Level Up (A5E) Do Player Characters Have Average Population Stat Distributions?

[Guest 6801328]

This is absurd, I've gotta be done at this point. This position is a walking parody.

@TwoSix called it, huh?

 

[Doug McCrae]

your narrative hinges on people believing thins which are untrue, which does not make for a good story.

Cervantes' Don Quixote revolves around just such a conceit. The protagonist foolishly believes that medieval romances are true. For example he tilts at windmills because he thinks they are giants. It was judged to be the greatest work of literature ever written by a panel of 100 leading authors.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

My example was between elves and dwarves, in third edition. Elves don't need to understand orcs (or dwarves), in order for them to make decisions based on what they do know; and their observation of elven wizards would be enough to confirm that it's not a good path for them to pursue.

The actual truth is always consistent with observable reality. Rationalizations exist to try and explain things when you don't have sufficient proof to discern the truth. You have provided three rationalizations for why elves might hold beliefs which are factually incorrect, but it doesn't change the fact that your narrative hinges on people believing thins which are untrue, which does not make for a good story.

You can't have it both ways. Either 5% is enough to discriminate between capabilities, or it isn't.

Statistically, a 5% difference is enough to change the outcome of one check in twenty. You will probably notice that over the course of your campaign, because you're going to roll for that stat more than twenty times. Likewise, elves will definitely notice the difference over the course of their civilization, because they will test their ability far more than twenty times.

This post suggests an extremely heterodox style of worldbuilding, while also an utter lack of familiarity with even the most basic of sociology.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Cervantes' Don Quixote revolves around just such a conceit. The protagonist foolishly believes that medieval romances are true. For example he tilts at windmills because he thinks they are giants. It was judged to be the greatest work of literature ever written by a panel of 100 leading authors.

Fine, it can make for a decent enough story to read, but it doesn't make for a satisfying world to role-play in. It's a goofy narrative convention. It's exactly like Discworld, in that regard.

 

[Phoebasss]

Fine, it can make for a decent enough story to read, but it doesn't make for a satisfying game to role-play in. Exactly like Discworld.

I'm not gonna ask you to explain this, because it's not going to make any more sense when you add "game" to "story". Let's just say you might want to ask if anyone you know believes false things in the face of overwhelming evidence. If we're gonna be even more specific, do you think there might be people who overestimate their own abilities? I certainly see those people every day. That can and is represented on a societal level with stuff like "foundational myths", blatant untruths that members of a society believe because it informs their view of how their society should be or is now.

EDIT: The arguments above don't really matter because that position is self-evidently wrong.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm not gonna ask you to explain this, because it's not going to make any more sense when you add "game" to "story". Let's just say you might want to ask if anyone you know believes false things in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Yes, and those people are widely looked down upon by anyone with common sense. "Because they're dumb," does not provide a strong enough basis that proving them wrong would be satisfying; and, given their inherent bias, they're unlikely to change beliefs in the face of evidence anyway.

Every rational person is already perfectly aware that half-orcs are just as good at wizardry as elves are (assuming that's how the world actually works). It won't come as a surprise to anyone worth impressing.

 

[Phoebasss]

Yes, and those people are widely looked down upon by anyone with common sense. "Because they're dumb," does not provide a strong enough basis that proving them wrong would be satisfying; and, given their inherent bias, they're unlikely to change beliefs in the face of evidence anyway.

Those people are often world leaders or individuals with incredible power in real life. Why couldn't they be in a DnD setting? You are again trying to apply stricter standards to fantasy worlds than real life. Perfectly rational individuals don't exist and never have. Culture is way more important than you're giving it credit for. I'm being very generous by even engaging with this patently ridiculous claim.

EDIT: In summary, @PsyzhranV2 is right. Take a sociology class please. I'm begging you.

 

[TwoSix]

You were right.

Believe me, I learned after long experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Those people are often world leaders or individuals with incredible power in real life. Why couldn't they be in a DnD setting?

I'm not saying that they don't (or shouldn't) exist, or that they aren't powerful. I'm saying that, trying to become a great wizard in defiance of their unjustified beliefs, isn't meaningful or noteworthy in any way. You'll never convince them that they're wrong; and for anyone without that bias, they wouldn't need convincing in the first place. It's like fighting a strawman.

Contrast that with a different world, where orcs are actually worse at wizardry. In that world, it is possible to prove something, by overcoming a real obstacle that's actually in your way.

 

[Phoebasss]

I'm not saying that they don't (or shouldn't) exist, or that they aren't powerful. I'm saying that, trying to become a great wizard in defiance of their unjustified beliefs, isn't meaningful or noteworthy in any way. You'll never convince them that they're wrong; and for anyone without that bias, they wouldn't need convincing in the first place. It's like fighting a strawman.

Contrast that with a different world, where orcs are actually worse at wizardry. In that world, it is possible to prove something, by overcoming a real obstacle that's actually in your way.

Yeah, I'm out. The goalposts have reached space.
EDIT: I will reiterate that you should read some about sociology or something about how people actually think.
EDIT2: I also can't think of any way to continue this without using irl politics, since all examples from early history have been dismissed for as best I can tell no reason.