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

[Theroc]

Question: 10 is the 'average' human score for things, correct?

Then in games with point buy, if you do not wish to play a smart barbarian or a stupid barbarian, leave this at ten for those mental stats, yes?

I'm not an expert(with D&D or roleplaying) and do not expect people to hew zealously to the 'altar of roleplaying', but if I see an Int 3 character scoring a 200 on an IQ test, I'm going to have to say that my immersion would be wholly ruined. By the same token, an int 18 wizard scoring a 15 on the same test would baffle me, unless I was informed that the wizard was focusing on a new formula rather than the test...

If someone plays Gonad the barbarian (Name stolen from someone I know personally), with a low intelligence score, and frequently smashes things if they involve patient thought, I can stomach the occasional flash on insight(much like the mentions of Forrest Gump). But if he consistently solves all the puzzles, how is he actually stupid?

Also, are the puzzles the DM is throwing at the party in some of these examples intended for the players, or the characters? Personally, I get irritated when playing a character with massive intelligence being given a puzzle and being told to solve it as a player, when I do not have the same intelligence my character does. At this point, I'm of the opinion that HINTS towards the answer should be given to said player, as a reflection of this intelligence.

However, if the puzzle is meant to be for the players and not the characters, why is it in a game about roleplaying characters?

 

[Mallus]

For me, it all comes down to this: a character with a 5 INT should no more be barred or discouraged from solving an intellectual puzzle than an 18 INT character simply be given the correct solution by the DM.

PC's act on the game world through a combination of character ability and player ability. Certain kinds of challenges favor one over the other. Some are more equally balanced. And so long as an 18 INT gets a wizard more spells, I'm perfectly happy with that 18 INT conferring no advantage over the 5 INT barbarian in a chess board puzzle solving contest.

 

[Celebrim]

So, if I play a character with low Strength, who doesn't have self-esteem issues, and doesn't shirk or hide when feats of physical strength are called for (he gives it the old college try even though he inevitably fails), are you going to call me out for bad roleplaying?

No. I'm unlikely to call anyone out publically for anything.

However, if you play a character of any sort and you are obviously not making any attempt to play the character you created then I'm probably going to take you aside and have a talk with you and see if I can work something out, because you'd be seriously cramping my fun.

And regardless of the game system, if you took alot of mental and social disadvantages in order to maximize your combat power and then seem to be doing everything in your power to evade and minimize those disadvantages, then yes, I'm going to consider it cheating. I probably won't call it 'cheating' to your face, because IME, the sort of people that do that are too immature and have ego's that are too easily bruised to deal with issues like this in a frank and mature manner, but I'm probably going to explain to you that you aren't living up to your end of the deal and hense if you don't change your ways you are going to find me increasingly adding a heavy mechanical burden to your play to force you to abide by your characters disadvantage.

If on the other hand, I think you are honestly doing your best to play your character rather than trying to 'trick', 'manipulate', or 'game' the system and by extension me, then we probably won't have any issues.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Sure.

Combat needs resolution of the imaginary contested phsyical interactions. We use game mechanics there.

Roleplay and other noncombat stuff can be done with or without dice mechanical interactions depending on preferences. The DM can either call for a diplomacy check or roleplay out the talking or mix the two styles.

Ditching dice until combat is a perfectly reasonable way to play RPGs. I do it all the time.

 

[Mallus]

However, if you play a character of any sort and you are obviously not making any attempt to play the character you created then I'm probably going to take you aside and have a talk with you and see if I can work something out, because you'd be seriously cramping my fun.

What makes the DM the authority on the character the player created? As DM, why even put yourself in that position?

When I DM, I certainly prefer some characterizations over others --and I accept that there are characters I simply won't like-- but I try fairly hard not to let that interfere with how I adjudicate actions in the game.

 

[Umbran]

So I'm making a barbarian, and the concept I come up for him is "Big brute who's always in trouble because he does stupid things." Okay, great. I give him an 8 Intelligence. Ready to play!

Interesting point I perhaps should make here...

I, as a DM, would not classify an 8 Intelligence as a someone who always does stupid things. The classic 3d6 has the average stat as 9-12 (as in, about 48% of all 3d6 die rolls fall here). So, that 8 INT barbarian is just slightly below average. Sparks of good thinking are still well within his purview, especially if he has an average or better Wisdom - common sense subs in when outright calculation fails. Sure his analytical skills and book-memory aren't quite the best, but if he were working in the modern world, without question he'd still be able to make it through high school.

So, mayhaps part of the issue here is knowing what scale the GM is working on.

Also, I think the way I do partly because of watching one player of mine do a Paladin with a 6 Int (under 2e rules). Some of the most fantastic roleplaying ever. This player didn't feel it was a "limit", it was instead a direction to take his roleplay.

 

[Voadam]

1) Then the question again must be asked: why do you roll stats, when you want to play a freeform RP?

2) And here I'm simply confused by "what does it add to the game?"

3) It adds the impact of stats.

4) Your statistics mean more when the players have to play them. Otherwise, they're just there for your Final Fantasy battle sequences.



5) Then, and I mean this as an honest question, why even have stats? You're essentially saying that neither physical nor mental stats should matter at all - save for, perhaps, inside combat.

6) Or to go the other route - if a character is allowed to play the role of someone with high or low physical stats, why would you restrict them from playing the role of someone with high or low mental stats?

Numbers added above.

1) Combat

2)+3) It adds driving characterization to specific stats. Stats already have impacts from their mechanics, tieing RP to them as well is an add on designed to drive characters to specific ideas of what is appropriate for those stats.

4)+5) I'm fine with them there just for things requiring mechanical resolution.

6) People are allowed to play high or low mental stat characters, the stats have mechanical consequences.

 

[Celebrim]

Of course he doesn't suddenly get a 14 Intelligence.

I'm glad we are in agreement.

He's still going to fail every knowledge check he makes.

No, he won't. Especially at low levels of play, the randomness of a d20 greatly outweighs the modifiers. At 1st level, I would expect an INT 8 character to pass intelligence checks when the INT 18 character didn't by sheer randomness. The above 'excerpt from play' represents among other things an off the cuff way of representing this in game in what I consider a mature fashion. The player/character is in this situation 'surprisingly' smarted that the player/character who is known for his high intelligence, play it out.

My point is, that should be the extent of the limitation. Character concepts seldom start out fully formed; they start as rough sketches that get filled in over time.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to imply that increasing in intelligence is the only way for someone to grow in depth, complexity, or drama?

A character with a low mental stat becomes a cartoon caricature, like Kronk in your example - a character who has clearly never developed or grown or changed, and never will.

It sure sounds that way. My you have a low opinion of people without a high intelligence. In my experience, real world people with low intelligences are just as real, complex, and interesting as smart people. Nothing prevents the Krank of the above comic scene from being a very interesting and maturely realized character.

There are mechanical rules for how Intelligence affects the game. There are not, and should not be, rules dictating what you can and cannot figure out. If I had a DM boot me out of a game for playing a character "too smart," I would demand the DM sit down and write me up an extensive guide for exactly how smart (or stupid) my character is allowed to be, because otherwise it's just an excuse for people to be the roleplaying police.

Ok. Here's my extensive guide:

1) Your character has an 8 INT. When is the last time you've said or did anything in character which has referred to or highlighted this fact?

You think "This character is a big dumb oaf, always was, always will be, the end" is a good story?

No, the short story I told about the 'big dumb oaf' Krank is a good story. It's an example of a game I'd like to participate in.

This points up the silliness of the whole thing. You think Int 24 is godlike. But it's a perfectly attainable stat in 3E or 4E - not even that hard at the higher levels - so is it "godlike?" Or is it "heroic," in the same way that PCs might have "heroic" strength beyond what any real-world person does? Or is it merely "maximum human intelligence?" You might think one thing, I might think another, and the rules offer little to no guidance.

Doesn't really matter what adjective you use to describe it, and as long as we are calling something 'silly', I think arguing over the wording qualifies. The central point is, "How do you play any character with intelligence higher than yourself?", and I thought I gave some guidance on how to do that.

I want you though to note a very important lack of symmetry between playing a character dumber than you are and playing a character smarter than you are. In the case of playing someone smarter than your are, you can use knowledge checks to learn things you as a player don't know, allowing you to act accordingly. In the case of playing someone dumber than you are, you can't use knowledge checks to unlearn things you as a player already know. Thus, if you as a character refuse to act ignorantly, the knowledge check system presents absolutely no mechanical barrier to your character knowing something. If you continually subvert the mechanical penalty of being stupid by relying on your vast knowledge and reasoning ability as a player, then it is cheating.

But all right, let's go by pre-3E standards and change the number from 24 to 18. That's maximum human intelligence, the smartest guy who ever lived. How can you justify this guy not being able to solve every puzzle he's presented with, if it's solvable by human minds? Why can I as player not demand the answer to every riddle the DM throws at me?[/QUOTE]

 

[Akaiku]

And regardless of the game system, if you took alot of mental and social disadvantages in order to maximize your combat power and then seem to be doing everything in your power to evade and minimize those disadvantages, then yes, I'm going to consider it cheating. I probably won't call it 'cheating' to your face, because IME, the sort of people that do that are too immature and have ego's that are too easily bruised to deal with issues like this in a frank and mature manner, but I'm probably going to explain to you that you aren't living up to your end of the deal and hense if you don't change your ways you are going to find me increasingly adding a heavy mechanical burden to your play to force you to abide by your characters disadvantage.

The weak skill monkey is not allowed to talk their way out of every combat then? Or even most of them?

Do those disadvantages have some actual mechanical effect or are they just "You need to roleplay being bad at this." Cause if it is balanced by the mechanical effect, you are double charging.

Plus, if it's a matter of life and death (which most task resolution systems are there to cover) would you not attempt to stack the deck in character by avoiding things you are bad at? Would you be more up for people sacrificing aspects of their character that are genuinely not useful (I suck at knoledge checks, but that's okay, as the wizard makes them all easy) for something else? Or is it just the blanket 8=bad idea you are getting?

(disclaimer, I never play with a stat below 8, and usually avoid even that. But if my int or cha or wis doesn't allow me to say "I throw a d20 and add blah to it, do I win" instead of roleplaying, it doesn't say I can't roleplay what I want to do either.)

 

[Mallus]

Also, I think the way I do partly because of watching one player of mine do a Paladin with a 6 Int (under 2e rules). Some of the most fantastic roleplaying ever. This player didn't feel it was a "limit", it was instead a direction to take his roleplay.

Which is cool.

The issue, however, is -- what happens if, during the next session, the player of the 6 INT paladin decides they want to help solve an interminably cliched chess board puzzle, and they, in fact, solve it? Maybe they felt like a change of pace? But wait, it turns out the player really liked their brief foray into puzzle solving, so they decree their dipstick paladin is really some kind of game-playing idiot savant?

I mean, it's not like their are any hard-and-fast D&D rules for puzzle solving, so no mechanics are being trod upon here.

Should the DM penalize the player? Kick them to the curb? Encourage them? Simply smirk and move on?

(I bet you can guess my answer!)