Low ability scores -- more fun?

Bullgrit

Adventurer

• Nov 16, 2009

• #1

Some of the most memorable pcs I have had in my campaign, and some of the most memorable pcs that I have played, have had low scores- even 3s! That is actually impossible with point buy.

Click to expand...

”It’s low scores that make a character interesting.”

I’ve read and heard comments like this for years. One of the Players in my current group has said this several times. It’s supposedly one of the benefits of random rolling for ability scores.

I wonder, though, if a low score makes a character more interesting or more fun to play, why don’t the believers willingly drop one of their PC’s attributes to something low? I’ve told more than one Player through the years that I’m fine with them dropping a score if they feel it will make their character more fun for them, however, no one has ever taken me up on that offer.

Well, that is, they’ve never been willing to lower a score without wanting some other benefit to compensate for the weakness.

So, if you are one of those Players who think a low attribute is more fun or more interesting, have you ever willingly taken a weak attribute when you didn’t have to? Without some balancing benefit?

For me, I’m willing to admit that it’s the high attributes that make a character more fun and interesting for me. A fighter with 20 Strength, a wizard with 20 Intelligence, a rogue with 20 Dexterity gives me more fun than a fighter with 3 Wisdom, a wizard with 3 Strength, or a rogue with 3 Charisma.

Bullgrit

 

log in or register to remove this ad

FireLance

Legend

• Nov 16, 2009

• #2

I think the dissonance arises from the fact that many people find it fun to roleplay having a low ability score as long as they don't have to give up any of the (comparative) mechanical benefits of having an average (or better) score.

It's amusing when the low-Dexterity character occasionally slips or fumbles (usually for comedic effect), as long as he doesn't get hit more often in combat.

 

D

Dausuul

Legend

• Nov 16, 2009

• #3

My take on it is that "non-average" scores make a character more interesting. The most boring stats in the world are 13s across the board. Low scores offer some interesting roleplaying hooks. High scores likewise. (High scores also help the character not suck in a mechanical sense, which is probably why nobody takes you up on your offer.)

Back in the days of stat rolling, one of my favorite house-rules was one adapted from BECMI: You can sacrifice 2 points from any stat to add 1 point to another stat, as often as desired.

All that said, it's ultimately the concept that makes a character interesting. Even a character with 13s across the board can be interesting to play, it just takes a bit more work.

 

Last edited: Nov 16, 2009

ExploderWizard

Hero

• Nov 16, 2009

• #4

For me, ability scores high or low don't make a game more fun by themselves.

Lowering a score just to do it serves no purpose to me. Generating ability scores and playing with what you get can be fun.

I do prefer competent characters when playing systems with a complex/lengthly character creation process. When it takes an hour or so to create a new character playing an incompetent boob with the life expectancy of a fruitfly isn't much fun. OTOH if I can just do the equivalent of rolling 3d6 a few times, picking a class, and start play then it really doesn't matter as much.

 

Chainsaw

Banned

Banned

• Nov 16, 2009

• #5

Back in THE DAY, when I was running 2E games in middle school/high school, we rolled randomly, but usually kept rolling until we got a set of scores good for our character ideas. We never used characters with 3,4,5,6 that I can remember. A minor penalty in strength for a wizard or intelligence for a fighter was fine for us though (we didn't play so much that the traditional imagery needed to be turned upside down to keep the game interesting).

In my current games, we use point buy because the games are either RPGA or the DM wants the characters to be RPGA compatible. I will admit that my current fighter has low intelligence and charisma and he has provided our group with great entertainment value. He routinely keeps body-part trophies from his kills, for example. He had a goblin hand hanging from his waist last time we were meeting with the town's lord. The lord was like, "What is that hand for? Are you a necromancer?" and my guy replies, "Uh, a hand collector? Nope, this is the first one."

 

Holy Bovine

First Post

• Nov 16, 2009

• #6

Are low ability scores more fun?

No.

 

M

maddman75

First Post

• Nov 16, 2009

• #7

The people who say this want to be playing games with character mechanics. D&D/d20 mechanics are heavily focused on what people can do, and almost nothing on what they are. Personally one of the reasons I don't care for it much any more. I make a D&D character and I feel like I don't know anything about them.

If they were playing a system that had disadvantages/quirks/traits, they wouldn't feel the need to do this.

As for making them interesting, I don't find that attribute scores make a character more or less interesting at all.

 

The Ghost

Explorer

• Nov 16, 2009

• #8

It's more about creating a character concept that fits the ability scores you rolled - that can be fun.

 

Philotomy Jurament

First Post

• Nov 16, 2009

• #9

I think system has a lot of influence on the answer to this question. The more the numbers matter to the game rules, the less likely a player is to accept or work with low numbers, even if they make a PC "more interesting." But if the stats don't play a large mechanical role, players are a lot more willing to use low stats (as well as high stats) as color and hooks for defining their PCs and making them individuals. (In other words, the stats can be used just like a system of traits/advantages/disadvantages.)

In my OD&D game, for example, the biggest mechanical bonus you're going to get from stats is a +1, and the stiffest penalty is a -1 (exception: Charisma and reaction adjustments). Under that kind of approach, a Fighting Man with a Dex of 6 isn't a game-breaker.

I'm not trying to argue that low stats are something that players should desire, but that (in my game, anyway) they're not disasters that make a PC unplayable. And for making a memorable and colorful PC, having a low stat can be better than having average stats across the board, since it gives you a ready-made "hook" to hang some characterization on.

Again, this is all going to vary by system, and by how much influence an individual game and group places on crunch vs. fluff.

 

Last edited: Nov 16, 2009

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

• Nov 16, 2009

• #10

A 4e character could have a high dexterity and the player could chose to play a very lucky clutz. Even misses by your enemy could be described that way. Attacks which would have hit except for your Dexterity (assuming light armor) would be described in terms of the hero getting very lucky or the enemy getting very unlucky... I didnt dodge because I was agile I dodged because I stumbled...

Done over the top and it will be too much.. but that is narrative for you.

Have you ever heard of "The drunken master" martial arts style? You dont have to envision hitting in conflict to appear as a form of competance on the part of he character. I planning a priest of Avana... not sure what class to use but he was her lover once and blinded by the experience... the plan is for every attack he makes to be like a cascade effect where he throws a rock it bounces off a tree and trips somebody who smacks somebody else that type of thing.

The encouragement the players handbook gives to describe and envision how your powers work... is a potentially powerful thing. I don't think they give enough examples of how you can use this to make the character your own but this is certainly one of the things you can do.