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

[delericho]

So if a smart but physically weak character is confronted with a situation that should require great physical ability to solve and manages to work his way around it through cleverness, then that's horrible roleplaying? After all, he was defined as the guy who is supposed to lose physical challenges.

No. And neither would it be bad roleplaying for the stupid character to somehow recast the mental challenge as a physical challenge and thus beat it. (Perhaps by smashing down the door to the treasure vault that the cheesboard guards, or by simply triggering the trap and taking the damage, or simply cutting through the Gordian Knot.)

What would be bad roleplaying is the stupid character suddenly becoming a genius whenever faced with a mental challenge. (Or, conversely, the weakling Wizard suddenly becoming an athletic giant when needed... but the rules don't allow for that of course.)

 

[FireLance]

Or, conversely, the weakling Wizard suddenly becoming an athletic giant when needed... but the rules don't allow for that of course.

Actually, they do. It's called polymorph self, but that's a whole other thread...

 

[delericho]

I'm curious. With all the talk of "you must play your stat" when its a low one or a penalty, are some of you going to enforce it with high stats that the player is, well, dumb as bricks if they cant, with the same vigor?

If the character is highly intelligent, I will provide a lot more clues and context, and if need be will help "fill in the gaps" as they go through the process of solving it. Eventually, if need be, the whole thing can be resolved with an Int check (at about the time the group is getting frustrated).

If the character is very wise, and the player is intent on doing something really quite foolish, I'll ask, "are you sure?" I will probably then reiterate the key facts that suggest it's not terribly wise (though maybe not all of them, and maybe with a couple of the contrary facts in there as well, so I'm not outright saying, "that's a bad idea"). But the player still gets the ultimate decision - even very wise people have made very stupid mistakes at times.

If the character is very charismatic and the player is not, then I'll deal with it by having NPCs react to the character in the best possible light. And I'll make liberal use of the appropriate skill checks, too.

So, in a way, yes.

 

[delericho]

Actually, they do. It's called polymorph self, but that's a whole other thread...

Of course, exactly the same is true of the barbarian. That's fox's cunning and/or the headband of intellect

 

[Andor]

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.

I don't think roleplaying badly has anything to do with being annoying. In my books roleplaying badly is breaking character.

This can be a negative experience for others at the table like a Paladin who (after a bad day on the part of the player) starts tortureing his way through an orphanage to find out who's been pilfering cookies, or it can even be positive like a grim and dour dwarf who suddenly starts cracking jokes to the amusement of the table. The point is in neither case was it a good portrayal of the character.

Case in point. I was playing a character I based off of Vir Cotto from Babylon 5. In particular his line "I work for Ambassador Molari, after a while nothing bothers you." He was supposed to be very much a 'go with the flow', 'roll with the punches' kind of guy. Yet when we had an informational encounter with a very powerful demon where he should have done just fine, I was unable to swallow my own instincts and nearly got the party killed.

And that was bad roleplaying. Not because it nearly got the party killed, but because I was breaking character.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think roleplaying badly has anything to do with being annoying. In my books roleplaying badly is breaking character.

This can be a negative experience for others at the table like a Paladin who (after a bad day on the part of the player) starts tortureing his way through an orphanage to find out who's been pilfering cookies, or it can even be positive like a grim and dour dwarf who suddenly starts cracking jokes to the amusement of the table. The point is in neither case was it a good portrayal of the character.

Case in point. I was playing a character I based off of Vir Cotto from Babylon 5. In particular his line "I work for Ambassador Molari, after a while nothing bothers you." He was supposed to be very much a 'go with the flow', 'roll with the punches' kind of guy. Yet when we had an informational encounter with a very powerful demon where he should have done just fine, I was unable to swallow my own instincts and nearly got the party killed.

And that was bad roleplaying. Not because it nearly got the party killed, but because I was breaking character.

I think my sig sums up my feelings on this subject.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think roleplaying badly has anything to do with being annoying. In my books roleplaying badly is breaking character.

This can be a negative experience for others at the table like a Paladin who (after a bad day on the part of the player) starts tortureing his way through an orphanage to find out who's been pilfering cookies, or it can even be positive like a grim and dour dwarf who suddenly starts cracking jokes to the amusement of the table. The point is in neither case was it a good portrayal of the character.

On the contrary, your expectations were violated and you failed to recognize who the character actually was. It is a "good" portrayal of the character in that it was exactly the portrayal of that character. Short of a retcon, no other interpretation can be more accurate than how the character actually conducted themselves.

While I can understand the impulse toward realism, I cannot reconcile an imperative to "play a stat" with claiming something is inherently "out of character." Realistic people are very complex. What is the goal? A realistic portrayal? If so, as I have already mentioned, there is little grounding in realism for insisting one numeric stat should define a characterization. Likewise, real people are capable of very amazing contradictions.

While playing broad stereotypes is a useful way of giving a character a definable personality in game, I do not consider that "good role-playing." It is the first step in moving from no personality to some personality. Even the most punitive AD&D rules for alignment changes did not strictly prevent a paladin from slaughtering children at an orphanage. However unlikely, such an action is conceivable. In the circumstances under which it makes sense, it is not bad role-playing.

Is it possible for an Int 5, Wis 5, Cha 5 character to have some acumen as a battle strategist or an expert in riddles? I think clearly it is. There are plenty of people with inadequate social skills and poor memory and logic who are nonetheless very competent at certain kinds of puzzles. While I haven't met too many people that extreme, I've met computer science majors who probably qualified for straight 9s. There is also a very peculier psychological disorder that leaves a person with an extraverted personality, great imagination, and verbal ability, but gifts them with an IQ in the severely impaired range.

Setting aside modern psychology, though, I think it's clear that in movies and literature, characters are capable of great variability. The poor sap gives an inspiring speech. The barbarian mercenary perceives treachery among his advisors. The wise king fails to rein in his own intemperate impulses or those of his loved ones. The pious man takes for granted the gifts of the gods and uses them selfishly or even profanely. The hero, mad with grief, becomes a slaughterer. The simpleton sees what the wise and cunning cannot bring themselves to acknowledge. The gallant finds himself disbelieved and despised.

 

[FireLance]

Setting aside modern psychology, though, I think it's clear that in movies and literature, characters are capable of great variability. The poor sap gives an inspiring speech. The barbarian mercenary perceives treachery among his advisors. The wise king fails to rein in his own intemperate impulses or those of his loved ones. The pious man takes for granted the gifts of the gods and uses them selfishly or even profanely. The hero, mad with grief, becomes a slaughterer. The simpleton sees what the wise and cunning cannot bring themselves to acknowledge. The gallant finds himself disbelieved and despised.

Variability is not a bad thing. It gives characters depth. However, when a character acts in a way that he normally does not, or in a way that he is not expected to, it tends to be one of the following:

1. It is a one-off incident, perhaps played for laughs or for dramatic effect, which is not repeated.

2. Some explanation is provided which shows how the behavior is actually consistent with the character's established personality, or which reveals a previously hidden side to the character.

3. It may be a "turning point" for the character which starts him on a path of growth or development.

A character who occasionally succeeds despite his poor mental ability scores might fall within the first category. A character who consistently does so would not. However, if some explanation can be found for why the character manages to succeed regularly, it might still fall within the second category. Otherwise, if the player undertakes to portray the character's subsequent growth, it could fall within the third.

Of course, all of the above assumes that you and your group believe that certain ability scores should correlate with certain types of behavior, that the player's insights have to be expressed through his character (as opposed to, say, the player of the barbarian PC making a suggestion that, in game, comes from the wizard PC) and that this type of role-playing is important to you and your group in the first place. If any of the above does not apply, it shouldn't even be an issue for your game!

 

[Celebrim]

I'm seriously tired of arguing with people, so I'm going to stop quoting people. It ought to be obvious that roleplaying is a skill, and like any skill you can be skilled in it and perform well (naturally or through practice) or you can be unskilled in it and perform badly.

Signs you are roleplaying badly:

1) You are playing yourself, and that's not a conscious choice. Your character has all of your own biases, beliefs, and inclinations despite the vast differences between your own background and experiences and the one you gave the character.
2) You continually while playing the game address other players about in game matters (such as tactics, puzzles, past events, etc.) rather than have your character address their character. In particular, you do this without even realizing you are doing it, and have no problem saying something to Jim (another player) like, "Jim, have your character move around to the other side of the hobgoblin so we can flank him.", rather than on your turn saying something like, "Sir Didimus, circle to my foes rear so we may out flank him."
3) Rather than in engaging in dialogue with the other PC's or NPC's, your first instinct is always to describe what your character intends to accomplish. For example, you might say, "I go up to the Baron and introduce myself", as a proposition rather than something, "I go up to the Baron and extend my hand in greeting, "Good morrow, your Lairdship, I'm Sir Bannet of the Lantern Company". Or you might offer as a proposition, "I try to convince the chieftain that he should allow us safe passage through his tribes hunting grounds."
4) When imagining events, you typically imagine yourself looking down on your character or looking at your character do something, rather than imagining you yourself doing something, or even worse you don't imagine events at all but always think of them entirely in terms of game states or game mechanics (the same way you might think of a chess game).
5) Your character is anonymous. No one else in the party knows any details about your character such as his name, height, hair color, habits, preferences, or in some cases even race ('You are a half-elf, I never knew.') - all things their characters should know - , but all the other players know your class, strength score, level, and BAB - all things their characters could not know.
6) Your character is a complete blank slate when it comes to personality. Regardless of your characters stated beliefs and background, whatever the game situation you encounter, your characters actions are always the ones you as a player deem most expedient (or see #1 above) and particularly most expedient under the rules you are playing. Regardless of background, class, or stated beliefs, your character's alignment can be best summed up as 'neutral survivalist' or 'chaotic greedy' (yet you refuse to play this alignment). The corollary to this is your character's personality or stated personality (such as it is) is dictated by whatever personality you think offers the most mechanical rewards in the game.
7) You have virtually no direct interaction with the game world. All the propositions you offer to the game referee are in the form of rules propositions: "I attack.", "I make a search check.", "I move six squares.", "I attempt to turn the undead.", "I cast magic missile at the darkness.", etc. This is most easily seen by the fact that you never offer up any propositions that don't have a mechanical effect on the game, so for example, your character never eats breakfast, cleans his sword, takes a bath, takes off his boots, or even indeed touches anything in the game world except implicitly as a result of a rules proposition.
8) Every one of your characters is identical (see #1).
9) You've spent literally hours outside of the game figuring out how to optimize your character up to level #20, but you don't know any of the following: the name of your character's mom, where the character was born, how the character spent his childhood, what your character was doing the day before the adventure began, what the character is afraid of, etc. (And if asked about any of that stuff, you'd probably say it was irrelevant.)
10) Your character description and mental image is essentially that of a anime character and includes any or all of the following words and phrases: "darkly handsome", "brooding", "moves with cat-like grace", "piercing intelligent eyes", "dangerous", "long black cloak". I'd almost throw "tall" on that list, but concievably tall might describe a non-twink mental conception.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Signs you are roleplaying badly:

I must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Celebrim again.