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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5757474" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, that's where the mistake comes in.  I'm not stepping in.  I'm not actually doing anything.  Other than having my SoD stepped on and trampled, I'm not actually doing anything.  Other than perhaps some mockery from time to time.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Just because the player failed to portray his character in a consistent manner doesn't mean that I step in and berate the player.  Of course not.  I generally bite my tongue and move on.  And, again, so long as the attempt is made to portray the character, I'm happy.  It's only when it's really blatantly obvious that I might mock someone.I would argue that it is at the table's expense since I play with like minded gamers.  So, if you step way outside of your character and it's really obvious that that's what you've done, then yes, you are ruining everyone's fun at the table because everyone at the table values consistent character portrayals.Not really.  The guy who never says anything never actually gets to try anything.  He's a wallflower sitting on the sidelines.  The guy who's portraying his poor intelligence simply makes the skill check and passes or fails depending on his roll.  Why would there be double penalties?Low Cha, no social skills guy is Cliff Clavin.  He's pretty annoying.  If he walked into a room of strangers, it's unlikely he's going to make too many friends.  Not impossible though.  But, likely he's going to antagonize everyone in the room.  If he wants to make friends with someone, that's going to generate a roll.  If he succeeds, the other person likes him despite his annoying tendencies.  If he fails, which is the more likely outcome, the other person reacts accordingly.  Note, on a fail, you don't actually make someone's reactions worse.  Just not better.So, no, there is no double jeopardy here.  Portraying the character in a consistent, plausible manner results in consistent and plausible outcomes.----Gimli - ((I'll freely admit it's been many years since I read LotR, so, I'm going by Peter Jackson)) - Int, Wis, Cha - probably average.  He displays no particular strength or weakness in any of these areas.Samwise - Int average, Wis, maybe a bit better, although not particularly, Cha - average.  He's Frodo's batsman throughout the entire story.  He never really takes any sort of leadership roll, nor does he resolve any problems nor, as I can recall does he notice anything particular that no one else would notice.Note, I'd probably tag Pippin and Merriweather a bit lower on the Wis scale by the beginning of the LotR anyway.  Wis 8 for both would not surprise me at all.  Now, a question back, Gentlegamer, would you peg Gandalf as a Cha 8?  Or Aragorn?</blockquote>

Verification