D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[One_Shots]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

Some people seem to think that this comes from a basis of focusing on the combat aspects of D&D and that by doing so I am somehow a traitor to the roleplaying aspects. This supposes a disconnect between the two and that there is no room for both at a table. What bothers me most about this sort of accusatory stance is that it assumes a lack of imagination and creativity on the part of the optimiser. And yet, this is not only far from the truth, but I believe in opposition to it. Give me the exact same statistics and abilities and I can make two characters that play radically differently at the table due to creativity and imagination. Further, I think it takes a distinct lack of creativity and imagination to be beholden to statistics and abilities so much that they dictate the form and shape of the character.

And this, I believe, is because the character, whilst it may be informed by the statistics and abilities it has, is specifically not the sum total of those statistics and abilities. It is a character, not an algorithm.

Discuss.

 

[pemerton]

The players in a RPG contribute to the game by (i) impacting the shared fiction, by (ii) the play of their PCs.

Playing a PC mostly consists in declaring actions for the character.

This can impact the fiction in multiple ways. The declaration of actions can provide colour - eg I speak in a funny voice, I always use the first person, I declare quirky actions for my PC, etc.

The resolution of declared actions can change or shape the key events of the shared fiction - the plot. Some resolution is mechanical; sometimes it is negotiated with the GM and/or the rest of the table ("free roleplaying").

Colour and resolution are sometimes connected, sometimes not. When playing D&D, I think that colour is often not taken into account in combat resolution (eg it makes no difference to my attack roll how bloodthirstily or energetically I describe my PC's attacks), but often is taken into account in non-combat resolution (eg if I describe my PC's knowing wink at the NPC, this might factor into the GM's adjudication of my influence attempt).

I think this is one reason why D&D players often contrast combat and roleplaying.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.
[...]
And this, I believe, is because the character, whilst it may be informed by the statistics and abilities it has, is specifically not the sum total of those statistics and abilities. It is a character, not an algorithm.

A character is more than the sum of what it can do, but it is also that. Having Strength 20 and the Duelist fighting style are both things which help to describe a character, and a character with Strength 19 is fundamentally different from a character with Strength 20, but the difference between two character goes beyond the difference between their character sheets. Two individuals, even if they are reflected the same way under the ruleset, are still different people with different opinions and approaches to the world. They may not make the same decisions for the same reasons in all circumstances. A knight is different from a samurai, even if they have the same stats and wield equivalent weapons.

Remember, there is no winning or losing in an RPG, at least not in the traditional sense. It's not a board game, where you win by killing the monsters and getting the loot. If everyone dies to the dragon, but you all played your characters with integrity and made the decisions that they would make, then you've won; together, you have crafted a meaningful story! Contrariwise if you kill the dragon, but you have to resort to out-of-character information and playing the character inauthentically, then you've failed; it doesn't matter whether it had a happy ending, because you had to cheat to get there - it's pointless.

The reason why it's rude and inconsiderate to bring an incompetent character into the game is that you're forcing the other player characters to accept you, when they have no reason to. It's not that the players want to kill the dragon - the players don't exist, for the purpose of role-playing - it's that their characters want to live and shouldn't be made to accept someone who is incompetent.

 

[Prism]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

I play with my mates of over 30 years. Sometimes we play pretty ineffective characters (stat/feature wise) that don't pull their full weight certainly in combat. Sometimes that is bad stat rolling, sometimes by picking feats and spells that look cool or help with a theme, but actually aren't that useful. I have never considered any of them rude or inconsiderate for playing the character they wanted too.

I only find people rude or inconsiderate if they are actually like that during the playing of the game.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm not sure I get the point of the OP, but I've often said that characters are more than just numbers on a piece of paper. That said, playing a 5 Int character as a genius or a 7 Cha character as a leader just isn't in the spirit of the game IMO. Unfortunately, I've more often seen overcompensation, with characters playing up minor negatives as a major flaws. An 8 Int isn't a moron, 8 Dex isn't a clutz, 8 Cha isn't ugly, etc.

As far as pulling one's weight, that's actually an issue with min/max players vs. normal players. I've seen one poster on the WotC forums who claimed that every one of his characters wouldn't adventure with anyone that isn't min/maxed. That's pretty extreme IMO, but I could also think of reasons why you wouldn't adventure with a character.

In a 3E game, one of the players had an idea for a druid that worshiped an ear of corn. He would carry it around (even after it rotted) and listen to what it said. There was more (and crazier) aspects of this character, and I stopped him after a bit. I asked him why we would let him join us, as he's obviously nuts, and he didn't have an answer. Needless to say, that character was never created.

 

[Horwath]

Characters are far more than the sum of their abilities, but...

A fighter with str 12, dex 8, con 12, int 14, wis 14, cha 16 and skilled feat might be the greatest guy in town and a barrel of laugh to be around, but when it gets to combat it will show that is he is a bag of hot air.

And that is OK, that is the character, but don't expect much of him in a combat crisis.

 

[Morrus]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

It's a game with no actual consequences. You don't even get a prize. Nobody loses anything if somebody doesn't "pull their weight", and flawed characters can add an extra dimension to those who enjoy such things.

 

[shoak1]

Remember, there is no winning or losing in an RPG, at least not in the traditional sense. It's not a board game, where you win by killing the monsters and getting the loot. If everyone dies to the dragon, but you all played your characters with integrity and made the decisions that they would make, then you've won; together, you have crafted a meaningful story! .

To many of us, it IS about winning/losing, killing monsters, leveling up, and getting loot. Always has been - at least to me and many others, since the 70s. D and D was not conceived as a pure RPG. It began as a miniatures game, then meandered around, came back to being a miniatures game (3.5), went into leveling up/power gaming mode in 4.0, and now, in this brief interlude in history, is absolutely owned by RPGers who seem intent on throwing out the history books and re-defining D and D as a pure RPG.

Power gaming, not role-playing, is the dominant play style in the industry now. What defines a D and D character to me and everyone I know? Stats 80% and fluff (personality, background, blah, blah, blah) 20%. The gamers I know want to throw away their old character and make a new one if they find out they screwed up their "build." They want to kill monsters (on a 1" grid using rigid combat rules), get loot, level up, buy cool stuff, and go out and do it again. Their goal is to win. And when some bozo comes in and makes a wizard w/18 STR, or some knucklehead pally decides he wants to wear leather armor and ride around on a giant spider he names Celeste (true story), my other players quickly tire of playing w/him. Why? Because his weak _ss build made the party WIPE (which means "lose" to a power gamer) AGAINST THAT DRAGON !!!!!!!!

So sure, go ahead and keep insisting (while your play style sits atop the D and D throne) that D and D is a straight RPG. Just remember the Vegas odds on D and D stopping at 5 editions is about....[calculating]....... 0%

 

[UnknownDyson]

I consider the notion of people being upset about ineffectual characters in a fantasy rpg game with absolutely 0 real world consequences to be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[jasper]

To many of us, it IS about winning/losing, killing monsters, leveling up, and getting loot. Always has been - at least to me and many others, since the ..

Power gaming, not role-playing, is the dominant play style in the industry now. ..

Hmm. Once I deleted some your post, it seems power gaming was always the dominant play style. The only difference is Bob only needs to bring a 16 stat fighter instead of 18/22 stat fighter to kick monsters. And how many fighters only had 18/22 str?

The OP is asking I think. Why are characters which are not geared for combat but for social roleplaying encounters frown on and then a power combat build also frown on. It depends on the gamer, DM, and encounters. Some want to Captain Kirk combat and takes the Klingon cloaking device. Others want to woo the Klingon capt. Both work. But PG players scream and yell if the group is not built around killing monsters and having the highest damage per round.