Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editorial Josh Sawyer Explains: How to Balance an RPG

DefJam101

Arcane
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
8,047
Location
Cybernegro HQ
The following post is on-topic because soccer is in fact an RPG. Prove me wrong

Well people may like it, but soccer is incredibly and tactfully simple compared to american football. I am not sure any other sport is as tactfully complex as football. Many people love soccer for the same reason they like apple design philosophies; it is elegant and simple and many people find that beautiful. There is nothing wrong with it, but it is much less tactical.
I would say they're roughly equal in terms of tactical complexity, but the styles of both games are totally at odds. American football requires a lot of pre-snap planning to manage the complicated, five-to-ten second window following the snap, but the more rigid nature of the game means you don't have to react to changing or unexpected situations anywhere near as often as a footballer.

A lot of people who don't play soccer think players on TV are just "passing the ball around". They see the camera focus on Ronaldo's wacky dribbling hijinks and instantly ignore what everyone else on the field is doing, even when the latter is almost always more important. Playing successful soccer means knowing how to move and position yourself when you don't have the ball. This is very difficult because, unlike American football, there's little structure in place telling you what a player in your position is "supposed" to be doing at any given moment, since every player on the field can and will position themselves almost anywhere to suit the situation.

So, to play soccer properly, you need to understand how to manage space on the field. You need to understand how to threaten the defense through positioning, how to open space to receive a pass, how to close down attacking players' passing lanes, how to create passing lanes for your teammates by drawing defenders out of position, how to place a ball so a receiving teammate can shield it successfully, how to angle yourself to one-touch a pass into open space for a teammate, how to position yourself to effectively support one or more teammates possessing the ball, and so on. When you watch pro footballers pass the ball around endlessly they typically aren't playing keep-away to run the clock down; they're trying to force open holes in the opposing team's defense by making them move around to contest the ball.

And that's how soccer works. Teams who manipulate space to their advantage create more (and better) passing lanes while shutting down the opposing team's lanes. This leads to more meaningful possession, which creates more shooting opportunities, which creates more chances for goals, which results in more goals, which — over a long period of time — leads to more wins. It's an angles game, pure and simple.

If you want to see an example of a professional soccer team built around athletic, individually-talented players who either do not understand or cannot apply these basic principles of controlling space on the field, look no further than the United States men's national soccer team, who only ever win by kicking the ball down the wings and scoring miraculous fluke goals, and always lose by running themselves into the ground versus a smarter team who manages 80% ball possession.

TL;DR American football is about planning and executing; association football is about reacting, improvising, and executing.

source: running back in high school, been playing soccer since I was six, have played club soccer for eight years as a left / center midfielder

edit:
To me the direct comparison to RPG combat is pretty stark, and the increased rules, more restrictions and complicated specialization of players/classes makes for more varied and interesting tactical choices, at least for the person standing on the sideline and making strategies (akin to a person playing a RPG on the computer)..
god damnit i wrote this whole post without seeing this one

sorry for being a faggot good sir
 
Last edited:

HiddenX

The Elder Spy
Patron
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
1,655
Location
Germany
Divinity: Original Sin Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Ross Watson (2013):
RPG Design: Game Balance

(Best counter article to Josh Sawyer's idea of balancing I found so far: He describes why Imbalance can be a major fun factor in RPGs)

Best line:
Looking back at my gaming experiences over 25+ years, I’ve concluded that many of my favorite RPGs have a great deal of imbalance built into their designs, intentional or not. Ultimately, I prefer a game that is fun and immersive over one that is perfectly balanced.

Article
Greetings, readers – this week I want to talk about a hot topic in the modern marketplace for RPGs: Game Balance. Fair warning! This is a somewhat controversial topic and is no doubt going to cause disagreements.

Game balance is a term that can mean a number of things, depending on whom you ask. There’s a movement amongst some critical gamers that believes game balance lies in the mathematics and mechanics of the game. Others say that game balance is a factor that combines spotlight time at the table (the number of “opportunities for awesome” that come up for each player during a given session). Still others say that game balance is largely up to the GM alone, regarding his enforcement of the rules.
It’s important for me to note here that several designers I know personally have declared that RPG game balance is, at best, a “myth.” I’m going to examine the issue from my own perspective in today’s post.
As always, the opinions and thoughts presented here are my own from my personal experiences. YMMV.


Ross’s Definition of Game Design
I’m going to start off with my own, personal definition of Game Balance for RPGs:
To me, game balance means this: Each character archetype has a niche they can fill to significantly mechanically interface with the game; a unique contribution only they can make.
The term “significant mechanical interface” may sound familiar if you’ve read my Hack Factor blog entry about the classes for 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons. What it means is a way for the character to meaningfully contribute to moving the game forward using his character’s abilities in a way that works with the game’s mechanics (whatever those mechanics may be, from using a D&D Feat to a Shadowrun Quality to a Dark Heresy Talent or anything else of a similar nature).
Also, the term “unique” shouldn’t be taken as an absolute; what I’m really trying to get at is that most groups are composed of varying archetypes. Rarely will you see a group with more than one of any particular character “type,” (such as Fighters, Clerics, Energy-Projector superheroes, Street Samurai, etc.). Therefore, I’m assuming that most groups feature exactly such a varied lineup and thus there’s going to be opportunities for unique approaches that would otherwise simply be “uncommon” (if, for example, your party consists of multiple Rogues, Sorcerers, Street Shamans, Brick Superheroes, and so forth).
So as you can see, my definition of game design leans heavily towards the experience of the players – the “fun factor” of the game. If the game offers each player equal opportunities to do awesome things, that’s what I would consider a balanced game. Roleplaying Games try to address this approach in several different ways; Dungeons & Dragons and the 40K Roleplay systems use class-and-level systems that encourage players to take on structured roles in the group. More freeform games like Shadowrun and Savage Worlds use “archetypes” that are less strict than classes but still steer players towards fitting into particular niches.

Game Balance and Math
As I mentioned above, there is a design approach that, in my view, worships at the altar of math. This approach defines RPG game balance as an absolute mechanical balance; each character does the same average damage per turn, attacks the same number of times, or achieves an absolute average number of successes in any given task.
In the interests of full disclosure, I rarely find games fun that are produced from this particular design approach.

My experiences with math-oriented design have rarely been positive; I’ve witnessed designers debating whether or not a particular ability is unbalanced because it succeeds roughly 12% more often than other abilities in the same category. I’ve seen designers defend designs that make the game less fun by insisting that the rule only comes into play 18% of the time on average. I’ve seen designers place every character design into theoretical “thunderdomes” to ensure that each type can defeat the others on a 50/50 basis. This is not to say that some of these issues aren’t legitimate concerns for the game; they are. My point is that the amount of time, effort, and passion spent on tweaking the game’s math was far out of proportion (in my opinion) to the effort spent making sure the game was fun to play in the first place.
In my eyes, perhaps the most disappointing result of this approach is a game where all the characters end up doing almost the exact same thing during the game, and I can think of no better example of this than 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. The performance of 4th edition D&D in the marketplace (currently third for sales behind Pathfinder at #1 and Edge of the Empire at #2) and its critical reception from gamers is the best evidence I can point to as to the relative success and popularity of its design.
To me, absolute mechanical balance is a great ideal to strive for, but is ultimately less important than the game’s “fun factor.” I will absolutely sacrifice mathematical balance if that sacrifice makes the game more fun.
As a small side note, mechanical game balance is far more important (and taken far more seriously by myself) in games without a roleplaying component, such as card games and miniature games. In those environments, making the math work just right takes higher priority. However, I stand by my approach as outlined above.
Here’s a short list of games that I feel has striven very hard for attaining absolute mathematical balance (to varying degrees of success).
  • 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons
  • GURPS
  • Hero System
Often, a game’s complexity has a significant effect on its mechanical balance, or the perception thereof. Rules-light games may appear balanced at first, but there’s no guarantee that a rules-light system is any different (keeping in mind my personal definition of game balance) based on its design.


Perfect Imbalance

There’s a concept in video gaming called “Perfect Imbalance.” It is best described by this Extra Credits clip. The short version is that there is a game design approach where one archetype option (in RPG’s, this would be a player character archetype) is slightly more attractive on a mechanical level. This an intentional choice, because the design approach builds in later improvements to other archetype options that, in turn, make them more attractive mechanically in a cycle. Similar to a “rock-paper-scissors” approach, perfect imbalance means that players stay invested and engaged with the game by always having something fresh to look forward to, even though it may appear on the outside that the players are dissatisfied with the perceived imbalance.

Perfect Imbalance is a design approach that fits very well into the life cycle of an RPG line, where supplements and sourcebooks introduce new options and features that temporarily make certain character types more attractive until the next book in the cycle is produced. When the “fighter book” is released, fighters look mechanically more attractive; when the “cleric book” comes out, the same can be said for clerics. The key is to make sure that the options remain viable and – most especially—relevant throughout the cycle.


Addressing Imbalance
Looking back at my gaming experiences over 25+ years, I’ve concluded that many of my favorite RPGs have a great deal of imbalance built into their designs, intentional or not. Ultimately, I prefer a game that is fun and immersive over one that is perfectly balanced. I think that possibly the best way to address any balance issues in a game is, first and foremost, an awareness of the problem. If the GM knows what the balance issues are (such as the significant advantages full casters have in a 3.0 or 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons game, or the advantages magicians have in a Shadowrun 4th edition game), then he can adjust the types of challenges he provides. Often, many problems of balance can be simply addressed by a group’s social contract before the game begins. It can be as simple as an agreement that a Star Wars RPG campaign should be either “All-Jedi” or “No-Jedi.”


In Closing

Is there such a thing as a perfectly balanced game? I honestly don’t know – and my personal design philosophy means I probably won’t ever find out. My approach has always been “don’t let ‘perfect’ get in the way of ‘good.’”
At the end of the day, I am satisfied and fulfilled if I have produced a game that is “good.” Quality is important to me, but I consider perfection to be an ideal that – while worth pursuing – is ultimately going to lead only to disappointment, unacceptable delays, and interference with producing additional quality content.
 
Last edited:

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,835
Ivory tower design ftl

I love how people keep pulling out the "Perfect balance is bad!!!!!!!!!" strawman when Josh directly states perfect balance isn't his goal.
 

HiddenX

The Elder Spy
Patron
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
1,655
Location
Germany
Divinity: Original Sin Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Ivory tower design?

Ross Watson
is an award-winning game designer with more than 50 RPG books under his belt, many as Lead Developer for the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay line. He was a core developer on the Dust Warfare and Shadowrun: Sprawl Gangers miniature game teams, and the lead writer for the Darksiders II console and PC game. He has written or contributed to books for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, and the Iron Kingdoms RPG.

You are running out of arguments, Roguey

I love how people keep pulling out the "Perfect balance is bad!!!!!!!!!" strawman when Josh directly states perfect balance isn't his goal.

"Each character archetype has a niche they can fill to significantly mechanically interface with the game; a unique contribution only they can make."
is not exactly his goal either if a mage can hold a two-handed sword and fight with it without much penalty even on low MIGHT in PoE.
 
Last edited:

TheGreatOne

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
1,214
He operates like SJW: make up new words, every time some one debunks one of your arguments, label them with one of your words and that way you won't have to defend your point of view
 

Declinator

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
542
Monte Cook said:
There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,835
"Each character archetype has a niche they can fill to significantly mechanically interface with the game; a unique contribution only they can make."
is not exactly his goal either if a mage can hold a two-handed sword and fight with it without much penalty even on low STR in PoE.
Hmm yes a mage will hold a two-handed sword and be the equivalent of a fighter despite the differences in stamina/health, deflection, and accuracy.

Also we're going to pretend that wizards in D&D couldn't become melee beasts.
 

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,700
I don't think overspecialized parties are smart and realistic idea.

So what would happen when party would be separated, and two most combat weak members would found fighting like crazy, and the other two would be languishing in chains?
Or for example when a person would be as a mater of prestige forced to participate on sumo tourney, and he would be chosen by a draw according to rules of tourney.

People should look at this video before they would think they could have a character that can't do combat well. (Yes he might survive being stomped into ground once, but animals would do it again and again).


Yes that pink wheel has a reason behind it. You probably don't want to know the reason.

He was sentenced for unspeakable crimes to heaviest punishment ever. Runing on his hand in that pink wheel for eternity. Actually one of his crimes was batching in a pool for batching pigs, which caused unimaginable horrors to pig and guards who arrived just after that.
Guards were supposed to watch him, but released him on theirs own volition from disgust because they can't stood him anymore.


Did you dare to click the spoiler tag? You were warned.

Don't make a party where main fighting characters are, type of fighter that becomes efficient only when after 10 levels goes to have magic training and learn how to summon magic sword, and a dancer. (Saving the party by summoner who is using type of magic know for unspeakable horrors after miscast, and took higher chance of HORRIBLE weird miscast disadvantage...) Yes mages are OP, but are OP enough to survive until level 3? (or perhaps even level 10? when fighter finally stops learning thief skills and goes learn magic and learns magic sword...)
 
Last edited:

Ninjerk

Arcane
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
14,323
Monte Cook said:
There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142
But we don't want to allow poor choices to even be chosen.
 

Carrion

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
3,648
Location
Lost in Necropolis
So what would happen when party would be separated, and two most combat weak members would found fighting like crazy, and the other two would be languishing in chains?
How would you even end up in that kind of a situation? If you split your party that way on purpose, tough luck. Choices and consequences and all that. If the game splits your party for you, then it hopefully also includes other options than just "fighting like crazy" to solve the problem.

Or for example when a person would be as a mater of prestige forced to participate on sumo tourney, and he would be chosen by a draw according to rules of tourney.
Then you hope that your fighter will be chosen instead of your 300-year-old mage. If any character can survive any kind of a situation, it kind of defeats the purpose of having a party in the first place.
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
So that's what ivory tower design is. Well, I'll be damned if it doesn't sound damn fine.
 

DefJam101

Arcane
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
8,047
Location
Cybernegro HQ
The concept of "poor choices" as a balance issue in a standard singleplayer game is so completely laughable I'm amazed people who are paid to design games still cite this in defense of their ultra complex bulletproof RPG design theories.

Let's look at swords. In most games, swords are the best weapon, the "best choice". But the other weapons aren't poor choices because they deal less damage than swords; they're poor choices because they either don't play any differently from swords, or differ very little, or aren't itemized properly (e.g. there are dozens of magic swords but only one or two quality axes), or are so completely useless as to be frustrating to anyone not looking for a challenge, or all of the above, in addition to dealing less damage.

Players choose to metagame and pick swords for that sweet, sweet 1d8 damage roll not because they're retarded degenerates who masturbate to the fabled OPTIMAL PLAY but because developers ask them to choose between an option providing zero interesting properties or bonuses and another option providing a slight numerical advantage.

Holy fucking shit, you're a goddamn genius: you figured out players will choose a slight numerical advantage over nothing at all.

If objectively worse weapons differed from swords in general use or were at least itemized properly so you could find magic axes or whatever with interesting abilities then the fleeting headfeels gained from knowing you deal 1d8+1 damage to kobolds instead of 2d3+1 would not override your desire to try something different in a singleplayer game.

Before retards respond to this post with the obvious low-hanging counter fruit: yes, if your role-playing game is a piece of shit and the only functional difference between melee weapons is how many and what type of dice you roll when you swing them, it's no trouble at all to make all one-handed weapons deal similar damage. But that doesn't actually fix anything, because your game is still a boring piece of shit.
 
Last edited:

twincast

Learned
Patron
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
232
Isn't wisdom supposed to determine your strength of character? From a simulationist standpoint, charisma affecting the success of summoning spells would make more sense.
From 5e basic rules (copy/paste FTW):
  • A character with high Intelligence might be highly inquisitive and studious, while a character with low Intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details.
  • A character with high Wisdom has good judgment, empathy, and a general awareness of what’s going on. A character with low Wisdom might be absent-minded, foolhardy, or oblivious.
  • A character with high Charisma exudes confidence, which is usually mixed with a graceful or intimidating presence. A character with a low Charisma might come across as abrasive, inarticulate, or timid.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
From 5e basic rules (copy/paste FTW):
  • A character with high Intelligence might be highly inquisitive and studious, while a character with low Intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details.
  • A character with high Wisdom has good judgment, empathy, and a general awareness of what’s going on. A character with low Wisdom might be absent-minded, foolhardy, or oblivious.
  • A character with high Charisma exudes confidence, which is usually mixed with a graceful or intimidating presence. A character with a low Charisma might come across as abrasive, inarticulate, or timid.
However, we're talking about 2E/3E here.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#abilityScores
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills.

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

You'll notice charisma and wisdom have the longest explanations because they're the least mechanically involved so it's basically telling the DM, come up with stuff for these.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
1) If you were to calculate the amount of time it takes to playtest and balance a set of rules (for any game, RPG or otherwise), it would work out to months per page of rules. RPG rulesets are complicated by necessity; D&D has over a hundred pages of rules now matter how you calculate them. By the time anyone has a clue about how everything fits together it doesn't matter because they've already released another splatbook/errata/entire edition of the rules. I think that by and large, cRPGs are better off adapting pen-and-paper rulesets because at least then they benefit from some of that playtesting/feedback but it's just a matter of degree. The end result will have irregularities regardless.
WOTC their business model consisted of selling books. If one book had been enough to explain it all, they would have gone broke. So, instead they publish multiple volumes each year that expand on the core. And that core (with one setting added) is the only thing implemented by CRPG's.

So, WOTC relied on unique stuff and new rules for each new addition. Because that's what makes stuff interesting.

People are wired to look for that unique thing with which you can break the system and win. Or at least stuff that gives them an advantage.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
Ivory tower design?

Ross Watson
is an award-winning game designer with more than 50 RPG books under his belt, many as Lead Developer for the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay line. He was a core developer on the Dust Warfare and Shadowrun: Sprawl Gangers miniature game teams, and the lead writer for the Darksiders II console and PC game. He has written or contributed to books for 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, and the Iron Kingdoms RPG.
While I like his arguments, he is still discussing individual balance, as he's talking about P&P, where you have multiple players.

In a single-user game, there's only one, so it doesn't matter if you need a thief solely for finding traps. It's an essential role that needs to be filled within your group of adventurers.
 

HiddenX

The Elder Spy
Patron
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
1,655
Location
Germany
Divinity: Original Sin Shadorwun: Hong Kong
In a single-user game, there's only one, so it doesn't matter if you need a thief solely for finding traps. It's an essential role that needs to be filled within your group of adventurers.

as I said here:

There's also a big difference in balancing party CRPGs vs. single avatar CRPGs.

In a party CRPG the game should provide interesting playthroughs for various parties. The fun for the player is to experiment with different combinations of characters and their respective attributes, skills and traits.

In a single avatar CRPG the game should provide interesting playthroughs for most character builds. The fun for the player is to experiment with different attributes/skills/traits of his avatar.

PS: Ross is talking about games in general. He references this video:
Perfect Imbalance - Why Unbalanced Design Creates Balanced Play

The better word for imbalance in this context IMHO is diversity.
Games should be fun because of diversity and different tactics regarding different playable characters.
 
Last edited:

Raghar

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Messages
22,700
So what would happen when party would be separated, and two most combat weak members would found fighting like crazy, and the other two would be languishing in chains?
How would you even end up in that kind of a situation? If you split your party that way on purpose, tough luck. Choices and consequences and all that. If the game splits your party for you, then it hopefully also includes other options than just "fighting like crazy" to solve the problem.

So were you playing only games where you were hand held? Spiting party and optimizing attackers against weak points of split party is a standard tactic used in ambush.

There are situations where party is faced with fact it can't be at two places simultaneously, and travel times are bit longer.

You can also use this boy to do one of that, but these like him are not always available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPQhdA0PQPY
 

twincast

Learned
Patron
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
232
And other than the odd inclusion of willpower in WIS, which IMO fits straight into CHA as described right there, they say exactly the same things. Willpower, force of personality and the aforementioned strength of character all strike me as almost the same, at least in effect if not in origin. Anyway, going back to that Twitter exchange posted, as much as the specific effects of the ability scores may have changed between editions, I don't remember their definitions every changing to any significant degree.
 

tuluse

Arcane
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,400
Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong
And other than the odd inclusion of willpower in WIS, which IMO fits straight into CHA as described right there, they say exactly the same things. Willpower, force of personality and the aforementioned strength of character all strike me as almost the same, at least in effect if not in origin. Anyway, going back to that Twitter exchange posted, as much as the specific effects of the ability scores may have changed between editions, I don't remember their definitions every changing to any significant degree.
Charisma is different too, the key part: "This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."
 

Jasede

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
24,793
Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Codex Year of the Donut I'm very into cock and ball torture
Wisdom is more perception/experience/common sense/good judgment.
Whereas wisdom is force of will, charisma is force of personality.

tuluse also just explained why in D&D some cosmic horrors have very high CHA scores, despite being terrifying and revolting.
 
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
The original point was that magic doesn't have to be tied to intelligence, tying it to "strength" isn't more arbitrary than tying it to charisma (and "strength" is supposedly not the same as DnD strength anyhow), in response to "A STRONG MAGE?!11? THATS IMPOSSIBRU" type argument.
 

Raapys

Arcane
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,960
Well, charisma is more of a mental trait, while strength is a physical trait. Might as well make magic tied to dick size.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom