-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Character ability v. player volition: INT, WIS, CHA
- Thread starter The Shaman
- Start date
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
They can try their best, can't they?
Oni
First Post
For whatever reason this discussion keeps sticking in my mind and so this post will be an attempt to clarify my own thoughts for myself and hopefully it will be constructive to the overall conversation as well.
We have a couple of approaches here to roleplaying a character and creating a personality.
At one end of the spectrum personality is determined prior to play. Either first crafting a personality and then matching the mechanics to that foundation, or doing the reverse and using the mechanics as a foundation to creating a personality that fits those numbers. In either case the basics of the personality are known before play begins and quality of roleplay is measured by how well the player acts within those pregenerated parameters and most lauded when the player puts characterization over success and survival.
At the other extreme we have character as a blank slate. The player may have a few guide post in the form of mechanics (i.e. the character a good chance at success in endeavors ABC, and a poor chance of success in endeavors XYZ) as a launching point, but personality is an unknown quality at the start of play. The quality of roleplay is now measured by the personality that emerges during the course of play as events of the game, success and failures shape actions and attitude and most lauded when the character ceases to be generic fighter #5 and becomes a distinct and memorable personality.
In the first style of roleplaying the mechanics justify the roleplay and the roleplay justifies the mechanics, i.e. the player wants to act smart because his character has a high intelligence stat and because his character wants a high intelligence stat because the player acts smart. In the second style of roleplay the mechanics exist outside of the personality of a character though the adjudication shapes the course of play and through it the emergence of personality in an organic manner.
Now I think it is fair to say that in practise most roleplayers fall somewhere between these two extremes, mixing the approaches to some degree or another. I think it is important, though we may not agree on which approach is best, that we agree they are both legitimate approaches to roleplaying. Sort of the differences between and actor that stays true to the writers vision versus the actor that injecting their self into the role and creating a new character.
Both styles do have their pitfalls, the overstating of which can make conversation difficult. In the first style, predetermination can become a straight jacket and there can be a tendency among its most militant proponents to develop an overly narrow interpretation of a given role that they try to hold others to. The most egregious example being perhaps the DM who dictates the actions of players' characters based on his or her view of the characters rather than the players' view. The flip side of that is that the openness of the second style can invite those less dedicated to roleplaying a personality to use the openness as a justification to step outside the bounds of character knowledge into the realm of meta-game knowledge that borders nearly as much on cheating as taking a peak at the DM's notes.
In my opinion, some in this discussion have tried to take opposing views to "their logical conclusion" and pigeonhole their proponents into the very pitfalls I mentioned above. I believe this is ample evidence that these approaches to roleplaying and character developement tend to work best when they are not pushed to their very extreme, but viewed in a manner that considers their most useful and practical application rather than some absurd theoretical limit.
There is also another thing to consider. These approaches do not exist in a vacuum. Their application is affected by how rules are used, and by the choice of rules set. For instance when you start using a system that quantifies advantages and disadvantages, by necessity to enforce the stability of the system you are forcing yourself to move in the direction of predetermining personality parameters to prevent unpaid for advantages. So all games may not run equally smoothly for all approaches.
Hopefully this attempt to parse my own thoughts on the matter add something of use to the discussion.
We have a couple of approaches here to roleplaying a character and creating a personality.
At one end of the spectrum personality is determined prior to play. Either first crafting a personality and then matching the mechanics to that foundation, or doing the reverse and using the mechanics as a foundation to creating a personality that fits those numbers. In either case the basics of the personality are known before play begins and quality of roleplay is measured by how well the player acts within those pregenerated parameters and most lauded when the player puts characterization over success and survival.
At the other extreme we have character as a blank slate. The player may have a few guide post in the form of mechanics (i.e. the character a good chance at success in endeavors ABC, and a poor chance of success in endeavors XYZ) as a launching point, but personality is an unknown quality at the start of play. The quality of roleplay is now measured by the personality that emerges during the course of play as events of the game, success and failures shape actions and attitude and most lauded when the character ceases to be generic fighter #5 and becomes a distinct and memorable personality.
In the first style of roleplaying the mechanics justify the roleplay and the roleplay justifies the mechanics, i.e. the player wants to act smart because his character has a high intelligence stat and because his character wants a high intelligence stat because the player acts smart. In the second style of roleplay the mechanics exist outside of the personality of a character though the adjudication shapes the course of play and through it the emergence of personality in an organic manner.
Now I think it is fair to say that in practise most roleplayers fall somewhere between these two extremes, mixing the approaches to some degree or another. I think it is important, though we may not agree on which approach is best, that we agree they are both legitimate approaches to roleplaying. Sort of the differences between and actor that stays true to the writers vision versus the actor that injecting their self into the role and creating a new character.
Both styles do have their pitfalls, the overstating of which can make conversation difficult. In the first style, predetermination can become a straight jacket and there can be a tendency among its most militant proponents to develop an overly narrow interpretation of a given role that they try to hold others to. The most egregious example being perhaps the DM who dictates the actions of players' characters based on his or her view of the characters rather than the players' view. The flip side of that is that the openness of the second style can invite those less dedicated to roleplaying a personality to use the openness as a justification to step outside the bounds of character knowledge into the realm of meta-game knowledge that borders nearly as much on cheating as taking a peak at the DM's notes.
In my opinion, some in this discussion have tried to take opposing views to "their logical conclusion" and pigeonhole their proponents into the very pitfalls I mentioned above. I believe this is ample evidence that these approaches to roleplaying and character developement tend to work best when they are not pushed to their very extreme, but viewed in a manner that considers their most useful and practical application rather than some absurd theoretical limit.
There is also another thing to consider. These approaches do not exist in a vacuum. Their application is affected by how rules are used, and by the choice of rules set. For instance when you start using a system that quantifies advantages and disadvantages, by necessity to enforce the stability of the system you are forcing yourself to move in the direction of predetermining personality parameters to prevent unpaid for advantages. So all games may not run equally smoothly for all approaches.
Hopefully this attempt to parse my own thoughts on the matter add something of use to the discussion.
Well after reading the thread from start to finish, that doesnt seem good enough. I mean, do you stop the wizard/sorcerer with a 20 Int or the Cleric with a 19 wisdom from doing stupid things? I mean their character cant POSSIBLY be dumb enough to do X that stupid, right?
Because thats the tone I hear in the thread. Got an 9/8 Int? Sorry cant actually do something intellegent, becuase you character isnt that bright/wise/charismatic......
SO I'm curious if the detractors in the thread hold the other end of the spectrum accountable.
*shrug* We have three out of 6 characters with 8/6 stats. Barbarian has the 8 charisma- but he'n not ugly, he's just crass and really doesnt get civilized behavior. But now that he's 9/10th level, he's slowly learning you cant do certain things in a city. Doesnt mean his stat has increased, but he's learned....slowly, and sometimes painfully, certain pick up lines/behaviors are just inapproriate.
The dwarf? same stat, but he's played more cranky, and he doesnt like kids of most people in general. And although he's helping the other cleric deal with orphans, he's slowly and painfully learning to deal with people on certain levels. Again, the stat hasnt gone away, but roleplaying wise its getting better.
And of course the halfling has a 6 strength. But he too has learned to work through it....mostly after getting wacked a few times on the front lines, and getting something or someone to deal with physical stuf or carrying.
Further, I dont know about the rest of you, but I HAVE sat at a table with some characters that the other players are playing with higher stats than the actual player has- brain wise. And let me tell you its no fun to be stuck with some of these dumber than brick players that have great intellegents or wisdom, or suppose smooth charsima....and they cant pull it off. And its real painful when your stuck with a riddle with these folks. I like them as people, but dont give them a riddle for gods sake.
This was already answered by myself and others earlier in the thread
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Bolding mine.
You know, I disagree that someone can roleplay badly. I believe that someone can roleplay in a way that annoys others, but that's not the same as roleplaying badly.
Andor
First Post
I wish I could agree with you... but no. Painful experience has taught me otherwise.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Do you agree that any of the following is true? -
a) One can play team sports badly.
b) One can play wargames badly.
c) One can act badly.
Just, y'know, wondering. . .
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Ooooh, I like quizzes!
Yep.
Yep.
Yep.
Always glad to be of service!Just, y'know, wondering. . .
Why would I agree with a, b, and c and yet claim that one can't roleplay badly? Well, there are a few reasons. One is that not everything that can be done is something that can be done badly.
Another is that a and b are games with winners and losers. RPGs don't have winners and losers. PCs explore the world, interact with NPCs and monsters, and generally do stuff, but there aren't any winners or losers.
RPGs have several differences with team sports. For one thing, playing an RPG isn't a team sport in the sense two teams battle it out. If the DM is constantly kills the PCs, it isn't that the DM is a better player than PCs, it's that the DM isn't properly challenging the PCs.
Wargames are in a similar position, they're all about winning and losing. Being good at a wargame means winning regularly.
Also, in an RPG, Bob could roleplay in way that that Susie thinks is bad, but Bob could still overcome the challenges that the DM puts in front of the party. In fact, that's an important part of the chess puzzle example above. The 5 Int barbarian who's player is good at chess can roleplay "badly" but still over come the challenge. In fact, it's almost a prerequisite. In a wargame, for example, if someone wins despite playing badly it's usually because of luck, not because of out-of-game skill.
Acting, of course, isn't about winning or losing at. So why do I think that it is possible to act badly? Because the goal in acting is to communicate something to an audience. RPGs don't usually have an audience. And when they do, it's certainly not a requirement. People don't pay money do see a gamer roleplay. If anything, gamers pay for the opportunity to roleplay. The only other people typically around are other participants. So, a person acts badly if they don't communicate something to an audience through acting. Gamers, however, don't have to roleplay to convey information. In fact, often information is conveyed through other means.
I think that what happens is that someone just gets annoyed with someone else and rather than simply acknowledging that something annoys them irrationally, they say the other person is a bad roleplayer.
Well, we've got different kinds of "role playing".
The kind on which D&D was founded is acting as if one were "in the shoes of" the persona. The DM describes what the characters perceive, and the players describe what the characters do. The "role" that's important is the game-role (e.g., Fighter, Cleric or Elf); a functional type or "position". Read the example of play in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures or the longer one in the 1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide. Is it fair to say that the players are essentially "playing themselves", that it is rather a "you are there" kind of thing?
(One might note that the DMG "recommended reading" list includes, besides "secondary world" stories, significant representatives of the story of someone from our world exploring a "lost world" or other fantastic setting.)
Another kind is what actors do. Their "playing of roles" is an expression of personalities other than their own. (I don't think that really applies to the biggest Hollywood stars, but that's show biz.) How would Mr. Smith feel? What would he think? In what mannerisms, what way of speaking, would he express that? It's also an attempt to entertain, a performance calculated to keep an audience's attention and to elicit emotional responses.
The second kind seems these days to be ascendant.
The kind on which D&D was founded is acting as if one were "in the shoes of" the persona. The DM describes what the characters perceive, and the players describe what the characters do. The "role" that's important is the game-role (e.g., Fighter, Cleric or Elf); a functional type or "position". Read the example of play in The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures or the longer one in the 1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide. Is it fair to say that the players are essentially "playing themselves", that it is rather a "you are there" kind of thing?
(One might note that the DMG "recommended reading" list includes, besides "secondary world" stories, significant representatives of the story of someone from our world exploring a "lost world" or other fantastic setting.)
Another kind is what actors do. Their "playing of roles" is an expression of personalities other than their own. (I don't think that really applies to the biggest Hollywood stars, but that's show biz.) How would Mr. Smith feel? What would he think? In what mannerisms, what way of speaking, would he express that? It's also an attempt to entertain, a performance calculated to keep an audience's attention and to elicit emotional responses.
The second kind seems these days to be ascendant.
Last edited:
