User talk:Spazalicious Chaos/Avatarization (3.5e Guide)

This is Dumb

For these reasons:

1. If I wanted to play a "real world" person, WoD would be a much better system for emulating real people.
2. If I wanted to play myself, I wouldn't play a fantasy RPG.
3. RPGs are an escape. See #2.
4. If we were to actually be in D&D, we would all be commoners, or, if we're REALLY special, experts. Yes, even a "bard" is just a commoner with ranks in Perform (and again, emulated far better in WoD).
5. We're all low level. Can you take a crit from an axe, even if it were wielded by someone with no strength, and not A. fall unconscious after a few moments, and B. have your ability to move around and fight and so on completely unhampered? I didn't think so. No one really can.

gg --Ghostwheel 07:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also what if you're like me, an eldritch abomination reflected in real number space as a humanoid figure? It would be quite unfair for me to stat myself in D&D, since by definition my powers are infinite, limited only by the fact that I am technically sleeping, and the act of me waking up would probably obliterate your "physics" thing you humanoids seem to rely on. But in all seriousness, this is bad and you should feel bad. Also, I chortle (in a bad way) at your sidebar which basically reads "Starting at a high level? Well you're going to be behind everyone else, lawl." -- Eiji-kun 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Funny how the majority of your arguments rely on people I know not existing...

1. Agreed.
2. Clearly the sign of lack of self confidence. I ran a group were we all agreed to play ourselves, and there was one guy who said just that. I worked with him and pointed out A) he was a masters in chemistry, B) he is freakishly smart, and C) he was a hunter as a hobby. He ended up being a ranger with craft (alchemy) skill focus. He blew up a dragon with lye. It was awesome.
3. Lame excuses. Make yourself and use yourself to kill a giant. Escape.
4. No, because D&D is nothing like real life. Hit points, skills and combat are all off. It is not an inheritly realistic system and does not handle the wide range of human capability at all.
5. Last guy I knew that took a critical hit peritod took a knife to the chest. He picked up the guy who stabed him and slammed him on the ground so hard he broke the guys spine. I have fallen thrity feet, landed on my back, and was able to enjoy the rest of my hike.

Conclusion- you need cooler friends. Reality is so awesome, but apparently you just never got to experience it.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

SC, that's bullshit. Apparently you hang out with either godlike paragons of human capability, or you are lying. Second of all, D&D involves characters routinely doing things that are literally impossible to do in reality, like magic, in order to have nearly any fun at all. No one who wants to be a wizard or sorcerer or cleric or druid can use this guide whatsoever, because once these characters can do shit the players themselves can't do, THEY CEASE TO BE AVATARS.

Fuck, even your stupid guide says that "If you're the type who'd be a Druid, you probably don't play D&D". This guide is completely worthless. Everything that's your own idea is useless, redundant, pointless, or has no real function, and everything that's possibly worthwhile, usable, or fun has already been thought up by other people literally decades ago.

And this is a reoccuring thing I see in ALL your contributions. And by the way, stop fucking using "Well the people in MY games like X/can do X no problem", either give us some names, have them chime in themselves, or give tangible proof. Otherwise you're resorting to ad hoc fallacies that are only marginally better than just sockpuppeting. --71.82.214.138 08:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling charitable right now. While making an article about turning RL you into fictional you is pretty pointless, it's not as if I haven't done such, but under much different rules. First of all, stats were merely eyeballed. For example, my strength is pretty good, as is my charisma, my dex is ok, and I got poop for constitution, just figuring out how I am in life with me often getting sick and my relative strength or popularity compared to the average joe. Then I adapt it to the game. Thats the big point there where we'd differ. Say the game is a high point buy classic adventure romp. I'd assign points based on my observations (middling to good strength, bad con, high charisma.... regardless if "high charisma" means 18s for good point buy or 15s for low point buy), without having to worry if my 16 Str correlates with my actual RL lifting capacity. This, after all, is the world where the "average man" can sprint for a full minute. All I am concerned about is if I compare similar in ratio to the D&D commoner than with the RL commoner.

Likewise, I take plenty of liberties with classes, basically boiling down to "what do you feel comfortable in". Ganteka, one of my friends, is so much a druid. No, he doesn't have magic in reality, but he's all about animals and plants and those traits are very druidy. Me, I'm a sorcerer. I don't feel as poetic and musically talented as a bard, but I have a high charisma and am a great DM (apparently), able to weave images of sword and sorcery for my players. So heck, call it illusion. I'm an illusionist sorcerer. And so on and so forth. And level? Level is unimportant. Level is a game mechanic. Who cares if I cannot major image in real life. Level 5 me can, and does. If RL could level, I'm sure that would translate into "being able to weave a tale so awesome that I practically have them hearing all the sounds and smells of my stories in their heads". But mostly, it's not too important. Getting close is good enough.

Then adjust your stats as needed for optimization (because after all, this is a game, and just because you might be a fatty with terrible skills IRL doesn't mean your character has to suck) and then you're done.

But then again I would re-iterate why it would need an article. After all, I've just defined how to base a D&D character on yourself without gimping yourself or employing strange and unusual tactics to "measure oneself", and I've done it in two paragraphs. Not that it matters to me, you've been making articles like this all the time for you own thing. But this might help you understand why this comes off as both misguided and all around pointless.

Also, that sidebar still gets me, and I pity your friend... and your legs. -- Eiji-kun 09:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but that was a decade ago in his case and years ago in mine. We are both fine.

And I understand I come across as misguided in my quest to cater to the fatalisitc/simulationist gamer nation. I recognize that IP guy up there has obviously never been stabbed, hit with a sledge hammer or had to risk his life for people he doesn't know, and probably never will. And there are people like me and my friends that try to make sure he never has to. I don't need him to understand me. I just sicker to myself and move on, because quite frankly people I know have died so he can be that safe.

I do not post names because of their specified request for privacy, and a few even take issue with talking about things they have done. And since they are for the most part former police, EMTs and military personel, I understand their fears are real.

And I shall conclude with this- this is something I do with every RPG I own. It is a vital part of messuring how badly the game needs to be modified to suit my tastes and those of the people I play with. And as such if I find one for D&D 3.5 in particular, I will post it. And it will be there for review or use as others see fit. Once it is here, it is out of my hands and up to you, the users of this wiki, to form your opinion. Thank you.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Notes

Obviously I'm on the bandwagon about this article being stupid, but a couple points you are trying to make just ooze stupidity from the pores of the idiot-beast.

• IQ tests are notoriously bad at gauging a person's intelligence. There are hundreds of papers written about this topic, but even still I have a great piece of absolutely useless anecdotal evidence. I used to take IQ tests for fun: I enjoy the puzzles. I ended up writing one for Mensa (just for shits and giggles) and scored a 142. On a professionally administered test. ie. Not one of the completely arbitrary (but also fun) online ones. I am not nearly that intelligent. Maybe you did an online IQ test and wanted to have a 16 Int character or perhaps you honestly believe they are a good measure. Either way, it isn't a good measure.
• There are people that can hold their breath for almost 9 minutes. They do not have 90 Con in RL. Hell, as a kid when I did competitive swimming, I trained my lung capacity to just over 2 minutes.

And, of course, the amount of arbitrary considerations you have to determine any of the stats just shows that you didn't think this one out very well. Seriously, Eiji's suggestion of ballparking it is probably the best way to do it, if you really feel the need to make a faithful avatar. --Aarnott 15:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• IQ messures reasoning ability, not necessarily intelligence. More that matter, the Intelligence score does not messure intelligence. A character with 18 Int is really as effective as recalling facts, researching piecing togather information as an average Int guy with 4 ranks in a knowledge skill. Also, I have no reason to question your IQ being 142. Studies done on RPG players in the late 80s revealed that gamers averaged about 132 IQ and had similar mentals capability and mindsets to national guardsmen. The only difference? Gamers had a higher tendancy to day dream. As for my Int, taking the average of three tests by three administered by three medical colleges I average at 139, which is somewhere between 15 and 16.
• If you can seriously hold your breath for 9 minutes, that might represent feats you have taken. Your example of being on a swim team is a good example of that, as there are dozens of feats for swimming that also boost lung capacity.

This was thought out and tested, and while flawed, the flaws show an incompatibility of the game with real life human capability. That was very much the point of most of the arguments agianst my work, no?--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, this is just an alternate method of character generation that also happens to be unbalanced. Since "balance" in general is entirely a playstyle thing, I don't find it particularly offensive. I'd probably never use it, but that's hardly a point against it.

On the other hand, this is setup in such a way that it's possible to create characters who are actually impossible to create within the rules at 1st level. The ease with which you can score above 18 on any given attribute is problematic. Since 18 is supposed to be near the top of level 1 human achievement, with less than .5% of the population having an 18 in any given attribute, the attribute mapping seems off. 25 is simply a terrible starting point.

There's also references to what levels you should take and that you might have more than 1 of them, but I can't find guidelines for how many of them you should have. I also find the idea that you could build a character greater than level 4 with these rules basically ridiculous, since level 5 and up is where the mundane human world starts to fall behind. That you could map yourself anywhere outside of the level 1-4 range is somewhat hard to swallow, and not at all justified here. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 01:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The level issue is entirely because of how poorly D&D represents human capabilities. I ended up 7th level just to get the feats I could use, thus I ended up a poorly built fighter/rogue/sorceror, and tracking how I changed as a person I added a level of barbarian to that over the last year.

25 as the starting point for Dexterity is just for dex, and entirely because I had tested players and found that those with average coordination (dex 10) on average made 15 mistakes in their morning rituals on a three trial run.

As for the 18 possibility, that is only a problem if you game with exceptional individuals. For example I have yet to see one of my players create a balanced version of himself. In wod he averages at 1200 XP over basic creation, wheras I'm around 30. In D&D the best way to describe him was Fighter 15/Monk 15/Rogue 10, as opposed to a group average level of 5. Thus, I must conclude that this generation method is not desirable to all parties and may not even work for individuals, but is posted so that those who do desire such a system and would not break the game by existing can use it.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rating

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	For all the reasons stated above in my first post, as well as the fact that even if this was a good idea (which it isn't), the way this guide describes is horrible for actually creating your own avatar.

ThunderGod Cid dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

Ghosty said it pretty well. D&D, by standard rules, in which every character has Olympian-level athleticism and can shit fireballs or some equally impressive stuff, doesn't translate well to real life. WoD rulesets are much more comparable, and so I can't see a defense for using 3.5e based on a few unproven anecdotes and the fact that people can defy normal sense and do crazy things when pumped with adrenaline. EDIT: "Much more comparable" was probably overstating it, but it doesn't change the fact that this system isn't exactly fit for such a thing and perhaps WoD may be more suitable. Using absolute terms there was a misstep on my part.

Foxwarrior dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.

Not only is the objective hopelessly unbalanced, but these calculation methods aren't even consistently designed. Only Constitution and Intelligence have single tests so you don't get conflicting methods of determination, but even those can be tried repeatedly for different results. To maximize Dexterity, just have a really easy morning routine in a place with no obstacles. To maximize Wisdom, live in a padded cell. To maximize Charisma, loudly say something incredibly stupid and offensive. I won't agree with Cid about WoD rulesets being better for anything in particular, though.

	MisterSinister dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	I won't repeat all of the stuff mentioned above. What I will say, though, is that if someone can compare your work favourably to WoD without being ironic, you have serious problems. And not just with your design work.