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

[Ariosto]

So you've never ...

That's an unreasonable response to, "I don't see a great demand."

Oozes, animals, vermin and zombies are of non-human intelligence; qualitative difference being the significant factor. Blob and Sabertooth have different personalities than Magneto, or than each other for that matter.

Nor does it follow that NPCs and "monsters" are bound by the same rules as PCs. Indeed, that's one way in which 3e stands out as odd in the D&D context.

One can choose to treat D&D as a comprehensive and precise mathematical model, its accuracy taken a priori. Heck, one can make alignment dictate behavior as well.

I just don't see a big payoff in such a rigid view. When it's fun entertainment, play up the shticks; when they get in the way of fun game challenges, set them aside. "My character is stupid and foolish and obnoxious" ranks with "My character is Chaotic Neutral" as a "role-playing" excuse for being a rotten player by certain standards.

So, I'll go for the rule of "Use common sense and don't be a jerk." That's pretty loose-y goose-y and not Terribly Serious, which may be part of why I like it.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That's an unreasonable response to, "I don't see a great demand."

Oozes, animals, vermin and zombies are of non-human intelligence; qualitative difference being the significant factor. Blob and Sabertooth have different personalities than Magneto, or than each other for that matter.

Nor does it follow that NPCs and "monsters" are bound by the same rules as PCs. Indeed, that's one way in which 3e stands out as odd in the D&D context.

One can choose to treat D&D as a comprehensive and precise mathematical model, its accuracy taken a priori. Heck, one can make alignment dictate behavior as well.

I just don't see a big payoff in such a rigid view. When it's fun entertainment, play up the shticks; when they get in the way of fun game challenges, set them aside. "My character is stupid and foolish and obnoxious" ranks with "My character is Chaotic Neutral" as a "role-playing" excuse for being a rotten player by certain standards.

So, I'll go for the rule of "Use common sense and don't be a jerk." That's pretty loose-y goose-y and not Terribly Serious, which may be part of why I like it.

I think the big issue is in the extremes - when the barbarian takes the 5 int in order to pump up his other stats, but then acts like a world renown scholar who seems to know everything about every location and monster they see. Or they talk about how handsome and smooth talking their character with 5 charisma is. The character with 5 int solving the puzzle without missing a beat is just as irritating as a sickly wizard who always proclaims their amazing feats of strength.

 

[Voadam]

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.



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?

If I don't know who Killer Croc or Sabretooth is I have no basis to say whether they are cunning or simple. If a knock off of them is smart in a comic I am reading but according to your comic guide bible the archetype is dumb that is fine by me. I'm not reading your guide as the basis for judging the comic, I'm just reading the comic.

I would judge how well you were portraying a zombie or gelatinous cube by how they acted in a game and how it came across in the feel of the game. Not by judging how they match up to the MM stats. Super Zombies and Juiblex could be done fine. Screwing over the PCs can be done by the book and according to genre just as easily as going against the written stats. If you were being a jerk as a DM I wouldn't care if you were playing according to book stats or not.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Fine I'll address your specific example which immediately followed. I don't think it is a good analogy.

Now, in most cases that would just prompt raised eyebrows, but there are circumstances I could do that as DM where the player would have cause to accuse me of - if not cheating exactly - then at least not being a good DM. As DM I have a massive amount of knowledge about, well, everything, and particularly I have a tremendous insight into the tactics, abilities, and defences of the player's characters and into the actions and preparations undertaken by the character's. I'm effectively omniscient. Generally speaking however, it is the understanding of the character's that I won't use my out of game knowledge against them. That is to say, as DM I could play every creature - whether ooze, zombie, wolf, or orc soldier - as having perfect knowledge of the players feats, remaining hitpoints, armor class, combat abilities, magical buffs, and everything else, so that in every situation every monster finds itself in, I as DM always make the strongest and most cunning tactical plan I can thing of using all the knowledge in my possession. But of course, I don't do that, and if I did do that any group of player's I've ever encountered would not be amused at all (I know I wouldn't be). As a DM, I expected to play the character and keep my out of game knowledge from influencing how I play the NPC's as much as possible. If the PC's cast a fire resistance spell over the whole party before facing the red dragon, then I shouldn't have the dragon avoid using its breath weapon. If the PC's storm the castle through the sewers, the castle defenders shouldn't have anticipated this move and put all of their defenses there unless the defenders reasonably could have anticipated the move. And so forth.

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.

I would suggest this is akin to a Player reading the module to gain a tactical advantage over the foes and know where the hidden loot lies as well as secrets of the mystery they are investigating. Or a player who has gone through the module before and uses that knowledge in game.

It is not analogous to playing as though the mental stats are mechanics only and do not dictate roleplay.

I don't think players who want to be free to roleplay and interact how they determine best regardless of game stats is the same as using DM knowledge of player actions and tactics to frustrate those actions and tactics regardless of story consistency.

 

[Ariosto]

So, ProfessorCirno:

(A) Is this really a problem you experience?

(B) Do you just find characters with such inflated self-images annoying, or do you consider them so rare in the real world as to be utterly implausible among elves and wizards?

I can't recall ever encountering an example, but I think it would be comical -- probably in a "gallows humor" way, as such hubris very likely precedes a fatal fall. Why? Because the actual success or failure of such attempts need not be totally divorced from ability scores in order to give scope to player skill.

EDIT: The barbarian could well know a heap of stuff, from experience in the game-world.

All this of course comes in the context of my preferring old D&D to versions with the whole "build" sub-game slammed in -- and the old mix of challenges in scenarios.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think players who want to be free to roleplay and interact how they determine best regardless of game stats is the same as using DM knowledge of player actions and tactics to frustrate those actions and tactics regardless of story consistency.

So what you are saying is that you don't find any action that a player determines best, regardless of what it may be, to be inconsistant. That is to say, you don't think that a players freedom of action can be abused to harm the stories consistancy, but that you do think a DM's freedom of action can harm the stories consistancy?

Personally, I think we can use an even stronger word that consistancy here.

Do you think that a player's freedom to control there character can harm or enhance the quality of the story, or do you think that whatever the character chooses to do and whatever course of action that they choose to take, the story has the same quality? Or character's always equally believable? Equally novel? Equally well realized?

 

[The Shaman]

I think the big issue is in the extremes - when the barbarian takes the 5 int in order to pump up his other stats, but then acts like a world renown scholar who seems to know everything about every location and monster they see.

If you're playing 3e D&D or a similar system, that's going to be a function of skill points spent on Knowledge or Lore skills - the low INT score is reflected in the mechanics.

It's also a problem largely specific to published settings, but that's a tangent.

Or they talk about how handsome and smooth talking their character with 5 charisma is.

It doesn't matter what a smooth talker the player is if the reaction roll adjustment results in hostility or indifference.

The character with 5 int solving the puzzle without missing a beat is just as irritating as a sickly wizard who always proclaims their amazing feats of strength.

The sickly wizard will requires some great rolls to be able to perform amazing feats of strength.

And I can live with an INT 5 character solving a puzzle once in awhile, particularly if that character has been adventuring for years. In fact, a high-level INT 5 character who can't solve a puzzle strains my credulity even more.

 

[The Shaman]

Just a quick thank you to everyone for keeping a base level of civility in their posts. Keep on truckin'!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

So, ProfessorCirno:

(A) Is this really a problem you experience?

Yes. When a characters acts in direct inconsistance with their stats? Absolutely.

(B) Do you just find characters with such inflated self-images annoying, or do you consider them so rare in the real world as to be utterly implausible among elves and wizards?[/quote]

The problem isn't having an inflated self-image, but when the player expects you to believe and reinforce the character. If you make a barbarian with 5 charisma then act like you're incredibly attractive and charismatic, that's fine. It's when you demand the rest of the game follow along, that's where the problem - and this thread - comes from.

EDIT: The barbarian could well know a heap of stuff, from experience in the game-world.

As long as those experiences mesh, that's fine. When the barbarian knows what different monsters are when he's never seen them in game before that there's an issue.

Or, to put it another way: It's when players want to use their character stats whenever it's beneficial, and their their real world knowledge when beneficial, but never either when it would not be beneficial.

All this of course comes in the context of my preferring old D&D to versions with the whole "build" sub-game slammed in -- and the old mix of challenges in scenarios.

It's not really about "build." Are you telling me that a wizard with low con never happened in early games?

Let me put it another way: If someone made a wizard with 5 constitution, would you be fine if he walked around and never acted weak or sickly in any way?

 

[Ariosto]

Let me put it another way: If someone made a wizard with 5 constitution, would you be fine if he walked around and never acted weak or sickly in any way?

Hell, yeah! I don't show up on D&D night to listen to someone going on about that -- unless it's about his real-life heart attack and bypass surgery.

If the wizard comes down with dysentery or something as part of playing the game, then that's how it goes; ditto if he doesn't. If he fails a shock or resurrection check, or gets quickly worn out from some exertion, then that's fine. But if it's got sweet nothing to do with play, then gratuitous bellyaching is not something I'm gonna miss.