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

[Dausuul]

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.

And it can certainly be. The character I just described is taking that 8 Intelligence as a roleplaying direction; it's shaped his life to a tremendous degree, and continues to shape his life as he starts exploring the possibility that he's got other options than being an unthinking brute as I originally conceived him - that maybe he's actually a reasonably bright guy.

The thing is, I don't see what is gained by enforcing a rule that says he can't evolve in that direction. What does it add to anyone's experience? Why have an Intelligence score that imposes such restrictions, instead of a "Knowledge" or "Education" score that works exactly the same way mechanically, but doesn't extend beyond the mechanics?

The place I'm coming from is seeing every character with below-average Int being played in one of three ways:

• Kronk the barbarian. Who is hugely entertaining for everyone at the table, and I have no problem with such characters, but it's more stand-up comedy than roleplaying.
• Completely ignore the stat and play as smart and articulate as everybody else.
• Ignore the stat except to occasionally say, "Oh, wait, I can't figure this puzzle out because I'm not smart enough."

This (and especially that last one) leads me to think we'd be better off without Intelligence as a roleplaying element. Instead, encourage the player to think about the character's persona, and to pick some character traits to use as a springboard for developing that persona, without the DM trying to "enforce" those traits.

 

[Mallus]

Are you trying to imply that increasing in intelligence is the only way for someone to grow in depth, complexity, or drama?

I think he's implying that PC's can act smarter and wiser without neccessarily increasing their stats. Players learn not to do certain dumb things in-game. This learning is not reflected in stat increases, therefore, at a basic level the game assumes a certain level of dissociation between a PC's mental stats and their chosen behavior.

Or this could simply be what I'm implying...

 

[Celebrim]

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

The player makes the DM an authority on the character when, at the beginning of the game, he says, "This is the character I intend to play.", and the DM looks at it and says, "OK, I see you have an 6 INT on this character sheet. Are you sure you are up to playing a character that is much much dumber than you are in real life? Do you have some ideas about how you plan on characterizing that in the game?"

And in play, I become an expert on the character through observation, and at some point I'm going to notice that the player took say 'Curious' and 'Reckless' as mental disadvantages and has never once played his character in any way that would suggest either curiousity or recklessness. At that point, I'm going to go to the player and say, "Look, you took these disadvantages to gain a considerable advantage in play. But you're not playing as if you had a disadvantage. Consider this a warning that if you don't change this behavior, that the next time you find yourself in a situation where your character could act in a manner that is curious or reckless I may have to impose on your some mechanical burden that may limit your free will in the matter, for example, if you fail a will saving throw I may tell your character how to act."

As DM, I'm in that position whether I like it or not, because some player can always come to me and say, "Why did you approve Bob's CN 6 CHR Kender? He's just using it as an excuse to be anti-social, draw attention to himself, and ruin the game?"

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.

What does this have to do with adjudicating actions? I thought I made it clear that this was a metagame issue?

 

[The Shaman]

I think he's implying that PC's can act smarter and wiser without neccessarily increasing their stats. Players learn not to do certain dumb things in-game. This learning is not reflected in stat increases, therefore, at a basic level the game assumes a certain level of dissociation between a PC's mental stats and their chosen behavior.

(Emphasis added - TS)

That was my read as well, and also the first point I raised in my reply upthread. It strains my credulity that a character can gain levels, skills, and new abilities but is expected to contribute to the party primarily on the basis of the "mental" ability scores.

That said, I do like the Krank the barbarian roleplay example upthread, and I've seen this done to good effect in a game (as recently as this past summer, as a matter of fact).

 

[Celebrim]

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

The low charisma character who doesn't act as if they are low charisma finds themselves forced to make more charisma/diplomacy checks and deal with the results indicating a negative reaction, regardless of how reasonable and persuasive their arguments are.

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.

Allow me to quote myself:

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 as a player have memorized everything about FR religion (or geography, or every entry in the MM), it doesn't matter if you fail Knowledge(Religion) checks you still know the answer as a player and may, if you wish, act on your out of character knowledge. In this case, there is no penalty then for the character being ignorant, because the player is supplying the knowledge. It's very very difficult 'to police' this sort of thing, so I expect players to police themselves. It's not actually that hard to tell when a player isn't policing themselves.

Or is it just the blanket 8=bad idea you are getting?

It's not necessarily a bad idea, it just has to be role played and its an example of an area of the game where I've seen players very reluctant to role play what they've chosen for themselves. I've seen players dump stat INT and CHR and then play their character as smart and sauve in an effort to make a character that has no real weaknesses. It is a bad idea if you are either going to exagerrate it so that it annoys other players, or if you are going to ignore it and rely on your out of character knowledge.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

I'm in the same boat as you, in terms of requiring players take their ability scores and other stats into account when roleplaying their character. My fixation on it comes from being a drama kid back in high school, where limitations in the role you are playing (especially in improv) is viewed as an opportunity to do something more awesome than if you had no limitations whatsoever.

 

[Mallus]

That was my read as well, and also the first point I raised in my reply upthread. It strains my credulity that a character can gain levels, skills, and new abilities but is expected to contribute to the party primarily on the basis of the "mental" ability scores.

Agreed.

I meant to common on your example from Boot Hill. Moving toward more specific, task-related stats that lack broader and more problematic connotations is a great solution to this age-old gaming brouhaha.

I'd be perfectly happy ditching INT and WIS in favor of stats called "Magic" and "Piety". Or by going the opposite route and using brief descriptive phrases like "Honorable Yet Stupid" or "Ornery Old Coot" in place of stats, a la Spirit of the Century.

 

[Mallus]

The player makes the DM an authority on the character when, at the beginning of the game, he says, "This is the character I intend to play.", and the DM looks at it and says, "OK, I see you have an 6 INT on this character sheet. Are you sure you are up to playing a character that is much much dumber than you are in real life?

That still doesn't answer the more important question: why, as DM, should you make a big deal out it? Let the mechanical penalties fall where they may and leave the actual play and characterization to the player.

A 6 INT PC will make a terrible wizard. So what if he or she frequently comes up with smart plans? Perhaps the character is possessed of a certain low, dumb cunning --why they must be, they keep coming up with crackerjack plans!

As DM I get better results helping realize and rationalize my player's characters than constantly trying to evaluate if they're playing them correctly.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Well, unless the DM had introduced something like Knowledge (Puzzles and Enigmas), which I wouldn't because I like to err on the side of players , but which I've seen in supplements and can certainly imagine such a situation at some tables.

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!)

I'm guessing 'simply smirk and move on', which is not that far from my position in this case.

Keep in mind that I've always indicated that I'm more interested in whether there exist examples where they don't deviate from expectation, than that there exist examples where they do. So long as the player is making an honest attempt to reference his characters inferior intelligence in play and communicate that through play, than I'm willing to accept that the player suddenly turns out to be an idiot savant when it comes to playing chess - particularly if it keeps the game moving and gets the party by an obstacle that they would otherwise stall at and become frustrated. This is a situation ultimately similar to the one I referenced earlier where Krank is suddenly being discovered to be an expert in the religious rites of a female cult. The fact that Krank is staying in character (to what I think would be good effect in play) is the important part of the scene.

 

[The Little Raven]

That still doesn't answer the more important question: why, as DM, should you make a big deal out it?

Personally, I don't like a player treating his character like something it is not. If he has a low Int and no training in the History skill, I don't want to hear him rattling off all kinds of historical facts about the war between Arkhosia and Bael Turath, because he has chosen to play a character that does not possess those strengths. Sure, I don't mind if he sometimes pulls a Rainman or something, but when he consistently acts like a historian with an IQ of 200, then we have a problem. I don't usually approach that problem with "Jeff, you're doing it wrong," but usually with in-game stuff like "Varlu, you are dead wrong about the Battle of the Razorthorn Peaks. Learn real history before spouting off that stupidity, elf."

The character's stats help define the role the player has chosen to portray, and ignoring those definitions because it's inconvenient or limiting is something I consider to be poor roleplaying. To me, it'd be like a guy playing Benvolio (cautious, attempts to avoid confrontation) in Romeo & Juliet, yet acting like Mercutio (outspoken, prone to confrontation) whenever he feels like it. He chose his role, so he needs to buck up and stick to playing it as intended (or change to another role).