Character ability v. player volition: INT, WIS, CHA

[Desdichado]

The more interesting challenge than the 5 INT is the 18 INT. Since, by definition, the average wizard player is not nearly as intelligent as his character, it's impossible for him to "play the stats."

Plus; exactly what that means is open to debate. So, for my money, other than occasionally throwing a bone or two towards the altar of "roleplaying", attempting to "play the stats" should be mostly ignored, or at least left in the hands of the player to interpret.

 

[Umbran]

But a foolish player imagining that they have a Buddha-like 18 WIS --it's the young Buddha-- is still likely to do and say foolish things, right?

He's likely to need more support from his GM to avoid doing and saying foolish things. But he has a stat on a sheet, and mechanics that help with that. Using the mechanics available to him (like, say, frequent Wisdom checks) is part of playing the character.

And, if the smart player needs some mechanical assistance in playing dumb, that's available as well.

 

[Voadam]

This is a good question

What are the practical implications of including the "mental abilities" of a character during play? Is it preferable aesthetically for a player to "play the stats" of the character? Or should the player's choices be driven by the practical circumstances of the game and the guided by the player's ability as much as, or more than, what's written on the character sheet?

For example, should a fighter with INT 5 be played as "dumb?" Or should the player play the character to the best of the player's ability with only minimal or no regard to the ability score?

Stats are for mechanics.

An int 5 fighter in 3e has less skills per level, penalties on his int based skills, is foreclosed from taking the combat expertise feat, and would do poorly if he multiclassed into wizard (only able to use wands).

I'd rather a player choose his roleplay based on his own desires for his character rather than be guided by his stats. If he chooses to go with his stats as his guide for how to roleplay his character that is fine, but I could care less what the stats say. Same for alignment.

I have no aesthetic preference for having roleplay try to mimic character stats.

I'd feel offended by a DM telling me I was playing my character wrong or poorly based on the stats on the sheet.

Even when a DM wants to play according to the stats IMO there is plenty of room in any stat, high or low, to justify any behaviour.

 

[Voadam]

He's likely to need more support from his GM to avoid doing and saying foolish things. But he has a stat on a sheet, and mechanics that help with that. Using the mechanics available to him (like, say, frequent Wisdom checks) is part of playing the character.

And, if the smart player needs some mechanical assistance in playing dumb, that's available as well.

No. The DM can make up mechanics for that to reinforce his own view of how the player should act, but they are not part of the default game.

I have never made a wisdom check to see if I was doing or saying something too foolish or not foolish enough.

IMO it would be a poor mechanic to have around all the time. IMO it is better to have players simply have their characters act rather than check with or be second guessed by the DM about what they should do in roleplaying situations.

 

[Greg K]

For myself, it is about playing the character and mental stats are part of the character. Therefore, if you give your character low Int, Wis, and/or Cha, I expect the character to be played that way or the player making an honest attempt to do so. Treating those abilities as dump stats and ignoring the actual ability scores will get you booted from the table by myself and the rest of the group. YMMV

As for character with Int, Wis, and/or Cha, that is higher than players, we cut some slack. The DM may give extra clues if a skill does not cover it or, for charsima/charisma skills, the basis for what you are trying to get across might be more appropriate than the words used by the player. However, it is still the same message that the player is trying to get across through his character (just assumed to be in a more appropriate form).

 

[delericho]

the player ends up trying to "play my alignment" or "play my Int score" instead of "playing my character."

Aren't the characters stats part of the character?

The thing is, in all of the default character creation methods in 3e, 4e and Pathfinder, the player gets to choose where to assign his character's stats. So, if the character has a low Int, it is because the player wants the character to have a low Int. That being the case, shouldn't they be playing the character accordingly?

 

[Mallus]

That being the case, shouldn't they be playing the character accordingly?

Who gets to decide what 'accordingly' is?

I sure as Hell don't want the job when I'm DM'ing. I'm happy just to have players participating, contributing and (hopefully) enjoying themselves. I don't want to be put in the position of judging whether Grod the Unthinking is really smart enough to solve that chess board puzzle.

And seeing as I'm the only person who can put myself in that position, in the manner of a certain scrivener, I choose not to...

Honestly, how is the game made more enjyable by trying to limit player contributions --in terms of ideas, speech, general role-playing-- to match the poorly-defined --if at all-- limitations of their characters?

 

[Voadam]

Aren't the characters stats part of the character?

The thing is, in all of the default character creation methods in 3e, 4e and Pathfinder, the player gets to choose where to assign his character's stats. So, if the character has a low Int, it is because the player wants the character to have a low Int. That being the case, shouldn't they be playing the character accordingly?

Int, Wis, Cha, have mechanics attached to them.

Str, Dex, Con, do too.

Str, Dex, Con, do not impact how you roleplay your character except through their mechanics.

All six stats come from the same pool of point buy points.

So if mental stats impact roleplay then you have two situations.

If you want a strong mental stat roleplay style you have to put your points in that stat and either play a synergistic class for that stat (wizard for int, cleric for wis, sorcerer for con) or put these points into your roleplay stat and have less for your mechanically appropriate class based stats.

Conversely if you want to play with a low roleplay style in one of the stats you either avoid the synergy classes or gimp yourself (a spellcaster who can't cast spells in 3e or pathfinder, a caster with no bonuses on his powers in 4e).

Roleplay then limits either class choice or effectiveness.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Int, Wis, Cha, have mechanics attached to them.

Str, Dex, Con, do too.

Str, Dex, Con, do not impact how you roleplay your character except through their mechanics.

Sure they do.

Characters with low strength aren't allowed to win at arm wrestling or kick down doors. Characters with low Con are going to be especially weak and susceptible to poisons.

I expect players to play their stats - they gave themselves those stats, after all. If you just shrug and go "Man whatever" then you're essentially telling the player "No, it's cool, just use those as dump stats - they don't matter at all to you."

In my opinion, the more you divide roleplaying away from stats, the closer you get to the point where you might as well just ditch the dice and freeform until the Final Fantasy-esque combat mode begins.

 

[billd91]

Roleplay then limits either class choice or effectiveness.

Sounds like that's the way it should be to me. If the role you want to play involves something not directly channeled into your class's main strengths, then of course there will be some trade-offs. That's a good thing. It keeps D&D from just being a numbers game for those of us who don't want it to just be a numbers game.

By the way, I'm also a stat roller, so it's not true that every point spent on a fighter's intelligence is a point taken away from his strength/dex/con.