(All quotes are from Wolfen.)
"Granted, WOTC drove the game toward profits. Logically, one would assume that the game is designed to appeal to more people. And all is well with the world. The system is what it is, and why throw stones at people who choose to conform to a low-imagination ruleset?"
Ah, now for a minute you actually had me going there. I thought you were going to make what I call a "worthwhile point," but you've already jumped into bashing how other people play their games. Me true roleplayer, you bad roleplayer. My roleplaying shlong is twice as long as yours. Sorry, but I've been through that debate many, many times, and with people more articulate than yourself. Over on Monte's boards, a regular recently coined the term "Role-ier than thou" to refer to threads like this.
"As for me pushing my opinion and not defining my terms properly -- surely you jest. Practically every thread in every forum on the net involves opinion and subjective use of semantics. This is life on the Internet, Enworld included."
Actually, that is the lowest common denominator on the Internet. However, if you are content not to rise above the lowest common denominator in making your point, then I will read your opinion with all the care and diligence it deserves.
"Let me boil my point down to just one idea: Why call it "Intelligence" at all. If your character has average or below average stat, why would you PLAY them expertly in that stat? Just give'em a friggin' 18 in every stat if that's how you're going to play them. (unless you ain't got the brains, yourself. In that case, just have a smart friend guess what number suits your playing capacity.)"
Uh, actually, I do play stats the way you describe. I've played a character named John Grond with a 6 Intelligence, an 8 Wisdom and a 6 charisma, and I played him that way: not very bright, not very wise, forgetful, tempermental, loyal to his friends but constantly getting himself in bad situations.
See, this is why I have no respect for the supposedly "pure roleplaying" crowd. I don't go onto White Wolf boards and tell them their method of gaming SUCKS. I don't feel the constant need to assert that MY WAY is better. Why do you, Wolfen? Instead of coming on here and bashing a bunch of people you don't even know, why not share stories? Or show us what you do to improve roleplaying in your campaigns? Are you just bitter? Or not very bright? Or maybe you don't have as much to say as you think you do? (Hey, don't get mad. You started with the comments about intelligence.)
"The White Wolf comparison is inadequate justification for ignoring the rules and consequences that DO exist in the 3E ruleset."
Who is ignoring them? I just said that you can't blame a tactical roleplaying system for not being a pure storytelling system. Pages and pages of crunchy numbers changes a game. People can't min-max unless there is something for them to min-max. And in case you hadn't noticed, there is a @#$@# of a lot of material to min-max in D&D 3.0. At this point, there aren't a whole lot of combinations I think I haven't seen before, but every once in a while someone surprises me.
"From what I read, the DM (and therefore the characters) doesn't even ever look at how Charisma might shape the game. Fighters with Cha 10 that insist on talking to NPC's enjoy the same success and results as a Paladin with 16 Cha. Why? Because their interactions amount to 'Which way do we go to fight stuff, now?'"
No, but in a game mechanics sense, the difference between a 10 charisma and a 16 charisma doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It is the difference between a +0 modifier (completely neutral) and a +3 modifier (mildly positive). The 16 charisma paladin can still roll a natural 1, and the 10 charisma fighter can still roll a natural 20 in the same situation and produce entirely different results. The paladin can say or do the wrong thing, and act without understanding. What's his wisdom, anyway? Or his Knowledge - Nobility and Royalty?
Just saying that characters with a 16 charisma should get a free ride through life is kind of shallow roleplaying and DMing, in my opinion.
Now, there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between a 12th level rogue who has a 10 charisma and maxed out ranks in diplomacy and bluff interacting as a diplomat, with the appropriate knowledge of customs and local knowledge, and perhaps even languages and dialects, and a 3rd level 18 charisma paladin who strides in, wearing armor and smelling like he's been sleeping in a stable - expecting everyone to listen to his dire (and rather foolish sounding) warnings of dragons coming from the north.
You make it sound simple. It's not.
"It makes no sense unless you just admit that the Charisma stat is simply not related in any way to the actual, real world concept of Charisma. Or that it has no place in your gameworld."
And what, pray tell, is the "actual, real world concept of charisma?" No, really, I want to hear this.
"If all you do is roll dice and hack stuff up, fine. But don't feign indignation simply because someone points out that the stats you hold so dear are meant to reflect actual traits with actual consequences. Just remove the stats you don't use, or max them by default, and be done with it. Pretending that a combat-obsessed character is simply a natural product of following the rules is a ruse."
Indignation? Not really. You haven't said anything clever enough or penetratingly insightful enough to merit my indignation. If you're trying to bait anyone, then your style is distinctly sub-par. Mild humor, yes. Slightly sarcastic, yes. Can't-escape-the-feeling-that-I've-had-this-argument-100-times-before, yes. Bored now, yes.
