Should strong players have an advantage?

[Janx]

Charisma 10? Normal people do not succeed at social situations. No soup for you!

And this assumption Hussar indicated is another reason to be wary to applying your interpretation of a stat to a player's portrayal.

For one thing, the whole assumption that an average stat must suck.

If you start with a low expectation of what average means, that only reinforces the attitude that the player must be doing it wrong when they attempt things.

If you assume an average score is more capable, than most anything a player attempts is in bounds. Furthermore, PCs with lower scores are less out of bounds for having good ideas, etc on occasion.

Consider the average man:
Is strong enough that he can lift his own weight

Is Dextrous enough to hit their target with rocks or arrows

Has enough stamina to perform manual labor all day (like splitting wood, chopping down trees, farming, yard work)

Is intelligent enough to design and build his own living structure (tent, cabin, lean-to)

Is wise enough to look before leaping and measuring twice before cutting

Is charming enough to get friends and barter and trade successfully with others

 

[Argyle King]

I've seen a lot of posts which support mental stats of the player, but say a strong player would not have an advantage because strength cannot be used while playing. So, as such, I would like to switch to a different physical stat for a moment. Should a player with high dexterity have an advantage?

I'm sure that question sounds absurd, but consider it for a moment. Dexterity is something I could use as a player to gain an advantage. I've watched shows and seen videos in which Vegas casinos and the people who have cheated them demonstrated dice rolling methods. Some of those methods rely upon having good manual dexterity and being able to manipulate the dice roll with your hand.

So, should a player with high dexterity have an advantage? Like Int, Dex is a player ability which could be used to help generate desired results for a character.

 

[Dausuul]

So, should a player with high dexterity have an advantage? Like Int, Dex is a player ability which could be used to help generate desired results for a character.

Well, you can use Str to generate desired results too, by threatening to beat the DM with a tire iron. And you could use Con by spiking the Mountain Dew with opium and persuading the DM to give you goodies while in a blissed-out haze.

The fundamental activity of the game is deciding what your character does and says. For many people, that is also the fun of the game, and central to maintaining immersion. Manipulating the dice doesn't fall into the same category.

A better comparison, as others have pointed out, is LARPing, where you act out what your character is doing. There, player endurance and strength and agility would have an impact. (I think. Not a LARPer, myself, so I don't know exactly what's involved.)

 

[Hussar]

and how do you apply it consistently and methodically such that every GM can do the same and thus hold to the same standard?

How do you reconcile that my Barbarian with 10 CHA is still too charismatic for your tastes despite me playing it less charismatically than my other characters.

My tastes don't really play into it. You the player should be portraying your character to make me BELIEVE that you have a 10 Cha. Whether it's actually 8 or 12, I don't really care. But, so long as you're making an honest effort to portray things, I'm happy.

And this assumption Hussar indicated is another reason to be wary to applying your interpretation of a stat to a player's portrayal.

For one thing, the whole assumption that an average stat must suck.

If you start with a low expectation of what average means, that only reinforces the attitude that the player must be doing it wrong when they attempt things.

If you assume an average score is more capable, than most anything a player attempts is in bounds. Furthermore, PCs with lower scores are less out of bounds for having good ideas, etc on occasion.

Consider the average man:
Is strong enough that he can lift his own weight

Over his head? Are you kidding? Let's see you military press your bodyweight over your head. Good luck. The average man has enough problems with ten chin-ups.

Is Dextrous enough to hit their target with rocks or arrows

Again, good luck with that. Heck, even professional baseball pitchers miss a strike zone fairly often.

Has enough stamina to perform manual labor all day (like splitting wood, chopping down trees, farming, yard work)

Let's see you do manual labour for 8 hours with three one hour breaks. And let's see you do it again tomorrow.

Is intelligent enough to design and build his own living structure (tent, cabin, lean-to)

The average person in your world can build a cabin? Are you kidding me?

Is wise enough to look before leaping and measuring twice before cutting

Weren't you just lecturing me on politicians or was that someone else. Or perhaps a third person that I can't remember.

Is charming enough to get friends and barter and trade successfully with others

LOL. Yes, the average person can meet a person who is not hostile and make friends. Try doing it in a situation where you have ANY disadvantages, like, say, language or cultural issues. Let's see the average North American plop down in the middle of Afghanistan and make friends. Good luck with that.

But, looking at this, I do understand why you think the way you do. Your conception of average is WAY beyond what is reasonable.

 

[Hassassin]

Let's see you do manual labour for 8 hours with three one hour breaks. And let's see you do it again tomorrow.

Let's keep things in context. The "average ability score" is based on the game world. In a "typical" medieval-based fantasy world 90% live outside cities and (along with most city dwellers) are manual laborers with probably longer than 8h workdays. They also have Str and Con 10-11 so that must be enough.

Are the average scores applicable to the real world? No, I don't think so. For one, the average first world individual has Str below 10, probably Con as well.

 

[Hussar]

Let's keep things in context. The "average ability score" is based on the game world. In a "typical" medieval-based fantasy world 90% live outside cities and (along with most city dwellers) are manual laborers with probably longer than 8h workdays. They also have Str and Con 10-11 so that must be enough.

Are the average scores applicable to the real world? No, I don't think so. For one, the average first world individual has Str below 10, probably Con as well.

Ah, but see, you and others keep telling me that the actual scores shouldn't count. That the player should be able to play whatever they want without any mechanical references.

Yet, even you have a problem thinking that an average individual has a 10 Str or Con.

Now you see where I'm coming from. I don't buy that that character with a 10 Cha and no actual social skills has any real chance of success in difficult social encounters. Can he get lucky in a bar with the local heavy drinking lass? Well, that's not exactly a difficult encounter. She's probably already friendly and shifting her up to helpful isn't out of reach.

Now, trying to pick up that girl who's way out of his league, while she's sober and surrounded by her social peers? Generally not going to happen unless there's more going on in the background (angry at the cheating boyfriend perhaps).

Can an average person, in an average social encounter, influence someone favourably? Quite likely. The mechanics support that. But, in an unfavorable social encounter, under stress, when failure carries potentially very serious consequences is a whole 'nother ballgame.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

In real world charisma alone doesn't really break all social barriers. You need to have skills too, and knowledge. And sometimes also right contacts, money, gender or even looks/age.

Where real call of success comes from those elements you might even be better off by having only avarage charisma. People don't like charismatic person who is much under their social status/radar. In your own country you might get over that by enough stories and outright lies. Which is bluff/diplomacy skill ranks I think, and some knowledges to boot.

There is reason why foreign actors learn to do locally preferable accents.

Even D&D is skill-based game, not just stat-based. I think you are putting too much value on stats 18 at D&D3.x is only +4 to skill, which is huge but not really that much, especially if you have skill unranked.

In fantasy context people might get annoyed by charismatic slave/peon/wondering adventurer (troublemaker). Depending how exactly it plays out it might be your spouse's bit too warm looks for this one. Or too hard to ignore voiced opinions you don't share. Socially charismatic people draw blood. But some of them lack other social sensibility. They don't or won't turn it down when it would serve them better.

Charismatic people can also be stupid and they can (often) have equally stupid followers. Or replace "stupid" with likeminded. Some charismatic people just have very radical opinions.

If you use your social advantage all the time you will end up using it in wrong place. In game terms you might not even roll low, it's just all these situational modifiers.

Human is social creature, I don't think we were so less complicated back in a day.

 

[Dausuul]

Hussar, you and Hassassin are giving an excellent demonstration of the pitfalls of expecting people to roleplay their stats. You can't agree on what a 10 Charisma signifies. So here am I with my Charisma 10 character, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to try and portray.

Similar problems exist with the other mental stats. What Intelligence do I need to have in order to not have to "dumb down" my character relative to myself? Most people seem to figure 10 or 12 is sufficient, but just about everyone I've ever played D&D with has been easily in the top quartile for intelligence, which would be Int 13+ on 3d6. Most are probably in the top decile, which translates to Int 15+.

So if you're playing your Int 12 character as smart as you, you're playing "too smart." Furthermore, you have to assess not only your character's Int score, but your own Int score, to determine whether this is something you need to worry about.

And Wisdom... don't even get me started on Wisdom.

 

[LurkAway]

Hussar, you and Hassassin are giving an excellent demonstration of the pitfalls of expecting people to roleplay their stats. You can't agree on what a 10 Charisma signifies. So here am I with my Charisma 10 character, and I have no idea what I'm supposed to try and portray.

Good point.

I feel that Hussar is saying "Here is the stop sign. I don't expect everyone to come to a complete stop all the time, but at least come to a rolling stop as often as possible. And don't drive straight thru the stop sign."

But what if nobody can agree on where the stop sign actually is at any one time. Did I stop too early? Too late? Does it even make sense to have a stop sign at this particular intersection? When/where do I obey the stop sign if I can't find at least 2 corroborating witnesses to where it actually is?

Disclaimer: I am NOT condoning violating local traffic laws in real-life. Drive safely. Roleplay hard.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Yep Dausuul. As I pointed out somewhere earlier threads where people stat themselves is lol-worthy. I am hoping some are joking. We aren't living in same universe of stats if some think 10 is avarage and another thinks 10 is new 15 or otherway around.


I think someone should seriosly link few of those threads.
Also tendercy to always get stats for book/movie characters wrong even if they are D&D related. Only stat that has more RL explanation going on seems to be Str with it's maximum lifts etc. and even that is little clunky.

Books don't explain stat/skill power-level all that well. Not from the game-simulation to real world or world of pretty similar imagination even.


White wolf oldie games gave you better idea as what different ranks mean, though some of them were jokes.

I am perfectly happy combining some dice rolling to not always so good roleplaying. In this one game I am playing dm/other players don't really care, you can play your character as yourself and demand checks when you think your character knows better. Still he does assume you as player solve his old school riddles/traps and you don't even get to roll for character in these special events.

I think it would be better game if you could just roll stuff for character and if that faills continue failing as you. Because it might sometimes cut down the boring part. It is double boring because I am only one of his players that even gives it a try.

I like riddely stuff but I don't like it stop game for hours. Sometimes some "simple thing" is not just "my silmple thing". He never gets my riddles.

People don't just have different stats be also use our imagination different ways. And find different clues relevant and just have different life experiences.

I think this is why rpg:s use dice and not only single type of dice but many different ones.

I've played enough arguing the Amber that I think diceless games are fine, if you are at same page about things. Which is often "not".

Understanding other people is rare form of art. It usually doesn't happen in internet, it is hard to come by even in the closest of family or circle of friends.

I've been told I don't play myself right.