Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kensanata" data-source="post: 3292409" data-attributes="member: 47845">I think I should stop posting late at night. My last post did not come across as intended, and for that I am sorry. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />Well, you are right when it comes to combat stats, and these do make up the bulk of it all. When reading d20 source material mentioning a poison or a spell that does ability damage, there's an additional step required for the GM. You dismiss this extra step:I think that's where we differ. As little work as possible for DMs, and the use of lots of unchanged d20 material are my working assumptions. If we don't share these assumptions, then we'll probably reach different conclusions. Adding design notes which would include such assumptions made into the Macropedia would be a good first step.In fact, we could have the Core rules with one set of assumptions, lots of option pages like we already have, and additional "Option Set" pages which list the options to use if you wanted to run a game with a different set of assumptions. Basically these option set pages could feature a copy of the M20 rules with the suggested changes already applied. We only have one page to start with, so it won't be much work. These could be considered variants or spin-offs or derived works (meaning: inspired by M20). The Macropedia provides us with a place to keep all this material together, which is a big plus, I think.But back to what you wrote: I mentioned MIND in my comment to point one because there's a slight contradiction in what I'm saying: On the one hand I want it to be compatible with very fast conversion, but on the other hand we have only three abilities instead of six. So I felt I needed to illustrate that the drawback of not using the same number of abilities was not a problem. Basically I map CON to STR and WIS/INT/CHA to MIND, which is fast, and has not yet led to any problems. That's what I was trying to say.Haha! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Good point. If your players want it, then you should give it to them. And somebody else already <a href="http://wiki.greywulf.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Macropedia/AddingCharisma" target="_blank">reintroduced CHA into their M20 game</a>, so I bet it would be no problem at all to return back to six ability scores.Also a good point. Basically I've never had a player fail to roleplay bad ability scores. That's easy to do, in my experience. High ability scores are not a problem as long as they translate to dice rolls, eg. combat. That leaves two ability scores that are problematic when high in my experience: INT and CHA.Here's how I think of CHA:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> For leaders: If a village needs to be evacuated because of an impeding invasion, I either wing it, or my characters have <a href="http://wiki.greywulf.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Macropedia/Prestige" target="_blank">a fake ability called Prestige</a> that floats: It goes down if they abandon friends and betray allies, it goes up for honorable deeds. That would also work to determine the number of retainers, or their morale.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> For cheaters: If trying to fasttalk a merchant into a deal, I find that a skill like Subterfuge works just as well. Basically for these situations I just need CHA or Subterfuge, but in M20, skills are basically the same as your level/HD, and fast-talking is something I see as getting better with every level – much faster than an ability increase on average. So I'm happy with Subterfuge, ergo I don't need CHA…</li> </ul>Basically this ties in with the last point about the usefulness of CHA:I like the point about leaders in real life. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I usually think that the ones we think of as charismatic but stupid are really just cunning bastards: Appealing to the masses by making foolish mistakes, but raking in the dough because they make sure their friends profit from the wars they start, from the mergers they support, and so on. At it's core, these people are playing dumb because that's the smart thing to do.So yes, my games don't feature charismatic stupid people.As for a substitute to roleplaying (shy players wanting to play charismatic leaders): I've never seen that in real life. I think that in real life, the player would be dominated by the others at the table anyway, to be honest. But should a situation arise where the player cannot roleplay something that his character would do, players simply tell me their intentions, and I provide the necessary results. That works for me.High INT used to be problem. In the early days, players would complain about riddles in my game, and tell me that realistically, their INT 18 characters should have been able to solve it immediately. That's why my games no longer have such riddles. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, the fireball and any hands spells trying to hit you are taken care of by using AC, I think, since that takes DEX bonus into account. As for a web, once it is created, I'd treat it like an ordinary web. How to free yourself from such a web is not in the rules, but I'd assume some sort of physical+STR vs DC 15 or 20.Definitely something to keep in mind when looking at higher level fighters.Again, sorry if I came across as overly negative.</blockquote>

Verification