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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8156271" data-attributes="member: 6802951">The two are not mutually exclusive.But you can either police character actions that you feel do not match the character's abilities (by restricting what a character can say, making them roll, or, as you say, dropping them from the game for repeat offences) or you don't. If you don't, you have to accept that if the player says the character comes up with correct knowledge or an intricate and cunning plan without needing to roll anything, than that is what the character comes up with. Outside of rewriting enough of the adventure that the knowledge is no longer correct your options are limited.Why would they have to sit out? A common facet of a low charisma is not knowing when to stay quiet.I mean the skilled play approach would be to stay quiet in a situation where you might have to roll on your 3 Charisma, until you can come up with an argument that the NPC played by the DM cannot refute.I think the distinction lies in the bolded text. Approaching the situation as if you were your low-Wis, low-Int character doing so (the role-playing approach), is a different attitude to approaching it as a player to find the optimal solution to the situation (the skilled play approach).Indeed, but as you can see from some of the other responses, you are very much not at the extreme end of the skilled play aficionados. The "game the DM, not the system" attitude has been actively promoted.In my groups, and quite possibly yours as well, that attitude may well fall afoul of the social contract. In others it seems to be accepted. As with extreme character min/maxing, both are valid playstyles; the only issue is when people with different attitudes/preferences end up in the same group.</blockquote>

Verification