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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5750037" data-attributes="member: 8835">This is the crux of why I started this thread that all the other "Should a player with high XYZ have an advantage hinted at.There's already precedent from the social skills thread of last month that some GMs like Umbran and myself do not make PCs roll social skill checks against each other (or in effect against a PC). One reason for that is the passive resistance to any forced action upon a player.  If I cause a game effect to force your PC to act a certain way, there is a probability that you will resist it, probably in subtle ways.Therefore it is simpler to avoid some of those scenarios (like rolling a persuasion check against a PC and telling the player he HAS to agree to something an NPC sad).Additionally, there is the argument that the aspect of decision making is FOR the player, not the PC.  Thus, using dice rolls to determine what the PC decides is not ideal design.These points apply to this topic as well.  Protecting player choice as the PC's choice and avoiding disagreement resistance by players over forced actions.The rules do not offer any guidance on the issue.  Sure, the stats are called Bravery and Intelligence.  But the rules do not cover how the PC acts or is required to decide on things.My concern is that if you don't systemize it, you have no business managing it.  Because you aren't setting a level playing field for what is expected.  If you want me to wear 31 pieces of Flair, then make the minimum be 31 pieces of Flair."  Conversely, if you're not going to do so, then you have no business hassling me because I'm only wearing the 14 required pieces of Flair.Bear in mind, I bet you that most of the people agreeing with my stance do in fact role-play their low stats as a weakness of some sort.  I bet you nobody here would actually play a 3 INT PC as the guy with all the right answers (they might play him as a guy who THINKS he has all the right answers).  They would in fact portray him differently than a 10 INT or 18 INT PC.But that doesn't mean we'd support a full expectation that everybody play that way. That in fact, some alternative interpretations of the character may be valid, despite what we intially assume of the low stat we see.  Especially because the rules do not manage or contradict such an interpretation.I'm not even advocating a "every way is OK, there's not such thing as badwrongfun" mentality.  I simply see that if you handed me a set of stats, I could come up with an portrayal of character that is valid, yet violates your expectation of behavior by strict interpretation of the stats.I see that as a situation that the RAW (as akin to Consitutional debates and the Founding Fathers Intent) doesn't cover it, and therefore there's no reason to choose an interpretation that restricts alternatives playstyles.It's not like the topic is Criticial Fumbles which has a pretty clear write-up by Monte (the Founding Father of 3e) on why they are a bad idea and thus are not part of the RAW.In fact, can we get Gary, Dave, Skip, Mentzer or Monte to comment on the topic of how they expected players to roleplay with regards to stats?</blockquote>

Verification