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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5748590" data-attributes="member: 58416">Which is all well and good if we're strictly speaking of D&D.  There are other rpgs.  Some of them defined things differently; in a more coherent and meaningful way.I feel as though you're trying to argue that (in rpg terms) Forest Gump and Steven Hawking would be equally capable of solving an equation.  ...or at least saying there's no feasible way for a gaming group to come to a consensus concerning what the difference in capability would be between the two in terms of rpg statistics.If that's the case, I disagree.  Like Hussar, I prefer for the character sheet to actually mean something.  That in no way means I feel a player should be chained to the sheet and have no ability to go outside of it.  However, I do feel that giving yourself a weakness so you can place a strength somewhere else and then ignoring the weakness for your own benefit is somewhat unfair.As I've said in the multitude of other threads about similar topics, I have no problem with a player solving something.  I also have no problem with the meathead PC occasionally having insight into a problem.  It happens.  However, I do expect at least some minimal amount of effort to give meaning to the blocks used to create a character.As per my previous post here, I'm aware that the way D&D defines stats does not have as much meaning as other games may.  When playing D&D, I accept that as part of the playstyle.  But, if I'm being asked about my preferences overall, I strongly prefer the pieces of a character to mean something other than just numbers on a page which can be ignored when it benefits the player to do so.</blockquote>

Verification