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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9725766" data-attributes="member: 42856">I think some games make a bad job at explaining attributes and skill. In this particular example, I think D&D instill the idea that the achievable range of stats is 8-20, and the normal range of stats is 8-16 (or maybe 8-18). So people who would use an array of 12 across the board and a single 14 would see themselves as barely above average with a somewhat higher forte, and therefore they would see their STR 12 as "brawnier than your average geek", when in fact they are strong as a bull (maybe litterally, didn't check) and well above most humans who are STR 10 commoners like you, me and The Rock. While also being smarter than most rocket scientists.They also often fail to explain skill so people could say "I suck at Stealth" when they have 86% in Stealth, because they compare themselves to another PC who has 112% and can hide himself from a guard while taking to him in an empty plaza. I understand that giving numerous exemple of how skills are supposed to work in a game can take some place, but they set the assumption and I think they are needed. Even with experienced roleplayers in my group I sometimes had the question "Is there a chance that I can do jumping from a balcony and reach a chandelier and drop down to fight downstairs?" Because it was a new game and he had no real way to know the level of cinematics allowed (and preferred to check, knowing his character would know, rather than risk hearing: "err, you missed the chandelier by 10 meters, are you a moron? Now you fall, take 20d4 of damage, well, you're lying with your spine broken in the ballroom. Consider rolling another character...").How skills and stats are applied convey a lot of information on the setting being played in, and I found it often either lacking or disconnected.</blockquote>

Verification