D&D General Alternate "Ability Scores"

[jgsugden]

In other words, if you're not method-acting, you're doing D&D wrong.

Did I miss something? Is it the 90s again?

You missed that we don't recharacterize other people's arguments and pretend it makes a point.

D&D is an RPG. If you're not playing a role, you're not role playing. Simple concept. You may be having fun with your lasagna, but it is no pizza.

 

[Jack Daniel]

D&D is an RPG. If you're not playing a role, you're not role playing. Simple concept.

No. Not a simple concept at all. For example, this—

Filing a role means pretending to be something YOU are NOT. To fill that role, you must pretend, ideally to the best of your ability, to be that other thing.

—is not true and not necessary to roleplaying.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. Not a simple concept at all. For example, this—



—is not true and not necessary to roleplaying.

Yes it is. Roleplaying literally means to pretend to be someone else. If you are not doing that, you're not roleplaying. Words mean things.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You need a definition of a role. Attributes, ability scores, abilities, etc... are the definition in D&D. When the OP talked about not being "forced" by the game, he was talking about a role restricting him.

You can have definitions of a role that have no mechanics. However, unless the role has boundaries and characteristics (which should be limiting or else they are not really boundaries or characteristics), it is not a role.Well, we do have definitions for what they mean, in the RAW, that tell us how we are intended to use them. There is some shift in the mechanics of how they are to be used through the editions, but the fundamental concept is simple and goes all the way back to the introduction of these 6 attributes (although wisdom, intelligence and charisma have all been refined through time more than the physical stats have been).

If I play a character with a high intelligence, he should be able to achieve things that require a high intelligence. If I play a character with low intelligence, they should not be able to achieve those same things. When role playing the low intelligence character, we should be doing our best to imagine and pretend that we're in those shoes.

And even if a role playing game does not provide any rules or mechanics for intelligence - when we define the character, it is something that has relevance and will likely need to be addressed when something challenges the intelligence of the character. If we decide they're just as smart as us - fine. However, even with no mechanics for it, someone might decide that their character is not the sharpest tool in the shed and not use their full capability solve problems that arise before their character. That is also a choice. Regardless, in D&D, we have mechanics for it - and they should be used, not ignored.

Yes, but HOW MUCH?

The ONLY guidance we have in the books (for 5e, anyway) is that it's +/- 5% for every 2 points, which means that even a 6 Intelligence score is really pretty darned close to average. Yet some people still keep insisting that the varying scores will somehow be a highly noticeable differentiator, and that it's cheating or lazy roleplaying to not play such a character as very dumb.

Sorry, but there is zero support for that stance.

Again, I'm all for exaggerating the effect, if that's the character concept you want. But to insist that those who choose otherwise are doing it wrong is crazy. And arrogant.

If you have other evidence for why your interpretation is correct, please share it. And if your evidence is from older editions, please add that caveat when you insult other people's roleplaying.

 

[DeviousQuail]

I generally like the mechanical role and impact of the six attributes in 5e. However, I'd be fine with the current six retiring and being replaced with a new set.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you're not playing a role, you're not role playing.

Sure. But just because you're not focusing on one of the mechanics, and not exaggerating the influence of that mechanic, doesn't mean you're not playing a role.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, but HOW MUCH?

The ONLY guidance we have in the books (for 5e, anyway) is that it's +/- 5% for every 2 points, which means that even a 6 Intelligence score is really pretty darned close to average. Yet some people still keep insisting that the varying scores will somehow be a highly noticeable differentiator, and that it's cheating or lazy roleplaying to not play such a character as very dumb.

Sorry, but there is zero support for that stance.

Again, I'm all for exaggerating the effect, if that's the character concept you want. But to insist that those who choose otherwise are doing it wrong is crazy. And arrogant.

If you have other evidence for why your interpretation is correct, please share it. And if your evidence is from older editions, please add that caveat when you insult other people's roleplaying.

In the Monster Manual an ape has an intelligence of six. Non-human great apes have intelligence roughly equivalent to a four year old human, suggesting that a PC with int six would be about equally smart... Then again, perhaps fantasy apes are just smarter than real apes...

 

[Guest 6801328]

In the Monster Manual an ape has an intelligence of six. Non-human great apes have intelligence roughly equivalent to a four year old human, suggesting that a PC with int six would be about equally smart... Then again, perhaps fantasy apes are just smarter than real apes...

And, again, an INT of 6 means you suffer a -10% penalty on tasks that require Intelligence. Do you think an ape, or a 4 year old, has about a 10% penalty for Intelligence tasks?

Conversely, a 14 is as far from average as a 6 is. Does a 14 mean that you are as much more intelligent than a commoner, than a commoner is compared to an ape? Because that would be super-genius level.

The mechanics of attribute scores make no sense logically, and simply cannot be used to say anything definitive about the fiction.

The only thing we know for certain is that a 6 imposes a -2 penalty. How you interpret that is entirely up to you.

 

[Reynard]

In the Monster Manual an ape has an intelligence of six. Non-human great apes have intelligence roughly equivalent to a four year old human, suggesting that a PC with int six would be about equally smart... Then again, perhaps fantasy apes are just smarter than real apes...

Alternatively, the system is not a finely tuned simulation of reality -- for PCs or the other inhabitants of the world. It's all shorthand, and ultimately how a player chooses to portray their character is entirely up to them. They aren't "not roleplaying" because they don't have their 6 Int barbarian throw feces.

No one in this thread can come up with a meaningful definition of "roleplaying" that could not immediately be countered by a different meaningful definition. And, no, "role playing is playing a role" is not a meaningful definition -- it's begging the question.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As another illustration of the subjectiveness of mental attributes, if we were in the weight room trying to find out who was stronger, we would quickly agree on the answer (even if it varied some depending on task).

But here we are in the mental weight room, competing away, and I'm betting most of us think we're smarter and more insightful than the people we're arguing with.