Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 chaosturtle Jan 19, 2009 16:14:49	Hi, my name is ChaosTurtle, I've been playing D&D since I was 8, first as a player, then as (usually) a dm...I've played 2e, 3e, 3.5 and will probably play 4e later in the future. I know the rules pretty well, I know how to make powerful characters, where to put stat/skill points etc. I'm also an English lit. major, an avid reader, and a professional writer. I make strong characters, that could be seen as "powergamed" or "min/maxed" and I am a roleplayer. There are some people that seem to be under the belief that you're either one or another, a powergamer or a roleplayer. Now, there are certainly cases where a character ends up being more of a powergamer...usually if they take one or two levels of a certain class, or arctic feats despite the fact they're from the south etc. and in those cases I do feel for the players/dms in that campaign, but I absolutely oppose this belief that just because a character is powerful means that the player doesn't or can't roleplay. Here's the first term I have big beef with, min maxer. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing. A fighter with 18 strength and only 8 int...not min maxed, logical. Big strong guy that isn't too bright...what else is he going to be? It might not be the most creative of choices, but does it make him less of an rper then someone who is a fighter with...say 16 str and 18 int? No, they just happen to be different characters. Generally speaking your highest stat is going to be your primary stat, otherwise why would your character have gotten into that profession? Now, this doesn't always have to be the case, I did briefly play a warrior with only average strength and a higher int and average wisdom who was more of a general type...and still okay in combat because he could have a high ac with the expertise line of feats, but I'm 100% confident that I could have rped just as well with the typical high str/con/dex fighter type as well. You don't have to go out of your way to make a weak character, or less then efficient character just to be able to roleplay, just as you don't have to go out of your way to bend/exploit rules to make a powerful character. I mean really, the most powerful builds anyway really involve nothing more then starting off with 18 int and being pure wizard, or 18 wisdom and being pure druid. I digress, back to min maxing. It's kinda evident in point buy systems, which is one reason I dislike them though on the other hand rolling can be unfair if one person has really bad luck. My particular system when I dm is you start off with an auto 16 and have the option to re-roll anything below 8...in extreme cases I may even allow a re-roll or bump a stat up one or two points if the player got really unlucky. Speaking from experience though, I don't mind playing someone with an 8 in something...one of my more fun characters had 6 cha. He was a huge challenge to play, he wasn't a bad guy or anything...he tried to be nice, he just wasn't that graceful with words and generally rubbed people the wrong way. I think the point of playing D&D is to get more powerful, otherwise it wouldn't be the system that it is. It's set up for you to go out and gain levels and get better equipment, this obviously doesn't have to be your main goal but...it's going to happen. I like the combat aspects just as much as the story aspects, especially when they blend together. As a dm my approach is 50% story, 50% combat. We could have one six hour session where we don't do a single combat encounter, then another where we have 5 or 6 combat encounters. If I wanted a system where power didn't matter at all, I'd go and play a different game...and sometimes I do just that, there are plenty of other mediums where there's little focus on stats/combat and more of just weaving a tale. Now while I believe there is a power focus in D&D, I don't believe it is a game that requires you to powergame...you could get by just fine on an average character as long as you weren't a complete idiot about things. That's one of the perks, you can really play whatever you want...but you don't have to play a character that makes little sense like a fighter with 10 str, 12 dex, 8 con, 16 int, 15 wis, 13 cha to do so. Honestly, I think people who have to do things like that because they can't rp and make a character interesting just because they "optimized" stats aren't that good of rpers. There are more ways to rp then just having "unique" aka poorly placed stats/class choices. Those are interesting...quirks, but you rely too much on the system for those, you can still have a quirky character that is good at fighting. It isn't a one or the other, power or roleplay. Again, I'm aware that there are people who just go the char optimization board and don't care at all about rp or the plot, just that they have a character who can smash everything they see, but there is nothing wrong with being strong/well built, etc. and still rping. Play the type of character you want, rp the type of character you want...if you don't want to play a combat focused char, knock yourself out, if you do...knock yourself out, whatever you have fun playing, go with.
#2 medhia_nox Jan 19, 2009 16:26:18	I apologize for using the term "min/maxer". I usually don't use jargon and I certainly didn't use it in the attempt to prove my superiority over anyone. Though, I did play Basic D&D where halfings, dwarves, and elves were professions. So, that clearly makes me superior.. other than that though.. :D Just trying a little levity to an otherwise serious apology though.
#3 chaosturtle Jan 19, 2009 16:37:53	Apology appreciated as this little rant was partially inspired by the little post feud we got into in the "my party sucks thread" but it wasn't the sole reason...and I do apologize for calling you an elitist on that note, I've just been seeing it/getting into little arguments about it elsewhere and have in the past been accused when the character in question wasn't even that great..it was more the other people played their characters out terribly. I had actually been intending to make a post like this for quite awhile now, just never got around to it.
#4 Caeric Jan 19, 2009 19:54:57	This sounds like a good sum-up of the False Dilemma Fallacy: an instance where you are given two options when in fact there are more still. "You're either with me or against me". Well, no. If you don't do anything, you're neither. "You can't be a Power Gamer and a Role Player". Well, no. You can be anywhere in between, and it's often best. Them's the False Dilemma; a situation where you are made to believe you are caught between a rock and a hard place when you're really not. Your mini rant is probably falling on deaf ears in large part, but it's nice that you echo this back to the community. People need to be re-told as more newcomers join the forums and know not of False Dillemma Fallacy (or, as it is known here, the Stormwind Fallacy). So a good rant. And I dunno what size 'mini' is to you, but that hardly seems mini. Maybe Small-sized. Or, like... how dwarves are only a little taller than halflings and are still medium-sized. It's a dwarf-sized rant.
#5 birdursh Jan 20, 2009 10:25:35	I am also definitely both. My characters are always driven by concept, first and foremost. I will happily turn down something optimal for the sake of something my character would love to have or do. That being said, I am a big-time stat monkey and I love squeezing each and every bit of juice I can out of a concept to make it the best and most efficient it can be. If I can find something that fits my characters concept []iand[/i] gives him godly powers - well that is exactly where I will be going, thank you very much.
#6 quiterjon_dup Jan 20, 2009 11:19:47	Hi, my name is ChaosTurtle, I've been playing D&D since I was 8, first as a player, then as (usually) a dm...I've played 2e, 3e, 3.5 and will probably play 4e later in the future. I know the rules pretty well, I know how to make powerful characters, where to put stat/skill points etc. I'm also an English lit. major, an avid reader, and a professional writer. I make strong characters, that could be seen as "powergamed" or "min/maxed" and I am a roleplayer. What do you mean by could be seen as "powergamed" or "min/maxed"? What do you mean by I am a roleplayer.? Saying both and actually being both are very different animals. There are some people that seem to be under the belief that you're either one or another, a powergamer or a roleplayer. Now, there are certainly cases where a character ends up being more of a powergamer...usually if they take one or two levels of a certain class, or arctic feats despite the fact they're from the south etc. and in those cases I do feel for the players/dms in that campaign, but I absolutely oppose this belief that just because a character is powerful means that the player doesn't or can't roleplay. MinMaxing forces players to play stereotyped characters. After playing these stereotypical character numerous times, are you really roleplaying anymore? How many times can you play the strong but ugly fighter or weak but smart wizard and not get bored by it? Here's the first term I have big beef with, min maxer. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing. A fighter with 18 strength and only 8 int...not min maxed, logical. Big strong guy that isn't too bright...what else is he going to be? It might not be the most creative of choices, but does it make him less of an rper then someone who is a fighter with...say 16 str and 18 int? No, they just happen to be different characters. Generally speaking your highest stat is going to be your primary stat, otherwise why would your character have gotten into that profession? Now, this doesn't always have to be the case, I did briefly play a warrior with only average strength and a higher int and average wisdom who was more of a general type...and still okay in combat because he could have a high ac with the expertise line of feats, but I'm 100% confident that I could have rped just as well with the typical high str/con/dex fighter type as well. A fighter with 18 strength and only 8 int...not min maxed, logical. What? It is only 'logical' if you MinMax first roleplay a distant second. Why is it so wrong to come up with a complete character concept before plugging the stats in? Why do people have to do the math then try to force-fit a concept to justify their math? You don't have to go out of your way to make a weak character, or less then efficient character just to be able to roleplay, just as you don't have to go out of your way to bend/exploit rules to make a powerful character. I mean really, the most powerful builds anyway really involve nothing more then starting off with 18 int and being pure wizard, or 18 wisdom and being pure druid. Why do MinMaxers or Optimizers always say this? Why can't I play a competent character who is more than just his plus to hit and plus to damage? Why is it always either you MinMax or you make some craptacular character? I digress, back to min maxing. It's kinda evident in point buy systems, which is one reason I dislike them though on the other hand rolling can be unfair if one person has really bad luck. My particular system when I dm is you start off with an auto 16 and have the option to re-roll anything below 8...in extreme cases I may even allow a re-roll or bump a stat up one or two points if the player got really unlucky. Speaking from experience though, I don't mind playing someone with an 8 in something...one of my more fun characters had 6 cha. He was a huge challenge to play, he wasn't a bad guy or anything...he tried to be nice, he just wasn't that graceful with words and generally rubbed people the wrong way. Point buying or rolling does not make the character. Do you think of yourself as how strong you are? How charismatic? There are a number of personal game stat generators out there, do you live your life by what they say? If you don't, why force your character to? I think the point of playing D&D is to get more powerful, otherwise it wouldn't be the system that it is. It's set up for you to go out and gain levels and get better equipment, this obviously doesn't have to be your main goal but...it's going to happen. I like the combat aspects just as much as the story aspects, especially when they blend together. As a dm my approach is 50% story, 50% combat. We could have one six hour session where we don't do a single combat encounter, then another where we have 5 or 6 combat encounters. If I wanted a system where power didn't matter at all, I'd go and play a different game...and sometimes I do just that, there are plenty of other mediums where there's little focus on stats/combat and more of just weaving a tale. Huh..what? Rolling makes for more powerful characters. D&D does not narrow itself to just one playstyle. Now while I believe there is a power focus in D&D, I don't believe it is a game that requires you to powergame...you could get by just fine on an average character as long as you weren't a complete idiot about things. That's one of the perks, you can really play whatever you want...but you don't have to play a character that makes little sense like a fighter with 10 str, 12 dex, 8 con, 16 int, 15 wis, 13 cha to do so. Honestly, I think people who have to do things like that because they can't rp and make a character interesting just because they "optimized" stats aren't that good of rpers. There are more ways to rp then just having "unique" aka poorly placed stats/class choices. Those are interesting...quirks, but you rely too much on the system for those, you can still have a quirky character that is good at fighting. It isn't a one or the other, power or roleplay. I find it strange that you get upset that a MinMaxer can't also roleplay, yet you keep using an extreme example of a Role Player. Why do you insist the 'Role Players' intentional hamstring their characters, so they can roleplay? Again, I'm aware that there are people who just go the char optimization board and don't care at all about rp or the plot, just that they have a character who can smash everything they see, but there is nothing wrong with being strong/well built, etc. and still rping. Play the type of character you want, rp the type of character you want...if you don't want to play a combat focused char, knock yourself out, if you do...knock yourself out, whatever you have fun playing, go with. For me, it has been through experience that the more MinMaxed a character is the less roleplaying the player does. I've met a number of people from these boards through my travels, either at cons, rpga events, my personal travels and so on and by far the majority has been what we all expect, the more 'optimized' the less rp is done. I witnessed one guy rail against this very thing you are ranting about. During the game he announces, after we stop and rest for the night, "I take out my whetstone and sharpen my sword", then turn to me and say "that's roleplaying right there. I don't see why people think us optimizers don't role play". I'm not going to say that you wont find MinMaxers who roleplay. I will say you will be looking for a long time before you actually find one. **Now you just need to explain what you mean by role playing.
#7 ilikefrogs Jan 21, 2009 10:17:53	I'm also an English lit. major, an avid reader, and a professional writer. I make strong characters, that could be seen as "powergamed" or "min/maxed" and I am a roleplayer. There are some people that seem to be under the belief that you're either one or another, a powergamer or a roleplayer. Now, there are certainly cases where a character ends up being more of a powergamer...usually if they take one or two levels of a certain class, or arctic feats despite the fact they're from the south etc. and in those cases I do feel for the players/dms in that campaign, but I absolutely oppose this belief that just because a character is powerful means that the player doesn't or can't roleplay. As others have said, you are right - the concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I say "necessarily" because they can be. Min-Maxing comes not only from stats, but also (in fact, I would say largely) choices in feats and classes. I'm sure someone could justify being a Paladin/Bard/Dragon Disciple, but actually playing that combo would be an RP challenge. (By "Paladin," I mean the LG original version in the PHB, not a CG Paladin of Freedom or CE Paladin of Slaughter.) Note I did not say it would be impossible, just a challenge. Here's the first term I have big beef with, min maxer. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing. A fighter with 18 strength and only 8 int...not min maxed, logical. Big strong guy that isn't too bright...what else is he going to be? It might not be the most creative of choices, but does it make him less of an rper then someone who is a fighter with...say 16 str and 18 int? No, but the player has to be willing to RP an INT of 8. That would mean not speaking properly, not being able to solve puzzles, being very slow on the uptake, that kind of thing. Again, I am not saying that this is impossible.
#8 icedcrow Jan 21, 2009 10:52:54	A min/max player is not one who puts 18 for str and 8 for int on a fighter. That's just someone who is going on "default" mode. A min/maxer doesn't just tweak stats. A min/maxer, or power gamer, is one who tweaks the entire character to have no weaknesses and be very very unbalacingly powerful in one or two arenas to dominate the game. That is why min/maxers, or "power gamers" disrupt games that are not meant to be powergames. That is why power gamers get such a bad rap, not only in RPGs, but in gaming period. Powergaming is not a difficult thing to do. And there's nothing wrong wtih it provided the campaign fits that play style. Most powergamers pidgeon hole themselves into the same characters over and over. All fighters have max strength, moderate CON and min INT and Cha for example. Then they call others stupid for not following that because it's "not logical" to put the 16 in INT because it "should be put in CON or DEX" to max HP or AC or TO HIT ROLLS if going for a dex fighter/archer build. Their characters tend to stick to their character sheet and have no real life to them other than "HULK SMASH" and dominate combats. They also, in my experience, tend to be rules lawyers. Certainly not all are like this, but many many are. And because of this, you will get pigeon holed, no matter if you were the next incarnation of William Shakespeare with a doctorate in the english language and 20 best selling fantasy novels in all of the popular bookstores world-wide. I would say that if you are a power gamer/stat gamer/analyst/whatever word you want to call it, to find a group that is also full of the same, and you will have a lot of fun.
#9 Bloodsoul Jan 22, 2009 17:01:03	Oddly enough the only 18 I rolled for my 3rd Ed. paladin I put into her Intelligence so she'd have the most skills/languages possible.
#10 tensu_of_the_moon Jan 22, 2009 17:36:59	MinMaxing forces players to play stereotyped characters. After playing these stereotypical character numerous times, are you really roleplaying anymore? How many times can you play the strong but ugly fighter or weak but smart wizard and not get bored by it? stats don't determine personality quirks. one 18 wisdom druid could be obsessed with cats, another with sea life, another with insects, and still another with sheep. one max int wizard could be an alchemist searching for new reagents and another a historian going indiana jones on some ancient ruins. one 8 int fighter may have always been an idiot, another may have just taken one too many maces to the head and constantly drones on about "I was a genius once! J-E-E-N-Y-U-S!"
#11 quiterjon_dup Jan 23, 2009 0:13:35	stats don't determine personality quirks. one 18 wisdom druid could be obsessed with cats, another with sea life, another with insects, and still another with sheep. one max int wizard could be an alchemist searching for new reagents and another a historian going indiana jones on some ancient ruins. one 8 int fighter may have always been an idiot, another may have just taken one too many maces to the head and constantly drones on about "I was a genius once! J-E-E-N-Y-U-S!" That's the point, it's a quirk. A quirk to me isn't roleplaying, it's shtick. It's no different then a character 'who loves to gamble' and takes or makes every opportunity to do so. Look at your examples, the 18 Wisdom druids has nothing to do with their obsessions with different animal life. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The max Intelligenced wizards has nothing to do with being an alchemist or Indy. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The low Int fighters are both still slow, how they got that way is immaterial. The weapons they use are near identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. Most of the Stat Players say 'at the start and end of the day D&D is math'. Only by changing the 'math' do you come up with a truly different character.
#12 avonderre Jan 23, 2009 5:50:53	When it comes to what they're supposed to be good at, my characters do well. But more often than not, I manage to bring some life to them. Are those quirks? Or are they the seeds of some good roleplay opportunities? Who are you to forecast the future and predict that a "minmaxers" attempts at roleplay will fizzle at the first sign of combat?? I play a rogue in 4th ed. A drow rogue raised by halflings who happens to be very good with knives and all manner of acrobatics (He was a circus performer.) He's dim and horribly vain (int 8 and cha 16). This *does* factor into combat. He might not always make the best decisions, like when he saw the perfect opening for an attack...and leapt in with a sly flourish and a somewhat nonsensical swashbuckleresque battle cry. Even though *I* knew the bear might eat me up because it wasn't even bloodied yet, my character was very proud of himself, for a moment. Does that character love to gamble? Perhaps he'll go to far in the next inn, and wind up having to sell his horse to pay off his debt. I can only imagine the wisecracks coming his way the next morning when his party finds out. How will he deal with all the teasing? Will it teach him a lesson? Will the character grow in a non-mathematical way...?! The fallacy is noted; the arguments continue unabated. I love you all. Group hugs are now needed. <(^.^)>
#13 tytalus Jan 23, 2009 6:52:01	That's the point, it's a quirk. A quirk to me isn't roleplaying, it's shtick. It's no different then a character 'who loves to gamble' and takes or makes every opportunity to do so. Look at your examples, the 18 Wisdom druids has nothing to do with their obsessions with different animal life. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The max Intelligenced wizards has nothing to do with being an alchemist or Indy. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The low Int fighters are both still slow, how they got that way is immaterial. The weapons they use are near identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. So what you are saying is that roleplaying to you is actually determined by a character's stats and not his personality?
#14 makeshiftwings Jan 23, 2009 7:16:00	Though this doesn't really have much to do with the original topic, I feel like I should point out that someone with an 8 Intelligence is not an idiot or mentally retarded. The average intelligence (center of the bell curve) is 10, so an 8 is just slightly below average. An intelligence of 4 is idiotic. The same applies to charisma. 8 doesn't mean you're hideous or sociopathic. It means you're slightly less charismatic than the average person. Somewhat shy or plain looking. A 4 means you are ugly as sin and/or a complete social failure. I've noticed an annoying trend with some DM's that if a character has an 8 in Int or Cha, they feel the need to "punish" that player by forcing him to be a complete moron or by making every NPC react to him as if he was the most disgusting thing they've ever seen.
#15 jaz0n Jan 23, 2009 8:02:08	I've noticed an annoying trend with some DM's that if a character has an 8 in Int or Cha, they feel the need to "punish" that player by forcing him to be a complete moron or by making every NPC react to him as if he was the most disgusting thing they've ever seen. I'd like to say this is a really good point. For example, somebody with 8 charisma could just be so plain that they're easily overlooked and unnoticed. An 8 in intellect doesn't mean that you're hitting yourself with a brick and giggling about it, but it might mean that a relatively complex puzzle might be completely out of your grasp. To the OP, I'm well aware that being a min/maxer doesn't eliminate the possibility of somebody being a roleplayer. However, the spice of roleplaying is having weaknesses to accent within your character. If he's absolutely perfect, then what's the point in roleplaying? That being said, your character doesn't have to have weak stats to have roleplay fodder... my gnome druid I'm playing right now has a high wisdom score, and he's very perceptive, but he's a bit ADD and always has to be refocused on the task at hand. He can also be a bit oblivious to his surroundings from time to time. The unfortunate thing is, I don't see most min/maxers doing things like this... I see them picking up the perfect class/prestige combinations, the perfect feats, the perfect skills, to be completely perfect in niche situations, then almost ignoring roleplay, as long as they get to be a badass. That's why people like me use the term min/maxer and hate dealing with them.
#16 tensu_of_the_moon Jan 23, 2009 8:14:05	That's the point, it's a quirk. A quirk to me isn't roleplaying, it's shtick. It's no different then a character 'who loves to gamble' and takes or makes every opportunity to do so. Look at your examples, the 18 Wisdom druids has nothing to do with their obsessions with different animal life. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The max Intelligenced wizards has nothing to do with being an alchemist or Indy. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The low Int fighters are both still slow, how they got that way is immaterial. The weapons they use are near identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. Most of the Stat Players say 'at the start and end of the day D&D is math'. Only by changing the 'math' do you come up with a truly different character. actually, all those things affect combat. the druids will all wildshape into different things based on their indiidual obsessions. they will also affect the choices in animal companion, and I bet I cat-obsessed druid casts cat's grace a lot more than the sheep-obsessed one. the wizards too are affected in combat. the alchemist wizard may use most of his spells for control effects and perfer to attack using alchemist's fire. where as the historian may end up multiclassing into fighter to better use the legendary sword he found. where as a born dumb fighter wouldn't consider making the plan, the Jeenyus fighter would still try to thinking in combat, which may turn out to be a stupid idea or may be a hallmark to his former intelligence. he'll also probably be hesitent to fight people wielding bludgeoning weapons. stats is not the full extent of how you can play your character. @makeshiftwings: I'm sorry. I didn't know what was considered "average" (I heard "9 is average" from a friend once to convince me 14 was high) because truth be told I don't actually play D&D,I just lurk here because they guys on the magic forum tend to be a lot less funny and a lot more full of themselves, which can get really old. I probably shouldn't post knowing this, but I feel some things even I know the right awnser to.
#17 azraelthedark Jan 23, 2009 9:53:21	Look at your examples, the 18 Wisdom druids has nothing to do with their obsessions with different animal life. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The max Intelligenced wizards has nothing to do with being an alchemist or Indy. The spells they cast are identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. The low Int fighters are both still slow, how they got that way is immaterial. The weapons they use are near identical in effectiveness. You can throw on a different racial skins, different quirks, but when it really counts, in combat, they are the same character. This is blatantly false, and it's exactly what the stereotypical powergamer thinks. Or, to use your same way of listing opinions as matters of fact: Two druids with different obsessions with animal life, racial skins and different quirks are not the same character. Two wizards with different ways of studying magic, racial skins and different quirks are not the same character. Two fighters with a different stupidity (eg. one deriving from getting his ass kicked and one from an alchemical explosion), different weapons, different racial skins, different quirks, well... Guess what? They are not the same character. You think that because you think that combat is "when it really counts". Well, combat in an essential part of D&D, but it's not everything that D&D can offer. And I played successfully up to 20th level characters that weren't supposed to be "combat characters". Maybe they were optimized for different roles, sure, but... Geez, how narrow-minded can you be? It doesn't really matter if you choose the concept before the stats or the contrary. It matters if you can fully flesh-out a character. Try taking a character sheet and see how many different characters you can get out of it! You'll be surprised. I hope. ;)
#18 makeshiftwings Jan 23, 2009 13:46:59	@makeshiftwings: I'm sorry. I didn't know what was considered "average" (I heard "9 is average" from a friend once to convince me 14 was high) because truth be told I don't actually play D&D,I just lurk here because they guys on the magic forum tend to be a lot less funny and a lot more full of themselves, which can get really old. I probably shouldn't post knowing this, but I feel some things even I know the right awnser to. No need to apologize, especially if you didn't know. It isn't really mentioned in 4th edition anymore, so I could see why some people might think that 8 is as dumb as you can get. 8 is as low as a player can get (using point buy), but actual humans and such (or players rolling for scores) can get as low as 3. In 3rd edition at least, 10 represented the average score of a human in all stats. PC's have above average stats and no really weak stats because they're heroes; they're just sort of better at everything than all the normal folk.