Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 8068056">I couldn't disagree more with the following post.&nbsp; In fact, none of this even makes sense to me.Here I don't even understand how you're using &quot;statistical distribution&quot;.&nbsp; You seem to be conflating it with simply higher stats.&nbsp; But those are two different things.&nbsp; For example, an NPC stat block for an elf might have a dexterity that is +2 more than, say, humans.&nbsp; But PCs might have floating bonuses, which they would be free to put in Dex...or somewhere else.&nbsp; So the statistical distribution of PC stats would be different from those for NPC stats, but that says nothing about whether PCs are better or worse or about the same overall.re: the bold part.&nbsp; Um....so?&nbsp; Except in the context of intellectual self-pleasuring such as this thread, I've never once worried about or even really thought about statistical distributions of stats among NPCs.&nbsp; And yet I've had years of quite pleasureful (but not that kind of pleasureful) gaming.Why would we ever care &quot;how strong the average (or top 10%, or bottom10%) halfing should be&quot;?&nbsp; What does &quot;should be&quot; even mean?&nbsp; (Shades of your famous, &quot;What would a wood elf do?&quot; are coming back to me now.). Need a weak halfing?&nbsp; Give him a 7 Str.&nbsp; Or a 5 Str.&nbsp; Or a 3 Str.&nbsp; Who the $%@% cares what percentile bracket it's in?What really astonishes me about this is that every time we've disagreed in the past, it's involved you being haughty about what roleplaying is and isn't.&nbsp; And here you are stressing out about some kind of simulationism.&nbsp; I really don't get it.There is all the difference in the world between limitations that drive the challenge of the game, and limitations that don't actually have anything to do with challenge, and don't actually contribute anything to the game, but exist only to serve tradition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 8068056"] I couldn't disagree more with the following post. In fact, none of this even makes [I]sense[/I] to me. Here I don't even understand how you're using "statistical distribution". You seem to be conflating it with simply higher stats. But those are two different things. For example, an NPC stat block for an elf might have a dexterity that is +2 more than, say, humans. But PCs might have floating bonuses, which they would be free to put in Dex...or somewhere else. So the statistical distribution of PC stats would be different from those for NPC stats, but that says nothing about whether PCs are better or worse or about the same overall. re: the bold part. Um....so? Except in the context of intellectual self-pleasuring such as this thread, I've never once worried about or even really [I]thought[/I] about statistical distributions of stats among NPCs. And yet I've had years of quite pleasureful (but not [I]that[/I] kind of pleasureful) gaming. Why would we ever care "how strong the average (or top 10%, or bottom10%) halfing should be"? What does "should be" even mean? (Shades of your famous, "What would a wood elf do?" are coming back to me now.). Need a weak halfing? Give him a 7 Str. Or a 5 Str. Or a 3 Str. Who the $%@% cares what percentile bracket it's in? What really astonishes me about this is that every time we've disagreed in the past, it's involved you being haughty about what roleplaying is and isn't. And here you are stressing out about some kind of simulationism. I really don't get it. There is all the difference in the world between limitations that drive the challenge of the game, and limitations that don't actually have anything to do with challenge, and don't actually contribute anything to the game, but exist only to serve tradition. [/QUOTE]

Verification