D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Charlaquin]

Sure, one must not give credence or power to stereotypes - and that must be crystal clear from Session 0 onwards. However, it is not acceptable for a player to dump stat the two favourites - Int or Cha and then roleplay them as smart or charming (respectively), hiding behind the excuse that they should be able to roleplay their character how they want.

The fact is they dump stated to get a better Dex, Con or whatever and will as a direct result enjoy rolling with the consequent extra bonus continually through the game/campaign. If they had dump stated Dex - then I would not have allowed them to roleplay being graceful either, or a 7 Str character as strong - so I don't for Int or Cha.

How exactly does one roleplay graceful or not graceful? Seems to me that would be a product of what delicate maneuvers they succeed at and what they fail at. In other words, the effect of low dex is already covered by the penalty to dex rolls. Likewise with strength and con. There’s this weird double standard where physical stats speak for themselves and mental/social ones have to be “roleplayed” according to whatever standard the DM decides. Personally, I prefer to let all stats speak for themselves. Intelligence is explicitly defined as ability to recall lore and make logical deductions. Having low intelligence will make you worse at those things because you’ll fail at rolls to do them more often. That should be enough in my view.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

In ensuring nobody roleplays anything insulting or inappropriate, don't forget that the word 'roleplay' comes before the word 'game' and nobody forces anyone, ever, to dump stat...

I'd make a distinction here. Sure, session 0 is the place to determine agreement between participants of the social activities, but not all things are discussed the same. Let's say that one group might want a "no evil character" campaign, on the contrary another group could agree to play an evil Red Wizards campaign, where characters are expected to behave as slave-owning necromancers. Roleplaying approriately will make for an unsettling campaign if a player was not consenting to adresse these themes, but it's perfectly fine if you resolved the problem before starting. However, in this case, "roleplaying appropriately" a low INT characters implies not mocking disabled people. It'd imply roleplaying them respectfully. So, basically, the question is whether it's up to you to police your group in case someone is mocking disabled people (unless of course there was a specific agreement for roleplaying low INT characters in order to mock disabled people, in which case I'd advise to leave the group post haste...)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How exactly does one roleplay graceful or not graceful? Seems to me that would be a product of what delicate maneuvers they succeed at and what they fail at. In other words, the effect of low dex is already covered by the penalty to dex rolls. Likewise with strength and con. There’s this weird double standard where physical stats speak for themselves and mental/social ones have to be “roleplayed” according to whatever standard the DM decides. Personally, I prefer to let all stats speak for themselves. Intelligence is explicitly defined as ability to recall lore and make logical deductions. Having low intelligence will make you worse at those things because you’ll fail at rolls to do them more often. That should be enough in my view.

The thing is, anything involving physical stats is resolved by die roll. That doesn't always apply for mental stats. To give some actual examples to try and counter some of the straw people in this thread:

On encountering the prime number puzzle in White Plume Mountain, the player knew the solution straight away, but didn't share because "my character wouldn't know that".

On encountering a puzzle that involved the character recalling a piece of information, which I was expecting them to make a skill check for, one of the players immediately came out with the answer. It turned out they googled it on their phone.

Now, I'm not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of any of this. I don't claim to know the answers.

 

[Charlaquin]

The thing is, anything involving physical stats is resolved by die roll. That doesn't always apply for mental stats.

Well there’s the problem. If the DM isn’t treating the mental and physical stats the same way, it’s only to be expected that players won’t treat them the same way either. In my view, any task, whether mental or physical, should be resolved with a roll only if the player’s stated approach could reasonably succeed or fail at achieving their stated goal and the action has meaningful stakes. But, if one prefers a different standard, such as calling for a roll any time an action is declared, that standard should be applied equally to mental and physical actions. Otherwise, of course players will prioritize putting higher scores into abilities for which the standard is to roll often than abilities for which the standard is to roll rarely.

 

[Oofta]

Look at the post above mine.

I didn't implicate 'you', I didn't implicate 'everyone'.

Back off.

[EDIT]Take a chill pill. I didn't understand what you were replying to.[/EDIT] I had a question. You feel something hasn't been discussed: what exactly has not been covered? If you are responding to a specific post, quote them or mention the name of the poster with an "@" so we know who you're talking about.

If you don't do that I see no choice but to assume you're addressing everyone on the entire thread. If someone is saying something that you feel violates policy, report them. Other than that? People are free to express their opinion, whether or not you agree with them. The title of the thread and the OP do come across as "if you don't play the game this way you're doing it wrong" to some people.

 

[Faolyn]

A word means what it means, you can't change the meaning of a word to suit your needs then blame those that utilize the word in it's actual meaning.

As I wasn't changing the meaning of any words. I was asking how you defined "stupid"--and I guess I should have said "stupid people."

 

[Scott Christian]

This thread has one redeeming quality: We all now know that no one here likes to make fun of or make derogatory marks about someone less mentally fortunate than them.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I had a question.

You took the opportunity to harass me plain and simple. This is not the first time.

 

[Voadam]

Really? There are several examples in the original post of traits and flaws to roleplay that might be appropriate for a character with a low Intelligence score. How is that "only play our self?"

The OP later clarified that they were not suggesting those as ways to portray low intelligence characters. They were just ways to portray challenges for a character instead of being 'stupid'.

Think about the example of the foreigner who doesn't speak great English/Common as a second language.

Any of those traits in the OP can be applied to a character of any int.

 

[Umbran]

Take a chill pill.

You took the opportunity to harass me plain and simple. This is not the first time.

Mod Note:
Both of you - it is time to de-escalate this situation.

@Vaalingrade - Sorry to tell you, but your post could legitimately be read as a general indictment of the thread. That's the way text goes sometimes - what you intend may not get to the reader, and that's not necessarily the reader's fault. Maybe next time put a qualifier or two in there (like, "33 pages, and still some people...").

@Oofta - you know darned well that "take a chill pill" does not work on people who are annoyed at you. Maybe next time try things like, "I'm sorry, but it seems I misunderstood..."

But, in any case of what might have been, now, you two should stop responding to each other in this thread.