D&D 5E Weird Interpretations for High/Low Ability Scores

[Cadence]

Sure, table rules can set a reasonable standard for the given group. But that standard cannot be applied to other tables, nor can they be said to be part of the actual rules of the game.

Now, if I had too much spare time, cared more about it, and didn't hate one-true-wayism, I could actively try to goad people into debating whether the game of 5e should actually be called a Role-Playing game or a game that's a house rule or two away from being a Role-Playing game.

But there are more important things on here to debate (like the definition of a Sandwich!).

 

[Voadam]

I think I'd have no problem with Xena having a 20 Strength in D&D terms despite not being super burly.

 

[iserith]

Ok, but that's total naughty word, isn't it? "By those definitions" is some weasely politician nonsense.

Take that up with the designers of the game, I guess. I'm playing the game they designed and my arguments are based on the same.

If you always work out could, and never RP to your own disadvantage, you're a massive power-gamer, possibly bordering on a munchkin (depending on how you impact the game and other players), and denying it at that point just makes you disingenuous.

Where is it written that never "RPing" to your own disadvantage makes one a "power-gamer?" Other than in your post which is just your opinion and full of pejorative labels and baseless insinuations.

I feel like this is an entirely theoretical discussion for you though. The total lack of actual examples you've given, your complete inability to provide details about how "your" game runs (just generalities) and so on makes me wonder if either you play totally differently from this, in practice, or you don't play at all. It wouldn't be the first time I had a multi-page discussion with someone on an RPG forum who, it turned out, hadn't played the game for a long time (or in one memorable case, had never played the game, despite having acted like a venerable and experienced GM for it, for years).

I play in two regular campaigns and run one regular campaign (rotating on Fridays), plus I'm in a West Marches game where I jump in to play from time to time. I also run pick-up group one-shots three or more times per month including both new and veteran players. There's nothing theoretical about this. I find examples are problematic in forum discussions because people want to pick apart examples instead of try to use the example to gain a better understanding of what is being discussed. What examples could you even want here? Players say what they want to do, I adjudicate the results. Or I say what I want to do and the DM adjudicates the results. That's more or less the game.

 

[Gradine]

FWIW, most interpretations of Sherlock would necessarily have high (or at least not extremely low) Intelligence and Wisdom. Sherlock's major shticks are noticing small details others miss (Perception) and then using inductive reasoning to produce information based on those details (Investigation). Sherlock is, generally speaking, rather low in Charisma (though in some cases this is presented more as Sherlock not caring about other people but able to turn it on when necessary), which is why most interpretations, especially the modern ones, have Watson be the people person. See also: House, etc.

For a high Wis low Int detective you'll want someone like Shawn Spencer from Psych, whose perception is nigh-legendary but often needs to rely on others (usually Gus) to provide him with additional knowledge he otherwise lacks in order to actually piece the clues together.

 

[Cadence]

Came for some interesting ideas for my new low Wis character, but all I got were boring semantic badwrongfun Saelornisms and arguments over Sherlock Holmes.

Is Wisdom divorced from Willpower in 5e (except that Charm needs a wisdom save)?

One thing might be just not noticing that things aren't done. So sometimes not having packed the right things, got distracted securing the horses because you had to do something else, etc... I might call that depressingly real, and not interesting though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Take that up with the designers of the game, I guess. I'm playing the game they designed and my arguments are based on the same.

No, this on you, not them.

Where is it written that never "RPing" to your own disadvantage makes one a "power-gamer?" Other than in your post which is just your opinion and full of pejorative labels and baseless insinuations.

Where is it written...?

Really?

That's what you want to go with? I'm not sure 5E D&D defines power-gaming at all, so I guess by that logic, nothing is power-gaming, nothing is being a munchkin, and so on.

And it's not baseless. You're hoist by your own petard, here. It's you who have suggested that you literally never RP in any way that you think will be to your disadvantage, that you always find a way that you could/should know/do something, never that you shouldn't. And that's obviously power-gaming.

Basically, your entire argument here boils down to rules-lawyering in the name of power-gaming.

That really is what you're doing here. Instead of taking accepted understandings, and realizing that the game isn't perfect (D&D 5E is much worse at explaining both RPing and DMing than a lot of other games, including 4E), you're trying to find loopholes, and failures in definitions to fly this 747-sized "stats mean nothing at all and can be 100% ignored for RP purposes" argument through. And to some extent you've succeeded (not in proving it's good RP or even RP at all, but that in proving it isn't specifically called out as bad, unlike other editions).

As for examples, I asked a number of specific questions - your response re: what games your in is the first time you've even come close to a specific answer, despite demanding examples from me re: bad behaviour (which you then ignored).

Anyway, I've said my part. You're rules-lawyering some stuff that's barely even rules, in order to find fig-leaf argument to hide blatant power-gaming behind. I don't think anyone else here thinks never RPing a character in a way which would intentionally put you at a disadvantage, is "good RP". My personal opinion, and this is obviously just that, is that's dishonourable, even unconscionable, to do that. I couldn't even begin to count the number of times I could have ignored my PC's personality/being and just said/done the smart thing, but didn't, because it wasn't in-character (and I didn't need "rewards" to do that, either, good grief).

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's a matter of honest RP

Doesn't get much more subjective & opinionated than that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Doesn't get much more subjective & opinionated than that.

Sure it does. I don't think it's unreasonable or even particularly subjective to suggest that honest RP is picking a character and sticking with that character, even when it's inconvenient.

Seems pretty opinionated or even bizarre to me to suggest that playing a character with zero personality and just saying whatever is least likely to cause the DM to ask for a roll is "good RP" or "honest RP" to me. Successful manipulation of the DM, sure.

 

[Maxperson]

Roleplaying is just saying what your character does, thinks, or says. It can be done actively (1st person) or descriptively (3rd person). By those definitions provided by the game, anyone who does that is a good roleplayer.

It's a false definition, though. Roleplaying is also within bounds set by the game. If your PC just starts building a laser because you the player know how to do so, it's poor roleplaying, because despite you just "saying what your character does, thinks or says," it's something your PC would have no way to accomplish and science to that level or science fiction(depending on the laser type) is generally outside the bounds set by a D&D fantasy setting.

 

[Maxperson]

But there are more important things on here to debate (like the definition of a Sandwich!).