NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 6844671" data-attributes="member: 3887">I don't share your concerns about player abuse/dump-statting/mix-maxing, etc., no. But that's probably because I've been pretty lucky, player-wise. Our group's general approach is: it's everyone's job to keep the campaign running smoothly. So I don't need to ban/limit/house-rule/meddle much at all, really. If a mechanics-related problem comes up, I know they'll help me solve it, rather than fight me tooth & nail. We used to call it "gaming in a high-trust" environment.  For instance, I managed to run a 3.0/3.5 campaign for several years for a table where every player had a higher degree of rules mastery than I did. Two of them, by a wide margin. This only worked because they all took responsibility for making it work. So no, I've been fortunate enough to have the players looking to abuse my (frequently generous and/or sort-of inept) adjudication of the rules.Also, when I mentioned "expecting a PCs 5 INT to affect their characterization", I wasn't referring to mechanics. Could have been clearer about. I like to let the mechanics take care of themselves. I meant characterization in the fictional sense; "how does one portray a stupid person who, nevertheless, co-stars in a fantasy adventure story/game"? It's a tricky thing to reify (yes, spell-checker, that *is* a real word!). I accept that any portrayal of a really low INT PC is going to be an exercise in rationalization. The player is still going to problem-solve, because that's the nature of the game. Hopefully the player finds a way of doing this that's clever & not annoying --i.e. not just a collection of Rain Man-esque ticks or a 1-word vocabulary like Hodor.</blockquote>

Verification