I really don't get people saying ability scores are meaningless and unrelated to concept. This seems so counter intuitive it makes my head implode. If I wasn't on a phone id just post their description and what they each say.
Is IS counter-intuitive. That's exactly why I think it's hard for people to get their heads around sometimes. It's just another not so helpful legacy of the way the rules used to work, that we're stuck with these sort of deceptively named mechanics. My point is that the game places an enormous value on certain ability scores for certain characters, and you can get really screwed up if you want to play a concept that tries to run against this grain from an aesthetic perspective. The attractive Fighter is a great example. You should be able to be this, but the difference between bumping your Cha to 14 just so you can say you're a hot guy, and dumping it to 7 like you otherwise could have, is catastrophic for your chances at effectiveness. It is unreasonable to impose this kind of punishment on a player just for wanting to be able to say that his guy is handsome, since it really doesn't do anything for him. Basically I think there are times where you have to accept the practical demands of the system in terms of optimization, and you don't want those things to destroy the possibility of creating certain kinds of concepts. So again, I say do whatever works best.
Well my character sheet says I have a 6 strength but I'm actually as strong as hercules and I'm on a cut brah so I just choose to only lift 20 lbs at a time and I'm chuggin a protein shake.
Well, I'd like to point out as I did before that Strength is, kind of annoyingly, the exception. I personally believe that you do kind of have to say your character looks strong if he has a high Strength, and vice versa, unless maybe he's a dhampir or, you know, there's some other supernatural explanation. Why? Because the mechanics of Strength do not play off of anything else. Nothing else (save for supernatural things) affects how much you can hold, lift and carry. If you have a high Strength, then you can lift huge weights over your head. There's no room for interpretation or ambiguity there. And that's weird if you're describing your character as a scrawny little girl or whatever.
EDIT: Though to be honest, at the end of the day even the Strength thing doesn't seem worth it to me most of the time. And again, NPC Codex is full of character pictures of like, small skinny girls with 20 Strength and that kind of thing. Honestly, it's probably best just to not worry about it too much.
I've never had a problem making an interesting and compelling character that the GM and group had a blast with in PAthfinder. Nor, have I made one that would be considered mechanically insufficient.
There is no one or the other for me. I can make whatever concept I want work with me.
In a sense, my system mastery allows me to broaden my concepts since I know what works, what doesn't, and what I can get away with without dragging the game to some level below what I know I can handle.
The thing is I think some people fail to understand the true variety of humanity there is.
Take a squad of soldiers. They can all take care of their equipment, march for miles hefting a hundred pound pack, can read a map, and shoot fairly accurately when the time calls.
But, they're different too. HAve different tastes, different families, sometimes even differet sexual orientations. Maybe one guy happens to be a pretty good cook, or a great singer, perhaps they know kung-fu. Yet, they're all soldiers with the same skillset as mentioned above.
And in this way you can divorce concept from numbers. Interest is not the same as proficiency or training. There is no mechanic for why my paladin hates horses, or for why my barbarian became a successful novelist. Those things just are.
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
I actually agree with kyrt-ryder a lot more than I know it seems. We have similar reasoning, I think, but very different conclusions.
I believe Charisma is one of the hardest abilities to interpret--the numerous threads about how a low score should be roleplayed are proof enough of that. Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that Charisma is the ability to control how people view and react to you. As such, I theoretically agree with kyrt-ryder that this should only come up with skills.
However.
Why does this failing only ever come up when the skills surface? That sounds like a very particular character trait--freezing under pressure. It's one of many ways to justify low Charisma, but it shouldn't only surface when the skills come up.
In other words, I believe such flaws should be mentioned before the d20 gets brought out.
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
I think that's not entirely untrue, but it's an oversimplification. I want the rules to reinforce my character's concept/personality in interesting ways, and not to hinder my concept in unnecessary stupid ways.
[post]marshmallow's obligatory "point buy system is the root of all problems in RPGs."[/post]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like its weird if you describe your charisma seven fighter as Don Juan and Lothario rolled into one.
No, not like that. It's completely different, and a couple of people have tried to explain why already.
Kyrt has a point there.
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Thee are no such "crowds". Kyrt-ryder is a roleplayer, and so am I. We also both enjoy optimizing--at least, I do. This isn't roleplaying vs. optimization, regardless, it's two different ways to roleplay.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
Or maybe the "pure" roleplayers were always better suited to "pure" roleplaying mediums like free-form roleplay.
D&D is a mechanical and technical game. It always has been. It is a game where you roll dice and add your modifiers.
Whether or not 3.0 emphasized the "game" aspect, AD&D was hardly a "pure" roleplaying game. Anybody who says otherwise is fooling herself.
Listen, when it comes to interpreting the system and what it means and yada yada yada, you can argue about that stuff all day. But what is the point? I think some people really need to think about what the goals of the system, and really of gaming in general, are. I think that a system should enable you to satisfyingly manifest your character in some interesting way. When an interpretation of the rules is making it harder to do that, then that is a probably a bad interpretation. If an interpretation of the rules, makes that easier, then it is a good interpretation. It's that simple. Do what works.
Read this very carefully, because I'm only going to say it once.
Sorry, can you repeat that? I was chasing a butterfly.
My dog, a Shetland Sheepdog with a game rule intelligence of two, is smarter than some of the people I know.
Wolves, in the game, exhibit very strong teamwork and tactics, despite having a game rule intelligence of two.
Intelligence is not intellect, it's a modifier to skill points per level, Knowledge Skills, Craft Skills, and some varieties of Arcane Casting.
Your interpretation is not the gamemakers' intention (if it was, we wouldn't have those handy Ability entries in the Core Rulebook). Intelligence is only one form of cunning. Wisdom is generally regarded to be the other. In addition, in the case of a wolf, there's a li'l something called "instinct". ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
While I consider myself *both* an optimizer and a roleplayer, I think you have the backwards, or are entirely mistaken altogether. Optimizers love mechanics (or at least love working with/in them). We (I'll just go ahead and speak for everyone) absolutely enforce CHA penalties to Diplomacy and Bluff and plan our characters accordingly. What we don't enforce however is unwritten rules like "Low CHA means your ugly/npcs ignore you."
Your 10 STR character can be ripped because having well defined muscles doesn't actually make you particularly strong. You 7 CHA character can be unfairly attractive, but something about their personality seems to make people less susceptible to their ideas/lies. Most of these facts are common in reality, so its no surprise. Lots of very charismatic figures in our history are not particularly attractive and many of our very attractive people aren't especially charismatic.
That's just how optimizers roll (and role for that matter).
Kyrt has a point there.
Lol, he said the same thing I've been saying. Okay, that's it. Kyrt, you clearly have a better Diplomacy bonus than I do. I'm sending all my posts through you from now on to be translated into boardspeak first :p.
While I consider myself *both* an optimizer and a roleplayer, I think you have the backwards, or are entirely mistaken altogether. Optimizers love mechanics (or at least love working with/in them). We (I'll just go ahead and speak for everyone) absolutely enforce CHA penalties to Diplomacy and Bluff and plan our characters accordingly. What we don't enforce however is unwritten rules like "Low CHA means your ugly/npcs ignore you."
Your 10 STR character can be ripped because having well defined muscles doesn't actually make you particularly strong. You 7 CHA character can be unfairly attractive, but something about their personality seems to make people less susceptible to their ideas/lies. Most of these facts are common in reality, so its no surprise. Lots of very charismatic figures in our history are not particularly attractive and many of our very attractive people aren't especially charismatic.
That's just how optimizers roll (and role for that matter).
Good explanation.
What we don't enforce however is unwritten rules like "Low CHA means your ugly/npcs ignore you."
I don't enforce that, either. That's the province of crappy GMs and roleplaying snobs who think a Charisma dump stat is a sign of a minmaxing munchkin.
I will, however, enforce that players must justify a low Charisma score. This is because, in my games, abilities represent the basic traits of the character.
The character might have found ways to overcome their worse traits--training in etiquette to improve their Diplomacy, reading books to improve their Knowledge skills--but the traits are still there, and I want them to be acknowledged.
Please don't Erick, I burn way too much time just handling my own posts.
Lol, don't stress kyrt. I was joking.
What we don't enforce however is unwritten rules like "Low CHA means your ugly/npcs ignore you."I don't enforce that, either. That's the province of crappy GMs and roleplaying snobs who think a Charisma dump stat is a sign of a minmaxing munchkin.
I will, however, enforce that players must justify a low Charisma score. This is because, in my games, abilities represent the basic traits of the character.
The character might have found ways to overcome their worse traits--training in etiquette to improve their Diplomacy, reading books to improve their Knowledge skills--but the traits are still there, and I want them to be acknowledged.
Okay, that seems reasonable enough. Ah, jolly cooperation!
Sure, instinct plays a role. But I'm not joking when I say that to the best of my ability to observe, my dog has more intellect than several human beings I know. If Pathfinder's Int score meant intellect, I would rate her around a 6, but Pathfinder calls her a 2 because Int is not intellect, it's a mechanical construct of bonuses and penalties and the key stat to a few classes' spellcasting.
You're simplifying, and ignoring my point about Wisdom. Mind acknowledging that before we proceed? ;P
EDIT: Although I think giving any animal a score above 3 or 4 is really, really, really generous. At best, in my opinion (speaking as an animal-lover), an animal is basically a retarded child.
Honestly, we don't disagree about much, Erick. And we'd basically resolved the issue about abilities. You just kicked things off again by calling my playstyle a "bad habit". ;D
|
Listen, when it comes to interpreting the system and what it means and yada yada yada, you can argue about that stuff all day. But what is the point? I think some people really need to think about what the goals of the system, and really of gaming in general, are. I think that a system should enable you to satisfyingly manifest your character in some interesting way. When an interpretation of the rules is making it harder to do that, then that is a probably a bad interpretation. If an interpretation of the rules, makes that easier, then it is a good interpretation. It's that simple. Do what works.
I get the point your trying to make Erick. Yet D&D is not the type of game that allows that. Not without house rules or the help of the DM imo.
To use another rpg as a example Hero System. It's a point based system where you can spend points to get a advantage or gain extra points with a disadvantage. One of the disadvantages is called Dependent NPC. Think Mary Jane from Spider-man. A player can choose how powerful the NPC is as well as how often they can show up in a session. A player built a grandfather npc that was not only incompetent he showed up frequently.
While the npc did not show up every game the target number to roll was 14 on a 3D6. Meaning a 14 or less meant the npc was somehow involved. The player kept getting angry that his npc was showing up too often. He wanted the extra points yet not the responsability of of having to save the npc.
And here's something to say about smart dogs: They actually can increase their Intelligence by gaining hit dice, so your dog could have a 6 Intelligence. ;P
That being said, I'd say pretty much all animals have Intelligences no higher than 4. The brightest of them are similar to mentally disabled people, in my opinion.
Obviously, a person can be good at optimization and at role-playing as well.
Or, they can be like me. Kind of mediocre at both. I never even really role-played until I got into PBP. I wasn't alone at the table in this, pretty much everyone I ever played with, just kind of were themselves, but used the stats and info from their sheet, as a list of available options to solve whatever problem was presented.
I don't even think the Stormwind thing is even really the argument. To me, it seems more like a difference in philosophy. You have players who want to dump charisma, in order to gain that 14 con score. OK, that's fine, except they now want to play the character as if they had at least an average charisma. The benefits or drawbacks of high scores in all the other abilities are fairly clear cut. With charisma, maybe not so much. Now, if you had to make a diplomacy or bluff check, every time you had to talk, that might give charisma the weight it should have.
There also might be a slight difference in opinion about what is actually optimized. To me, an 8 chr score is not optimal. I want to at least have a chance to use aid another on a diplomacy check. That way I can have a speaking role in the play.
No matter the class you are playing, it's nice to have a bonus language and skill point per level.
Even a wizard should be strong enough to carry his own kit.
Not all enemies are ground-bound, so a cleric had better have a crossbow and at least have the hope of using it effectively. Same goes for a fighter, and then some. The cleric might have a spell...
With all that happening it can be hard to get that 14 con score. All my active characters have a 12 constitution, none have died so far. (Knocks on wood.)
|
|
I don't enforce that, either. That's the province of crappy GMs and roleplaying snobs who think a Charisma dump stat is a sign of a minmaxing munchkin.I will, however, enforce that players must justify a low Charisma score. This is because, in my games, abilities represent the basic traits of the character.
The character might have found ways to overcome their worse traits--training in etiquette to improve their Diplomacy, reading books to improve their Knowledge skills--but the traits are still there, and I want them to be acknowledged.
I don't enforce it that much either. Players can still roleplay at my table. It's just that the characters with higher cha have a better chance of succeeding. It is unfair to a player who has a higher cha score to have the one with the lower cha to be as good. It kidn of screws over someone who is built a character to be the face of the party imo.
Honestly, we don't disagree about much, Erick. And we'd basically resolved the issue about abilities. You just kicked things off again by calling my playstyle a "bad habit". ;D
I did do that. Sorry. What a dick. Why do I say these things? My Diplomacy bonus is, as I mentioned, abysmally low (despite my enormously high Charisma :p). Anyway though, I do think that some people, not you or any particular person that's been commenting here, do the "ability scores must be RPed and must mean X" thing out of, basically, just habit. I think with some people there's really not much more thinking going on behind it, and it's just a knee-jerk instinct. There may or may not be good reasons to do it, but they haven't really thought that far. They just think they're supposed to for some reason.
EDIT: I should point out, incidentally, that I think this because I used to more or less be one of these people.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
If I had to take a stab at it though, I'd say that wisdom is the product of a mature state of mind as affected by life experiences, whereas intellect is one's ability to learn and adapt.
Crap. My stats are terrible then...
I realize, kyrt-ryder, that you do not enforce the quote I just gave in your games. However, if you're going to point out "inconsistencies" in the current system, it's important to keep in mind evidence like what I just showed that shows that they are not inconsistent at all.
It is not a matter of "shoving down your throat". It is a matter of you "shoving" your own opinions down mine (the idea that my gaming style is confused or self-contradicting), and me pointing out that your opinions don't, well, apply to this.
And no, I think "common sense, awareness and intuition" just about comes down to "animalistic cunning".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We aren't applying Wisdom stats to real people. We are applying stats to fictional people who are being made up with the aid of these stats.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. It seems a bit off-topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't mean to shove anything K.C.
Then maybe we should stop criticizing my playstyle when we'd already agreed that we have personal interests which do not coincide?
Who did? I've forgotten how this got started. I'm just kind of generically blaming Erick because he's the nearest bystander.
I wasn't trying to criticize anything, I thought we were just having a casual discourse at this point, each showing a different side to things.
Sorry. I haven't had fun in an online debate for a long, long time. XD
An observation on this thread:
The optimization crowd is looking for combat effectiveness but seems to have detached role playing into a free form side game.
The role players want the mechanics enforced in the PC's personality.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Thee are no such "crowds". Kyrt-ryder is a roleplayer, and so am I. We also both enjoy optimizing--at least, I do. This isn't roleplaying vs. optimization, regardless, it's two different ways to roleplay.
So the original arguement was correct. The 3.x rulesets have driven the "Pure" Role players to other systems. Everyone that is left is, at some level, a mechanical or technical player.
Or maybe the "pure" roleplayers were always better suited to "pure" roleplaying mediums like free-form roleplay.
D&D is a mechanical and technical game. It always has been. It is a game where you roll dice and add your modifiers.
Whether or not 3.0 emphasized the "game" aspect, AD&D was hardly a "pure" roleplaying game. Anybody who says otherwise is fooling herself.
Pardon, I meant no offense.
I'm not grouping anyone. That's for each person to decide where they fall.
Although the response is not getting at it. If you dump it do you play it? Or do you offset it with skillpoints and feats and a bunch of thematically contrasted elements? So as to make the initial dump irrelevant?
That's what the Stormwind Fallacy FAILS to refute or disprove.
First, you are inventing groups where none exist. There has been no argument between optimizers and roleplayers, because we are one and the same.
Second, the Fallacy doesn't have to disprove it because it has nothing to do with the fallacy. Not roleplaying your dumped stats is an entirely separate issue connected only tangentially by "optimizing is kinda sorta involved".
Oh, and no offense taken. I'm just a bit cranky tonight, sorry, y'all. Got a PbP to plan for and I've wasted a lot of my time procrastinating with various Paizonian arguments. ;)
Lol.
Agreed. I need to go dig up that WotC thread. It's been too long since I read it.
But I'm going to bed instead.
You consider time spent arguing with me wasted!?!?
I jest, good luck with your upcoming game KC.
I've also wasted time bantering about nerfs and weird Twilight-based Wrath of the Righteous campaigns. The only productive thing I've done on these forums today is drop useful facts about hippos. That was pretty important.
Did you know that hippos spin their tails when--okay, I really should go get to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how this went from talking about when stormwind is misapplied, to people actively trying to disprove that the fallacy is a fallacy.
For example, people are talking about optimizers and RPers like they are different groups.
A more valid topic is whether or not stat values should effect roleplaying. Which they shouldn't. Not because of low stats, but because of high ones.
If mental stats effect your PCs ability to think, then no-one could legally play a 30 int wizard, a 30 wis cleric, or a 30 cha sorcerer. It is impossible to express a personality or thought process with such stats. If these mental stats were indicative of personality rather then mechanics then the devs could not put them in APs because the thought process of these characters would be incomprehensible to the devs, and thus could not be roleplayed. Neither Albert Eisenstein or stephen hawking could even begin to comprehend how someone with 30 int would think. Aristotle could only speculate as to what a person with 30 wisdom could divine. There is not a celebrity or politician that could even begin to conceive of how someone with 30 cha would carry them-self.
If you must by the rules RP your mental stats, then ALL high mental stat characters are illegal to play.
If mental stats effect your PCs ability to think, then no-one could legally play a 30 int wizard, a 30 wis cleric, or a 30 cha sorcerer.
Read the scenario ahead of time?