Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8088011" data-attributes="member: 18">I often play "special snowflakes", so this is simply not true, and I think you know perfectly well what that means, faux-naivete is so boring. It was described earlier in this thread without using the term (possibly by you?), being characters who play hard against type, or rely on very unusual mechanical setups.My objection is that there has to be some basic consistency to what mental stats mean, just as there is basic consistency as to what physical stats mean, or you have an unhelpful and rather unfair double-standard.As for showing why it should be portrayed as specific way, D&D is extremely consistent in that animals and beings who are, in colloquial terms "not very bright" have lower INT scores. I can see little deviation from this. I don't see anything that's "thick" but has 18 INT, or anything or anyone who is portrayed as brilliant, but has 8 INT. This isn't some game where the stats are totally abstract - there are RPGs like that, where you might have a "Mind" stat or the like, which might mean a lot of different things. The most abstract stat is probably WIS (which I think was a mistake, design-wise, but too late now).So you combine those two factors I've just mentioned - firstly, that physical stats are fairly consistent and measurable and so on, which means people investing in those are tied to somewhat specific visions of characters, and secondly that D&D itself is largely consistent in how it portrays INT relative to what a "man in the street" would assume was meant by intelligence.You've made no argument as to why a PC whose player has chosen them to have an INT score which would put them among "smart wildlife" and creatures people would be impressed managed to work a peanut dispenser or do very basic counting-based math, and among similarly-minded monsters in D&D, should in fact be some sort of well-spoken and brilliant fellow.Well definitely. Book Holmes is all-round superior in capabilities, and merely misanthropic. But if we look at most modern portrayals of Holmes, whether they're the Benedict Cumberbatch take or Dr House or whatever, there seems to be centering around a more "anti-social" character, who is brilliant, but struggles with dealing with other people.My personal feeling is that this is a bit more plausible for a "real-world"-ish scenario than the original Holmes, but YMMV. Certainly the RDJ Holmes was more in line with book Holmes though, in that he was charming (it's hard for RDJ to be otherwise, of course!).With Magoo I think analysing it in terms of the characteristics of the character is misguided, because ultimately he's in a story, and in D&D terms, the DM would be constantly using fiat and fudging rolls to keep him alive and well, rather than him possessing any exceptional characteristics.</blockquote>

Verification