Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 228785" data-attributes="member: 1106">I'm not sure that there are too many gamers with 18 INT or CHA around, so I cannot comment on the extent of what you're suggesting, but I do agree that there are discrepancies between the abilities of players.You do have a point.  But, consider a different style of play of D&D, one in which solving puzzles and problems is presented as a sort of game-within-a-game unto itself.  You can see this in adventures such as the Challenge of Champions, or plots with mysteries or secrets for the players to find out, or the puzzles and riddles in general.  The players and DM have a choice - they can either approach the puzzle with the intellect of the player, or that of the character.  This is the important point: I am yet to see a player who could solve the puzzle OOC back away from solving the puzzle in-game because his stats suggested that he was too dumb for that.  I'm sure it happens, probably regularly in some groups, but I haven't seen it personally, yet.Now, apply this to social situations and plot deciphering.  How far are you willing to go in compromising your enjoyment of the game with regards to intellectual challenge to serve the needs of not necessarily how you see your character, but what that '8' on the character sheet implies?  And where do you know when to stop?  You may think you're playing as dumb as an 8, but you could be playing a 6, or even a 3 - there's not much sense of scale.  Then add your DM and the other players, and their take on what an '8' intelligence means.  This matters even with the DC system, because a raised suspicion of exploitation may result in a call for a roll from your DM to "act that smartly", and therefore the possibility of failure (or not).I know this is heresy, but I can see a scenario in which some players might not want to go the whole hog on being a good roleplayer if that's what it implies - taking away problem solving or meeting social challenges.  Are such players always doomed to play characters like The Face from A-Team if they derive their enjoyment in this way?  If so, you're argument implies what you claim mine does - compromising player choice whilst claiming to enforce it.Now hold on a sec, that is most certainly not what I'm suggesting.  Read above for the suggestions on the suggestions on a variant system which do not imply that.If you replace them with non-mentally mapped, game mechanic-affecting ability scores to take their place, they are no longer there to ignore, nor get nullified.  You are still operating from the status quo set of rules assumptions by saying this, and that's not what my argument is referring to.Once again, under 3E as writ.  If you replace these ability scores with ones that don't map onto mental requirements in PCs, your scenario no longer applies and you can roleplay that character how you damn well want to - without accusations of powergaming.You claim that you understand my argument and that the reverse is not true - I think you may have just proved otherwise...!</blockquote>

Verification