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

[Mordhau]

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.

They do not have to play 'dumb as a post' or 'trips over their tongue when they talk' characters, but I will be damned if they don't roleplay appropriate limitations at all. That is very poor roleplay, and poor gamesmanship, and I don't let it slide at my table as GM.

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...

It's funny how tradition bound D&D is.

The idea that there's a gap between the rules as they actually work and influence the game, and the traditional interpretation of what ability scores mean., and that this gap gives scope for alternative interpretations...just does not compute! It's either done the one way or it's "bad" role-playing.

I'm curious about whether people also complain about the art or mini's players choose to represent their Strength 20 Fighter. "It doesn't have enough muscles for the strongest woman in the world. Go back and find something bigger and bulkier."

I'd imagine for consistency's sake the same people wouldn't allow anything to be reskinned either. Whatever fluff text is in the official write-up is what you have to play. Anything else is "bad" role-playing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There was a lot of ink spilled long ago about character's having dump stats (we're talking 3-6 range low) that didn't seem to affect them in one bit as far as RP was concerned. In AD&D, this was especially common as the ability modifiers for mental scores tended to only affect niche areas (languages, cham saves, henchmen) unless you were a spellcaster. Stories were told of dwarven fighters or barbarians with single-digit ability scores being as clever, learned, or smooth as the player was capable of role-playing (a form of metagaming in a way) which created the backlash of "roleplaying your score" to make characters stupid, gullible, or ugly/unsociable. It stuck for a long time and now it appears the trend is starting to reverse.

Some role-players actually role-play low physical stats too. A long strength PC might (voluntarily) have a hard time lifting or moving a heavy object (even if the DM didn't call for a strength check) or intentionally climb up something slowly. Low dex PCs might be clumsy, bumping into people or objects. Low Con PCs might be sickly, with permanent coughs, easily catching cold from drafts, or nauseated easily by food or drink. But just like the above, plenty of players don't look at the ability score as anything but a mechanical adjustment. The low strength wizard will attempt to open stuck doors and rely on that "nat 20" to bypass the -1 to the roll. Ditto for low dex or con.

Its already common knowledge that the 3-18 score range is an artifact that serves little purpose anymore, the ability modifier (-5 to +5) is what is important. Plenty of d20 Variants removed it to no great loss. You could easily replicate granting the same modifier range without needing Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha and fix a whole lot of problems with the game in one fell swoop. The biggest would be trying to numerically quantify how strong/smart/agile someone is and try to explain what the difference between a 12 and a 13 Dexterity is supposed to represent.


Not quite. But I'm getting the vibe in certain gaming circles that D&D is still too focused on numbers and making them mean something. For example, much of the hoopla about racial ASI was the notion that ideas like "strong" or "small" or "graceful" should have corresponding mechanical, numeric representation in the game. A strong race should have a bonus to Strength, for example. However, if you remove the concept of Strength as a mechanic, then "strong" race no longer has a mechanical expression, it's strictly a role-playing tool. Or if Strength exists, maybe it shouldn't affect other systems mechanically (such as bonus to hit and damage) since a.) no one agrees if using a longsword relies of muscle or agility anyway and b.) it would break the notion that warriors are strong and strong races are the best warriors.

Once you remove specific numeric expressions of a character's abilities, you open a huge amount of potential to design and play characters however you like.

Given the near-certainty that WotC will never remove ability scores from the game, or make them not mechanically relevant, I can't see any value in that line of reasoning in the context of D&D. Most games that avoid ability scores are waaaayyyy on the narrative end of the spectrum.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Narration.

If a player consistently narrates their Dex-6 character as nimbly dancing along narrow ledges or as turning cartwheels across the ballroom (and isn't being sarcastic) there's a problem.

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 physical stuff largely has to be abstracted either by narration or dice unless the table's in full-on LARP mode.

The mental/social stuff doesn't need nearly the same degree of abstraction as much of it can be LARPed at the table. Abstracting any more of this than the bare minimum IMO takes away from the role-playing side of the game, and thus defeats a lot of the purpose.

 

[Lanefan]

In the game I just ran a player of a 'stupid' character made an unprompted int roll to decide whether their character understood a certain thing. Nothing important, just reminded me of this thread.

I do this all the time.

Last night my Wisdom-6 character went a-wandering while the rest of the party did some underwater exploring (she's a terrible swimmer so no way in hell was she going down there!). In the neighbourhood of where we are there's a possibly-dangerous tower. Her wanderings took her past said tower so, unprompted, I gave her a roll-under Wisdom check to see if she gave the thing a wide berth, with failure probably meaning she'd walk up to it, investigate it, and likely get fried to a crisp.

Somewhat surprisingly, she made the check and left the tower alone.

 

[Lanefan]

It's funny how tradition bound D&D is.

The idea that there's a gap between the rules as they actually work and influence the game, and the traditional interpretation of what ability scores mean., and that this gap gives scope for alternative interpretations...just does not compute! It's either done the one way or it's "bad" role-playing.

I'm curious about whether people also complain about the art or mini's players choose to represent their Strength 20 Fighter. "It doesn't have enough muscles for the strongest woman in the world. Go back and find something bigger and bulkier."

Heh - finding art and-or a mini that's even remotely close to one's vision of what a character looks like can be a serious challenge involving lots of google, copious amounts of time, and a fair bit of swearing.

So, minis - we only have so many - get recycled from one PC to the next and art sometimes falls into the "close enough" realm...except for those few of us (not me!!!) fortunate enough to have the talent to make our own art; those characters always look exactly as they should.

I'd imagine for consistency's sake the same people wouldn't allow anything to be reskinned either. Whatever fluff text is in the official write-up is what you have to play. Anything else is "bad" role-playing.

Are you referring to before or after said fluff has been introduced in play?

If before, it's open to any kind of amendment. Once it's been introduced in play it's locked in for the duration of that campaign.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I do this all the time.

A lot of players I know do this at times. I've seen a low-CHA character whose player roll because he the PC was portrayed as a coward. He might want to do something to help another PC, but if it was really dangerous or risky, the player would roll.

Most of the players I've had over the years are above-average intelligence certainly, but a PC might be INT 8 or lower. The player might figure a puzzle out easily, and roll an INT check for the PC, failure means the player doesn't reveal the answer, success and they do.

Having lower ability scores should be played appropriately IMO and as a DM I will not allow a player to ignore their dump stats simple because they don't want to play their character as having a low score. A DEX 8 PC can be played as the type of person who wants to be graceful, for example, but fails more often than succeeds despite the best of intentions.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't know what is so hard for people. You roll a Dex 6 character. Player and GM discuss what that means in practice. Player tries to remain consistent with that.

What a lot of people here seem to want is for the DM to control what that means based off a notion of objectivity which really means "DM's preconceptions without any reflection" and then the DM to be able to tell the player they're playing their character wrong.

Seriously if the player is describing their character as being graceful, you just ask them "How do you square it with Dex 6"? And see if they can.

Remember this is all about Intelligence (not Dex). If Ug the Half-Orc solves the puzzle that the rest of the party can't solve the GM can ask "How do you see UG solving the puzzle with an Intelligence of 6"? And the player can respond "Ug is not actually stupid, he spent his life in a small Orcish community and has very little understanding of the wider world and no real education, but he can figure things out".

Although preferably you discussed this at the start of the game, so the GM doesn't have to ask this.

I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Remember this is all about Intelligence (not Dex). If Ug the Half-Orc solves the puzzle that the rest of the party can't solve the GM can ask "How do you see UG solving the puzzle with an Intelligence of 6"? And the player can respond "Ug is not actually stupid, he spent his life in a small Orcish community and has very little understanding of the wider world and no real education, but he can figure things out".

Although preferably you discussed this at the start of the game, so the GM doesn't have to ask this.

I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp.

It isn't "hard to grasp" I just don't agree with you. (maybe...?)

So, Ug has an INT 6: what does that mean in terms in of mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason?

And is Ug solving the puzzle, or Ug's player? How smart is Ug's player compared to INT 6 Ug? How did Ug solve it?
Did the DM call for an Intelligence check, and only Ug beat the DC? Or did the DM present the player's with a puzzle and Ug's player solved it?

In my games I've had the situation where players couldn't solve a puzzle, so I allowed them to roll for their PCs against a DC 15 (or whatever). We've had INT 18 characters roll low, failing, and INT 10 characters roll high, succeeding. How is this? Simple, that PC might have encountered sometime similar in the past or just had a moment of brilliant insight.

I haven't read the entire thread (and at 35 pages I am not going to), so all of this might have already been addressed by yourself and others.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know what is so hard for people. You roll a Dex 6 character. Player and GM discuss what that means in practice. Player tries to remain consistent with that.

If this was always the case with all stats this thread would be about half as long.

But what I've been seeing, both in this thread recently and at the table for decades, is example after example of players doing their best to not remain consistent with that; to find loopholes or exploits to mitigate or outright negate the weakness(es) that low stat implies.

What a lot of people here seem to want is for the DM to control what that means based off a notion of objectivity which really means "DM's preconceptions without any reflection" and then the DM to be able to tell the player they're playing their character wrong.

Seriously if the player is describing their character as being graceful, you just ask them "How do you square it with Dex 6"? And see if they can.

The sense I've been getting from some here is that a DM (or another player) even asking that question would be bad form.

Remember this is all about Intelligence (not Dex). If Ug the Half-Orc solves the puzzle that the rest of the party can't solve the GM can ask "How do you see UG solving the puzzle with an Intelligence of 6"? And the player can respond "Ug is not actually stupid, he spent his life in a small Orcish community and has very little understanding of the wider world and no real education, but he can figure things out".

Although preferably you discussed this at the start of the game, so the GM doesn't have to ask this.

I don't know why people find this so hard to grasp.

If Ug does this once, no real problem - Ug's lucky this time. But if Ug makes a habit of figuring out the puzzles that others cannot, there's a disconnect between the stat and the play.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If Ug does this once, no real problem - Ug's lucky this time. But if Ug makes a habit of figuring out the puzzles that others cannot, there's a disconnect between the stat and the play.

Agreed!