Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hillsy7" data-source="post: 7161030" data-attributes="member: 6689191">I’ve always been arguing that stats are significant – I’ve just been saying though that they are not only mechanically significant. There are many ways of playing the game (from a GM and Player PoV). In some games, focusing on CON has No drawbacks. In some games, focusing on Con has significant drawbacks. I’m doing the exact opposite. The OP lamented that CON was indispensable, which is a view applicable to a handful of ways (perfectly valid) of playing the game. Other ways exist in which CON is dispensable. I have rigorously been defending the position that there are many, many ways to play the game, because there has been a consistent line pedalled of “Your character doesn’t need anything other than Primary, CON, & DEX” without the accompanying qualifier (assuming it has even been considered) that this applies only to a narrow subset of gameplay styles.You can role-play a Fighter with 8 CHA, exactly the same as one with 18 CHA, if you want. Or totally differently. Or not even bother because there’s a Bard with CHA 20 next to you. What isn’t fair is saying that "to put 18 in Charisma to justify role-playing a certain way is a waste, or inefficient, or an error". In many games, and for many players, it is important to do that. I’ll go you one better and say it’s a valid way of playing the game full stop. The world could be decidedly undeadly: it’s still totally valid to power-game the hell outta your bard so he can swindle every merchant or king into getting exorbitant rewards for trifling stuff. Or just being optimised for stealing, or simply killing gophers. Totally valid.And if those strengths are the 3 mental attributes, all the better, right? And again, other games will have people who deliberately don’t play to their strengths and everyone has a blast and doesn’t die and all the players don’t shout at each other because someone made a suboptimal choice. All game types are valid.I flat out reject this – literature, and indeed history, is replete with heroes who are not the best person for the job (or ‘optimised’) but save the world anyway (Frodo Baggins). That is entirely your opinion, and you may like games like that. Great. But you don’t get to say that Sub-optimal characters can’t “save the world” if that’s the game people want to play. Uh-uh, no way. Sorry.I once again refer to Critical Role, where Vox Machina have “saved the world” multiple times with non-optimal stats arrays. That is your preference (which is totally valid) but it’s yours.Fun fact, over the course of human history, the majority of individuals who have had the biggest impact on major world events were all generals, diplomats, politicians or scientists (Or in D&D parlance, characters with Low Combat survivability and very high mental attributes)Yes, maybe the majority of players and GMs DO save the world by stabbing dragons, but by that very definition CON is more useful than other stats SO WHY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT? It is literally like getting annoyed that, when faced with a plank of wood that need cutting in half, everyone keeps reaching for a saw. The other tools are there to do other things – and a hell of a lot of people want to do other things with the plank of wood.Sorry but in that scenario, the argument of “I want to saw this plank of wood in half, but everyone uses the saw: (Falls to knees, platoon style) For the love of God WWHHHYYYYY???!!!!!!” just isn’t valid. And you don’t get to say “I hate how the Saw is better than all the other tools” because you are just belittling a lot of people who do stuff with wood other than Sawing it.If, as I suspect is the case, the real argument is “I want the plank chopped in half, my players want to cut the plank in half, but this Saw is boring”, that’s cool. You’ve got a few options, including getting another toolkit. But giving everyone all the information before saying that this Saw is just "too good" (and implying: therefore you're badwrongfunning D&D) is going to save a lot of confusion and offence.I think this Carpentry analogy has gotten out of hand………</blockquote>

Verification