Well maybe if you actually labeled what your apples were we wouldn't mix it up with oranges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are in fact comparing intellignce plus nothing to intelligence plus extra skill ranks. Skill ranks are acquired knowledge, not innate capacity.
Also ...you CANNOT make an untrained knowledge check with a DC higher than ten.
And? nothing stops a TRAINED skill check. Then compare the skilled idiot vs the untrained 'smart guy? The total rolls can come out the same so who really had more knowledge? Remember YOU used knowledge as your base for int, not me. knowledge is a trained skill so it depends where points are spent. you have NO way of knowing if said idiot spent points on the skills.
So really the untrained part means squat.
intelligence plus extra skill ranks
Again, and? A human rogue with a 6 int has more skill points than an 18 int elf wizard. Does that mean the rogue is smarter? If not, then skill points are meaningless in the debate.
you CANNOT make an untrained knowledge check with a DC higher than ten.
That goes for the whole range of int, so this to has little point.
Remember the post that started this exchange. "But a lack of reliable knowledge of ten percent of the things that EVERYONE should just KNOW is significant." Maybe true when viewed in a vacuum but it ignores skill points which negates the argument.
I think innate vs acquired is a pretty clear division.
Sure is. Innate is your bonus on skill checks and the amount of skill point bonus you get. However, we NEVER play with a character with just innate abilities as EVERY non-mindless creature gets skill points/feats added, hence acquired is the baseline to look at.
Skill points indeed CAN'T be part of the argument, they are irrelevant as they represent an entirely different thing.
#1 It was you who brought up knowledge. If it can't be part of the argument, you'd have to delete the majority of your posts. YOU brought up the skill rules for knowledge skills.
#2 They CAN'T be irrelevant as every non-mindless creature has them at creation. It's like going over the stats for a car engine. Nifty to do in theory, but every car I ever bought had one built in it already so it was the cars stats as a whole that mattered. Some with creatures in pathfinder. They come part and parcel WITH skill points included.
"You are STILL throwing in an acquired difference.": No, the game is. I'm just acknowledging that fact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RDM42: Please look here: Creature Types
Know what EVERY Aberration gets innately? "Skill points equal to 4 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for aberrations: Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Fly, Intimidate, Knowledge (pick one), Perception, Spellcraft, Stealth, Survival, and Swim."
Animals? "Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim."
Lets look at Humanoids? "Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die or by character class. The following are class skills for humanoids without a character class: Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Profession, Ride, and Survival. Humanoids with a character class use their class's skill list instead. Humanoids with both a character class and racial HD add these skill sto their list of class skills."
EVERY SINGLE non-mindless creature in the game innately gets skill points, with or without a class. "A creature cannot violate the rules of its subtype without a special ability or quality to explain the difference." If you make a newborn creature in pathfinder, it's entitled to it's skill points even with no way to learn them. Even adding the young template does nothing to skill points. So a baby COULD "come out of the womb with 'knowledge local'" in pathfinder. there exists no "special ability or quality" to remove the skill point you get from type [except class].
Secondly, how do YOU know "The vast majority of knowledge skills that commoner won't have"? The Villager (Village Idiot) int 4, listed as "can also represent any simple commoner", has an option for them to take "Skill Focus to displaying great knowledge in one specific area, usually a Craft or Knowledge skill." Make that commoner human and they can have Comprehensive Education and "gain all Knowledge skills as class skills".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDUCATION. not innate ....
Tell that to the game, not me. I've shown you that you get skill points from just being a type. Please provide a quote that proves me wrong.
Explain skill points by type once. None have an age limit or do you think you don't become your type until you mature? "EDUCATION" isn't in the base skill point system. Every newborn Aberration can take "Knowledge (pick one)" sans education. they have to do nothing to gain their skill points. making them INNATE.
innate: 1.inborn; natural:
" A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry)."
"Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die or by character class."
innate = "A humanoid has the following features (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry)."
I give. Either you are purposely being obtuse to try to 'win' the argument or we are talking past eachother. Creatures are not born with knowledges and what is in the stat block represents an adult creature that has learned something.
Unless you're an Aboleth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. We see animals displaying acts of high cognition and intelligence all the time, as well as using tactics suited to their habitats and needs. When creatures of nonsentient intelligence can do things that could be called "smart", is it really any wonder when creatures who are in an entirely different weight class could do things no more complex that simple beasts and vermin?
What you describe is not befitting any reality I've ever seen and it describes a rather cruddy sounding fantasy to boot.
...
The core books advice us to make animals habit more like video game behavior than real behavior because they are not real wolves in the context of the adventure, they are just aggressive savage animals to work as adversary.
Yeah, video game behavior. Sure. Like that one game (oh wait...that's that game where bears aren't murder machines unless you get up in their grill and run away when hurt).
Never seen any references that suggest not playing animals like animals. In fact, throughout the d20 system animals have gotten very little information other than printed statblocks and bare bones notes about things like weight and whether the statblock can be used to represent other animals of its kind. I imagine this is because anyone can just look up the behavior norms of animals.
Even the bestiary which provides little about them aside from combat information has things like this to say.
Much more ill-tempered and dangerous than their domesticated kin, boars are omnivorous creatures common to temperate forests, although they are not unknown in tropical climes. Other variants exist as well, such as the particularly ugly warthogs that dwell in tropical plains and savannahs. Boars are often hunted for their flesh, which is considered delicious by most humanoids. Those who hunt boars often do so with a special spear fitted with a cross beam to prevent an impaled boar from pushing forward along the spear shaft to gore its tormentor.
The boar's stubborn nature and habit of eating even bones makes it well suited as a pet for certain folk. Many thieves' guilds keep boars for the disposal of bodies, while orc tribes let them run loose in their lairs, where they do a relatively good job at keeping these warrens clean of refuse.
A boar is four feet long and weighs 200 pounds.
Okay, so we get some information on them being hunted for meat and - amusingly - mention of them being used to dispose of bodies and as garbage disposals by orcs (demonstrating orcs as using at least semi-domesticated boar as a tool, which is pretty damn clever).
An adult male ape is 8 feet tall and can weigh as much as 400 pounds. While generally shy and peaceful creatures when left to their own business, gorillas are territorial and become highly aggressive when provoked. This stat block can generally be used for any of the larger types of primates, such as gorillas—for smaller apes like orangutans and chimpanzees, apply the young simple template. Even smaller primates should use the stats for monkeys.
Gorillas typically make a large show of force before actually attacking, thumping their chests with their palms, stamping their feet, and roaring loudly. Any opponents who refuse to flee after this display are attacked. Troops of apes fight together in a frenzy, tearing opponents to pieces with their hands and teeth.
So here we're told the stats for apes are more or less for things like Gorillas but can be re-purposed to be used for other apes. Its combat fluff mentions that they attempt to make a show of bravado before attacking, making them definitely not murder machines.
Bat swarms dwell in large caves, ruins, or even city sewers—anywhere they can find darkness to hide in during the day and a supply of food to feast upon at night. They are only encountered outside in a group at dawn or dusk, or when they have been startled and forced to flee their lairs.
Here we have bats described pretty much as we see them in films, being docile and easily spooked away from their lairs. Nothing about them just blinding attacking stuff like those vidja gaemes you mentioned.
Giant crabs behave much like their smaller cousins, feeding on both plant material like algae and fungus and animal matter such as fish, seabirds, and even unwary humanoids. The coloration of a giant crab's hard exoskeleton varies widely depending on species, and over time even shifts in response to its diet.
Other species of giant crab exist as well, some smaller but most quite a bit larger. You can adjust the stats given here by changing Hit Dice and size (changing Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as appropriate) to represent a wide range of different species of giant crab. The following table lists the most common variants.
Oops, it notes that they behave like their smaller cousins (which don't have statblocks, better look at at crab behavior in reality), albeit they also eat stuff like people given the opportunity (presumably because their size makes them higher on the food chain).
The cheetah is a swift and deadly predator capable of moving with incredible speed, allowing it to run down unsuspecting foes hundreds of feet away. The hunting cat avoids areas of dense and tangled undergrowth, but has great skill at lying in wait in tall grass.
An adult cheetah is 4-1/2 feet long and weighs 140 pounds.
Leopards are 4 feet long and weigh 120 pounds. The statistics presented here can describe any feline of similar size, such as jaguars, panthers, and mountain lions—what differentiates these big cats from the similarly sized cheetah is primarily their habitats—leopards and their kin prefer to hunt at night and ambush their prey from above, pouncing down from trees or high rocks.
Leopards eat almost any animal they can run down and catch, preferring Small prey but capable of downing Large herbivores or surviving on rodents, birds, and insects. Healthy leopards are generally not aggressive toward humanoids, and if they aren't hungry and don't feel threatened, it is possible to approach closely without a hostile reaction. Yet a leopard that settles in an area bordered by humanoid civilization can easily and swiftly become a dangerous predator.
Oops, it actively remarks that big cats such as leopards aren't generally aggressive except in certain habitat-based circumstances.
Among the most majestic of raptors, these predatory birds pluck fish from streams and lakes, drop down on rodents and small mammals in alpine meadows, and have even been known to pull young mountain goats from the assumed safety of their cliffs.
These creatures, like all birds of prey, have powerful clawed talons and sharp, hooked beaks perfect for tearing flesh. Their enhanced eyesight allows them to spot prey from great distances, and they typically hunt in wide circling patterns high above the ground.
Eagles typically build their massive nests in the tops of tall trees or among the rocky crags of steep cliffs. During breeding season, an eagle lays two eggs, but only one chick normally survives, as the stronger of the two usually kills and eats the weaker.
Eagles generally weigh between 8 and 15 pounds, with a wingspan of up to 7 feet, depending on the species.
Dang, even though combat information is mentioned, we get nothing outside of things we could look up on national geographic. Nothing about blinding attacking foes or adventurers because of poor video game AI routines.
I could keep going but the simple fact of the matter is that you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. You have thus far claimed that the best way to play is:
1. Run creatures that are more intelligent than animals as being dumber than animals and making it impossible for Intelligent creatures to make crude traps (like digging holes in their lairs for prey to fall into).
2. Not take into account any of the environmental rules or take any sort of predatory practices inspired by real beasts into consideration, having the beasts actively do things contrary to their environment.
3. Made the claim that even if Intelligence doesn't force a specific behavior and mechanics exist that show the range of Intelligence that it should and shouldn't, based purely on your apparent preference rather than anything substantial - while also making the claim it would be better for everyone else if they had to conform to your (strait up bizarre) standards.
4. Claimed that we don't understand Intelligence and that animals are really smart but we should run them as really stupid murder machines because video games or something and that is better for "modeling the world" rather than being a mechanical metagamer like me.
5. Called things like creatures just acting out in their environments under the specific terms of their environments (such as wyverns snatching and knocking things off cliffsides) to be akin to advanced PvP and Tuckers Kobolds and stuff.
Did I miss anything?
Anyone else here think any of this stuff sounds completely insane? I do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I swear the more I try to get clarified to understand the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I give. Either you are purposely being obtuse to try to 'win' the argument or we are talking past eachother. Creatures are not born with knowledges and what is in the stat block represents an adult creature that has learned something. It wasn't born with knowledges and a ntelligence based skills, i would say that would be rather obvious, but there seems to be no way to alter your line on that, so not worth continuing to bother.
Have a nice day
The thing is, skill points are a metagame concept. You do not get skill points for being more educated (unless you - like I suggested earlier - use base Int to represent a general education for certain characters). A character cannot go to school and get more skill points without advancing their character level. The idea that skill points represent any form of education is also factually disprovable since the classes that are often used to represent the least educated among the populace (thieves, barbarians, loners in the woods like druids and rangers, etc) have more skill points than classes typically depicted as having formal training and education from civilized areas (such as wizards, clerics, and fighters), even when those classes are considered to have no extra training time to achieve (as indicated by the starting age rules).
Having "more training" does not grant extra skill points. Skill points can be used to represent training (such as putting a rank into a trained only skill) but it's a metagame concept and a mechanical tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baldur's gate bears are very aggressive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Baldur's gate bears are very aggressive.
Not when I played it (religiously XD). They always have blue circles unless you get too close to them which provokes them, aside from certain specific encounters (IIRC, there's a hostile cave bear somewhere). Virtually all of them are blue-circled until approached.
EDIT: I would also like to note that in Baldur's Gate, there's a ranger right as you begin the game and head towards the friendly arm inn that tells you that times have been tough and the poverty caused by the poor economic state have caused locals to begin living off the land in much higher numbers which has caused game to become scarce, and that the reason wolves and the like attack travelers is out of desperation due to being hungry.
An explanation for the apparently unusual aggression of the wolves and such in that game. So even in those darn video games there was a legit reason or at least an attempt at explaining why those simple animals were just bad news bears (or wolves in this case).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Education can be experience, going through life, practical ce. But if you want to have a world where people just pop into existence already skilled, go right ahead and enjoy.
I think that was only pointed out by the other poster to note that skill points aren't tied to anything tangible. They are purely a metagame concept used to represent how good your character is in various fields, moreso than ability scores which provide only a starting point.
Take a high Int for example. Nothing about being smarter makes you innately more knowledgeable about anything because, as you note, you don't just pop out of the womb knowing calculus or the name of your King, but it still applies modifiers to those statistics. Your total score represents how knowledgeable you are about a given subject but as skill ranks are a metagame concept divorced from things like education, they can represent what you want them to represent most of the time.
Someone that's got several ranks in Sense Motive might be a keen criminal profiler who's good at spotting a fink, but they might also just be someone prone to good gut instincts about people and those instincts are usually right.
Ah yes, Master Blaster from Thunderdome kind of deal yes?
That makes sense because the 3-INT is not really in control of itself.
The NPC in the AP can actually think for himself, but he is really gullible, and his mind is child-like to a large extent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...
To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...
True. Because you never know the tactical aptitude of the GM and how you envision the encounter going as a writer cannot rely on the GM sharing that vision. That's why AP/module encounter critters have a tactics entry.
In past post you said that sea serpent could use the sea to its advantage and drag players to water to make the fight more difficult. This seems wrong because sea serpent is dumb and probably sees the ship as a big sea animal that it must kill to compete in the sea food chain. So it might just slam and try to crush the boat, while the small player character kill it. Kraken on the other hand has massive intelligence, in that case it would make a lot of sense that it plays the environment to its huge advantage.Dude...c'mon, seriously man. The sea serpent has a 20 ft. reach, both of its attacks (bite and tail slap) have the grab + constrict abilities, and it lives in the freakin' ocean. Grabbing a snack and toting it off isn't rocket science. It's barely a tactic since it's basically just what an animal would do anyway. The environment itself is also a difficulty aspect of the encounter because you can't target the thing with spells and abilities until it surfaces (or you go underwater too) and in its more suited to its environment than you are.
Seriously, if this is too tactical...just...I don't even know man. I can't fathom how pointlessly brick stupid you expect things to act when even dumb animals look like geniuses by comparison. This is literally...
Sea Serpent (Surprise Round): "Rawr, I'm a monster!" *nom*
Sea Serpent (Round #1): With the serpent's meal (possibly one of many) clasped in its jaws or tail, it whisks itself back into the depths where it came from. :B
Party: "Um...should we go in after Melzen?" - "Um...it's really dark down there and these water is deeper than we know," :(
The sea is not a natural habitat for humans, humans are unlikely to be a normal diet for a sea serpent. The sea serpent may just be curious. It's a fantasy creature you can invent lots of plausible behaviours I don't see why your assumption should be the default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sea is not a natural habitat for humans, humans are unlikely to be a normal diet for a sea serpent. The sea serpent may just be curious. It's a fantasy creature you can invent lots of plausible behaviours I don't see why your assumption should be the default.In past post you said that sea serpent could use the sea to its advantage and drag players to water to make the fight more difficult. This seems wrong because sea serpent is dumb and probably sees the ship as a big sea animal that it must kill to compete in the sea food chain. So it might just slam and try to crush the boat, while the small player character kill it. Kraken on the other hand has massive intelligence, in that case it would make a lot of sense that it plays the environment to its huge advantage.Dude...c'mon, seriously man. The sea serpent has a 20 ft. reach, both of its attacks (bite and tail slap) have the grab + constrict abilities, and it lives in the freakin' ocean. Grabbing a snack and toting it off isn't rocket science. It's barely a tactic since it's basically just what an animal would do anyway. The environment itself is also a difficulty aspect of the encounter because you can't target the thing with spells and abilities until it surfaces (or you go underwater too) and in its more suited to its environment than you are.
Seriously, if this is too tactical...just...I don't even know man. I can't fathom how pointlessly brick stupid you expect things to act when even dumb animals look like geniuses by comparison. This is literally...
Sea Serpent (Surprise Round): "Rawr, I'm a monster!" *nom*
Sea Serpent (Round #1): With the serpent's meal (possibly one of many) clasped in its jaws or tail, it whisks itself back into the depths where it came from. :B
Party: "Um...should we go in after Melzen?" - "Um...it's really dark down there and these water is deeper than we know," :(
I didn't say it was the default. Address what I actually said.
If you're talking about a fighting a sea monster, as in the thing is attacking you, then it's entirely valid to assume the thing is going to act like an animal. It has a massive swim speed, is very large, and has the grab and constrict abilities with both its natural attacks. Grappling and moving about with small prey is pretty par for the course with things as it has little reason to just sit there above sea level chewing on some adventurer or sailor or whatever while people shoot at it.
I never said it was the default behavior of a sea monster. The default behavior is to be elusive and unseen according to the bestiary. Appearing briefly and then vanishing away with no trace...wait, okay, so maybe it is the default of a hostile sea monster.
Point is, if you're going to address my points, address what the point actually was (that basic bestiary creatures and NPCs when things like the environment and rules are taken as is are very exciting and formidable encounters and inflated numbers have nothing to do with that).
To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...
Did you really not understand what I was trying to say? <---not being sarcastic. I am really asking so I can explain again if I have to.
@ Ashiel
I was thinking along the lines of something you said earlier about encounters being immersion breaking. Maybe your comment was in a different thread, if so I apologise for the confusion. What is immersion breaking for me is having the default behaviour for monsters be psychopaths that use every tactic they can think of to kill the PCs. A more interesting and more realistic encounter is the sea serpent is curious and investigates the ship. After all why would it attack? Why would it assume people are good to eat? Approaching things in that way gives many more options for how an encounter can play out and you can use CR inappropriate creatures without it leading inevitably to a TPK. Maybe the PCs will hide below decks until it gets bored and goes away, maybe they will throw it a tasty treat and earn an ally until they reach land, maybe they will scare it off with a fire spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the context of the discussion here was whether or not regular bestiary encounters can be challenging without artificially inflating hit points or engaging in excessive counter-party or team-tactics by NPCs, especially as it pertained to big monsters fighting with party members and stuff.
Envall specifically mentioned the sea serpent.
Big Dragon can be adjusted because they know magic and are very intelligent. But there are also lot of dumb big creatures that might be considered bosses to early levels. Party's boss fight at sea is a MASSIVE SEA SERPENT! WOO! Except the party might make a mockery out of it. I mean, picking too high CR opponent to be your boss monster might also just make so that nobody hits it or is able to make it fail a save. That is not fun either.
I just pointed out that it isn't very hard to challenge parties legitimately and it typically doesn't require exceptional tactics or anything. My commentary has little to nothing to do with how an encounter with a sea serpent outside of a combat encounter should go.
If you want my personal opinion, it's up to the GM. I agree with you that there are often noncombat opportunities for creatures and NPCs. In fact, I've used non-hostile big critters before in games as scenery (such as in a game where the party saw an ettin hunting some game in the distance and could pass on without disturbing it), or using monsters and the like for purposes outside of combat. A lot of my villains are nefarious but not outwardly violent or hostile (I recall an encounter with a succubus in an old burned down cathedral where the succubus flickered about between the rafters as she lounged about and talked with the party about some stuff).
In the last campaign I ran, it began to seem like the party was picking up would-be villains and antagonists like stray dogs. The party fought this one vampire three times over the course of the game and ended up with her being one of their buddies. There was a goblin sorcerer who was part of a mercenary company that tried to kill them, and he ended up traveling with them. One of the vampires who was spying on the party ended up being liberated by the party and the Paladin took her as his squire against the wishes of his order. One of the party had her two mothers following her around because of family issues (one of which tore the heart out of one of the other party members but she got better). It's complicated. :)
Suffice to say I'm not suggesting that everything is "fight, fight, combat, kill!" :P
That all sounds pretty cool.
In the end, it is everyone business how they run their games.
Still, it is fun to argue whose world view is better.
We wouldn't have politics if we were just contend with having everyone do their own thing in peace after all...
Oh yeah, the sea serpent.
It all lies in where people's disbelief settles. What kind of behavior that makes for interesting encounter becomes immersion breaking because it becomes too smart for the creature. You can dig far enough and you will find players that will be taken out if even the original subject, kobolds, act too "clever".
Me and Ashiel see different where that border goes, at least that is how I remember it now without re-reading all the posts.
To some crow is a the rat version of a bird, to some it is the genius of the animal world. Mmm.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, it is everyone business how they run their games.
Still, it is fun to argue whose world view is better.
We wouldn't have politics if we were just contend with having everyone do their own thing in peace after all...
Politics has nothing to do with this. There is no "us" or "they", there is not even some ideology being contested between two camps of nerds. What there is, is one person making a claim that you needed to artificially raise NPC statistics to challenge PCs who were build well.
Ssalarn and I noted that wasn't true at all. We gave very practical examples based on what are simply natural facts about those creatures, such as their environments and abilities they possess. It should have been done with that and just served as an interesting piece of reading for those interested in running games.
Instead, we ended up with the guy saying you need to artificially inflate stats trying to make up a bunch of rules and stuff that don't exist, tell us that 4 Int doesn't make you sentient, telling us a Chimera's ability to speak and interact with others isn't a feature of its Intelligence but is a magical ability. Telling us that biting something and swimming off into its habitat is too tactical. Telling us that animals are supposed to be run like poor-AI scripted creatures from video games. Blathering on about politics, apparently making some effort to sound even less worth listening to than they already do.
Pretty much all of which is debunked by even a cursory rules glance or plain reasoning ability (bite + move = too tactical? No..just no).
This is why we can't have nice things. >:(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That all sounds pretty cool.
I realize that because I spend a lot of time talking about things like mechanics on the forums and discussing things like tactical combat, I'm often mistaken for someone who just prefers the "kick in the door" style of play mentioned in the 3.x DMGs. Like I'm just here to "win" the game or whatever.
The simple fact is, when we're discussing rules on a forum I discuss the rules. If we're talking about roleplay ideas, character concepts, and stuff like that, I'll talk about fluff and such just as readily as everyone else. Perhaps moreso in some cases since I prefer encounters and stories to be as dynamic and fluid as possible (notice that in the encounter examples that I gave earlier, they were all centered around running interesting as well as challenging encounters worthy of fantasy adventures).
I used to frequent the WotC forums when Tempest Stormwind, for whom the Stormwind Fallacy is named for, was a regular poster. He was a mechanically adept individual who was also very good at roleplaying and story tropes. He was something of an idol or role model for the young me back then for how he cut through the perceived divide and also his posting style (he was to the point and didn't so much argue as explain why something was right/wrong). Suffice to say, I'm very much of the belief that mechanics and roleplaying should not be at odds with one-another.
If you're interested in examples of fluff or RP material from my campaigns to get an idea of the "other side" of Ashiel, consider checking out some of these documents on my Google drive. Most of it is crunch-light.
Anera's Belongings - Jolund's Journal
Anera was a character of mine in Aratrok's Rappan Athuk game. We understood that there was supposed to be a cult of Orcus involved in the dungeon for some reason (not sure if that's standard or something he added in but it's neither here nor there). My PC Anera was a high ranking member of the cult that was slain by some crusaders. One of her apprentices stole her body and a bunch of cult scrolls about some really strong magics with the intention of resurrecting her as a lich and stuff. However, as he lacked the skill and resources to actually make it work the ritual failed and her soul was damaged in the process, returning her as a sort of lesser lich (custom race based on bloody skeletons) that had lost her memories. With a blank slate, her alignment shifted away from the evil she was and she delved into the great dungeon to discover more about who she was.
This is a journal that I wrote as a springboard for her character stuff and carried around in her possessions.
News Clipping #1
In a campaign I was running for my friends Aratrok, Raital, and Arcane Knowledge, I was including newspaper bits that were being distributed at different points in the campaign, which both set the mood and feel for the campaign while also serving as summaries, backdrops, and plot hooks for the PCs. This news clipping is an old one that describes an event that Raital's character Teressa was involved in.
News Clipping #2
Here's another example news clipping that was issued for the first session which set some of the pacing and foreshadowed some stuff. It discusses some ongoings in certain areas, some of the campaign information on things like seasonal things, and introduces one of the factions.
@ Ashiel
Interesting, I haven't got time to respond in full right now. I will give you my thoughts on the Stormwind fallacy and how it relates to optimisation and the opening post tonight my time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ashiel
Interesting, I haven't got time to respond in full right now. I will give you my thoughts on the Stormwind fallacy and how it relates to optimisation and the opening post tonight my time.
Well while we're waiting, I'd like to say a few things about it too.
Roleplaying games like D&D or Pathfinder have aspects of both being a fun game from the gameplay side of things and also fun drama. They gave rise to "RPG mechanics" like gaining experience, advancing your character, leveling up, a feeling of progression, and other fun and amusing gameplay elements, including things like tactical combat from which the game was originally born (being an evolution of wargaming).
They also have this wonderful narrative aspect where players come together and participate in a sort of shared story, making it a bit of a play or story telling adventure as well. This allows players to be engaged from a variety of angles and build fond memories of their own adventures within the game.
It also has a strong sense of team or group play by its nature which has one foot in the door of the mechanical side and one foot in the story telling side.
In a sense, all three aspects create a sort of unified whole that is an RPG like D&D/Pathfinder.
These aspects attract players and keep them playing. Many players may prefer one aspect over the other, which I believe leads to the Stormwind Fallacy at its heart. The idea being that...
1. You can enjoy the game mainly for dice-rolling fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
2. You can enjoy the game mainly for the dramatic fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
3. You can enjoy the game mainly for the teamwork fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
4. You can enjoy the game for any combination of the three aspects.
5. If you don't enjoy any of these aspects, you're probably not playing the game in the first place (because why would you if it's not for the gameplay, the drama, or the social aspect?).
Now, with this in mind, while some players (like myself) enjoy all three aspects more or less equally, many players yet still enjoy some combination of these things more than the others.
So if you have a player who isn't very interested in the drama or social aspect, the reason they're playing is likely the fun game mechanics. Similarly, if you're not particularly interested in the game mechanics or the social aspect, you're probably here for the fun dramatics. Similarly still, if you're not particularly interested in the game mechanics or the dramatics, you might still enjoy playing because it's a fun social game with your friends.
The point is, you are going to at least like one of these three things which makes you keep coming back and firmly assures that you are a card-carrying gamer with the rest of us who love the game. You play D&D/Pathfinder, you have fun, you're "doing it right".
Now what I feel gives rise to the Stormwind Fallacy is that there are many, many people who have less interest in one or more aspects but will naturally gravitate and emphasis the parts they do like. This leads to the illusion that being mechanically inclined means you're opposed to the dramatically inclined and vice versa.
But this is, in fact, an illusion. Such players just love the game for different reasons. There's nothing opposing about any of these three aspects and, truly, I feel to enjoy the game to its fullest is to embrace every aspect of the game with a whole heart.
Enjoying the mechanics and understanding how to do well at the "game" aspect is good. Enjoying the story and making fun characters in the "drama" aspect is good. And enjoying the "social" aspect and working as a good team player is good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ashiel
Interesting, I haven't got time to respond in full right now. I will give you my thoughts on the Stormwind fallacy and how it relates to optimisation and the opening post tonight my time.
Well while we're waiting, I'd like to say a few things about it too.
Roleplaying games like D&D or Pathfinder have aspects of both being a fun game from the gameplay side of things and also fun drama. They gave rise to "RPG mechanics" like gaining experience, advancing your character, leveling up, a feeling of progression, and other fun and amusing gameplay elements, including things like tactical combat from which the game was originally born (being an evolution of wargaming).
They also have this wonderful narrative aspect where players come together and participate in a sort of shared story, making it a bit of a play or story telling adventure as well. This allows players to be engaged from a variety of angles and build fond memories of their own adventures within the game.
It also has a strong sense of team or group play by its nature which has one foot in the door of the mechanical side and one foot in the story telling side.
In a sense, all three aspects create a sort of unified whole that is an RPG like D&D/Pathfinder.
These aspects attract players and keep them playing. Many players may prefer one aspect over the other, which I believe leads to the Stormwind Fallacy at its heart. The idea being that...
1. You can enjoy the game mainly for dice-rolling fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
2. You can enjoy the game mainly for the dramatic fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
3. You can enjoy the game mainly for the teamwork fun, even if you don't really get the other aspects so well.
4. You can enjoy the game for any combination of the three aspects.
5. If you don't enjoy any of these aspects, you're probably not playing the game in the first place (because why would you if it's not for the...
I've said this before or at least I tried, but it wasn't worded this well. Great job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ashiel
Nicely written post, keep It up and I won't have anything to add. :P
I knew Tempest as well back on the WotC boards way back then. He was a decent guy.
I remember his other work Naturo done with spells/psionics, that was a masterpiece.
I would have never thought how easy it would be without that.
What's Stormwind up to now? Anyone know?
I wish I did. :\
Telling us that animals are supposed to be run like poor-AI scripted creatures from video games.
Oh you should see some of the players I GM'd for once.
They were basically poorly scripted jrpg protagonists so it was truly thematic.And turn that frown downside up.
Telling us that animals are supposed to be run like poor-AI scripted creatures from video games.Oh you should see some of the players I GM'd for once.
They were basically poorly scripted jrpg protagonists so it was truly thematic.And no need to get all frowny face.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.Telling us that animals are supposed to be run like poor-AI scripted creatures from video games.Oh you should see some of the players I GM'd for once.
They were basically poorly scripted jrpg protagonists so it was truly thematic.And no need to get all frowny face.
I'll tell ya, it is the chicken and the egg.
Did you really not understand what I was trying to say? <---not being sarcastic. I am really asking so I can explain again if I have to.To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...
Understand ? Yes. Strictly agree with ? No. Calling any form of NPC tactics 'house rules' is sort of awkward to my way of thinking, It's almost on par with calling my choice of a particular accent for a NPC a house rule. I'll make a very reluctant nod to published APs having tactics as rules instead of just guidelines on how not to be a derp. I tend to not think about them since I've yet to use a single AP for any of the actual adventure material mostly just pilfering the odd magical item, monster, or prestige class from them.
A big part of the problem I run into when it comes to encounters and tactics as a GM and a player is I'm a somewhat unhelpful blend of freakishly smart, mildly autistic, irritatingly unmotivated, situationally lazy, and of strange humor. What this odd egotistical diatribe boils down to is I have no earthly idea how a person of 'normal Intelligence' thinks. This, in turn, makes for a bastard of a time trying to not 'oversmart' what I play.
The closest I can come is cobbled together from recollections of my multitude of fistfights and such in my early teens or bar fights when I got older and reviewing accounts of small unit engagements to try to gauge an array of average choices and responses.
Dumb is easier to do for me than normal. For dumb I tend to go with a simple, fast, and visceral response to emotional stimuli... Basically the things my brain warns me against as too short term or not worth doing on a risk vs reward scale I just do. It might not be accurate for the right reasons but it does the trick.
Animals are fairly easy since they do a fair amount on instinct and kneejerk reaction to situational awareness. Barring the odd outlier like a surprising number of shark bites are less out of a desire to eat people and more because they use the mouth to see how things feel, or so I remember hearing at one point on the discovery channel, animal behaviors are a good deal more predictable.
When I try to 'just turn up the tactics' I have an irritating tendency to over perform and lay the hammer down on either my GM or players. As a player I tend to play for character development and growth over 'winning d&d' so I'm more than happy to die making a stupid choice that fit the character. As a GM ? It's way more simple and often less brutal to cheat a few rolls and fudge some numbers to inflate the difficulty and drama when it's what the players ask for than it is to get all Gen. Patton on someone who doesn't know what they're in for
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Understand ? Yes. Strictly agree with ? No. Calling any form of NPC tactics 'house rules' is sort of awkward to my way of thinking, It's almost on par with calling my choice of a particular accent for a NPC a house rule. I'll make a very reluctant nod to published APs having tactics as rules instead of just guidelines on how not to be a derp. I tend to not think about them since I've yet to use a single AP for any of the actual adventure material mostly just pilfering the odd magical item, monster, or prestige class from them.Did you really not understand what I was trying to say? <---not being sarcastic. I am really asking so I can explain again if I have to.To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...
Then you should have just quoted my entire text vs selective text and trying to argue out of context, however I am grateful that you didn't put a complete spin on what I said.
I will add the rest of it
"... which is fine, but it should not be presented as "not legal/right"."
To clear things up my main point was that anyone saying you are mentally hanicapped at a score of ____ or that you can't do ____ with a score of ____ needs to realize that is not in the rules, and should not present it as an "actual rule".
A big part of the problem I run into when it comes to encounters and tactics as a GM and a player is I'm a somewhat unhelpful blend of freakishly smart, mildly autistic, irritatingly unmotivated, situationally lazy, and of strange humor. What this odd egotistical diatribe boils down to is I have no earthly idea how a person of 'normal Intelligence' thinks. This, in turn, makes for a bastard of a time trying to not 'oversmart' what I play.
Yeah I find I have this problem as well, specifically with int 10-13 levels. Int 14 is perfectly workable and int 9 and below is pretty easy to handle, but since my closest real-life metric for normal people have all been complete morons it's hard to tell what an average person would not think of for tactics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding to what Ashiel said.
My google fu is hopeless, I couldn't find the original version of the Stormwind fallacy. In a nutshell what I believe the Stormwind fallacy says is that optimising a character does not prevent good role-playing. And similarly lack of optimisation does not necessarily lead to good role-playing. I assume that when he refers to optimising he means using knowledge of the games mechanics to produce the most powerful character within the parameters defined by the setting, GM or whatever. Feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
My view is that the Stormwind fallacy is a genuine fallacy in that it is correct for the most part and that there is a degree of independence between role-playing and optimisation which is often not appreciated. Especially by those gamers who claim to be firmly within the role-playing camp. But I don't think that allows us to conclude that optimisation and role-playing are completely divorced from one another and perhaps the original Stormwind would agree with that idea as well.
The reason I don't think that optimisation and role-playing are completely divorced is that I don't believe the human brain can handle two distinct, potentially conflicting ideas at the same time. There is some neurological research that supports that idea. Experiments were done and published in mainstream scientific journals where participants were asked to attempt to multitask and the evidence showed that people don't multitask, instead they switch between tasks which is exhausting and not nearly as efficient. It's like having a conversation on your mobile (cell) phone while driving, unless you are a very experienced driver, it is hard and potentially dangerous to try to do both at once. Whereas having a conversation with someone in the same car while driving is not nearly as distracting. There is alignment with the in-car conversation that you don't always get while on the phone.
In a similar vein I think since we can't multitask, the switching problem occurs when the character theme or concept does not marry well with the mechanics and causes the brain to work less efficiently. As a result the role-playing tends to suffer, especially if you are using a complex or unfamiliar game system. There are ways around this of course. Closely linking the character concept with the mechanics removes the disconnect and makes role-playing much easier. Also improved system mastery means the mechanics become second nature and the brain can devote its full attention to role-playing.
Where I am going with this is actually to make a stronger statement than the Stormwind fallacy and that is: in most cases character optimisation improves role-playing. For one thing optimising is a good, possibly the best, way to gain system mastery. A high system mastery means less brain power has to be actively devoted to mechanics and more can be focused on role-playing. A character that works well mechanically and is role-played well is what is optimal in my opinion. Sure there will be some cases where a particular player spends all their time optimising a character without giving the concept any real thought, but I think that kind of extreme situation is rare.
Bringing this back to the opening post. Is optimising characters actually suboptimal? In most cases I would say: no.
Understand ? Yes. Strictly agree with ? No. Calling any form of NPC tactics 'house rules' is sort of awkward to my way of thinking, It's almost on par with calling my choice of a particular accent for a NPC a house rule. I'll make a very reluctant nod to published APs having tactics as rules instead of just guidelines on how not to be a derp. I tend to not think about them since I've yet to use a single AP for any of the actual adventure material mostly just pilfering the odd magical item, monster, or prestige class from them.Did you really not understand what I was trying to say? <---not being sarcastic. I am really asking so I can explain again if I have to.To be fair any level of intelligence using any tactics is a house rule as I've yet to see an Int score to tactical option chart in any sort of official publication..
In an actual AP a human with an intelligence of 3 actually had PC class levels. That is all you...Then you should have just quoted my entire text vs selective text and trying to argue out of context, however I am grateful that you didn't put a complete spin on what I said.
I will add the rest of it
"... which is fine, but it should not be presented as "not legal/right"."
To clear things up my main point was that anyone saying you are mentally hanicapped at a score of ____ or that you can't do ____ with a score of ____ needs to realize that is not in the rules, and should not present it as an "actual rule".
It was how the auto quote thing cut it off and not a deliberate attempt at misrepresentation. My reply was because calling that a 'house rule' made my brain pucker a little. I really just deleted to the start of the sentence I was replying to and didn't think to look at where it was cut off on my reply post cause... Well, lazy, mostly.
A big part of the problem I run into when it comes to encounters and tactics as a GM and a player is I'm a somewhat unhelpful blend of freakishly smart, mildly autistic, irritatingly unmotivated, situationally lazy, and of strange humor. What this odd egotistical diatribe boils down to is I have no earthly idea how a person of 'normal Intelligence' thinks. This, in turn, makes for a bastard of a time trying to not 'oversmart' what I play.Yeah I find I have this problem as well, specifically with int 10-13 levels. Int 14 is perfectly workable and int 9 and below is pretty easy to handle, but since my closest real-life metric for normal people have all been complete morons it's hard to tell what an average person would not think of for tactics.
I considered polling people on the street or facebook but I already get in enough trouble for my attempts to study the average human creature in it's natural habitats. I hardly wanted to tac on 'Hey you don't seem like your a particularly brilliant sort of person... How would you initiate combat with a group of four people wearing metal and carrying oversized cutlery and potentially possessed of the ability to rewrite reality in a variety of ways but all with the end goal of bopping your thinker out of your pooter'.
I considered polling people on the street or facebook but I already get in enough trouble for my attempts to study the average human creature in it's natural habitats. I hardly wanted to tac on 'Hey you don't seem like your a particularly brilliant sort of person... How would you initiate combat with a group of four people wearing metal and carrying oversized cutlery and potentially possessed of the ability to rewrite reality in a variety of ways but all with the end goal of bopping your thinker out of your pooter'.A big part of the problem I run into when it comes to encounters and tactics as a GM and a player is I'm a somewhat unhelpful blend of freakishly smart, mildly autistic, irritatingly unmotivated, situationally lazy, and of strange humor. What this odd egotistical diatribe boils down to is I have no earthly idea how a person of 'normal Intelligence' thinks. This, in turn, makes for a bastard of a time trying to not 'oversmart' what I play.Yeah I find I have this problem as well, specifically with int 10-13 levels. Int 14 is perfectly workable and int 9 and below is pretty easy to handle, but since my closest real-life metric for normal people have all been complete morons it's hard to tell what an average person would not think of for tactics.
Add in the fact that most games are in a different time period with different moral codes and those of us that are autistic have a hard time figuring out just what the hell people will do.