Sidhain wrote:

> >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.
> Aye and more likely to tend toward Monty Haul...

Huh? Why? Neither character had more wealth or more magical items than the other
- -- in fact both were quite poor.

> I am not sayin it did or you did just that role-playing isn't about always
> beign the best in a given vein sometimes its the struggle to earn that
> ability that makes the story/game good...and if you didn't have fun as a
> "poor" stat pc in a game where he survived and layed his role Id say one of
> two things, one the DM was not very good, he didn't give you challenges to
> fit yur pc and entertain you or that you handicapped yourself by deciding
> you couldn't have fun with this pc because he wasn't the end all be all in
> the attribute department (which is a sign of Munchkinism--but not proof I am
> not accusing you of that just pointing out most Munchkins look at it the
> same way as you--thats not always bad, but neighter is it good, depends a
> lot on undreds of other things that I don't know so I reserve judgement on
> al but this one area)

I don't think I am a munchkin. Some would disagree, and well, I was once. =)
Nevertheless, my style of play is about playing heroes, not the
man-in-the-street-with-a-sword-strapped-on, and that's why I generally prefer
higher stats (and higher levels, too). I'm not trying to make the game more easy
for me -- I'm trying to point out that this is a valid style of play, in no way
inferior (or superior) to other styles.

> I have made thousands of pc's for myself over the years and had soem
> phenomally well endowed and some not so endowed sttribute wise, and the the
> fun I had had less to do with the pc's abilities, but how they were used and
> how they fit the campaign.....I had more fun in a recent game using a
> psionic;y endowed character win a Magical sword from the "evil wizard"
> (actually a poor Mage who was insane...) by tricking him than fighting him,
> I used didn't have to rely on an attribute...just a small talent (I could
> telekinettically levitate a pebble) and I don't think that pc had attributes
> over 15 at all....
> I thin I had the bare minimum to be a Psionic...

And having higher stats would have kept you from tricking the wizard? How?

I'm certainly not saying that roleplaying is less important than attributes. I'm
just trying to say that having high or low attributes has no bearing on it.