|
Why is the timing of this a problem in any way at all!Because the timing shows intent. If we all sit down to roll ability scores, some people are going to roll well, some are going to roll average, and some are going to roll poor.
If you roll poor, but then RP your stats as if they aren't poor, it seems like you're being a poor sport and refusing the accept that the dice weren't good to you.
If I do have a low mental score, I try to work out why the score is low, and how living with that affects my PC.Okay, so why can't the "why the score is low" be "because your character sucks at that?"
Why does it always have to be a "but?" Yeah, I've got a real low Charisma, but I'm actually good looking. Or I've got a real low intelligence, but I'm actually a genius.
Why can't you simply accept that low stat, and then work up a character's RP that embraces that low stat and represents that low stat without having to special snowflake it?
Why? Fair question.
Because real people are complex, and the more realistically drawn your PC the better for role-playing.
Each of the six abilities are an amalgamation of qualities. Constitution represents both physical toughness, resistance to disease and endurance. Is it strange to think that all these things are equal for each person? I'd say it'd be unlikely that they were the same!
Agility and manual dexterity are rolled up in Dexterity. There's no reason that a single person must always be equally good (or bad) at both. What about a lame watch repairer? What about an acrobat with the shakes!
Not only could these six abilities have been 12 different abilities, or 20, they could also have been three (Might, Speed and Intellect) or two (Body and Mind).
Imagine you have a great character that you rolled up in PF. This PC had stats of 18 8 13 10 10 16. You like this PC so much that when your group decides to try a different game system, you decide to convert this concept to the new system, but the only two stats are Body and Mind? Converting 18 8 13, you get a Body of 13. Converting 10 10 16, you get Mind 12.
Your concept is unchanged, and these new stats are the best representation of this character. So when you say that your PC is really strong but a bit clumsy and that explains your Body of 13, your DM screams at you, 'How DARE you play your character as really strong! Your just trying to get round your average score!'
Making a complex character helps roleplaying, and thinking about each ability as a collection of sub-abilities doesn't change the game mechanics at all. But forcing a player to play each theoretical sub-ability as if they were all the same score works against role-playimg, not for it. It'd be like forcing that player to play that Body of 13 as if it were Str AND Dex AND Con as exactly 13, when you both know full well that this Body 13 represents Str 18 Dex 8 Con 13.
I do really find the, my char has a low charisma but they are beautiful/handsome line of argument very questionable. Like they can't stand to play an ugly character (or plain) with cruddy social skills, got to have some sort of compensation (no they are pretty!). It is as if they don't want to acknowledge attractiveness is social performance, confidence, timing in interactions, just the right word said at the right time and personal magnetism, a lot of which is covered by charisma.
Reminds me of the early Elves in Golarion fluff, and the claim that elves are always supernaturally beautiful.
What, even the ones with 5 charisma? Lol.
I have had players indulge in such illusions, and pretend their char was better than the stat (and any related skill) defined them as. Sure thing jim, and it does come down to a roll (and you can even overcome your weaknesses with a tricky build), but the truth is in the constant failures and mediocre stats.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
|
@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the dumb as rocks fighter I have one quote:
"Make your swords become like things unto chainsaws."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
Did you play AD&D during the Skills&Powers era?
Stregth was divided in Muscle and Stamina. Dexterity was Aim and Balance, Constitution was Health and Fitness, Intelligence was Reasoning and Knowledge, Wisdom was Willpower and Intuition, and Charisma was Leadership and Appeareance. The game didn't have 50 pages for ability scores.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find ability scores to be a fundamentally flawed mechanic for determining roleplaying. It can work, but it's never really a method for doing so, but rather just a serious of built up preferences and prejudices that often gets projected in very one-dimensional personalities.
If we video taped a bunch of people roleplaying various charisma scores, I bet on average people would only be accurate within 3-4 points at guessing the character's ability, with it mostly skewing to either a large positive/negative modifier, or unable to tell. By that I mean imagine watching 20 people RP characters, 10 of which had a 7 Char, while the other 10 had a 9, but you weren't told that, you were just told to guess without any clue what they were or how many had what... we'd have guesses from 3 to 15, with little to no trend based on the actual score. This is purely hypothetical on my part, but I really don't think there'd be much consensus on either how to play those scores, nor consensus on how that play would be judged.
If you're having problems with roleplay consistency, I would seriously consider taking a look at some other games. Not to switch games entirely, but just to figure out how some other games focus on the character's personality. You may find a concept that helps you and your group focus in on that with more consistency.
I view stats as similiar to alignment in that they should act as a guideline. Yes it's hard to say you should be X amount of dumb or Y amount of ugly but the charming guy with the low charisma can be immersion-breaking as the lawful good guy who loves kicking puppies. Sure he pays his taxes and helps old ladies across the street but calling him "good" just doesn't feel right.
|
|
@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
Did you play AD&D during the Skills&Powers era?
Stregth was divided in Muscle and Stamina. Dexterity was Aim and Balance, Constitution was Health and Fitness, Intelligence was Reasoning and Knowledge, Wisdom was Willpower and Intuition, and Charisma was Leadership and Appeareance. The game didn't have 50 pages for ability scores.
Looking it over, looks like one to two pages per so 12-24 pages for 12 ability scores. So maybe I was over a little but not by that much if we're talking 17ish stats.
Looking it over, looks like one to two pages per so 12-24 pages for 12 ability scores. So maybe I was over a little but not by that much if we're talking 17ish stats.@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
Did you play AD&D during the Skills&Powers era?
Stregth was divided in Muscle and Stamina. Dexterity was Aim and Balance, Constitution was Health and Fitness, Intelligence was Reasoning and Knowledge, Wisdom was Willpower and Intuition, and Charisma was Leadership and Appeareance. The game didn't have 50 pages for ability scores.
Instead of looking it over, I counted the pages. There are 9 pages. For 17ish stats, that's 12.75 pages. You could use 13 with a nice drawing somewhere.
|
|
Instead of looking it over, I counted the pages. There are 9 pages. For 17ish stats, that's 12.75 pages. You could use 13 with a nice drawing somewhere.Looking it over, looks like one to two pages per so 12-24 pages for 12 ability scores. So maybe I was over a little but not by that much if we're talking 17ish stats.@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
Did you play AD&D during the Skills&Powers era?
Stregth was divided in Muscle and Stamina. Dexterity was Aim and Balance, Constitution was Health and Fitness, Intelligence was Reasoning and Knowledge, Wisdom was Willpower and Intuition, and Charisma was Leadership and Appeareance. The game didn't have 50 pages for ability scores.
And your point in pointing out my somewhat inflated number?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
There's nothing inherently wrong with six, or the specific six chosen by Gygax. But we know from playing other systems that it could have been from 2 to 20 or beyond! There's nothing 'special snowflake' about the six in Pathfinder!
But the number of possible human character qualities is infinite! The qualities we choose from that huge list, and how those qualities relate to PF's six, is up to the player!
I am informed by my ability scores when I create a PC, but I am not limited to someone else's idea of how those scores 'should' be role-played.
And your point in pointing out my somewhat inflated number?Instead of looking it over, I counted the pages. There are 9 pages. For 17ish stats, that's 12.75 pages. You could use 13 with a nice drawing somewhere.Looking it over, looks like one to two pages per so 12-24 pages for 12 ability scores. So maybe I was over a little but not by that much if we're talking 17ish stats.@Malachi Silverclaw
So what I get from what your saying is that the standard 6 ability scores, used in the game for 40 yrs, isnt enough to make 'real' characters with. You want an array of ability scores, something like 17-ish scores(4 for cha, 4 for wis, 2 for int, 3 for con, etc) so you can make a more 'real life like' character?
I could be wrong but I believe that the designers didnt want to spend 50 pages on ability scores. They came up with what they though was simple but would still work.
Did you play AD&D during the Skills&Powers era?
Stregth was divided in Muscle and Stamina. Dexterity was Aim and Balance, Constitution was Health and Fitness, Intelligence was Reasoning and Knowledge, Wisdom was Willpower and Intuition, and Charisma was Leadership and Appeareance. The game didn't have 50 pages for ability scores.
That you don't need 50 pages or a complicated mechanic in the game to have 12 scores (or 6 scores and 12 sub-scores, for that matter. That's 18 scores in 9 pages).
There are good arguments to have more than 6, and there are good arguments to have less than 6 too. And of course there are good arguments to have exactly 6 too. But "it always have been so" is
a) false
b) a fallacy.
Skills and powers was an optional rules set, thats why they were called 'Player's Option'. The base game has always been 6 ability scores, nothing false or a fallacy about facts.
Roleplaying and D&D/Pathfinder are NOT the same thing. THIS game always used 6 stats, Except when it didn't (Skills and powers and maybe SAGA). However like Malachi says, there are TONS of games out there, and you could run the same 'game' or 'story' in any rule system you wanted.
You were claiming earlier that RP had nothing to do with 'mechanics'. The standard 6 stats are nothing but another mechanic for THIS system...
I do really find the, my char has a low charisma but they are beautiful/handsome line of argument very questionable. Like they can't stand to play an ugly character (or plain) with cruddy social skills, got to have some sort of compensation (no they are pretty!). It is as if they don't want to acknowledge attractiveness is social performance, confidence, timing in interactions, just the right word said at the right time and personal magnetism, a lot of which is covered by charisma.
Reminds me of the early Elves in Golarion fluff, and the claim that elves are always supernaturally beautiful.
What, even the ones with 5 charisma? Lol.
I have had players indulge in such illusions, and pretend their char was better than the stat (and any related skill) defined them as. Sure thing jim, and it does come down to a roll (and you can even overcome your weaknesses with a tricky build), but the truth is in the constant failures and mediocre stats.
I disagree. At least with the first part. It's like your saying every popular person is pretty, and every unpopular person is ugly. If their pretty we'll listen to them, if not, we ignore them.
it's a very 'high school' concept.
Personally I have known WAY too many 'hot gals who KNOW they're hot... and are obnoxious and arrogant' to subscribe to the that.
One of my favorite characters was a half-elf with 'lowish' Chr. It was his dump stat... though it was rolled in 2E so it wasn't THAT low. Probably 10-12... can't remember now. No bonuses for anything though...
My story was that he was RIPPED. He had a body like Van Damme back in bloodsport (Con 18), and the ladies did pay attention to him. (raised amongst elves, they didn't SEE that very often...)
However, he was also mocked and ridiculed as kid to the point that he had HORRIBLE confidence and low self esteem... He was NOT the leader of any group.
But he looked GOOD...
The second part? 'say what you want'... and let the dice decide the truth... I'm all for that! That's 100% right.
Skills and powers was an optional rules set, thats why they were called 'Player's Option'. The base game has always been 6 ability scores, nothing false or a fallacy about facts.
Well, there was AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which included Comeliness, a 7th stat. I played in groups for years that used that stat. So no, the game hasn't always been 6 stats.
Oh, and if you want to claim UA wasn't "official" I offer this piece of text from the book:
In the time since the publication of the Dungeon Masters
Guide in 1979, the AD&D@ game has not stood still. In
DRAGON@ Magazine, Gary Gygax has continued to expand
the frontiers of the game, offering new ideas, experiments.
and rules.In this book those ideas are made concrete. The experiments
are completed. The suggested rules are now official
and final.
and this:
CHARACTER ABILITIES
Comeliness
|
|
Skills and powers was an optional rules set, thats why they were called 'Player's Option'. The base game has always been 6 ability scores, nothing false or a fallacy about facts.Well, there was AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which included Comeliness, a 7th stat. I played in groups for years that used that stat. So no, the game hasn't always been 6 stats.
So yes you've all proved me wrong by using examples of option rules avialable throughout the timeline. The base game has always been 6 stats with some options available.
Unearthed Arcana was also a book of optional rules, more then just the comliness stat. I believe there was also a spell point system in it.
If you look hard enough through the Dragon Magazines you probably finders optional rules for more then 6 stat dnd games before the Unearthed Arcana came out.
|
|
Skills and powers was an optional rules set, thats why they were called 'Player's Option'. The base game has always been 6 ability scores, nothing false or a fallacy about facts.Well, there was AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which included Comeliness, a 7th stat. I played in groups for years that used that stat. So no, the game hasn't always been 6 stats.
Oh, and if you want to claim UA wasn't "official" I offer this piece of text from the book:
In the time since the publication of the Dungeon Masters
Guide in 1979, the AD&D@ game has not stood still. In
DRAGON@ Magazine, Gary Gygax has continued to expand
the frontiers of the game, offering new ideas, experiments.
and rules.In this book those ideas are made concrete. The experiments
are completed. The suggested rules are now official
and final.and this:
CHARACTER ABILITIES
Comeliness
At any point in what I've said have stated at the books posted were not offical? If you haved read these books you will find that they list these as optional rules that can be used in stead of the stsndard rules.
That's an interesting theory. Care to take a guess as to which page in Unearthed Arcana, the word "optional" first appears?
Also, Gary Gygax seems to disagree with you:
Yes, some of this material has appeared previously,
but here it is carefully revised, edited, and compiled
so as to change it from a possible insertion to an
integral part of a vital campaign.
He goes on to say:
Thus, Good Reader, here is the “last word” - by far not
the last word ever, but the latest so far. It is, after all, high
time that those who enjoy the challenge and excitement
of the AD&D game be presented with a tome such as this,
a package which gathers all of the new discoveries, plus
a wealth of just uncovered secrets, between one pair of
covers.
From GG's introduction, it seems pretty clear he intended them to be part of the standard game system, not a selection of variant rules.
Jeff Grubb adds:
All of the above had to be approved by Gary and Frank
Mentzer, including any proposals for all-new material that
may have occurred along the way. Everything was
checked out with the architects of the AD&D game system;
the structure of the system is their baby, and only
they know what ideas will fit into it.
No where in the text of the Comeliness rules does it say "optional", "variant", etc. It just talks about how it works. There is literally zero "rules text" prior to the Comeliness text, just the introductions by GG, Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan. None of which say "optional". This was the game as they intended it, though the sentiment of house rules was commonly accepted, but by that logic, literally any rule is considered "optional", which would nullify any point you're trying to make about the RAW of AD&D.
If you think I'm wrong, feel free to present a quotation from the book.
My Intuition stat is telling me you lot would argue about anything.
To reply directly to the title, roleplaying isn't about force, or forcing anyone to do anything.
Multiple. Not all, but a fair number of them published 1986 or later (that weren't reprints of previous adventures).
They started work on 2nd edition in 87 and it was released in 89, which didn't include the Comeliness stat. But Comeliness is an official part of the rules and intended to be part of the regular game, it was just developed much later.
|
|
Multiple. Not all, but a fair number of them published 1986 or later (that weren't reprints of previous adventures).
They started work on 2nd edition in 87 and it was released in 89, which didn't include the Comeliness stat. But Comeliness is an official part of the rules and intended to be part of the regular game, it was just developed much later.
We added comliness to our games as well but we always thought of it as an optional rule.
|
|
The point of this is not to pretend that there is a magic number of ability scores, nor to quibble about the history of D&D/PF.
The point is that the six abilities used in the system each represent a collection of human qualities. It makes perfect sense from a purely role-playing perspective that each persona you create is not restricted to imagining that every person has exactly the same score in each quality that makes up a single stat.
If we were to imagine Adolf H., his Cha score would be around the 18 mark, but his appearance in no way matched his personal magnetism! And yet if a player were to imagine this historical figure in D&D terms, would anyone quibble that he was imagined as better than his Cha score suggests in magnetism but worse than his score suggests in appearance?
So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?
In fact, I would suggest that forcing your player to imagine his PC as having every single human quality represented by each stat as being exactly equal to the corresponding ability which is meant to cover all those different qualities works against the role-playing values that you like to assume he's flouting.
I think that your assumption of your player's motives tells us more about you than it tells us about your player.
But there is no Intuition stat in pathfinder. Are you saying that six ability scores isn't enough to represent yourself and you need to go about adding a seventh?My Intuition stat is telling me you lot would argue about anything.
To reply directly to the title, roleplaying isn't about force, or forcing anyone to do anything.
You are over-thinking the joke. I was referring to a stat claimed to exist in a previous version above.
The point of this is not to pretend that there is a magic number of ability scores, nor to quibble about the history of D&D/PF.
The point is that the six abilities used in the system each represent a collection of human qualities. It makes perfect sense from a purely role-playing perspective that each persona you create is not restricted to imagining that every person has exactly the same score in each quality that makes up a single stat.
If we were to imagine Adolf H., his Cha score would be around the 18 mark, but his appearance in no way matched his personal magnetism! And yet if a player were to imagine this historical figure in D&D terms, would anyone quibble that he was imagined as better than his Cha score suggests in magnetism but worse than his score suggests in appearance?
So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?
In fact, I would suggest that forcing your player to imagine his PC as having every single human quality represented by each stat as being exactly equal to the corresponding ability which is meant to cover all those different qualities works against the role-playing values that you like to assume he's flouting.
I think that your assumption of your player's motives tells us more about you than it tells us about your player.
Adolf with his dangerous ww1 experience, daredevil attitude and racial enemies would certainly be a ranger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look @Malachi Silverclaw if thats the way you and the group you play with like to do things, thats great and have fun.
The group I play with thinks like I do, which works out well for me. So lets just leave it at that ok?
I don't actually think you are a bad person, or anything. : )
The text medium and the debate format makes us seem much more adversarial than we would be in real life. The simple act of putting our case, and deconstructing the other's case, seems very hostile, but I don't actually have anything against you. We definitely disagree on this subject, but probably agree on many others. : )
However, our little corner of this thread really is what this thread is about:-
So I've seen a lot of threads suggesting that if you have a low stat then you should act a certain way, or that you are lacking in said stat in all ways without exception.
One example often cited is charisma. If you have a low charisma you are understandably not a people's person (even though you may be a people person), but does that mean you are ugly, unlikable, shy, off-putting, and a jerk all at the same time -- or could you not be one of those?
If you are lacking in wisdom could it be that you are simply unaware and not strong of will while still having a certain amount of 'folksy wisdom' to you that you simply learn from your grangran?
I would argue that by not allowing such expressions and by forcing people into a strict interpretation of what each stat means people are actually acting in a way that will lead to players being overly concerned with their stats and numbers and correspondingly less concerned with their overall character concept to the point of wanting new numbers for things (including substats) to help make the numbers match what they want their character to be more.
I would suggest that allowing the numbers to be more... fuzzy on what they represent without negating the mechanical penalties involved with them can help people look past the numbers and develop more in depth characters.
I agree with the OP, and I've laid out the reasons. You disagree with his position, and you laid out your reasons. Neither of us has anything to apologise about here, no matter how passionate our advocacy.
So, peace. I'm not going to chase you around the forums just to disagree with every word you say! It's the case that I'm for or against, not the person.
Skills and powers was an optional rules set, thats why they were called 'Player's Option'. The base game has always been 6 ability scores, nothing false or a fallacy about facts.Well, there was AD&D Unearthed Arcana, which included Comeliness, a 7th stat. I played in groups for years that used that stat. So no, the game hasn't always been 6 stats.So yes you've all proved me wrong by using examples of option rules avialable throughout the timeline. The base game has always been 6 stats with some options available.
That sounds "the game always have 6 stats, except when it does not".
In any case, yes, your argument was both false and a fallacy. It's a fallacy of appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem). "It's the right way to do it, because it always have been done that way" is a great argument to keep doing a ton of wrong things. And it's false, because you claimed it would need 50 pages, which is false. It can be done with 9 pages, Skills and Powers managed to do it. And that's besides the point if you should need more (or less) abilities, or if you should change some of them (changing Wisdom for Intuition, for example, so animals don't need to be wise to be perceptive, or changing Charisma for Spirit or Willpower, etc). The point is: Saying it "has to stay that way" because "it always have been that way, so it must be the right way" is a fallacy, and faulty logic, per se. Even if it happens to be true
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?
I think this is a large part of the disagreement here. Almost every time I've seen the situation where their 7 manifested as low for one portion but high for another, the player constantly makes it a point to have the GM include the high portion, but they don't role-play the low portion.
That's what the argument is all about. It isn't saying, "Hey, all 7 Chr characters are ugly and uncivilized", instead it is saying "Hey, how does your 7 Chr manifest to explain why it's a 7?" and then expecting the player to play it that way.
If they say, "Well it's because my qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are horrible, even though I'm good-looking." and then never RP the bad stuf and only that they are good-looking, then it comes across as they are disregarding the low score.
|
|
So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?I think this is a large part of the disagreement here. Almost every time I've seen the situation where their 7 manifested as low for one portion but high for another, the player constantly makes it a point to have the GM include the high portion, but they don't role-play the low portion.
That's what the argument is all about. It isn't saying, "Hey, all 7 Chr characters are ugly and uncivilized", instead it is saying "Hey, how does your 7 Chr manifest to explain why it's a 7?" and then expecting the player to play it that way.
If they say, "Well it's because my qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are horrible, even though I'm good-looking." and then never RP the bad stuf and only that they are good-looking, then it comes across as they are disregarding the low score.
I know what you mean, and I even agree with you!
But first, how do you 'role-play' being good looking any better than being strong? The DM decides how NPCs react to you. As far as any rolls go, your actual score affects that, not how the player envisions their PC.
Second, who among us is an Olivier or a Streep? Who among really complains that the DM doesn't appreciate our magnificent role-playing of a 7 as opposed to an 8? Just because the DM didn't notice (he's got other things to think about!) or just because the player isn't the next Brando, this doesn't mean that the player is trying to get round the rules!
For me, I'd ask the player how he sees his low score. That way, we can be confident that he's approaching his characterisation honestly.
But (and here's the crucial thing!), so what? So what if he plays his Cha 7 as if it were Cha 16 in all of the 'sub-abilities' that make up that ability? What's going to happen?
Just because I think that the player isn't getting as much from the hobby as someone who embraces role-play as well as roll-play, it's no skin off my nose! It won't spoil my day, unless I've the attitude that someone else 'having fun wrong' stops me from having fun!
He can imagine his PC as 16 if he wants, but the DM decides how the world relates to him, and his actual score of 7 will modify those rolls, not his imaginary 16. His modifier will be 5 less than he imagines! That's a role-playing hook right there! Who hasn't seen the trope of a slimy greaseball who reckons he's God's gift to womankind?
In one of the edition of the game Ars Magica there were an interesting pair of attributes: Blessing of Venus was an advantage which cost build points, while Curse of Venus was a disadvantage which gave extra build points (you couldn't have both). Both abilities meant that you were handsome/beautiful (in a game which didn't have an Appearance stat), but the Blessing meant all the good things you might wish good looks to be, while the curse meant that the only people who fell for you were those you despised; anyone who you actually liked thought you were vain and shallow (whether true or not).
So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?I think this is a large part of the disagreement here. Almost every time I've seen the situation where their 7 manifested as low for one portion but high for another, the player constantly makes it a point to have the GM include the high portion, but they don't role-play the low portion.
That's what the argument is all about. It isn't saying, "Hey, all 7 Chr characters are ugly and uncivilized", instead it is saying "Hey, how does your 7 Chr manifest to explain why it's a 7?" and then expecting the player to play it that way.
If they say, "Well it's because my qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are horrible, even though I'm good-looking." and then never RP the bad stuf and only that they are good-looking, then it comes across as they are disregarding the low score.
Have you had this actually happen at the table? I would find that more useful to talk about than a hypothetical that changes to suit each posters perfect case scenario to prove a point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I often "roleplay" being uncharismatic and homely, but it's unintentional.
Have you had this actually happen at the table? I would find that more useful to talk about than a hypothetical that changes to suit each posters perfect case scenario to prove a point.So when a player whose PC has a Cha 7 tells you that his qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are worse than the 7 suggests but that his appearance is better than the 7 suggests, why do you think that this is cheating? Why do you assume the very lowest motives of your friends?I think this is a large part of the disagreement here. Almost every time I've seen the situation where their 7 manifested as low for one portion but high for another, the player constantly makes it a point to have the GM include the high portion, but they don't role-play the low portion.
That's what the argument is all about. It isn't saying, "Hey, all 7 Chr characters are ugly and uncivilized", instead it is saying "Hey, how does your 7 Chr manifest to explain why it's a 7?" and then expecting the player to play it that way.
If they say, "Well it's because my qualities of leadership, personal magnetism and personality are horrible, even though I'm good-looking." and then never RP the bad stuf and only that they are good-looking, then it comes across as they are disregarding the low score.
Personally I have seen it happen, a lot.
Have I had it happen, verbatim, exactly as the example I presented? No, but I have seen many situations very similar to it, and not just with ability scores. Regardless, though, it is just anecdotal and because I answered that I have experienced it, is likely to be even more disregarded as anecdotal only.
But it does, however, express where my (and maybe others') concerns may lie when people role-play their characters as having what are often considered as positive qualities to define their low attributes.
Also anecdotal, but I have noticed that the majority of people I gamed with that couldn't accept and role-play a low score for what it is* are the same people that would cheat (or try to cheat) on their die rolls.
*Meaning: defining a negative attribute as actually having a negative quality instead of a positive one.
I actually prefer talking in reality, instead of hypothetical. I wasn't doubting that you've seen it happen, but rather trying to find footing for the discussion.
So, how do you improve that problem? How do you provide guidance at the table to improve how people roleplay?
I let them play the characters they want to play. I encourage more participation and trying new things if they are new.
They can try for any check and make all manner of claims, but the dice decide what is truth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know... the more I think about it, the LESS I want people to 'role-play' low stats.
I have never actually been in a game where a DM says "No... that's not how you play your character, he's to dumb to know that, not pretty enough, not wise enough... to try XXXXX"
What I HAVE seen is people make STUPID decisons or make extrordinarily annoying characters while using the excuse of 'Wisdom 8... that' what my character would DO!!!!!"
If I have to chose between people acting like their character is better then the numbers will ever support.... or people actively sabotaging diplomacy/stealth/adventure stuff in the name of 'realism'... I'll go with the first one ;)
Honestly, attitudes like that are the best reason to BAN dump stats.
How do you draw the line between being a 'little slower then average...' or a 'less likeable than average' and being a complete moron or kender??
I actually prefer talking in reality, instead of hypothetical. I wasn't doubting that you've seen it happen, but rather trying to find footing for the discussion.
So, how do you improve that problem? How do you provide guidance at the table to improve how people roleplay?
When I'm the GM, I just enforce CHA rolls. Diplomacy is probably the second most used skill in my games, right after Perception.
|
|
I actually prefer talking in reality, instead of hypothetical. I wasn't doubting that you've seen it happen, but rather trying to find footing for the discussion.
So, how do you improve that problem? How do you provide guidance at the table to improve how people roleplay?
This is a tough question to answer. In what way are you looking for improvement?
If you have someone who is not interested in RP its hard to get one like this interested, you can hope that eventually, with examples from the other players RPing their characters, he'll start to join in the RP.
If you have someone who is just having a hard time deciding the best way to RP their character, maybe just talking about what their idea of their character is could help them. Once you know what their character is like you might have some ideas to offer.
Is this some of the things you wanted to discuss. If not maybe more info could help us.
|
|
I actually prefer talking in reality, instead of hypothetical. I wasn't doubting that you've seen it happen, but rather trying to find footing for the discussion.
So, how do you improve that problem? How do you provide guidance at the table to improve how people roleplay?
This is a tough question to answer. In what way are you looking for improvement?
If you have someone who is not interested in RP its hard to get one like this interested, you can hope that eventually, with examples from the other players RPing their characters, he'll start to join in the RP.
If you have someone who is just having a hard time deciding the best way to RP their character, maybe just talking about what their idea of their character is could help them. Once you know what their character is like you might have some ideas to offer.
Is this some of the things you wanted to discuss. If not maybe more info could help us.
Some people are less comfortable than others when it comes to role-play.
Lead by example, always use character names rather than player names while gaming, speak in first person rather than third person and ask others (especially newbies) to do the same.
'My character asks the barman for a beer.'
....not as good as....
'Gimme a pint of Scruttocks Old Derigible, hold the phlegm!'
Remember when Raistlin got stated with a 10 Con and all the fan boys were up in arms.
Waiting for a TTRPG that had set stats per class, and the player gets to modify them slightly before play for Rp reasons, and than as they progress.
Waiting for a TTRPG that had set stats per class, and the player gets to modify them slightly before play for Rp reasons, and than as they progress.
Have you tried Fung Shui?
I actually prefer talking in reality, instead of hypothetical. I wasn't doubting that you've seen it happen, but rather trying to find footing for the discussion.
So, how do you improve that problem? How do you provide guidance at the table to improve how people roleplay?
This is a tough question to answer. In what way are you looking for improvement?
If you have someone who is not interested in RP its hard to get one like this interested, you can hope that eventually, with examples from the other players RPing their characters, he'll start to join in the RP.
If you have someone who is just having a hard time deciding the best way to RP their character, maybe just talking about what their idea of their character is could help them. Once you know what their character is like you might have some ideas to offer.
Is this some of the things you wanted to discuss. If not maybe more info could help us.
I'm not the one who is talking about something that is wrong. I don't have a problem with RP'ing ability scores at my table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hardest part with discussions online like these is that people keep moving the goal posts. Someone posts an issue, and uses specific mechanics, such as "Charisma of 5 should not be role played as a positive."
Then someone else comes along and changes that number to a 7. Then later people start comparing the difference between 8 and 9.
If I have a player with a 5 in any stat, and that has zero impact on their role play, then I would consider that a poorly role played character.
If I have a player that has a 5 in any stat, and wants to role play a character that defies that stat to such a degree that it is a positive, then I would tell that player that their RP concept is not acceptable.
In my experience, when this has happened, it is due to players not wanting to role play a negative for their character. Even if their character has a 5 Intelligence, they don't want to think of their character as dumb.
To me it is one of many indicators that players don't fully grasp what role playing is, and instead wants to role play them self (in heroic proportions) in the fantasy world. If that's what the players and the GM want, then they can definitely make it so.
But that doesn't interest me. If role playing was not important to me, I'd get much more bang for my buck by playing a computer or console fantasy-based game.
Where TTRPGS shine, in my opinion, is the collaborative story forged by the players role playing and the GM role playing. No computer or console game has yet to capture that experience.