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

[WayneLigon]

I generally give the character the benefit of the doubt, based on his stats, class and his personality as described to me by the player. If someone's PC has a high intelligence, then I'll describe more to him when it comes time to figure something out. He gets, in general, more information and I'll be easier on the character if he tries certain things. The character with high charisma will have more people pay attention to him and react to him better; if they've described their charisma as being more force of personality than physical beauty, then those reactions will probably stay at a higher level.

Right now in our 'modern magic' game, I'm playing a guy who is basically a con man. His last three stats are a mix that help and hinder him.

Very good Charisma, high Intelligence, slightly less than average Wisdom. He's a criminal who makes his living off video and music piracy, tax evasion, various forms of fraud and identity theft. Xane (pronounced 'Zane') is not that well educated, for all his Intelligence; he tends to make intuitive leaps rather than logical conclusions. If a clue is out there that lends itself to that kind of insight, the GM may let him figure it out before the other high Int character who is Xane's polar opposite in that respect: very methodical and logical. If it involves skimming through ancient tomes, then Xane's out of luck.

His low Wisdom prevents him from using a lot of what he knows in a, well, 'wise' manner. His computer and electronics skills could easily let him earn twice or more than what he currently gains illegally.

 

[Fenes 2]

/sarcasm

I don't want to be limited by some arbitrally number! If I play a d20 modern game, why should my PC not be able to handle a .50 machine gun, calculate firing solutions for a 120 mm mortar, shoot my assault rifle and throw a grenade since I can do that? Forget those pesky skills and proficiencies, if I can do that so can my PC!

Forget those Spellcraft and knowledge skills, if I know that spell so does my Barbarian!

I know how to mix powder - my PC does too!

That way I can lower my PC's int to 3 and still have all the skills I want!

Heck, why should I put some high number in strength just to be able to hit for high damage? If I can lift X kg I demand that my PC should be able to lift that as well, no matter his strength!

/sarcasm off

 

[rounser]

What's that argument tactic called when you "refute" something by taking it to an absurd and completely unrealistic extreme?

 

[Fenes 2]

I believe it is called hyperbole, but english is not my first language.

Seriously, imho, if you want to play a smart character you should put some points into intelligence, just as you should put points into knowledge skills when you want to play a sage in D&D, and not rely on your own knowledge.

If you rely on your own social skills you compensate a stat disadvantage - low int, which translates into low skill points, especially for cross-class skills, with a "roleplaying advantage" - your own glib tongue. Your fighter could concentrate on the "technical" skills while you effectively give him max ranks in bluff, sense motive, diplomacy, intimidate, gather information, knowledge etc. This works especially well if the DM is not exactly the most charismatic person, or a good fast-talker.

You were right before - it is not fair.

(I should add, however, that I hate puzzle solving in RPGs with a passion.)

 

[rounser]

Found it:

Reductio Ad Absurdum
This means, "reduce to absurdity." Take a point, and exaggerate it until it is ridiculous, to show that the original idea is stupid or wrong.

To the matter of skills....well, no, it's not going to fit a system written the way skills are in 3E. You'd have to redesign the game around a different way of handling skills. I'm not sure what that might be, exactly. Classes and levels might limit what a character knows quite simply, but there isn't much room for individual variation in that case. Perhaps a building point system would be appropriate.

You see what I'm driving at? Unfortunately, this well and truly departs the realm of a simple solution, but enters the realm of a hypothetical D&D which never will be. I hope you agree that that doesn't make the approach completely busted, but rather, just completely impractical.

 

[Fenes 2]

Well, I see one way to handle it in D&D, and (mostly) within the rules to boot:

Allow each player to build his PC as he or she likes to, maybe put a limit on the total of the three physical stats if needed, but no cap on skill points, not from class or int, at the least. That way the mental stats will always cover the actions and planning, and the PC has all the mental skills the player uses.

 

[Henry]

*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.

Drawmack,

My heartfelt apologies if you thought I was referring to you, or others in your situation. If you went to college, and are working on a degree, you are NOT a drop-out, nor stupid. You are finishing what you started.

My choice of phrase was poor, perhaps, because if you got a GED or equivalent (which you would have had to do in order to be accepted to most colleges or universities), by definition you are not a drop-out; you did complete high school or an equivalent degree. In my area, there are far too many people who who leave all schooling, and stay away, and it is a terrible thing to see people who are unable or unwilling to better themselves. Many family and friends in my life have completed GED's and have gone on to complete college - I don't consider this "dropping out."

My point still stands, though: if someone wishes to role-play a scholar, they shouldn't be taken to task if they aren't one themselves. Do I need a Ph.D. in Classical Literature before I play a professor in Call of Cthulhu? Certainly not. However, sentiment that a person has no business playing something that they are not directly counteracts part of the purpose of role-playing.

 

[buzz]

I'm going to be a ninja!

All of you need to read these:

1. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14184

2. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14851

3. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15803

4. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16619

5. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17257

6. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13446

7. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18060

8. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18741

9. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19471

10. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23422

11. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26588

12. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26943

 

[Shard O'Glase]

What's that argument tactic called when you "refute" something by taking it to an absurd and completely unrealistic extreme?

And how does this have any bearing on what he posted. He took the concept of why should I play dumb just because I have a crap int stat and applied it to skills and physical attributes. It was barely a small hickup of expansion on the concept.

If a players character has crap int, wis, chr stats they will be dumb, unwise, and uncharismatic. I don't give a crap how brilliant, wise and charismatic they are in real life. They shouldn't be able to remove a game penalty because of their own out of game abilities. luckily even a 8 isn't a crap stat, its jsut slightly below average so as long as the player doesn't expect greatness they can get by fine.

 

[ForceUser]

Man is it nice to be blessed with long-time friends I regularly game with. Some are better roleplayers that others, but everyone is generally willing to try new things. Sometimes as a DM you need to step back and look at what's going on - Are they staying generally within their alignments? - Are they having fun? If the answer to those questions is yes, then just go with it.

With regard to roleplaying stats, I've been on both sides of that one. For instance, I have this friend who has the personal magnetism of a rock. Nice guy, fun to be with, always plays goofy characters with an "angle" - his current angle is the CHARISMA CHARACTER. This guy has an insane Bluff and Diplomacy; I mean really amazing skill modifiers.

How do you resolve this obvious disparity between player and PC? By focusing on the character, not the player. Dennis, god bless him, couldn't make conversation if his life depended on it. So you might see a situation such as the following:

DM: The magistrate slams his gavel and levels an accusing finger at you, saying, "You stand accused of high treason against the King. Six loyal knights have come forth swearing your complicity, and within a zone of truth you confessed to the crime. Have you any final words before I judge your fate?"

Dennis (roleplaying best as he can): "Wait, see, I'm not your guy. I only LOOK like your guy."

{long pause}

DM (resigned, sighing): Make a Bluff check.

Dennis (rolls a die): 52!

DM (voice muffled due to head in hands): The Magistrate, overcome with chagrin at his error despite all evidence to the contrary, releases you from custody with an apology.

Dennis (big grin): Alright!

~~

And that's how you do it.