Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#42 finalascent Sep 29, 2009 17:56:13	What this thread proposes weakens INT to absurdity, and we hear that having game balance between stats is not important Ridiculous hyperbole isn't going to change the situation. Here's some hyperbole for you: Doubling up stats is the worst possible decision ever in the history of the gaming industry, maybe even the world! And we hear that balancing how much stats are used is going to change the situation. Yeah, not high on the logic side of things, but it sure does sound really good. By the way, hyperbole is why mindless mobs are formed. The key word in that last statement is "mindless". So let's stick to the facts, please. Combat chars only need high Str Dex & Con stats & can put 8s in the rest while Smarts/Deds/Charms need high INT or Wis or Cha, but dare not put low numbers anywhere else... all they need is high numbers everywhere That's going to happen because the players have no confidence in their GM to put the characters relying on those stats to good use. But again, this may also be due to the concept of relying on single attributes around which to develop a class. Kind of like Wisdom. Not an all-together great investment in a low-to-no F/X setting... I guess you all are starting to see that it's not the fault of the stat, but the nature of action-based roleplaying. careful, the OP hasnt talked about Feats and might rant over you being offtopic and Obscuring/Herring I was only going to caution not to spend too much time developing that. I personally am not going to address it. I'm not "afraid" of math. Never even implied it. I never said math doesn't belong in a roleplaying game. I got one word for you: Universe. That's an example of the extreme end of using math in roleplaying. ok, I'm gonna need more than one word, cause the term Universe is popular in RPGs. As for math in RPGs, play a  few nights of Leading Edge Games: Red Book Universe is the most math-ridden RPG ever created. It's meant to mimic every movement of every limb and follow the butterfly effect of actions. It's way too much. I have no interest in any game more math ridden than 3x. Never heard of them. You see, I think the amount of math is directly proportional to the game's popularity. Too much math bombs like a lead balloon. The amount of math needs to be balanced just like any other aspect of game design.
#82 keldor_dantrell Oct 04, 2009 5:47:26	Hey everyone. I'm going to create a game where Charisma is the godstat, Wisdom is amazing, Constitution is third most valid, and everything else except for strength is relatively equal. Strength is crap. Don't take it. I hope no one wants to make a tank... meh, it'll be their fault anyway. Look, dude. Go ahead and shoehorn your players into combat roles. If that's your intention, good for you. You've done a great job... but don't post it here for critiques and expect us all to fall in line with you. We like to balance the social and combative aspects of the game, and sometimes have them work in tandem. LOL - excellent post. Amen!
#83 finalascent Oct 04, 2009 6:26:51	I am satisfied with the arguments that have  been made on both sides, and will therefore not entertain any more discussion on it. I have no pressing need to go in endless circles with anyone. People can post all they want, but I have what I need and am moving on because there's no reason to go on any further except to drag it out and find excuse for contention. Since that is not the purpose of this thread, I consider this thread finished for what I started it for. No one should bother addressing me directly any further, because I'm moving on, content that there is nothing more to glean from this discussion.
#84 keldor_dantrell Oct 04, 2009 10:04:07	All stats must play as 'as useful' as each other because they are as useful as one another; only then will the game reflect reality. FinalAscent wrote: That's called circular reasoning. You can't answer the question with itself. There is no question.  It's a statement, see - 'All stats must play as 'as useful' as each other because they are as useful as one another.' No question mark at the end.  So I guess what you meant to say was that I can't answer a question that wasn't asked with the same question (that wasn't asked).  And if it makes sense to you to make such statements then go ahead - fill your boots - but forgive me if I stick to regular methods of reasoning. FinalAscent wrote: Besides that, the argument also falls apart when you compare it to reality. Why don't you try quantifying an exact parallel of usefulness between intelligence and strength in real life? It's impossible. It's impossible for you because your thinking is limited.  An 'exact' parallel of usefulness?  Okay.  First it's necessary to clarify the definitions.  How 'useful' a thing is is an assessment that's made after the results come in.  Usefulness is not a matter of a thing's potential because a thing's potential is dependant on the imagination of the observer e.g. a 10' square pit needs to be navigated and some 'potentially useful' objects lie at the character's feet - these objects would also be potentially useless objects, wouldn't they?  There's a 5' square net of rope, an iron cauldron 2' high and 2' in diameter, a 10' wooden pole (2" thick), a pot of glue, a pot of grease, 1 iron spike, and a mallet with a 4' handle.  Now one character might deem some or all of these objects completely useless for the task of getting across the pit while another might imagine the possibility of turning the pot upside down and standing on it when trying to get out of the other side of the pit.  The net might be ignored as useless by one character who judges its length and concludes that because it's too short to stretch across the pit it's therefore useless while another character imagines using the net as a rope with which to lower a companion down into the pit.  And so on.  Yet we can't rate the actual usefulness based on any of this because, for example, the net might turn out to be rotten and snap, dropping the would-be climber sprawling in the pit with a badly sprained ankle.  The point of all this being to demonstrate that a 'useful' application of either brains or brawn cannot be accurately assessed until after the fact. Now, let's imagine the pit has a rust monster in it.  Two characters, Morkith - great brains but scant strength, and Gundar - strong as an ox but non too bright, need to get across.  The stated objects are there.  Usefulness of the attributes Int. & Str. would be rated according to the result i.e. 'successfully getting across the pit'.  Gundar looks at the situation, shuns the 'brick-a-brak', picks his moment and with sword drawn, jumps into the pit by dropping two-footed onto the monster; this breaks his fall and helps to ensure that the monster doesn't get an opportunity to attack him as it would have if he'd turned his back on it to climb down.  Thinking to dispatch the beast, Gundar confidently swings his sword; a moment later he's got a fist-full of rust in his hand and the ravenous rust monster rushing at him to devour his armour.  With explosive power Gundar surges past the monster and jumps up on the far side of the pit to grasp the edge and climb out; but he's in full plate armour which might well make this feat impossible.  Yet Gundar is no man of ordinary strength.  His mighty legs drive him upwards, his fingers easily grip the edge of the pit and support his weight, and his mighty arm muscles enable him to haul his bulk up and out of the pit.  Job done, Str. proven 'useful'.  If 10 pts is maximum on a 'usefulness' scale for having achieved the goal, then Str. must get a 10 since he didn't partially succeed.  It must be noted however that had he been brighter he'd have had a greater chance to have learned about rust monsters, recognised the beast for what it was, and so adjusted his tactics to enable him to succeed without losing his sword. Now observe Morkith in the same situation.  While he's never actually met a rust monster he has heard of them, although this knowledge is currently not to the fore in his mind.  He looks at the pit and the beast in it.  It's large and looks like it might be deadly, perhaps the strange tail or long antennae are venomous stingers; it also seems likely that its being in the pit is no accident but rather it's been placed there as a further security measure to prevent intruders crossing that way.  Thus Morkith is especially certain that he doesn't want to have to fight the thing.  He looks at the objects at his feet.  The creature in the pit seems excited by his presence.  Morkith suspects the beast is kept hungry which would explain its immediate interest in him.  He picks up the net and examines it, pulling at it to guage its strength (it seems solid enough to perhaps be useful for entangling the monster, he thinks).  Dropping the net he picks up the mallet and the iron spike.  The monster stirs below.  Dropping the spike, Morkith turns over the mallet, wondering if the handle would bear his weight if he leant it against a corner and attempted to use it as an ad hoc step.  It looks very solid.  Next he picks up the iron pot.  The monster in the pit makes a noise and scuffles, momentarily distracting Morkith.  He turns the pot over to examine the underside, thinking that it would be ideal to use to stand on if the bottom is sound.  Again the monster below seems agitated.  The pot is sound all over, and heavy to boot.  He puts it down and picks up the pole (there is no noise from the pit).  It is a standard 10' pole of stout wood, slightly flexible in the middle but sturdy.  Next he picks up the pot labelled 'glue'; it's a thick brown morass with a stick in it for application.  He stirs it with the stick; clearly it is very sticky but he has no idea of its drying time.  The other pot is similar except the contents are more liquid and slick.  He tests the texture between a finger and thumb; it's greasy.  Morkith is beginning to form a plan of action but he still needs to think.  He rolls the pot over to the edge of the pit meaning to sit down on it while he ponders the possibilities but again the monster is agitated, snuffling and waving its antennae quite wildly right beneath him.  Suddenly his buried knowledge of the rust monster comes to mind, and with it, the previously unconnected responses of the beast each time he picked an object up within sight of it.  Perhaps this is a rust monster, he thinks.  He tosses a coin into the pit and at once the monster touches it with its antennae and then scurries forward.  A moment later the beast turns towards him again and the coin is nowhere to be seen!  Certain now of the monster's nature Morkith is better able to formulate a plan.  He's fairly certain it won't harm him, only his metal.  He's also confident that it's very hungry.  Since he has some metal on his person e.g. his dagger, he will want to distract it while he climbs in and out of the pit.  The iron spike won't occupy the monster for long, he thinks, but the iron pot will probably acquire him a couple of minutes; but how to... Morkith brushes as much dust as he can from the floor of the corridor and puts it in his pocket.  He then puts the pole against the wall at 45 degrees and breaks it in half using the mallet; it splinters a bit but this causes him no concern.  Next he takes the net, spreads it out and applies some of the glue to it on the off-chance that this will make it more likely to entangle the monster.  Then he hooks the mallet head through the netting and lays the handle of the mallet next to the pit edge.  Then, he stands the poles together against the wall with the splintered ends at the ground, and stamps on these ends to splay the splinters so that the poles will no longer roll.  Then he paints glue over the upper surface of them.  Next, on his hands and knees, he paints glue over the balls of the soles of his shoes.  He puts the iron spike into his pocket, crawls to the edge of the pit and prepares to engage his plan.  He lowers the iron pot into the pit to excite the monster; he only wants to get its attention while not allowing it to touch the pot.  He flings the pot into the corner on his side of the pit and then quickly tosses the two poles into the pit at the far side before turning and starting to climb down.  Just before he drops into the pit he grabs the mallet handle and pulls it after him, dragging the sticky net behind.  With the mallet extended and the net draped from the head, he attempts to deposit the net over the monster from behind.  Since it's snuffling greedily at the pile of rust that the pot has become, Morkith is able to get close enough to be fairly certain of success.  He drapes the net over the monster and thrusts the mallet handle over it as he lets go.  Not even pausing to see what effect this has had, he turns and gathers up the poles, placing them together at 45 degrees as before, splintered ends down.  Reaching into his pocket he pulls out the iron spike at tosses it towards the corner where the rust monster is feeding (it's eaten the pot and it just in the process of shaking off the net). Steadying himself against the wall Morkith walks up the poles, the glue ensuring that his feet don't slip.  He easily grasps the top of the pit and pulls himself out just as the rust monster goes for the iron spike.  Finally he uses the dust he collected to help remove the tackiness on the soles of his shoes.  Job done, Int. proved 'useful'; total success is 10 pts. 'usefulness' score. So the argument doesn't fall apart when you apply it to reality.  FinalAscent wrote: They don't affect the same types of things, therefore cannot ever be matched stat for stat. I've just proved that Int. and Str. can both affect the same thing (the problem of getting across the pit).  There's no need to match them 'stat for stat'. Imagine Str. is a hammer and Int. is a tape measure.  Your problem can be summed up as being that your only tool is a hammer.  This inclines you to see everything as a nail.  As a consequence, you see Int. as always being inapplicable because when it comes to dealing with nails nothing is as 'useful' as a hammer.  Now this is fine as far as it goes but not everything is a nail.   Now what is important to understand here is that the argument isn't that Int. should be just as useful as Str. and vice versa in 'x' situation but in 'x' adventure FinalAscent wrote:Yes, it is the argument. You said it yourself at the very start of your post. Let me re-phrase myself.  It is a mistake to think of Int. and Str. as being as useful as one another in the same terms because, as you acknowledge, they aren't applied in the same way (although they can be applied to the same ends).  They should be considered as being as useful as one another as potential tools for success.  Both can be applied to the same problems and for both there'll be times when its application is inappropriate.  Thus, in some cases Str. will be useless while Int. is required and vice versa.  FinalAscent wrote:Yep. Proving my point. That's the responsibility of players and the GM. It doesn't prove your point at all.  If, as you've said, the game is weighted more towards action (such that Int. isn't as 'useful' as Str.) then a party of wizards will prove more difficult to GM (and play) than a party of fighters - because the way the game has been designed (apparently) places demands on the former which aren't placed on the latter. FinalAscent wrote: Have you EVER seen an adventure that stated that it carefully caters to every stat? That's a non-argument because it presents evidence based on an example that doesn't exist. The evidence does exist since games do cater to every stat - by definition.  The reason no adventure states as much is because it goes without saying - it's self-evident that D&D is a game of magic and monsters and that players can, for example, play as wizards (who use magic not muscle) or warriors (who use muscle not magic); therefore, since these classes are so obviously different, they, logically, must take different approaches to each adventure problem (which naturally implies different skills will be used).  Add to this the other character classes and the specific inclusion of mental stats as well as physical ones and one must conclude that the game requires these things, in which case it does indeed cater to characters who specialise in the various stats.  FinalAscent wrote: A game requires 4 things: The rules, the adventure, the GM, and the Players. That leaves two others that are responsible for putting the stats to use. The player needs to find opportunities to use their skills, and GM's need to create opportunities for players to do so. I beg to differ; the GM is not obliged at all to create opportunities for players to do anything in particular.  The players alone decide what they want to do and how they want to attempt it.  The GM uses the rules to work out what results come of the players' choices and actions. FinalAscent wrote: Pre-written adventures are the least concern in that discussion, because adventures cater to the nature of the game, which is combat. To argue that the nature of D&D is combat is to prove that your only tool is a hammer!  What about magical item creation?  Is magic not inherent to D&D?  What about an adventure to prevent a war?  If the nature of the game is combat one might just as well allow the war to happen.  In the story The Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam's part was as vital as anything the warriors did; combat was the last thing on their agenda. Returning to D&D to check out these new rules, I certainly hope they aren't skewed in favour of action as you claim. FinalAscent wrote: I never claimed that 4e is specifically "skewed in favour of action". You're putting words in my mouth. For what reason, I have no idea. I claimed that roleplaying rules in general are weighted more towards action. What you say you didn't claim: '4e is specifically "skewed in favour of action"' What you admit you did claim: 'roleplaying rules in general are weighted more towards action'  Sorry, but I fail to see any difference in meaning.
#85 keldor_dantrell Oct 06, 2009 6:11:39	To defend my use of INT bonuses and skill points as it is printed think on this an intelligent person ie. higher IQ is capable of learning more skills at a faster rate then a person with a lower IQ. (example more skill points per lvl)  I can guarantee that a intellectual person say a Quantum Physicist who has dedicated themselves to learning would be able to learn more, faster then say person who has trained to be a Combat Specialist. Sorry but this isn't so.  How fast a person can learn is a separate matter from how much they can learn.  People have varying aptitudes for learning and this affects both speed of learning and ability to retain knowledge.  I'm a visual and artistic person who has, in my time, made very serious attempts to learn mathematics and physics.  I've attended full time courses and night school to learn these subjects and I've discovered with absolute certainty that my brain will not readily absorb such information and very quickly forgets what it does take in.  In contrast, I've sailed through art school with a sense of never having made any effort and I'm very confident of everything I learned there.  I've also made efforts twice to learn different languages (French and German) and again I discovered that I have no aptitude for linguistics.  I studied German for at least a year and all I have to show for my efforts is the ability to count to ten and assert that there are a lot of long words in the language.  French I studied for at least two years and in this language I can count to a hundred (badly) and know a few abstract words and phrases!  Of particular relevance here is that, having taken an official Mensa examination I know my IQ and it ranks me such that it's fair to say I'm 'highly intelligent'. Your understanding of intelligence and how it pertains to learning does have some truth to it however.  It is true that the more intelligent a person is, the greater is their potential to learn new skills.  This results in a tendency for the most intelligent people to show aptitude for a lot more things than those of average and less intelligence but it's important to recognise that having an aptitude for 'a lot more things' is still a far cry away from being 'all things'.  In other words, the quantum physicist with high Int. who elects to learn something new may choose an inappropriate skill for which he has zero aptitude and consequently struggle to learn it while the combat specialist with lower Int. could attempt to learn a new skill and have no more difficulty learning it than he did his combat skills.  This is also partly to do with the varying nature of different skills e.g. woodworking and lock picking require hand-eye coordination and manual dexterity while mathematics does not.  It is possible to make tables of skills according to the requirements that are needed for each (as 2nd ed. and the Players Options books have). It is also not necessarily the case that the person of high Int. can learn more in every subject.  The evidence seems to show that there are limits to how much the human brain can learn and that at some point, new knowledge replaces the old i.e. as one new subject is learned, another is forgotten. How this information can be covered by the rules of a role-playing game is another matter still.  It may be useful to take the view that high Int. characters can learn more, and quicker, as a starting off point and then maybe each character could have a 'number of aptitudes' scale, a percentile 'chance to learn' any new subject, and a 'depth of knowledge' potential, all related to the Int. score.  Depth of knowledge would be like having each skill ranked by levels, the highest of which are more readily possible the less one already knows.
#86 rhialto Oct 06, 2009 6:59:08	It's good to see I'm not teh only one having difficulties with wizo's quoted text system. I honestly have no idea who said what in the last two posts.
#87 dbay Oct 08, 2009 20:47:28	I'm not sure if I understood your post totally, but could the number of aptitudes be represented by class skills? you struggle to put ranks into something you aren't apt in (ie, cross class) but you are a ready learner (so you have more ranks to spend). I'm not really sure who's idea this was, either, so I'm not quoting. I don't understand this forum yet. But it is two posts above this one.