Re: Wisdom Score

A reply to azirk83 mini rant on the wisdom score.

Category:

Gaming

Tags:

• Captain
• Machine
• Cptmachine
• Wisdom
• Rant
• Response
• Dungeons
• Dragons
• Pathfinder

[azirk83]

Wow, lots and lots of issues with this video. I might actually have to do a follow up vid for the mass of misconceptions and inaccuracies you portray here. First you should probably look at my profile as my name is on there. Secondly hit up my Saves video to see my opinion on 3E saves (that they're crapsauce, basically), That brings me to thirdly, it's a lot of hassle to take the stat out of 3E and PF as those games don't houserule well. Also I don't play them for this and many other reasons

[cptmachine]

@azirk83 fair enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[skuzzyknuckles]

I always advocated it's use, but many have rightfully so had issues in past editions of the games.

[skuzzyknuckles]

Nicely said, I have had to debate the usefulness of the Wisdom score over the ages of D&D, and with 3rd, 3.5 and Pathfinder I find it actually sets it in stone a bit more.

[thespiritcoyote]

@Webhead123 I would reckon that my meandering diatribe was little more than solo musings, but if that oracular commentary made sense to anyone, then... bravo and do tell!

I am still in thoughts on topic, and a bit perplexed why it would be an issue of high controversy, beyond an academic strait.

[thespiritcoyote]

(cont.) However, I suppose that I could argue the same in inverse... that none of the physical stats have any place on a character sheet, and only the representative aspects of persona characterization in an abstract need be applied to the environmental narrative expectations of a hero's journey.

Either-way, neither extreme would satisfy me, I enjoy the tactical aspects of simulated realities in a game perspective, and the narrative exploration of monomyth-ical exposition in fantastic settings.

[thespiritcoyote]

To say that no mental attribute or persona aspect has any place on a character-sheet, and is completely at the discretion of the player in any given moment does seem to be much more readily accomplishable, on the surface only physical statistics apply to the tactical elements of a "game", and all other aspects are pure fiat. (cont.)

[thespiritcoyote]

On the point of Wisdom being either Deific or Earthly; I would say that it is healthier to take all the attributes as a bit of both - Nature & Nurture, Deific & Earthly, Elemental & Divine... Material & Planar.

Within the D&D cosmology, I see no more reason here than in alignment, to dichotomize hard contrary lines as aspects of opposites. The Physical and The Immaterial worlds are more observably inclusive, rather than preclusive, more imbricated - enveloping both aspects as parts of a whole.

[Webhead123]

@thespiritcoyote I generally agree with the undertone of all of your comments here. There is (and, IMHO, should be) a distinct separation between the capabilities of the *player* versus the *character* and, as humans and human experience is enslaved to "habit", we need some form of assistance to transcend the state of being merely "a player making player-centric choices while rolling dice" to being "a character making character-centric choices while exercising experience".

[azirk83]

@Webhead123 Yeah, we've been down that road, and I've made my position of "managing player expectations != forcing character actions" pretty clear, I think.

[Webhead123]

@azirk83 I agree with that (no need for a "common sense" mechanic) but I do encounter and perceive the need for an element "common sense" that exists outside of the *player* but within the *character* (typically handled by GM reminders of setting/theme/tone and by player Q&A about the game and its world). Why? Because the verisimilitude of a game-world and its expectations are often in stark contrast to "real world" expectations and it's not uncommon for the player to forget (we're only human!).

[Webhead123]

@azirk83 I have my own very *fidgity* opinions on this topic ("forcing roleplay") resulting in many instances in which I agree but also some in which I disagree...but I believe that's ground we've tread before.