D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[iserith]

I believe my examples make it clear that its not happening arbitrarily - and every effort is made to be fair. However, some folks will insist on making decisions based on player-perceived advantage, regardless if it is appropriate for their character, such as the classic low-charisma, no socials skill character being played as a debonair charmer by the player.

I think that whatever is "appropriate" for the the character is up to the player of that character.

Again, they're welcome to try but simply coming up with a good idea as a player doesn't mean their character has the stats, tools, skills and/or background to succeed reliably.

And that's where, in my view, it matters. Be as debonair as you want, but if a given approach to a goal is deemed to have an uncertain outcome, then you will be rolling and you won't do as well, on average, as someone with the higher ability scores or particular proficiencies. What I would try to avoid is telling the player how he or she "should" be acting. It's not smart play to take a lot of uncertain actions that line up to areas in which the character is deficient - assuming aiming for success is seen as smart play - but that's up to the player of that character in my view, not anyone else at the table.

And even then, this only become a problem if the player complains about the lack of reliability - after all, they had the chance to choose different stats, tools, skills and/or backgrounds that would benefit our hypothetical character's social role and for whatever reason, chose not to.

I would find that to be an unreasonable complaint.

Thankfully, we have a solid table with understanding folks - but its not always been like this and when a DM doesn't wish to take on the responsibility of arbitrating such situation then introducing a mechanical element can be an option. One advantage being that, by removing the DM - the 'human' element and letting the dice 'call the shots', the drama that some tables seem to find in personal confrontation can be lessened. Personally, having tried such methods and gained mix success, I'm in favour of the DM simply stepping up but each table and DM's style are different.

It seems to me the "personal confrontation" is the originating problem created by people trying to tell others how to play their characters e.g. "Someone with Wisdom 8 wouldn't do that!" If people don't do that, then the problem such as it is becomes one of mechanical effectiveness which itself can be mitigated by a number of character resources (Inspiration being one of them).

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I think...

Ok All good - different strokes and all that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that whatever is "appropriate" for the the character is up to the player of that character.



And that's where, in my view, it matters. Be as debonair as you want, but if a given approach to a goal is deemed to have an uncertain outcome, then you will be rolling and you won't do as well, on average, as someone with the higher ability scores or particular proficiencies. What I would try to avoid is telling the player how he or she "should" be acting. It's not smart play to take a lot of uncertain actions that line up to areas in which the character is deficient - assuming aiming for success is seen as smart play - but that's up to the player of that character in my view, not anyone else at the table.



I would find that to be an unreasonable complaint.



It seems to me the "personal confrontation" is the originating problem created by people trying to tell others how to play their characters e.g. "Someone with Wisdom 8 wouldn't do that!" If people don't do that, then the problem such as it is becomes one of mechanical effectiveness which itself can be mitigated by a number of character resources (Inspiration being one of them).

I'm of two minds here. I agree with you for open tables, mostly because the argument with somehow on "how to play right" isn't fruitful or something I'm interested in doing. But, at home tables, with friends, I have no problem with setting expectations via the social contract. I really have no interest in one of my players trying to do the 5 INT Sherlock Holmes routine, even if I'd be fine with it at an open table. Farce is a legit way to play, but not usually what I prefer at my home table.

However, that said, this is a social contract thing; I'd never insert mechanics to address it. I'd likely not even call it out at the table, but it would get some sideways looks and after session mocking from my other players. Social reinforcement of the contract, not mechanical.

 

[iserith]

I'm of two minds here. I agree with you for open tables, mostly because the argument with somehow on "how to play right" isn't fruitful or something I'm interested in doing. But, at home tables, with friends, I have no problem with setting expectations via the social contract. I really have no interest in one of my players trying to do the 5 INT Sherlock Holmes routine, even if I'd be fine with it at an open table. Farce is a legit way to play, but not usually what I prefer at my home table.

However, that said, this is a social contract thing; I'd never insert mechanics to address it. I'd likely not even call it out at the table, but it would get some sideways looks and after session mocking from my other players. Social reinforcement of the contract, not mechanical.

Sure, as I mentioned upthread, if everyone buys in on what a Wisdom 8 or whatever says about how you may have your character act, then there's no problem. I don't see why that's something that makes the game experience better, but there's a lot of stuff people like that I don't understand and that's okay.

It seems to me that not giving a flumph what someone else's ability scores are is a lot easier and avoids conflict over what that Wisdom 8 affords players in terms of making character choices. I don't know what ability scores my players chose for their characters except maybe that they maxed their primary ability score. As a player, I surely don't know what others at the table have on their sheets and I can't be given to care in either situation. To me, the potential difficulty begins when placing constraints on one's own roleplaying based on what one thinks an ability score means and then applying those same voluntarily constraints to others who don't interpret ability scores in the same way. That can be seen (wrongly in my view, if there's no spoken agreement in place) as the player without the constraints playing in an unfair manner. I think it's easier to say "I'm going to act this way because Wisdom 8, but it's okay if others with Wisdom 8 act however they want." Then establish the character's flaw as doing unwise things from time to time in order to fish for Inspiration. That's a direct benefit for me acting how I would want Wisdom 8 portrayed. There's no benefit, so far as I can tell, to caring about how someone else plays Wisdom 8.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter. Everyone can play how they like, of course.

 

[smbakeresq]

I just tell players if you are always doing it then just always do it, I can’t remember to do it for you as I am the DM.

Players who say things like that are pushing the responsibility of their PC acting as appropriate to the situation on their DM. The DM has enough to do as is, playing your PC for you also to avoid something is flat unfair to ask the DM to do.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Charlaquin]

I long ago accepted that the ability scores have no real resemblence to the complex real-life concepts their names represent. There’s so much complex meaning bound up in the word “Intelligence” or “Wisdom” or “Strength” that just cannot be adequately expressed by a simple number on a 1-20 scale, and are not adequately represented by the game mechanics. So why get so concerned about whether or not someone is “roleplaying their ability scores?” I think most folks have reached the point now where we accept that the nine Alignments utterly fail to reflect the nuance of real-world morality and don’t get too fussed about what the Lawful Good Paladin “would do” in a given situation any more, so why is it we still haven’t reached the same point with Ability Scores?

At my table, Intelligence represents precisely this about your character: How difficult is their magic to resist, and how good are they at recalling information and making connections. Wisdom represents how good your character is at noticing sensory details, social cues, and shaking off mental influence. Strength represents natural athletic ability and skill with melee weapons. In short, your Abilities mean nothing more and nothing less than how good your character is at the rolls they add to. If you want to use your own Ability Scores as guidelines in your decision making process for your own character, that’s between you and whatever extraplanar entities you pledge devotion to. Nobody else, including me, gets to tell you what your character “would do.”

 

[Harzel]

I think that whatever is "appropriate" for the the character is up to the player of that character.

And that's where, in my view, it matters. Be as debonair as you want, but if a given approach to a goal is deemed to have an uncertain outcome, then you will be rolling and you won't do as well, on average, as someone with the higher ability scores or particular proficiencies. What I would try to avoid is telling the player how he or she "should" be acting. It's not smart play to take a lot of uncertain actions that line up to areas in which the character is deficient - assuming aiming for success is seen as smart play - but that's up to the player of that character in my view, not anyone else at the table.

Ok, but I believe that I have also seen you say elsewhere that an important element of your adjudication is that a sufficiently good course of action grants auto-success. (I hope that paraphrase is accurate.) On its face, that would seem to leave the door open to at least partially obviating the consequences of a low stat through 'smart play'. For instance, despite having an 8 CHA, might I have my character present himself as sufficiently debonair so as to gain an auto-success and avoid the roll entirely?

The only way I can see around this is to grant auto-success only if a course of action would certainly succeed regardless of a character's abilities or skills. (Effectively, you allow arbitrary RP, but ignore it when adjudicating results.) Is that what you do? That would narrow the application of auto-success a bit from what I imagined that you use based on other posts of yours. However, it would by no means be the first time that I imagined incorrectly based on forum posts. Or, alternatively, not the first time I failed to see other ways out of what I perceived to be a dilemma.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Ok, but I believe that I have also seen you say elsewhere that an important element of your adjudication is that a sufficiently good course of action grants auto-success. (I hope that paraphrase is accurate.) On its face, that would seem to leave the door open to at least partially obviating the consequences of a low stat through 'smart play'. For instance, despite having an 8 CHA, might I have my character present himself as sufficiently debonair so as to gain an auto-success and avoid the roll entirely?

Particularly in comparison with the physical abilities. A player can come up with a multi-levelled, intricate plan, or a coherent and strong argument that gives auto-success despite their character having low Int, Wis, and Cha. However the DM is unlikely to grant auto-success for a physical feat on a character with low physical ability based on whether the player can perform it.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Ok, but I believe that I have also seen you say elsewhere that an important element of your adjudication is that a sufficiently good course of action grants auto-success. (I hope that paraphrase is accurate.) On its face, that would seem to leave the door open to at least partially obviating the consequences of a low stat through 'smart play'. For instance, despite having an 8 CHA, might I have my character present himself as sufficiently debonair so as to gain an auto-success and avoid the roll entirely?

This is what I wanted to address with regards to mechanical or DM arbitration, in the context of 'smart play' attempting to circumvent challenges/gain auto successes. Specifically, I'm all for supporting a player's character concept and if they suddenly ignore or go against their own characterisation simply to avoid a challenge then, to my mind, this is at best not playing fair - especially to all those players who do their best to roleplay within the (often self-imposed) constraints imposed upon their character, despite the challenges they might create/auto success they might 'miss out' on.

So yes, my 'issue', as it were, is if a player tries to game the system to net auto success or advantage through roleplaying in bad faith.

 

[Sunseeker]

This is what I wanted to address with regards to mechanical or DM arbitration, in the context of 'smart play' attempting to circumvent challenges/gain auto successes. Specifically, I'm all for supporting a player's character concept and if they suddenly ignore or go against their own characterisation simply to avoid a challenge then, to my mind, this is at best not playing fair - especially to all those players who do their best to roleplay within the (often self-imposed) constraints imposed upon their character, despite the challenges they might create/auto success they might 'miss out' on.

So yes, my 'issue', as it were, is if a player tries to game the system to net auto success or advantage through roleplaying in bad faith.

The simplest solution I have found for all of this is that the stats are the lens through which the world perceives the player's actions and statements, and through which the players actions and statements are translated into the game.

Short of a character being established through the gameplay to be specifically good in something that their score would otherwise suggest they are not (such as say, battlefield tactics), skilled speeches from players simply translate poorly through that low int score. There may be stuttering, use of "simple" words, lots of 'um...' or 'like' that, while the gist of what the player was saying comes across, the way it is perceived is as though a person with low-int said it. People with low int can sometimes have bright ideas, but they don't sound like master wordsmiths when they do and that can result in people being less likely to take them seriously or even listen to them at all.

You dumped int...if you're not going to RP that and you're going to try to avoid involving the game mechanics regarding low int...why are you playing a low-int character?

I mean, I hate playing low-int characters. So all my characters always have at least a 14 int. Even if sometimes it seems out of place for that class.