Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 5750512" data-attributes="member: 463">The big problem is that you seem to define* &quot;the character&quot; almost solely by reference to the stats, whereas I give far more priority to the rules-free description of the character and to how the character is actually played at the table.&nbsp; I don't have a high regard for stats, they mean very little IMO.&nbsp; Some like Strength have some kind of correlation to reality, but even then there are huge problems with how it works in D&amp;D.&nbsp; There are simulationist systems where the designers endeavour to make the stats meaningful.&nbsp; How Strength functions in 2e Twilight 2000 &amp; Traveller: The New Era comes to mind.&nbsp; D&amp;D doesn't even try to be simulationist.&nbsp; Binding a player to the DM's particular idea of what the stats are supposed to mean seems like poor DMing to me.*It would be good if you would stop proferring your own definitions and then demanding that everyone else accept them as gospel.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 5750512, member: 463"] The big problem is that you seem to define* "the character" almost solely by reference to the stats, whereas I give far more priority to the rules-free description of the character and to how the character is actually played at the table. I don't have a high regard for stats, they mean very little IMO. Some like Strength have some kind of correlation to reality, but even then there are huge problems with how it works in D&D. There are simulationist systems where the designers endeavour to make the stats meaningful. How Strength functions in 2e Twilight 2000 & Traveller: The New Era comes to mind. D&D doesn't even try to be simulationist. Binding a player to the DM's particular idea of what the stats are supposed to mean seems like poor DMing to me. *It would be good if you would stop proferring your own definitions and then demanding that everyone else accept them as gospel. [/QUOTE]

Verification