What ruins the spirit of a game?

[Oddman80]

actually you have two of Jedi's players here - Hello.

There were about 8 of us that came from the Rudisplork threads and are currently in two separate PbP's with Jedipotter. Mostly to see if the game play and DM tactics were as bad in actual play as were coming across in the threads... that said, one adventure is just now getting to the first plot hook presentation, while the other is in the middle of the 2nd round of the first encounter... so there isn't much that can be reported at this time. I fear for me - that all I will discover is that I don't care much for the PbP format. I may have had unrealistic hopes as to what the posting rate would be and the pace of progress one might see in a PbP game.

The only critique i have continued to share/reiterate - as it keeps coming up is this:

There are times when a forum user will post a question about RAW, or RAI. Often these are grumble posts by someone who disagrees with something that happened in game and has either not yet spoken tot he DM, or is looking to see if the DM's claims make sense (assuming the DM didn't flat out proclaim RULE ZERO). Most people tell the user to talk to the DM, or post their understanding of RAW. some will say something like "If I were the DM I would not allow that either, because I think....."

But Jedipotter has often come into such threads and posted his/her view of things without any qualifier - which is especially misleading when other posters are making such clarifications.

[AMFV]

by all means, keep defending the one who stereotyped an entire playstyle as cheaters, lump anyone who just wants to play a heroic character into that playstyle without any differentiation, will not admit to any mistakes, state all their views as fact, refuse to be educated or listen to anyone, and generally be the most control freak DM I've ever read about aside from the one in SUE Files, then proceed to whitewash it all as poor old school DM that we should accept automatically without thought because subjectivity. I'll be here, watching you dig yourself deeper. I am not buying it for a second.

So why do you keep responding? She's already indicated that she doesn't want to be educated. Is it really that hard to just let it go? I'm so sick and tired of so many good threads turning into the same thread over and over and over and over again. We've seen this argument before and is never productive.

Also we don't know if Jedipotter is really that controlling in play, we know that she has very particular tastes and restrictions, but old school style DMs are likely to exaggerate themselves to be more strict rather than less so.

One thing is for sure, I'm never playing in the same game as jedipotter- or you. I like my characters alive.

Why not? I've never said that I preferred either style. I actually running both styles of games, both AD&D style where not being paranoid can kill you, no-save, and you'd be lucky to have a 15 in your main stat, and you'd be lucky to be a heroic player. And I enjoy playing games where all optimization is cool and characters have plot armor.

I suppose derailing is an issue of some variety, though there are some derails that I enjoy. It's nice if the derail always has this weird and tenuous connection to the OP, as this one tended to do. I tend to have a pretty loose view about the degree to which something should remain on topic, under the premise that if people want to talk about the main topic, then they have every right to, though I can see how it could be a distraction on occasion.

My issue is that what inevitably ends up happening is that the thread becomes an exact repeat of the last time this argument happened. We lose everything of merit in said thread as a result as it's buried on page 2 or 3 of a potentially 55 page thread which devolves into insults and name-calling as neither side refuses to budge.

Right. Forcing a player who wanted to play a ranger to play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees to inspire roleplaying because he didn't roll high enough and you won't allow even 2 for 1 trades to make a ranger can kiss my Stormwind ass. If there's one thing I love about 3E it was destroying that nonsense.

Well it is a very different design decision to be fair, and that makes it inherently polarizing. For one thing 3.0 (and 3.5 and Pathfinder) had a lot more focus on perceived fairness, for example monsters now use the same rules as PCs, virtually all negative effects allow saves of one kind or another. You continue to gain HP throughout your career.

On the other hand it makes it very difficult to run something like Tomb of Horrors, when all the players are exceptional and when there is no mystery or paranoia, there is a certain degree of loss in that, loss in playing what you get stuck with. Now I'm not saying either is better, just that something was certainly lost in the translation, although other things were gained.

[jedipotter]

But Jedipotter has often come into such threads and posted his/her view of things without any qualifier - which is especially misleading when other posters are making such clarifications.

So...if I don't post a qualifier....then, what I post is a rule and must be obeyed? Sounds good to me...lol

Eat more brussel sprouts. I have spoken.

And homebrew more spells and post them in the homebrew section.

[Coidzor]

Then again, there's some modules (I'm looking at you, Tomb of Horrors) where even giving the players 18s across the board won't save them.

Well, yeah. You still have to play the freaking game.

[eggynack]

So I said: An optimizer can role play, but it's not automatic. Just as you optimize does not make you a great role player. It's just possible. A lot of optimizers are roll players, hack and slashers and casual gamers. Some are not.

But the implication of what you specifically said is that the combination of the two features is somehow especially rare, such that optimizers are far less likely to be good at roleplaying. It also seems relevant that the thing you were accused of saying is a lot like the thing you said.

My issue is that what inevitably ends up happening is that the thread becomes an exact repeat of the last time this argument happened. We lose everything of merit in said thread as a result as it's buried on page 2 or 3 of a potentially 55 page thread which devolves into insults and name-calling as neither side refuses to budge.

It happens. As is, the base question of the original post seems to be mostly asked and answered, but if you seek out more discussion about a particular aspect of that post, or related topics, or if the OP himself wants to raise further follow-up questions, then that is entirely your and his prerogative. You might even be able to get more attention to those questions based on the relative popularity of this thread.

[AMFV]

It happens. As is, the base question of the original post seems to be mostly asked and answered, but if you seek out more discussion about a particular aspect of that post, or related topics, or if the OP himself wants to raise further follow-up questions, then that is entirely your and his prerogative. You might even be able to get more attention to those questions based on the relative popularity of this thread.

It happens, however this thread is an example of this exact sort of problem. We've had several conversation threads that were lost to the argument which has happened five or six times on this forum this month between the same exact people. That seems counterproductive to any useful discussion.

[eggynack]

It happens, however this thread is an example of this exact sort of problem. We've had several conversation threads that were lost to the argument which has happened five or six times on this forum this month between the same exact people. That seems counterproductive to any useful discussion.

I suppose the difference between us on this point, ultimately, is that I'm not quite bored of this stuff yet, whereas you presumably are. As for this being counterproductive to a useful discussion, I guess it's theoretically possible, but as I mentioned, I don't see what useful discussion it's being counterproductive to.

[Lord Raziere]

It happens, however this thread is an example of this exact sort of problem. We've had several conversation threads that were lost to the argument which has happened five or six times on this forum this month between the same exact people. That seems counterproductive to any useful discussion.

Hm this is willful stubbornness and dogmatic clinging to ones own misconceptions on par with Masonicon. y'know, that guy on media discussions who posted that ani-toonspiracy thread? this is just like it: a person comes in and constantly clings to the same view of something no matter how much people sensibly tells them they have a very flawed view of things, ignores a vast majority of the posts in favor of only responding to little parts of them as if the rest do not exist, refuses to be educated on the topic or to listen to anyone to change their viewpoint, acting as if they are in their own little world, to the point where they don't change at all or very little. it even has the same weird posting style of one-line sentences or short paragraphs at a time and not really elaborating on anything they claim.

I'm not saying that Masonicon and jedipotter are the same person mind you, but its pretty weird, since they act similarly. maybe its some sort of behavioral/psychological thing, interacting with how forums work?

[Esprit15]

Wait, Masonicon is here!? I remember that guy from back on the Sporum! He was hilarious. We just assumed he was joking/a troll. He was like a neighbor's pet puppy that all the kids play with when he comes by.

Difference was, he wasn't hostile and insulting, just crazy.

Dang, it's been years... Probably just under three, actually.

[Lord Raziere]

Wait, Masonicon is here!? I remember that guy from back on the Sporum! He was hilarious. We just assumed he was joking/a troll. He was like a neighbor's pet puppy that all the kids play with when he comes by.

Difference was, he wasn't hostile and insulting, just crazy.

Dang, it's been years... Probably just under three, actually.

He WAS.

he hasn't posted for some time now, so hopefully he has forgotten about trying to post here.

there were two threads about him and his ani-toonspiracy nonsense. one which is about him pitching the concept to the forum, and another is a lets read of the script, both of which break down how his idea for a film was completely unworkable for an entire army of reasons, good for a laugh no?

[Zrak]

Like I said, I never met any of the super-duper hardline oldschool DMs you hear about. In general, my experience was that if you wanna be a ranger, you can do what you have to do to be a ranger; if you end up a ranger with 9 strength, though, you deal with it.

Then again, there's some modules (I'm looking at you, Tomb of Horrors) where even giving the players 18s across the board won't save them.

In my experience, it was also pretty standard to "Pool of Radiance it" (as one of my DMs put it) if the party as a whole had better stats. That 18 isn't there for you to coast on, it's there so you can kill even more giants. For all their optimization potential, 3.X games just don't seem to lend themselves to apocalyptic meatgrinder encounters the way AD&D used to.

But the implication of what you specifically said is that the combination of the two features is somehow especially rare, such that optimizers are far less likely to be good at roleplaying. It also seems relevant that the thing you were accused of saying is a lot like the thing you said.

I think people are just taking the analogy way too literally and directly. She said that because something can happen doesn't mean it's guaranteed or even necessarily likely. I don't think she was trying to claim it's exactly 1 in 20.

[eggynack]

I think people are just taking the analogy way too literally and directly. She said that because something can happen doesn't mean it's guaranteed or even necessarily likely. I don't think she was trying to claim it's exactly 1 in 20.

Could be, though she's claimed stormwind as false enough times that it's reasonable to assume that that's what she was doing there. The weird thing with Jedipotter is that you read her stuff, and you're all like, "Oh man, this is just an absolutely ridiculous thing to say," and then after some explanation and thought you think, "Y'know, maybe she meant it as this other thing that's way less absurd, and I was just letting poor rhetorical skills blind me to cogent arguments," and then eventually you realize, "No, wait, she totally meant that first absurd thing." It is, as Dr. Horrible would say, like pie. Really, the main point here, after all that, is that she did say pretty much that exact thing, so claiming the opposite is inaccurate.

Edit: Also, @Lord Raziere, I'm reading the first of those Ani-Toonspiracy threads, and it's some pretty amazing stuff.

[Frozen_Feet]

I'm pretty sure an ethos from the 1970s to 1980s is outdated in 2014 by at least a few metrics.

It can be, but won't necessarily be. Music was already brought up as an example, but we could just bring up other games. Chess and Go are centuries old and are still popular and highly-valued.

As far as RPGs go, at its core, the OSR movement is based on the saying "know the rules well, so you can break them effectively". The problem that OSR has with newer games is that their makes (and players) do not, or did not understand why some rules of old D&D were as they were, and as a result the changes they made broke something important and made the game worse, rather than better.

A great example is tracking of food and time and wandering monsters. Lots of players and GMs considered this too much of a bother or boring, causing them to ignore or remove those rules. Result? We get people complaining about a "15 minute workday" where characters rest after each encounter to always be at full power. Well duh, because three major factors preventing that were removed.

Does this mean you cannot have a good game without the boring resource management? No. But to device such a game, you have to take the lack of those into consideration. You can't just take the interesting bits of the old game and expect them work just right in isolation.

I suppose this round-aboutly answers the title question too. What ruins the spirit of the game are changes that are made in ignorance of what that spirit is, or made in ignorance of the spirit you're aiming for. As Sunzi said "know thyself and know thy enemy, and you will always win. If you only know one, your chance of victory is one-in-half. If you know neither, you will certainly lose."

[Raimun]

I really don't get this obsession some people have with enforcing that all player characters should have poor to average abilities. I mean, what's the point of playing a game of heroic fantasy if you can't design a character who could give Aragorn or Conan a run for their money?

I mean, sure, a plucky everyman hero (with average stats) who fails more than he succeeds but still keeps fighting to make a difference is an actual heroic archetype (and a noble one at that) but it's just one archetype. While there are a few (other) heroic archetypes I enjoy playing more than anything else in RPGs, I grow tired of playing even those once in a while. I would eventually grow bored of any archetype I was forced to play ad infinitum, even the ones I generally enjoy.

Oh, and for the original example: 20 Int is not superhuman. It's a stat naturally achievable by humans at some point and in Pathfinder a 1st level human can achieve that. Perfectly okay, if you envisioned that your hero is an actual genius.

[jaydubs]

See, I don't always mind playing Jimmy Everyman, as long as the DMs realize this is not the norm and adjust accordingly. For instance, by explaining it while recruiting for the campaign. "Hey guys, I'm going to be running a gritty, low-powered, old school adventure. Anyone interested?" Heck, I've had fun in NPC class only games with 15 point buy. It can work. But the important thing is I was able to make an informed decision about playing in that campaign. It wasn't a nasty surprise.

But if I show up to a game without any forewarning, and the DM starts nerfing stuff randomly, lecturing about how everything was better back in the day, etc., I'm going to be upset.

It's like if I order a pizza, and the place ends up delivering one with "this amazing dairy-free, tofu cultured cheese imitation." I'm going to be righteously pissed. Not because tofu based cheese is evil or inherently bad. But because the restaurant should have been aware that real cheese is the accepted norm, understood that customers could be unhappy if the norm wasn't delivered, and given the option to try it or not.

If someone wants to run an old-school game, with some combination of unexceptional characters, unfair monsters, and/or DM fiat, put it on the fracking box. Then you get players who are interested and less likely to be problem players. If you go on ignoring that times have changed, and the norm has shifted, of course you're going to have a bad time. And you deserve to get crap for trying to spring your unusual preferences on people who probably weren't looking for that type of game.

[Coidzor]

I really don't get this obsession some people have with enforcing that all player characters should have poor to average abilities. I mean, what's the point of playing a game of heroic fantasy if you can't design a character who could give Aragorn or Conan a run for their money?

Do people really have that? I've encountered more a devotion to the idea of random generated stats, damned whatever silliness that creates, because at least the character can be suicided amusingly unless one were doing it as a challenge to see how long they could last with a character with suicidally low stats. And, hey, maybe that culture has Suicide by Adventuring as a thing. Either they die in a way that doesn't require anyone to spend money on burying them or they keep going and become gods through righting wrongs and such and don't wanna die anymore. Win-win for everybody.

I don't really swing that way myself, but much like men who enjoy having sex with men, I at least *think* I can see some of what appeals to them about it. I could see myself wanting to try it as an interlude if I didn't go off and play something like FATE or Mutants and Masterminds or Shadowrun or World of Darkness instead when High Fantasy started to wear on me.

Though, I must admit, doing a Joe Wood kind of game holds more appeal to me, as it feels like it would be more... self-honest(?) about what we're playing and why we're playing it as opposed to picking heroic classes with characters whose natural abilities would suggest they'd get turned away by my understanding of verisimiltude.

[Raimun]

Do people really have that? I've encountered more a devotion to the idea of random generated stats, damned whatever silliness that creates, because at least the character can be suicided amusingly unless one were doing it as a challenge to see how long they could last with a character with suicidally low stats. And, hey, maybe that culture has Suicide by Adventuring as a thing. Either they die in a way that doesn't require anyone to spend money on burying them or they keep going and become gods through righting wrongs and such and don't wanna die anymore. Win-win for everybody.

Oldschool Suicide Adventures can get a bit silly at some point. People die all the time and send all the time new characters for the grinder. That means one of the two things have to happen:

1) You stop playing until you finish creating a new character. This will be rushed but still takes valuable time you could be actually playing a character.

2) You have a pile of back up-characters just waiting until the current one kicks the bucket. Just imagine all that paperwork.

In either case, such characters can't be as well developed as characters that don't die all the time. I mean, if you have to rush character making or make them by bulk, the quality will take a hit. Characters are supposed to be more than a collection of numbers and oldschool-attitude can get detrimental for that end.

At least with the people I play, character creation is such an arduous process that Suicide Adventures would just get on the nerves of everyone.

That said, I might be willing to give it a try but only if the game used Herolab, etc. program to streamline the character creation and everyone made several characters before the first session. While characterization would take a hit, it would give the opportunity to try out different concepts from a mechanical point of view.

Also, there should be a solid reason why the party keeps meeting strangers that join them every time some of them dies but not otherwise. It should also go without saying that such a campaign should be fairly tongue in cheek. Something like "Starship Troopers: The Movie: The Roleplaying game."

"Join the men-at-arms and save the kingdom! Service guarantees citizenship. Would thee like to know more?"

[Frozen_Feet]

I really don't get this obsession some people have with enforcing that all player characters should have poor to average abilities. I mean, what's the point of playing a game of heroic fantasy if you can't design a character who could give Aragorn or Conan a run for their money?

There are a lot of reasons. Some of them relate to common human cognitive biases, some relate to history of RPGS, and some relate to idol worship.

Firstly: cognitive biases. The most important here is probably Dunning-Kruger-effect. Shortly: inept people tend to overestimate themselves, while highly skilled people underestimate themselves. Another way to formulate this is: everyone holds themselves as the benchmark for "average" unless experience show otherwise. Indeed, if asked majority of people will probably think of themselves as at least average, or mildly above average, even though by very definition half of them are below average.

It's easy to observe many common RPG scenarios fall outside the expertise of many players, and many characters have skills that their players don't have. Such players have no idea how their characters should perform, save for the fact that if they themselves are above average, their characters must be even more so. Hence they demand inflated stats to "feel useful".

Then there's the one guy who's actually competent on the area modeled by the game, and feels that the average person is actually well able to do a lot of things. Ergo, to be a hero, a character doesn't need high stats.

Which party is right isn't set in stone; it depends on what kind of a reality the game system used models.

And here is where get to point second: history of RPGs. In early versions of D&D, 1st characters were fairly weak, but this was intentional. So was starting with a weak character: it was there to increase appreciation for character growth and to reward player skill. Ergo, while player characters were protagonists, they didn't actually get to be heroes until the player knew how to do all those heroic things successfully within the game system. To understand this kind of thinking, you have to go back to D&D's wargame roots and tournament gaming. In such environments, beginning players are not given hugely complex armies because they won't know what to do with them, and they probably have to face players on their own tier first before being allowed to play against more experienced gamers. Similar systems exist in sports too. The reasoning is that play far out of your depth is not fun. The beginner will suffer from option paralysis or suffer a humiliating defeat instead.

Remember: back then, the hobby was new, and the default roleplayer was a new roleplayer. You didn't really have all that many players who'd already seen the 1st level thousand times over. All the boring, cliched stuff wasn't boring and cliched back then. But when the attitude that player characters should "earn their wings" meets someone who's already done that in a hundred other games and just wants to skip it all, there's obvious conflict.

Finally, there's idol worship. At its core, its really childish, but so are many players. Many players have those few, favorite characters whom they've placed on a mile-high pedestal, and some "mere player character" being better is downright travesty. Of course, the joke here is that the idol isn't necessarily all that great. This phenomenom isn't limited to RPGs, you see it crop up frequently in the form of X Versus Y threads over on the Media Discussions forum. These are the people who insist Conan is max level, across all game systems, even if he'd be nothing but a chump in many of them. This attitude of course limits player characters, because they just never can be allowed to be as cool.

[Coidzor]

Characters are supposed to be more than a collection of numbers and oldschool-attitude can get detrimental for that end.

Are you sure about that? Everything I've read about Gygaxian D&D and the first few iterations of D&D after that, before people started keeping characters around for a bit longer around AD&D 2e, suggests that characters were just vehicles that the player moved around with and used the numbers of in order to interact with the game world.

Hell, the original batch of characters were just named after their players. Such as the infamous Lord Robilar after they had several Robs, Bobs, Roberts, and Boberts running around of Gygax's... son? Nephew?

[Frozen_Feet]

Characters have always been meant to be more than numbers, that is the point of RPGs; but, they were primarily still intended to be playing pieces for the, you know, players.

The difference to more modern ideas is hard to explain... how would I put this? In old-school play, to have the character they want to have, a player needs to act it out by making correct decisions during the game. In newer games, the player states what kind of character they want to play, often largely before the game, during character creation.

An old-school character is pretty much a clean slate to start with: their personality, their history and such emerge from the game, largely from the events and ideas a player has while playing them through the first few levels. A newer school character has an extensive history and personality before the player has played a single game with them. One of the conflicts I see here is that a newer-school character is not suited for starting weak at 1st level. The longer it takes to craft a character, the harder they are to replace. So in an old-school game, a newer-school character should start at a higher level. But as noted, this is against the principle of having a player "earn their wings".

[Raimun]

There are a lot of reasons. Some of them relate to common human cognitive biases, some relate to history of RPGS, and some relate to idol worship.

Firstly: cognitive biases. The most important here is probably Dunning-Kruger-effect. Shortly: inept people tend to overestimate themselves, while highly skilled people underestimate themselves. Another way to formulate this is: everyone holds themselves as the benchmark for "average" unless experience show otherwise. Indeed, if asked majority of people will probably think of themselves as at least average, or mildly above average, even though by very definition half of them are below average.

It's easy to observe many common RPG scenarios fall outside the expertise of many players, and many characters have skills that their players don't have. Such players have no idea how their characters should perform, save for the fact that if they themselves are above average, their characters must be even more so. Hence they demand inflated stats to "feel useful".

Then there's the one guy who's actually competent on the area modeled by the game, and feels that the average person is actually well able to do a lot of things. Ergo, to be a hero, a character doesn't need high stats.

Which party is right isn't set in stone; it depends on what kind of a reality the game system used models.

And here is where get to point second: history of RPGs. In early versions of D&D, 1st characters were fairly weak, but this was intentional. So was starting with a weak character: it was there to increase appreciation for character growth and to reward player skill. Ergo, while player characters were protagonists, they didn't actually get to be heroes until the player knew how to do all those heroic things successfully within the game system. To understand this kind of thinking, you have to go back to D&D's wargame roots and tournament gaming. In such environments, beginning players are not given hugely complex armies because they won't know what to do with them, and they probably have to face players on their own tier first before being allowed to play against more experienced gamers. Similar systems exist in sports too. The reasoning is that play far out of your depth is not fun. The beginner will suffer from option paralysis or suffer a humiliating defeat instead.

Remember: back then, the hobby was new, and the default roleplayer was a new roleplayer. You didn't really have all that many players who'd already seen the 1st level thousand times over. All the boring, cliched stuff wasn't boring and cliched back then. But when the attitude that player characters should "earn their wings" meets someone who's already done that in a hundred other games and just wants to skip it all, there's obvious conflict.

Finally, there's idol worship. At its core, its really childish, but so are many players. Many players have those few, favorite characters whom they've placed on a mile-high pedestal, and some "mere player character" being better is downright travesty. Of course, the joke here is that the idol isn't necessarily all that great. This phenomenom isn't limited to RPGs, you see it crop up frequently in the form of X Versus Y threads over on the Media Discussions forum. These are the people who insist Conan is max level, across all game systems, even if he'd be nothing but a chump in many of them. This attitude of course limits player characters, because they just never can be allowed to be as cool.

Still doesn't make sense. Leveling is still required to unlock the power little by little and that holds true no matter how high the party's stats are. Even with all 18s no one is invincible. Which is all good, I might add.

Player skill is not really relevant here. Player of any skill level is affected by the increase or decrease of character competence. Even a skilled player can't do much with all 10s stat array and a first time player would do pretty well with all 18s stat array. On the other hand, first time player with all 10s is simply screwed and skilled player with all 18s will do better than first time player would with the same stats.

Good stats and interesting special ability combinations help in part to make a character feel truly distinct, along with backstory, attitude, motivations, etc. Stuff the character is good in help to imagine why he would adventure and also make it more beliavable. Of course someone with 18 Str and Con would decide to fight monsters for gold and someone with 20 Int would be drawn to wizardry. Joe The Average with 10s in all stats is just not in his element if he decides to become an adventurer, no matter what class he was.

Characters have always been meant to be more than numbers, that is the point of RPGs; but, they were primarily still intended to be playing pieces for the, you know, players.

Yeah, this is simply not true for me. While my mind influences what kind of character I make, what choices he makes and how he will turn out, a character is not merely a playing piece or extension of myself but a completely separate being. Kind of like Liam Neeson is not actually a jedi but plays one in a movie.

The difference to more modern ideas is hard to explain... how would I put this? In old-school play, to have the character they want to have, a player needs to act it out by making correct decisions during the game. In newer games, the player states what kind of character they want to play, often largely before the game, during character creation.

An old-school character is pretty much a clean slate to start with: their personality, their history and such emerge from the game, largely from the events and ideas a player has while playing them through the first few levels. A newer school character has an extensive history and personality before the player has played a single game with them. One of the conflicts I see here is that a newer-school character is not suited for starting weak at 1st level. The longer it takes to craft a character, the harder they are to replace. So in an old-school game, a newer-school character should start at a higher level. But as noted, this is against the principle of having a player "earn their wings".

But newer school lets you flesh out a character and then it's thrust in to a chaotic world that is the game. The slate has still room to write on but it will be all based on the first lines of the slate.

Besides, a newer school character can just as well stat at 1st level. There is a difference how I write the backstories of 1st level characters and 10+ level ones. 1st level character has notes about his childhood, formative years, training, etc. and perhaps a fight or two to flesh out the fact that he's so badass with swords, compared to a regular Joe. With higher level character there's that stuff as well but also mentions of past adventures, such as the time when my giant character stormed the castle with a few other player characters. Of course, if I spinned a backstory of how my character stormed a castle and demanded to play a 10+ level character when we agreed to start at 1st level, I would be just unreasonable.

Of course, I'm comfortable writing backstories for 1st level characters because I've played games for so long that I can survive low level play well enough.

[The Insanity]

Are you sure about that? Everything I've read about Gygaxian D&D and the first few iterations of D&D after that, before people started keeping characters around for a bit longer around AD&D 2e, suggests that characters were just vehicles that the player moved around with and used the numbers of in order to interact with the game world.

Hell, the original batch of characters were just named after their players. Such as the infamous Lord Robilar after they had several Robs, Bobs, Roberts, and Boberts running around of Gygax's... son? Nephew?

Not to mention that D&D evolved from wargames.

[Raimun]

Not to mention that D&D evolved from wargames.

I wrote fluff for my wargaming armies as well.

[Frozen_Feet]

Player skill is not really relevant here. Player of any skill level is affected by the increase or decrease of character competence. Even a skilled player can't do much with all 10s stat array and a first time player would do pretty well with all 18s stat array. On the other hand, first time player with all 10s is simply screwed and skilled player with all 18s will do better than first time player would with the same stats.

It's not the skill of playing RPGs that's relevant here. It's the player's skill in real-world situations comparable to those in the game, as it is those that drastically change what they expect their characters to be able to do.

An example: a rather slow-witted player with little academic knowledge is still likely to think they're at least of average intellect. So they're not going to buy a character with 10 INT outperforming them in areas of academic knowledge. From their perspective, the "average character" shouldn't be more competent than them, or a more competent character should have higher INT.

On the other side of the table, we have a very smart and educated player. He is well above average, but because he knows how much he's ignorant of, he feels like "nothing special". If an 10 INT character shows extensive knowledge or does math or strategy, they won't be bothered, because they think "average people" are well able to do "basic stuff" like that... even if the only person at the table to whom those are basic is him.

It's only after we consider these player expectations that it becomes meaningful to discuss what the stat actually model within the game, as opposed to what the players think they model. In Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example, the mechanical difference between a 10 INT and an 18 INT is having a better chance to know a foreign language and taking three days less to research magic. A Specialist can overcome the higher INT character's advantage from 1st level and the latter is only useful to wealthy, higher-level Magic-User or Cleric. The mechanics don't say anything at all about ability to know things or make good decisions - those are explicitly left on the shoulders of player skill. The smart player is by and large able to do all the same things with their character as the dumb player.

So if the dumb player, at some point, says "your character has only 10 INT, he shouldn't know that" and the smart player says "What do you mean, this was common knowledge in the Middle-Ages?", who is right?

[Sartharina]

I have my own issues with Strength scores, especially with "10" being Average Strength (And the huge disparity IRL in strength between men and women). Does opening a sealed pickle jar require a STR of 11, or STR of 9?

[NichG]

Player skill is not really relevant here. Player of any skill level is affected by the increase or decrease of character competence. Even a skilled player can't do much with all 10s stat array and a first time player would do pretty well with all 18s stat array. On the other hand, first time player with all 10s is simply screwed and skilled player with all 18s will do better than first time player would with the same stats.

Player skill can count for a lot. If we take AD&D as an example, I would say that the skilled player with the all-10s character will generally be able to run rings around the new player with the all-18 array, especially in old-school games. The new player with the all-18 array is likely to do something foolish like 'I roll to detect traps on the chest!' - which for a first level thief with an 18 Dex only has a 35% chance of success and a 65% chance of setting off the trap and likely killing the character. The skilled player will recognize that the rules are not his friend in this particular situation, and that if a low level character wants to deal with traps they can - and must - do so via non-mechanical means ('I have a hireling go over and open the chest'; 'I use a 10ft pole with a hook on the end to open the chest at a distance'; 'I shoot the lock of the chest with a crossbow from 50ft away'; etc)

The original Tomb of Horrors module was suggested to be appropriate for a party of high level characters. As a lark, I ran it at a Halloween party for a group of 1st level characters, but with 'free replacement for lost characters'. It made almost no difference - the 1st level characters were able to get over halfway through the module before the night ended, with only a handful of deaths. Most of the things that killed them would have killed the high-level characters too.

This is very different than, say, D&D 3.5, where if you were playing a 1st level character in a module designed for 12th level characters, there's just no way to pull it off short of Pun-Pun. If you treat D&D 3.5 like it's AD&D, or treat AD&D like it's D&D 3.5, in both cases you're likely to get a nasty surprise. But there are still elements of player skill that can overcome a bad stat array even in 3.5. I'd say that a skilled optimizer would be able to make a much more powerful character using the all-10s array than a new player would be able to do with an all-18s array. There's still a strong element of player skill that dominates other factors, but it just lives in a different place within the game system.

I have my own issues with Strength scores, especially with "10" being Average Strength (And the huge disparity IRL in strength between men and women). Does opening a sealed pickle jar require a STR of 11, or STR of 9?

I'd say it requires STR 6, reasonable leverage, and a lack of sweaty palms.

[Raimun]

It's not the skill of playing RPGs that's relevant here. It's the player's skill in real-world situations comparable to those in the game, as it is those that drastically change what they expect their characters to be able to do.

An example: a rather slow-witted player with little academic knowledge is still likely to think they're at least of average intellect. So they're not going to buy a character with 10 INT outperforming them in areas of academic knowledge. From their perspective, the "average character" shouldn't be more competent than them, or a more competent character should have higher INT.

On the other side of the table, we have a very smart and educated player. He is well above average, but because he knows how much he's ignorant of, he feels like "nothing special". If an 10 INT character shows extensive knowledge or does math or strategy, they won't be bothered, because they think "average people" are well able to do "basic stuff" like that... even if the only person at the table to whom those are basic is him.

It's only after we consider these player expectations that it becomes meaningful to discuss what the stat actually model within the game, as opposed to what the players think they model. In Lamentations of the Flame Princess, for example, the mechanical difference between a 10 INT and an 18 INT is having a better chance to know a foreign language and taking three days less to research magic. A Specialist can overcome the higher INT character's advantage from 1st level and the latter is only useful to wealthy, higher-level Magic-User or Cleric. The mechanics don't say anything at all about ability to know things or make good decisions - those are explicitly left on the shoulders of player skill. The smart player is by and large able to do all the same things with their character as the dumb player.

So if the dumb player, at some point, says "your character has only 10 INT, he shouldn't know that" and the smart player says "What do you mean, this was common knowledge in the Middle-Ages?", who is right?

Granted, people of any intellect can lack a frame of reference but surely most people have a pretty accurate estimate of how intelligent they are when compared to other people, even if they know they are ignorant.

Player skill can count for a lot. If we take AD&D as an example, I would say that the skilled player with the all-10s character will generally be able to run rings around the new player with the all-18 array, especially in old-school games. The new player with the all-18 array is likely to do something foolish like 'I roll to detect traps on the chest!' - which for a first level thief with an 18 Dex only has a 35% chance of success and a 65% chance of setting off the trap and likely killing the character. The skilled player will recognize that the rules are not his friend in this particular situation, and that if a low level character wants to deal with traps they can - and must - do so via non-mechanical means ('I have a hireling go over and open the chest'; 'I use a 10ft pole with a hook on the end to open the chest at a distance'; 'I shoot the lock of the chest with a crossbow from 50ft away'; etc)

Oh, c'mon. Most of the old school challenge is because GMs like Gygax made spiteful ad hoc decisions on the spot and then they got codified:
"Wait, what? You actually killed the monster? Well... as you walk towards the treasure, the treasure chest, the ceiling, the floor and all eight of the walls attack you! Roll a save against poison and then roll initiative!"

How else you explain monsters such as Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing and co.

The original Tomb of Horrors module was suggested to be appropriate for a party of high level characters. As a lark, I ran it at a Halloween party for a group of 1st level characters, but with 'free replacement for lost characters'. It made almost no difference - the 1st level characters were able to get over halfway through the module before the night ended, with only a handful of deaths. Most of the things that killed them would have killed the high-level characters too.

This is very different than, say, D&D 3.5, where if you were playing a 1st level character in a module designed for 12th level characters, there's just no way to pull it off short of Pun-Pun. If you treat D&D 3.5 like it's AD&D, or treat AD&D like it's D&D 3.5, in both cases you're likely to get a nasty surprise. But there are still elements of player skill that can overcome a bad stat array even in 3.5. I'd say that a skilled optimizer would be able to make a much more powerful character using the all-10s array than a new player would be able to do with an all-18s array. There's still a strong element of player skill that dominates other factors, but it just lives in a different place within the game system.

Well, yeah. Things have generally made more sense since 3rd edition, even if we discount the more sensible book layout and more consistent rules. If you play 3rd edition (or later edition) and were to attempt a module designed for 12th level characters as a 1st level party, there's no way you can come through because the party will find things to be way over their heads. They can't fight the monsters or even sneak past them. Traps are also generally too advanced to disable, let alone perceive. But of course stuff like that doesn't matter when you play AD&D because there are no Skills and you can just waltz through stuff if you ask enough questions and employ "cleverly" the umpteen ten foot poles carried per PC.

As for the skilled player with 10s for all stats, yeah. The more skilled player can make a more effective character than a new player. However, even that player would not really shine in any way. Magic is all but impossible with all 10s and close combat will be pain. Archery might be slightly better option but even then the accuracy is just terrible. Rogue might work the best but even then you would operating with terrible accuracy, defense and even the skills would be lacking. Sure, in 3.5 you might roll a Warlock or in Pathfinder a Synthetist but even those would be rather unimpressive. You could also make an argument about player ingenuity but there's only so much ten foot poles can accomplish and only so many places with candeliers you can drop on people that there's not much to write home about. Of course, I'm assuming 1st level play with no +6 stat boost items and it should go without saying you can't be an anthropomorphic bat, a minotaur or something like that.

[Sartharina]

Granted, people of any intellect can lack a frame of reference but surely most people have a pretty accurate estimate of how intelligent they are when compared to other people, even if they know they are ignorant.

No, they don't. They think they're "Int 10-13), even if they're anywhere between INT 3-18 IRL. Aside from a few INT 4 who think they're INT 18.

[Coidzor]

No, they don't. They think they're "Int 10-13), even if they're anywhere between INT 3-18 IRL. Aside from a few INT 4 who think they're INT 18.

Probably best to avoid getting into the subject of the profoundly mentally handicapped.

[jedipotter]

the default roleplayer was a new roleplayer.

This is still true. How long has the average player been playing? Two years? Three? Five? Or do you count with the ''new'' math: If you played your first game ever in 2000 an played all that year, then did not play another game until 2014.....would you say you have been gaming for 14 years?