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

[pawsplay]

5 Con could very well represent that the character is played by an actor who wanted more salary. Or lacking a will to live. Etc. It doesn't have to mean "sickly," and in fact, it's not really low enough to qualify as sickly. If the player has a 5 Cha and then expects to be treated like a charismatic character, they will be disappointed. If the player is then disappointed, they can only blame themselves. I think much more harm can be done trying to tell players how to roleplay their characters than players roleplaying in a fashion that doesn't quite mesh with their ability scores.

Ability scores are not measurable scales of any real thing. They are an abstraction in game. They measure nothing more than how often the character succeeds at stuff, how many skills or languages they know, how much they can lift, et cetera. If a character has Dex 18, it doesn't matter if they're a Deadly Viper Assassin or if they are Jar Jar Binks, what matters is their AC.

What precise qualities cause a character to succeed or fail at certain tasks is a story rationale. And ultimately, the player has greater authorial control over their character. Perhaps the Charisma 5 barbarian is a swell guy and a natural leader of men, but due to the events in the story, makes enemies left and right and contends against wily villains who easily see through his motives. Maybe he's cursed to die friendless. Maybe the Int 13 fighter/wizard has a brilliant mind but simply lacks the drive and imagination to excel at wizardry.

When a rogue gains evasion at 2nd level, they don't suddenly develop a new super power. They just suddenly become more likely to survive fireballs and dragon breath. Presumably it's an evolution of their previous abilities. An Int score is no less abstract than evasion.

In the real world, Intelligence is devilish to define, Charisma is intangible and socially bound, and Wisdom involves as much luck and pluck as it does willpower or alertness.

 

[Celebrim]

Ability scores are not measurable scales of any real thing....They measure nothing more than how often the character succeeds at stuff, how many skills or languages they know, how much they can lift, et cetera.

In other words, they measure real things. On a scale. With measurements.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Ability scores are not measurable scales of any real thing. They are an abstraction in game. They measure nothing more than how often the character succeeds at stuff, how many skills or languages they know, how much they can lift, et cetera. If a character has Dex 18, it doesn't matter if they're a Deadly Viper Assassin or if they are Jar Jar Binks, what matters is their AC.

I'll disagree with you to a point here.

For me it is all about the difference between a score (which represents an attribute) and a modifier (which represents the likelihood of succeeding or failing at a particular task).

A strength score represents how strong a character is relative to other entities with strength scores. Likewise, a charisma score represents how charismatic a character is relative to other entities with charisma scores.

A modifier though is what I think you are getting at, as it only represents the likelihood of succeeding at a specific task. For example, you could have two different characters with Charisma scores of 12 each, but Arak has a diplomacy modifier of +9 while Barak has a diplomacy modifier of +6. Now in all likelihood, Arak is the more diplomatic despite them both having the same charisma. However, in game, Barak's player keep rolling high for his diplomacy checks and in particular on the big ones. As such, the group regard Barak as the go to guy for diplomatic action rather than Arak, despite seemingly being less diplomatic and with equal charisma.

It is the modifier here that is diluted by history and what has happened in the past. The charisma score however remains static as a representative score.

Just some thoughts and ideas.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[avin]

All due respect to other opinions, a character who lower a score to pump down and maximize other but don't roleplay it would never be welcome at my table.

Otherwise it's not RPG, just a tactical game of dice rolling... =/

 

[Dausuul]

The problem isn't having an inflated self-image, but when the player expects you to believe and reinforce the character. If you make a barbarian with 5 charisma then act like you're incredibly attractive and charismatic, that's fine. It's when you demand the rest of the game follow along, that's where the problem - and this thread - comes from.

Whoa, hold on. Nobody's advocating that "the rest of the game follow along." I don't see anybody claiming that the barbarian should randomly get a huge bonus to his social skill checks - or that the effects of those skill checks should be minimized or ignored.

How I play my character is my business, how the other players play their characters is theirs, and how the rest of the world reacts to us is the DM's. I have no more business telling the DM how to have his NPCs react to me than the DM has telling me how to play my character.

Let me put it another way: If someone made a wizard with 5 constitution, would you be fine if he walked around and never acted weak or sickly in any way?

Sure. Why wouldn't I be? He's still gonna fail his Endurance checks after getting clawed up by a wererat or exposed to the plague. The player doesn't have to portray his low Constitution; the rules portray it for him. I believe mental stats should be handled the same way.

As DM I have better things to do than police the players to be sure they're toeing some arbitrary roleplaying line. If your character has Int 5 and talks like a doctoral student giving a dissertation - you know what? I don't care. Knock yourself out. Of course, you'll fail most of your knowledge checks and be comically wrong about stuff.

The issue of out-of-character knowledge (monster stats, adventure plots, et cetera) is a bit different, because that's the player using information that the player is not strictly speaking supposed to have - like peeking at your opponent's hand in a poker game. Players have the choice to not read that information. If they choose to read it (because they DM themselves, or simply like reading sourcebooks), then I do expect them to segregate in-character from out-of-character knowledge.

But even there, I'm not going to get too fussed about it. Because if you start quoting the Monster Manual in my game and relying on the data therein, you do so at your own risk. I am well within my rights as DM to change monster stats and abilities without telling you, as long as it's not inconsistent with what your characters legitimately know. In fact, I do so routinely; half my monsters are homebrewed from scratch, and half of the rest are tweaked extensively. Good luck guessing which is which.

 

[Celebrim]

Whoa, hold on. Nobody's advocating that "the rest of the game follow along." I don't see anybody claiming that the barbarian should randomly get a huge bonus to his social skill checks - or that the effects of those skill checks should be minimized or ignored.

No. I don't think anyone is claiming that they should. What we are claiming, that you can't seem to grasp, is first that the skill check can be avoided, and secondly that the player can arrange it so that the result of the skill check is widely inconsistant with the proposition and that when this happens it is detrimental to the story.

How I play my character is my business, how the other players play their characters is theirs, and how the rest of the world reacts to us is the DM's. I have no more business telling the DM how to have his NPCs react to me than the DM has telling me how to play my character.

I've been one of the strongest advocates of this stance on the boards for the better part of a decade now. However, the fact of the matter is that a player can be either role playing well, or role playing badly. Most of the time, I don't get 'too fussed' either, but depending on how egregious, disruptive, or annoying the play is, I'm probably going to have to take the player aside privately at some point and have a talk.

Sure. Why wouldn't I be? He's still gonna fail his Endurance checks after getting clawed up by a wererat or exposed to the plague. The player doesn't have to portray his low Constitution; the rules portray it for him. I believe mental stats should be handled the same way.

But they can't be. That's the part you keep missing. Physical and mental stats can't be handled in the same way. Or rather, if you role-play, then physical and mental stats can't be handed in the same way.

Have you ever played the game video game 'Planescape: Torment'?

If your character has Int 5 and talks like a doctoral student giving a dissertation - you know what? I don't care. Knock yourself out. Of course, you'll fail most of your knowledge checks and be comically wrong about stuff.

Once again, no you won't. That's what you keep missing.

The issue of out-of-character knowledge (monster stats, adventure plots, et cetera) is a bit different, because that's the player using information that the player is not strictly speaking supposed to have

Right. So, you know what? It isn't actually 'a bit different'.

But you know what? Even there, I'm not going to get too fussed about it. Because if you start quoting the Monster Manual in my game and relying on the data therein, you do so at your own risk. Half my monsters are homebrewed, half of the rest have undergone extensive tweaking, and you have no way of knowing which is which. The contents of the Monster Manual are no better than unconfirmed rumors your character heard at the local tavern. And the more you rely on that information, the less reliable it's going to be.

Which is all well and good for DM's like you and me that are willing to brew all their own content, but you know what, even if we DM's can work around the problem, it doesn't make it good role-playing on the part of the player.

 

[Mallus]

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.

I realize the discussion's moved on, but I'd like to revisit some points...

If it's clear that puzzles are character challenges and are resolved via game mechanics, then it's a non-issue. A 5 INT Barbarian with no ranks in Knowledge: Games and Puzzles won't be good at solving an interminably cliched chess board puzzle.

The problem is that it usually isn't clear at all. The role of the character's mental faculties is left undefined in most areas.

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

Excellent! A fine choice.

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...

Same here, though I admit I'd probably be very generous in labeling a player's attempt as 'honest'. Frankly, any half-assed attempt will do. I actively try to silence my inner literary/drama critic when I DM, and instead bring my inner Special Ed. teacher to the fore. Encourage, always encourage!

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.

I favor immediate contribution over consistency, but I see your point.

He chose his role, so he needs to buck up and stick to playing it as intended (or change to another role).

Roles can be encompass a wide range of elements, also they can change. Also, I favor players getting involved in the action --at least in terms of planning, puzzle-solving, and in-character speech-- over players maintaining fidelity to their original role or concept.

As a result, it often becomes the DM's job to reign in some players because OTHER players are not fully enjoying themselves.

Telling Bob he can't solve a puzzle because his PC is too dumb to figure it out doesn't neccessarily help Tom to solve it, if Tom can't figure it out. I'm not a fan of Harrison Bergeron d20...

I care because the game just is more fun to play when the player takes the responsibility for policing themselves rather than trying to see how far they can push, manipulate, or bend the system (and hence me).

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't really have the need to police my group (well, mostly... but they're good sports about it). They work with me, not against, and I'm practically guaranteed that at least a few of their PC's will be so entertaining they make the whole endeavor worthwhile.

I'd probably have a different set of opinions had I been gaming with different people over the past few years (well, I'd have a wrong set of opinions -- nothing breeds a healthy opinions re:gaming like gaming with good people).

 

[pawsplay]

In other words, they measure real things. On a scale. With measurements.

They are constructs. Unless you are willing to argue that characters, in-game, can tell how smart each other by how many languages they know, I think it has to be accepted that they are not real in the sense of having substance. Ability scores are not realistic. Strength comes the closest, simply because you can usually measure lifting capacity, but even then, it's such a generalized ability that the lifting value could be a compromise with a number of other factors. In D&D, it tends to do triple duty as carrying, lifting, and shoving, for instance.

Let's say you are playing a supers RPG and somebody is playing Spider-Man. Spider-Man has a huge intelligence. He designed his own web-shooters, and regularly improvises things like trampolines or electric fences. Now, literally speaking, he regularly interacts with other characters who are, strictly speaking, more intelligent in the comic book universe. But he has a higher Intelligence because, being the hero, he is more likely to make an Intelligence check and succeed at something.

If I am content with my character regularly failing Knowledge checks, I can state my character is whatever level of Intelligence relative to his intelligence I want. It is really not convincing to claim Int is a a quantity that means any one thing. I have performed IQ tests and I can tell you that modern science has not identified any essence to intelligence. Intelligence always depends on functionality.

So, let's say someone wants to play a brilliant sage. However, he makes him as a rogue with 12 Int. He takes Skill Focus (Knowledge: History). He wil now regularly make those checks more often than many other characters. However, despite being an alleged genius, he won't outperform the cleric in Religion or the Wizard in arcane, perhaps by design. Later, he takes a level of Wizard so he can cast a few minor spells and raise his Knowledge skill to the level of a class skill (he is a 3.5 character, apparently). There is no sense in complaining a 12 Int is not "smart enough" to be a sage; he is smart enough to be this particular sage.

Assigning a given score is basically saying, "This is how I rate the importance of succeeding these kinds of checks in-game."

Imagine you were rolling for ability scores and get 18, 16, 16, 15, 14, and 14. Let's say you wanted to play a halfling rogue. Well, your halfling rogue is going to have a Str of at least 12! Does that mean your halfling is a little Arnold? No. It means you put your lowest score in Str and it just happens to be high enough to grant you powerful attacks and succeed more at Jump checks. Maybe your carrying capacity is halfling adrenaline. You have the choice of describing a burly little halfling, but you also have the choice of describing the character as wiry, determined, and a little lucky.

 

[Dausuul]

No. I don't think anyone is claiming that they should. What we are claiming, that you can't seem to grasp, is first that the skill check can be avoided, and secondly that the player can arrange it so that the result of the skill check is widely inconsistant with the proposition and that when this happens it is detrimental to the story.

The skill check can be avoided only if the DM chooses not to call for a skill check. In that case, it's on the DM to account for the character's social skills.

As for the result of the skill check being wildly inconsistent with the proposition made in RP: This is a possibility, admitted, and it's why Charisma is the hardest of the mental stats to define in a way that doesn't constrain RP. Nevertheless, it can be done. If Charisma is defined not in terms of the player's actions but in terms of the character's presence and charm, then its effect on the skill check can be seen in that light.

If you have a low Charisma, you may have made an eminently reasonable proposition (player actions result in a low DC on the Diplomacy check), but something about the way you presented it (character presence implied by Charisma) just grates on the other guy's nerves, so he refuses (your Charisma penalty means you fail the roll despite the low DC).

Or, if you have a high Charisma, you may have made an absurd proposition (player actions result in a high DC on the Diplomacy check), but you delivered it so smoothly and charmingly (character presence implied by Charisma) that you pull it off anyway and the guy agrees (your Charisma bonus means you succeed despite the high DC).

That's why, as I said upthread, a DM needs to separate content from delivery when dealing with the social skills. The content of a social interaction - the terms of the deal offered, the factual claim made, the points hit in the speech - should be factored into the DC of the skill check. The delivery - smooth or halting, eloquent or inarticulate - should not. It's fuzzier than I think a good rules system ought to be, but I don't see a way around it.

But they can't be. That's the part you keep missing. Physical and mental stats can't be handled in the same way. Or rather, if you role-play, then physical and mental stats can't be handed in the same way.

That depends on how you define the stat in question. If you define the Intelligence stat as "how smart you are," then yeah, it has to be accounted for in RP. If you define it as "general knowledge," then no, it does not have to be accounted for in RP; it is entirely handled within the skill system.

I prefer the latter definition, because I think it's much cleaner and more useful. It lets the rules be rules and the RP be RP. If you want good results on your knowledge skill checks and wizard spells, you take a high Int. If you don't, you don't, and that's the end of it.

There's a reason why the mechanical impact of alignment has been steadily reduced, edition after edition, to the point that it affects virtually nothing in 4E. It's because, at least in my experience, subjective roleplaying-related concepts and hard bright-line mechanical systems don't mix well. Witness the endless arguments over How To Play A Paladin.

Right. So, you know what? It isn't actually 'a bit different'.

I said the player, not the character. The PLAYER is not supposed to have monster stats memorized or go digging for them in the Monster Manual during play. If some players choose to memorize the MM, then it is incumbent upon them to segregate that knowledge; just like, if you're walking past me to get a drink and happen to glimpse my hand in a card game, you should avoid exploiting what you saw.

 

[Celebrim]

I realize the discussion's moved on, but I'd like to revisit some points...

If it's clear that puzzles are character challenges and are resolved via game mechanics, then it's a non-issue. A 5 INT Barbarian with no ranks in Knowledge: Games and Puzzles won't be good at solving an interminably cliched chess board puzzle.

The problem is that it usually isn't clear at all. The role of the character's mental faculties is left undefined in most areas.

Indeed. And even when the character's mental faculties are defined, there is often significant overlap between the areas of the game that the character's abilities can reach and that the players abilities can reach. A character that is good at searching isn't as good at searching as a player who is good at searching who also has a character good at searching. A character that has a high knowledge skill, isn't as knowledgable in practice as a character with a high knowledge skill who is also played by a player with a lot of knowledge in that area. The hypothetical 5 INT Barbarian faced with a cliched chess board puzzle or a difficult riddle, probably can't solve it through a skill check, but might be able to solve it without even having a skill check simply by having a player who is an expert in chess or who is good at solving riddles.

To a certain extent, that can't be helped and 'so what?'. In many cases its more important that the game keep moving. But if the player doesn't role play the situation, then in my opinion the story suffers. Ok, so you are playing a 5 INT barbarian, and not only can you solve the chess puzzle (as a player) but you need to - the whole rest of the party is looking to you for help. You have several options now. You can play the big dumb oaf and do nothing, which is good roleplaying but maybe not good gaming. Or, you can solve the puzzle which is good gaming but probably not good roleplaying. Or you can invent some clever excuse for how are why your Barbarian got around the problem, in which case its both good gaming and good roleplaying.

This last option is superior in my mind because when we recount the story to each other, when we set it down to relate to other people, when we 'novelize it' or 'turn it into the movie of the game', the story makes more sense and is more enjoyable than the one where the dumb Barbarian easily solves the chess puzzle against expectation and without any explanation.

But, there is an even worse option available to the player in my opinion. That worse option is that he role play the Barbarian as being highly intelligent, knowledgable, clever, and so forth - even though and despite the fact that nothing about the barbarians attributes reflect this. This is neither good gaming nor good roleplay. It is poor roleplay because if the character's intelligence has any mechanical role in the game at all, it will create inconsistancies in the story. It is poor gaming because the player is trying to hog the spotlight and the glory to the detriment of others. He is attempting to subvert the fundamental intention of the rules of all RPG's and the soul reason we have rules for them at all, which is, "Thou shall not be good at everything and always win." This is the fundamental meta-rule: the rule that even preexists and informs rule #0.

All RPG rules exist solely to resolve the following core conflict in role-playing:

Player #1: "BANG! I shot you."
Player #2: "No you didn't, you missed. BANG! I shot you."

Back on the playground, we either resolved this by taking a fair number of turns were each player got 'the glory', or we developed some other rule, or else we gave up in frustration and stopped role-playing. When a player dumps mental stats and then ignores this in his role-playing, he's playing (or trying to play) exactly like the kid who insists that he never misses and conversely that he's never hit.