D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Lanefan]

This post seems like it's in reaction to something. Is it?

Overall, "don't play characters that are purposefully insulting to others" seems like a good general guide.

My take is more "spread the love - insult everyone equally".

 

[Oofta]

I think there's a difference between playing your PC's attributes as you see them and playing an annoying PC. That's why in session 0 one of my rules, right up there with "no evil PCs" is "no annoying PCs". Whether or not you liked Dumb and Dumber (I didn't personally), please don't try to play Lloyd unless the entire group goes along.

 

[payn]

My take is more "spread the love - insult everyone equally".

This tends to fail hard because some love is like a feather duster and other love is like a Mack truck. Just becasue everyone gets their turn doesnt make it equal.

I go by the original idea that a non-extreme Int score vaguely equates to an IQ score divided by ten. Thus, Int 8 represents an IQ in the high 70s or low 80s. Play that as you will.

Yikes.

 

[Faolyn]

I worked with developmentally disabled adults for over 12 years; our program participants all had IQs that measured at 70 or below and most had other issues as well (cerebral palsy, various syndromes like Down's, Williams, or Fragile X, low-functioning autism, being visually or hearing impaired, etc.).

The way D&D measures Intelligence honestly has absolutely no correlation to the way Intelligence works in real life. Same with every other RPG I've played that has an Int-type stat. In the real world, having a low IQ is correlated with actual physical changes in the brain, which cause other physical problems such as poor motor skills and a host of other physical and mental health issues, along with social issues as well (effectively, the people generally often unable to learn what was socially appropriate). To be realistic, any D&D PC with an Int of, say, 4 or 5 lower than the norm for the race should also have trouble walking and using their hands, or even be unable to do so. "Realistically," the PC other five scores should be low as well, since the brain really does control everything.

Obviously, this isn't the case in D&D, where you can play an Int 6 character with zero problems.

TBH, I think the examples you gave of how to play a low-Int character, @ad_hoc, are not particularly good ones. Several of them (being unable to memorize facts, taking risky behavior, no attention span) are also indicative of disorders like ADHD, which has nothing to do with intelligence. Neither lacking confidence nor being in a different culture indicate a lower intelligence, either--and those characters could still be very intelligent, even if other people don't realize it.

Not to derail this into a thread about floating versus fixed ASIs again, but this is why I don't like fixed ASIs: because the stats are so divorced from reality that they don't actually mean anything beyond getting a bonus or penalty in your rolls or a few other basic mechanics. You can play a character as an absolute genius who simply is really, really bad at doing anything that requires Int-based rolls. A few of the developmentally disabled adults I worked with had amazing skills of memorization.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Don't worry, I'm told that It Is Surprisingly Hard To Create An Incompetent Ass-Clown in Dungeons & Dragons.

Weirdly, that's the same writer who went on to Wired and wrote the article about RPG worker conditions that we've been discussing (along with the Paizo stuff).

 

[Alzrius]

I go by the original idea that a non-extreme Int score vaguely equates to an IQ score divided by ten. Thus, Int 8 represents an IQ in the high 70s or low 80s. Play that as you will.

That's based on the old Stanford-Binet IQ test. If you model IQ on the newer Wechsler test, the ratio between Intelligence score and IQ looks a little different.

 

[cowpie]

Your analogy doesn’t work because the original critique isn’t “playing stupid characters means you’re pro… stupidity(?),” it’s “playing stupid characters is distasteful because it reinforces stereotypes about neurodivergent people.”

Well, I wouldn't call it a "critique" exactly -- the OP makes a lot of assertions and demands, and is signalling they they support a popular political position in which it's considered virtuous to scold people for being "ableist".

To critique the critique, one could just as easily argue that it's also harmful to scold people for being ableist. For example, someone on the autism spectrum might use the term "stupid" because they tend to process things literally, and are unable to police their own language all the time (it's literally too hard for them). So isn't it discriminatory to scold them for being "ableist" when in fact, they can't help but use less-delicate language? You've be punishing a neurodivergent person, based on the assumption that they don't care about neurodivergent people, which is obviously wrong.

To make another point, if everyone at the table is an adult, is making collective improvised fiction, and no one has any ill-intent, agrees to portraying silly caricatures, everyone knows not to believe the characters have any reference to people in real life, everyone understands what a harmful stereotypes are and separates them from reality, and the game occurs in the privacy of your own home, how is this actually going to hurt anyone?

Everyone here is saying "it might hurt someone". How will it actually hurt someone? Getting hit by a truck might hurt someone -- does that mean we should ban driving trucks?

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Just going to point out that none of what you’re describing here is particularly sophisticated comedy. But no, the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail is not ableist. He’s also not the kind of “stupid” character OP is talking about.

I have a feeling that some of us (myself included) are not really grokking what the OP is talking about because we've never gamed with anyone crass enough to do the ableist stereotyping of someone that they experienced.

 

[Charlaquin]

I worked with developmentally disabled adults for over 12 years; our program participants all had IQs that measured at 70 or below and most had other issues as well (cerebral palsy, various syndromes like Down's, Williams, or Fragile X, low-functioning autism, being visually or hearing impaired, etc.).

The way D&D measures Intelligence honestly has absolutely no correlation to the way Intelligence works in real life. Same with every other RPG I've played that has an Int-type stat. In the real world, having a low IQ is correlated with actual physical changes in the brain, which cause other physical problems such as poor motor skills and a host of other physical and mental health issues, along with social issues as well (effectively, the people generally often unable to learn what was socially appropriate). To be realistic, any D&D PC with an Int of, say, 4 or 5 lower than the norm for the race should also have trouble walking and using their hands, or even be unable to do so. "Realistically," the PC other five scores should be low as well, since the brain really does control everything.

Obviously, this isn't the case in D&D, where you can play an Int 6 character with zero problems.

TBH, I think the examples you gave of how to play a low-Int character, @ad_hoc, are not particularly good ones. Several of them (being unable to memorize facts, taking risky behavior, no attention span) are also indicative of disorders like ADHD, which has nothing to do with intelligence. Neither lacking confidence nor being in a different culture indicate a lower intelligence, either--and those characters could still be very intelligent, even if other people don't realize it.

Not to derail this into a thread about floating versus fixed ASIs again, but this is why I don't like fixed ASIs: because the stats are so divorced from reality that they don't actually mean anything beyond getting a bonus or penalty in your rolls or a few other basic mechanics. You can play a character as an absolute genius who simply is really, really bad at doing anything that requires Int-based rolls. A few of the developmentally disabled adults I worked with had amazing skills of memorization.

Yeah, much like how dexterity (at least in its modern form that also encompasses agility and speed) being totally unrelated to strength, intelligence being unrelated to dexterity and charisma (and probably wisdom too, since that represents mental fortitude and perceptiveness) doesn’t really line up with the way those things work in real life. Which is fine! I think the game would be much better if we all agreed to stop pretending it models anything remotely resembling real life and accepted that ability scores are just abstract numbers that affect how likely you are to succeed and fail at a thematically-connected set of tasks.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My initial gut feeling when reading the OP was, "Hey, that's an idea that deserves some deeper thought, because we often do thing we don't realize are ableist, or exclusive to people not like us."

But I also recognize the slippery slope. If you shouldn't play low INT PCs because that's ableist, would that also be true of low STR (weak), DEX (clumsy), or CON (frail or immucompromised) characters too? So we shouldn't ever play a PC with a lower than average stat in any area?

And that, I think, is up to each table, and what session zero is for, rather than take an blanket "don't play X because you're doing bad things if you do."

Edit I absolutely believe that if you want a D&D game where no PC has a stat lower than average, that's totally legit and a fine way to play. But it should be done at an individual table. Some of my fondest memories are with a PC with low stats overcoming challenges against the odds. As long as you play them respectfully, I don't see why it should be prohibited. Especially when we then bring up the DM, and how is the DM supposed to play since many monsters have low scores. That opens up an entirely new discussion.