Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?

[Hussar]

Here's a question which has been on my mind since these threads have cropped up...


Should a smart GM have an advantage?

Would players object to monsters with low mental stats being played with a high level of tactical awareness? For sake of example, let's say the PCs are fighting a group of mindless zombies, and the zombies start to use advanced flanking maneuvers, react to contact with the PCs by adjusting their tactics in response to what the PCs use, and etc.

Another excellent point, that both PCs and NPCs are constraiined/advantaged by the people behind them, not their stats.

if the NPCs are "dumb" then what rules should the GM be following to constrain their tactics and actions.

Just as Hussar would consider it poor play for my 3 INT barbarian to be a tactical genius, that same standard must apply to his monsters.

By what metric might we all follow?

Absolutely.

If I'm using bog standard D&D zombies, they shouldn't be doing anything more complicated than rushing en masse. If my zombies are avoiding AOO's, setting up flanking, using complex tactics, falling back and that sort of thing, I would freely expect my players to be pretty annoyed with me.

If I'm playing a dragon with an Int and Wis in the stratosphere, then my combats are going to be chosen in highly advantageous locations, my spell selection will reflect my strengths and weaknesses and you can be damn sure that that dragon is going to use every trick I can think of.

Orcs? Well, an orc isn't the sharpest stick around, but, it's considerably smarter than a wolf, so, anything a pack carnivore could do, I would have no problems with letting an orc do. OTOH, those orcs generally aren't going to have very complex tactics like fall back plans, rendevous points for regrouping, weapon caches set up for resupply and that sort of thing. Their tactics are going to be pretty straight forward. Nothing fancy.

So on and so forth. Heck, if I wanted to obliterate parties every session, that's ludicrously easy. If I actually started playing every encounter to the best of my ability rather than what I think is reasonable for the monster, I'd kill PC's just about every time. After all, I don't care if this orc or that orc sacrifices himself if I manage to kill that PC. That's a mark in the win column for me.

But, I certainly don't play that way. It's completely breaking suspension of disbelief and way more antagonistic than I choose.

As for what metric to follow, how about "This is what I believe to be a reasonable portrayal of the creature in question. Does this break the fourth wall for anyone at the table? Nope? Then I nailed it."

Note, as I've mentioned many, many times, its making the effort that counts. That I don't succeed every time is a given. But, I do try and I expect anyone I play with to make the effort as well.

-----------

Funnily enough The Shaman, you actually come down on my side of the fence in the end. As you say, characters have "Secrets" in your game which you expect them to portray. If stats on the character sheet didn't matter, then why do these?

What's the difference?

--------------

What really surprises me about all this is that this is such a contentious concept. I would have thought, "Play the character that you made" would be about as reasonable as "Don't be a dick" or "Don't railroad as a DM". It's pretty basic roleplay AFAIC. If you don't want to play the character that you made, why did you make THAT character?

 

[Argyle King]

I generally run things in a manner which I feel is pretty similar to what Hussar just stated.

 

[S'mon]

What really surprises me about all this is that this is such a contentious concept. I would have thought, "Play the character that you made" would be about as reasonable as "Don't be a dick" or "Don't railroad as a DM". It's pretty basic roleplay AFAIC. If you don't want to play the character that you made, why did you make THAT character?

The big problem is that you seem to define* "the character" almost solely by reference to the stats, whereas I give far more priority to the rules-free description of the character and to how the character is actually played at the table. I don't have a high regard for stats, they mean very little IMO. Some like Strength have some kind of correlation to reality, but even then there are huge problems with how it works in D&D.

There are simulationist systems where the designers endeavour to make the stats meaningful. How Strength functions in 2e Twilight 2000 & Traveller: The New Era comes to mind. D&D doesn't even try to be simulationist. Binding a player to the DM's particular idea of what the stats are supposed to mean seems like poor DMing to me.

*It would be good if you would stop proferring your own definitions and then demanding that everyone else accept them as gospel.

 

[Dausuul]

which might be further evidence that INT isn't measuring what we traditionally equate to IQ.

If all INT represents is really learning, it works fine for wolves vs. 3 INT humans and 10 INT humans.

Once INT models something more complex, you get the problems of defining how INT 3 on a human is a highly malfunctioning entity, whereas its just hunky dory for a dog.

Yup. Int should represent your character's education and knowledge, as reflected in the modifier to knowledge skills. Beyond that, decide for yourself how smart or dumb you want your PC to be.

 

[Janx]

There are simulationist systems where the designers endeavour to make the stats meaningful. How Strength functions in 2e Twilight 2000 & Traveller: The New Era comes to mind. D&D doesn't even try to be simulationist. Binding a player to the DM's particular idea of what the stats are supposed to mean seems like poor DMing to me.

*It would be good if you would stop proferring your own definitions and then demanding that everyone else accept them as gospel.

My interpretation of the stats says if Hussar thinks his 8 INT half-orc barbarian acts in a certain way, thats fine.

I will consider another player's different interpretation of the same stat as also being OK.

I think we can all agree that if your PC doesn't have the Metallurgy skill (or equivalent) than your PC does not actually know anything about it and anything he says is out of character or retconned to be the incorrect ramblings of the incompetent.

And that you can talk nice all you want, but a 3 CHA PC is going to have a huge penalty to every social check and as such will probably fail more social checks as statistics would indicate.

I'm not going to call [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s way poor DMing. Some time ago I may have agreed with his approach. I would prefer that such interpretation of stat meaning be codified. Either as in the house rules guide on expected behavior, or as incorporated mechanics as Shaman demonstrates with the Bravery attribute.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, hey, I've stated repeatedly that so long as the player is actively trying to portray the character, I'm pretty happy.

Which somewhat blows my mind when Janx pretty much pulls a 180 on his entire line of reasoning with this:

I think we can all agree that if your PC doesn't have the Metallurgy skill (or equivalent) than your PC does not actually know anything about it and anything he says is out of character or retconned to be the incorrect ramblings of the incompetent.

This is 100% completely, utterly, what I've been saying since this all started. You are agreeing with me. So, what is the difference here? I've said that if your character is a low stat character with no actual knowledge of whatever he's trying to do, then he probably shouldn't be doing that.

I would hope you wouldn't call my way of DMing poor, since it's completely identical to your own.

I have never stated that a player should be bound by the DM. I've actually repeatedly stated the exact opposite. That the player should determine what is reasonable for portraying a character.

My problem comes when the player completely ignores the character sheet and then portrays something that is NOT SUPPORTED IN ANY WAY by the character he's created.

In The Shaman's example, I'd have no real problems. The character is cowardly and acts so. His hands shake, he doesn't jump into danger, he probably dreads actually having to act in any way. Great, that describes a cowardly character. Fan-freaking-tastic.

My issue would come if the player took a cowardly character, never actually described himself as cowardly, was first in line every time combat broke out, jumped at ever chance to put himself in danger and juggled live grenades for fun. All at the same time.

So, what in the name of small furry animals are you guys actually on about? If the character sheet matters and informs the play of that character, I'm perfectly content. How about you?

 

[Janx]

So, what in the name of small furry animals are you guys actually on about? If the character sheet matters and informs the play of that character, I'm perfectly content. How about you?

saying a player can't talk about Metallurgy correctly because his char sheet shows he does not have the skill is not the same as saying an 8 INT PC cannot spend his 6 movement any way he sees fit.

Players acting in a way that contradicts what the rules says was never on the table of debate. You can't move more than 30' per round, get +4 to-hit or know the technical answer to something for a skill you do not posess. Because the rules clearly cover that.

What's been on the table is the fuzzy extra that the rules don't cover but seem to be an unwritten rule. That an 8 INT character must be played in certain dumb ways.

Because the matter is subjective, (how dumb must I play my 8 INT PC to satisfy the GM) I would prefer it be transformed to an objective metric or dropped as a definition that the written rules don't support.

My whole purpose in arguing with you in the 4 or so threads on this topic for the last week is to actually extract a set of written rules to codify said behavior or to extract a written explanation limiting the meaning of INT, CHA and WIS to what the RAW actually models.

Shaman's Bravery example was exactly the insight I'm looking for. Make INT 8 actually matter or it doesn't matter.

 

[Argyle King]

The big problem is that you seem to define* "the character" almost solely by reference to the stats, whereas I give far more priority to the rules-free description of the character and to how the character is actually played at the table. I don't have a high regard for stats, they mean very little IMO. Some like Strength have some kind of correlation to reality, but even then there are huge problems with how it works in D&D.

There are simulationist systems where the designers endeavour to make the stats meaningful. How Strength functions in 2e Twilight 2000 & Traveller: The New Era comes to mind. D&D doesn't even try to be simulationist. Binding a player to the DM's particular idea of what the stats are supposed to mean seems like poor DMing to me.

*It would be good if you would stop proferring your own definitions and then demanding that everyone else accept them as gospel.

Right; there are some problems with how it works in D&D. This thread isn't specific to only D&D.

 

[Hussar]

Because the matter is subjective, (how dumb must I play my 8 INT PC to satisfy the GM) I would prefer it be transformed to an objective metric or dropped as a definition that the written rules don't support.

But, that's never been my point. I've repeatedly stated that. The GM's satisfaction is completely and utterly unimportant to me and I'M THE GM!

From my point of view, the only metric that matters is the table. Does my portrayal of my character meet with the general approval of the table? The measure of how well a character is roleplayed is how closely does the portrayal of that character match what that character is.

Now, what that character is will be a combination of concrete factors like skills and powers and hit points and the like and all sorts of fuzzy bits like alignment and stats. Like I said, I don't care if the 8 Int character pulls something smart off once in a while. That's great.

But, if my 8 Int character turns into Sun Tzu every time initiative is rolled, then I'm not portraying that character very well. Someone watching my play would be very surprised to learn that my character is actually below average intelligence. If I'm constantly doing the most optimum thing, always making the best decision, taking the time to learn more information before making any decision and the like, I'm not portraying that character very well.

The stats inform how that character is played. They certainly don't represent any sort of straight jacket on how that character must be played. You started this thread with the question, "Should PC's be forced to act a certain way?" and I emphatically answered no right in the beginning.

And I still believe that. No one should ever be forced to do anything. By the same token, if it reaches the point where the DM, or anyone at the table is turning to me and saying, "Dude, really? You really have your character do that?" then I know that I haven't really been true to that character.

Sure it's fuzzy. Of course it is. I'd vehemently oppose any sort of written rules that would codify behavior. I hated it when they did that with paladins in D&d. I loathe the alignment rules for EXACTLY this sort of discussion.

Funny story. Few years back I had a fairly new player in my group. Nice guy. He insisted that his new PC was chaotic neutral because, in his words, he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted to do. Ok, fair enough.

Several sessions go by and I come back to the player. "Umm, Dave, your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively, is cautious, rational, and a total team player. How exactly is this character Chaotic Neutral?"

"I'm Chaotic Neutral. I want to be able to do anything I want. I don't want any restrictions."

"Ok," I answered. "But, what you apparently want to do is act about as lawful as any Paladin player I've ever seen. You've never actually done anything that could remotely be described as chaotic with this character. I have explained that I believe the alignment is simply descriptive, not proscriptive right?"

Dave answered, "Yeah, I get that. It's no problem. But my character is still totally Chaotic Neutral because I want to be able to do anything I want to do."

Honestly, I left it at that. It wasn't really worth getting worked up about and what the hell, it's his character. But, it really does tie into this conversation. His portrayal of that character was very, very far removed from the alignment of this character. It was jarring to me and to a few of the other players. Not enough that anyone got really annoyed by it, but, it was jarring.

To me, this is exactly the same thing as ignoring any other part of your character sheet. If I have an 8 Cha and no social skills, I would try to portray that with my character. His social interactions are going to be a bit awkward and he's probably not going to be giving any speeches in the near future. Is he going to be Cat Piss man? No, of course not. He's not that bad. But, he's certainly no Sean Connery either. Exactly how would I portray it?

I'm not sure to be honest. There are too many other factors to bring in that might affect things. But, I'd at least keep half an eye on the character sheet whenever I do try to portray this character.

As far as I'm concerned, that's all I would expect from anyone.

 

[Dausuul]

What's been on the table is the fuzzy extra that the rules don't cover but seem to be an unwritten rule. That an 8 INT character must be played in certain dumb ways.

Because the matter is subjective, (how dumb must I play my 8 INT PC to satisfy the GM) I would prefer it be transformed to an objective metric or dropped as a definition that the written rules don't support.

I must spread some XP around, which is a pity, because this bit made me want to cheer. Perfectly stated.