Character ability v. player volition: INT, WIS, CHA

[FireLance]

The minute the DM starts auditing my behavior to decide if I can choose where to put my stat points, I walk away from the gaming table and don't come back.

I can make ultimatums, too: the minute a player consistently acts in a way which is incompatible with his ability scores without supplying a plausible in-game explanation for why this happens, I kick him from my group.

Of course, in real life, there would probably be a lot of long and boring communication about "what role-playing means to us" and "table expectations" and "social contract" before this actually happens, but saying it makes for a less snappy comeback.

 

[Celebrim]

How can the PCs be so "constrained by demands"? They are already constrained by not possessing in the first place the DM's omniscience and omnipotence. You're comparing the incommensurate.

And I've already explained in what way the two are comparable.

Quoting myself again:

And, if I dump stat Intelligence and then rely on my extensive personal knowledge to resolve all problems, then that is a murkier area still. Imagine for example the situation of RPing with a person who has a Ph.D. in biology (which is by no means a purely theoretical example) in a game with a biology skill, in which the player has no ranks in biology, but asks penetrating biological questions and in character describes conducting sophisticated biological experiments. Or imagine RPing with a engineer who describes in elaborate detail how to construct fortifications and war machines, despite having no ranks in engineering as a character. At what point does such behavior become detrimental to play?

Is it really unreasonable for the DM to ask the player to act ignorant of things that the PC's knows but the character doesn't? And if it is unreasonable how far are you going to take that argument?

 

[Theroc]

Any time there is a die roll the low stat mechanic comes in just as much as the low physical stat.

Mechanically the low charisma character is at a penalty on diplomacy rolls compared to the high cha character.

Is a low charisma stat character trying to cheat by attempting to get people to love and like him by interacting with them and actually being loveable and likeable? Are low charisma characters unloveable and unlikeable?

Is he trying to be, or is the player ASSUMING he is successfully likeable and lovable? Charisma is your force of personality and ability to get people to do as you want/like you. If you have low charisma, you are simply NOT as naturally likeable as others.

Now, can the player try to win people over regardless? Yes. But he shouldn't automatically be able to easily make friends with everyone.

 

[Ariosto]

"Ranks in engineering" are a game currency, as are points in intelligence and wisdom if you're using a points system. If you let "character smarts" alone solve problems in place of player intelligence, then I agree that symmetry calls for having them remain in place even when less effective.

Personally, reducing the Tomb of Horrors or Ghost Tower of Inverness to a series of dice rolls just would not work for me. I also have very little patience for the absurdity of being required to make bad moves because "a character wouldn't even know what Monster X is", even though the players have met it many times. Finally, I get a kick out of the occasional joke that "breaks the fourth wall".

I don't expect D&D to be the end-all of RPGs. Many concerns of "D&D, but better!" designs are either irrelevant, or directly opposed, to what makes the old game -- on its own quirky terms -- great to me. T&T and Palladium still seem to attract players with similar interests.

 

[Ariosto]

A note from Men & Magic: "Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken."

Also, "Wisdom rating will act much as does that for intelligence."

I have chiefly encountered such use in old D&D in the form of "saving throws".

 

[delericho]

If I dump stat charisma and say I'm Cyrano de Bergerhalforc, A master warrior who is really a strong personality and talker but horribly ugly is that fine?

It would depend, to an extent, on just how low Cha was. ( see below). In that case, I would also expect to see the player assigning skill ranks in Diplomacy, reflecting his efforts to overcome his innate disadvantages - this would seem to fit the concept.

I'm working within the definitions of charisma (personality and appearance which can diverge) but getting around the general roleplay limitation and able to swing my forceful personality in roleplay consonant with the character concept.

Given the role of Charisma in sorcery, I would argue that the role of appearance in the stat must be fairly small. I would have a hard time seeing a super-hawt but totally vapid airhead commanding the forces of the universe by sheer force of her looks alone.

Consequently, I can see a Cha of 8 being justified by "he's really ugly", but once you start going below that I would usually expect to see there being more justification than that alone.

(Incidentally, IMC I divorce appearance from Charisma entirely. However, that's not RAW.)

 

[Voadam]

I can't help but notice the double standard going on here.

Suppose I introduced an NPC and played him as very likeable, attractive, congenial, persuasive, and even magnetic (and a couple of times I've even been told by players I successful pulled that off, which was very flattering considering how unlike myself it is). Then suppose latter you discovered that said NPC had a 4 CHR. You'd almost certainly think to yourself, "What the heck?!?!? Why did the DM stat out a character as having 4 CHR, if he was going to play it as a character with above average charisma? The DM's actions taken together make no sense. He has every right to introduce a high charisma NPC and stat it out, but if he was going to do so, why didn't he just give the NPC a high charisma?" Likewise, if I introduced a character who I played as a cunning mastermind always one step ahead of the players, you'd probably find it ludicrous that I gave the character a 5 INT. How I had played the character did not reflect the stats of the character and did not signal to you anything about the mechanics of that character. I ignored the character's attributes.


In short, I suspect alot of you are demanding that the DM be constrained by RP demands in ways that you are claiming the PC never should be.

As a player I have never known and never cared what the charisma or int stat was on an NPC. I roleplay against the portrayal of the NPC not their stat.

If you ignore the NPCs mental stat attributes in roleplaying them the question arises, so? How does that detriment the game at all? You listed an arbitrary stat number you didn't need to.

Whether the actual roleplay interaction is fun is important, not whether there is a roleplay representation of stats on a sheet.

I don't see a great demand to constrain DM portrayals of NPC intelligence wisdom or charisma.

 

[Andor]

I don't see a great demand to constrain DM portrayals of NPC intelligence wisdom or charisma.

Really? You've never heard players complain when a tactically minded GM has stupid monsters use excellent tactics? Because I sure have.

 

[Celebrim]

If you ignore the NPCs mental stat attributes in roleplaying them the question arises, so? How does that detriment the game at all? You listed an arbitrary stat number you didn't need to.

It's amazing how easy it is to misunderstand me when you don't read what I said or you carefully excise the answers to your questions from the part of the text you quote.

Indeed, "So.", as I said, this would cause nothing more than raised eyebrows, but I then went on to explain how the general case of not roleplaying an NPC's stats turned into a specific case that would irritate many players.

I don't see a great demand to constrain DM portrayals of NPC intelligence wisdom or charisma.

So you've never had a player offended that oozes, animals, vermin and zombies recognized technology, evaded ambushes, detected traps, set ambushes, used highly coordinated group tactics (other than swarming), and set the terrain to evade missile weapons? You as a player would think that was good DMing and good roleplaying on the part of the DM? And as a DM, you don't think that by making a gelatinous cube or a zombie act with all the diabolical cleverness of a supergenious, that you might in fact be harming the characterization of your mastermind BBEG? Forget D&D for a second, is it good characterization to have the Killer Croc, Blob or Sabertooth act with all the intelligence and cunning Lex Luther, Magneto, Brainiac or Ra's al Ghul?

 

[pawsplay]

There is very little about raw Int, Wis, and Cha that would suggest a character has to be "dumb." Animals should act like animals and half-orc brutes like half-orc brutes, but let's face it, there's an 18 Int elf wizard flavor of dumb, too. I would probably not tell a player they weren't playing "dumb enough" because I don't think there's enough justification for that. Even an Int 5, Wis 5, Cha 5 character could be perfectly capable of having a conversation or even raising a family, they just have no Knowledge to speak of, tend to reliably fail Sense Motive checks, are not capable of most skilled professions without very focused training, and generally are unable to influence the behavior of others. They are just clueless. However, with whatever information about the world they have, they can be as reasonable as anyone, and it's up to the player to infuse a character with free will and rationality.