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

[Rel]

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."

Henry,

I may be mistaken, but I don't think that Drawmack took umbrage because he felt misinterpreted as a "drop out" when in fact he has his GED and is going on to college. I think he was trying to point out that Education (especially what we think of as "formal education") and Intelligence are two different things.

I graduated high school without any problems and got into college without any problems. What WAS a problem was that I lacked two things: Focus and Good Study Habits. If anything, my problem was that I was too smart for the challenges I faced in high school. I got by on my smarts alone and never got in the habit of studying hard. I was lazy and disorganized and I rapidly quit college in order not to waste any more of my parents hard earned money.

But I never lost a desire to learn. It's just that I want to learn what I want to know, not what other people want me to learn in order to satisfy getting a particular degree. I have many friends who are college graduates (virtually all of them are actually) and I read as much or more than they do. My reading is not confined to what most people would call leisure reading and I've been known to read astronomy textbooks just because I wanted to know more about the subject. I know far more about physics than most of my friends even though most of them took some college level physics courses.

So I guess I am trying to say that I think there is a distinct difference between being educated and being intelligent while also understanding that many educated people are intelligent and many uneducated people are also unintelligent.


Just so that my post here is not a total sidetrack, I also have a few opinions on the subject at hand:

I try to remember that while the DM is undoubtedly the most important component to the game, he is still just a person who is playing in order to derive enjoyment. His enjoyment is no more or less important than that of the players.

I think the DM should be allowed to present a campaign idea that has certain parameters (no evil alignments, no non-humans, no 3rd party materials, etc.) and the players have the right to accept or reject those boundaries. Once those parameters are agreed upon, I think that the players should, for the most part, be allowed to create the kind of characters they want so long as they keep the enjoyment of the group in mind as well as their own. I would never tell a player that he had to play a certain class or race just because I felt his character concepts had become stale.

As to the matter of Paladins in particular, I don't think there is a "right" way to play them. I do think there are lots of ways to play them that are a pain in the butt to the rest of the group ("We've got to take these prisoners ALL the way back to town so they can be judged." or "We can't SNEAK up on the enemy encampment! That would be dishonorable!") and I think that is inconsiderate of the group. If a player does stuff like that all the time then I'd call them on the fact that they were making the game less enjoyable for everybody else.

I let players play however they want but since I give out XP for roleplaying then the smart player playing a dumb character who comes off as brilliant all the time isn't going to garner much of that XP. When it comes to skills, I let a good argument presented by the player influence the skill roll (usually a +2 circumstance bonus) but basically if the player hasn't spent the points, the character doesn't have the skill.

 

[Grog]

I'd personally rather have someone try something and end up being not entirely stupendous at it, than have them affraid to try it because they don't feel they can do it right.

It's a game, not a drama. Who cares if the Int 18 wizard's player is a bit dumb -- metagame the dumbness out of it.

(Wizard: "I push the button that says DO NOT PUSH"
DM: "Okay, but as your finger's getting nearer, your lightning-fast intelligence deduces that, in all the history of buttons, any time anyone had pushed one that warned otherwise, nothing good had ever come out of it, and, often, the violating pusher dies a horrible death and/or start a nuclear holocost. There is no reason to think this may be different. If you push the button, your intelligence tells you you will probably either die or cause the deaths of millions of innocents. Do you still want to push the button?"
(If the wizard says "yes," still, warn him again that it would mean he would probably change his alignment to Chaotic Stupid, and that alignment isn't allowed. ))

In GURPS, they have an advantage characters can take called Common Sense. With this advantage, whenever the player does something the GM feels is stupid, he makes an IQ roll for the character. If he succeeds, the GM has to say "Are you sure you really want to do that?" This advantage was meant to allow impulsive players to play intelligent and thoughtful characters. I thought it was an interesting idea.

 

[officeronin]

A-HA! A thread to take my stand as my alter-ego, The Rogue Dissenter!

While it does bother me to see Paladins portrayed as one-track maniacs, it bothers me more to see a DM let them get away with it. Ground rules for the Paladin's code need to be insisted on at first level, so that the player knows what is and is not within their code. Have it written on a piece of paper, and had it attached toi their character sheet - this represents the fact that their paladin would likely have the letter of the code burned into his brain.

If said paladin does something against the code, then their deity/ their own conscience/ what have you should take approporiate action, and strip the paladin of all abilities until atonement and contrition is undertaken. This will do two things: (1) Enforce consequences to actions. (2) Drastically cut down on the number of Paladins played at your table.

I just picked up Quintessential Paladin, and there is a pretty good section on codes near the back. I liked it.

I always made sure my paladin's code was accepted by the GM before playing the PC -- it was self-defense! "Why didn't you charge the demon horde?" "Because I respect (demi)human life, and that includes my own!"

OfficeRonin

 

[rounser]

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.

In your opinion. Knowledge and thinking aren't the same thing (although you can use knowledge to affect the model of how you think).

Here's a comparable "hickup" in the opposite direction: Die rolls to determine whether your character was smart enough to think every time he does. Now go re-read that reductio ad absurdum definition.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

In your opinion. Knowledge and thinking aren't the same thing (although you can use knowledge to affect the model of how you think).

Here's a comparable "hickup" in the opposite direction: Die rolls to determine whether your character was smart enough to think every time he does. Now go re-read that reductio ad absurdum definition.

I just re-read the definition and it still doesn't work sorry. If your character is dumb he shouldn't come up with good plans, and he shouldn't be smooth if he has a bad chr, I could care less how smart or smooth you happen to be. Hey if you want to come up with a plan or a good line and get one of the other players to use it for their smart/charming character go right ahead. But those plans/lines just wont work coming form a dumb uncharismatic guys mouth.

And as for die-rolls every time you think I'd say that's an entirely different kind of hickup. 1 the original one took the same concept a the same level and applied it to different stats. The other took a concept and multiplied its effect. Entirely different IMO.

To steal a Hero rule a disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points. And playing smart and smooth and expecting benefits for it when your stats don't match up is just ignoring the penalties that are on your character.

 

[mythago]

Die rolls to determine whether your character was smart enough to think every time he does.

You mean like the Idea roll in CoC?

Seriously, I don't know why you're so annoyed by the counterargument. You were arguing that a player should not be limited by his character's stats. Why should that be true of Intelligence, and not, say Charisma?

Underlying your assumption is also the notion that the player is "stuck" with his die rolls. Presumably he did not write up the character sheet at gunpoint, so I don't see why a player who chose a 7 INT later has grounds to complain that his character isn't too bright and should be played as such.

Perhaps you were arguing against "fixed" statistics, so that a person who rolls INT 6 should have some way of modifying that? (Say, swapping die rolls around, so that he can be INT 12 and CHA 6 instead.)

 

[rounser]

I just re-read the definition and it still doesn't work sorry. If your character is dumb he shouldn't come up with good plans, and he shouldn't be smooth if he has a bad chr, I could care less how smart or smooth you happen to be. Hey if you want to come up with a plan or a good line and get one of the other players to use it for their smart/charming character go right ahead. But those plans/lines just wont work coming form a dumb uncharismatic guys mouth.

Your assumption is flawed. You're assuming that there's some numbers somewhere which are determining that "this character should be dumb", whereas under the system which doesn't codify this, it could be a personal roleplaying choice.

And as for die-rolls every time you think I'd say that's an entirely different kind of hickup. 1 the original one took the same concept a the same level and applied it to different stats. The other took a concept and multiplied its effect. Entirely different IMO.

Again, you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not just application to different stats. Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma imply a lot of innate potential (mostly genetic if you follow my worldview of personal traits). You're extrapolating it into a different realm, that of trained skills and knowledge, which is a different kettle of fish....although, admittedly, the D&D system does "confuse" the issue by making Intelligence = knowledge by adding skill points for high int...

To steal a Hero rule a disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points. And playing smart and smooth and expecting benefits for it when your stats don't match up is just ignoring the penalties that are on your character.

Now we're back into more familiar 3E D&D territory. 3E doesn't use disadvantages, nor does it attempt to balance roleplaying disadvantages with stat advantages....except in one arena, which is the one we're discussing. I can't recall if it even attempts to press the point that you should roleplay according to your character's limitations - perhaps this is doubling up on disadvantages from mental attributes if the stats are already balanced? Just a thought.

 

[myrdden]

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.

You'd think a person who is brillant or wise in real life would have an appreciation for the game mechanics regarding abilities and undertsand how they translate into roleplaying.

Hmmm...ironic isn't it...

Myrdden

 

[rounser]

You mean like the Idea roll in CoC?

No, I mean like rolling the dice every time your character uses his brain, from motor skills to remembering how to talk. Absurd, yes. More absurd than Fenes' example above, but his is also an absurd extrapolation of my suggestion into another arena, nonetheless.

Seriously, I don't know why you're so annoyed by the counterargument.

It's called refutation, and in this case, I point out the fallacy inherent in the attack on my argument by naming it, which is easy given that it's an age old debating technique. What you've tried in the quote above is to imply that my emotions are leading to irrationality, which is another age old debating technique...which is pretty ironic, don't you think?

You were arguing that a player should not be limited by his character's stats. Why should that be true of Intelligence, and not, say Charisma?

I didn't say it should. I meant all three "mental" stats, if that wasn't clear.

Underlying your assumption is also the notion that the player is "stuck" with his die rolls. Presumably he did not write up the character sheet at gunpoint, so I don't see why a player who chose a 7 INT later has grounds to complain that his character isn't too bright and should be played as such.

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, many roleplayers end up "playing themselves" anyway, especially when the going gets rough in some respect. My argument stems from the stance that there's no need to set up this disadvantage based on shackling mental stats - it's arbitrary. You could balance a high strength, high dex, high con character in multiple other ways that have nothing to do with the thinking or social skills parts of roleplaying, like penalising the number of skills they get or impairing their ability to use magic or have luck. That's just an example for illustration, though - I'm no game designer and have been put on the spot to provide an example to back up my argument, so picking that example apart will prove fairly easy if you tried it, I trust.

Perhaps you were arguing against "fixed" statistics, so that a person who rolls INT 6 should have some way of modifying that? (Say, swapping die rolls around, so that he can be INT 12 and CHA 6 instead.)

Again, you're assuming a codified set of mental stats somewhere in the system, and I'm not, which means our arguments don't meet.

 

[rounser]

You'd think a person who is brillant or wise in real life would have an appreciation for the game mechanics regarding abilities and undertsand how they translate into roleplaying.

Hmmm...ironic isn't it...

I understand how they translate under the current system, but I don't necessarily like the model, you pathetic troll.