Does forcing players to 'roleplay your stats' bring more emphasis on said stats?


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheNine wrote:

The only question and thing i would add to the idea that the 10th level warrior has all this experiance to allow him tactical intelligence i partially agree with. He could indeed quickly react to situations he has trained on and been involved in long and hard in. The problem would be when that wrench that thing that occurs that he has never seen before shows up. His ability to analyze and react to the new situation would not be as quick or effective.

At least from the personal experiances i have seen during my time in the army. But for you average react to contact, assault a position, move into contact sort of thing yeah they would tactically be just fine.

Personal experience is always best. 2nd hand experience is acceptable in a pinch.

I figure adventures spend a LOT of time listening to stories. Hearing a bards tale, drinking with other adventurers... There is a lot of 'down time' or 'time passes' when you hit a town.

This is KINDA covered with the knowledge checks for 'basic information'... but there are some things that have just become common knowledge amongst gamers. Trolls die with fire, vampires need a stake, werewolves = silver....

Yet none of us have ever actually run into such a creature... we know this from the stories we've heard.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That reminds me of the time I played in a game where a Dm told my Ranger with favored enemy Lycanthrope didnt make my knowledge check to know that Silver hurts werewolfs and I was already like level 3.


LOL, that is hilarious.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah my reply was. "Sorry team I have no idea to tell you to use silver, im just going to hit it with my battleaxe and hand axe... incidently both of which are made from silver. I guess i've always liked the sparkles. ithink i slightly made my point the rest of the nightthough... "goblins are attacking? Knowledge check to make sure an axe can hurt them.


phantom1592 wrote:

This is KINDA covered with the knowledge checks for 'basic information'... but there are some things that have just become common knowledge amongst gamers. Trolls die with fire, vampires need a stake, werewolves = silver....

Yet none of us have ever actually run into such a creature... we know this from the stories we've heard.

That's because we live in the real world. We have access to thousands of people, or millions+ with the internet. We read books, we match movies, we play games, etc.

When you're in a campaign world that has no vampires, it would be impossible for your character to have heard of vampires.

The idea that a character should just know things stems from the fact that it is very difficult for players to separate their in-game and out-of-game knowledge. They want to just assume their character knows everything that they do, because it is easier that way.

TheNine wrote:

That reminds me of the time I played in a game where a Dm told my Ranger with favored enemy Lycanthrope didnt make my knowledge check to know that Silver hurts werewolfs and I was already like level 3.

I would disagree with your GM's call there. I think it is rational to assume that a ranger who has selected a favorite enemy has studied that enemy in-depth (which is why they get the bonuses). If I was the player and the GM made the call that you did, I would ask the GM to reconsider and give me 1 or 2 minutes for explanation. Then I would explain that the favored enemy ability represents in-depth study of that type of creature, and that knowing silver is the key should be pretty common.

If the GM still disagreed, then I would probably ask the GM to explain what he thinks favorite enemy means. Its likely that he was the "if it isn't specifically spelled out in the rule book, it doesn't apply" type.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh like i said it was fine. It was a society type game (living greyhawk and the monster you ran acrss was a were-rat) So all the players at the table were "fine whatever we wont buy silver weapons. I had the certifications for my mw silver handaxe and my +1 silver battleaxe and well they were my only melee so he got to just suck it. So we werent as optimized... some to think of it, we tended to avoid that dm's games after that. We all knew if was a load of crud, we didnt let it bother us though. It was still kinda amusing like i said. Im not usually one to get jerkish, but i did keep asking if my knowledge check for whatever was high enough to do the simple thing. Im much too mellow now to even care if a dm makes a silly call i'll just roll with it.

Silver Crusade

Jaelithe wrote:
"The Intelligence 6's player" means "the player whose character has an intelligence of 6," Mal. I considered "whose character" to be understood in context. Sorry about that.

Okay, for the sake of this example, the player has an (estimated) Int of 15, has studied modern day maths and watched a Hollywood film about Game Theory, which of course makes him an expert. : )

He's playing a fighter with Int 6, who has no skills in maths and in the game world no-one has thought of Game Theory yet.

If the player is talking IC, then it's the PC talking and he can't talk about Game Theory. Not because his Int is 7, but because that is meta-gaming. Even an Int 25 wizard shouldn't be talking about Game Theory.

If he's talking OOC then it's not the PC talking; it's the player. Why would the player talk about Game Theory while he is role-playing? If he's just chatting to his mates then it's nothing to do with the game so it's outside the scope of our discussion.

If he's talking about the game, what is happening in the game where the player thinks that Game Theory is helpful?

Is it a puzzle, set by the fiendish mind of the DM (let's be generous and say Int 16)? If so, he either expects the players to solve it OR he expects the PCs to solve it.

If the players are expected to solve it then they use their own minds. Of course. No rolls or game mechanics needed.

If the PCs are expected to solve it then make rolls adjusted by each PC's Int score. The player's knowledge of Game Theory is irrelevant.

Help me understand how this 'Game Theory' thing could actually be a problem while playing.


[Sighs.]

It was an offhand comment, Mal. You're taking it very seriously, and I didn't mean it that way. I just pulled "game theory" out of my butt.

Sorry. I realize that you're much more invested in this conversation than I am, and I shouldn't have been flippant.

To clarify ... I simply meant that when a very smart player puts a ton of thought into a plan, while using modern terminology, then puts that same plan into the mouth of his Intelligence 6 fighter, carefully medievalized and quasi-dumbed down, I'd probably call "bullsh!t."

Silver Crusade

Jaelithe wrote:

[Sighs.]

It was an offhand comment, Mal. You're taking it very seriously, and I didn't mean it that way. I just pulled "game theory" out of my butt.

Sorry. I realize that you're much more invested in this conversation than I am, and I shouldn't have been flippant.

To clarify ... I simply meant that when a very smart player puts a ton of thought into a plan, while using modern terminology, then puts that same plan into the mouth of his Intelligence 6 fighter, carefully medievalized and quasi-dumbed down, I'd probably call "bullsh!t."

Fair enough. : )

I don't want to be an arse about this, but I see that a lot in this thread (Int 6 PC using Int 15 player's plan; isn't it awful and game destroying?), but I struggle to envision this in an actual game situation as opposed to in theory.

Does anyone have any actual examples?


You're not remotely being an arse, dude. You're interested, I'm less so, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just leave you hangin'.

It's happened to me less than a handful of times in 34+ years of off and on DMing ... but, honestly, it never became any kind of dispute. It always went something like, "What's your character's Intelligence?" "Heh. Yeah, you're right. I didn't think of the fact that he wouldn't think of that."

I'd really have to wrack my brain to remember a specific incident, because the last time it happened with me involved would literally have been in the 90's.

If the archives yield anything, I'll let you know.

Another thing I just thought of: Back in 1st (and, I think, 2nd) Edition, there was a correlation between IQ and Intelligence, in that a Intelligence 7 equated to approximately a 70 IQ. Is that not the case with 3rd Edition or Pathfinder?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.

Shadow Lodge

Jaelithe wrote:

You're not remotely being an arse, dude. You're interested, I'm less so, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just leave you hangin'.

It's happened to me less than a handful of times in 34+ years of off and on DMing ... but, honestly, it never became any kind of dispute. It always went something like, "What's your character's Intelligence?" "Heh. Yeah, you're right. I didn't think of the fact that he wouldn't think of that."

I'd really have to wrack my brain to remember a specific incident, because the last time it happened with me involved would literally have been in the 90's.

If the archives yield anything, I'll let you know.

Another thing I just thought of: Back in 1st (and, I think, 2nd) Edition, there was a correlation between IQ and Intelligence, in that a Intelligence 7 equated to approximately a 70 IQ. Is that not the case with 3rd Edition or Pathfinder?

Its heavily disliked by alot of posters and since it was just a an article in a dragon magazine and not anything 'offical' its disregarded.

And with 3.x the numbers do not correlate to well since starting max int is now 20 not 18 as before.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.

The article never said it should be used as a direct correlation just as vague reference to help people understand what an int of XX might mean.

Silver Crusade

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.
The article never said it should be used as a direct correlation just as vague reference to help people understand what an int of XX might mean.

It wasn't limited to one article. There were plenty of people who were convinced that each point of Int equalled 10 points of IQ and took that as a game rule.

They were still wrong.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.
The article never said it should be used as a direct correlation just as vague reference to help people understand what an int of XX might mean.

It wasn't limited to one article. There were plenty of people who were convinced that each point of Int equalled 10 points of IQ and took that as a game rule.

They were still wrong.

So because they like to look at int as equal to IQ they are playing badwrongfun?


Well, the 1st Edition Players Handbook, p. 10, says, "Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient..." and the 1st Edition Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 15, is even more explicit, adding, "The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern 'IQ' scores..."

So let's not just assume that the 1st Edition players and DMs were all Intelligence 8, guys, OK? ;)

Silver Crusade

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.
The article never said it should be used as a direct correlation just as vague reference to help people understand what an int of XX might mean.

It wasn't limited to one article. There were plenty of people who were convinced that each point of Int equalled 10 points of IQ and took that as a game rule.

They were still wrong.

So because they like to look at int as equal to IQ they are playing badwrongfun?

No, they were wrong in their belief that it was a rule of the game.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, there was never a direct correlation, but that didn't stop people thinking there was.
The article never said it should be used as a direct correlation just as vague reference to help people understand what an int of XX might mean.

It wasn't limited to one article. There were plenty of people who were convinced that each point of Int equalled 10 points of IQ and took that as a game rule.

They were still wrong.

So because they like to look at int as equal to IQ they are playing badwrongfun?
No, they were wrong in their belief that it was a rule of the game.

"Rule"? No, perhaps not technically, though you could make the strong argument it was from what I provided above. Entirely reasonable, logical and excellent assumption? Without question.

Silver Crusade

Really? Post the complete quote from the 1st ed DMG!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Really? Post the complete quote from the 1st ed DMG!

Are you aware of how you're coming off now?

You basically just called me a liar, from what I can glean.

Stand by. I'll go find the quotes.


These are the full sentences:

PHB, p. 10: "Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemanic (sic) ability, reasoning, and learning ability outside those measured by the written word."

DMG, p. 15: "The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern 'IQ' scores. However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning
ability skills in additional areas outside the written word."

The PHB talks about languages and spells, too, but that seems off point.

As you can see, I didn't eliminate anything germane to the disputed point (or that we weren't already agreed upon)—that Intelligence back then was analogous to IQ, according to at the very least strong implication, and arguably explicit intent.

Silver Crusade

Jaelithe wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Really? Post the complete quote from the 1st ed DMG!

Are you aware of how you're coming off now?

You basically just called me a liar, from what I can glean.

Stand by. I'll go find the quotes.

Not calling you a liar, just pointing out that...

'However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas...'

....illustrates that Int =/= IQ, and didn't even then. It was never a rule, and the fact that Int includes things that IQ doesn't means that they are not equal.

I don't mind people using it as an aid to the characterisation of their own PC. I object to them using it to limit how I can play mine.

This is what this conversation is about. I'm saying people can play their scores how they like, and envision 'sub-scores' if they want, and even role-play badly if they want, or even treat it as a boardgame if they want. Just because you, me and others think they are missing out on some of the cool things of our hobby doesn't give us the right to tell them how to play their scores.

Yet the counter from the other side of the debate seeks to have some people tell other people how they can or can't role-play, when that side of the game isn't subject to any rules at all.

I remember reading that part of the 1st ed AD&D DMG under the covers when I first got it 35 years ago, because I read the whole thing from front to back and I didn't want a stupid thing like 'sleep' to get in the way. When I read that part I came away thinking that Int is not IQ/10. That's just a similar but different concept mentioned to help the new reader get their head around that ability.

I don't have a copy of that now, so I wanted you to post the whole thing to show why the text was saying it's similar, but not the same. As is/was, it's fluff not crunch.

Not saying you were lying. I'm saying the idea that there was an equivalence was never the case.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Not calling you a liar, just pointing out that...

'However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas...'

....illustrates that Int =/= IQ, and didn't even then. It was never a rule, and the fact that Int includes things that IQ doesn't means that they are not equal.

Interesting. I'd say it absolutely illustrates that it does mean that ... and that further, you're supposed to assume that an Int 8 means lower than average "mnemonic, reasoning, and learning ability skills in additional areas..." along with below average IQ.

You think it supports your position. I think it absolutely confirms mine.

"Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient" and "The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern 'IQ' scores" settles it. IQ is meant to be approximately Int times ten, moderated somewhat by the other considerations mentioned, in 1st Edition.

And once again we're back to "agree to disagree."

Silver Crusade

Yeah, we still disagree!

PHB, p. 10: "Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemanic (sic) ability, reasoning, and learning ability outside those measured by the written word."

To me now, and then, it wasn't saying that your Int score is the PC's IQ score divided by ten.

It was saying that the Int ability measures both the same qualities that are measured by IQ tests, and other qualities too. This is different to Int x 10 = IQ.

Further, the idea that a well drawn character has each quality rated by an ability as perfectly equal is as absurd for Int as it is for Cha. Is easier to illustrate with Cha, because we can all see that Adolf's massive Cha did not extend to include underwear model good looks.

This is equally true of the rules themselves. When Cha is rated at, say, 5 or 15, and Cha measures looks, leadership, force of personality and personal magnetism, it's not saying that every sub-ability is rated exactly the same. It's saying that the cumulative effect/average/whatever of these qualities comes out at 5 or 15, and that score is used in the game mechanics. You can imagine it how you want for your own PC, and you might have a good or bad imagination. But to limit other people's role-playing on the grounds that the rules say that all those qualities must be imagined as if they were rated as the final score is in error, because those are not rules.

It's true for each stat. Whatever those sub-abilities/qualities may be, the role-playing of them is not subject to any rules at all.


We're not getting anywhere, Mal. Time to let it go. :)

Silver Crusade

Before I got my copy of the 1st ed DMG I had played the game. Some people told me that Int x 10 = IQ. I believed them, as I was new and being taught and had no reason to doubt them.

Until I read it for myself. I realised that the books never said that, to get your PC's IQ score, multiply his Int score by 10. The books simply say, in the description of the qualities covered by the Int score, that the qualities measured by the IQ test are included in the qualities rated by the Int ability, and that the Int ability also covers qualities that are not covered by IQ tests.

Some players then went around with the formula Int x 10 = IQ, as if that were a rule from the books. It never was.

Shadow Lodge

Dont be like some of the other (Kazan) posters @Malachi. Agree to disagree. Dont continue to argue because then it looks like your saying your way is the 'right' way to play and other are wrong period.


Jaelithe wrote:

These are the full sentences:

PHB, p. 10: "Intelligence is quite similar to what is currently known as intelligence quotient, but it also includes mnemanic (sic) ability, reasoning, and learning ability outside those measured by the written word."

DMG, p. 15: "The intelligence rating roughly corresponds to our modern 'IQ' scores. However, it assumes mnemonic, reasoning, and learning
ability skills in additional areas outside the written word."

My opinion is that Int corresponds with IQ in that higher is better. Nowhere does it say anything about dividing by 10 or the number 10 at all.

it could be divided by 7... or 12... But if you have a higher Int then Bob... your smarter than Bob.

It holds even less meaning in Pathfinder where 3 is literate and while I don't know anyone who IS an IQ of 30... I don't imagine they are strong readers in multiple languages, or where the INT can get up into mid 20's-30's with the right gear....


Obviously in Pathfinder the scale is different. I don't think such can be argued if 3 is literate. Frankly, to me that means the game was designed for dumping stats, which I find abhorrent.

As to 1st and/or 2nd Edition ... I'm not being drawn back into this again.

Silver Crusade

Jaelithe wrote:
We're not getting anywhere, Mal. Time to let it go. :)

This ninja'd my next post. What can I do. : /

I can agree to disagree. Much like players may disagree on how to role-play their scores. But who gets to decide? The player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


This is what this conversation is about. I'm saying people can play their scores how they like, and envision 'sub-scores' if they want, and even role-play badly if they want, or even treat it as a boardgame if they want. Just because you, me and others think they are missing out on some of the cool things of our hobby doesn't give us the right to tell them how to play their scores.

If more people got this, these forums would be so much more pleasant to have discussions in...

It really doesn't matter how people at other tables play. For some, it doesn't even matter how people around their own table play (for those whom it does, such as myself, it just means being a bit more picky about who you play with.) I can see why it's more frustrating to PFS players, but its in the best interests of the game itself to have people playing the way they want to play.

I also get the "but if people play like that then they're supporting broken rules that I want fixed" argument that I see in some threads, but I don't accept it as being anywhere near important enough to stop groups continuing to play however they want to play.


Jaelithe wrote:

You're not remotely being an arse, dude. You're interested, I'm less so, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just leave you hangin'.

It's happened to me less than a handful of times in 34+ years of off and on DMing ... but, honestly, it never became any kind of dispute. It always went something like, "What's your character's Intelligence?" "Heh. Yeah, you're right. I didn't think of the fact that he wouldn't think of that."

I'd really have to wrack my brain to remember a specific incident, because the last time it happened with me involved would literally have been in the 90's.

If the archives yield anything, I'll let you know.

Another thing I just thought of: Back in 1st (and, I think, 2nd) Edition, there was a correlation between IQ and Intelligence, in that a Intelligence 7 equated to approximately a 70 IQ. Is that not the case with 3rd Edition or Pathfinder?

In the old days, INT was x10 and compared to IQ, but it doesn't quite work any more. INT doesn't even work for learning and learning capacity.

You can be well below 9, but if you are a rogue or bard you can still have quite a lot of skills to play with, you get another one per level for being human and you can still throw feats at getting more skill points or burn skill focus to really not be daft or unintelligent at a specific skill, this can include knowledge. I've never made a dumb historian, but if you are mediocre or just below it isn't hard to get good at a skill with some investment.

Of course it has been said that in the rules tactics and the like is not at all covered by INT. Players choose what they do in and out of combat irregardless of their INT. You aren't unable to act because of a low INT and how fast you actually act is ALWAYS INIT, which is boosted by DEX and feats, not INT.

This thread is a good one though, INT really is full of holes, and it doesn't actually cover a lot of what it claims to. A 8 int human rogue can learn a lot more than a 12 INT elven fighter. So I suggest intelligence and learning capacity is strongly effected by the class and feats, and not solely INT.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just want to point something out.

If a player has a 7 int character and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 learning and a 11 reasoning.

His next character has a 7 cha and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 leadership/personal magnetism and a 11 personality/appearance.

And his next character has a 7 wis and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 intuition/wis power and a 11 common sense/awareness.

I'd get the impression that player doesnt want to have RP a low mental stat character.

But thats just me.

Sovereign Court

learning/reasoning
Leadership/personality
common sense/awareness

Where do these come from? How did you come about those numbers?

Shadow Lodge

Pan wrote:

learning/reasoning

Leadership/personality
common sense/awareness

Where do these come from? How did you come about those numbers?

Quote:

wrote:

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?
Quote:

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.

This enough of an answer for you @Pan? Or are you looking for something different?

To 'cagey' of a post for ya this time?


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Just want to point something out.

If a player has a 7 int character and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 learning and a 11 reasoning.

His next character has a 7 cha and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 leadership/personal magnetism and a 11 personality/appearance.

And his next character has a 7 wis and says well the way I see it the character has the equivalent of a 4 intuition/wis power and a 11 common sense/awareness.

I'd get the impression that player doesnt want to have RP a low mental stat character.

But thats just me.

But, aren't those vulnerabilites that the DM can exploit? Heck what does an 11 appearance actually DO for you without the personal magnetism to go with it?

I see these things as 'cinematic' in nature anyways. ALLLLLL the players are 'hollywood heartthrobs' anyway. Some are just better than others... but even the 'ugly' ones still have plenty of fan clubs.

He may say the women find him attractive... but if your going to add in '4 personal magnetism'... they're still going to hit on the paladin instead.

Same with the rest of them. High here, or low there... it all balances out and the more the player wants to break up the sub stats.... the more the DM can tailor make the challenge to screw him over....

Silver Crusade

Quite a few games tried to 'fix' what D&D did wrong in the early days, by creating new systems. One of those fixes was to remove inelligence as a stat.

Golden Heroes had Strength, Vigour, Dexterity and Ego (to represent force of will), but deliberately did not have Intelligence or it's equivalent on the grounds that the players can only use the mind they have, so different intellect scores become meaningless.

Sovereign Court

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Pan wrote:

learning/reasoning

Leadership/personality
common sense/awareness

Where do these come from? How did you come about those numbers?

Quote:

wrote:

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?
Quote:

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.

This enough of an answer for you @Pan? Or are you looking for something different?

To 'cagey' of a post for ya this time?

How about the numbers? How do you determine a 4 or 5 or 11 in reasoning or personality?

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quite a few games tried to 'fix' what D&D did wrong in the early days, by creating new systems. One of those fixes was to remove inelligence as a stat.

Golden Heroes had Strength, Vigour, Dexterity and Ego (to represent force of will), but deliberately did not have Intelligence or it's equivalent on the grounds that the players can only use the mind they have, so different intellect scores become meaningless.

That sounds interesting, never even heard of it before. Guess I'll be doing a web search on Golden Heroes to see what the game as a whole was like.

Silver Crusade

Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quite a few games tried to 'fix' what D&D did wrong in the early days, by creating new systems. One of those fixes was to remove inelligence as a stat.

Golden Heroes had Strength, Vigour, Dexterity and Ego (to represent force of will), but deliberately did not have Intelligence or it's equivalent on the grounds that the players can only use the mind they have, so different intellect scores become meaningless.

That sounds interesting, never even heard of it before. Guess I'll be doing a web search on Golden Heroes to see what the game as a whole was like.

It was a super-hero RPG written in Britain. It had its faults, but also some very cool and innovative mechanics.

Shadow Lodge

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quite a few games tried to 'fix' what D&D did wrong in the early days, by creating new systems. One of those fixes was to remove inelligence as a stat.

Golden Heroes had Strength, Vigour, Dexterity and Ego (to represent force of will), but deliberately did not have Intelligence or it's equivalent on the grounds that the players can only use the mind they have, so different intellect scores become meaningless.

That sounds interesting, never even heard of it before. Guess I'll be doing a web search on Golden Heroes to see what the game as a whole was like.
It was a super-hero RPG written in Britain. It had its faults, but also some very cool and innovative mechanics.

Cool, I'll see if I cant locate it and give it a read.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Quite a few games tried to 'fix' what D&D did wrong in the early days, by creating new systems. One of those fixes was to remove inelligence as a stat.

Golden Heroes had Strength, Vigour, Dexterity and Ego (to represent force of will), but deliberately did not have Intelligence or it's equivalent on the grounds that the players can only use the mind they have, so different intellect scores become meaningless.

That sounds interesting, never even heard of it before. Guess I'll be doing a web search on Golden Heroes to see what the game as a whole was like.
It was a super-hero RPG written in Britain. It had its faults, but also some very cool and innovative mechanics.

I remember being VERY frustrated playing a Reed Richards/Tony Stark style genius/inventor once for pretty much that reason. My Intellect was VERY high, but as a player I just didn't have the smarts/technobable to do it justice in my opinion. DM and other players still liked him... but I always felt he was a weak character.

Shadow Lodge

Ok @Pan, here are the numbers.

This thread page 2, 36th post.

Edit: sorry 39th post.

Edit again: every time I count it comes up different. So one of the posts around numbers 38-40.

Shadow Lodge

Supposedly 'Squadron UK' is the current name of the Golden Heroes game. So far thats what I've been able to find.

Shadow Lodge

The game Rolemaster had 5 physical and 5 mental stats and an appearance stat. The appearance stat had a max number that was modified by condition, like you just bought new clothes and visited the bathhouse (max) lr you just got back from 2 weeks in the bush with out time for a bath or getting clean clothes (bottom-ish).


See how much time you guys are all spending on this? Being a black and white thinker, wouldn't it make so much more sense and be more logical and easier to just say a 5 Charisma has to represent all sub-abilities of what Charisma represents?

If your character wants to THINK they are attractive, or smart, or wise, and they have a low stat, sure, they can THINK that. But that stat represents what is ACTUALLY is.

It just seems to make things a lot less complicated.

Silver Crusade

Tormsskull wrote:

See how much time you guys are all spending on this? Being a black and white thinker, wouldn't it make so much more sense and be more logical and easier to just say a 5 Charisma has to represent all sub-abilities of what Charisma represents?

If your character wants to THINK they are attractive, or smart, or wise, and they have a low stat, sure, they can THINK that. But that stat represents what is ACTUALLY is.

It just seems to make things a lot less complicated.

It would be simpler, but simpler is not always better.

Well drawn characters should not be artificially limited like this, because real people aren't. Real people are not limited to, say, be equally rated on both looks and personality. It would make our characters two-dimensional.

Remember, the whole motivation to tell people how they can or cannot role-play is ostensibly to promote good role-playing, isn't it?

Sovereign Court

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:

See how much time you guys are all spending on this? Being a black and white thinker, wouldn't it make so much more sense and be more logical and easier to just say a 5 Charisma has to represent all sub-abilities of what Charisma represents?

If your character wants to THINK they are attractive, or smart, or wise, and they have a low stat, sure, they can THINK that. But that stat represents what is ACTUALLY is.

It just seems to make things a lot less complicated.

It would be simpler, but simpler is not always better.

Well drawn characters should not be artificially limited like this, because real people aren't. Real people are not limited to, say, be equally rated on both looks and personality. It would make our characters two-dimensional.

Remember, the whole motivation to tell people how they can or cannot role-play is ostensibly to promote good role-playing, isn't it?

Doesnt help when the system is overly complciated and arbitrary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Well drawn characters should not be artificially limited like this, because real people aren't. Real people are not limited to, say, be equally rated on both looks and personality. It would make our characters two-dimensional.

Sure, and there should probably be 85,000 feats to truly be able to make the kind of diverse characters we'd like to. And 175,000 different skills to be able to capture exactly what a character can do.

But the game is a simplification. Why continue to fight against it? Why can't 5 Strength characters just be, you know, not strong?

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Remember, the whole motivation to tell people how they can or cannot role-play is ostensibly to promote good role-playing, isn't it?

All rules place some limitations on role play, and that is not a bad thing. If there is a skill in place that makes you really good at singing, and you don't take it, it is quite disingenuous to role play a character that is a world-renown singer. It just doesn't add up.

I still don't understand why people don't simply enjoy their low stats and create a character that fairly represents them. You have a lot of flexibility as to where to put your stats, regardless if you roll or point-buy. Why put a low score in a stat, and then complain that you have a low score in that stat?

Be an ugly hero. Or a dumb one. Or a weak one. It's okay, all heroes shouldn't be shining examples of perfection in every aspect.

301 to 350 of 441 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Does forcing players to 'roleplay your stats' bring more emphasis on said stats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.