wraithstrike: I don't think either Ryric or I subscribe to the "charisma 7 means everyone hates you" thread of this conversation, though, and that's who you've been replying to here.
I don't think the roleplaying consequences of a low stat necessarily need to be dysfunctional or debilitating, but they do need to *exist*. And I don't know, almost everyone I know has some quirk that could be expressed as a low stat of some kind. (Mine is wisdom.) It doesn't mean that hordes of people are "struggling with day to day activities", and I don't think my stance that low stats should have an effect on how a character's personality plays out at the table means what you're saying it means.
They already exist. Players are just smart enough to minimize them in the game if they don't want to deal with them, just like people in real life do, well some people anyway.
However to separate you from the others how do you handle low stats, and what is low to you? If possible use more than one stat.
wraithstrike: I don't think either Ryric or I subscribe to the "charisma 7 means everyone hates you" thread of this conversation, though, and that's who you've been replying to here.
I don't think the roleplaying consequences of a low stat necessarily need to be dysfunctional or debilitating, but they do need to *exist*. And I don't know, almost everyone I know has some quirk that could be expressed as a low stat of some kind. (Mine is wisdom.) It doesn't mean that hordes of people are "struggling with day to day activities", and I don't think my stance that low stats should have an effect on how a character's personality plays out at the table means what you're saying it means.
They already exist. Players are just smart enough to minimize them in the game if they don't want to deal with them, just like people in real life do, well some people anyway.
However to separate you from the others how do you handle low stats, and what is low to you? If possible use more than one stat.
Sure. Some examples of how I might play PCs or portray NPCs in my
game with particular 'low' stats. DISCLAIMER: These are just a few of the possible ways for these stats to manifest in a character's personality.Wisdom:
Wisdom 8: Impulsive, sometimes acts without considering long-term consequences. Gets loaded on a week night and goes to work with a hangover the next day.
Wisdom 6: Gambles with next week's paycheck. Mouths off to the guy sent to see if he's going to pay up.
Wisdom 4: The sort of person who gets movies like Trainspotting made about them.
Charisma:
Charisma 8: Has some mildly annoying character traits. Perhaps he whines all the time like first-movie Luke Skywalker, picks his nose in public, or has an irritating horse-laugh. Quirk level odious personal habits from GURPS could go here.
Charisma 6: Perhaps a socially awkward wallflower type, stands at the crowded bar for 10 minutes, people elbowing past him repeatedly, before the bartender finally notices him and takes his order. Or the soup restaurant owner who refuses to serve people who break his arbitrary rules for behavior when standing in line.
Charisma 4: That racist, hygiene-avoiding, personal-space-ignoring cousin that you live in fear of your friends ever meeting.
What's perhaps important to clarify is I don't believe these things necessarily have to have mechanical impact, but they have to be part of the character's personality and table presence. If you're playing your character in a committed way, the 'consequences' will be organic and come out of the role-playing anyway.
I have a character with a charisma of 8. Sometimes his attempts to use diplomacy sound more like an intimidation attempt, but I keep it rare, so the party(players) don't want to throw books at me. He has a 13 or 14 wisdom so most of the time he knows to just be quiet.
Just to be clear however I was asking what "extra penalties*" you would push on a PC as a GM. Sorry if I was not clear.
*I don't mean numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
When I refer to CHA being a measure of how likeable someone is, I'm using the description from the book... I'm not just pulling it out of my Handy Haversack...
If a GM injects a little flavor into the game by having NPCs react to someones personality, personal magnetism or appearance, they are simply basing it off of a measurable, chosen stat...
This isn't a penalty.
Diplomacy isn't used to make friends, Leadership is (or role-playing).
Diplomacy does this:
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
I keep posting on here in the hopes of making people realize that choosing the lowest CHA score possible SHOULD result in ROLE-PLAYING penalties appropriate to your score. A CHA 20 human will likely get approached randomly/propositioned WAY more often than an average CHA 10-11 human... Conversely, a low CHA person would suffer social penalties appropriate to THEIR LOW SCORE, as is appropriate. Not mechanical penalties, role-playing penalties (or benefits, in the case of CHA 20).
As for having an even spread in the population (equal numbers of all scores represented) this is patently false. If charted out, it would actually be a bell curve, with most people falling in the 8-12 range.
Why? Because that is how the world IS.
The number of people of any given 'stat level' is not even across the board. Highly intelligent and... what's the politically correct term... less than average intellence people... are outliers, NOT represented in equal numbers to the average crowd.
If the GM of the game makes it different, great, but unless told otherwise, we generally base our assumptions about game worlds in the real world, modified by obvious things like the addition of magic and other races.
If you run your games where CHA 5 means nothing, then I hope that CHA 20 means just as much... Otherwise it is lopsided, inconsistent and unfair to the person putting points into CHA.
I'm going to be honest, I tend to look at attractive people with a lot more interest than ugly people, LONG before they open their mouth I'm forming opinions...
And as the book itself states;
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. "
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
None of those actually make a person "likable" though. The closest you can argue is "personal magnetism" but that isn't the same as being likable. There's a lot of people who have personal magnetism, but are not likeable. Look no further then random celebrity 127b for proof of that.
There is no such thing as a roleplaying "penalty" to Charisma. As demonstrated in my previous post it is entirely possible for an attractive, likable person who can easily change others opinions to have a Charisma of 7. It just adds up.
None of those actually make a person "likable" though. The closest you can argue is "personal magnetism" but that isn't the same as being likable. There's a lot of people who have personal magnetism, but are not likeable. Look no further then random celebrity 127b for proof of that."Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Personal magnetism, ability to lead... are you being serious here?
Are you saying that Charisma _doesn't_ determine how likable you are?
Wisdom then?
*scratching head*
Strength maybe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
When I refer to CHA being a measure of how likeable someone is, I'm using the description from the book... I'm not just pulling it out of my Handy Haversack...
Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, nor appearance are synonymous with likeable.
So where are you getting it from?This isn't a penalty.
It isn't an inherent penalty(negative thing), but it can be depending on how the GM runs the game.
As for having an even spread in the population (equal numbers of all scores represented) this is patently false. If charted out, it would actually be a bell curve, with most people falling in the 8-12 range.
See say bell curve and I still see high percentage of populations with 7's and below.
I keep posting on here in the hopes of making people realize that choosing the lowest CHA score possible SHOULD result in ROLE-PLAYING penalties appropriate to your score.
Didn't you just say "This isn't a penalty."
A CHA 20 human will likely get approached randomly/propositioned WAY more often than an average CHA 10-11 human... Conversely, a low CHA person would suffer social penalties appropriate to THEIR LOW SCORE, as is appropriate. Not mechanical penalties, role-playing penalties (or benefits, in the case of CHA 20).
What is appropriate? Give examples.
You can put links up all day. The fact of the matter is there are 6 stats. How intelligence compares to itself has no relation to how likely you are to have low intelligence in the game because in real life people are not limited to set scores. In the game they are so real life is not a factor here. It might not be releastic, but in the game that is how it is. Now if you want to argue that one stats gets the bad draw more than another you will need proof and even so you still have someone with that stat strugglng a lot more than is normal in our world.
If you run your games where CHA 5 means nothing, then I hope that CHA 20 means just as much... Otherwise it is lopsided, inconsistent and unfair to the person putting points into CHA.+5 charisma or any other stat does what it does by the book. I don't add extra penalties or awards to any stat. Now of course a +5 is outside the normal range of most people, but I am not giving them any bonuses for it. What is fair and consistent is giving them what book says to give them. What is also fair is not making up things for charisma when I am not making up random rules for any other stat. If I start making up rules for charisma then I should do the same for the other stats also. To not do so is lopsided and inconsistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it might mean he's a socially awkward wallflower trying to impress girls. It might also mean he's been hurt emotionally in the past and has trouble reaching out to people. It might also mean that he's confidence is uncontrolled and he comes off as aggressive or abrasive. It might also mean that he has self image issues and he second guesses himself constantly. It might also mean that he talks like Ben Stein. It might mean that he's brutally blunt. It might mean he's overly critical. It might mean that he's too nice and inclined to let people walk over him. It might be that he's extremely accepting of others and inclined to help people even if it's an inconvenience to him (this is literally an expression Charisma thing). It might mean he's really smart and has difficulty dumbing himself down to converse with others. He might be all that and a bag of chips but his body language is too aggressive or not aggressive enough. There are hundreds if not thousands of things that his Charisma could imply.
Exactly this. All it really means is that, at the end of the day, they're not very good at dealing with other people.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those actually make a person "likable" though. The closest you can argue is "personal magnetism" but that isn't the same as being likable. There's a lot of people who have personal magnetism, but are not likeable. Look no further then random celebrity 127b for proof of that."Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Personal magnetism, ability to lead... are you being serious here?
Are you saying that Charisma _doesn't_ determine how likable you are?
Wisdom then?
*scratching head*
Strength maybe?
If you are going to claim that is how it is per the rules then provide a quote or an explanation. Charisma is your ability to influence people. That is why an ugly person with a high score and a pretty person with a high score can both be memorable, but at the same time a person may not stand out despite their appearance.
Charisma determines "appearance" not "attractiveness".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of those actually make a person "likable" though. The closest you can argue is "personal magnetism" but that isn't the same as being likable. There's a lot of people who have personal magnetism, but are not likeable. Look no further then random celebrity 127b for proof of that."Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Personal magnetism, ability to lead... are you being serious here?
Are you saying that Charisma _doesn't_ determine how likable you are?
Drill sergeants have personal magnetism, ability to lead, an extra helping of personality and flawless appearance. Not generally very likable though. And there's nothing requiring them to be attractive.
NOW DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY MAGGOT!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to invoke Godwin's but Adolf Hitler is neither particularly attractive nor particularly likeable but if you ask people for a list of the top-10 most Charismatic leaders in history, there is a really, really good chance that he'll be on that list, and probably pretty high on that list more often than not. The man's magnetism and ability to lead was uncanny.
Personal magnetism and ability to lead =/= likeable. If it meant likeable, we'd really need to re-examine the Charisma of every villain in the game. I mean, are Night Hags and their 19 Charisma really all that likeable, even by evil doers? They're probably ****ing frightening more than not.
Not to invoke Godwin's but Adolf Hitler is neither particularly attractive nor particularly likeable but if you ask people for a list of the top-10 most Charismatic leaders in history, there is a really, really good chance that he'll be on that list, and probably pretty high on that list more often than not. The man's magnetism and ability to lead was uncanny.
For that matter, I seem to recall hearing that the original D&D Player's Handbook mentioned him as an example of someone who has 18 Charisma.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is, in many ways I find low-Charisma people to be pretty likeable, because their oft-less forceful personalities make them easier to relate to. This is reflected in Diplomacy where low-Charisma means that you are more likely to respond well to requests and favors while high Charisma characters are more likely to tell you to go eat a brick.
I realize that you need a dump stat to maximize your primary ability, but this thread has been taken over by arguments about if Charisma is too good of a dump stat.
Could we return the discussion to why maximize rather than is one stat too easy to dump please?
I realize that you need a dump stat to maximize your primary ability, but this thread has been taken over by arguments about if Charisma is too good of a dump stat.
Could we return the discussion to why maximize rather than is one stat too easy to dump please?
I don't think most people have maximized stats, unless of course they are using full casters. They(full casters) don't normally have much of a reason to spread stats around though. Even druids and clerics who can go into combat, can get by on their casting stat if they really want to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must everything be OPTIMIZED for PERFECT DAMAGE THROUGHPUT? (caps intentional there)
This is very frustrating to me as a player. When someone does this at a table, a good chunk of the time that someone attempts to force *every action* they do to their 'strong' attribute and away from their now horribly deficient ones.
Why does it have to be 'This cookie cutter build for total butt-kicking' or 'you're doing it wrong'?
I got this attitude from some players last year at GenCon and over the years at other games because my character wasn't perfectly optimized to have huge scores where I 'needed' them.
Why does this 'Win At All Cost' mentality permeate the gaming milieu, when a more balanced and sane load-out could be far more effective?
|
Being punished over a stat choice when no such punishment is mentioned in the books doesn't sound fun. I would rather not torment my players in such a manner.Taking a low CHA and putting a bunch of ranks into the CHA skills doesn't (in my opinion) make a character likeable. It makes them SKILLED, it makes them good at performing certain tasks. They still have a natural inclination to be less likeable than others.
.
I agree with this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must everything be OPTIMIZED for PERFECT DAMAGE THROUGHPUT? (caps intentional there)This is very frustrating to me as a player. When someone does this at a table, a good chunk of the time that someone attempts to force *every action* they do to their 'strong' attribute and away from their now horribly deficient ones.
Why does it have to be 'This cookie cutter build for total butt-kicking' or 'you're doing it wrong'?
I got this attitude from some players last year at GenCon and over the years at other games because my character wasn't perfectly optimized to have huge scores where I 'needed' them.
Why does this 'Win At All Cost' mentality permeate the gaming milieu, when a more balanced and sane load-out could be far more effective?
What are you talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about?
The original topic?
I agree with this.Being punished over a stat choice when no such punishment is mentioned in the books doesn't sound fun. I would rather not torment my players in such a manner.Taking a low CHA and putting a bunch of ranks into the CHA skills doesn't (in my opinion) make a character likeable. It makes them SKILLED, it makes them good at performing certain tasks. They still have a natural inclination to be less likeable than others.
.
How likeable someone is, is not important by the rules. Not only that there is nothing to say how likeable someone naturally is.
There is a guy at my work, but basically nobody likes, but people listen to him anyway, and not he is not a manager.If me and my twin brother walk into the room and you are neutral towards both of us, and we both have a +21 to our diplomacy check we have the same chance to make you friendly or helpful toward us, even if one of us has charisma of 6, but took skill focus diplomacy to overcome it, and the other did not. This of course assumes no GM houserules.
|
|
I agree with this.Being punished over a stat choice when no such punishment is mentioned in the books doesn't sound fun. I would rather not torment my players in such a manner.Taking a low CHA and putting a bunch of ranks into the CHA skills doesn't (in my opinion) make a character likeable. It makes them SKILLED, it makes them good at performing certain tasks. They still have a natural inclination to be less likeable than others.
.
How likeable someone is, is not important by the rules. Not only that there is nothing to say how likeable someone naturally is.
There is a guy at my work, but basically nobody likes, but people listen to him anyway, and not he is not a manager.If me and my twin brother walk into the room and you are neutral towards both of us, and we both have a +21 to our diplomacy check we have the same chance to make you friendly or helpful toward us, even if one of us has charisma of 6, but took skill focus diplomacy to overcome it, and the other did not. This of course assumes no GM houserules.
Yes you could use to the diplomacy skill to convince someone of something, especially with the stupidly large number you chose as your example, but your twin with the stated 6 cha would have less personality and personal magnatism (likeability) so people might gravitate toward the other twin because personality and personal magnatism are noticeable traits of the charisma ability score (otherwise why would they be listed in the rule book?).
The why I see things from this thread, and other similar threads, is that same people see ability scores as just machanics of the game and have no influence on RP. While others see ability scores as ways to help give their characters depth by linking game mehanics and RP.
Thats just my opinion.
Edit: personally I'm not a very heavy RPer but I understand where alexd is coming.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this 'Win At All Cost' mentality permeate the gaming milieu, when a more balanced and sane load-out could be far more effective?
Because of the negative feedback loop of players building to be strong in combat while GMs build encounters to challenge strong characters. Each side learns that building for a casual experience only leads to dead characters and aborted campaigns.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why must everything be OPTIMIZED for PERFECT DAMAGE THROUGHPUT? (caps intentional there)
It doesn't. In fact, characters that focus on damage output above all else are far from optimized; they kinda suck and are liable to get dismantled quickly by an organized defense (even more so at higher levels where neglecting your saves means you're a lawn gnome or meat puppet in combat).
This is very frustrating to me as a player. When someone does this at a table, a good chunk of the time that someone attempts to force *every action* they do to their 'strong' attribute and away from their now horribly deficient ones.
Strong characters use their strength on adventures to break things and be a threatening force in melee.
Intelligent characters levy spellcasting and information advantages.
Charismatic characters defuse situations and acquire contacts, allies, and information.
What a bookworm wizard doesn't do is jump into an adventure and try to kick down doors. A meathead BSF doesn't declare themselves a diplomat. Characters focus on what they're good at and avoid what they're bad at. How is that in any way a problem?
Why does it have to be 'This cookie cutter build for total butt-kicking' or 'you're doing it wrong'?
I got this attitude from some players last year at GenCon and over the years at other games because my character wasn't perfectly optimized to have huge scores where I 'needed' them.
Why does this 'Win At All Cost' mentality permeate the gaming milieu, when a more balanced and sane load-out could be far more effective?
I seriously do not know who you're arguing against here. And you seem kinda inconsistent, because you're talking about effective characters as being opposite... effective characters? An effective character specializes, but doesn't overspecialize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As people have been saying, if you've got a dump stat, it should be debilitating. Strength dumps are a pretty good example: With a strength of 5, which some people dump to, you've got a 16 pound Light load carry capacity without magic, or 12 if you're small.
Take a wizard, for example. The standard everything-you-need Wizard's kit weighs 21 pounds. Assume you have light and take out the torches. You also take the lightest possible clothes (2 pounds) and your spellbook (3 pounds), taking you to 16. What's that? The 5 strength wizard's got medium encumberance already? How sad. He hasn't even got a dagger or Haramaki. Can he even support his familiar so he can get the bonuses? He can't have it too far away or it will be killed. How about those copper and silver pieces you get early on? He's not going to be able to carry away more than, say, 50gp? Shame about the remaining 200 gp worth of copper and silver.
What I'm getting at here is that a character with strength that low will have real trouble just moving around and doing things without help. It's uterly debilitating. They will be able to have very few items on their person unless someone else carries it, or they want to go without necessities like food, water or money. Having other stats that low should be just as debilitating, even if there aren't any mechanical penalties written in. It wouldn't make sense for just one stat to have such disasterous consquences if you dump it.
Maybe make a low Dexterity character incapable of walking more than 10 feet in a straight line. The low Constiution character fails saves against DC 0 sicknesses that other characters wouldn't even notice. The low intelligence character is illiterate and incapable of remembering plans. The low wisdom character can't make rational decisions. People refuse to talk low charisma characters. for the sake of definitions, since 8 is as low as a typical NPC will go, 7 is low enough to start having those severe negative repercussions. Anything less than 7 is, frankly, asking for trouble. 8 is simply vaguely awkward.
In short, a dump stat should be absolutely horrible to have, and nothing short of magic should help them to overcome their substantial weakness(es). As DM, you should take advantage of every oportunity to exploit weaknesses that obvious. When players realise that having a dump stat is absolutely debilitating, that'll stop it. And it's pretty tough to max out a stat when you can't dump things, unless you want to be mediocre except in one small way.
All things considered, there's not really any such thing as a useless stat. You're always going to need to carry things, make saves, make skill checks or talk to people. Your party members will not always be there to coddle you. Besides, ability damage is a thing, and famous PCs with obvious weaknesses will have them exploited by anyone who wants to take them out.
As a preference, I would never, never have a stat lower than 9 unless I had a character concept that specifically relied on it. Because of that, and because some stats (such as Constiution) are so vital that putting as many points as you can spare into them is important, I rarely have a base 18. Besides, 17s are only fractionally worse, and substantially cheaper in point buy, and 16s are a mere step down from that and still cheaper.
Simply because you need multiple abilities, regardless of character, Maximising a primary ability (at character creation at least) is a Bad Idea. After creation, of course, max it like there's no tomorrow. The baseline is what's important.
I agree with this.Being punished over a stat choice when no such punishment is mentioned in the books doesn't sound fun. I would rather not torment my players in such a manner.Taking a low CHA and putting a bunch of ranks into the CHA skills doesn't (in my opinion) make a character likeable. It makes them SKILLED, it makes them good at performing certain tasks. They still have a natural inclination to be less likeable than others.
.
How likeable someone is, is not important by the rules. Not only that there is nothing to say how likeable someone naturally is.
There is a guy at my work, but basically nobody likes, but people listen to him anyway, and not he is not a manager.If me and my twin brother walk into the room and you are neutral towards both of us, and we both have a +21 to our diplomacy check we have the same chance to make you friendly or helpful toward us, even if one of us has charisma of 6, but took skill focus diplomacy to overcome it, and the other did not. This of course assumes no GM houserules.
Yes you could use to the diplomacy skill to convince someone of something, especially with the stupidly large number you chose as your example, but your twin with the stated 6 cha would have less personality and personal magnatism (likeability) so people might gravitate toward the other twin because personality and personal magnatism are noticeable traits of the charisma ability score (otherwise why would they be listed in the rule book?).
The why I see things from this thread, and other similar threads, is that same people see ability scores as just machanics of the game and have no influence on RP. While others see ability scores as ways to help give their characters depth by linking game mehanics and RP.
Thats just my opinion.
Edit: personally I'm not a very heavy RPer but I understand where alexd is coming.
I get what he is saying too. My issue with his comment is that he is speaking as if certain things are rules when instead they are preferred ways to play the game.
|
|
...I agree with this.Being punished over a stat choice when no such punishment is mentioned in the books doesn't sound fun. I would rather not torment my players in such a manner.Taking a low CHA and putting a bunch of ranks into the CHA skills doesn't (in my opinion) make a character likeable. It makes them SKILLED, it makes them good at performing certain tasks. They still have a natural inclination to be less likeable than others.
.
How likeable someone is, is not important by the rules. Not only that there is nothing to say how likeable someone naturally is.
There is a guy at my work, but basically nobody likes, but people listen to him anyway, and not he is not a manager.If me and my twin brother walk into the room and you are neutral towards both of us, and we both have a +21 to our diplomacy check we have the same chance to make you friendly or helpful toward us, even if one of us has charisma of 6, but took skill focus diplomacy to overcome it, and the other did not. This of course assumes no GM houserules.
Yes you could use to the diplomacy skill to convince someone of something, especially with the stupidly large number you chose as your example, but your twin with the stated 6 cha would have less personality and personal magnatism (likeability) so people might gravitate toward the other twin because personality and personal magnatism are noticeable traits of the charisma ability score (otherwise why would they be listed in the rule book?).
The why I see things from this thread, and other similar threads, is that same people see ability scores as just machanics of the game and have no influence on RP. While others see ability scores as ways to help give their characters depth by linking game mehanics and RP.
Thats just my opinion.
Edit: personally I'm not a very heavy RPer but I understand where alexd is coming.
I could be wrong but I dont think he tried to comes across they way.
Thats the problem with text, you miss most nuances like tone and inflection so it can be easy to misinterpret posts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it is the text. It wont be the first time two people agreed and did not know they were agreeing here.
Wraithstrike, your assessment of my motivations is incorrect.
I'm sorry that you have issues with what I'm saying, but low scores aren't a good thing.
Low scores aren't a neutral thing. They are low.
Having a 5 in something sucks. A lot.
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
The dice rolling method of stat generation is a perfect example of what this would look like, it approximates real life surprisingly well.
If people want to call their character being noticed a punishment, that's fine.
Sometimes I dump CHA so that I can play a rude/obnoxious/smelly character FOR FUN. If you want to play John Handsome Man, who can woo the ladies and befriend the fellows, start with a decent CHA score. Don't dump it and then argue that it doesn't mean anything.
There's more to role-playing than just numbers. If life doesn't go your characters way every time, that isn't the GM punishing you, that's just life.
...
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
The dice rolling method of stat generation is a perfect example of what this would look like, it approximates real life surprisingly well....
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World? And another is the strongest?
Any way i think the problem is that attributes are in reality(i know we dont have them but if we pretent that what they cover in the game actually makes sense) often are easy to get better at. Most folks can get stronger by moving a little and if Charisma is personal hygiejne as some here seem to belive then you can get a stat bonus by taking a shower:)This part of the game makes little sense if you try to force the Real World on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike, your assessment of my motivations is incorrect.
I'm sorry that you have issues with what I'm saying, but low scores aren't a good thing.
Low scores aren't a neutral thing. They are low.
Having a 5 in something sucks. A lot.
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
Your link was not relevant. The average mean or median of intelligence or charisma was not what I was talking about.
I also understand that mechanically low scores are bad. That is why I do not dump stats.If you want to play John Handsome Man, who can woo the ladies and befriend the fellows, start with a decent CHA score. Don't dump it and then argue that it doesn't mean anything.
There's more to role-playing than just numbers. If life doesn't go your characters way every time, that isn't the GM punishing you, that's just life.
I did not say I supported any of that.
Let me put it this way. Every stat has built in negatives(not just numbers) by the rules.
Anything beyond that is GM-Fiat. I am not saying it is a wrong playstyle. I am saying it is not the rules, not is it the intention of the rules.
I am also saying that if one out of six stats is going to be low and that is evenly distributed then 1 out of 6 people will have that one bad stat.
Now to some GM's it is a minor thing, and to some they treat it like you can hardly function. I don't know how far you take it, but if you treat it like it is the worst thing even then it makes no sense to say it has no ramification on the in-game world.
If it is a minor thing then it is not that much of an issue.
I hope that clears things up.
...
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
The dice rolling method of stat generation is a perfect example of what this would look like, it approximates real life surprisingly well....
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World? And another is the strongest?
Any way i think the problem is that attributes are in reality(i know we dont have them but if we pretent that what they cover in the game actually makes sense) often are easy to get better at. Most folks can get stronger by moving a little and if Charisma is personal hygiejne as some here seem to belive then you can get a stat bonus by taking a shower:)
This part of the game makes little sense if you try to force the Real World on it.
I said approximates. Perfect example of approximation. Chart it out, Bell curve. Not even distribution.
I said approximates. Perfect example of approximation. Chart it out, Bell curve. Not even distribution....
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
The dice rolling method of stat generation is a perfect example of what this would look like, it approximates real life surprisingly well....
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World? And another is the strongest?
Any way i think the problem is that attributes are in reality(i know we dont have them but if we pretent that what they cover in the game actually makes sense) often are easy to get better at. Most folks can get stronger by moving a little and if Charisma is personal hygiejne as some here seem to belive then you can get a stat bonus by taking a shower:)
This part of the game makes little sense if you try to force the Real World on it.
I think we May have different interpretations of what perfect and/or aproximatet means. Unless surprising means "not really that".
I dont think any of use here was surprised by the Bell;)
Wraithstrike, your assessment of my motivations is incorrect.
I'm sorry that you have issues with what I'm saying, but low scores aren't a good thing.
Low scores aren't a neutral thing. They are low.
Having a 5 in something sucks. A lot.
It is rare. I linked above about intelligence. If you choose to ignore the actual numbers, that's fine, but people with extremely high (or low) 'stats' are rare. They aren't evenly distributed. They get noticed. Most people actually are within a smaller average range.
Your link was not relevant. The average mean or median of intelligence or charisma was not what I was talking about.
I also understand that mechanically low scores are bad. That is why I do not dump stats.If you want to play John Handsome Man, who can woo the ladies and befriend the fellows, start with a decent CHA score. Don't dump it and then argue that it doesn't mean anything.
There's more to role-playing than just numbers. If life doesn't go your characters way every time, that isn't the GM punishing you, that's just life.
I did not say I supported any of that.
Let me put it this way. Every stat has built in negatives(not just numbers) by the rules.
Anything beyond that is GM-Fiat. I am not saying it is a wrong playstyle. I am saying it is not the rules, not is it the intention of the rules.
I am also saying that if one out of six stats is going to be low and that is evenly distributed then 1 out of 6 people will have that one bad stat.
Now to some GM's it is a minor thing, and to some they treat it like you can hardly function. I don't know how far you take it, but if you treat it like it is the worst thing even then it makes no sense to say it has no ramification on the in-game world.
If it is a minor thing then it is not that much of an issue.
I hope that clears things up.
It does. We play this game very differently from the sounds of things. What I call role-playing, others see as punishment.
My group goes entire sessions without rolling dice, to others, this would seem a horrible fate worse than death.
This thread has gone WAY off track, though I admit I have enjoyed the discourse that has taken place.
My group goes entire sessions without rolling dice, to others, this would seem a horrible fate worse than death.
Admittedly I would not be happy with that. I like to roll dice.
The OP has not posted in 10 days. I guess he lost interest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group goes entire sessions without rolling dice, to others, this would seem a horrible fate worse than death.Admittedly I would not be happy with that. I like to roll dice.
Not gonna lie, sometimes I wish my group was more combat oriented. I like confirming those crits... :D
Zilvar2k11, at no point have I disagreed with you.
However, blindly ignoring differences (OBVIOUS differences) in characters stats takes something away from the enjoyment of the game.
If everyone is treated like a sheet of paper with numbers on it, rather than as individual characters with personalities, something is lost.
Would you rather have a barmaid come up to your character and proposition him with a line like "I see your codpiece is well-made, I finish at eight bells, what say you and I test the new mattress upstairs, bold adventurer?"
or...
"The barmaid comes up to you and Diplomacy roll 18".
Why would she approach in the first place, from a rules perspective?
"The barmaid comes up to you and Diplomacy roll 18".
Why would she approach in the first place, from a rules perspective?
"Oh, yeah, Diplomacy natural 20!"
*coughs, couldn't resist.*
Alex I think the difference is that people feel like they can give characters personality without adding extra rules that make them feel punished.
Now I do often give the most charismatic characters attention from a barmaid(just an example), because they are standing out in a positive way.
If you have a more average score she will give you ordinary service. She might even make an extra trip beyond what is required to be sure you have enough drinks.
If you have a low charisma she will not give you bad service, but she might be in a noticeable hurry to get away from your table. <---That is not really punishing anyone, but at the same time it is making note of the low stat. She will bring more drinks if you call her over, but otherwise don't expect to see her come back.
Some might think that is too much, but it is not really bad to me.
History on this topic:
I don't know your approach to this as a GM, but on these very boards things along the lines of flat out refusal of service or upping the price have been mentioned. I would however like to think the business owner has a high enough wisdom to treat his customers better, but it is as if that charisma(lack of it) overcomes any intelligence or wisdom the innkeeper(insert other person as needed) has.
So you may(now and/or later) be getting some backlash not from just what you say but from preconceived notions due to people who take things farther than you would.
Basically if you are not taking things to that* extreme I would word things as to seperate yourself from that group of people.
*whatever "that" is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to think about: Constitution.
If (for some foolish reason) a PC dumped Con but then played an Unbreakable fighter with Endurance, Diehard, Toughness and such we'd call him non-optimal, sure. But in this instance would you have the guy catching colds all the time, constantly risking Fatigued after walking a few hours or having make saves every time the pollen count went up?
Same with Charisma. You can begin with a negative penalty but that doesn't necessarily HAVE to lead to negative reactions everywhere. Just cuz a guy has a 7 Con you don't have him roll a Fort save when he walks into a spice merchant's shop to avoid knocking things over with his sneezing fits; so then why have a guy with a 7 Cha have to pay more to buy the salt and pepper for his meals?
Stats are the numbers from which the character begins, but they AREN'T the whole character. A guy with a 7 Str can learn to be a kick-ass fighter; a guy with a 7 Wisdom can still be a decent investigator; let the PCs be who they are regardless of what you may feel about their stats.
Now, on the other hand if the guy with the 7 Cha ROLEPLAYS walking into the spice merchant's shop, getting belligerent and insulting the merchant's mom, then by all means charge him double...
|
If you are just buffing...you dont need a 18 on a spellcaster at level 1. You just need enough to cast the spell. Support Cleric with buffs and summons, don't even need a high wisdom, since they don't rely on having enemies beat dc of their spells.
Also sometime you have the odd cases, like how the dwarf racial paladin archetype don't rely on charisma at all and simply take advantage of dwarf being already tough and strong.
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World?
Just curious, where are you getting 1 in 216?
If it is the chances of getting an 18 on 3d6, the general population doesn't roll dice. It is my impression that most players don't roll dice any more (thank goodness!) when generating characters.
Using a bell curve isn't really a good model anyways. A population isn't going to have a uniform distribution. Those that are below the median value are going to be relatively close, while on the high end there is going to be a long tail going out way past 3 standard deviations.
Getting back to the original topic, I generally don't maximize the primary ability. I like to have more than one ability that is good. It doesn't make for the type of character that crushes everything in their area of expertise, but it also doesn't result in a character that can't lift a chair because it would put them at heavy load.
So we all agree that a low CHA has mechanical penalties that are applied only when rolling, and that forcing penalties outside of this are bad.
We also all agree that role-playing and mechanics are separate.
We additionally all agree that increasing item costs is a mechanic, thus low CHA characters should not pay more.
Zilvar, you are seeing a conflict where there is none. You attack the wind, you have no opponent.
I agree with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never agreed to that:-D
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Wolin, I think your interpretation is a little extreme. I wouldn't be that draconian about penalizing dump stats. At that point you might as well just ban them. Many people play with "no stat below 10 allowed" or some such rule.
Wraithstrike, I think BretI has homed in on a difference in game world design that has been leading this argument in circles. You(and others) are arguing as if most characters have their stats rolled on 3d6; I (and others) instead presume most NPCs have 13 12 11 10 9 8 and only vary from that for important people. These two paradigms of world design (neither of which is "wrong," it's just a style issue) will give us vastly different consequences for what low stats mean in terms of world-building.
That's why when you mention a NPC having a 5 we've been like "How did he get a 5 if we didn't deliberately decide to make him that way? No one gets a 5 using the standard NPC array." If I've misinterpreted your paradigm I apologize.
And yeah this thread has ventured far from it's original topic. Still an interesting read, though.
How can you say that one in 216 is the smartest man in the World?Just curious, where are you getting 1 in 216?
If it is the chances of getting an 18 on 3d6, the general population doesn't roll dice. It is my impression that most players don't roll dice any more (thank goodness!) when generating characters.
Using a bell curve isn't really a good model anyways. A population isn't going to have a uniform distribution. Those that are below the median value are going to be relatively close, while on the high end there is going to be a long tail going out way past 3 standard deviations.
Getting back to the original topic, I generally don't maximize the primary ability. I like to have more than one ability that is good. It doesn't make for the type of character that crushes everything in their area of expertise, but it also doesn't result in a character that can't lift a chair because it would put them at heavy load.
I am not the one to ask.
Wolin, I think your interpretation is a little extreme. I wouldn't be that draconian about penalizing dump stats. At that point you might as well just ban them. Many people play with "no stat below 10 allowed" or some such rule.
Wraithstrike, I think BretI has homed in on a difference in game world design that has been leading this argument in circles. You(and others) are arguing as if most characters have their stats rolled on 3d6; I (and others) instead presume most NPCs have 13 12 11 10 9 8 and only vary from that for important people. These two paradigms of world design (neither of which is "wrong," it's just a style issue) will give us vastly different consequences for what low stats mean in terms of world-building.
That's why when you mention a NPC having a 5 we've been like "How did he get a 5 if we didn't deliberately decide to make him that way? No one gets a 5 using the standard NPC array." If I've misinterpreted your paradigm I apologize.
And yeah this thread has ventured far from it's original topic. Still an interesting read, though.
That's why his original value was 6. Take the NPC stat array you showed. 8 is the low stat, and now add a -2 penalty for race. So dwarves, Oreads, tieflings all have a cha penalty. And that other races have such penalties to Con, Wisdom, Str then you'd get a decent number of 6's in various stats.