Anatomy of a Failed Design: Role Protection.

[RandomCasualty2]

What? It's not railroading. The DM doesn't choose the outcome of the encounter ahead of time; there's a equal (or weighted) chance of negotiations failing or succeeding. What's railroading is forcing the DM to decide how the negotiations go.

The idea of railroading is that the players decisions can't alter the plot. And that's bad, because what actions you take and what you do should certainly matter.

But having a point where the adventure can go two ways, depending on if you roll a 5 or you roll a 17 just doesn't add much. It's more for the DM to prepare for, and for no good reason. This isn't so much about the players choosing their fate, but rather just that train may choose one of two railroad tracks at random. But really, your players might as well not even know the second fork exists because it happens at random and beyond their control. It's not because they made any special decisions or played well, it's just pointless die rolling to create more chaotic results.

Now it's not that random chance is always bad. A little randomness can be good, but fundamentally, we don't want a game like Elennsar wants where PCs may die or may live just based on the throw of the dice and the risk is effectively unavoidable, you just hope to be lucky. I think most of us want a game where PC decision making is the most important part. If we wanted to play craps, we'd just go play craps.

Whether it's the DM fiat or tyranny of the dice, in any case, player control is being lost. As much as possible, we should let the players actions choose their fate.

Now, I'm not saying that the outcome has to be 50/50--it could be 5/95 or 70/30 or whatever. It's just that if there is any chance of the king kicking the goblin out or listening to his words or even imprisoning the goblin it needs to actually be a chance. Otherwise it's railroading, because the outcome has already been predetermined.

But why let the dice decide, when you can let the players words and actions be the determining factor? When I have the PCs talk to NPCs, I have them try to actually convince them. That means they need to think of good reasons why the NPC would listen. They need to try to understand what the NPCs motivations are (sometimes with the help of some skill checks), and they need to use those motivations to construct a good argument. They get to combine roleplaying and puzzle solving to help choose their fate. And if you ask me, that's awesome.

It's a roleplaying game, yet you want to make the roleplaying have no effect on the game. I mean fuck man, we aren't playing Fallout here where the NPC can't really talk to you coherently. This is a game being run by a human being who is playing the NPCs. Why not take advantage of it?

I mean it seems the main argument you've got is that the DM is going to suck so we need defense against bad DMs. DMs who suck at running roleplaying scenes can just not run them, and keep the game to the dungeon crawling Gygaxian hack and slash fest that it began as.

Or you could just add modifiers to the dice. Protip: adding or subtracting enough numbers from a d20 roll is the same thing as making it forgone. This is in fact what people do for things we don't care about.

But why bother? I mean... does the randomness add anything besides just adding randomness? I mean if the PCs did a great job thinking of good reasons why the king should help them, why not just say that the king helps them out. If they came up with a lackluster argument that the king wouldn't care about, then why not just throw it out completely and say the king tosses them on their ass? Does having that 5% chance to succeed and make the NPCs look totally stupid really help, endorsing some plan with no logical reason to do so?

Also, having rolls can ruin intrigue plots. I mean if a player natural 20s the roll, and the king still refuses, then you know without a doubt that he's in on the plot and is refusing because he's evil. In a conventional RP scenario, you'd leave that mystery for the PCs to discover on their own.

[Fuchs]

I mean, really, would you let players automatically sneak into the underground fortress just because they hummed the Metal Gear Solid theme and made a big deal about how they dressed in black and waited for the guard change?

No, why would you equate this with what I'm saying?

Because that's what you are doing. "Just describe your action, and if I think it's good you succeed". Same principle.

It's really simple: Either you roll using your character's skill and modifiers to see if you succeed at what you are trying to do, be it cutting the giant's head off, or sweet-talking the queen, or you magical tea party by DM fiat.

[Fuchs]

But why bother? I mean... does the randomness add anything besides just adding randomness? I mean if the PCs did a great job thinking of good reasons why the king should help them, why not just say that the king helps them out. If they came up with a lackluster argument that the king wouldn't care about, then why not just throw it out completely and say the king tosses them on their ass? Does having that 5% chance to succeed and make the NPCs look totally stupid really help, endorsing some plan with no logical reason to do so?

Also, having rolls can ruin intrigue plots. I mean if a player natural 20s the roll, and the king still refuses, then you know without a doubt that he's in on the plot and is refusing because he's evil. In a conventional RP scenario, you'd leave that mystery for the PCs to discover on their own.

Why do we roll in combat? What does it add? Having rolls in combat can ruin combat encounters. Players could even lose!

[RandomCasualty2]

Why do we roll in combat? What does it add? Having rolls in combat can ruin combat encounters. Players could even lose!

Well combat has a lot of tactics too.

Social encounters really don't if you just treat it as a diplomacy check.

And combat results have other factors like HP which further serve to pad the numbers to avoid crazy results like level 2 characters killing great wyrms.

[Fuchs]

Well, no one says you have to treat it as a simple diplomacy check. I usually spread a few checks out in between the played out scenes. That can range from blending in, wearing the right clothes, chatting up the right people, to the final negotiations, and some complications.

[RandomCasualty2]

Well, no one says you have to treat it as a simple diplomacy check. I usually spread a few checks out in between the played out scenes. That can range from blending in, wearing the right clothes, chatting up the right people, to the final negotiations, and some complications.

Well I mean either you do it as a single diplomacy check ro a 4E style skill challenge as a bunch of diplomacy checks.

Either way it pretty much doesn't add any strategy to it.

That was the big problem with 4E skill checks is that it was just pointless dice rolling. Maybe the DC is high and you lose or maybe it's low and you win, but either way, it's not particularly interesting.

[Fuchs]

That really depends on what actions you want to take. If you see a social encounter as more complex, and as split up in different tasks and options, like a combat, then you have the greater strategy (let's bribe him, Let's blackmail him, etc.) and then the way how to do it (let's make sure his wife's away so she can't influence him. Let's discredit the advisor. Let's bribe the advisor. Let's impress the audience at a ball. Pay a bard to spread our fame in advance. Build up the danger from the trolls we want hunted. Snub a rival of the duke in front of the duke so he likes us) as well as damage control (make sure the barbarian doesn't insult the duke's brother. Make sure the bard doesn't get caught seducing the lord's daughter or wife) and other things.

Of course if the social sene is basically "roll" or "roll, roll, roll" followed by a description, then it's boring and stupid, but battles are boring and stupid too if all you do is "roll attack", with no context or description.

[Draco_Argentum]

That NOM link makes me want to go punch some people, thanks a bunch, Crissa.

[Username17]

Yeah, I already said in the case of a paladin, they have leader-like qualities.

Right. I understand that you have conceded that Leaders have the qualities of Defenders and that Defenders have the qualities of Leaders. Which gets back to your core claim: which is that despite this fact you maintain that the label of "Leader" or "Defender" means something.

But it doesn't. Both on a per power and whole character basis we've shown repeatedly Leaders who fulfill your stated criteria for being a Defender and Defenders who fulfill your stated criteria for being a Leader. Which means that the original thesis statement that you are arguing against: that "Role Protection" for the Leader and Defender does not exist.

If you concede that there are Leaders with the qualities of Defenders and Defenders with the qualities of Leaders then we are finished here. Because the defended thesis statement is that the roles are not protected.

-Username17

[Roy]

Fuck you, you fucking fucker. Also...

Idiot.

Magical Tea Party, just like the game played by 5 year old girls doesn't have any rules, and doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's just making up random crap without any rhyme or reason. It accurately describes anything outside the rules of the game... like roleplaying.

Whoa, hold on. So you're arguing that you're being held back from roleplaying because there is a lack of rules for it? What the fuck kind of ass-backwards horseshit is that? Hahahahahahahaha. Man, this forum is full of irony.

It's called roleplay has nothing to do with 4.Fail, learn to read you fucking fucker.

Just to annoy you...

-Roy

Here's some more of that irony I was talking about. I was making fun of Trollman by signing my posts. I guess you don't realize that you're helping me do this by signing yours as well.

This is too easy.

-NoobCrusher

Except that you have no grounds to make fun of him for something like that, so in reality I am making fun of you you fucking fucker.

-Roy

[Roy]

Anything else I need to smite?

-Roy

[Parthenon]

Whoa, hold on. So you're arguing that you're being held back from roleplaying because there is a lack of rules for it? What the fuck kind of ass-backwards horseshit is that? Hahahahahahahaha. Man, this forum is full of irony.

In the setting of D&D, there are some basic probabilities of success for various actions. For example, there is a certain probability of your PC hitting the BBEG in combat. And there are rules that say what happens when one thing happens, for example if the PC is trying to perform a ritual. This is good because it gives a comparison between different actions and gives the campaign some verisimilitude. As in, what is normal in the setting happens reliably.

Similarly, there should be rules and probabilities that describe what happens when one person tries to convince someone else of something. If you are trying to convince the guards to let you into the prison, then they should have a definite difficulty to that task. As in, every time you try to convince the guards should be just as difficult. This is good for roleplaying because it means that you are aware of what the guards are capable of and how much you can affect them, meaning that you can predict your actions and do things that make sense to the character.

However, when playing magical tea party this is impossible. How difficult it is to convince the guards is affected by the DM's recent breakup, what time of the day it is, whether the DM likes your plan, if the plan ignores an NPC the DM likes, and so on. This means that either the players continue roleplaying and just suck up the fact that sometimes their actions don't work just because the DM is pissy, or they actively stop roleplaying and choose actions based on whether they think they can get away with it. Once you start doing things based on the DM you are no longer doing what your PC's character would, which isn't really roleplaying.

Another problem is that if two different DMs use radically different ways to resolve the same issue, then they are playing different games. Consider five DMs with the situation of the PCs being at a party and trying to get information from one of the guests that they don't know:

- One uses magical tea party: the PCs all speak for their characters, with bonus points for funny voices, and the situation is resolved based on what the DM is convinced by.

- One uses the Skill Challenges- the non errataed ones and fail horribly

- One uses the errataed Skill Challenges and plough straight through the encounter

- One like the 3.e skills and the diplomancer wins the encounter

- One has the players describe the actions they take- "I chat up the hostess" "While shes distracted I seduce the host" "I wander about making comments to other guests about whats happening".... Meanwhile the DM accepts that each of the actions happen, vetoing any that are too difficult and adding complications while describing the effects of their actions.

Each of these is radically different in how a situation is resolved and how difficult the encounter is. The first rewards charismatic players and the last rewards intelligent players. This is like one DM using Feng Shui to resolve combat, one using BattleMech, one using D&D 3e and one using FATAL while you are supposed to be playing D&D 4e.

It is still possible and often easy and fun to roleplay when the DM decides how to resolve encounters, but it is impossible to know how they are resolved based on the game being 4e. If you don't know what game you are going to play then the game itself is silly.

---

TL,DR
You need at least enough roleplaying rules that you can predict how your actions will affect the situation. However D&D 4e doesn't have enough to do this. If the DM's make up the rules then different campaigns of D&D 4e will be completely different games which means that a player won't know before playing what the rules are which is unfair to all the players.

While you can still roleplay and have fun it doesn't stop 4e for being bad because it doesn't have enough rules.

---

Oh, and Roy? Smiting? Your attempts at "smiting" were laughable. You often have useful and interesting things to say so when your argument comes down to "NoobCrusher didn't get what was meant" it is a shame and disappointing, especially when you appear proud of your almost content free posts.

[Roy]

Check the earlier ones. Of course the later ones are slightly more elaborate 'See aboves' as he is too stupid to grasp the more intricate points, so I simply reference them again instead of reposting them. This is usually the case when dealing with 4.Failtards, as similar to religious nuts, they have nothing to support them but dogmatic drivel and vehement denial of reality.

[NoobCrusher]

Check the earlier ones. Of course the later ones are slightly more elaborate 'See aboves' as he is too stupid to grasp the more intricate points

Yeah, "intricate points" indeed, where instead of arguing you throw in content-less posts where you "smite" people. Do you expect the rest of the forum to fellate you or something?

I said 4.Fail was incapable of facilitating an immersive world. Not D&D as a whole, and 4.Fail is D&D In Name Only in any case. In earlier editions that stuff comes from an admixture of Tea Party and the rules, to get something consistent with the rules... like characters realizing they aren't hindered by non mortal injuries, because they aren't within the rules of the game world. In 4.Fail, you can try to do the same thing, but the rules will actively chain cock slap you at every turn, because you're just some figure on a 5 foot square closet battle map, ya know? Now go grind on MOBs.

How was 3rd Ed significantly different than 4th when it came to out of combat tasks? You had Tea Party + skill checks, just like 4e has now. You don't HAVE to use skill challenges either (especially not the unmodified core version due to its flaws), although they have been errata'd. 3rd Ed had spells that aided you with said skill checks (and sometimes in broken as hell ways that discouraged roleplaying, if anything). There was also skill inflation to some degree. You're acting like because 4th Edition is a combat-focused game system that there's no room for roleplaying, and that's bullshit. It's also bullshit to claim that 3rd Ed was fine with its out of combat rules but 4th Ed somehow isn't.

And no, 4th Ed is not incapable of facilitating an immersive world because most of that comes down to the DM and the players. You're again implying that you need RULES to get in-character and enjoy the game. That sounds like a flavor problem more than anything, which is not a part of the game design.

You can read the last page or two where Lago, RC and I are talking about Tea Party versus rolling for success with modifiers and the arguments for both sides. If you're just going to handwave that and constantly chant your mantra of "4.Fail", then get the fuck out.

This is usually the case when dealing with 4.Failtards, as similar to religious nuts, they have nothing to support them but dogmatic drivel and vehement denial of reality.

You mean dogmatic drivel, like constantly terming 4e as 4.Fail? Like saying that combat-dominant rules and roleplaying are mutually exclusive?

To Trollman:

Right. I understand that you have conceded that Leaders have the qualities of Defenders and that Defenders have the qualities of Leaders. Which gets back to your core claim: which is that despite this fact you maintain that the label of "Leader" or "Defender" means something.

If by "Leaders have the qualities of Defenders" you mean, "The cleric has a power with a generic mark" at least. You also seem to be using "Defenders" and "Paladin" interchangibly. There are other defenders besides them.

If you concede that there are Leaders with the qualities of Defenders and Defenders with the qualities of Leaders then we are finished here. Because the defended thesis statement is that the roles are not protected.

Defender (paladin) with some qualities of one Leader (The cleric). The paladin doesn't have any repositioning abilities like the warlord, also a leader, has. It sort of makes sense, too, because both paladin and cleric are of the divine power source. But anyway, here's what I said on page 4 so that it's harder for you to keep ignoring it:

The bolded portion is pretty much word for word what I said makes the cleric a leader. If you'd read through my last few posts, you'd see that I'm actually not defining a defender in this way, or at least not primarily in the way that those qualities make a leader what they are. I might have back on page 3 at some point but that was before Boolean made some good points about clerics being better at that sort of thing than a paladin, so I realized my error and attributed that to leaders. Fighters and swordmages don't have the same leader-like qualities that a paladin does, so it would be silly of me to try to define a defender by those same properties.

I'll try one more time to make it clear. The intended role of the defender, in my eyes, is to be in the front lines and be a balanced attacker. They aren't just meatshields. They're there to create a catch-22 situation for enemies. Either the enemies A. risk a miss against the defender's high defenses, or B. they soak the punishment of not taking option A. An effective defender will make both choices painful or at least undesirable.

Now, I know there's some controversy with paladins since divine challenge is a little bit underwhelming. But it is a guaranteed damage punishment and part of the catch-22. The part-leader aspect of the paladin class is that they can retroactively defend somebody via lay hands and have some powers that directly buff the AC of others or allow them to use healing surges. So far, from what I've seen, we unanimously agree that fighters perform the catch-22 well. They can punish really hard for being ignored and maintain high defenses. So can a swordmage. Just because a warlock, as a striker, is self-sufficient and can gain temp hitpoints out the ass doesn't make them a defender. Just because a cleric can opt to spend feats that boost their defenses to the levels defenders can start with doesn't make them defenders and the defender role not legitimate. I think you and Boolean are looking at specific aspects of a class A, saying "That's like this other aspect of class B!" and saying that because of this, role definition is blurred to hell. It's really not that simple.

Now, please address my arguments while taking what I've said in this quote instead of continuing to take things out of context.

[Username17]

If by "Leaders have the qualities of Defenders" you mean, "The cleric has a power with a generic mark" at least. You also seem to be using "Defenders" and "Paladin" interchangibly. There are other defenders besides them.

Sigh. If you're going to move the goal posts, please refrain from moving them in a circle. I realize that you're a pathetic troll from another forum whose entire purpose is to annoy us, but try to show more cleverness than that. We've already answered this.

See for starters, the thesis statement is:

"The Roles are Not Protected, Despite Explicit Design Intent that they Would be."

That's the thesis statement you are attacking. Bringing other character classes and other roles into the mix does not help you at all. For the roles to be "protected" you have to show that there is no character from "Not Role A" that can perform the function of Role A in the manner that any one class that is a member of Role A fulfills that role's function. Which is very hard to do, and why we would give you the benefit of the doubt if you could solidly refute any thesis supporting statement, which must be in the form "Class X is Role A, Class Y is Not Role A and fulfills the same criteria." So if you concede that a single class in Role A and a single class in some other role overlap you have already lost the argument.

But fine, whatever. You want to talk about Fighters? Let's talk about Fighters. Let's talk about how the Tempest Fighter hands out more damage in a unit time than a Rogue or a Warlock. Now that you've already totally failed to refute the thesis statement with regards to the Defender/Leader divide, let's see you do the Defender/Striker divide.

So... Tempest Fighters and Strikers. How is the Striker Role protected when Tempest Fighters exist at all?

-Username17

[Roy]

Check the earlier ones. Of course the later ones are slightly more elaborate 'See aboves' as he is too stupid to grasp the more intricate points

Yeah, "intricate points" indeed, where instead of arguing you throw in content-less posts where you "smite" people. Do you expect the rest of the forum to fellate you or something?

No. I simply expect to go on damage control duty when idiots run rampant.

I said 4.Fail was incapable of facilitating an immersive world. Not D&D as a whole, and 4.Fail is D&D In Name Only in any case. In earlier editions that stuff comes from an admixture of Tea Party and the rules, to get something consistent with the rules... like characters realizing they aren't hindered by non mortal injuries, because they aren't within the rules of the game world. In 4.Fail, you can try to do the same thing, but the rules will actively chain cock slap you at every turn, because you're just some figure on a 5 foot square closet battle map, ya know? Now go grind on MOBs.

How was 3rd Ed significantly different than 4th when it came to out of combat tasks? You had Tea Party + skill checks, just like 4e has now. You don't HAVE to use skill challenges either (especially not the unmodified core version due to its flaws), although they have been errata'd. 3rd Ed had spells that aided you with said skill checks (and sometimes in broken as hell ways that discouraged roleplaying, if anything). There was also skill inflation to some degree. You're acting like because 4th Edition is a combat-focused game system that there's no room for roleplaying, and that's bullshit. It's also bullshit to claim that 3rd Ed was fine with its out of combat rules but 4th Ed somehow isn't.

You could not be more horrifically wrong in every way if you tried.

And no, 4th Ed is not incapable of facilitating an immersive world because most of that comes down to the DM and the players. You're again implying that you need RULES to get in-character and enjoy the game. That sounds like a flavor problem more than anything, which is not a part of the game design.

Bullshit. However I do need the rules to not get in my way and cockblock me at every fucking opportunity. Which is what the Pocket Cat edition does, and 3.5 does not.

You can read the last page or two where Lago, RC and I are talking about Tea Party versus rolling for success with modifiers and the arguments for both sides. If you're just going to handwave that and constantly chant your mantra of "4.Fail", then get the fuck out.

If you're going to whine about snark on the Gaming Den, it is you who should get the fuck out. You might as well complain the sky is blue. Deal with it, you fucking fucker.

This is usually the case when dealing with 4.Failtards, as similar to religious nuts, they have nothing to support them but dogmatic drivel and vehement denial of reality.

You mean dogmatic drivel, like constantly terming 4e as 4.Fail? Like saying that combat-dominant rules and roleplaying are mutually exclusive?

Dogmatic drivel, by definition has no basis in reality. Dubbing 4.0 a bad, or Fail edition has many bases in reality that can be objectively proven. Rather than rehash a chapter or two worth of smites on it, I will leave it as an exercise to you to find the earlier articles by myself and others on the subject. Furthermore, as stated above it is snark. Which means it serves 2 purposes - 1: To enlighten with objectively provable facts. 2: To amuse the reader.

The rest of your statement is a bullshit straw man and disregarded accordingly.

[Doom]

I'm still trying to guess who this guy is. It seems like Cyber Dave, but his posts aren't nearly as filled with ignorance as that guy's commonly are.

Anyone else want to make a guess who's hiding behind the mask?

[Leress]

I'm still trying to guess who this guy is. It seems like Cyber Dave, but his posts aren't nearly as filled with ignorance as that guy's commonly are.

Anyone else want to make a guess who's hiding behind the mask?

It doesn't matter who NC is, just read the posts and make ones arguments from those.

[Psychic Robot]

Cyber Dave seems like a good guess. I wish TD were here, though.

[RandomCasualty2]

That really depends on what actions you want to take. If you see a social encounter as more complex, and as split up in different tasks and options, like a combat, then you have the greater strategy (let's bribe him, Let's blackmail him, etc.) and then the way how to do it (let's make sure his wife's away so she can't influence him. Let's discredit the advisor. Let's bribe the advisor. Let's impress the audience at a ball. Pay a bard to spread our fame in advance. Build up the danger from the trolls we want hunted. Snub a rival of the duke in front of the duke so he likes us) as well as damage control (make sure the barbarian doesn't insult the duke's brother. Make sure the bard doesn't get caught seducing the lord's daughter or wife) and other things.

Yeah, I mean, it's the actual roleplaying and story aspects of roleplaying encounters that make them good. And building up a good depth of NPCs allows for planning like what you're talking about. That's good, because it involves the PCs picking strategies and making decisions.

In many cases a lot of social skills, especially diplomacy, are the opposite of that. It's not about using your brain, it's just "well I have +30 diplomacy, he has to like me" and for no good reason at all, because the rules don't care that you just butchered his best friend. But I don't want people focusing on numbers. I don't want the game to turn into bullshit where the entire group is silent save for the one PC with a high diplomacy check because the others don't want to make checks and possibly screw up. That just sucks.

The main thing with social skills is that they pretty much tell the rest of the group to STFU while the rogue or bard talks. In fact, they're better just leaving for the scene and going and playing video games, because by talking they really probably only hurt the group's chances and at best, they just end up rolling a mediocre failure and wasting everyone's time.

[Anguirus]

Right but social skills allow an un-charismatic, dull person play a witty charismatic character in a way that they could not were the rules not present. If a weak person can play a strong character, a dumb person can play a smart character, a clumsy person can play a dexterous character, a frail person can play a hardy character and an unwise person can play a wise character then you should let an un-charismatic person fulfill their fantasies too, right?

[Lago PARANOIA]

So... Tempest Fighters and Strikers. How is the Striker Role protected when Tempest Fighters exist at all?

-Username17

I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily even if you say that Tempest Fighters are overpowered. They are, but only compared to other classes. If you compare them against just fighters, they compare very favorably to the Battlerager, Polearm, and Spear & Board fighter.

It's been demonstrated repeatedly that ANY kind of optimally-built fighter can outdamage the rogue (except for a rogue/ranger PMC) and the warlock, especially at higher levels. A STR/CON Maul Fighter will outdamage these two classes even without Adventurer's Vault or Martial Power. With AV, PHB2, and MP, it becomes just outright pitiful.

[Psychic Robot]

So what's the solution to making strikers suck less ass? Increase their bonus damage to 1d8/1d10 per tier? Adding a stat bonus to damage? Throwing rocks at the 4e devs?

[Crissa]

Striker isn't a role, that's your problem.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

Right but social skills allow an un-charismatic, dull person play a witty charismatic character in a way that they could not were the rules not present. If a weak person can play a strong character, a dumb person can play a smart character, a clumsy person can play a dexterous character, a frail person can play a hardy character and an unwise person can play a wise character then you should let an un-charismatic person fulfill their fantasies too, right?

As a roleplaying game, we have to accept that roleplaying is part of the game and is a skill that will help you possibly win the game. We can give them things to help them out, like give them skills that give them information that helps with social challenges, but I think the game loses a lot if you just give people an "I win" button that takes away the need to roleplay.

And while a dumb person can play a smart character, it doesn't always mean that their character is going to act like a smart person. Obviously, since a dumb PC is in the driver's seat, their character is going to still do stupid things, even if he has 20 intelligence.

If you want a game where characters just go on autopilot and simulate out according to their abilities, then that's not even a game I'm interested in. When I play an RPG, I want to be able to make decisions for my character, and I want to control him. Yes, this does mean that my decisions would probably be less wise than my character with 18 wisdom, but fuck what's the fun in just sitting back and letting the game play itself? If I wanted that, I'd just read a book or watch a movie. I don't want to just say "what does my character think I should do?" everytime I come to a decision, even if my character is smarter than I am.

I came to play a game, and that means I as a player want decisions that challenge me.