tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post461997012448364931..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: Hunting Will Good and IntelligentlyAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-75274348748911902962019-02-13T11:42:58.514-07:002019-02-13T11:42:58.514-07:00Because the game MIGHT be a multitude of stressing...Because the game MIGHT be a multitude of stressing factors, the point of rules is to limit those factors to things that can be consistently rolled for ~ and not bow to momentary proposals from players that are inconsistent and utterly subjective.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-73132438917500127122019-02-13T11:04:36.199-07:002019-02-13T11:04:36.199-07:00I suppose you may be right. I kind of thought it w...I suppose you may be right. I kind of thought it was very "rules heavy" after I finished sending my commnent, but I still wanted to risk you opinion before I forgot what I was trying to say. <br /><br />About assupmtion one, at least under my impression, I am sure that I would not be able to check weak spots in any armor because I have never seen one, much less faced somebody wearing it, no matter how much I look at it. Maybe I sort of identify a very basic assumption of tear and wear, but I there is no way I could exploit that. I simply do not know anything about it.<br /><br />About the second one, I have learned that no matter how good I am at something or how much I try to overcome it by maximaxing the odds of success, there is always a chance to fail and the best possible outcome tends to be a chance.<br /><br />I agree that a lot things seems very obvious at first glance, I simply thought that in a game with a multitude of stressing factors one can never be too sure, no matter outward appearances. Of course, this could also lead to it´s own problems down road.<br /><br /><br />But maybe that does not translate well into pure mathematical mechanics.<br /><br />Best regards.Fherphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16096925543793286472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-55916991953016466052019-02-13T10:15:36.433-07:002019-02-13T10:15:36.433-07:00Assumption One: You are able to check an opponent ...Assumption One: You are able to check an opponent for "weak spots" in their armor simply by looking.<br /><br />Assumption Two: Already having established an flat ability to hit an opponent due to your level, you somehow predicate this number as NOT already presuming you are using all your skill to achieve THE BEST POSSIBLE chance of hitting.<br /><br />Therefore, you believe that by "looking" first you can improve a number that should already assume you're looking.<br /><br />Everything else in your argument is total bullshit. Which is in part evident by how convoluted the sentences and argument becomes as you attempt to suss it out.<br /><br />Your ability to hit is a number designated by your class, your abilities, your level and your equipment. "Perception" is assumed in that framework.<br /><br />You sound like someone who is telling me, "If you want to taste the water, you have to really use your tongue to TASTE the water."<br /><br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-87892954085730967982019-02-13T09:52:22.775-07:002019-02-13T09:52:22.775-07:00Ah right, completely forgot about the acclount nam...Ah right, completely forgot about the acclount name verification, sorry about that.<br /><br />I am very curious about your rage against perception checks, but at least I more or less see how can it be abused by circumventing logic and context. There is definetly a silent agreement that when a high roll meets a high score something wondrous and literally impossible must happen right out of the bat, usually something spectacularly good for the players just becuase reasons. Granted, I am not against miracles per se, but even in the majority of the holy texts they required a set of understandable circumstances to actually happen, and they were reserved for very special focal points in the narratrive to actually summarize their uniqueness. Not to mention, not all miracles were world shattering events, and more often than not, there was a price to be paid of some kind.<br /><br />This is just a very prelimary thought, but maybe a percepcition check could be managed under the framing structure you discussed earlier. If I may, I will try to quickly elaborate:<br /><br />You face a elven warrior and you want to check for weak spots in his armour. <br />I would tie the check to both intelligence and wisdom because you need to have certain awareness of the variables that comform your space, the elf´s and the piece of equipment you are trying to surveil. You would also need to have knowledge and/or experience about protective gear and about elfs, then understand if you have the means to carry out the action and to what degree, this of course after you have spent at least a round actually battling and assesing the elf´s proficiency. Only after you satisfy these conditions you could attempt to perception check for weaknesses in the armor, but keep in my mind that in the heat of battle your awareness could be hampered by other factors (like the checks for mental and fatigue stress counters mentioned earlier). The better you satisfy the former requirements, the better your chances to success at the check allowing you to gleam quality information. You could maybe argue about an educated guess, so assuming you actually compound the neccessary education, you could go for it with the associated penalties attached, and remember that your information gained will be doubtful and suspicious.<br /><br />I am even thinking of multi-dimentionalize the basic frame structure, as in a novice fighter could not gleam the same information than a veteran one because experience is a very defining factor in that way of life, even if they both face the same challenge under similar circumstances.<br /><br />In case my name does not appear again, I will be signing as fherp.<br />Best regards.Fherphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16096925543793286472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-57727833544932849902019-02-12T19:51:26.468-07:002019-02-12T19:51:26.468-07:00I have nothing useful to add, but I'll definet...I have nothing useful to add, but I'll definetely be pondering this idea and look forward to seeing you further develop these ideas.J. Cormierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06775658681126093604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-53654256760459822422019-02-12T17:23:08.933-07:002019-02-12T17:23:08.933-07:00Hooray! A victory for semantics.
Brilliant, Tyle...Hooray! A victory for semantics.<br /><br />Brilliant, Tyler. Well played!Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-60891998833964819432019-02-12T16:58:31.604-07:002019-02-12T16:58:31.604-07:00I've reached the same conclusion as this line:...I've reached the same conclusion as this line: "The "breakthrough" was the realization that intelligence (and to some extent, all ability stats) needs not to be seen as an enabler but as a ceiling."<br /><br />I made a change to the term Ability Score to "Ability Limit" in bold on my character sheets. Within a short time, my players shifted their understanding of what an Ability Check meant, and the flow of the game benefitted greatly. <br /><br />Now, the players know their characters do what the players say they do, until I say, "This will test your Limits." Then they decide whether to push their luck. The mechanics are the same, but the perception has shifted, especially in terms of what a failed roll means. My groups stay on the same page more consistently now about what can and cannot be done, when checks should be made, and whether the possibility of further checks after failure makes any sense.Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08712569684250055374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-77784845710337534672019-02-12T14:44:20.971-07:002019-02-12T14:44:20.971-07:00Unknown,
I generally don't confirm anonymous ...Unknown,<br /><br />I generally don't confirm anonymous posts, but your comment was well considered. If you haven't got an I.D. that blogger recognizes, please sign a name at the end of your comment so I know how to recognize you later.<br /><br />You're spot on as I consider it. Why shouldn't we assume there are things a 13 strength can absolutely do that a 12 strength would have to roll for? Why not a trick that a 9 dexterity could manage ~ say, a card trick ~ that an 8 dexterity wouldn't be enough for? A list like that for every stat could be eventually compiled, then added to as players brought up things in a game that we'd assess in comparison to all else that we'd reasoned out. <br /><br />To my mind, the problem is the structure of the list; how do we frame the problem initially, to give us a scale; once we had that scale, then all the things in it could be assigned easily and consistently.<br /> Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-42597647959012168552019-02-12T14:11:07.364-07:002019-02-12T14:11:07.364-07:00This is very intriguing.
I assume this kind of con...This is very intriguing.<br />I assume this kind of configuration is very possible for the rest of the stats, yes?<br /><br />For example, A barbarian tries to move a 60 pound boulder blocking a narrow mountain path.<br />having 15 constitution does not mean that he grabs it and tosses aside with a finger, it means he can maybe try to do the action safely without breaking his spine. having 15 strenght does not mean he can punch it and reduce it to rubble, it means he has enough force to actually move it around.<br /><br />It makes me think, maybe we could roll for modifiers under specific circumstances?<br /><br />If we have a table detailing mass, density and hardness of this boulder vs the detailed charcter sheet of the biological and physiological status of the character,perhaps we can assess that the barbarian can realibly move it for 3 steps, then he starts feeling pain, soreness and tiredness, aflicting his perfomance for a couple of more steps. if he overcomes a check of say, five, then he continues the action normally, but with the colloraly that the stress keeps building, so next check could be 10 and so on.<br />Of course, he could try to take a rest to kind of reset the stress counter, but that not might me possible if he is being pursued or if an avalanche looms over his head. <br />Maybe this could lead into more intricate interactions between similar mental and psychological stress counters?, failure and success could impact the first action, as in despair makes him lose his grip momentarially or adrenaline rushed him to haphazardly move the boulder at the cost of injury. both of severity of instances´ severity could be calculated by the sum of all this vectors. All of this of course requires setting, player and narrative context, every challenge should have a logical nuance to it when applied to different circumstances and characters. <br /><br />Granted, I am very new to the game and I am trying to find a middle road between this insights and the "mainstream approach", so maybe I am either overthinking it or underthinking it, in any case, I thank you for the pondering opportunity.Fherphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16096925543793286472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-10488639647856057982019-02-12T05:09:04.934-07:002019-02-12T05:09:04.934-07:00You've also your development series, which wer...You've also your development series, which were (at one time) linked to Intelligence. Thus, a 12 Int is necessary to "get" a certain development; not to use or employ it, as you say, because once discovered it can be taught; but that initial discovery cannot be done by someone eiwi less than the requisite score.Ozymandiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01065642299277380465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-49149693658042824442019-02-11T23:26:46.771-07:002019-02-11T23:26:46.771-07:00Lance,
For a host of reasons. Mine is a 17th cen...Lance,<br /><br />For a host of reasons. Mine is a 17th century world, so being "well-read" is considerably more difficult than it is now. Well read implies permission to study, which would mean hours of building relationships with persons who were willing to let you continue to read, since very few people could afford enough books to be "well read." Such persons would permit your reading because, as it turns out, you've adopted many wise decisions about manners, patience, care for the books, remembering to return them, discussing them and finally, recognizing their worth to yourself and the whole culture. Some of these may sound like charisma, but really they're not.<br /><br />Additionally, knowledge can be gathered without needing to be particularly intelligent about it. A dogged reader with a good memory, high wisdom, can manage an extraordinary supply of facts that would bore an intelligent flipperty jibbet, again proving that "knowledge" is definitely distinct from intelligence. Where else would we put the accumulation of knowledge except in wisdom?<br /><br />Reading a lot of things from a lot of points of view does create the ability to see variables in a subject; which encourages one to change one's mind, seeing that the process of reading and accumlation of knowledge is about watching the writer change his mind, or identify the process of his mind, just as you watch me work through my own thoughts with posts like this one.<br /><br />A key element to wisdom is to CHANGE from bad behaviour to good behaviour. My dictionary defines wisdom as the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgement. Reading enables you to multiply your experiences by letting your live through the experience of other people, with the most important part of their experience distilled into a form that will make YOU wise. If you're the sort able to be wise.<br /><br />But of course, low wisdom is the sort of person that the more light you shine upon them, the less they can see. They don't read books because they won't read them, or if they read them they steadfastly refuse to get anything out of them, so they never see any opinion but their own or have any experience except their own lives.<br /><br />Wisdom isn't recognizing how to use your intelligence. Wisdom is relying on others to be intelligent, while you gain their insight and change your manner of living for the betterment of yourself and others.<br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-72437189628516470132019-02-11T23:08:00.425-07:002019-02-11T23:08:00.425-07:00Just for some clarification, why is being well rea...Just for some clarification, why is being well read evidence of wisdom?<br /><br />I understand that reading a book doesn't mean you're intelligent, but how does the choice to read a book relate to wisdom? It sounds to me like you're defining wisdom as the ability to recognize when and how to use a character's intelligence. Is that right?Lance Duncanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817319325489613672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-30527568129704748092019-02-11T21:00:53.920-07:002019-02-11T21:00:53.920-07:00Oddbit, those are good, solid points.
Suppose we ...Oddbit, those are good, solid points.<br /><br />Suppose we do work backwards ~ what 5th level spells present mental perceptions that a 9 Int can't master, and how does that affect what needs to be an intelligence check and what doesn't?<br /><br />Then, what 6th level spells help define the difference between 11 Int and 12, what 7th level spells help define the difference between 13 and 14, and so on.<br /><br />That's a good strategy. I will have to take a close look and see if I can recognize any patterns. We could just take an iconically mental spell of each spell level and use it as a benchmark.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-38094566691836299772019-02-11T19:59:31.631-07:002019-02-11T19:59:31.631-07:00A point of note.
You have already set some ground ...A point of note.<br />You have already set some ground lines on intelligent people above an intelligence of 7.<br /><br />Specifically the limitations of a spellcaster.<br />I wonder if there is grounds in complexity/simplicity of spells and their levels that could represent the ability to GET warping reality.<br /><br />Also, presumably differentiations provided are due to a need to segregate different creatures of different behaviors.<br /><br />Perhaps more intelligent creatures have more behaviors that need to be segregating. Getting some innate nature of reality and/or the separation of planes. Getting the ability to manipulate large groups of people. Getting the ability to build insidious traps and/or fortifications...Oddbithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12091924105175846386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-32876689083400962972019-02-11T17:09:38.710-07:002019-02-11T17:09:38.710-07:00I will not hesitate to say that I am not an intell...I will not hesitate to say that I am not an intelligent person.<br /><br />I will hesitate to say I am a wise person.<br /><br />I love this post, though I wonder exactly how it will affect my thinking in the future...Ozymandiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01065642299277380465noreply@blogger.com