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

[Oofta]

Mod Note:
Both of you - it is time to de-escalate this situation.

@Vaalingrade - Sorry to tell you, but your post could legitimately be read as a general indictment of the thread. That's the way text goes sometimes - what you intend may not get to the reader, and that's not necessarily the reader's fault. Maybe next time put a qualifier or two in there (like, "33 pages, and still some people...").

@Oofta - you know darned well that "take a chill pill" does not work on people who are annoyed at you. Maybe next time try things like, "I'm sorry, but it seems I misunderstood..."

But, in any case of what might have been, now, you two should stop responding to each other in this thread.

Sorry, I simply didn't understand and should have worded it better.

 

[Remathilis]

They do not have to play 'dumb as a post' or 'trips over their tongue when they talk' characters, but I will be damned if they don't roleplay appropriate limitations at all. That is very poor roleplay, and poor gamesmanship, and I don't let it slide at my table as GM.

There was a lot of ink spilled long ago about character's having dump stats (we're talking 3-6 range low) that didn't seem to affect them in one bit as far as RP was concerned. In AD&D, this was especially common as the ability modifiers for mental scores tended to only affect niche areas (languages, cham saves, henchmen) unless you were a spellcaster. Stories were told of dwarven fighters or barbarians with single-digit ability scores being as clever, learned, or smooth as the player was capable of role-playing (a form of metagaming in a way) which created the backlash of "roleplaying your score" to make characters stupid, gullible, or ugly/unsociable. It stuck for a long time and now it appears the trend is starting to reverse.

here’s this weird double standard where physical stats speak for themselves and mental/social ones have to be “roleplayed” according to whatever standard the DM decides.

Some role-players actually role-play low physical stats too. A long strength PC might (voluntarily) have a hard time lifting or moving a heavy object (even if the DM didn't call for a strength check) or intentionally climb up something slowly. Low dex PCs might be clumsy, bumping into people or objects. Low Con PCs might be sickly, with permanent coughs, easily catching cold from drafts, or nauseated easily by food or drink. But just like the above, plenty of players don't look at the ability score as anything but a mechanical adjustment. The low strength wizard will attempt to open stuck doors and rely on that "nat 20" to bypass the -1 to the roll. Ditto for low dex or con.

Its already common knowledge that the 3-18 score range is an artifact that serves little purpose anymore, the ability modifier (-5 to +5) is what is important. Plenty of d20 Variants removed it to no great loss. You could easily replicate granting the same modifier range without needing Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha and fix a whole lot of problems with the game in one fell swoop. The biggest would be trying to numerically quantify how strong/smart/agile someone is and try to explain what the difference between a 12 and a 13 Dexterity is supposed to represent.

All I get from this is that, we should only play our self in game.

Not quite. But I'm getting the vibe in certain gaming circles that D&D is still too focused on numbers and making them mean something. For example, much of the hoopla about racial ASI was the notion that ideas like "strong" or "small" or "graceful" should have corresponding mechanical, numeric representation in the game. A strong race should have a bonus to Strength, for example. However, if you remove the concept of Strength as a mechanic, then "strong" race no longer has a mechanical expression, it's strictly a role-playing tool. Or if Strength exists, maybe it shouldn't affect other systems mechanically (such as bonus to hit and damage) since a.) no one agrees if using a longsword relies of muscle or agility anyway and b.) it would break the notion that warriors are strong and strong races are the best warriors.

Once you remove specific numeric expressions of a character's abilities, you open a huge amount of potential to design and play characters however you like.

 

[Charlaquin]

There was a lot of ink spilled long ago about character's having dump stats (we're talking 3-6 range low) that didn't seem to affect them in one bit as far as RP was concerned. In AD&D, this was especially common as the ability modifiers for mental scores tended to only affect niche areas (languages, cham saves, henchmen) unless you were a spellcaster. Stories were told of dwarven fighters or barbarians with single-digit ability scores being as clever, learned, or smooth as the player was capable of role-playing (a form of metagaming in a way) which created the backlash of "roleplaying your score" to make characters stupid, gullible, or ugly/unsociable. It stuck for a long time and now it appears the trend is starting to reverse.

Yeah, trends come and go. I for one am happy to see things moving away from the direction of policing other people’s portrayals of their characters.

Some role-players actually role-play low physical stats too. A long strength PC might (voluntarily) have a hard time lifting or moving a heavy object (even if the DM didn't call for a strength check) or intentionally climb up something slowly. Low dex PCs might be clumsy, bumping into people or objects. Low Con PCs might be sickly, with permanent coughs, easily catching cold from drafts, or nauseated easily by food or drink.

For sure, and I think those are totally legitimate and fun roleplaying choices! I just never see anyone saying “if you have a low Con you’d better wheeze every time you go up stairs! I expect players to roleplay their ability scores!” the way I see it with the mental stats, hence my comment about the double-standard. And I can’t help but notice that, once again, it’s a double-standard that favors casters.

But just like the above, plenty of players don't look at the ability score as anything but a mechanical adjustment. The low strength wizard will attempt to open stuck doors and rely on that "nat 20" to bypass the -1 to the roll. Ditto for low dex or con.

And I think that’s a legitimate choice as well.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yeah, trends come and go. I for one am happy to see things moving away from the direction of policing other people’s portrayals of their characters.

This. So much this.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, trends come and go. I for one am happy to see things moving away from the direction of policing other people’s portrayals of their characters.

For sure, and I think those are totally legitimate and fun roleplaying choices! I just never see anyone saying “if you have a low Con you’d better wheeze every time you go up stairs! I expect players to roleplay their ability scores!” the way I see it with the mental stats, hence my comment about the double-standard. And I can’t help but notice that, once again, it’s a double-standard that favors casters.

And I think that’s a legitimate choice as well.

I think we're aiming for the same goal but from different directions.

You're arguing ability scores shouldn't define how a PC should be played. I'm arguing why even have the scores in the first place. The net effect is the same; you can play your wizard and strong, weak, or average. I just think that removing the concept of "strength" as a definable mechanic fixes the problem more eloquently than "my Strength score is 8, but I play a character them however I like".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think we're aiming for the same goal but from different directions.

You're arguing ability scores shouldn't define how a PC should be played. I'm arguing why even have the scores in the first place. The net effect is the same; you can play your wizard and strong, weak, or average. I just think that removing the concept of "strength" as a definable mechanic fixes the problem more eloquently than "my Strength score is 8, but I play a character them however I like".

I actually half agree with you. I want ability scores to exist and I want them to represent things that are true in the fiction. But if ability scores are not going to really represent anything (and that's the direction the game is going) then I rather not have them at all. Disassociated mechanics bug me to no end.

 

[Scott Christian]

I actually half agree with you. I want ability scores to exist and I want them to represent things that are true in the fiction. But if ability scores are not going to really represent anything (and that's the direction the game is going) then I rather not have them at all. Disassociated mechanics bug me to no end.

I would say that is not the direction the game is taking. Ability scores have been there since the beginning. There is no inkling to them going away. I think there are groups that try to disassociate the scores from their roleplaying. But I feel like that has always been the case; the really intelligent friend who strategizes well or solves all the puzzles even though they are playing the 6 int barbarian. That will never change.

 

[Oofta]

I think we're aiming for the same goal but from different directions.

You're arguing ability scores shouldn't define how a PC should be played. I'm arguing why even have the scores in the first place. The net effect is the same; you can play your wizard and strong, weak, or average. I just think that removing the concept of "strength" as a definable mechanic fixes the problem more eloquently than "my Strength score is 8, but I play a character them however I like".

If you use point buy or arrange dice after the rolls you are deciding what the PC's strengths and weaknesses are. I think it would be a very, very different game if we didn't have ability scores so add me to the list of "I want people to represent their PC at least somewhat accurately". You can do that without caricatures or making fun of people.

 

[Oofta]

I would say that is not the direction the game is taking. Ability scores have been there since the beginning. There is no inkling to them going away. I think there are groups that try to disassociate the scores from their roleplaying. But I feel like that has always been the case; the really intelligent friend who strategizes well or solves all the puzzles even though they are playing the 6 int barbarian. That will never change.

Most puzzles are player challenges, not PC challenges so I normally give that a pass. On the other hand if the player is always coming up with brilliant tactics with their low int/wisdom PC, I may start having them make checks to see if they would think of it in a home game. I don't remember that ever happening though.

YMMV of course and there's no one true way.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the game I just ran a player of a 'stupid' character made an unprompted int roll to decide whether their character understood a certain thing. Nothing important, just reminded me of this thread.