What's the hardest attribute to effectively role-play?

[Steven Samuel]

On Intelligence, Men & Magic (the first book of OD&D in 1974) says:

"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken [sic]." (pp.10).

I take this as meaning that if the player has a clever idea but their character has low intelligence, that idea should be ignored. Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether the character could have had that idea. This is the beginning of role-playing; wargamers in 1974 had always played to win, now they were being told to play to their character.

I'm writing a book on the psychology of TTRPGs and this question really interests me. Of the six D&D attributes, what do you think is the hardest to effectively role-play (as a player) or police (as a DM)?

Any thoughts appreciated!

 

[zarionofarabel]

All equal if the mechanics are allowed to be the benchmark by which the world and NPCs react to things the PCs do.

 

[MGibster]

You put this in TTRPG General but it probably belongs in one of the D&D areas. I think the most difficult to effectively roleplay is Wisdom. Wisdom governs how perceptive your character is at understanding their environment as well as the people they interact with. It's the person with a high Wisdom who looks at the man with calloused hands and ink stains who will know he used to be a laborer but now works a white collar job. It's hard to roleplay because the DM has to provide you with enough detail for you to know such things.

 

[Steven Samuel]

I get it. So the DM is perhaps best-placed to roleplay some high PC attributes by removing a bit of mental 'fog of war'. Players would not be able to do this alone. But maybe players should be more responsible for sticking to their character's low scores. Make sense?

 

[Piperken]

A player's agency weighs heavily in my mind; it's their character and their creation. Irrespective of the score in the ability, the character should be a constellation that revolves around what that player envisions.

Some players do like the challenge of pushing up against the low ability score. Sometimes you will just roll up a character's stats, it's not what you expected, but your response is, Yes! I want to see that!

The advice in OD&D regarding how the DM should adjudicate what happens fictionally, comes across as antagonistic to my sentiments; it fits the mold of the DM who runs games the way you describe briefly in the first paragraph. And tables do like that kind of adversarial (but in its most positive, constructive sense, friendly) experience.

In the example, if a player of a character with a low score in their Intelligence ability, happened to come upon a cool or creative solution that didn't call explicitly for a roll, I'd ask that player to describe in their own way how their character came upon this idea.

If they struggled coming up with a reasonable explanation, then I would work with them in the moment to devise one that was agreeable to the table.

(After all, irrespective of the number, a clock is always right at least two times a day!)

 

[Micah Sweet]

On Intelligence, Men & Magic (the first book of OD&D in 1974) says:

"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken [sic]." (pp.10).

I take this as meaning that if the player has a clever idea but their character has low intelligence, that idea should be ignored. Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether the character could have had that idea. This is the beginning of role-playing; wargamers in 1974 had always played to win, now they were being told to play to their character.

I'm writing a book on the psychology of TTRPGs and this question really interests me. Of the six D&D attributes, what do you think is the hardest to effectively role-play (as a player) or police (as a DM)?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Charisma. Tough to present a self-confident, social, self-actualized PC when you have trouble in those areas yourself.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You put this in TTRPG General but it probably belongs in one of the D&D areas. I think the most difficult to effectively roleplay is Wisdom. Wisdom governs how perceptive your character is at understanding their environment as well as the people they interact with. It's the person with a high Wisdom who looks at the man with calloused hands and ink stains who will know he used to be a laborer but now works a white collar job. It's hard to roleplay because the DM has to provide you with enough detail for you to know such things.

I'm very glad it isn't in the 5e area, at least.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A player's agency weighs heavily in my mind; it's their character and their creation. Irrespective of the score in the ability, the character should be a constellation that revolves around what that player envisions.

Some players do like the challenge of pushing up against the low ability score. Sometimes you will just roll up a character's stats, it's not what you expected, but your response is, Yes! I want to see that!

The advice in OD&D regarding how the DM should adjudicate what happens fictionally, comes across as antagonistic to my sentiments; it fits the mold of the DM who runs games the way you describe briefly in the first paragraph. And tables do like that kind of adversarial (but in its most positive, constructive sense, friendly) experience.

In the example, if a player of a character with a low score in their Intelligence ability, happened to come upon a cool or creative solution that didn't call explicitly for a roll, I'd ask that player to describe in their own way how their character came upon this idea.

If they struggled coming up with a reasonable explanation, then I would work with them in the moment to devise one that was agreeable to the table.

(After all, irrespective of the number, a clock is always right at least two times a day!)

I think the most important thing is that the player portray their character accurately to who they are and what they can do in the context of the world. We don't always make the right decisions or have all the information. We are limited by our own capabilities. And in this context that means the PC's capabilities, not necessarily the Player's. After all, the PC regularly does things the Player can't, so why shouldn't the reverse be true? If the Player is having trouble staying within their PC, I think the GM should help them.

 

[MGibster]

I'm very glad it isn't in the 5e area, at least.

How do you figure? I thought I was describing Wisdom in the 5th edition sense.

 

[aco175]

I find part of the game is having the whole table of players present all the time. I cannot recall the last time I pulled a player out to explain something secret. It is hard to play a low stat in INT, WIS, or CHA if you as a person is better or at least average in those stats. The same is if your PC has an 18 in those stats as well. The same question in the OP can be applied to this as well. Letting the whole table of players discuss and come up with ideas allows the PCs with high stats the benefit of all the players INT or whatever. The problem is not dwelling on which PC comes up with the idea, but players like to know they came up with it and if it is their PC or another PC might be a place of friction for some.