Are high attributes more fun then low attributes?

[mmu1]

I detest low stats. Primarily, it's because of the fact that, even with all stats at above average and higher, every character is going to be incompetent (compared to someone who's actually skilled in a particular area) in a myriad of ways.

A fighter with pretty high Dex is still, more often than not, going to be awful at Dex based skills - they're not class skills, he gets 2 skill points per level, and has armor check penalties. Most clerics in heavy armor are like a walking punchline - usually unable to make the simplest balance, climb or jump check. Most characters, if you apply the rules as written (for example, -1 to spot checks for every 10 feet of distance) might as well be legally blind.

The list could pretty much go on indefinitely, and low scores simply exacerbate this sort of thing - they make you go from being pretty incompetent in certain areas, to downright pathetic, or comically clumsy. It can be amusing, occasionally, but I find the idea (that pops up ever so often) that every heroic character ought to be atrociously bad at something that'll regularly come up in the course of adventuring, because otherwise he has no "character", to be be pretty absurd.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I am confused.

Do people really feel that an 11th level PC with high stats is automatically more "heroic" than 12th level with lowish stats, even if they are probably about the same in potency?

 

[mmu1]

I am confused.

Do people really feel that an 11th level PC with high stats is automatically more "heroic" than 12th level with lowish stats, even if they are probably about the same in potency?

Well, you certainly seem to be using the word "heroic" in a different sense than the one I was using it in - I don't know about other people.

 

[Crothian]

If people want to talk about herioc PCs and the needs for high or low attributes to make that happen, it would make a great thread. This one is going to be just about the stats and doesn't matter if the characters or herioc, wimps, or something else. Thanks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Fair enough, Crothian.

 

[Arc]

I like to see 3.5 as a tactical wargame ruleset hidden inside of a roleplaying game. I prefer the roleplaying part, but I can't deny that I enjoy the numbers game hidden inside. High stats and a powergamed build make it much easier for me to make a unique character concept be effective at his role. Make a dagger weilding fighter do as much damage as a greatsword fighter? Sure. Make a wand-user be a walking cannon? Can do. If DM's get to throw monsters with interesting abilities and tactics, with added templates to make them truly unique - why can't players create interesting and powerful characters to match them? It keeps the combat interesting - as tactics differ depending on the both party makeup and the creatures they're facing.

Not to mention the roleplaying options it opens up. Want to play a class or race that's traditionally considered underpowered? Roll high stats, and find a build that compliments your choice. Suddenly, bards become fun again

Of course, this could just be my prefered style of playing. I like to see games as cinema - the more phenomenal the heroes are, the more cinematic the game will seem. After a session, I consider it good if I would pay money to see it as a movie.

 

[DerHauptman]

As Dm I always let my players choose their stats and so far the average is about 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, so I'd say at 46 point buy my players prefer higher stats.

When I play (I always seem to get the die-hard PB fan for some reason) I guess like higher stats.

Higher is a relative term BTW since people base it off PB. If I can choose, which has happened only once with a DM. I usually take 2 stats above 15, two at 12-14 one at 10-11 and one below 8.

The last character I got to choose on was a 1/2 Orc F/Rgr/Rog/W/SpellSword 2/2/1/5/5 with (after mods) 17, 14, 12, 16, 6, 11. He was fun to play and because of his low wisdom, which I played out as being indecisive he had a lot of different classes he just couldn't decide what he waned to be when he grew up. He was fun to play and by PB standards way over powered. However, because of the way I balanced out his weakness he ended up advancing slower than the rest of the group and having a relatively low BAB. Not overpowered at all. This is where DM/Player trust comes in - sure I picked the scores and could have made a monster if I wanted to but as a good player I balanced it out with RP choices.

What I dislike about basic PB is that I can't take a 5/6 and re direct the points elsewhere to help balance out my rack. I like this for RP reasons I think people all have one good solid weakness.

In the absence of choice I prefer 4d6 drop lowest in any order. All people are not created equal and neither are all characters.

Attempting to balance the stats of the characters in the beginning of the game is practically worthless since the stats themselves are not balanced in their utility any more than the classes and races are even remotely balanced throughout the game.

I think the only thing PB achieves is to mitigate the neener - neener factor between players and the resulting feelings of inadequacy for some of the less than mature gamers at the start of the game. It solves little else IMO.

 

[Melan]

It has been said that we are all bound by our experiences. They are the limits of our consciousness. An adventurer with no past is like a newborn babe, lacking the experiences necessary to survive without constant care and assistance. If the backstory is more elaborate than a sentence or two, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

I disagree. It is my considered opinion that an "adventurer" is a totally fictious construct driven by the ego of the player, sometimes with an ideology ("backstory") to explain his actions. But the motivator is still the player and no one else. It is the player's will to engage in adventures that makes a game run. Even without a backstory, the PC may still undertake actions just because its player wills it.

My take: satisfying the wishes or needs of a character is a meaningless excercise by itself. Only the players matter. Backstories are only useful inasmuch as the players enjoy having one, or to provide an excuse for adventuring ("orcs killed my father. Now I fight crime."). I, personally, don't need this justification. I, the player, like dungeoneering just fine.

What, to you, is a living, breathing world, exactly? I prefer a dynamic setting in which to place my characters. Imagine if the game world were a giant white board stretching infinitely in all directions. Yipee. How fun. Now I have lots of time to focus on my character actions to make a good story!

A dynamic atmosphere creates chances to interact with the world. If there's nothing to stimulate my character, then nothing is going to happen. Even a dungeon can be a living, breathing environment (not literally, I hope), and those are the ones that I truly enjoy exploring.

I meant my comment as a criticisim of worldbuilding for worldbuilding's sake. What is a world detail worth if it does not come up during play or does not influence the way the game events unfold? In my opinion, nil. There is only one exception, apparently very common in gamerdom: those people who just like to read about fictious worlds. I am not one of these people. Furthermore, I don't consider these needs to have anything to do with gaming. They are something else - certainly, a lot of people who enjoy the LotR appendices, don't enjoy them because they also enjoy RPGs.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

High stats or low is somewhat irrelevant. It's how the campaign is run that is far more meaningful. But, all other things being equal OF COURSE high stats are more fun!

 

[genshou]

I disagree. It is my considered opinion that an "adventurer" is a totally fictious construct driven by the ego of the player, sometimes with an ideology ("backstory") to explain his actions. But the motivator is still the player and no one else. It is the player's will to engage in adventures that makes a game run. Even without a backstory, the PC may still undertake actions just because its player wills it.

My take: satisfying the wishes or needs of a character is a meaningless excercise by itself. Only the players matter. Backstories are only useful inasmuch as the players enjoy having one, or to provide an excuse for adventuring ("orcs killed my father. Now I fight crime."). I, personally, don't need this justification. I, the player, like dungeoneering just fine.

I like my characters to have definition and depth right from the start, and it doesn't prevent them from developing further as the gameplay occurs. How far that goes depends on the style of play the group is into. Sometimes PCs fall into and out of love, and that doesn't do anything for the player (we hope ), but people still enjoy having their characters accomplish such things. In the same way, backstories provide a more concrete sense of who the character is, for those who like to have that aspect.

Not all styles of gaming support the same amounts and methods of character depth, but adding a backstory doesn't prevent them from having depth during the game.

I don't disagree with you that it's not necessary to have a backstory, but I feel you have a limited view of their benefit if you think they're only useful to enjoy having one or to provide an excuse for adventuring.

Don't worry folks, we'll return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of high and low attributes eventually.