Low ability scores -- more fun?

[Celebrim]

For the Greeks a clever nobleman hero meets the stereotype it is perhaps questionable whether this cleverness is charisma or intelligence or wisdom...

Well, to even describe people in terms of intelligence, wisdom, and charisma is to take a modern perspective. If we were to try to capture the greek perspective in a way that we wouldn't have to ask this question, we'd create a game system were characters were rated according to things like virtue, cunning, and learning - and even those we'd leave untranslated because 'arete' and 'metis' don't exactly mean what the English words 'virtue' and 'cunning' mean.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Greek myths and legends in particular don't have to obey the fundamental law of role playing because they aren't roleplaying games and the purpose of those myths and legends is fundamentally different from the purpose of game mechanics. The Greek myths and legends fall into a category of didactic literature - something like the stories we call 'boys stories' - and are meant to be morally and ethically instructive to the reader. It is a Hero centered morality that is on display in them. The Hero has supernatural excellence. He is a demi-god. He has the blood of the divine in his veins. He is worshipful. He is meant to inspire. Herecles isn't merely strong enough to lift the sky off Atlas' shoulders, he's beautiful enough to win the approval of Hipplyta, and cunning enough to outwit any foe. Heracles isn't meant to lose at any contest ever.

Beyond being a Hero centered ethical systems, the greek myths establish a national identity. For most cultures, there are really only so many negative qualities you want to attribute to your founding king and really for many cultures attributing anything negative to the founding king is considered treacherous if not outright blasphemous. Theseus is the founder-king of Athens. Of course he has all manner of positive qualities in the stories, although the modern reader may flinch at seeing "great virtue at kidnapping women and carrying them off to be his wife" as a positive quality.

On the other hand, if you wanted to make a point about ancient heros being hypercompotent, I would have thought you'd have referenced something other than Greek myth, because read from a modern perspective the Greek hero generally seems to have low 'Wisdom'. The Greeks didn't believe in giving all 18's to their heros - not even their Gods. The Greeks felt alot more comfortable with their heroes if the heroes generally had some glaring flaw - even Athena for all her wisdom is vain and subject to flattery. For the mortal heroes, this flaw usually manifests itself as either hubris or being a poor judge of women or both.

Hyper specialization is a thing of the modern world

Hyper specialization may or may not be a thing of the modern world, but even if it wasn't it would perforce be a thing of the game world.

As I've said before, the game part of 'role playing game' is entirely dedicated to resolving the great play ground role playing game challenge. One player says, "Bang! I shot you!", and the other says, "No you didn't, you missed. Bang! I shot you!" From this conflict, the once great pasttime is ultimately ruined as most players are unable to invent a way out of it. Some try to arbitrate the conflict by taking turns, but this makes the game too predictable. Some try to arbitrate the conflict by making no one ever miss, and thus turning the game into a contest of who can see the other and say 'Bang!' first. Some try to arbitrate the conflict by playing 'rock paper scissors' whenever there is a dispute. Others by simple toy weaponry and use that, or play the game with sticks were parry and whack can resolve just who killed who. As a kid, I tried all of these things; I suspect, since you are gamers, that many of you did as well.

But the fundamental way that they are all in common is that they prevent someone from always winning. Heracles doesn't have this limitation. He's supposed to always win - that's the point of the story. Heracles might or might not be great myth, but he's certainly a poor game.

To resolve the conflict, all role playing games must obey a fundamental law: "Thou shalt not be good at everything." As such, in role playing games the specialist is always favored over the generalist. The jack-of-all-trades must perforce be a master of none. Everyone plays both a 'role' (character) in the improv drama and a 'role' (speciality) within the cooperative play. Consciously or unconsciously, that is how games are designed because if we built them any other way - even if we didn't know about the fundamental law of RPGs - they would feel wrong to us in the same way that it felt wrong when Billy always dodged our bullets.

Ancient Celts had heros who knew multiple trade skills to prove their social worthiness (this diversification was not seen as destroying their competence but rather as a sign of it) and their mightiest hero berserks learned blood magic alongside blade work and other things from war witches.

Sure. And Väinämöinen was both the mightiest swordsman in the world and the greatest worker of magic. But the ancients generally were trying to teach young men a lesson about what they should inspire to be in life. I fully agree with them in as much (and probably only in as much) that in life the well-rounded person lives a happier life than the one who sacrifices his health, or his atheletic ability, or his learning, or his spiritual growth. Such a person rapidly becomes grotesque as well as unhappy. But I should hope that we aren't trying to much to be our characters, because for one thing, in real life you shall never be a master of blood magic nor cast fireballs or any other such thing.

 

[Garthanos]

Heracles doesn't have this limitation. He's supposed to always win - that's the point of the story. Heracles might or might not be great myth, but he's certainly a poor game.

Herakles makes big time mistakes it is easy to posit he has questionable wisdom in modern terms though certainly he has enough to work hard to fix it (so children will learn that even the mighty make mistakes) when he makes those bad choices.... he comes off as something of an a** even in some of the stories who is forever having to fix something he himself broke. I am less certain how far gone the heros were from being men.... demi-gods though they be. The greek gods themselves had pretty gaping flaws at times.

 

[Garthanos]

On the other hand, if you wanted to make a point about ancient heros being hypercompotent, I would have thought you'd have referenced something other than Greek myth, because read from a modern perspective the Greek hero generally seems to have low 'Wisdom'.

Odysseus was brought up by somebody else to point towards the smart/clever fighter and it is certainly a greek ideal and the kind of hero featured in a lot of myths and legends... where as the "stupid fighter" really isnt.

In modern terms the idea might be "dumb" soldier = "dead" soldier.

 

[Celebrim]

Herakles makes big time mistakes it is easy to posit he has questionable wisdom in modern terms...

Which is something I pointed out:

"...read from a modern perspective the Greek hero generally seems to have low 'Wisdom'."

Wisdom as we tend understand it is a Jewish concept (although the Buddist concept is compatible). The Greeks didn't understand 'wisdom' to mean what we generally mean by 'wisdom' - although the Socratic school seemed to want to pull Greek culture in that differing direction (and Socrates got himself executed for his trouble).

I am less certain how far gone the heros were from being men.... demi-gods though they be. The greek gods themselves had pretty gaping flaws at times.

Well, so I have agreed, but the status of Hero in greek religion is fairly uncontriversial:

"A hero (heroine in female) (Ancient Greek: ἥρως, hērōs), in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion.[1]"

Wikipedia makes this the first line of its entry on the term 'Hero', and while wikipedia isn't very trust worthy on things touching modern politics, it's usually pretty good on more academic stuff.

 

[Celebrim]

Odysseus was brought up by somebody else to point towards the smart/clever fighter and it is certainly a greek ideal and the kind of hero featured in a lot of myths and legends... where as the "stupid fighter" really isnt.

Several of the Greek heroes of the Illiad could be legitimately read as brutes - Ajax sort of stands out as an example of brute force over intelligence, refinement or skillfulness. Although the biggest and strongest of the Acheans, he is almost always bested by his comrades in contests involving skill, intelligence, or charisma. That is particularly Greek in conception, of course, just as Athena consistantly bests her more brutish rival Ares.

Odysseus is supreme in Metis - 'intelligent cunning' just as Ajax is supreme in strength and Achilles supreme in martial skill. But he isn't 'wise' as we would understand the term in D&D or modern culture, and is almost as frequently tricked as he is tricky. He lacks self-control, and is as much tossed about by his life because of it as he is tossed about by the sea (which may be a deliberate metaphor by the author).

I'm not exactly sure were you are going with your post, but I agree that 3e (for example) doesn't provide enough support for a 'cunning warrior' character. It's much easier to play Ajax than Odysseus in 3e. In 4e, you'd be forced to choose a different class like 'Warlord' which is an improvement perhaps, but it is questionable whether it captures the right flavor, because while Diomedes and Oddysseus do provide leadership, Diomedes (for example) was able to beat Ajax in a boxing contest by being more cunning than his opponent.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not exactly sure were you are going with your post, but I agree that 3e (for example) doesn't provide enough support for a 'cunning warrior' character. It's much easier to play Ajax than Odysseus in 3e. In 4e, you'd be forced to choose a different class like 'Warlord' which is an improvement perhaps, but it is questionable whether it captures the right flavor, because while Diomedes and Oddysseus do provide leadership, Diomedes (for example) was able to beat Ajax in a boxing contest by being more cunning than his opponent.

I always considered D&D 1 through 3 as being rather insulting to fighters. The poster wanting to play a cunning but physically mediocre "fighter" would have been out right incompetant because of game system -. I am just as certain that he wasnt thinking in 4e terms either.
Yes 4e has come along massively at disbanding the school yard "dumb jock" cliche and I do love it for that. I can at least by choosing the right class make Intelligence / Charisma /Wisdom secondary to my fighting man whatever the class is named.

 

[Korgoth]

I think system has a lot of influence on the answer to this question. The more the numbers matter to the game rules, the less likely a player is to accept or work with low numbers, even if they make a PC "more interesting." But if the stats don't play a large mechanical role, players are a lot more willing to use low stats (as well as high stats) as color and hooks for defining their PCs and making them individuals. (In other words, the stats can be used just like a system of traits/advantages/disadvantages.)

In my OD&D game, for example, the biggest mechanical bonus you're going to get from stats is a +1, and the stiffest penalty is a -1 (exception: Charisma and reaction adjustments). Under that kind of approach, a Fighting Man with a Dex of 6 isn't a game-breaker.

Right. There are some games that rake you over the coals for having a low stat in something (except maybe CHA, the perennial dump stat)... 3E designers bragged about hiding bad choices in the game to trap those who didn't understand the system backwards and forwards. Whereas in OD&D, having a low stat doesn't influence much and probably adds more color than anything else.

If the DM is running a hack-and-slay tacticsfest and every 2 pips equals a bonus or malus, having a low stat in something useful could mean disaster. In a more traditional game, having a low stat doesn't hurt that much.

And yes, it's fun to play a character with one or more obvious limitations. A clumsy or foolish character can be quite memorable.

Whereas the nth iteration of the "man with no name, no low stats, no family and no vulnerabilities" can get mighty boring.

 

[Garthanos]

Right. There are some games that rake you over the coals for having a low stat in something (except maybe CHA, the perennial dump stat)... 3E designers bragged about hiding bad choices in the game to trap those who didn't understand the system backwards and forwards. Whereas in OD&D, having a low stat doesn't influence much and probably adds more color than anything else.

We played AD&D and unless a stat was very high or very low it didnt even get roleplayed as color most of the time (though other things did... a characters vengefulness sticks out) I think it was because the mechanics showed that it really wasnt any different than average even if the number range was 8 or 14 they meant average... because the games hardware said so and that is what became absorbed at least by our group.

The mechanical equivalent of the very common amongst the optimising crowd 8 attribute in 4e is approximately a 5 or was it 6? in AD&D and I dont remember more than one player having as low as a 5 and yup cliche fighter with no mind.

My current players react to an 8 the same as people did a 5 back in the old game too. (they think its cheesy to trade it so you swing a 20.)

 

[Korgoth]

We played AD&D and unless a stat was very high or very low it didnt even get roleplayed as color most of the time (though other things did... a characters vengefulness sticks out) I think it was because the mechanics showed that it really wasnt any different than average even if the number range was 8 or 14 they meant average... because the games hardware said so and that is what became absorbed at least by our group.

I think that's a backwards interpretation. A 14 Strength doesn't net any bonuses in combat... so a 14 is considered average? Perhaps I'm more mathy (even though I'm a letters guy), but 9-11 seems average to me; 12 at the most. A 13 or 14 is definitely someone above average on a 3d6 scale. Maybe he can't punch an iron golem to death, but that doesn't mean he isn't strong.

I just diced up the following character... 3d6 in order, this is the first try (no re-rolls):
14 17 8 14 12 10

Strength 14 means he's quite strong (coincidentally, I was just talking about a 14 STR above!). No bonuses in AD&D, but that just means he's no Beowulf. Maybe a Hrothgar.

Intelligence 17 means he's quite a braniac! It's always fun to play a really smart or a really dumb guy... this character is quite smart and should be portrayed as such. No bonus unless he's a magic-user, but he will definitely be a polyglot.

Wisdom 8... also a gem! A smart guy is great, a smart guy who is nonetheless not shrewd or practical is all the better! So he knows a lot, but isn't very "good at life". Excellent.

Dexterity 14 is also excellent. This fellow is shaping up to be quite a specimen.

Constitution 12 completes the physical picture. He's a natural athlete and takes good care of himself. He's either from an affluent background or a particularly gifted peasant... but I think affluent because he has flourished despite having a low Wisdom. He's a child of privilege, and so well-fed and well-educated.

Charisma 10 is actually his only average stat. He's used to people doing as he tells them, but doesn't understand the finer points of motivation.

In AD&D, this chap would be good at virtually any basic class except Cleric. He'd made a fine Magic-User, but he'd also be an excellent Fighter. I'd rule out Thief because of what I already decided for his background.

Or, if I wanted to extend the "child of privilege" further, I could say that he's an Elf (they're all basically "nobles", right?) and go the Fighter/Magic-User route.

*****

Since I rolled all the dice seperately out of a Koplow "Brick" (tm) I can give the distributions. Out of 18 total dice rolled, you'd expect 3 of each face to show. My results were considerably better overall:

6 - 6
5 - 2
4 - 3
3 - 5
2 - 0
1 - 2

 

[Celebrim]

I always considered D&D 1 through 3 as being rather insulting to fighters. The poster wanting to play a cunning but physically mediocre "fighter" would have been out right incompetant because of game system

I'm not at all sure where you are getting that. In 1e in particular, in my experience most people rolled for their stats rather than used a point buy system. So, there wasn't really anything that stood in the way of a physically mediocre fighter with high int or charisma if you wanted it. For one thing, unless your Str was 16+, you weren't getting a big benefit from it in combat anyway. Below Str 16, strength was just a 'skill', much like 'intelligence' to be occasionally referred to when the designer felt like calling for a 'bend bars' check or an intelligence check (such as to spot an invisible creature) or when you got psionicly blasted.

So, yes, the game heavily rewarded a fighter for having a high strength, but intelligence was largely unused mechanically by every class (except for things like determining the number of languages you spoke). I'm not sure that any 'insult' was intended to the fighting man, in as much as 1e particularly emphasised 'player skill' over 'character skill' the need for intelligence to have wide ranging influences over character ability just wasn't seen as a critical design goal.

Yes 4e has come along massively at disbanding the school yard "dumb jock" cliche and I do love it for that. I can at least by choosing the right class make Intelligence / Charisma /Wisdom secondary to my fighting man whatever the class is named.

Fourth edition is almost a 3 attribute system (like GURPS, for example) that gives you the option of determining what your three stats are going to be called. But in terms of disbanding sterotypes, I don't see that 4e has made any progress at all just yet (although the room is there to do so). We aren't nearly as far along as in 4e as even D20 Modern toward allowing you to play a 'Smart Hero' or 'Charismatic Hero' of any profession.

For third edition, I think alot could have been achieved by making combat feat trees for each of the 6 attributes of corresponding depth, breadth, and utility as those that grew from 'Power Attack' (strength) or 'Dodge' (dexterity).