Point Buy - Down to 7

[phantom1592]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

phantom1592 wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I suppose there are differences between Britain and the U.S. From the documentaries I've seen (Animal House, Bring It On, Scream, Porky's) there seem to be the full spectrum of humanity in college. One big difference is that your college populations seem to be separated into discrete groupings: nerds, jocks, cheerleaders, goths etc.

Yeah, those movies aren't considered 'realistic' in my experience.

In those movies they never seem to worry about 'lack of academic advancement' for skipping and failing all those classes.

I slacked off my first two semesters at CMU and was asked not to come back for a third.

Depends on the school, of course. CMU is (like MIT) at one end of the distribution. There are a lot of second-tier schools, and some downright bottom-feeders where all they care about is whether or not your tuition check clears.

But Animal House and Porky's are certainly not documentaries.....

Not sure about that... While I'm not a 'partier' I heard CMU had was a MASSIVE party school... they just expected them to show up to class the next day

me... I tend to play Rpgs till 3am and blow them off the next day :P

Ahhh well, live and learn! 10 years later, and I'm doing better my second try through ^_^

[Orfamay Quest]

phantom1592 wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Depends on the school, of course. CMU is (like MIT) at one end of the distribution. There are a lot of second-tier schools, and some downright bottom-feeders where all they care about is whether or not your tuition check clears.

But Animal House and Porky's are certainly not documentaries.....

Not sure about that... While I'm not a 'partier' I heard CMU had was a MASSIVE party school... they just expected them to show up to class the next day

And that is why you failed. Seriously, though, a lot of the good schools are also serious party schools, with the understanding that the students need opportunities to blow off steam precisely because they're under such pressure not to fail out.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

I spent a holiday in east Tennessee. Lenoir City (pronounced 'le-nor' for no reason I could fathom) is the home of the university. Their football team plays in a stadium that holds over 100,000 people, and the whole town goes orange when they play at home. It was described to me as the 'party-est' college in the entire country.

If we could know the ability scores of the student body, how would their non-Int scores compare with the same age group in the wider population?

I think there may be some jocks there.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Seriously, on the subject of NPC stat array versus the 3d6 bell curve, does anyone think that every single human student of the 1000 student wizards in our theoretical magical university has Int 15? That these are 1000 clones?

Which would best model this theoretical university: the 13 12 11 10 9 8 array with the 13 in Int with a +2 bonus, or each non-Int stat being randomly rolled on 3d6 and Int being re-rolled until you get 11+?

Which method would best model the University of East Tennessee? Or any other big college?

[Kazaan]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

So how would you distinguish "not roleplaying their stat at all" from "roleplaying it in a manner that they feel like"?

One way, for example, that I would suggest distinguishing those two things is by thinking about how the character would change if it were suddenly given a huge, game-altering bonus to intelligence. (E.g. a +6 headband and a +5 book. How would Fighter McSwordthug suddenly behave differently if he had an 18 intelligence instead of 7?)

If there's no difference, then the player is not successfully playing the stat. If the player can't even articulate how there would be a difference, s/he's not even trying to play the stat.

A low stat can mean many things. What it can't mean is "nothing."

Let me ask this: How does Darkmage McEvilWizardington's character change if he gets a +6 headband and +5 book that boosts him from 25 Int to 36? Does he develop a sudden interest in more complicated puzzles and mathemagical formulae? Because if a Wizard with a high Int who goes to an even higher Int doesn't become demonstrably smarter in their roleplay, why does a Fighter with below-average Int that goes to well above-average need to roleplay demonstrably smarter? Sure, he'll find he retains more knowledge when he makes knowledge checks and can better determine the value of his loot, just as the wizard would; and the wizard would also find his save-based spells are a whole lot harder to resist to boot. Just as no reasonable person would criticize the Wizard for "bad roleplay" because he didn't "act smarter than he was before" because he got an Int boost, you wouldn't criticize the Fighter for the same. You can roleplay your 7 Int Fighter as a dullard just as you could roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a dullard. You can roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a genius just as you can roleplay your 7 Int fighter as a genius.

Or, to relate it back to another mental stat, Charisma, if you have a character of 7 Charisma who you decide is shy and introverted, gaining +11 Cha doesn't suddenly make them outgoing and extroverted. They'll still be shy and introverted because that's a quality of their character. The difference is that, with 7 Charisma, if you try to be intimidating, you have a negative baseline; you're basically Fluttershy. But slap on the +11 which brings you to 18 Charisma, and you're Fluttershy when she puts her foot down and puts some solid confidence behind her words. You're still shy and introverted as a quality of your character, but with only 7 Cha, you're underwhelming when you try to intimidate someone while with 18 Cha, the fact that you're being intimidating despite your usual reserved attitude forces people to pay attention to you (Wow, she's really serious here). Likewise, the 7 Int Fighter can think tactically because he's a Fighter. He can like solving puzzles because he likes solving puzzles. But a 18 Int Fighter has more tools available for tactical action such as feats with Int prereqs and Knowledge checks that let him better identify the creatures he faces and their abilities. But an 18 Int Fighter who's idea of tactics is "The Charge" and his idea of strategy is "The Charge" and his idea of diplomacy is "The Charge" is going to find that extra Int largely goes to waste. The same can be said of the Wizard who happened to roll well and put 13 into Strength; if he gets hit with some Strength drain, and he wasn't relying on Strength much to begin with, it's largely a non-issue. If he was leveraging that extra Strength for more than just added carrying capacity and baseline Swim and Climb skills, as a wizard who also was credible in melee combat, a hit like that to Strength can be a great penalty.

[Orfamay Quest]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I spent a holiday in east Tennessee. Lenoir City (pronounced 'le-nor' for no reason I could fathom) is the home of the university. Their football team plays in a stadium that holds over 100,000 people, and the whole town goes orange when they play at home. It was described to me as the 'party-est' college in the entire country.

If we could know the ability scores of the student body, how would their non-Int scores compare with the same age group in the wider population?

On average, marginally lower. Individually, distributed on a roughly bell-shaped curve with a lower-than-average median due to a loss of the top end.

ETSU is a regional school that plays in a minor conference (A-Sun, Division I), and doesn't even have a football team (although they're planning on reinstating one for the 2015 season. The high-end outliers -- people with genuine athletic talent and extremely good physical stats -- are going to be recruited by (and attending) better schools, for example schools in major conferences like the PAC-10 or the SEC. It's also large enough (approx 15,000 undergraduates) that it doesn't need to do major recruitment -- the top 1% of the talent pool is more than enough to fill the athletic teams it does have.

So let's focus on asking who would opt to attend ETSU, or more directly, who would opt not to attend ETSU. People with better college options -- anyone who can get accepted Harvard, or even U. Tenn -- would probably prefer to go elsewhere. As I said before, this would probably take out the top-flight athletes who can get into Auburn or Clemson.

Similarly, anyone who's got specific talents that give them better options elsewhere, which includes people whose basic athleticism creates options for them (for example, 18 year old who opt to join the military or the police force because they prefer a more physical career, but this could also include high Charisma individuals who think they can make it big on the stage or the catwalk). Very few people, however, are going to opt not to go to ETSU because of the physical demands placed upon them; even people with relatively severe handicaps are accomodated at a modern campus like that one.

So the population at ETSU is going to be drawn from the general population with the exception of a number of high-end individuals. If you remove the high performers from the population, the average of that remaining will of course be lower.

[Orfamay Quest]

Kazaan wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

So how would you distinguish "not roleplaying their stat at all" from "roleplaying it in a manner that they feel like"?

One way, for example, that I would suggest distinguishing those two things is by thinking about how the character would change if it were suddenly given a huge, game-altering bonus to intelligence. (E.g. a +6 headband and a +5 book. How would Fighter McSwordthug suddenly behave differently if he had an 18 intelligence instead of 7?)

If there's no difference, then the player is not successfully playing the stat. If the player can't even articulate how there would be a difference, s/he's not even trying to play the stat.

A low stat can mean many things. What it can't mean is "nothing."

Let me ask this: How does Darkmage McEvilWizardington's character change if he gets a +6 headband and +5 book that boosts him from 25 Int to 36?

I don't know, because I personally am not smart enough to distinguish between intelligence 25 and 36. That's not particularly relevant, though. Obviously, some of the limitations that the character experiences will have been lifted, but I doubt either of us know what those limitations would be.

Quote:

Because if a Wizard with a high Int who goes to an even higher Int doesn't become demonstrably smarter in their roleplay, why does a Fighter with below-average Int that goes to well above-average need to roleplay demonstrably smarter?

Because you and I both understand -- or should understand -- that low Intelligence creates limitations on people, limitations that have been lifted -- and the difference between sub-normal and genius is immediate and obvious even to people like you and I.

Quote:

Sure, he'll find he retains more knowledge when he makes knowledge checks and can better determine the value of his loot, just as the wizard would;

More than that, he'll also retain more knowledge even when he's not making knowledge checks. That's what intelligence means in this system.

Quote:

You can roleplay your 7 Int Fighter as a dullard just as you could roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a dullard. You can roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a genius just as you can roleplay your 7 Int fighter as a genius.

Yes, but in two of those cases, you're simply wrong. Your Int 7 fighter is not a genius, and your 18 int fighter is not a genius.

Basically, what you've just said is that stats are meaningless.

Quote:

Or, to relate it back to another mental stat, Charisma, if you have a character of 7 Charisma who you decide is shy and introverted, gaining +11 Cha doesn't suddenly make them outgoing and extroverted.

Not necessarily, but likely. Being shy and introverted is one thing that will make an otherwise normal or even attractive person unnoticeable, i.e., giving them low charisma. to Remove that limitation and they'll be able to perform socially at a higher level. They may have other limitations -- just because they're no longer shy may not mean that they develop a pleasant and memorable voice. But they'll almost certainly be more charismatic without the crippling shyness.

Quote:

They'll still be shy and introverted because that's a quality of their character.

The stats reflect their character -- you are shy because of your character. Removing the shyness alters the character.

Quote:

But an 18 Int Fighter who's idea of tactics is "The Charge" and his idea of strategy is "The Charge" and his idea of diplomacy is "The Charge" is going to find that extra Int largely goes to waste

Nope. An 18 Int fighter who knows only "the Charge" is not an 18 int fighter. By definition, more intelligence gives him more knowledge, including more tactical options.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

As a dev (SKR?) was quoted as saying earlier, the (Cha) score is the quantity of that ability, not the quality that is the role-play part.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

There are enough films on the subject that I get a pretty clear idea of the small town/big city divide in the U.S. Many films show the 'prettiest girl in the whole town' try to make her fortune in Hollywood and realise that she is now just a small fish in a big pond.

So we could think of this as the only 18 in the town leaving that town and moving to a place where you trip over 19+ people walking down every street.

So this will change the distribution of that ability from the bell curve in those small towns, but not affect the bell curve of the wider population.

This small town big fish with her fancy 18: what are her other scores like? They could be absolutely anything. Point-buy would have us believe that her other stats would be lower to 'pay' for her 18. Stat array would have us believe that she was impossible!

The 3d6 bell curve is the better model.

[Orfamay Quest]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

There are enough films on the subject that I get a pretty clear idea of the small town/big city divide in the U.S. Many films show the 'prettiest girl in the whole town' try to make her fortune in Hollywood and realise that she is now just a small fish in a big pond.

So we could think of this as the only 18 in the town leaving that town and moving to a place where you trip over 19+ people walking down every street.

So this will change the distribution of that ability from the bell curve in those small towns, but not affect the bell curve of the wider population.

And I'm afraid that by American standards, ETSU is quite a small town, which is why pulling that 18 out of ETSU will leave it rather depleted.

[Jacob Saltband]

"an 18 Int Fighter who's idea of tactics is "The Charge" and his idea of strategy is "The Charge" and his idea of diplomacy is "The Charge" is going to find that extra Int largely goes to waste."

This to me looks like;

A PLAYER who likes to get into the thick of the fighting quickly.

or

The answer to all three supposed(a strategic, a tactical, and a diplomatic)dilemmas WAS to charge.

[Kazaan]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I don't know, because I personally am not smart enough to distinguish between intelligence 25 and 36. That's not particularly relevant, though. Obviously, some of the limitations that the character experiences will have been lifted, but I doubt either of us know what those limitations would be.

How is it not relevant? Surely, some of the limitations that a character of merely 25 Intelligence would be lifted when they reach 36 Intelligence. It's relevant, you simply don't know the answer. So if you don't know, how can you expect to enforce any kind of roleplay standard on it?

Quote:

Because you and I both understand -- or should understand -- that low Intelligence creates limitations on people, limitations that have been lifted -- and the difference between sub-normal and genius is immediate and obvious even to people like you and I.

Relatively speaking, any level of intelligence is going to be a limit compared to a higher level of intelligence. Again, what, precisely, does that mean in Roleplaying terms? How is a Wizard that goes from a high level of intelligence to a very high level "supposed" to roleplay it? What changes should he make to his life? If you want to use any other stat that you'd be more comfortable with, go ahead. But if you can't answer that, how would you enforce it?

Quote:

More than that, he'll also retain more knowledge even when he's not making knowledge checks. That's what intelligence means in this system.

"In this system". That refers to the mechanics; knowledge checks and spells known and feat prerequisites and the like. What system is there in place to determine how well our 7 Int Fighter can determine the correct course of action in a roleplay situation or tactical scenario? And, by contrast, what system is there in place to punish a 25 Int Wizard for failing to come up with a correct course of action? Or is there a threshold at which you're intelligent enough for the GM to hand you the answer... in which case, what does this have to do with roleplaying at all?

Quote:

Yes, but in two of those cases, you're simply wrong. Your Int 7 fighter is not a genius, and your 18 int fighter is not a genius.

Basically, what you've just said is that stats are meaningless.

Now you're getting offensive. I gave you my answer and you casually handwave it away as "it's wrong"? Why and how is it wrong? Why can't my 7 Int fighter be a genius who just doesn't retain knowledge all that well? Why can't my 18 Int Fighter be a genius? Why can't my 18 Int Fighter be a dullard? Sure, a 7 Int genius is going to rely on others to provide him with the knowledge that he doesn't know and has trouble retaining, but once they've done that, he could very well be able to piece it together like a pro. It's all about the interaction of your mechanical benefits with how you roleplay it. It's a matrix, not a linear progression from "dumb" to "smart".

Genius Fighter w/ 7 Int: Lacks the ability to pass his own knowledge rolls, but if provided with information by others or direct observation, can piece together brilliant tactics.
Genius Fighter w/ 18 Int: Can make his own knowledge rolls and likely takes advantage of Combat Expertise, also being tactically adept.
Dullard Fighter w/ 7 Int: Lacks the ability to pass his own knowledge checks, but doesn't really rely on them anyway. CHAAAAARGE!
Dullard Fighter w/ 18 Int: Could make his own knowledge rolls, but doesn't really bother. He rolled incredibly awesome and just put a 18 in Int for the skill points which went into non-Knowledge skills.

And everything in between and beyond.

Quote:

Not necessarily, but likely. Being shy and introverted is one thing that will make an otherwise normal or even attractive person unnoticeable, i.e., giving them low charisma. to Remove that limitation and they'll be able to perform socially at a higher level. They may have other limitations -- just because they're no longer shy may not mean that they develop a pleasant and memorable voice. But they'll almost certainly be more charismatic without the crippling shyness.

Disguise is also a Charisma-based skill. It takes charisma to make yourself less noticeable. While high charisma can mean you're more noticeable, it means more that you have strong force of personality, confidence, and self-esteem. You can be introverted but still have a powerful personality; it's just directed inward instead of outward. Charisma is, in no way, governed by any physical attribute like the quality of your voice or the quality of your looks; it is entirely a mental stat, not a physical one. And, again, this provides a matrix of interaction between the physical qualities that your Charisma uses as tools and the quantity of Charisma you have to leverage them. When you intimidate someone, you'll use whatever qualities you happen to possess, reinforced by your force of personality. If you're big and imposing, you'll use that imposing stature to intimidate. If you're incredibly ugly, you'll disgust them into submission. If you're incredibly beautiful, threaten to withhold that beauty. If you're introverted, you'll sit there and just stare into their soul until they buckle. And these examples are not your only choices, either. But an beautiful person doesn't become more beautiful with more Charisma; they still look exactly the same, but their stronger force of personality and confidence means what they do with their beauty has better mechanical effect.

Quote:

The stats reflect their character -- you are shy because of your character. Removing the shyness alters the character.

And, once again, higher Charisma doesn't remove the shyness, it just gives you greater ability to leverage greater benefit in spite of it or, alternatively, use that trait to better advantage. Shyness is only crippling to the low-Charisma character. Shyness in the hands of a high-Charisma character is a powerful weapon.

Quote:

Nope. An 18 Int fighter who knows only "the Charge" is not an 18 int fighter. By definition, more intelligence gives him more knowledge, including more tactical options.

I already discussed the fallacy of this line of thought above so I'll refrain from repeating it.

[Jacob Saltband]

Slightly of topic question.

Whats the percentage chance to roll all 16s or better and all 5s or lower and what percentage of 100,000 people would each be?

[Jacob Saltband]

How many players feel they can effectively potray a 25 mental stat?

[Jacob Saltband]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

How many players feel they can effectively potray a 25 mental stat?

Ignore this post. I was misreading something in one of Kazan's posts.

[DM Says NO!!!!!!!!!]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

How many players feel they can effectively potray a 25 mental stat?

Ignore this post. I was misreading something in one of Kazan's posts.

Actually I think this is relevant...

makes me smile that everyone gets hung up on low stats (especially INT and CHA) but never a squeak about high end ones.

a stat is an artificial game mechanic nothing more, what you do with it outside that mechanic (rules) I don't personally care.

[Jacob Saltband]

Kazaan wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

So how would you distinguish "not roleplaying their stat at all" from "roleplaying it in a manner that they feel like"?

One way, for example, that I would suggest distinguishing those two things is by thinking about how the character would change if it were suddenly given a huge, game-altering bonus to intelligence. (E.g. a +6 headband and a +5 book. How would Fighter McSwordthug suddenly behave differently if he had an 18 intelligence instead of 7?)

If there's no difference, then the player is not successfully playing the stat. If the player can't even articulate how there would be a difference, s/he's not even trying to play the stat.

A low stat can mean many things. What it can't mean is "nothing."

Let me ask this: How does Darkmage McEvilWizardington's character change if he gets a +6 headband and +5 book that boosts him from 25 Int to 36? Does he develop a sudden interest in more complicated puzzles and mathemagical formulae? Because if a Wizard with a high Int who goes to an even higher Int doesn't become demonstrably smarter in their roleplay, why does a Fighter with below-average Int that goes to well above-average need to roleplay demonstrably smarter? Sure, he'll find he retains more knowledge when he makes knowledge checks and can better determine the value of his loot, just as the wizard would; and the wizard would also find his save-based spells are a whole lot harder to resist to boot. Just as no reasonable person would criticize the Wizard for "bad roleplay" because he didn't "act smarter than he was before" because he got an Int boost, you wouldn't criticize the Fighter for the same. You can roleplay your 7 Int Fighter as a dullard just as you could roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a dullard. You can roleplay your 18 Int Fighter as a genius just as you can roleplay your 7 Int fighter as a genius.

Or, to relate it back to another mental stat, Charisma, if you have a character of 7 Charisma who you decide is shy and...

Flowers for Algernon

Eureka ssn.5 ep.9

[Jacob Saltband]

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

How many players feel they can effectively potray a 25 mental stat?

Ignore this post. I was misreading something in one of Kazan's posts.

Actually I think this is relevant...

makes me smile that everyone gets hung up on low stats (especially INT and CHA) but never a squeak about high end ones.

a stat is an artificial game mechanic nothing more, what you do with it outside that mechanic (rules) I don't personally care.

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

[Kazaan]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Slightly of topic question.

Whats the percentage chance to roll all 16s or better and all 5s or lower and what percentage of 100,000 people would each be?

Presuming raw rolls before racial modifiers are applied:

3d6
10/216 chance each for a score either 5 or lower or a score 16 or better.

Across 6 scores, that's 10/216^6 which comes out to 0.00000098% (98 out of 10 billion) chance of having all 5's or lower and the same chance to have all 16's or higher.

4d6, drop lowest
15/1296 chance for all 5's or lower and 192/1296 chance for all 16's or higher.

Across 6 scores, that's 15/1296^6 which comes out to 0.00000000024% (24 out of 10 trillion) chance of getting all 5's or lower.

Or 192/1296^6 which comes out to 0.0011% (11 out of 1 million) chance of having all 16's or or higher.

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

How exactly is that equitable; a high-stat character isn't obligated to roleplayed as such due to incapacity of the player but a low-stat character is obligated to be played as such? And it still doesn't answer the question as to how the quantity of your intelligence which is reserved for mechanical benefits can dictate the quality of your intelligence when it comes to roleplay. If a 25 int character can fail to come up with an intelligent solution, why can't a 7 Int character succeed in coming up with one? If there's a threshold at which a character is not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, what is the threshold at which a sufficiently intelligent character will simply be handed the solution by the GM and, if such a threshold exists... what's the point of roleplay? I discussed above the matrix of how the quantity of any particular stat interacts with the quality of that stat as determined by roleplay to create a matrix of options as to how the character behaves. There are options... possibly infinite options. One aspect of those options is determined mechanically while others are determined subjectively. It's still roleplay, but there's practically no "wrong" way to do it, save for insisting that you succeed on rolls on which you didn't actually succeed.

[DM Says NO!!!!!!!!!]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

If you could point out that asking them to do any of those things I would be grateful.

All I am saying is people get their panties in a twist over this for (IMO) no reason. Everyone seems to come down hard on the Player who RPs his low CHA PC as some kind of sliver tongued charmer and I don't know why.

To some it is annoying to me it isn't. If I make a Diplomacy check I use the Artificial Game Construct CHA bonus/penalties. I don't base it off what the Player has said. I MAY give a +2 Circumstance bonus but that's it. If as a GM you choose to ignore those rules then who's fault is that?

If the player of a CHA17 PC kept RP the character as a mouthy irritating douche are GMs everywhere telling that person they are playing that PC wrong? Or a WIS7 PC is the player forced to make rash choices?

As long as everyone at the table is having fun I don't care.

[DM Says NO!!!!!!!!!]

Kazaan wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

How exactly is that equitable; a high-stat character isn't obligated to roleplayed as such due to incapacity of the player but a low-stat character is obligated to be played as such? And it still doesn't answer the question as to how the quantity of your intelligence which is reserved for mechanical benefits can dictate the quality of your intelligence when it comes to roleplay. If a 25 int character can fail to come up with an intelligent solution, why can't a 7 Int character succeed in coming up with one? If there's a threshold at which a character is not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, what is the threshold at which a sufficiently intelligent character will simply be handed the solution by the GM and, if such a threshold exists... what's the point of roleplay? I discussed above the matrix of how the quantity of any particular stat interacts with the quality of that stat as...

This is the way I would put it if my personal CHA wasn't so low.

I guess I am fortunate that the maturity(?) of my fellow gamers is such that we don't even bother rolling stats anymore but assign whatever they feel like based around their particular concept...and I have NEVER seen all 18s or all 16 and above. Its always around (oddly) a 20 point buy.

And yes at my table people DO try and pull the silver tongued CHA7 stunt. My reply has always been "Yes, that is what you think you said..." and give my measured response at what would be (IMO) more reasonable and let dice decide the outcome for a Diplomacy check for instance.

[Kazaan]

It's not about the words that are said but the confidence and force of personality behind them. Three people walk into a bar having 7, 12, and 20 Charisma. Each of them says the same exact thing to the Barkeep (presumed taking 10 on Diplomacy): "I'll take a pint of the best stuff you've got. What do you know about that shady guy sitting over there in the corner?" Same words, same tone, same everything. To the 7 Cha, the Barkeep gives him an askance glance, wondering why this loser is in his bar. He takes the money, gives the mug of not quite the best stuff he has, and just shrugs his shoulders. To the 12 Cha, the barkeep gives a mug of his best brew as ordered, but isn't sure he should share such information with a stranger... at least not until he gets to know him a bit better. To the 20 Cha, the barkeep is impressed with the guy's bearing to the point he fills the order out of his personal, private stash of brew. This guy is something else, he thinks, and gladly tells what he knows about the shady stranger. Circumstance bonuses would come into play for things like the character being of the same ethnicity as the barkeep or the character being a blonde female and the barkeep has a thing for blondes.

Some people will build mechanically first, then assign a personality second. Others will think of personality first and build mechanically based on that personality. Neither method is wrong and, in both cases, you have a matrix of options available such that you have lateral motion for any given value of a stat as to how you roleplay it.

[Tacticslion]

Sarcasmancer wrote:

Nitpick: Hercules was fairly clever, depending on whom you ask, but he clearly dumped Wisdom.

NINJAaaaaaaaaa'd!

...
...
...
... by, like, 18 pages.

Man, this thread's biiiiiiiiiiiig.
EDIT: HAH! No, it was way worse.

[Jacob Saltband]

So Kazan is this similar to what you posted about the bar secnario?

Jacob Saltband wrote:

In my opinion, skills dont replace ability scores. Lets use an example using a 5 cha scores and ranks in deplomacy and a 14 cha score with equal ranks in deplomacy. Now lets assume the 5 succeded on his roll and the 14 did not.

NPC talks to a friend later: you know that guy who was in here earlier? I just didnt like him,he rubbed me the wrong way but when he started talking about (insert request) he kind of made since.

NPC admits to wife later: I met this guy today, he seemed really nice, but I didnt think what he was me to do was worth the trouble.

[Jacob Saltband]

DM Says NO!!!!!!!!! wrote:

Kazaan wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

How exactly is that equitable; a high-stat character isn't obligated to roleplayed as such due to incapacity of the player but a low-stat character is obligated to be played as such? And it still doesn't answer the question as to how the quantity of your intelligence which is reserved for mechanical benefits can dictate the quality of your intelligence when it comes to roleplay. If a 25 int character can fail to come up with an intelligent solution, why can't a 7 Int character succeed in coming up with one? If there's a threshold at which a character is not intelligent enough to come up with a solution, what is the threshold at which a sufficiently intelligent character will simply be handed the solution by the GM and, if such a threshold exists... what's the point of roleplay? I discussed above the matrix of how the quantity of any particular stat interacts with the quality of that stat as...

This is the way I would put it if my personal CHA wasn't so low.

I guess I am fortunate that the maturity(?) of my fellow gamers is such that we don't even bother rolling stats anymore but assign whatever they feel like based around their particular concept...and I have NEVER seen all 18s or all 16 and above. Its always around (oddly) a 20 point buy.

And yes at my table people DO try and pull the silver tongued CHA7 stunt. My reply has always been "Yes, that is what you think you said..." and give my measured response at what would be (IMO) more reasonable and let dice decide the outcome for a Diplomacy check for instance.

This would be perfect, except that not all people are as mature as we'd like.

[Jacob Saltband]

Yes a high mental ability score can fail at job, it happens. If it happens to much it means the players isnt getting enough support to make his character all that he could be.

Yes a low mental ability score characters can succeed where a high ability character failed, it happens. If it happens constantly then the player isnt play his character.

Yes there are alot of ways to potray ability scores in RP. Theres also alot of ways to not potray ability scores in RP.

There is an in game mechanic for making a savant character, its called Skill Focus. Unfortunately tactics isnt coverd under skills.

"Some people will build mechanically first, then assign a personality second. Others will think of personality first and build mechanically based on that personality. Neither method is wrong and, in both cases, you have a matrix of options available such that you have lateral motion for any given value of a stat as to how you roleplay it."

This is ture also, until that lateral motion is used to completely ignore what the ability scores represent.

If you play a game where ability scores only govern game mechanic and has nothing to do with your RP of the character and you have a group that thinks the same way, Kool and have fun.

Not everyone plays that way. Not everyone plays the way I play.

[Jacob Saltband]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be. So asking them to RP beyond their normal capabilities is just asinine. Asking someone to RP a low ability score is doable.

Quote:

Kazan wrote:

How exactly is that equitable; a high-stat character isn't obligated to roleplayed as such due to incapacity of the player but a low-stat character is obligated to be played as such?

As a matter of fact I do. RPing a low ability score is simple, so shouldnt be that hard to do. Rping a high ability score character takes the whole table to do right, since most players arent anywhere near as good as their characters high mental stats.

[Kazaan]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Not everyone plays that way. Not everyone plays the way I play.

Using the method I illustrate, you can still play the way you want with absolutely zero change. But using the method you illustrate, you arbitrarily designate some people's concept of their characters as "invalid". So basically, I propose that people should be able to order whatever they want from the menu and the counter-point is that people should only be able to order things with meat. And to what purpose? You say that too much latitude gets out of the scope of "what the attribute represents". The attribute score represents a quantity of something. Just as physical appearance is a tool of charisma, tactical thinking and problem solving are tools of intelligence.

No one is saying you can't limit your roleplay and take a very low degree of latitude regarding your stats, placing them closer to a linear progression than a behavior matrix... but it's quite obtuse and insulting to criticize others just because they want the be able to make those decisions for themselves and enjoy a higher degree of latitude. And do you know what it takes away from your experience? Absolutely nothing. Moreover, it's outrageous nonsense for a GM to try and impose fictitious and hard restrictions on the quality of traits a character exhibits based on the quantity of their ability score; that's the point at which you pick a new GM who knows what he's doing.

[Jacob Saltband]

Kazaan wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Not everyone plays that way. Not everyone plays the way I play.

Using the method I illustrate, you can still play the way you want with absolutely zero change. But using the method you illustrate, you arbitrarily designate some people's concept of their characters as "invalid". So basically, I propose that people should be able to order whatever they want from the menu and the counter-point is that people should only be able to order things with meat. And to what purpose? You say that too much latitude gets out of the scope of "what the attribute represents". The attribute score represents a quantity of something. Just as physical appearance is a tool of charisma, tactical thinking and problem solving are tools of intelligence.

No one is saying you can't limit your roleplay and take a very low degree of latitude regarding your stats, placing them closer to a linear progression than a behavior matrix... but it's quite obtuse and insulting to criticize others just because they want the be able to make those decisions for themselves and enjoy a higher degree of latitude. And do you know what it takes away from your experience? Absolutely nothing. Moreover, it's outrageous nonsense for a GM to try and impose fictitious and hard restrictions on the quality of traits a character exhibits based on the quantity of their ability score; that's the point at which you pick a new GM who knows what he's doing.

This is the way you see the game, dont imply that EVERYONE thinks like you do, becuase thats what I'm getting from this post. The way you play is ONE way and the way I play is ONE way and there are other way as well.

"that's the point at which you pick a new GM who knows what he's doing." And this line from your post. I get the impression that you believe YOUR way is the ONLY way to play and every other way is 'BadWrongFun'.

[Jacob Saltband]

"behavior matrix"

The problem I have with tis is that you yourself are applying it to narrowly. You are using this on only a single ability at a time. It should be used to encompass all abilities as one.

This is why I find the int 7 fighter as a tactical genius to be flawed. Yes, he knows standard tactics from being a fighter but you need common sense and awareness to be a true tactical genius.

"That's a fairly common trope; the genius who knows pi out to a billion decimal places and solves Sudoku-Rubik's cubes several times per day, but forgets his address and can't figure out how to program his VCR (or DVR for you younguns) and tends to use words wrong."

This example isnt just about a high int, its about average to low scores in wis and cha.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

No.

Jacob is saying that people should play their low (not high!) stats, and since he knows the 'correct' way to play each low score, then anyone who doesn't play them the 'correct' way is deliberately avoiding playing low scores! Even if they say they're playing them a different way than he would. So it's his way or the highway!

Kazaan is saying that each player chooses for themself how they want to play their own scores, and it's nobody else's business to tell them how, even the DM. This way, everyone is free to choose, but Jacob's way only Jacob gets to choose, for everyone.

[Jacob Saltband]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

No.

Jacob is saying that people should play their low (not high!) stats, and since he knows the 'correct' way to play each low score, then anyone who doesn't play them the 'correct' way is deliberately avoiding playing low scores! Even if they say they're playing them a different way than he would. So it's his way or the highway!

Kazaan is saying that each player chooses for themself how they want to play their own scores, and it's nobody else's business to tell them how, even the DM. This way, everyone is free to choose, but Jacob's way only Jacob gets to choose, for everyone.

No this about people who believe that the ability score guidelines are to narrow to allow them to play their characters because they dont want to have to RP a low mental score.

You dont want to RP a low mental score dont put a low score in your mental abilities.

[Kazaan]

You don't want to/are not able to RP a high mental score, don't put a high score in your mental abilities.

[LazarX]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Suspending our disbelief, in order to bring any verisimilitude to our fantasy worlds, we have to avoid breaking the fourth wall. Our worlds must make sense as if they were real, breathing places. If the world you create can't exist as a self-contained entity in your imagination then you have failed. It would be a very strange world indeed which can only exist if it's creatures only exist by being created by 'player's' in our, 'real', world.

It only needs to be "real" enough to serve our needs as the setting for the stories of the heroes of our campaign. It only needs to pass muster for story, i.e work as a belivable set for our action pack adventures, not pass peer review from a specialist board on whole string of ologies. "Hercules" and "Xena" episodes are a fair measure on how much "realism" and "depth" you need as do any successful adventure show.

[Jacob Saltband]

Kazaan wrote:

You don't want to/are not able to RP a high mental score, don't put a high score in your mental abilities.

Nice come back, I'm cut to the quick with this.

"VERY few players are as smart, wise, or charismatic as their characters can be."

[Jacob Saltband]

Enough. We will never agree. Your right and I'm wrong. Umm thats not right. I'm right and your wrong. Umm, thats also not sight.

There are many ways to play the game. You have your way. I have my way. So be it.

[Kazaan]

Now that that's out of the way, going back to the "reasonable" expectation position, it was brought up in another thread that the "new average IQ [in our own world] has shifted to 85." While horridly mis-phrased what with the word 'average' colloquially referring to both mean and median value, what it's supposed to say is that the 'median' IQ has shifted to 85. Since 85 is the boundary between the first and second standard deviation regarding IQ and, based on what I calculated for Intelligence scores showing that the boundary between 7 and 8 is also the boundary between the first and second standard deviation (notwithstanding how inaccurate it is to try relating IQ to Intelligence score, but it serves as a reference point), it's more reasonable to presume that a stranger met on the street in our world has 7-8 Int. So, if you want an example of what 7-8 Int would be, look at the denizens around you, that vast middle bulk that are just somewhat below the average intelligence of 10. That's a pretty clear indication that 7-8 Int doesn't represent the depths of retardation but just the normal stupid people you meet on the street and just do normal stupid stuff. Even they can achieve feats of uncommon brilliance from time to time. None of them have significant trouble understanding the basics of language and most can both read and write adequately. Sure, some of them are illiterate and some of them have severe shortcomings and... most... of them can't figure out that texting while driving is not safer than talking on the phone while driving. But the common stereotype for 7 Int characters being inarticulate retards who can't manage to remember their name is clearly ridiculous nonsense when set next to that example.

[DetectiveKatana]

Is this still going on? Can I get an update on what the actual debate is on now? It's been like eight pages.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

LazarX wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Suspending our disbelief, in order to bring any verisimilitude to our fantasy worlds, we have to avoid breaking the fourth wall. Our worlds must make sense as if they were real, breathing places. If the world you create can't exist as a self-contained entity in your imagination then you have failed. It would be a very strange world indeed which can only exist if it's creatures only exist by being created by 'player's' in our, 'real', world.

It only needs to be "real" enough to serve our needs as the setting for the stories of the heroes of our campaign. It only needs to pass muster for story, i.e work as a belivable set for our action pack adventures, not pass peer review from a specialist board on whole string of ologies. "Hercules" and "Xena" episodes are a fair measure on how much "realism" and "depth" you need as do any successful adventure show.

Wise words. : )

Which would best model the world of the Hercules/Xena shows: the 13 12 11 10 9 8 array with a floating +2 bonus, or each stat being randomly rolled on 3d6? Bearing in mind the village idiot Joxer?

[Kazaan]

DetectiveKatana wrote:

Is this still going on? Can I get an update on what the actual debate is on now? It's been like eight pages.

The story so far:

The original question brought up was why there's such a stigma on dumping a stat to 7 using point buy when a score of 8 shouldn't be that much different, but is usually more well-accepted.

Reasons presented as to the source of the stigma were generally as follows:

1) An Int of 7 represents a significantly handicapped person who can't handle his own personal needs, let alone go out adventuring.

2) Even with such a low Int score, people don't Roleplay it convincingly, trying to pass their character off as a typical person rather than a significantly dumb one; or, in some cases, a particularly bright and clever person.

3) A person with 7 Int should have extra mechanical penalties, beyond what are normally prescribed in the game, to represent how debilitating such a low Int score is. They also should not be allowed by the GM to offer intelligent solutions to puzzles and problems nor exhibit overly complex tactics in combat.

4) Dumping to 7 is something that only needs to be done using low point-buy values and/or MAD classes. Moreover, especially for a MAD class, you don't necessarily need to start with an 18-20 prime stat to be successful; a stat of about 16 or even 14 can be sufficient, necessitating less extreme dumping.

Point 1 was quite thoroughly debunked as, not only was the basic premise that INT * 10 = IQ disproved, there are clear examples in-universe of low-Int characters being not only not invalids but even quite successful in some cases.

Point 2 was just recently wrapped up by the efforts of Saltband and myself as we debated over the points of "what defines roleplaying a stat". His point was that if you have a low stat, particularly a mental stat, you're obligated to limit your character's mental faculties according to what the stat represents. My counter-point is that the stats represent quantity (amount) and are merely mechanical tools which work in tandem with the quality (type) of character you have in mind to make a matrix ranging corner to corner between having or not having mechanical capacity and having or not having personal inclination.

Point 3 is ridiculous on the face of it, but for thoroughness, I'll address it anyway. There are already mechanical penalties associated with any particular stat. There are absolute penalties such as having a stat below 10, there are relative penalties such as having a stat lower than you could have it, and there are qualifying penalties such as not being able to take certain feats/abilities that are stat-locked. But, if you take Combat Expertise as an example, if you're going to take it you need at least 13 Int. But if you don't intend to take it, you only need to weigh the benefit of 12 Int in terms of skill points, Int checks, and vulnerability to stat damage and that whole range between 7 and 12 has a whole lot of "why do I even need it this high".

Point 4 is really rather subjective; sure, there's less need to dump a stat in certain situations and, if you don't need a lot of extra points to round out your build, it can represent a greater liability in terms of fewer auxiliary benefits and greater vulnerability to ability damage KOs, but that's hardly a reason to outright poo-poo it in all situations.

[Samy]

As far as I'm concerned, players can dump all the way to 3 if they want to.

If a 3 made a character unviable, 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest for that matter) wouldn't be chargen options. If the game was unplayable with a 3, then the chargen would have used 2d6+6 and 3d6 drop lowest +6.

I don't know if it's my age or something else, but I got started playing the game when 3d6 was the NORM. I've seen hundreds of characters who had 5s, 4s and even 3s, and still survived just fine.

I don't see any reason why point buy characters should have different standards applied to them than dice roll characters.

Quote:

3) A person with 7 Int should have extra mechanical penalties, beyond what are normally prescribed in the game

If somebody wants to houserule some penalties in, it's their game. But the official game has no such rules. Someone may feel like there *should* be such rules, but there aren't. Just like someone might feel that armor should work as DR, but, well, it doesn't.

[Jacob Saltband]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Democratus wrote:

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?

I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.

Question on this. If your using the "reasoning' part of the int score as a 10, are you also taking the extra minus 1 for the 'learning' part being considered a 4?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Democratus wrote:

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?

I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.

Question on this. If your using the "reasoning' part of the int score as a 10, are you also taking the extra minus 1 for the 'learning' part being considered a 4?

For me, personally, in terms of how I role-play that character then yes, I play that PC with even poorer learning: in one ear/out the other...forgets names, where he put his keys, stuff like that.

This can also represent a higher Int, say 16, where that would be Reasoning 26 and Learning 6 ( although that's a bit extreme), a classic idiot savant.

Mechanically though, I can no more give myself an extra -1 penalty for learning-type rolls than I can award myself an extra +2 for reasoning-type rolls. I can split Int up for role-playing purposes, but the game mechanics only support the single ability Int to cover both, and I'm obliged to use this for the game mechanics.

[Democratus]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Democratus wrote:

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?

I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.

Question on this. If your using the "reasoning' part of the int score as a 10, are you also taking the extra minus 1 for the 'learning' part being considered a 4?

Absolutely. I have the minimum of only 1 skill point per level, just as someone with an Int of 4 would have.

Just so happens that this is no different than an Int of 9.

[Jacob Saltband]

Democratus wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Democratus wrote:

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?

I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.

Question on this. If your using the "reasoning' part of the int score as a 10, are you also taking the extra minus 1 for the 'learning' part being considered a 4?

Absolutely. I have the minimum of only 1 skill point per level, just as someone with an Int of 4 would have.

Just so happens that this is no different than an Int of 9.

True but the big difference would be in game mechanics (int based skills) and possibly roleplay.

[knightnday]

For some reason the movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind regarding this whole conversation. As I recall, the majority of the world was less intelligent than the lead character, who was at best average. While played for laughs, there was a marked difference in how they dealt with things; the less intelligent people could still work equipment and were not drooling morons, but they certainly were a bit slower on the uptake than Joe.

Just a passing thought in the whole conversation.

[Democratus]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Democratus wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Democratus wrote:

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?

I'm imagining Int being split into two stats, where Reasoning is 10 and Learning is 4, so when combined the Int is 7.

Question on this. If your using the "reasoning' part of the int score as a 10, are you also taking the extra minus 1 for the 'learning' part being considered a 4?

Absolutely. I have the minimum of only 1 skill point per level, just as someone with an Int of 4 would have.

Just so happens that this is no different than an Int of 9.

True but the big difference would be in game mechanics (int based skills) and possibly roleplay.

Depends on the role player. There's more than one way to play any given stat. And none of them are wrong so long as everyone at the table is happy.

[Atarlost]

There is no way to role play any given stat because every stat that isn't purely physical is rank nonsense.

Int is maybe memory.

Wis is either some screwy combination of faith and eyesight and resemblance to Old Man Henderson and two of those are practically contradictory.

Charisma is some vague combination of personability and magical b!**&#~$ that is just flat out stupid. Outside Equestria friendship is not magic.

Roll Playing your stats is like role playing your hair color.