JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 4/16/99 5:00:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
> matroy@abacom.com writes:


> Not true when it comes to many things. To Combat and other "physical" things
> yes, to "mental challenges" yes, that is reflected in high stats and there by
> better proficiencies. What I am talking about is real experience. Something
> no rookie can know. No matter how smart or skilled anyone going through a
> situation the first time *will* make a mistake. You just cannot know
> everything from book learning or sheer ability. You have to know from
> experience.

Perhaps this is true, but I meant in an overall sense. Mozart was far better than
many composers who'd been doing it for twice the time he had. Certainly he made
mistakes. But overall, he was better. Same thing with many pro sports. Superstars
(Gretzky, say), when they started out in the major leagues, were already far
better than people who had been there for years. Experience, of course, did give
the latter other advantadges, and they avoided some beginner's mistakes; but when
it came to play hockey, overall, Gretzky was the best.

> Example: Armies. A rookie BRDM would not know to set limits on armies. No
> matter how many times he has read the book, he would not garner that army
> limits are a good thing. An experience BRDM knows that Roesone can support
> with El-hadid's and IHH's help a much larger army then what they should have
> for a country their size.

* shrugs * That's an example that's very open to discussion.

> Nothing, and I reapeat this, Nothing can make up for or eclipse experience.
> High stats look good on paper, but I would rather have a player who can
> survive without those high stats. If I see a 12th level PC with no stat oven
> 13 and a 12th level PC with no stat under 11, I know who the better player
> is.

I don't. Being lucky with dice and being a good player are not one and the same.

> Try playing a character that has crappy stats. I have only one that
> made it past 5th level, but he is still my best character. He survived by
> "wits" something not measured in stats. Those wits saved him in the end when
> the "tanks" all died. He survived a large Orc Horde, he survived the Tombs
> of Montobon (As in Ricardo, what can I saymy DM cheesed us sometimes) when
> everyone else died, he survived the end battle when others did not. When you
> play a character who can't pass automaticaly you begin to gain a survival
> instinct that you just can't when you are a high attribute tank. That is
> something you just can't understand when you don't play a charcter that does
> not have a good stat.

I beg to differ. I played a wizard with fairly low stats in a 1st-level game. He
survived and did fairly well, but I was having little fun, so I rolled a new
character, got high stats, and made him multi-classed. The other characters were
3rd level by then, but this 1st-level character did more than the rest of them,
and I had a lot more fun.

I don't think having low stats is a sign of a player's "wits", or that a player
who prefers high stats is worthless. Characters with high stats certainly have
better survival chances against things that challenge their less-well-endowed
cousins; but if you don't like it, just up the ante and make them face more
dangerous stuff.