Are high attributes more fun then low attributes?

[mearls]

I think I have something of a strange answer.

If it's a very tactical game where PC death is common, I prefer high stats.

If it's a story-based game with few PC deaths and an emphasis on story, I prefer low stats.

In a situation where my character is more of a game piece than a part of a story, I want that piece to be as efficient as possible. In a game where there's more roleplay than story, I find low stats an interesting challenge and a fun way to make a character unique.

For instance, in a Forgotten Realms campaign I played in my dwarf character had a (surprise!) abysmmal Charisma. I played him as needlessly blunt and socially clueless, with his main flaw his utter inability to accept that other folk didn't act like dwarves.

Another time, I played an arrogant, aristocratic wizard with a terrible Strength score who insisted on having a manservant carry his stuff around for him. It was fun playing out my PC's abuse of his hapless servant.

 

[exile]

Most of the characsters that I have played have tended to have higher stats, and I have had a lot of fun with them, hence my vote for preferring higher stats.

That said, two low-stat characters really stand out in my mind. One was a Rhenee fighter (read thug) that I played in a second edition Greyhawk campaign, He was incrediblystupid and died in his first or second session, but he was quite entertaining during his brief life.

The second low-stat character that comes to mind is one that I am playing right now. She actually started out with great stats- some of the best rolls I have ever had. Caprice started life as a young, physically fit wizardess. her only real fault being a low wisdom (9). In any case, she crossed the wrong professor at her wizards school and was transformed into a "drudgethrall". Basically, this entailed having her strength, dexterity, and charisma reduced to 8. It also stuck her with a hunchback and a clubfoot which reduced her movement to 1/2 and makes running impossible (she can still hustle for a double move- which lets her keep up with other party members who are walking normally for short distnaces). She has been an absolute blast to play. Despite the fact that she was completely useless at her lower levels, she progresed to a point of actually being useful to the party when she gained second level spells. I'll be playingher for teh first time with third level spells tonight. Very excited.

So, the point of all of this is that I believe both high and low stats can be fun, so long as they fit with the character concept.

 

[JasonZZ]

High stats. I want to play a hero (or at least potential hero), not some shlub who struggles to lift his weapon.

 

[Serendipity]

Ancient spirits of thread transform this decayed thread into necromancy...or something like that. (What, this is from 2006 isn't it?)

In any case, since someone's called it up....neither. I can't say stats, be they high or low, are terribly impactful on if I'm having fun (as a player). I know that's high heresy in some parts but I can't be the only one who feels that way, can I?
For the record, having a good GM, a good group of players, a system everyone's into, and good rapport between all of the above are far FAR more important to my fun than if a character has high or low or middlin' stats. Really.

 

[Crothian]

High stats. I want to play a hero (or at least potential hero), not some shlub who struggles to lift his weapon.

A weak character cannot be a hero?

 

[Argyle King]

I think it depends upon the context of the game.


I also think the question touches upon things which go beyond attributes. That is to say, what kind of game do you prefer? If I want to play a game with low attributes, that doesn't necessarily mean I want to play a deaf, mute, cripple. It most likely means I want to play a game in which breadth of play is favored more than just the vertical stacking of numbers. Power can mean different things; so can being a hero. In a game where breadth of play is favored, power might mean political or social power; being a hero might mean helping the local village or leading an army rather than fighting one. In contrast, a game more focused on the stacking of numbers tend to focus on power as it relates to combat encounters and racing through a string of linear levels to stop a planar entity. Both can be fun, but, more and more, I find that I prefer the lower powered games, and I prefer a somewhat more down to earth playground.

To put it in comic book terms, while I find both Superman and Captain America to be similar heroes in their outlook and I find stories about both to be interesting, I more easily identify with Captain America because -in spite of the fact that he's far beyond my abilities- he's still close enough that I can understand the world he exists in. In the case of Superman, he's so powerful that he tends to overshadow everything else. Eventually, the writers (GM) need to start introducing more and more outlandish and over-the-top characters to challenge Superman. I believe I can apply that to rpgs; especially fantasy. Yes, I enjoy playing powerful characters; it can be fun to annihilate enemies. However, I find that I prefer playing the simpler hero in a world which at least gives a nod toward the one I live in. I loved stories about Conan because, in spite of his ability to kill several men at a time in combat, and his incredible strength; in spite of snake-men and the fantasy, Howard wrote his world in a way that was believable. People had concerns and fears; things felt real, and even Conan had his limits. Yeah, he might hold his own against several opponents, but he still had limits; he lead armies rather than standing alone against them like a high level D&D character would.

 

[Halivar]

In my view, succeeding more often is more fun than succeeding less often.

Always succeeding, however, is less fun than either.

EDIT: LOL I already posted in this thread? Dear lord, this is the ultimate necro!

 

[athos]

I prefer stats that make the character hero-esque, so high.

I know if the player is smart, he can metagame and make his character clever and overcome obstacles with low stats, but that is boring and I am not big on meta-gaming, if my pc has a 10 int, I try to play him that way, if he has an 18, I try to play him that way.

If the character is less capable than I am, why bother playing him, I can have more fun doing stuff in real life. Guess that is why I like mages, I can't do magic IRL obviously, so it lets me have fun pretending in game.

 

[MJS]

Low stats are so much more fun its ridiculous. I'd even say they are objectively more fun, as a low stat is fun for a whole group. Possible exception is STR, a very high score here is often amusing for everyone.
Comeliness also, if you're using it.

I couldn't tell you how many super-characters I've seen die due to poor playing. Stats don't keep you alive. Luminous beings we are...

 

[Balesir]

I almost put "low stats" until I noticed in the first post it said "for D&D".

Like several others, it seems, I prefer high stats for action-adventure and low stats for more gritty, "realistic" and low-key play. If I want gritty, low key play I will choose another system than D&D - my favourites being (houseruled) HârnMaster for medieval fantasy and Traveller for sci-fi.