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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 6856754" data-attributes="member: 23751">What you are ignoring is that he has to solve it as the character itself would solve the puzzle and not as the player would solve it.  That means that a stupid PC might not be able to solve it, even if the player could.Yes it is.  There is a paragraph about stepping into the person of the PC and playing the game as if you were that PC.  The PC's knowledge is very obviously a part of that.  The later paragraph about solving it as the PC and not the player is also very obviously telling you which knowledge to use.No.  No it doesn't contrast that.  The ability to create new things has nothing to do with how one plays the character.  To the character, every monster not encountered before is new.  Role assumption is stepping into the PC and playing that PC as if it was a real person with all the flaws and strengths of that PC.  Acting is going off of a pre-set script where everything was pre-established.  Nothing about that difference is contrasted by you making a Borc instead of an Orc and changing the way it looks.Stupid acting stupid is conducting the character's actions accordingly for the person the player of a 5 int PC is imagining.Right, and choosing the right stats for the character is a large part of being able to make those choices properly.  The paragraphs you are choosing don't override the others that limit character choice based on stats.The existence of other goals or purposes does not invalidate or negate the game persona portion.  They have to take that portion into consideration, at least as far as this article is concerned.And here he is saying, "But all this is just my opinion.  Your opinion counts more."  You are not understanding him properly.  Assuming a persona is not acting.  Let me give you an example.  When you watch Sheldon on Big Bang Theory, the actor is acting only.  He is scripted with virtually everything he does, though some small amount of improv probably happens.  Once I saw the actors on a show being interviewed.  They were asked a question and then asked to answer it as their characters.  What they did there was not acting.  It was assuming the persona of their character.  They had no script, yet the result was virtually indistinguishable from acting.  They remained true to their characters, even though it was entirely improv and only persona based.  The latter is what Gygax says should be done, and the former avoided.Look at every PC and NPC wizard he ever made or ran for.  They have very high int scores.  He is assuming that the wizards he mentions in the article aren't imbeciles, but rather highly intelligent PCs who are capable of making those choices when the player assumes that persona.No.  From his prior paragraphs, his style is clearly different.  He states the table can change things from what he recommends in his prior paragraphs, but that statement doesn't become his style.Yes.  Do it your way is a key point, but that doesn't change his prior paragraphs to mean something else.  He feels that you should step into the character and play that persona, making choices as the PC only, which limits the player in his ability to make key decisions if the PC is stupid.Yep.  That 5 int shapes the goals and methods by limiting the player to playing stupid in most situations.Wrong.  It's the exact opposite of that.  By putting yourself into the shoes of the PC and asking yourself, "What would an imbecile do here," you are stepping out of the view of a player and into the view of the PC.The DM should never have to play or control the PC unless some sort of magic is at play that is causing it.  If it's important for the 5 int to contribute, it's the player's job to roleplay it.As has been pointed out, you can build around that and close up that little flaw........which I view as a flaw with the game itself.</blockquote>

Verification