[DM gripe/rant] I'm beginning to notice some trends...

[rounser]

I remember arguing that intelligence, wisdom and charisma shouldn't be codified because they manifest as however the player plays the character on another thread, but got called for "wanting all the advantages and none of the penalties". Bollocks - one of the bywords of 3E design is don't balance stat advantages with roleplaying disadvantages.

For instance, rename Intelligence to "Magical Affinity", Wisdom to "Divine Affinity" and charisma to "Karma" and you're no longer shackled by how smart, wise or charming you should be playing your character because some numbers say so.

 

[Frostmarrow]

For instance, rename Intelligence to "Magical Affinity", Wisdom to "Divine Affinity" and charisma to "Karma" and you're no longer shackled by how smart, wise or charming you should be playing your character because some numbers say so.

The beauty is that we don't even have to change the names. We just need to keep it in mind. Good thinking rounser.

 

[Fenes 2]

And what do you do when you want to play a charismatic smooth-talking character but you are tongue-tied? When you want to play a genius egghead but are not that intelligent yourself? How do simulate the entrance of a PC with Charisma 26 in a tavern?

 

[rounser]

Thanks

 

[rounser]

And what do you do when you want to play a charismatic smooth-talking character but you are tongue-tied? When you want to play a genius egghead but are not that intelligent yourself? How do simulate the entrance of a PC with Charisma 26 in a tavern?

No die rolls will help you come up with a cunning plan that a genius might have, and you'll have to rely on third person explanation of your actions if you're charming someone but don't have the words yourself already. Very little changes.

 

[Fenes 2]

Actually, if a player without a good grasp of tactics and strategy would like to play a strategist in my game, a good roll would give him a good plan - I would give him one and adjust the setting accordingly so that it had a good chance of working.

Just as I, last game session, gave a cover story for a character whose player had no idea on the quick, but rolled well on his skill check.

 

[rounser]

Okay, you got me there - those rolls wouldn't exist under such a system, you'd just have to agree that X's character was witty.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

This again eh?

Should only Clerver people play Clever characters because otherwise they're not playing them "right"? Similarly for Charismatic or Wise characters?

Ask yourself if only people who can cast spells should be able to play wizards - it is a direct analogue.

As for dishonourable, less than pure people wanting to play a Paladin; Anything worth doing is worth doing badly, as a wise man once said.

As in, you should not be unwilling to let people try things they aren't necessarily going to do well at, otherwise they will never get the chance to become good at them.

 

[Drawmack]

*FOR DIPLOMACIES SAKE*

[ot]
Do not equate choices made in life with someone's abilities. This is a rebuttal to Henry equating HS drop out with stupid. As a HS drop out that one statement ruined his entire post for me. He probably made some good points but I was left with the memory of being called stupid.

I dropped out of HS because I do not fit in well with a regemented societal structure, and I did even less so as a teenager. Yet I went to college and I'm really close to a degree in comp sci and looking at graduating cum-laude and I worked full time to pay my way through. I am smarter then 90% of my HS class mates who graduated and I've got the numbers on SAT, Collee grades etc. to back that up.

Dropping out of HS was a life decision I made based on my emotional status at that point in time. It has nothing to do with intelligence.

So for all please do not equate life decisions with any kind of innate abilities and I think we'll all be a bit better off.
[/ot]

 

[rounser]

Should only Clerver people play Clever characters because otherwise they're not playing them "right"? Similarly for Charismatic or Wise characters?

You're only looking at it from one direction there. Why should clever people, or charismatic people, or wise people be forced to play dumb by some numbers if they don't want to? Because their strength and dexterity is too high and it wouldn't be fair if they fought that battle tactically from the player's foresight and were charming to the innkeeper through some well chosen words from the player as well? Bzzzt - that's balancing a system advantage with a roleplaying disadvantage, and a restrictive one at that.

There's more than one way to play D&D - and one of those is as a puzzle game that challenges the players directly. I suppose you could come up with a solution to the trap anyway and suggest to Max that his high int character thought of it, or suggest tactical moves to a player whose character has high wis, but that's an awkward solution. Can you come up with a better solution other than "just lump it", because that line of thought can be turned around and used against those advocating the right to play a character smarter than they are as well if the crutches were to be removed, status quo notwithstanding.