| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've GMed a few games now in PFS (only 7 atm), and there is an aspect that is greatly reducing my enjoyment of the process. I'm wondering if there is any recourse for this.
As is news to absolutely no one, dumping at least one mental stat, sometimes several, is the national past-time of Absalom. Frustratingly, I haven't once seen any reflection of this in the behavior of the characters themselves, with the exception of one charisma dumper who was 'grumpy'.
The first question is, am I allowed to, as a GM, ask the following at the beginning of a session:
"Besides boring numerical penalties, tell me what limitations your low intelligence/wisdom/charisma places on your character's behavior?"
Is that okay?
I'm fairly certain, unfortunately, that I'm not allowed to say "No, your intelligence is 5, placing you one above the Village Idiot, which means you can't solve the complex puzzle", correct?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having one or more low stats is not a problem for which you need "recourse". Their effects are already built into the game. Beyond that, everyone gets to roleplay to the degree to which they're comfortable. If you asked the question you proposed, were you planning to also ask the wizard, "Besides boring numerical bonuses, tell me what effects your high Intelligence places on your character's behavior?"
Because if your concern is really about people roleplaying their stats, then that question is just as important to you. If those questions aren't equal to you, then your motivations are something else entirely.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the pain of dumping mental stats more society play than in a home game for a few reasons.
-In a home game you are with a consistent group of people so you can coordinate character development to cover each others weak points.
-PFS missions often require skill checks to complete successfully.
-There are several social scenarios where the low charisma is a huge hindrance.
If the player of the low intelligence character has not used up much table time before the puzzle I would be happy for him to solve it, as it is nice to give multiple players the spotlight during a scenario. If the player had already made most of the decisions I may ask the low int player to either give the other players 5 minutes to solve the puzzle before helping, or say your character can not complete the puzzle but you can pass on one piece of insight/comment a minute. Either way if the party reaches a point where they are stuck let all the players loose on the puzzle.
What I have found works well with low charisma characters being played by charismatic players is either have them make their roll at the beginning and then have the conversation, or when it comes time for the social role and they get a bad result I will say "In your head you had a great speech but you had a hard time putting it into words and it came out as (something appropriate for the role)"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as low intelligence and solving puzzles, many of the PFS puzzles require someone in the party to make a Knowledge check of some kind, which it's unlikely the 5 or 7 Int fighter is going to make. However, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that once the Wizard passes the information onto the Fighter, the Fighter may be more adept at actually solving the puzzle due to some past hands-on experience that the Wizard wouldn't have had just studying spells.
A converse to this situation is the somewhat sheepish person playing the high Charisma Paladin or Bard. As a person it's potentially difficult for them to come up with the things they should be saying, but clearly if their character has 18-20 charisma, they would know what to say. In these cases, it's good to let some of the more vocal OOC players help out with what to say (after the high CHA character gets it started) and "aid", whether or not they can actually make the roll to do so mechanically.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad truth is that the only thing different between a -6 and 14 is 4 points. if the DC is 15, than one needs a 17 and other a 13. But looking at those numbers it seems like there should be a lot more, besides skills points not gained. really hoping to see some new spells like "Ray of Enfeeblement" that instead works on mental stats. Would see alot fewer 5 Int paladins out there.BTW this is one of the few times I see it RPed, so the paladin dosnt have to make tough calls.
|
|
Occasionally, those 7 and 5 cha characters are going to get stuck in a party where everybody has dumped Cha so that they're truly badass at beating things with sticks... and, then, the first time they're in a social situation, they're stuck. (Most 7 and 5 cha characters also won't put points into things like Diplomacy to offset it.) If they've also dumped Int and/or Wis, and suffer Perception and Knowledge gaps, if the scenario isn't a pure combat scenario they'll be driving uphill.
There is an asymmetry, though. Generally, one person with good Diplomacy can carry the rest of the party. (I GMed a "Stolen Heir" session where one person had amazing Diplomacy, and the party benefitted greatly from that.) One person with good Perception doesn't entirely carry the party (other people might fall for traps, won't act in surprise rounds), but can mostly make up the gap. But, if you only have one person good at combat, you're screwed in most scenarios. This pressure, as much as or more than players' desires to be combat badasses, is what I believe leads to a substantial fraction of players dumping Cha in particular.
(Some of it may also be left over instincts from 1st edition when Cha wasn't good for anything to anybody, other than meeting the prerequisite to be a Paladin. At least nowadays, there are some classes that depend on Cha.)
|
About a month ago I GMed a game at a convention in North Carolina. The scenario was a "social " scenario.
Casually I asked the four players at my table what their charisma scores were. I got a 8, 7, 7 and a 10.
Yeah. The Players could role play, but their characters just couldn't meet the Diplomacy skill DCs. They ended up winning people over by doing little jobs for them.
They met the bare minimum to complete the scenario.
Having one or more low stats is not a problem for which you need "recourse". Their effects are already built into the game. Beyond that, everyone gets to roleplay to the degree to which they're comfortable. If you asked the question you proposed, were you planning to also ask the wizard, "Besides boring numerical bonuses, tell me what effects your high Intelligence places on your character's behavior?"
Because if your concern is really about people roleplaying their stats, then that question is just as important to you. If those questions aren't equal to you, then your motivations are something else entirely.
That's actually a great point; I think I'll start doing that. Look at each character's mental stats, and for ones that are either very high or very low ask how it shows in the behavior of their character.
I realize very well I don't have the right to force them to act a certain way, but I think that would serve the purpose in at least encouraging people to roleplay their mental stats a bit more.
... really hoping to see some new spells like "Ray of Enfeeblement" that instead works on mental stats.You are in luck.
Touch of Idiocy can't bring them beneath a 1 in a score. Now, in a home game, you could say, "Your intelligence is 1; you're currently not capable of doing much beyond lashing out with base instinct".
But you can't do that in PFS; Touch of Idiocy does nothing but reduce their skill checks, because there are no explicit rules (that I'm aware of) for what happens when a player's intelligence goes that low. It's effective only against spellcasters to reduce their spell DCs, basically.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Hamburg
|
Occasionally, those 7 and 5 cha characters are going to get stuck in a party where everybody has dumped Cha so that they're truly badass at beating things with sticks... and, then, the first time they're in a social situation, they're stuck. (Most 7 and 5 cha characters also won't put points into things like Diplomacy to offset it.) If they've also dumped Int and/or Wis, and suffer Perception and Knowledge gaps, if the scenario isn't a pure combat scenario they'll be driving uphill.
Social situations aren't the only dangers a Cha 7 or 5 character can encounter. At one time, I played my Cha 7 tank character and another player played a Cha 5 tank character.
We got very cautious when the party had an encounter with monsters that made touch attacks that dealt Cha-drain :P
|
Sorry didnt mean to imply he was 1st. At 10th he is running with 26 diplomacy and 23 bluff and can increase both with the right spell. At 1st it woukd have been +10.
I have a few characters with the conversion inquisition (clerics can take inquisitions, but most people agree that it is silly that they do, but for a one level dip, it is not so bad) that have low charisma but decent diplomacy, bluff or intimidate.
And I have to say i have a few characters that have a low intelligence but almost always balanced by a better than average wisdom (when you get 2 skill points per level - a -1 Int penalty to skills is no different than a -3 int penalty)
People are saying a low int character shouldn't be able to work on puzzles or shouldn't be able to do this or that.
Do you know which ability score that rules common sense and intuition? - I'll give you a clue - it is not intelligence.
Yes, "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." but a lot of behaviors being denied to low INT characters (in this thread or elsewhere) are not exclusively learning and reasoning. Sometimes puzzle solving is common sense and intuition.
|
|
Wizard with Cha dump but one of the traits that lets them use Int for a Cha skill. My one Wizard does that. I am possibly going to get the Additional Traits to add another one, as he needs UMD as well as Diplomacy. Darn Thassilonian Specialist forbidden schools.
I have a Fighter, with Cha 7, who, because of vanities (class skill, specialized, maybe World Traveller for Diplomacy) and skill points, is fairly good with Diplomacy. Usually ranks 2nd or 3rd in the party, behind the Charisma classes, and can auto assist on Diplo checks, since he is at +9 or better. Actually, this covers at least two of my Fighter PCs. Not leaders, but they can schmooze fairly well.
Sure, Cha-based classes can do it more easily, but that doesn't mean others can't do it, as well.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, trust me, this is built into the game.
Between the scenarios that have intelligence checks as entry barriers to the scenario, and the scenarios that have charisma checks as entry barriers, you can't do much without someone in the party having a decent skill or stat.
As someone whose character is rocking a -7 diplomacy skill at the moment (as a Gnome! with a built in +1 to charisma! Yeah, I had to work at it.) I basically spend most of the social parts of the scenario sitting at the back, pretending to be a rock. There are at least two scenarios he will probably have to sit outside for part or all of them (there is simply no way he could ever get in to the house for the hellknights feast for example.)
But that is a pretty extreme case. In most cases, the rest of the party can compensate. Just the same way they compensate for the halfling with 8 strength, or the way the rogue compensates for the other people who can't bypass traps.
I admit that I wish more puzzles were explicitly called out as having intelligence checks to get extra hints. On the other hand, telling the best puzzle solver in the room that he can't help because he is playing his tank that night is cruel to the rest of the table, especially given the puzzles in season 5. (Okay, it would be awesome if the player solved the puzzle himself, and then had his tank make helpful Sancho Panza like observations that let the wizards player (played by the 12 year old) solve the puzzle for the party, but that is probably an unreachable ideal.)
Having the puzzles be based on player knowledge, as opposed to character knowledge, is a completely separate thing I loathe.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love puzzles! I actually prefer they be player-solved... why even have them if it's just to soak some dice rolls?
As for dumped charisma and low social skills - here's a fun thing I tried out a few times at a gameday I used to run:
Normally, the way a social encounter is run is that the player lets loose his spiel, interacts with the NPCs, and then the GM calls for a roll - a roll which, often, hardly reflects the RP which occurred. So... I decided to reverse this.
I ran games in which RP would *start* with a die roll, and THEN the players had to craft their characters' commentary in-line with the roll. Obviously, this was a lot of fun when the diplomacy-penalty crowd blew a roll, and then proceeded to flub their intentions, insult their hosts, and so on. With the right group (which I, fortunately, had), it's a lot of laughs. Basically, you're using the roll as a "trigger" to initiate free-form RP, the results of which are constrained by the die roll but rendered plausible by the actual RP vocalization.
Worth a try, and gives the Charisma-dump crowd the chance to enjoy the inevitable hilarity their choices merit.
...why even have them...
Excellent question. I'm playing a roleplaying game, not riddle-match-up. If it's not something my character does, it shouldn't be in there. YMMV, obviously.
I ran games in which RP would *start* with a die roll, and THEN the players had to craft their characters' commentary in-line with the roll. Obviously, this was a lot of fun when the diplomacy-penalty crowd blew a roll, and then proceeded to flub their intentions, insult their hosts, and so on. With the right group (which I, fortunately, had), it's a lot of laughs. Basically, you're using the roll as a "trigger" to initiate free-form RP, the results of which are constrained by the die roll but rendered plausible by the actual RP vocalization.
I really, really, really like this idea.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Having the puzzles be based on player knowledge, as opposed to character knowledge, is a completely separate thing I loathe.
Well, PC combat tactics, PC level advancement, PC social alliances are all based on things the players know that the PC may or may not. Why should this be any different.
And while you may not enjoy puzzles, other people do.
you may not enjoy social challenges, other people do.
you may not enjoy combat, other people do.
|
This issue dates back to the fusing of Charisma and Comeliness during the older D&D editions.
Charisma represented your force of personality and social graces, and Comeliness represented your appearance and physical attractiveness.
So if someone wanted to be a social butterfly, they didn't dump Charisma. If you didn't want insular villagers to throw vegetables at you, you didn't dump Comeliness. Today, in Pathfinder, you can dump Charisma and still be the party face, and roleplay it as being riddled with scars but still be possessive of a silver tongue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love puzzles! I actually prefer they be player-solved... why even have them if it's just to soak some dice rolls?
I think that matter depends on your group. Some people like to make the players solve them, others are good with Int checks or the like. Some people enjoy challenging puzzles in their gaming, others don't. Any answer is fine there, as it's just a matter of personal taste.
I personally do not like puzzles (in gaming or otherwise). They are not enjoyable for me, nor am I good at them, so it tends to become a matter of frustration for me quickly if I am forced to solve them on my own.
I personally do not like puzzles (in gaming or otherwise). They are not enjoyable for me, nor am I good at them, so it tends to become a matter of frustration for me quickly if I am forced to solve them on my own.
Yeah, it's also very frustrating that there seems to be an assumption that players or role-playing games like riddles and/or puzzles, or want them mixed together. It would be much better if there was an alternate way to solve them, by having your characters do checks of various kinds.
|
|
I personally do not like puzzles (in gaming or otherwise). They are not enjoyable for me, nor am I good at them, so it tends to become a matter of frustration for me quickly if I am forced to solve them on my own.Yeah, it's also very frustrating that there seems to be an assumption that players or role-playing games like riddles and/or puzzles, or want them mixed together. It would be much better if there was an alternate way to solve them, by having your characters do checks of various kinds.
As one who enjoys puzzles & riddles, it would be equally frustrating for me if when presented with one we were simply asked to roll some dice to see if we succeed, without being given a chance to actually solve it.
Most scenarios will contain elements we don't personally enjoy but others do. If no one at the table wants to solve it or they are struggling then rolling is certainly appropriate, just don't default to that without giving the players an opportunity - after all, it's what the characters would actually be doing.
One of my favorite moments was when our group had found something to decode. As I (and my bard in-game) worked on the puzzle we were attacked, with one of them randomly hitting me. Without looking up I said "Hey, can't you see I'm working here?" and continued to focus on the code, while another PC charged in and took out my attacker.
As one who enjoys puzzles & riddles, it would be equally frustrating for me if when presented with one we were simply asked to roll some dice to see if we succeed, without being given a chance to actually solve it.
...
Which is why I didn't suggest forcing a roll, I suggested given the option of rolling as an alternate way to solve the puzzle. You're happy, I'm happy.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
This issue dates back to the fusing of Charisma and Comeliness during the older D&D editions.
Charisma represented your force of personality and social graces, and Comeliness represented your appearance and physical attractiveness.
So if someone wanted to be a social butterfly, they didn't dump Charisma. If you didn't want insular villagers to throw vegetables at you, you didn't dump Comeliness. Today, in Pathfinder, you can dump Charisma and still be the party face, and roleplay it as being riddled with scars but still be possessive of a silver tongue.
Umm... Comeliness has never been a D&D stat outside some optional extra rules. Charisma has *always* been a fusion of appearance and personality. (At least as far back as the old box sets.)
|
Venture-Captain, Conventions—PaizoCon
|
I had this issues last week when I ran The Confirmation with someone who had tanked all three of his mental stats and managed to have a 5 int. I mentioned he already had a character pretty much like that but let him play it anyway. After the game, I told him that a character like that wouldn't really fit in PFS.
I understand why people do it, but it's still frustrating. A character with all their mental stats that low doesn't really fit into the Society. At least not to me. I honestly can't see the Society employing someone like that as anything other than a guard.
Would be nice to see a rule of something like "A character can't have more than one mental stat below 9."
|
|
One of my favorite moments was when our group had found something to decode. As I (and my bard in-game) worked on the puzzle we were attacked, with one of them randomly hitting me. Without looking up I said "Hey, can't you see I'm working here?" and continued to focus on the code, while another PC charged in and took out my attacker.
This reminds me of a puzzle that came up in a Living Forgotten Realms game, where we (the players) had to physically assemble some pieces to make a cube. It was supposed to represent fixing some magical McGuffin, and there was a fight going on at the same time. Whichever player was working on the cube, that character forfeited their action in that round of fighting.
We started off with the reasonable role-play choice of the intelligent wizard working on the puzzle, and my charming, yet dim, paladin trying to hold back the baddies. After a couple of rounds, the wizard's player was getting frustrated so we switched it up and I was able to solve the puzzle.
Sometimes you have to say, "We have a good puzzle solving character and we have a good puzzle solving player. They aren't actually connected but, eh, close enough!" And that saves people from getting cranky at the game, which is supposed to be fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A puzzle you solve with a skill check isn't a puzzle, its a skill challenge.
Semantics, but fine. Let players choose between solving a puzzle themselves, and doing a skill challenge. Don't force people who came to play a roleplaying game play a puzzle game, because a lot of us hate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Used to be that your INT score x10 was your IQ. So INT 5, 50 IQ. Forrest Gump was 70, just for comparison.
That was always a very rough, very poor guide. Was it even ever an official thing?
If you use a 3d6 distribution, and base your analysis on standard deviations from the average, than an intelligence of 5 actually comes out to about 70 IQ. So, people with intelligence 5 are the Forrest Gumps.
|
|
A puzzle you solve with a skill check isn't a puzzle, its a skill challenge.Semantics, but fine. Let players choose between solving a puzzle themselves, and doing a skill challenge. Don't force people who came to play a roleplaying game play a puzzle game, because a lot of us hate it.
Its not semantics, they're completely different things. Some people like puzzles. You can't eliminate everything from the game that one person doesn't like, you'd have no game left.
Some people like puzzles. You can't eliminate everything from the game that one person doesn't like, you'd have no game left.
Yet again, I point out that I did not propose eliminating them.
|
|
Some people like puzzles. You can't eliminate everything from the game that one person doesn't like, you'd have no game left.Yet again, I point out that I did not propose eliminating them.
There is no functional difference between eliminating them and turning them into a skill check. If you were to suddenly polymorph every panda on the planet into a toucan, you've just eliminated pandas.
Did you entirely miss the part where I said leave it up to the players whether to solve it as a puzzle or a skill check?
|
|
Did you entirely miss the part where I said leave it up to the players whether to solve it as a puzzle or a skill check?
Nope. I just know how this is going to work.
Player that likes puzzles "Oo lets see A is J so b is probably so...
Player that wants to kill stuff "Blastshadow makes an intelligence check... 16. Can we move on?"
|
|
I would not want to see them eliminated. I personally am perfectly fine letting puzzle people enjoy their puzzles at the table. It is just nice to have an Int check or skill check option or the like if your table just happens to be full of folks who groan when a puzzle pops up.
While it is somewhat amusing that my 39 Int PFS Wizard might be limited by my 10 Int, it's not exactly reasonable to handicap the character's intelligence because the player's intelligence isn't quite up to snuff. :p
|
|
Guessing that was a typo of 29, and 29 makes much more sense.
Starting 20+3 leveling+6 enchancement
Not a typo, he's just 19th level.
18 base
2 human
2 from a certain boon
4 level raises
5 inherent (tome of clear thought +5)
6 enhancement (headband of vast intelligence +6)
2 profane (another certain boon / succubi binding once it's duration expires)
A non PFS Wizard of the same level would likely break even to +3 higher. You'd just swap the 2 unnamed boon and the 2 profane boon for a +4 profane from a lilitu binding, and add 0-3 from age.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And, see, I wouldn't consider a 19th-level PC to be "a PFS wizard". That character has left the Society a long time ago.
--
More realistically, I think that the kinds of attitudes that a GM would want a player to demonstrate, to role-play a character with low mental stats, are exactly those not covered by the stats.
A character can have low Intelligence; that means she has a poor memory, storing and retrieving information. A real-life person like that compensates by taking notes.
A character can have a low Wisdom; that means he has low willpower, and perhaps is more easily distracted from a task at hand. Real-life people like that compensate by taking extra time to get settled before a major task.
A character can have low Charisma; that means the character has a difficult time connecting with other people and projecting her wishes. She could be mousy, or grating, or maybe have a speech impediment. In real-life, people like that spend more time in correspondence than face-to-face meetings.
There aren't any mental stats for being clever or coming up with good ideas. That's all in the player's ball-park.