Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7599854" data-attributes="member: 22779">Oh, hey, I'm in the same boat as you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION].&nbsp; We're both very much on the &quot;yes, and&quot; end of the spectrum.&nbsp; Heh.&nbsp; I remember characters that had the same two weeks of iron rations on the character sheet from level 1 onward.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; Your description of chalk just made me smile.But, be that as it may, folks that are insistent that players do not have any authorial control would likely say that it's established that you have chalk, so, you have chalk.&nbsp; Did you replace that chalk as time went on?&nbsp; Maybe, probably, but, in any case, your character sheet says you have chalk, so you have chalk.&nbsp; Does your character sheet say anything about &quot;Frances&quot;?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Then, well, it's not up to you, the player to introduce any sort of prior relationship with &quot;Frances&quot; during play.&nbsp; That's stepping on the DM's toes.And, well, as far as debating what stats mean, well, I tend to go on the other end as well.&nbsp; If you have no training in a skill and an 8 stat in that skill, you are failing what the game defines as Easy (DC 10) more than half the time.&nbsp; Which, to me, says that you aren't very good at whatever that task is.&nbsp; Even very easy tasks are failed significantly more often than someone with even a 10 stat and basic training in that skill (level 1=+2 proficiency bonus).&nbsp; As in that PC fails twice as often at the easiest of tasks as someone who has no particular innate talent and basic knowledge of that task.So, yeah, to me, and this is how I look at it, not necessarily how the game defines it, if your character has zero training in something and a below 10 stat in it, then well, your character sucks at that pretty hard.&nbsp; Which, to me anyway, means that that should be reflected in how the player presents that character.&nbsp; An 8 Int character with no training in history basically knows extremely little history.&nbsp; And what he or she does know is more often than not, wrong.&nbsp; If that character is coming up with intricate plans, well, to me, that's a badly played character.&nbsp; You want to be the strategist in the party?&nbsp; Cool.&nbsp; Spend at least some basic character building resources to reflect that.&nbsp; You want to be Sherlock Holmes and notice fine details that no one else catches?&nbsp; Fantastic.&nbsp; Don't play an 8 Int character with no training in Investigate and then expect me, the DM to let you bypass that.No amount of goal:method is going to change that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7599854, member: 22779"] Oh, hey, I'm in the same boat as you [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. We're both very much on the "yes, and" end of the spectrum. Heh. I remember characters that had the same two weeks of iron rations on the character sheet from level 1 onward. :D Your description of chalk just made me smile. But, be that as it may, folks that are insistent that players do not have any authorial control would likely say that it's established that you have chalk, so, you have chalk. Did you replace that chalk as time went on? Maybe, probably, but, in any case, your character sheet says you have chalk, so you have chalk. Does your character sheet say anything about "Frances"? No? Then, well, it's not up to you, the player to introduce any sort of prior relationship with "Frances" during play. That's stepping on the DM's toes. And, well, as far as debating what stats mean, well, I tend to go on the other end as well. If you have no training in a skill and an 8 stat in that skill, you are failing what the game defines as Easy (DC 10) more than half the time. Which, to me, says that you aren't very good at whatever that task is. Even very easy tasks are failed significantly more often than someone with even a 10 stat and basic training in that skill (level 1=+2 proficiency bonus). As in that PC fails twice as often at the easiest of tasks as someone who has no particular innate talent and basic knowledge of that task. So, yeah, to me, and this is how I look at it, not necessarily how the game defines it, if your character has zero training in something and a below 10 stat in it, then well, your character sucks at that pretty hard. Which, to me anyway, means that that should be reflected in how the player presents that character. An 8 Int character with no training in history basically knows extremely little history. And what he or she does know is more often than not, wrong. If that character is coming up with intricate plans, well, to me, that's a badly played character. You want to be the strategist in the party? Cool. Spend at least some basic character building resources to reflect that. You want to be Sherlock Holmes and notice fine details that no one else catches? Fantastic. Don't play an 8 Int character with no training in Investigate and then expect me, the DM to let you bypass that. No amount of goal:method is going to change that. [/QUOTE]

Verification