Again, I'm trying to be careful to distinguish between what the rules actually spell out, what they promise but don't spell out, and what we seem to want them to say.
This is an important distinction, and one that I think worth repeating.
That said, however, for me it isn't about the mechanics (which we've gone over a great deal in this thread) or even controlling what the player can and cannot do with their stat. My desire is for the player to represent -- in some way other than the mechanics -- their attributes. Some of the defenses of lowered attributes seem to indicate that the player not only doesn't have to do so but they can adamantly just make up whatever they want regarding them.
This isn't to say that you cannot be canny but lacking in some realms of Intelligence nor do you have to be a hideous lout with a low Charisma. But shouldn't the player at least pay lip service towards representing the character they are playing/rolled/point bought rather than something that doesn't quite match what is on your sheet?
This isn't wrongbadfun, this isn't dictating that you have to do it MY way or else. This is "Do SOMETHING, anything, that indicates that you understand that these stats matter."
If you want to dumpstat, cool. If you don't, cool. But I prefer the players at my table to be able to explain their choices and be willing to take the good with the bad. You bought up that great combat stat at the cost of being subpar in something else. Not a drooling moron. Just subpar. That is as much a part of who you are as the 20 Strength.
Some rules are unwritten, which makes it hard to enforce.
Not at all. That's the role the Game Master plays, and has been playing since the 1970s. That's also why rulebooks are optional, but the game master is mandatory.
There is an undercurrent in this thread that states that the Game Master can only enforce rules that are explicitly written in the books -- lines like "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons" are written off as unenforceable fluff.
This is, of course, errant nonsense. The Game Master can as easily enforce the rule that a character with a low intelligence learns poorly as she can enforce the (equally unwritten) rule that a dead character cannot take actions, or that gold is not edible by humans without magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is, of course, errant nonsense. The Game Master can as easily enforce the rule that a character with a low intelligence learns poorly [using personal whim as a yardstick for when and how to apply that].
Your DM can enforce arbitrary crap if and only if your group's social contract allows him to. Obviously yours does. Good for you. But not every group cedes the DM the authority to ignore existing rules and make new ones up on the spot at whim, without warning or appeal.
You could make a character with Cha7/Int 14 that is better than a Cha 14/Int 7 character at socializing, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion.It's most likely, given the difference in skill points, barring human rogues and bards.
Depends a lot on level though. At 1st level, an Int 10 Cha 16 character with at least 3 skill points will always be able to be better at social skills than any character with less than 16 Cha, even if they would have Int 20.
Comparing an Int 10 Cha 16 with an Int 16, Cha 10, and assuming only the bonus skill points are put into social skills, we have this:At level 1: Brainy has +1/+1/+1, Talky has +3/+3/+3
2: +2/+2/+2; +3/+3/+3
3: They're even
4: Brainy surpasses.
But if the talky invests two skill points per level in it, it's looking like this instead:
1: Brainy +1/+1/+1, Talky +4/+4/+3
2: Brainy +2/+2/+2, Talky +5/+4/+4
3: Brainy +3/+3/+3, Talky +5/+5/+5
4: Brainy +4/+4/+4, Talky +6/+6/+5
5: Brainy +5/+5/+5, Talky +7/+6/+6
6: Brainy +6/+6/+6, Talky +7/+7/+7
7: Brainy +7/+7/+7, Talky +8/+8/+7
8: Brainy +8/+8/+8, Talky +9/+8/+8
9: They're even
10: Brainy surpasses.
Of course, brainy has a lot of other benefits like higher knowledge skills and two skill points extra per level to put towards other stuff, but with even such a minor investment in social skills (and seeing as how most skills are pretty crappy, it's a pretty good investment) the point where brainy surpasses talky is quite high.
In the example I gave, "Talky" had sold down Int (-2 skill points) in favor of Cha (+2 to Cha-based skills), and vice versa (I generally don't use a point-buy high enough that a PC can have 16s and still have a lowest score of 10+). Looking at 2 skill point classes, Talky CANNOT invest 2 skill points per level, because he/she only has one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But shouldn't the player at least pay lip service towards representing the character they are playing/rolled/point bought rather than something that doesn't quite match what is on your sheet?
I totally agree. Where I differ with OQ and others is that I think it's the player's responsibility to RP appropriately. I don't think it should be left to the DM to constantly make up arbitrary punishments on the spot, using no guidelines other than whim.
This is, of course, errant nonsense. The Game Master can as easily enforce the rule that a character with a low intelligence learns poorly [using personal whim as a yardstick for when and how to apply that].Your DM can enforce arbitrary crap if and only if your group's social contract allows him to. Obviously yours does. Good for you. But not every group cedes the DM the authority to ignore existing rules and make new ones up on the spot at whim, without warning or appeal.
Not all rules are based in numbers and bullet point lists you know.
It is stated in the core rulebook that intelligence is the ability to learn and reason. Thus it may be considered a rule that low intelligence means low ability to learn and reason, though the implementation of that rule is somewhat arbitrary. This isn't uncommon really - many things are decided arbitrary, for example at which size a fire risks causing someone to catch on fire (if we go by the strictest RAW only bonfires and burning oil and magic fire can do that, but...)
That a rule isn't explicitly measured in game terms doesn't mean that using it is "ignoring existing rules and making new ones up at the spot". Now, I don't consider it a rule really, and regard it more as a non-rule description, but the book itself does not make any such distinction explicitly; it's all just what we as a community mostly read it as.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you arbitrarily decide that Int 9- automatically always picks the wrong direction to turn in a maze, regardless of the player's stated actions, that's not only arbitrary (Why 9? And then how is Int 5 worse? And what about Int 2 rats that can learn mazes...?), but by refusing to allow even a check, you're depriving the player of agency as well. Just make all his rolls for him while you're at it, and tell him who he's allowed to attack and what he's allowed to say, and in fact remove the player entirely and be done with it.
That's one endpoint. Massive player metagaming is the other. I'd like to think that in a reasonable group, the players refrain from the latter (mine do), and the DM refrains from the former (I do).
Example: Cha-based reaction was mentioned upthread.
|
To add my opinion into this note on dump stats, I will give a warning that I am no DM but I have discussed this as well as played various games of this occurrence.
About a year ago I had a regular DM that we would play various games (DnD, Pathfinder, Anime:Beyond Fantasy) and his room mate. His room mate is notorious for reading the rules of the game, finding loop holes and exploiting them. He would also not tell the DM about his exploitation, the GM would have to find out the hard way that what he created was a diabolical monstrosity that creatures 4 levels higher would cower in their hides.
He loved min maxing, and most of his characters although I don't want to seem rude acted mostly the same. (Wanting to be the center of the party while being a pompous stuck up -Bleep-)
Now when the DM would think that a certain combination was too powerful he would ban it from the next game. This is mainly because he didn't want to have to change the campaign because of one overpowered min/max. HOWEVER it did teach him what to expect and to spot loopholes.
So to actually hit the actual topic of stat dumping. I personally do not see a problem with it. If you give someone points to buy their ability scores, they do just that. If you have already accepted the character, you cannot punish them afterwards because you find out they are too strong or the like. That is wrong and unacceptable.
There is a reason checks are in place. Even if I have a 7 in intellect, it doesnt stop me from making checks that require that stat. Meaning a completely dense Barbarian can still understand sentences and deduce occurrences if it calls for a check. Having a 7 in intellect doesnt immediately make him/her an imbecile.
Here is an example of a character I had. A Wizard or Sorceror, something magic based.
His/her Charisma/Intellect respectively I would max while his strength was low 8/7 usually 8. Because of his BACKSTORY. He use to be a health boy, strong, athletic but when (insert a plague, disease, something that can degenerate strength, ect) ran through the village it forced him to be bed ridden with nothing but books to keep him company. He began to drown himself in the arcane. The arts of Magic and Fantasy eventually aspiring to be a (insert caster here). He/she no longer has their strength that they normally would as a healthy being because of his past sickness, (explaining his low ability score) and now instead chooses the path of ___ (which explains his high Cha or Int)
So if you simply ask for a backstory as to why those ability scores are so high/low I am sure many people would provide an explanation. If they don't give you an explanation to their stats then you should have an idea that they probably want to kill things or succeed roll wise rather than RP wise. Which still isnt something that should be punishable. Every group needs at least one of those people to help the group a long otherwise the DM will need to hand out freebies all the time or risk possibilities of long pauses within their story lines.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But shouldn't the player at least pay lip service towards representing the character they are playing/rolled/point bought rather than something that doesn't quite match what is on your sheet?I totally agree. Where I differ with OQ and others is that I think it's the player's responsibility to RP appropriately. I don't think it should be left to the DM to constantly make up arbitrary punishments on the spot, using no guidelines other than whim.
Precisely. There isn't a need to punish anyone for the choices they are making. For our game, at least, if I (or others at the table) feel there is a problem either I or someone else will talk to that person and lay out what the issue is. That tends to work out better than randomly assigning strange modifiers based on "you have X stat/skill/look funny".
I do let people know up front, however, if they choose something outside of the norm for their area that they are basically checking the box for "I am asking the GM to have people look at me funny, react to me, or otherwise notice me." That might be something as simple as being a full out caveman-style barbarian in a highly developed area, being a 'monster' in an area where that race is at war with the citizens, being horribly ugly OR incredibly good looking and so on.
If you want to be noticed, I am happy to oblige. I find it best to let people know that up front. The same applies to dumping any stats -- if you want to be deficient in one of the parts of that attribute, I'm game for that. But I don't just let people ignore it entirely as I (and those I tend to play with) tend to think that is trying to avoid things.
But shouldn't the player at least pay lip service towards representing the character they are playing/rolled/point bought rather than something that doesn't quite match what is on your sheet?I totally agree. Where I differ with OQ and others is that I think it's the player's responsibility to RP appropriately.
And if a player refuses to live up to that responsibility?
Enforcement is the GM's responsibility.
For our game, at least, if I (or others at the table) feel there is a problem either I or someone else will talk to that person and lay out what the issue is.
Okay, let's have that talk.
* "I don't think you're playing your dump stat correctly. With an intelligence of 7, you're not supposed to be a brilliant reasoner with a perfect memory."
* "So? I only have two skill points per level. That's the only penalty the rulebook sets. My character is an instinctual tactical genius. I'm playing my character how I want to play it and it's my responsibility to play it that way."
The same applies to dumping any stats -- if you want to be deficient in one of the parts of that attribute, I'm game for that. But I don't just let people ignore it entirely as I (and those I tend to play with) tend to think that is trying to avoid things.
But how do you "not let people ignore it"? If they want to ignore it, isn't telling them they can't ignore it BADWRONGFUN?
You can't have it both ways. Either the player can ignore his dump stat entirely or you can force him not to ignore it.
|
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
Need a clarification on the 'bold' words, what does perfectly okay mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For our game, at least, if I (or others at the table) feel there is a problem either I or someone else will talk to that person and lay out what the issue is.Okay, let's have that talk.
* "I don't think you're playing your dump stat correctly. With an intelligence of 7, you're not supposed to be a brilliant reasoner with a perfect memory."
* "So? I only have two skill points per level. That's the only penalty the rulebook sets. My character is an instinctual tactical genius. I'm playing my character how I want to play it and it's my responsibility to play it that way."
The same applies to dumping any stats -- if you want to be deficient in one of the parts of that attribute, I'm game for that. But I don't just let people ignore it entirely as I (and those I tend to play with) tend to think that is trying to avoid things.But how do you "not let people ignore it"? If they want to ignore it, isn't telling them they can't ignore it BADWRONGFUN?
You can't have it both ways. Either the player can ignore his dump stat entirely or you can force him not to ignore it.
You say force, I say convince. If you come into the conversation aggressively or in a confrontational manner, you are going to get push back. Let them know your concerns and what you are expecting from them and why. I'm not interested in forcing them to do something; I'd prefer that they do it because it makes sense for the character as a whole.
Is it 100% effective? No, nothing is. There are people that are going to be resistant to the conversation and are going to do whatever they want. This is going to happen and it is something I accept. If it becomes such a problem that it is disruptive to the game then I'll have a different talk with the player about why they are being disruptive and what I expect from them.
If they want to ignore it and not role play that attribute as a deficit, then your choice is either to push the issue or accept that this is what they are going to do and continue with the game. The degree it is a problem is going to differ by table. While I prefer more rounded characters with less dumpstating, I understand the hows and whys that people do it.
If they attempt something outside of their attribute/skill/etc, then the modifiers are going to balance the issue out. I'm not going to kick someone out over a preference in how they represent their character. I also try to have these conversations when we're making the characters so that they don't come up down the road and blindside me. It isn't about punishing anyone or forcing them to do what I say. It's about explaining what their choices mean.
how i do the whole appearance/charisma thing, is i divorce appearance from charisma and base facets of one's physical condition off their physical stats. a low strength character that looks like a body builder is just that, a body builder, and not a strong one, but one that uses highly specific dietary options to bulk their body up and repetitively lifts the lighter weights. a high strength character can choose to be slender, yet well toned and refined, if they don't want the bulkier muscles, looking like a gymnast, dancer or martial artist as they choose with additional influences based on dexterity or constitution
most people that win lifting contests, aren't the highly sculpted body builders, but the farmhands, dock workers, construction workers, truckers and similar heavy lifting oriented professions.
scrawny is typically reserved for low strength, but there can be petite high strength characters built like dancers if desired. different muscles focus on different things
charisma's influence on 'appearance' is on attitude, presentation, confidence and ability to draw attention, a character with a high charisma, or a character with lots of diplomacy or bluff ranks, will have an easier time getting a partner based upon the higher roll. higher total modifier in case of a tie.
but i use all three physical stats to determine one's cosmetic appearance rather than using the misleading charisma, where Cthulu has a 34 charisma, night hags have a 19 and nymphs have a 29. the jump from ugly to hot back to ugly makes no sense on using an attribute to govern attractiveness, and a particularly persuasive nymph could have a starting charisma of 36.
Edit; some people want a strong mate to protect them, some want a weak mate that they can easily overpower, some want a nimble mate with decent flexibility, and some, want a mate that will beleive all of their lies.
|
|
Need a clarification on the 'bold' words, what does perfectly okay mean?Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.
|
|
I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.Need a clarification on the 'bold' words, what does perfectly okay mean?Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
A little more extreme then I would have looked at it but I see what your saying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Difficulty in learning things" is reflected in exactly what the player and game master choose to make it reflected in.
* "Okay, I'm just going to walk back out through the maze before anyone hears the alarm."
* "How?"
* "The way we came in. I got in, I can get out."
* "You don't remember the way in."
* "What do you mean, I don't remember the way in?"
* "You have a low Intelligence. You didn't learn it as you came in."
* "But in this game, low intelligence is only reflected in skill points."
* "Nope. It's also reflected in the fact that you've been lost in this maze for ten minutes now."
* "YOU CAN'T PLAY MY CHARACTER FOR ME!"
* (turning to another player) "So, Fred's been in the garden maze now for a quarter of an hour, and the palace guards are starting to fan out over the grounds. What are you doing?"
What you're describing isn't 'difficulty in learning things.' It's describing 'failure to learn things,' and I would be very annoyed if I arbitrarily failed something without a roll.
Honestly, I'm not even sure a straight intelligence check would be the right roll either... Survival is typically used for direction sense and to see if your lost... maybe Dungeneering if it's an underground maze
making a player roll to see if something happens if perfectly legit, but just dictating what he did and did not know is a bit much...
|
|
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
Question on this, obviously this isnt this characters area of expertise. So why did the player feel the need to shine at that moment? Would no one else have come up with the answer?
Another question, is an example from your experience or an example off your head.
Just for the sake of getting this out of the way, can everyone agree to stop using the utterly ridiculous example of a body builder with 7 STR. Unless the body builder happens to be 6 years old, this isn't even possible. It's seeming here like people have no concept of relativity.
Are circus strongmen stronger than body builders? Most likely.
Is it possible for someone who is thin and wiry to be much stronger than they look? Of course.
Does that mean that strongmen have an 18 STR and body builders have 7 STR? Not. A. Chance.
To anyone who insists that it's possible for a body builder to have a 7 STR, I invite you to take a trip to your local gym and ask the musclebound men walking around why they have so much trouble picking up 70 pounds. Keep this in mind, less strong != weak.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question on this, obviously this isnt this characters area of expertise. So why did the player feel the need to shine at that moment? Would no one else have come up with the answer?
Another question, is an example from your experience or an example off your head.
I think THIS is an excellent question that would solve a lot of problems...
While I don't believe that the Chr 7 guy should sit back and shut up until something needs to be hit... I do believe that the 'Face-man' should be the one making the Chr roles. Everyone should have something they are good at. The diplomat does the diplomacy things, the Scout does the tracking, the wizard rolls the knowledge stuff...
If you want to 'aid another' with a roll of 10 for that +2, then go for it. But it would be very annoying to constantly see your thunder stolen by people who didn't build their character to do what you do...
This is a group game... the party should function well as a group.
That said if your looking to break into a building or anything... everyone should have the option to throw ideas out and the group picks the best one...
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
Agreed.
And it is a matter of degree.
At 99%+ of the tables I've gamed - players discuss tactics at length with each other in the middle of a battle. This is metagaming in that the characters would not have the ability or the time to do this during combat. The same goes for a party that is conversing with an NPC while discussing amongst each other what to hide and what to reveal.
All of this is metagaming. And to claim that a particular brand of metagaming is the only acceptable one is disingenuous at best.
Just for the sake of getting this out of the way, can everyone agree to stop using the utterly ridiculous example of a body builder with 7 STR. Unless the body builder happens to be 6 years old, this isn't even possible. It's seeming here like people have no concept of relativity.
Are circus strongmen stronger than body builders? Most likely.
Is it possible for someone who is thin and wiry to be much stronger than they look? Of course.
Does that mean that strongmen have an 18 STR and body builders have 7 STR? Not. A. Chance.To anyone who insists that it's possible for a body builder to have a 7 STR, I invite you to take a trip to your local gym and ask the musclebound men walking around why they have so much trouble picking up 70 pounds. Keep this in mind, less strong != weak.
there is a difference between the people whom actually lift things and people whom simply drink protein shakes and do the bare minimum to build muscle.
i have actually seen people whom sculpt their body with protein shakes and minimal activity, but due to never really lifting anything heavy, lack the ability to exert the force their bulky muscles should be able to handle, one of my ex-stepfather's friends qualifies.
he wasn't a mr. universe candidate, but he shaped his muscles, but did little practical application of them beyond the minimum required to build them and so on. he had extreme difficulties with a 40 lbs backpack (i'd say medium load upper end) and had even worse difficulties carrying a 50 lb bag of dog food (heavy load). he had the body builder look, with all the bulk to accompany it, but give him a 40 lb backpack, or worse, a 50 lb bag of dog food, and he was weaving and bobbing like a bull in a china shop to accomodate the weight. the weights he practiced on, were 5 lbs sand weights and he drank lots of protein shakes and muscle milk. took lots of stereroids, now, he could carry a few bottles of water or a group of boxed lunches no problem. he wasn't moving anything heavier than a dining table chair and he appeared to be pretty strong on the surface, but his bulky and sculpted muscles were all bulk and no force. i'd say he had a 7 strength, maybe a 6. when i last saw him in 2005, he was in his early 30s.
In the example I gave, "Talky" had sold down Int (-2 skill points) in favor of Cha (+2 to Cha-based skills), and vice versa (I generally don't use a point-buy high enough that a PC can have 16s and still have a lowest score of 10+). Looking at 2 skill point classes, Talky CANNOT invest 2 skill points per level, because he/she only has one.
The character with a Cha 7 isn't likely to invest as heavily into Cha based skills, in practice.
While you can draw up spreadsheets to show why Int is better. You can ignore the numerical advantage Cha has due to the number of Cha based skills, you can ignore the fact that Talky will always be 4 points higher on any skills he does specialize in....
But when it comes down to it, people don't make low Cha party face characters. It just doesn't happen very often.
Can it be done? Yeah, you could make a high Int/ low Cha based diplomat, and at higher level, they'll be decent. But they'll be clearly subpar for the start of their career, and have a sizeable investment sunk into turning their weakness into a mediocre skill set.
A character like that is unusual. An exception. It isn't done with the sensible options, it is done the tough way. The way that takes more effort.
Another contributing factor, is that the Int based or Int favoring classes tend to not have many of the Cha based skills as class skills. So the guy with high Int/Low Cha is going be suboptimal at his main class functions if he goes with the wrong class...
You like the 2 skill classes for your example... but realistically, I'm thinking Rogue is the only class where having this discussion even matters.
Why? Let’s look at the 2 skill classes... (base classes)
Fighter. Cleric. Paladin. Sorcerer. Wizard.
Low Cha Cleric suffers on class abilities.
Low Cha Paladin suffers on class abilities.
Low Cha Sorcerers are commoners.
Low Int Wizards are commoners.
That leaves Fighter. And... the only Cha based skills they have as class skills are Handle Animal and Intimidate. They suck as party faces. So regardless of whether they are Talky or Brainy, they're going to suck in comparison to someone who is actually great at the social skills.
Now, Rogue on the other hand... this class doesn't 'need' a high Cha or Int. But a high Cha or Int helps them with skills which is a focus of the class. So they can benefit from being either Talky or Brainy... actually benefit from either approach... in practice.
But... here is the rub, Rogues get a lot of skills. A lot of skill points, and a lot of class skills. They’re made for it. And even a Talky rogue gets enough skill points to max out the social skills each level. And they'll all be 4 points higher than Brainy.
Brainy on the other hand, has more things he is good at. He is decent at social skills, and gets better every level, just like Talky gets better and stays better each level...but Brainy rogue is also good at a bunch of other stuff too.
In practice, the low Cha characters are bad at socializing. Just look at or think of all the low Cha characters you've ever seen actually played. Was their specialty really talking the party out of trouble... or was it opening their mouth and getting into it?
It is unreasonable to demand that players suffer non-rules penalties associated with stats because the stats don't do what they say.
Why do some people keep referring to RP opportunities as "penalties"?
|
|
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.
I don't think that this is the situation.
Granted, there may be some who aren't interested in role-plaing at all! These people won't care what the mental stats of their miniature are!
But most of us role-play, and amongst those people the disagreement may seem to be 'not role-playing low scores', when actually they are but not in the same way the DM would.
If the player has Int 7 for example, the player may decide before play starts that his 'reasoning' is perfectly okay but that his 'learning' is very poor. This explains the 7 Int.
Then, during play, a situation comes up which requires reasoning and the player comes up with a reasonable answer. But all the DM (who would play 7 Int as 'poor reasoning') sees is the player not playing his low score at all!
Question on this, obviously this isnt this characters area of expertise. So why did the player feel the need to shine at that moment? Would no one else have come up with the answer?
Another question, is an example from your experience or an example off your head.
'Shine'? Who said anything about 'shine'?
I said, 'the player comes up with a reasonable answer'. 'Reasonable' meaning 'average', i.e. like a Reasoning score of 10.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to communicate (beyond 'each ability score represents a variety of qualities') is this: imagine a typical group of friends. Some are smarter than others. A problem comes up, they all discuss it. In all likelihood, if you were to plot 100 such conversations on a graph, the smarter ones would have had more and better ideas than the *ahem* intellectually challenged. But in any single conversation, you can't predict with certainty who will come up with the idea. You don't generally forbid the thickos from talking, unless you want to lose friends.
So when the party encounter a problem, everyone contributes. Even if you were to (somehow) enforce role-playing low stats, you cannot accurately say that those with Int 7 cannot contribute, or that they cannot have the good idea.
And who is really plotting that graph with respect to those conversations in the game? Trying to enforce this will simply not accurately represent the behaviour of people with a variety of intellects, nor will it make for a more enjoyable game.
'Shine'? Who said anything about 'shine'?
I said, 'the player comes up with a reasonable answer'. 'Reasonable' meaning 'average', i.e. like a Reasoning score of 10.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to communicate (beyond 'each ability score represents a variety of qualities') is this: imagine a typical group of friends. Some are smarter than others. A problem comes up, they all discuss it. In all likelihood, if you were to plot 100 such conversations on a graph, the smarter ones would have had more and better ideas than the *ahem* intellectually challenged. But in any single conversation, you can't predict with certainty who will come up with the idea. You don't generally forbid the thickos from talking, unless you want to lose friends.
So when the party encounter a problem, everyone contributes. Even if you were to (somehow) enforce role-playing low stats, you cannot accurately say that those with Int 7 cannot contribute, or that they cannot have the good idea.
And who is really plotting that graph with respect to those conversations in the game? Trying to enforce this will simply not accurately represent the behaviour of people with a variety of intellects, nor will it make for a more enjoyable game.
'Reasonable' and 'average' are not synonymous.
I don't think that everyone contributes within a group either, not to the 'good ideas' category. Some people don't have that capacity. Some have it in limited degrees, others are great at it... but there are people who simply don't have good ideas, too.
There is this guy I work with, he never has good ideas. He offers lots of suggestions, but each of them 'always' demonstrates that he has no idea what the problem even is. He is loud, blustering, and has no clue, ever, how to contribute to problem solving or brainstorming. He has not, once, in the years I've worked with him day in and day out, ever, had one good idea that was useable.
He is not capable of it, it seems. But that isn't why he works there, he has a very narrow skill set, but it is highly specialized, and no one else has that skill set. He works diligently, when closely supervised his performance is always spot on, if it is within his limited and highly specialized area.
Regarding any and all other things, he is an idiot. I can predict with certainty that in any meeting, he will not have a good idea. I can predict with certainty that if he speaks during a meeting, it will be irrelevant to to topic we are even meeting about, some random unrelated tangent, and generally unhelpful and a waste of everyone's time.
They exist. People like this.
As to enforcing RP? Role playing shouldn't have to be enforced, but encouraging it is generally good. Embracing your character's weaknesses and fully exploring your character for who and what they are is a sign of a good player, not something that must be forced upon someone with an iron fist.
One of the aspects of GMing is mentoring, while not exclusively their responsibility, it often falls to them to have superior system mastery and immersion enabling skills. They are often expected to have a greater understanding of the game than their players need to have, and it often falls to them to instruct and educate newer or less experienced or capable players.
If a GM was to suggest ways to improve someone’s role-playing capability, and that player straight up dismisses them… or calls them out with something akin to “I don’t have to, there are no rules for role-playing so I can play my Int 7 character as a genius, or my Str 7 character can look like Schwarzenegger”… there is a fundamental disconnect there. That player is ignoring the style or feel of game that is being offered, and intends to interject their own, likely not compatible version.
|
|
'Reasonable' and 'average' are not synonymous.
And yet an average intellect is, by definition, reasonable.
I don't think that everyone contributes within a group either, not to the 'good ideas' category. Some people don't have that capacity. Some have it in limited degrees, others are great at it... but there are people who simply don't have good ideas, too.
The PC I described has Reasoning 10 Learning 4= Int 7.
The friend you describe sounds more like Reasoning 4 Learning 10= Int 7.
There's nothing wrong with creating a PC who resembles your friend and never has a good idea.
There's also nothing wrong with creating a PC who's reasoning is better than his learning and comes up with his fair share of good ideas.
The player creates the personality of his PC. It would be wrong for the DM to impose a personality on a player's PC.
So when the problem comes up my PC will contribute, according to the personality I gave him (which is perfectly well described). If the DM says that my PC isn't allowed to come up with any ideas because his Int score is 7, at that point the DM is engaging in the role-playimg equivalent of masturbation because the presence of the players is superfluous.
Game already has built in modifiers due to character ability scores. They are there for a reason and its not the players fault if the GM chooses to ignore the restraints, etc. of a particular ability score.
Who cares how someone plays their PC? If everyone is having fun so what?
No where in the rules does it say that if someone at the table gives a wondrous soliloquy which would make Shakespeare envious they get a +10 on Diplomacy checks, you base any modifiers on the CHA score of the PC.
And if anyone tries to pull a stunt like that, TOUGH. If you are fool enough to allow it happen then its your fault as GM for ignoring the rules. We all know that if you give a player an inch chances are they'll try for a mile.
Have whatever stats you want, play the personality of your PC however you want. As far as the stats and interaction within the game world its clear cut and that is all that matters.
|
|
Gandalf faked pulling a blank to let the uncertin hobbit get some confidence.What if, as a player, you're not really a smart person and can't come up with all the answers... but you're playing a high-Int character? Is that also bad RP, that your supposedly high-Int character isn't coming up with all the answers and strategies just because you, as the player, can't think of them? You can't criticize "bad roleplay" of a low stat unless you also criticize "bad roleplay" of a high stat.
And remember... Frodo solved the door riddle while Gandalf pulled a blank... and I'm willing to bet Gandalf had significantly higher Intelligence than Frodo.
|
|
Game already has built in modifiers due to character ability scores. They are there for a reason and its not the players fault if the GM chooses to ignore the restraints, etc. of a particular ability score.
Who cares how someone plays their PC? If everyone is having fun so what?
No where in the rules does it say that if someone at the table gives a wondrous soliloquy which would make Shakespeare envious they get a +10 on Diplomacy checks, you base any modifiers on the CHA score of the PC.And if anyone tries to pull a stunt like that, TOUGH. If you are fool enough to allow it happen then its your fault as GM for ignoring the rules. We all know that if you give a player an inch chances are they'll try for a mile.
Have whatever stats you want, play the personality of your PC however you want. As far as the stats and interaction within the game world its clear cut and that is all that matters.
Your opinion. Stating it as 'fact' doesnt change the fact that its just your opinion.
Of course this is just my opinion, as its how your post read to me.
Gandalf faked pulling a blank to let the uncertin hobbit get some confidence.
Flagged for re-posted slashfic.
|
|
Gandalf faked pulling a blank to let the uncertin hobbit get some confidence.Flagged for re-posted slashfic.
And this means what?
Kazan used his Gandalf example again so I reposted my response to the last time he used his Gandalf/Frodo example.
Would it have matter if I had just typed it out? Whats the difference?
|
|
It matters because it's just as wrong now as it was then. Gandalf was legitimately pulling a blank, as further indicated by his later statement, "I have no memory of this place..." It doesn't change the point being made; high Int doesn't make you automatically successful at solving a problem any more than low Int makes you automatically unsuccessful and there's a crossing-point where a lower-Int character can pass a roll in a game when a higher-Int character rolls low.Gandalf faked pulling a blank to let the uncertin hobbit get some confidence.Flagged for re-posted slashfic.And this means what?
Kazan used his Gandalf example again so I reposted my response to the last time he used his Gandalf/Frodo example.
Would it have matter if I had just typed it out? Whats the difference?
I was pointing out that what you preceive as fact others can look at the same thing and see it differently.
To you that scene from the movie showed you that Gandalf was fallable(?) And to me it didnt.
|
|
But I agree that if it comes down to int-check roll then anyone who gets the higher roll will succeed. If a player of a low int character come up with the answer, they could just as easy give that answer to the player of the high int character.
I'm not saying that any character cant have moments of greatness.
@Jacob Saltband it was a joke. Innuendo. I wasn't disagreeing or trying to be insulting, just cracking wise.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different people enjoy different things about the game. To some, the tactical combat situation is what the game's all about, and all this 'role-playing' malarkey is just getting in the way. To others it's all about acting in character, and it would be much more enjoyable if you didn't have to have this interrupted by constant fights!
Some, like me, enjoy both. But if I'm playing with someone who's not interested in the acting part, it doesn't spoil my day, and I'm not motivated to tell him he's having fun wrong.
If he doesn't play his low score....so what?