What Do Stats Mean To You?

[Tony Misfeldt]

I've found that some people have different interpritations of some stats than some other people do. So I'm just wondering how you guys interpret certain ability scores. Here's how I see them

STRENGTH: This one's one of the least open to interpretation. A strength score of 12 allows you to do X and not Y. It's fairly straight forward. There might be some debate on exactly how physically fit someone is, especially if they have a lower strength score. For example, I DMed a game where one player used the random height & weight generating tables and he made a female cleric who was 5'5" and weighed 160 lbs with a strength score of 9. He said it was 160 lbs of pure muscle. I pointed out that with a 9 STR her Max Press was only 90 lbs. That meant she had trouble doing a single push-up. I would like to point out that I do prefer the 2nd Edition Strength Rules, with the possibility of extraordinary strength for those of the warrior classes.

DEXTERITY: Dexterity is also fairly cut & dried. I will admit that I like the 3rd Edition rules on DEX better than 2nd, with getting the same bonuses for reflex actions, missile attacks, and AC adjustments. There's very little fussing over what a 13 DEX can or can't let you do.

CONSTITUTION: This one's also very cut & dried. I never really had much trouble with how people interprit the physical stats. Those difficulties usually lie with the mental stats. That said, I must admit I prefer the 2nd Edition rules for constitution, with the warrior classes getting extraordinary CON while other classes could have the same CON score but only get +2 hit points per level.

INTELLIGENCE: While Intelligence isn't necessarily open to interpretation, it can be very tough to role play. If you yourself are fairly intelligent, but you roll low for your character's INT score, it might be very tempting to just play your own intelligence. On the flip side, if your own intelligence is just about average it can be very difficult to play a character that;'s a supergenious. One trick that worked very well in 2nd Ed was to roll Intelligence Checks to see if your character gets a clever idea. If your character has a low intelligence and you come up with a very clever solution to overcome a problem, roll vs your character's Intelligence score. If you fail, you keep your mouth shut, even if it means the deaths of some (or even all) of the party members. Or if you're playing a character who's much smarter than you really are, roll Intelligence Checks when your character comes across a problem which stumps you but HE should figure out easily. If you make your check the DM can pass you a note with a few clues on how to overcome the problem. I'm not sure how that would work with DCs in 3.X or 4th Ed, but it worked in 2nd Ed.

WISDOM: This is one of the stats that's most open to interpretation and is in fact what prompted me to start this topic. The first time I tried my hand at playing 3rd Ed D&D, our group's new DM was starting a whole new campaign. I desided to add a little 2nd Ed into the game and make my character a Wild Mage (the DM agreed to this as the rules for wild magic are easily converted from 2nd to 3rd ed rules). As I rolled up my stats I desided to put my worst roll onto my WIS, as I figured only a fool would willingly mess around with something as unpredictable as Wild Magic. When the DM looked over my character sheet after I was done he said "Okay, your character's going to be a coward". I asked "How do you figure that". He said "You have a low Wisdom score so you lack the willpower to overcome your fear, thus you're a coward". While I can see how one with low Wisdom could be a coward because of a lack of willpower, I had issue with the assumption that my character had to be a coward. While he may not have had the willpower to overcome the magical fear aura of a lich or a dragon, one with low Wisdom could also be interpretted as not having enough sense to be afraid in stuations which call for being afraid. After all, "Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread". Also, if my character were a coward then why would he specialize in Wild Magic and not something safer like Divination? That's how I see low wisdom, lack of common sense.

CHARISMA: This one is also fairly open to interpretation. Many people interpret Charisma with what a character looks like. Personally, I always considered a character's charisma had more to do with his personality. In fact I believe the dictionary deffinition of charisma is the strength of one's personality. One could easily have a strong magnetic personality without being very physically attractive. You see it all the time in pro wrestling. Men who are only average looking, or downright ugly, who are very charismatic with captivating personalities. Hulk Hogan's average looking at best, but his charisma is beyond measure. Same could be said for Jake "The Snake" Roberts, Mick Foley, Van Vader, The Bushwhackers, Abdullah The Butcher, Dusty Rhodes. I could go on forever. And in D&D terms, a horrific facial scar might not necessarily be cause for losing charisma. Imagine a barbarian from a culture which glorifies war and combat (as most fantasy barbarian cultures do). His face is badly scarred from a close call with a morning star during a battle against a very fierce bugbear. He won the fight and tells of the battle at any given opportunity, displaying his scars with pride. In his culture, his scars actually increase his charisma not decrease it as the rules say they should.

COMELINESS: Not everyone uses this stat. I do so I'm including it in this discussion. Most DMs use Charisma as both physical beauty and personality. I prefer seperating them into two different stats. I think it's far more realistic. What if your character was a late bloomer, who went through an awkward stage during her adolecence. After years of being ridiculed and teased by the "shiny, pretty people" she's become very shy and withdrawn. Or, she may have always been pretty and ended up developing a huge ego because of it and treats everybody like dirt. Either of these could give your character high COM and low CHA. You see it all the time in Hollywood. Ben Afflek, Paris Hilton, and Tara Reid are all very attractive people, but they all have all the emotional range of a carved wooden doll (and in D&D, the acting skill is Charisma based). And Naomi Campbell may look great walking the catwalk in Paris, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near her when she has a cordless phone in her hand (especially if Mother Nature is making her monthly "social call"). Thus I make my players roll both Charisma AND Comeliness.

So what are some of your interpretations of the different ability scores and their meanings?

[kirksmithicus]

Wisdom is one of the most elusive of traits or perhaps most ill defined in the game. But I've never thought that a character with a low wisdom is a coward. To me WIS is more about a characters decision making and maturity. Those with a low wisdom are perhaps, naive or rash and reckless while those with a high wisdom are more apt to think through their decisions, see through deceptions, sense others true motives, and in general more cunning, etc. Wisdom and Willpower are two different things. IMO the Wisdom trait has long outlived its usefulness because it is a loaded term and should have been replaced with something more appropriate long ago, like with most other RPG's. D&D seems to have clung to some things regardless of whether they work well or not and seems to have kept them just because "that's the way it's always been done", to the point that they have become "sacred cows" (i.e. something you can not kill because it is not culturally or religiously appropriate to do so).

Some other sacred cows that I think suck.......

Natural 20 = critical hit
Armor Class System
Gaining HP (at all)


getting back on topic
As for the split with charisma and comeliness I totally understand the split. I've met good looking people with absolutely no personality. I will add however, that they still manage to do a better job of getting people to do what they want than I do just because of their looks. I figure that charisma is just a blend of looks and charm but if you want to split it up that's fine.

[Grumpy Old Man]

Oh yes indeedy, the hardest ones, Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma that so many players just put their numbers down and then ignore them and play their character to their best of their ability regardless what their score was. To tell the truth other than the skill saves you can get based on them I don't think hardly anybody pays any attention to them at all. The obvious ones come up often enough in their ability to take an arrow in the gut, climb walls, or kick down doors that they are constantly being reinforced in their minds.

I kind of like having to play a character that didn't get a high wisdom or intelligence because than I can do the stupidest things and say the stupidest things and its all right because its just role playing. On the other hand if my fighter has a high IQ or my rogue has a very high wisdom score there are a lot of things they can't or won't say or do. You can tell I'm old because I will often put my highest scores on constitution and wisdom so if they do have a rock bounce off their head they will survive or if I have to make a spot check I just might actually hear something and not do something hazardous to my characters career. I love these guys who buy, finagle and fudge and end up with 18 str, 16 dex and 10 con then wonder why their superman is a little lump on the floor while the wimps are ducking, dodging and staying on their hindlegs after a sword blow.

As a blue collar worker having had to rely on the tools in my tool pouch I rely on my stats to tell me whether I am driving a 57 pickup or a 2007 Ferrari, they are just tools. As Grampa used to say, "You can't perform surgery with a hacksaw or cut a pipe with a scalpel." My tool pouch is an indicator of what kind of mechanic, (character), I am today.

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Here's a different take on it. So what do stats mean to me, personally? I find that the lower your stats are or the more average or mediocre one's character is, the more flexibility one has to really dig deep and create a well-rounded individual. And since it was harder to keep a character alive, a player became more emotionally involved with said character. I hate superheros that are at the top 1% in the Dnd world. Give me straight 10's, and i will show you an enjoyable character to play.

I realize that many of you out there would disagree, so let me just say that ive been playing for over 30 years and in the early days of DnD, it was completely common to play a common, average, character. It also helped you as a player to become clever in order to help your character stay alive.

Again, i'm giving my perspective from my gaming experience. I'm not implying that others are incapable of creating great characters with superhero stats. I, myself, find it more enjoyable to have a representative of the average humanoid, and not someone that represents the top 1%. Just my preference.

Now, so as no one here thinks ive borderlined a possible threadjack, let me explain my definitions of stats:

Strength: Raw strength, dead lift, etc.
Intelligence: Rote memory and the ability to process information, photographic or holographic memory, or scatterbrained.
Wisdom: Worldly wisdom, common sense, and perhaps a bit of a 6th sense.
Dexterity: acrobatic(fall onto ones feet), balance, pick a lock, spin a dagger on ones finger, flip it, and throw it w/o difficulty:
Constitution: ability to shrug off damage, good system shock survival rolls...less likely to lose control under intense plain, etc.
Charisma: presence, speaking ability, aura that draws one close, popular, appearance. Perhaps some or all of the above.

[tesral]

As a blue collar worker having had to rely on the tools in my tool pouch I rely on my stats to tell me whether I am driving a 57 pickup or a 2007 Ferrari, they are just tools. As Grampa used to say, "You can't perform surgery with a hacksaw or cut a pipe with a scalpel." My tool pouch is an indicator of what kind of mechanic, (character), I am today.

We have too much country in the country. You sound like a man after my own heart.

I see Int. Wis, and Cha as "How, Why, When" One can be books smart and witless. Loaded with common sense, but unable to get it across to people. Charm birds from the trees and a box of rocks in the mental department.

I don't think Dexterity is quite so cut and dried myself. There is gross dexterity and fine dexterity. Someone that can run and climb and someone that can solder microcircuits. The guy that can do one might not be able to do the other. D&D lumps them together.

Last, most people do not have a clear idea what the numbers mean. I have seen many an article in the old Dragon on how this or that stat relates to the real world. One need only consider the position on the scale. "Average" 8-13 That is most people right there. 67.6% off all people will have stats between 8 and 13 25% in the 10-11 range. Most of the people on the board are going to fall into that area. Some might have a stat or two higher or lower.

[gdmcbride]

Tony,

I've got to say I'm against the Charisma/Comeliness split. All of the D&D stats could easily be broken into pairs.

Dexterity -- Coordination and Agility. After all, are video games masters also the sort of people who are good at gymnastics? Is being fast the same as being agile?

Wisdom -- Intuition and Willpower. Is being good at understanding people and circumstances really the same as being strong willled?

I certainly don't disagree with the Naomi Campbell example. And still, I think she deserves a high charisma. Consider another example -- Adolph Hitler. I think we can all agree that Hitler was not a handsome man. But was he charismatic? Absolutely! If I was statting up Hitler in D&D, he would definitely get an 18 Charisma. That man could give a speech! In fact, he was so persuasive, he could make his vitriolic, idiotic bile sound perfectly reasonable to an entire nation.

Consider the archetypal professor. No doubt, he's brilliant and thus has a high intelligence. He has scads of knowledge skills. But in D&D 3.x, he is also potentially a master craftsman, an expert appraiser of valuable items and profoundly good at linguistics. Do these traits really go hand in hand?

How do we differentiate the absent minded professor from say the master craftsman. They both have high intelligences but they have different skills and different feats.

Likewise, how do we differentiate the super model from the master politician? The model has no diplomacy, bluff or intimidate (the talking skills). The master politician is likely a master of all three (and perhaps also skill focused). But they both have a high charisma.

And for the record, I'm not against games that break out stats differently. My favorite game (BRP) breaks physical stats into four (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Size) and mental into four (Intelligence, Appearance, Willpower and Education).

It's just not how D&D handles the issue.

Gary

[fmitchell]

It's arguments like this that make me give up on "characteristics" entirely. I like the way FATE works: a character is primarily defined by his or her skills, but any unusual features (like muscles, beauty, quick fingers, sound judgement, etc.) become Aspects which provide a bonus in applicable situations. PDQ goes further in that it only uses bonuses for distinguishing features, which stack if more than one applies.

[gdmcbride]

It's arguments like this that make me give up on "characteristics" entirely. I like the way FATE works: a character is primarily defined by his or her skills, but any unusual features (like muscles, beauty, quick fingers, sound judgement, etc.) become Aspects which provide a bonus in applicable situations. PDQ goes further in that it only uses bonuses for distinguishing features, which stack if more than one applies.

It certainly is true that the stats vs. skills(or class features or base attack bonus or defense or whatever...) dichotomy is one of the RPG industries oldest conceits. Even before D&D was an RPG you rolled your stats (all three of them!) and then you picked your class. Stat vs. Skill.

And what does it model? It enshrines the difference, I think, between what you are and what you've learned. In many ways, FATE does the same thing. Aspects play the role of 'stats' -- they are just far more free form.

So, I guess to answer the OP's question -- what do stats mean to you?

Stat represent what a character was born to be.
Skills represent what they have learned.

The list of stats may change. The numbers may vary. The interaction between stats and skills may be debated. But that is what stats really are.

Gary

[tesral]

Even before D&D was an RPG you rolled your stats (all three of them!) and then you picked your class. Stat vs. Skill.

Six. It's always been six, at least with D&D.

[fmitchell]

And what does it model? It enshrines the difference, I think, between what you are and what you've learned. In many ways, FATE does the same thing. Aspects play the role of 'stats' -- they are just far more free form.

FATE follows a different philosophy from, say, D&D, GURPS, Storyteller, or Unisystem. In FATE, having good genes gives you a slight boost when doing certain activities, but ultimately your training (and specialized aptitudes?) determines whether you succeed or fail. In the rest, some people naturally excel at a broad range of tasks, and those without that broad range of aptitudes have to try harder. FATE favors nurture over nature, whereas most other games favor nature over nurture.

For example, in FATE someone with an aspect "Strong as an Ox" can spend a Fate Point for an advantage any time where brute strength might make a difference. On the other hand, in D&D 3.5 a character with a Strength of 18 gets a flat +4 on any athletic test (Climb, Swim, Jump, melee attacks, etc.) without any training while a character with a 10 would have to devote 4 skill ranks to each skill for the same skill benefit and gain four to eight levels besides. (D&D 4e has a smaller skill list and a flat "trained" bonus of +5, but the problem is still present.)

PDQ blurs the distinction entirely, since Qualities are so coarse-grained. Are you a Warrior because you were born with mighty thews, or because you trained like hell with every weapon you could lay your hands on, or because you survived the gladiator pits of Tharga-Kul? Mechanically, it makes no difference.

In the end, what really makes a difference is what you can do, whether it's stat + skill or a combined skill with a situational bonus. The approach FATE, PDQ, Grimm, and other newer systems take simplifies character sheets and the amount of figuring at the table (or on a worksheet), which is a big win in my book.

[gdmcbride]

Six. It's always been six, at least with D&D.

That was an off-hand reference to Chainmail (the predecessor to D&D) which, I believe in its fantasy supplement describing heroes, only had three stats -- strength, intelligence, wisdom.

Gary

[nijineko]

strength- is that speed muscles or weight muscles? speed is actually a function of strength, so it is a little more complex than just how strong one is. what is the power of your grip? climbers have a more powerful grip than weight lifters. it can be defined either way, really. (btw, gurps can tell you, if you want to know.)

dexterity- agility, reflexes, or manual? fumblefingers with a card trick may be a great contortionist. and who knows how fast they will react to something thrown at them. it can be defined any of the three ways.

constitution- is that destructable toughness or resisting harmful effects? it can be defined either way.

intelligence- stuff you know? memory and recall? problem solving skills? understanding advanced complex concepts like 13-dimensional math? the fundemental building block of matter? take your pick.

wisdom- .....

charisma- charm? personality? social ability?

comliness- what you look like. i think this one is the least twistable of the stats. in games where this is not being used, i make characters describe themselves physically, and they get to pick. strange how so few pick something other than handsome or beautiful. ;)


however, having mentioned all these possibilities, i think that d&d has a pretty specific meaning for those stats. in the context of the game it works, even if it is not the theoretical best possible representation of the stats in question. in games i've designed i've used as little as three stats and as many as fifteen depending on what i was after.

what the stats mean to me is symbolic. they are symbols of roughly how good my character is at something. i'm pretty descriptive so i can circumlocute my way around a description of an action involving a stat my character is good at even though i'm not. most gamemasters are kind enough to accept my descriptive efforts when i am unable to actually roleplay the thing in question. i know that in my game, it may not be totally fair, but i "weight" roleplayed and descriptive efforts (good or bad... the effort means something, and should be rewarded!) more than a simple "my character does this" type thing.

i find personally the greatest challenge is to play a wise character who is not necessarily book smart. which i feel is pretty much the opposite of myself. ^^

[Tony Misfeldt]

As I mentioned in my opening post, it's really the stats that some people find open to interpretation I'm most interested in getting your take on. While playing someone who has greater/lower intelligence is generally easy, defining low wisdom is a little trickier. In my example, my DM thought low wisdom = cowardess. To me cowardess is a personality trait, completely seperate from your stats. Your wisdom score just determines how well you deal with that character quirk. A number of you have mentioned that you don't like the stat system at all, that you'd prefer a game without stats. I disagree with that assessment. The ability score system may be imperfect, but remember that this is a game and games need structure. Without an exact chart determining how much your character can lift, or how many languages he can speak, or how far he can run before collapsing, the whole game would break down into chaos.

[nijineko]

are you after definitions, specifically? i gave some examples of alternate definitions or interpretations for the stats in my post. guess i'm not quite getting it. ^^

[Grimwell]

According to most half-orc's I know...

STRENGTH:
Smash! SMAAAASH!!! I can smash things like pesky robe wearers!!!! SMAASSH!

DEXTERITY:
You stop moving now back-sticker! I SMAAAAASH you!

CONSTITUTION:
We only have two kegs, what you guys drinking?

INTELLIGENCE:
Hoodoo warned me, no stick hand in snake hole. It's a trap!

WISDOM:
Next time I see snake hole I listen to Hoodoo's advice!

CHARISMA:
You buy first round today or I SMAAAASH!

COMELINESS:
You so pretty I wash my hair this month for you!

(sorry, I couldn't resist being a goof. :D )

[Arch Lich Thoth-Amon]

Funny stuff. Glad you posted it.

[boulet]

The ability score system may be imperfect, but remember that this is a game and games need structure. Without an exact chart determining how much your character can lift, or how many languages he can speak, or how far he can run before collapsing, the whole game would break down into chaos.
That's one way to see it. It's trying to enforce a form of realism where traits and ability models characters in the broad tapestry of the game setting. The extremes and average of these stats tells things about the game settings, and the whole intellectual process can be linked to wargames where "realism" is a very important aspect too.

Now if pseudo-realism isn't the main medium bringing suspension of disbelief and if the system isn't focused on task resolution but instead on the cooperative story that players build then the traits don't need to be normalized and/or try to cover all the ground of characters abilities. All that matters are traits that players would like to see expressed/used during the story. It becomes very interesting to highlight the moral/psychological underlying conflict inside the characters so the players can tie them to the game settings and/or other characters demeanor. The traits become then a fertile soil for plot/scene ideas, especially if the game system brings resolution in term of a larger notion of conflict instead of discrete tasks (a bit like skill challenges in D&D 4e).

"the whole game would break down into chaos" if I understand well, is an expression of how you expect the game system handles suspension of disbelief, at least in term of what PCs and NPCs can do. But it could be handled in an open dialog where any player at some point could say "What ? Character A is trying to flip a chariot ? But he's an old asthmatic geezer ! That's BS !" and thus use his veto to say that suspension of disbelief is breaking down for him. One obvious advantage of this method is that the rule book for this type of game is a few dozen pages shorter because there's no point describing how to resolve climbing, lock picking, horse riding, surviving flames, poison, illness etc... all based on "realistic" traits.

[tesral]

Realistic or not, the stats are a framework on which to hang the crunch of the game. The part that handles "I hit you" -- "No you didn't!"

Some traits are easier to play than others. Playing the guy who is super strong isn't hard, "I lift the car.". Playing the "Einstein was a dummy" character is much, much harder unless you make Einstein look like a dummy. Playing above your own mental abilities is hard if not impossible. The mentals are kind of where stats fall down but you still need the framework.

Stats mean there will be fewer arguments at the table over whether Olaf the Half-Fierce can tell if they cooked the books.

[DMMike]

Intelligence: How well you use what you know.
Wisdom: How well you use what you don't know. (or instantaneously find out)
Charisma: A Strength score for personality.
Comeliness: C'mon. The poor PC already rolled a bad Charisma. Are you going to twist the knife and make it risk a bad Beauty score too? Let the PCs decide.

[Tony Misfeldt]

That's one way to see it. It's trying to enforce a form of realism where traits and ability models characters in the broad tapestry of the game setting. The extremes and average of these stats tells things about the game settings, and the whole intellectual process can be linked to wargames where "realism" is a very important aspect too.

"the whole game would break down into chaos" if I understand well, is an expression of how you expect the game system handles suspension of disbelief, at least in term of what PCs and NPCs can do. But it could be handled in an open dialog where any player at some point could say "What ? Character A is trying to flip a chariot ? But he's an old asthmatic geezer ! That's BS !" and thus use his veto to say that suspension of disbelief is breaking down for him. One obvious advantage of this method is that the rule book for this type of game is a few dozen pages shorter because there's no point describing how to resolve climbing, lock picking, horse riding, surviving flames, poison, illness etc... all based on "realistic" traits.

Even if the PC/NPC in question is physically or mentally capable of performing incredible feats, there needs to be some form of managing this for the GM. You're playing a 7' tall 300 lbs, muscle bound barbarian half orc who's trying to lift a boulder. How do you determine his success or failure without a strength score? I suppose through dialogue you might be able to determine his ability to lift the boulder. However it's far simpler to just say "Your STR is X, the boulder weighs Y. You succeed/fail". Same goes for people playing characters with high INT. He finds writing in a strange language. Does he know the language? Is it related to languages he does know? Does he have skills, such as cryptography, that may aide him in dicyphering the language? All this could be figured out without stats, but it's far simpler to say "Your INT is X, you know Y number of languages. This note is written in a language that looks similar to this language, but has a dialect that's more like that language. Given time and study, you should be able to figure out what it says".

[Tony Misfeldt]

Intelligence: How well you use what you know.
Wisdom: How well you use what you don't know. (or instantaneously find out)
Charisma: A Strength score for personality.
Comeliness: C'mon. The poor PC already rolled a bad Charisma. Are you going to twist the knife and make it risk a bad Beauty score too? Let the PCs decide.

I see it a bit more like this...

Intelligence: How much you know.
Wisdom: How well you use what you know, and how well you learn from your mistakes.
Charisma: How forceful/weak your personality is.
Comeliness: Not everyone can be born beautiful. Maybe his lack of physical beauty is what caused him to be so lacking in charisma as well.

[Xandros]

I have always felt that maybe there should be more basic stats. WIS is a confusing one since it cover sense for things like spot checks and also your willpower. What everyone that can see really well or is more aware of their surroundings has a strong will, or everyone with a strong will also just happens to see very well? DEX is also a little rough. Someone gifted with a high Dexterity is naturally skilled at working on small devices, balancing on a tightrope and shooting a bow. In real life these are mutually exclusive. A watchmaker is not usually also good at walking a balance beam or shooting a bow or gun.

[Tony Misfeldt]

I have always felt that maybe there should be more basic stats. WIS is a confusing one since it cover sense for things like spot checks and also your willpower. What everyone that can see really well or is more aware of their surroundings has a strong will, or everyone with a strong will also just happens to see very well? DEX is also a little rough. Someone gifted with a high Dexterity is naturally skilled at working on small devices, balancing on a tightrope and shooting a bow. In real life these are mutually exclusive. A watchmaker is not usually also good at walking a balance beam or shooting a bow or gun.


With my old group (and by old, I mean the group I was playing with before I moved to Vancouver) we had an additional optional stat that we used called Perception. It worked similarly to the Comeliness ability, with the same relationship to Wisdom that Comeliness has to Charisma. Thus, a high WIS gives you a bonus of +1 to +5 to your PER. So someone with a high WIS but a low PER would be very insightful, cunning, and good at reading people, but continually blunder into booby traps and ambushes. On the other hand one with low WIS and high PER might be recless, perhaps ill tempered or absent minded, but able to spot those pesky traps and ambushes before anyone else. Nobody out here in Vancouver had ever heard of this rule so I just started leaving it out. But adding Perception and Comeliness to your stats could aliviate some of the problems that have been mentioned with stats.

[Tony Misfeldt]

According to most half-orc's I know...

STRENGTH:
Smash! SMAAAASH!!! I can smash things like pesky robe wearers!!!! SMAASSH!

DEXTERITY:
You stop moving now back-sticker! I SMAAAAASH you!

CONSTITUTION:
We only have two kegs, what you guys drinking?

INTELLIGENCE:
Hoodoo warned me, no stick hand in snake hole. It's a trap!

WISDOM:
Next time I see snake hole I listen to Hoodoo's advice!

CHARISMA:
You buy first round today or I SMAAAASH!

COMELINESS:
You so pretty I wash my hair this month for you!

(sorry, I couldn't resist being a goof. :D )


Very funny. I enjoyed it.:lol:

[tesral]

So someone with a high WIS but a low PER would be very insightful, cunning, and good at reading people, but continually blunder into booby traps and ambushes. On the other hand one with low WIS and high PER might be recless, perhaps ill tempered or absent minded, but able to spot those pesky traps and ambushes before anyone else.

Arguably every stat could have such a division. Knowledge vs. mentation, manual dexterity vs. physical agility, resistance vs. endurance.

The question is; where do you stop? You could easily double the number of stats. I recall that Skills and Powers made such a division. Each stat had two sub-stats which could differ from the root stat. One has to balance the complication vs, the playability.

To a great extent skills cover this. While your Wisdom bonus adds to "Spot" in the long run the ranks you have in spot mean more. You can be insightful, and oblivious. I think the skills system does a nice job of filling in the corners and gives one those differences you are seeking.

[Tony Misfeldt]

i find personally the greatest challenge is to play a wise character who is not necessarily book smart. which i feel is pretty much the opposite of myself. ^^

That certainly would be difficult to roleplay, but not impossible. here are some examples...

Forest Gump: Here's a man with an 85 IQ (What in D&D would be an INT score of 7 or 8), but is very insightful. "I'm not a smart man, Jenny. But I know what love is."

Jason Voorhees: For those of you who don't like horror movies, that's the killer from the Friday The 13th franchise. He had apparently drowned in Crystal Lake when he was 11, washed ashore and spent his entire life surviving on his own. Hunting, stealing, and foraging for his food and shelter. Then when he grew up and started his killing spree, he didn't just walk into camp and start hacking away. He cut the phone lines, he stalked his prey, he picked themm off one by one. Why? Well, aside from the fact that just wading in and chopping away would make for a very short movie, somewhere in that pea sized brain of his he knew that if they all ganged up on him that he would be the one killed. So he does them one at a time. He can't read, he can't write, he can't even speak, but he knows how to stalk and murder a person most effectively.

[GoddessGood]

I'm admittedly biased towards the storyteller system, but I always thought splitting stats into three categories was more realistic: Physical, Mental and Social. There're three each.

Strength
Dexterity
Stamina (like Constitution)

Charisma (force of personality, sort of like social Strength)
Appearance (like Comeliness)
Manipulation (sort of like social Dexterity)

Wits (I guess it's like Wisdom)
Intelligence
Perception

High Charisma means I can just come up to a person, start talking and they like me instantly. Low Charisma can mean I'm brusque, brutish or dull. Either way it takes a social interaction to figure this out. A high Appearance gives me an in before I even open my mouth because I'm gorgeous. A low Appearance doesn't necessarily close those doors, but it might make social interactions a little more challenging. High Manipulation people can get what they need out of every social interaction and can convince people that they know what's best. Low Manipulation is usually a marker for the naive, young and trusting.

If your mind is a river, then Intelligence is how deep the river is and Wits is how quickly it flows. You may have a high enough Perception to make your spot check, but if you don't have the Wits to know what to do about what you see then you're as sunk as if you'd never spotted it in the first place.

[Kalanth]

I was thinking about this for a bit now and realized that my group, honestly, ignores the numbers to an extent. They help to fill in the blanks, but then from there we just run the character as we want. The obvious ones like strength and such are easy to RP out so there are times that the number dictates our RP actions, but the majority of the time it does not play into the game at all.

I guess that means that numbers, to me, are just arbitray figures meant to give your attacks and defenses more definition.

[nijineko]

That certainly would be difficult to roleplay, but not impossible.

^^ easy to say, hard to play.





especially, off the cuff. as i have found from personal experience.


.

[Jcosby]

I've found that some people have different interpritations of some stats than some other people do. So I'm just wondering how you guys interpret certain ability scores. Here's how I see them

Stats? That's where the bonuses and negitives come from... Other then that, they are nothing. As other people have stated they are the framework of the game. There has to be a baseline, something which says yes you can do that, no you can't. Other wise why even use the rules, just make them up as you go. Nothing wrong with that if that's the way you want to play, that's just not D&D or 4th edition. :)

JC

[nijineko]

excellent point.

[zergrusheddie]

It's very difficult to balance out the character of the player along with the character themselves. One perfect example is my father, the Monster stats calculating machine:

"You are approached by strange looking man, that almost looks as if he has snakes writhing under his face mask. He speaks in a de-"

"That's a Mind-Flayer! I'm putting on a helmet and diverting my eyes from his! He's a CR 6, and is only nasty if he gets the drop!"

The DM glared at him for the longest time. "Kevin, how'd did your Half-Orc Barbarian with an INT of 5 know such a thing?"

"Well, they..uh.. attacked my homeland when I was very young!" It turns out that Thor'gog's homeland was attacked by a multitude of creatures, from Alips to Zombies. He was constantly using his knowledge to warn the other people...

[tesral]

I
"Well, they..uh.. attacked my homeland when I was very young!" It turns out that Thor'gog's homeland was attacked by a multitude of creatures, from Alips to Zombies. He was constantly using his knowledge to warn the other people...

The solution to that level of metagaming is the old switch up. It never is what he thinks it is.

In my case that would mean the "snakes" thing was a property of the magical mask. The "face" under it would be far more terrible and the wizard more powerful, or fighter if I choose. When he activates the fear effect on the mask things would start to get fun.

The quick assumer would either get highly frustrated as I presented seeming one things that were anothers or learn to let me finish my flavor text.

[Tony Misfeldt]

The solution to that level of metagaming is the old switch up. It never is what he thinks it is.

In my case that would mean the "snakes" thing was a property of the magical mask. The "face" under it would be far more terrible and the wizard more powerful, or fighter if I choose. When he activates the fear effect on the mask things would start to get fun.

The quick assumer would either get highly frustrated as I presented seeming one things that were anothers or learn to let me finish my flavor text.

Great solution. Metagamers in my game tend to hear Dueling Banjoes being played all around them. "SQUEEL LIKE A PIG BOY! SQUEEEEL!!!"

[Webhead]

The solution to that level of metagaming is the old switch up. It never is what he thinks it is.

In my case that would mean the "snakes" thing was a property of the magical mask. The "face" under it would be far more terrible and the wizard more powerful, or fighter if I choose. When he activates the fear effect on the mask things would start to get fun.

The quick assumer would either get highly frustrated as I presented seeming one things that were anothers or learn to let me finish my flavor text.

Agreed. Let them assume all day long. The truth is only the truth the instant the GM reveals it. Be careful what ideas and misconceptions you feed me...

[nijineko]

quite so, at the very least that encounter would have become an npc with illithid heretige feats and a totally different payload than an illithid. or i would take them at their word and twist it in. =D

[tesral]

Agreed. Let them assume all day long. The truth is only the truth the instant the GM reveals it. Be careful what ideas and misconceptions you feed me...

I love it when the players write the adventure for me. Sit back and take notes. They can be much meaner to themselves than I can.