Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6414445" data-attributes="member: 6668292">In my experience, as someone who's GMed a group that rolls for stats for 10+ years (save for my 4e campaign), it has been much, much more important. I'm not going to deny anyone else their experiences, though.It was, which is why I addressed it.Which is good, but do you stop players when they lean away from those things? If a good friend of mine wants to play a character that is less proactive (and my core group has always consisted of almost all good friends), then I'm not going to say no to that player. He's chosen a concept that he knows will make it harder to affect the fiction than other players. The same goes for choosing class / skill / ability / racial choices that don't fit with the campaign theme.Now, these are all informed choices, and differ from rolling in that you don't pick your stats when you roll (though you might arrange to taste). However, in my experience, players with (sometimes extremely) low stats consistently influence the fiction by participating in the fiction, leveraging PC abilities, and the like. They might have a 3 Str (been played) or a 5 Con (been played), but they're still making crazy inventions (3 Str PC) or looking for some trouble, any trouble (5 Con PC). And that allows them to influence the fiction a lot more than their low stats stop them.I agree with all of this. I've actually seen people propose different point buy values for different core 3.5 classes based on what &quot;tier&quot; they were. For example, Wizards were around 15 point buy, while Monks were 40. I didn't think it was a terrible idea, but I still didn't think it would come close to trumping other problems (the Wizard is still exerting major influence on the fiction via his Teleports, proactive players are still calling the shots or making decisions instead of following along, etc.).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6414445, member: 6668292"] In my experience, as someone who's GMed a group that rolls for stats for 10+ years (save for my 4e campaign), it has been much, much more important. I'm not going to deny anyone else their experiences, though. It was, which is why I addressed it. Which is good, but do you stop players when they lean away from those things? If a good friend of mine wants to play a character that is less proactive (and my core group has always consisted of almost all good friends), then I'm not going to say no to that player. He's chosen a concept that he knows will make it harder to affect the fiction than other players. The same goes for choosing class / skill / ability / racial choices that don't fit with the campaign theme. Now, these are all informed choices, and differ from rolling in that you don't pick your stats when you roll (though you might arrange to taste). However, in my experience, players with (sometimes extremely) low stats consistently influence the fiction by participating in the fiction, leveraging PC abilities, and the like. They might have a 3 Str (been played) or a 5 Con (been played), but they're still making crazy inventions (3 Str PC) or looking for some trouble, any trouble (5 Con PC). And that allows them to influence the fiction a lot more than their low stats stop them. I agree with all of this. I've actually seen people propose different point buy values for different core 3.5 classes based on what "tier" they were. For example, Wizards were around 15 point buy, while Monks were 40. I didn't think it was a terrible idea, but I still didn't think it would come close to trumping other problems (the Wizard is still exerting major influence on the fiction via his Teleports, proactive players are still calling the shots or making decisions instead of following along, etc.). [/QUOTE]

Verification