|
|
Post by Desparil on Dec 11, 2019 20:50:33 GMT -6
It’s probably useful for everyone to know up front if players will be expected to act out Character Attributes or not. Also whether a low roll equates to some kind of weakness in the game. In Od&d a low strength only gives fighters a deduction on XP. So I don’t treat the so called “Strength” number as anything other than that. Same goes for Int and Wis. The problem I have is when players assume they must act dumber than they actually are. They certainly can’t act smarter or wiser than they actually are, so why require the opposites? Hm, but people frequently do want to play a character who is smarter or wiser than themselves, and use various mechanisms such as rolling ability checks or receiving hints from the DM to model that. Also, Greyhawk is still OD&D, so while you might only use the XP adjustments it would be a mistake to simply ignore the existence of other modifiers associated with high and low ability scores. A player who assumes that Intelligence or Wisdom scores would have an in-game effect is probably also assuming that Strength affects the chance to force open doors; this sounds more like a mismatch in expectations that should have been addressed before the adventure began. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Dec 12, 2019 9:34:52 GMT -6
It’s probably useful for everyone to know up front if players will be expected to act out Character Attributes or not. Also whether a low roll equates to some kind of weakness in the game. In Od&d a low strength only gives fighters a deduction on XP. So I don’t treat the so called “Strength” number as anything other than that. Same goes for Int and Wis. The problem I have is when players assume they must act dumber than they actually are. They certainly can’t act smarter or wiser than they actually are, so why require the opposites? Hm, but people frequently do want to play a character who is smarter or wiser than themselves, and use various mechanisms such as rolling ability checks or receiving hints from the DM to model that. Also, Greyhawk is still OD&D, so while you might only use the XP adjustments it would be a mistake to simply ignore the existence of other modifiers associated with high and low ability scores. A player who assumes that Intelligence or Wisdom scores would have an in-game effect is probably also assuming that Strength affects the chance to force open doors; this sounds more like a mismatch in expectations that should have been addressed before the adventure began. It isn’t a mistake. It’s a purposeful decision to reject the ability modifiers in the greyhawk supplement. However, even If I did use the supplement as written, it says nothing about a player acting out his character as a generally stupid or foolish person. Or getting special treatment in the form of hints from the DM. It only defines specific things a pc can or cannot do. Thereby avoiding confusion, and possible conflict, about how to play. Ie, “hurray, my elf can go to a higher level” vs “dammit I should get more hints from the DM because I assigned a higher number to my intelligence attribute.” |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Dec 12, 2019 22:53:31 GMT -6
Hm, but people frequently do want to play a character who is smarter or wiser than themselves, and use various mechanisms such as rolling ability checks or receiving hints from the DM to model that. Also, Greyhawk is still OD&D, so while you might only use the XP adjustments it would be a mistake to simply ignore the existence of other modifiers associated with high and low ability scores. A player who assumes that Intelligence or Wisdom scores would have an in-game effect is probably also assuming that Strength affects the chance to force open doors; this sounds more like a mismatch in expectations that should have been addressed before the adventure began. It isn’t a mistake. It’s a purposeful decision to reject the ability modifiers in the greyhawk supplement. However, even If I did use the supplement as written, it says nothing about a player acting out his character as a generally stupid or foolish person. Or getting special treatment in the form of hints from the DM. It only defines specific things a pc can or cannot do. Thereby avoiding confusion, and possible conflict, about how to play. Ie, “hurray, my elf can go to a higher level” vs “dammit I should get more hints from the DM because I assigned a higher number to my intelligence attribute.” I didn't say it was a mistake to not use them; I said it would be a mistake to assume that everyone is on the same page without discussing it beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Dec 13, 2019 1:06:18 GMT -6
Yep, it’s a mistake to assume everyone is on the same page without discussing it beforehand. These things, rpgs, take patience and time.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 16, 2019 9:14:05 GMT -6
I think there is an argument to be made for tossing the Wisdom score, at least. Besides the XP boost, I don't recall it serving any function in the rules. As for intelligence, consider it a genetic trait. And, yes, the referee should penalize and countermand the decisions of players who start the game with low (3-6) intelligence scores. I believe this was the original intent. If you're using Greyhawk, low Intelligence may also nudge aspiring magic users to consider the priesthood, where there are no restrictions for low scores. Or, give intelligence scores only to NPC's, and let the players think for themselves. A simple d6 roll should take care of extra languages. Done and done  . |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Dec 16, 2019 11:48:10 GMT -6
I think there is an argument to be made for tossing the Wisdom score, at least. Besides the XP boost, I don't recall it serving any function in the rules. As for intelligence, consider it a genetic trait. And, yes, the referee should penalize and countermand the decisions of players who start the game with low (3-6) intelligence scores. I believe this was the original intent. If you're using Greyhawk, low Intelligence may also nudge aspiring magic users to consider the priesthood, where there are no restrictions for low scores. Or, give intelligence scores only to NPC's, and let the players think for themselves. A simple d6 roll should take care of extra languages. Done and done . While a DM May penalize a low intelligence roll and countermand decisions of a player, I would be loathe to do so. There really isn’t a useful mechanic and thus subject to pissing off a player. That’s why I just treat all low scores the same...no penalty. I.e. your character is as smart as you are buddy, let’s see how ya roll! |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Dec 16, 2019 11:57:59 GMT -6
I think there's a case to be made for using mental ability scores for NPCs only. There might even be a precedent in early wargames and the origins of character sheets in general, where I believe ability scores and types were drawn up largely to indicate how an NPC general should be played.
For players: Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are as they all does.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Dec 16, 2019 12:39:17 GMT -6
I think there is an argument to be made for tossing the Wisdom score, at least. Besides the XP boost, I don't recall it serving any function in the rules. As for intelligence, consider it a genetic trait. And, yes, the referee should penalize and countermand the decisions of players who start the game with low (3-6) intelligence scores. I'm completely against tossing Wisdom, for a number of reasons: (1) Intelligence and Wisdom represent two kinds of mental ability. Having two scores means a successful plan can be characterized two different ways: "I remember something from my training/study" vs. "I act on a hunch/common sense". This helps create characters who feel different, even if they otherwise act the same. (2) Having two scores also means two opportunities to have a high enough score, which is better objectively. If the GM actually sets a minimum score of 13+ to notice something dangerous in time, which would you prefer: one 3d6 roll to set that score, or two rolls for two different scores and you use the best score most of the time? (3) Ditching scores because they provide no distinct mechanical benefit works against the spirit of old school play, which is to ignore mechanical benefits and focus on playing a character in a fantasy world. And should the referee penalize and countermand the decisions of players who start with low scores? Penalize, maybe, but countermand, almost never. Players are the ones who make decisions for their characters. The referee doesn't say what the character does, but what the character is able to do. "You can't build a nuclear reactor, because you don't know how and don't have the needed materials" is fine. "You don't say `Hello' because you aren't smart enough to realize you should" is not fine. There is never a good reason to countermand a player's roleplaying. |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 16, 2019 14:57:44 GMT -6
You know what?! I may have been reading this passage wrong:
"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain
action would be taken... "
- Men & Magic pg.10
I figured "certain action" was a typo, meant to read actions(plural). If it really is "certain action", that can be defined as actions whose outcomes are not dependant on a die roll. So, the character's Intelligence score only factors in to the referee's decision in the event that a die must be thrown(introducing uncertainty) to determine the outcome of a partcular action. The alternative being that success is guaranteed; a no-brainer, so to speak.
Otherwise, the passage would have meant that the referee did, indeed, take a hand in the decision making of the player characters.
This way IS more in keeping with the spirit of "anything may be attempted".
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 16, 2019 15:24:13 GMT -6
I think there's a case to be made for using mental ability scores for NPCs only. There might even be a precedent in early wargames and the origins of character sheets in general, where I believe ability scores and types were drawn up largely to indicate how an NPC general should be played. For players: Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are as they all does. I thought the same thing, that the player character ability scores started out as non-player character scores for figures in the command chain or heads of state. I talked to Dan Boggs about it. He wouldn't confirm it, but he did remind me of a much more practical use for intelligence(as far as adventuring goes). That is as a static ability check to use alien technology, like, say, you find a tricorder laying around in the dungeon. It may require a 16 intelligence just to switch the d**n thing on. And, if nobody in the party has a 16 intelligence?... Oh well. Now, it's a paperweight |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 16, 2019 16:24:50 GMT -6
(1) Intelligence and Wisdom represent two kinds of mental ability. Having two scores means a successful plan can be characterized two different ways: "I remember something from my training/study" vs. "I act on a hunch/common sense". This helps create characters who feel different, even if they otherwise act the same. (2) Having two scores also means two opportunities to have a high enough score, which is better objectively. If the GM actually sets a minimum score of 13+ to notice something dangerous in time, which would you prefer: one 3d6 roll to set that score, or two rolls for two different scores and you use the best score most of the time? (3) Ditching scores because they provide no distinct mechanical benefit works against the spirit of old school play, which is to ignore mechanical benefits and focus on playing a character in a fantasy world. Your first point looks to be about using the mental-type ability scores to rationalize the players' roleplaying decisions about their characters; to add "flavor", as it were. If this is the case, I wouldn't look to Wisdom to accomplish it. Just verbalize it during play. Say, "Autark, the Wizened, has a hunch that the orc warband will move to block the party's escape, if they don't hurry." Say things like this enough times, and the die will be cast. This character is wise. You might even find that the referee gets into the spirit and starts subconsciously deferring to Autark! I would not like my random Wisdom roll, which I made way back at character creation, to have anything to do with my roleplaying. Maybe, if I used an ability score point pool to generate scores, I could will my prefered character into existance. Number two, following on my last comment, I have to ask: What do you, as a DM, do if you've set a challenge too high(in terms of the ability check required to figure out it's solution) for the characters that the players rolled up? I presume you mean perception checks when you speak of "noticing something dangerous in time". [Edit: not perception checks, but saving throws] Would you also allow the players to notice hazards if they say to you that they're searching, just not for anything specific? I get the gist of your third point, but I have also played what I consider to be old school games of d&d where ability scores were never rolled. Wisdom and intelligence don't enjoy universal application. Obviously, a character is experienced in some areas and not in the rest. Character classes and their attendant experience levels are a better reflection of PC wisdom in my opinion. You just got me thinking that it might be fun to take the magic sword creation tables from M&T, and sub those in to pc character creation. I'd love to have a go at roleplaying a magic sword turned humanoid with all the rolled mental powers intact. |
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on Dec 16, 2019 18:56:12 GMT -6
As a dm, I have no patience keeping track of player intelligence and wisdom points. And thus, no interest in policing their actions and thoughts. They get extra languages and/or additional xp for a high prime requisite. I assume all first level characters, even those with high scores, are equally competent at getting themselves killed. So what if their intelligence is 4? It just means they ought not pick Magic user as a class. Otherwise it’s gonna take longer to level up. Many will die in my campaign, many will drop out. But we’re gonna have fun adventuring. And maybe, just maybe, a fortunate few will survive to retire in comfort and surrounded by fabulous spoils.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Dec 17, 2019 0:43:33 GMT -6
You know what?! I may have been reading this passage wrong: "Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken... " - Men & Magic pg.10 One may also decide it means a bonus for surprises, maybe. "Certain action" in contrast to "being overwhelmed or confused". A quick thinker might be less surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Dec 17, 2019 9:08:22 GMT -6
That's an interesting interpretation. I don't think it really fits with Gygax's typical idiom of language, but it's still a good way to read it.
I've always read it as a typo, but implying quantitative rather than qualitative actions. 'You try to build a waterwheel, but it turns out your character can't even figure out the basics of how to get it to work,' is a different referee decision than, 'Your character is too stupid to realize that he should stop pulling the lever.'
|
|
.
