Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 5073405" data-attributes="member: 63214">Try me. Or not, it doesn't matter. But don't make the assertion that I cannot understand. You, really, don't know.EDIT:Missed the last post. I'm not sure, but it seems like you think that I encountered "other intelligible viewpoints" but actually, I hadn't. I was waiting for those viewpoints. With Danny's explanation, I feel indeed a better sense of understanding of of our different values.That's interesting, but I don't know much about NFL. But, I'm going to assume that tall players and short players that do well have similar statistics. Similar completion rates etc.And you wouldn't say they did well because of luck, right? So if they did similarly well, that means that whatever the primary stat you thought they had isn't the primary stat at all. They both had a stat of "Quarterbacking" that was similarly high. I'm not sure if that would correspond to something, but I imagine it would be dexterity in D&D terms. In other words, the qualitative made "a positive contribution" aside, did the shorter players have just as good of game statistics as the tall players? If so, that means in D&D terms that they have the same stat, assuming over years of time luck was not meaningfully involved. Or, to take it as support for stats not having to match a character concept, the players both had the bonus. So, the STR 18 player and the DEX 18 player and the INT 18 player all contribute those stats equally to their quarterbacking ability. But, this is so funnily abstract, so I don't intend to argue this, but it's just a thought.Or, maybe the shorter players would have been worse but they had to work much harder than the tall players in order to compensate? So, the shorter players are higher level but have lower stats?(Oh lord, I've taken this too far, haha.) I really don't know, was that/is that the case?But, I don't believe that a concept has to match statistics, certainly not in 4E where the design in many ways is very abstract. So, we'll have to agree to disagree there, but thank you for explaining. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't compromise on his in-combat concept or on his out-of-combat concept. If I want a strong, intelligent fighter, I will still dump intelligence unless they make an intelligence build. I have the cake and eat it too, so to speak, but hey, I have fun with it.</blockquote>

Verification