Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8386722" data-attributes="member: 6801228">They are an abstraction of real life things that are themselves an abstraction. Unless you'd like to take a crack at defining "intelligence" in the real world. I'm pretty sure you'd win a nobel prize considering how contested the field is.I am aware other people tell their players they are not allowed to use the Standard array. I knew that before even engaging in this conversation.This is about nothing except the player's character. That is the only thing this affects. Nothing else in the game is changed by choosing to use the standard array instead of rolling. Certaintly not to the degree that multi-classing changes the game (oh, right, that optional rule that exists so the game doesn't limit you to one class)You've banned far more than that. Good aligned Necromancers for one. Druids in metal armor if I remember another. I've been in plenty of debates with you Max, and you never budge.Only by making sure that the people who are playing are doing what you want. That's how you get "our". But see, my table has had people who like rolling stats AND people who like the array AND people who prefer point-buy. And, to help those people have fun, I've allowed all three. Seems like to have the most fun for the most people, you just have to let them pick the option they want.Your fun appears to involve telling other people what to do. I don't agree with that.Right, so that has nothing to do with the quote about Theive's Cant. You said that you haven't explicitly banned it, but you do think it would ruin your fun, so what would you do if a player came to you? Would it be "No" just like that?If it assumes both, then it is certainly less than 1 in 5 because every person who takes the array has a 15. So, if we assume a 50/50 split then it is actually closer to 10%, or 1 in 10. So, we are up to the point where 90% of the people are falling into a single category. That is plenty to make an assumption. Assumptions are never meant to be 100% accurate, and being 90% accurate is certainly good enough.And the game defintion of the standard array is that it is perfectly realistic. So if we should only look at game definitions, there we go. If you want to keep talking about biological reality and perfect statistical models of reality, then we need to go beyond the game definitions.Except you. Every time we get to a point that requires you to call upon real life to support your argument. Then, as soon as I counter with real life, but in a different way, then you say that real life isn't relevant to the discussion. Until you need to bring it up again to support your position.</blockquote>

Verification