into climb checks.
However skills are used in specific situations.
I find it ironic people want to expand the scope of what "intimidate" and "diplomacy" govern, while narrowing the scope of what "Charisma" governs.
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.
Well, maybe that's not what he's calling "vindictive".
I kid you not, I've had a GM say that if you had 6-7 CHA, he would have commoners mistake you for a troll and attack you on sight.
Not every GM is that extreme, but plenty of folks have said that just having the low-CHA guy in the same room will apply penalties to someone else's diplomacy check, or that all NPCs will have a starting attitude no higher than unfriendly, or that negative CHA modifiers literally apply twice instead of once.
None of that is "what it says it does", so when someone speaks generally about GMs being vindictive, they're might not be talking about what you might be thinking.
It is factored in to skill checks in the same way strength is factored into climb checks.
However skills are used in specific situations.
I find it ironic people want to expand the scope of what "intimidate" and "diplomacy" govern, while narrowing the scope of what "Charisma" governs.
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.
Straight ability checks are pretty rare in most 3.x games.
Yeah it was common back in the day and seems to be coming back in 5e but I think most people have pretty broad visions of 3.x skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.Well, maybe that's not what he's calling "vindictive".
I kid you not, I've had a GM say that if you had 6-7 CHA, he would have commoners mistake you for a troll and attack you on sight.
And that GM is an idiot and that isn't a strawman I would defend or fight.
I think the easiest parallel for all of the stats is Int to IQ and the bell curve both follow.
70 IQ is to 7 Int. Noticably slower than average, but not mentally retarded.
A 6 Charisma is pretty bad, but in your average high school there are probably 100 kids with that level charisma.
I would allow a 6 Charisma PC in my game, if they understood they were playing a character with a 6 Charisma until they did something about it.
|
|
It is factored in to skill checks in the same way strength is factored into climb checks.
However skills are used in specific situations.
I find it ironic people want to expand the scope of what "intimidate" and "diplomacy" govern, while narrowing the scope of what "Charisma" governs.
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.
Straight ability checks are pretty rare in most 3.x games.
Yeah it was common back in the day and seems to be coming back in 5e but I think most people have pretty broad visions of 3.x skills.
Between every interaction with a PC, do you roll a diplomacy check to see how each sentance was delivered?
Not everything is a roll. If it were, the game would slow to a crawl. You roll the skills when the skill comes into play. When you are negotiating deals, gathering information, or scaring small children.
The rest of the time is a GM taking factors into consideration and adjusting NPC behavior.
One of those factors is Charisma. Who is the person going to approach to make an offer. What is the initial attitude of people when you approach them.
That is a big chunk of the game, and that chunk isn't rolled.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And that GM is an idiot and that isn't a strawman I would defend or fight.
Who said I wanted you to? The point of my post was just "some GMs do idiotic, vindictive things to people who dump stats, so people who mention vindictiveness are probably talking about those GMs and not ones who, like you say, just have the stats do what they're supposed to do".
How does that amount to me setting up a strawman for you to defend or fight?
Something I said in another thread seems to bear repeating in light of your post here:
That doesn't even make sense as a reply to me.
I don't think you actually try to understand what people say. I think you decide what two camps you think exist on a topic, and skim every post for a clue as to which camp they might fit into (in your mind, at least), and then respond as though their post were just a recitation of a pre-determined summary of that camp's M.O.
I think this because it seems like any time I or anyone else says something to you that you haven't already gone back and forth on 100 times before (whether that's new information for an existing viewpoint, or something that doesn't fit into either of your camps at all), you stop making sense and your replies start to sound like I just walked in on a conversation-in-progress that's not really connected to what you're allegedly replying to.
The problem is that unfortunately the stats aren't weighted correctly in terms of actual utility.
Charisma just doesn't have enough particularly relevant factors attached to it unless you are a spontaneous caster and then it's super critical.
Skill ranks can basically negate almost any stat penalty by level 5 or so for charisma.
Its context is relevant by the setting, if there are a lot of checks to be made, if pain/death can be avoided via diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, if new allies can be made and powerful enemies avoided with cha and the related skills, then it becomes almost a must have.
E.g. you encounter an opposing party in a dungeon, well, if you can't make the encounter work for you, and if cha is awful almost all-round, a fight may break out. If they are equal in power, have good tactics it could really go pear shaped.
I run combat heavy games, but I sure do also love the intrigue and making cha and cha skills still have relevance.
It is factored in to skill checks in the same way strength is factored into climb checks.
However skills are used in specific situations.
I find it ironic people want to expand the scope of what "intimidate" and "diplomacy" govern, while narrowing the scope of what "Charisma" governs.
It isn't vindictive to have something do what it says it does.
Straight ability checks are pretty rare in most 3.x games.
Yeah it was common back in the day and seems to be coming back in 5e but I think most people have pretty broad visions of 3.x skills.
Between every interaction with a PC, do you roll a diplomacy check to see how each sentance was delivered?
Not everything is a roll. If it were, the game would slow to a crawl. You roll the skills when the skill comes into play. When you are negotiating deals, gathering information, or scaring small children.
The rest of the time is a GM taking factors into consideration and adjusting NPC behavior.
One of those factors is Charisma. Who is the person going to approach to make an offer. What is the initial attitude of people when you approach them.
That is a big chunk of the game, and that chunk isn't rolled.
Oh man, this. One newish dm I was playing with, that guy made us roll to go to the toilet. It got so bad, you would talk to an npc, who was going to give you some exposition, he was there for intel, and you had to roll diplomacy just to get him speaking. No questions, if you asked a question, it came to a roll. >:(
I get gauging the mood and how well we work someone over socially, but that went too far. One time, I refused to make the check, and the npc who was talking just stopped, refused to say anything. That silence where you let someone continue, it was a chasm that only skill checks could cross.
Each stat can mean many different things, Charisma represents beauty, social ability, force of personality, etc.
Me I have a very strong force of personality but low social ability, and moderate looks, thus I could justify me having a low, avg, or high score.
Well, strict gamification, trying to use dnd to represent real life and "us" is a flawed notion as fun as it can be to do. In saying you have a strong personality, there is also the risk of self-blowing.
If you cannot with ease and without much training, effectively lie, persuade and threaten your way to everyday success, you don't have a high charisma in dnd terms (or the checks are too high). Being young, angry and sure you are mentally strong is not charisma.
|
Perhaps but in DnD terms I am getting penalties to social skills to affect others, but a bonus to not be affected by others, AKA, you need a very high diplomacy score to convince me of something, but yet I couldn't sell free water to a thirsty man in a desert.
This shows DnD terms aren't very accurate, thus you have plenty of wiggle room to explain what and why.