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

[Dausuul]

Then the question again must be asked: why do you roll stats, when you want to play a freeform RP?

Because I don't want to play a freeform RP. I want my stats to determine "What happens when I try to do this?" What I don't want is for them to determine, "What do I try to do?"

I disagree with your statement that the character is defined by the stats. You're looking at it in the opposite direction. The stats are defined by the character. You're seeing "Well, the barbarian has low int, so he has to act stupid. I hate that." I see "Well, the barbarian should act stupid, so I'm going to give him low int."

The fallacy here is the idea that you define a character's personality completely at the start of the game and it never evolves or gains depth. In my experience, and that of most players I've talked to about it, characters start out as rough sketches; it takes a few sessions to really develop a persona and get into the character.

So I'm making a barbarian, and the concept I come up for him is "Big brute who's always in trouble because he does stupid things." Okay, great. I give him an 8 Intelligence. Ready to play!

But then I play him for a while, and I start to think he's got some hidden depths. He's not truly stupid, he's just been brought up to believe that careful thinking and reasoning are unmanly, the sort of thing effete wizards in towers do. A real man acts instead of standing around wringing his hands, that's what his dad always said.

So he blunders through life, not thinking things through, not using the brains he's got, and everyone thinks he's a just big oaf. Even I, his player, thought he was a big oaf until I got a better feel for him.

Then he gets into a situation where his back is up against the wall, his friends can't help him, and the fate of thousands depends on his solving a complex puzzle... and he realizes, Hey, I can do this. He puts his mind to work for what might be the first time ever, and solves the problem.

This could be the start of a sea change for the character. He might start showing a newfound respect for the party wizard whom he previously disdained. Maybe he even asks the wizard for lessons and starts trying to fill in the enormous gaps in his education. There are all sorts of places it could go.

But at this point, the Voice of the Stats says, "Uh, dude, you've got an 8 Intelligence. You can't possibly figure out something like this. If you're going to play fair, you have to stand there like the big oaf you are and stay in character!"

So he stands there like a big oaf and that's that. End of story.

Your statistics mean more when the players have to play them. Otherwise, they're just there for your Final Fantasy battle sequences.

Setting aside the dismissive tone, that's exactly what they are there for. The whole point of having rules for D&D in the first place is to help the DM decide how the world reacts to the PCs' actions; it's not to dictate those actions (except in the case of mind control spells and the like).

Or to go the other route - if a character is allowed to play the role of someone with high or low physical stats, why would you restrict them from playing the role of someone with high or low mental stats?

I absolutely wouldn't! That's the point. If I'm supposed to roleplay my stats, then how in hell am I supposed to play a guy with Intelligence 24? I'm not that smart. Nobody in my gaming group is that smart. It's entirely possible nobody in the world is that smart. Therefore, no character should be allowed to have an Int that high and anyone playing such a character is guilty of bad roleplaying, because they aren't coming up with the brilliant strategems and solutions their Intelligence says they should.

I'd rather throw the whole thing out the window. Let the number in the Int box stick to making knowledge checks. Let me decide what my character does.

 

[Celebrim]

Physical stats don't have as direct of a bearing on how a person behaves as mental and social stats do, but they can still inform RP.

Just as with mental stats, there are all sorts of different ways to interpret the stat in your RP:

High Strength: A character with a high strength might suggest that any of the following are part of their personality:

1) Exagerated gentleness for fear of breaking things.
2) A tendency to bully weaker beings, or be condescending.
3) A tendency to be brash and overconfident.
4) The character always put themselves forward in a very showy manner whenever any feats of strength are called for.

Low Strength:

1) The character has self-esteem issues about his physique.
2) The character tends to shirk or hide whenever a feat of phsyical strength is called for.

High Dexterity:

1) The character loves to move, and is always figgety and restless.
2) The character occasionally breaks out into spontaneous dance, tumbling, knife-play, or juggling just for the fun of it or to show off.
3) The character dresses in clothes that enhance or show off their gracefulness - swirling cloaks, tight fitting clothing, tall hats, etc. - or carries props to do the same (canes, juggling balls, etc.)
4) The character has a tendency to talk with their hands and with broad expressive gestures.

Low Dexterity:

1) The character hates to move or touch things, for fear of breaking them.
2) The character bemoans how they are jinxed or cursed.
3) The character refuses to dance or do anything else in public which might call attention to their lack of dexterity. In extreme, the character avoids eating and drinking in public and feigns a lack of hunger if this is called out.
4) The character tends to apologizes alot, even when they have done nothing to apologize for.

High Constitution:

1) The character has little regard for personal safety or comfort, and tends to look down on people that do as 'soft'.
2) The character has little regard for personal hygeine.
3) The character is alway energetic and gets impatient at every rest.

Low Constitution:

1) The character has nagging coughs or minor physical ailments that continually manifest themselves.
2) The character has an exagerated desire for comfort and to avoid uncomfortable situations.
3) The character tends to get sick, dizzy, or faint when viewing horrific scenes.
4) The character tends to be a bit lazy or feels the need to rest more frequently to 'catch his breath' (even before game penalties set in).
5) The character is a neat freak and has an exgeratted need for personal cleanliness.

None of those are really required and there are probably lots of other ways of refering to your characters physical attributes with your role play, but any of those would impress me as being someone who is really into their character and thinking about it.

 

[Voadam]

Are you serious? There are many ways to play relatively low mental stats. I have plenty of choice in how I do it, just like I have plenty of choice in how to play high stats as well.

Sure.

I'm really bad with skills, but great with tactics and chess puzzles. (Low int)

I'm great with tactics but horrible at puzzles (Low Int or high int)

I'm really a master at wizard spells, but I can't for the life of me remember what the chess pieces do (high int).

I'm really poor at noticing things, but I'm rarely foolish (Low wis)

I have a strong will but I'm often foolish (Low wis or high wis)

I'm foolish but I'm really a wiz at casting cleric spells (High wis).

I'm strikingly attractive but not a strong personality (High or low cha)

I'm very unattractive but a striking personality (High or low Cha).

I see the stats as written as broad enough to encompass most anything you want to roleplay and have it be supported. I see the mechanical limits alone as sufficient representation of the mechanical stats.

 

[Dausuul]

Physical stats don't have as direct of a bearing on how a person behaves as mental and social stats do, but they can still inform RP.

Just as with mental stats, there are all sorts of different ways to interpret the stat in your RP:

High Strength: A character with a high strength might suggest that any of the following are part of their personality:

1) Exagerated gentleness for fear of breaking things.
2) A tendency to bully weaker beings, or be condescending.
3) A tendency to be brash and overconfident.
4) The character always put themselves forward in a very showy manner whenever any feats of strength are called for.

Low Strength:

1) The character has self-esteem issues about his physique.
2) The character tends to shirk or hide whenever a feat of phsyical strength is called for.

So, if I play a character with low Strength, who doesn't have self-esteem issues, and doesn't shirk or hide when feats of physical strength are called for (he gives it the old college try even though he inevitably fails), are you going to call me out for bad roleplaying?

Stats suggest all sorts of things. If your character has Int 8, you should absolutely consider the effect that failing all those knowledge checks is going to have on his personality. What I object to is being called a cheater (as several people in this thread have said) if I play the guy smarter than the DM thinks he should be played... especially since the rules have very few guidelines on just how smart or dumb that is.

 

[Thasmodious]

If you were playing in a game that had explicit advantages and disadvantages, and you took a major disadvantage, but then regularly intentionally ignored its existence, I think the GM would have grounds to be offended. You broke an agreement.

A particularly low stat is a disadvantage. If it was not worth the trouble for you, you should not have taken it. As a GM, I don't force a player to take a particular set of stats.

I've agreed with Umbran throughout as I've read this thread, and this is exactly it for me. The player designs the character and has a responsibility to play the character he designed. A low stat carries a number of disadvantages and for mental stats, many of those are the similar to RP based disadvantages and they should certainly be played. One of the big reasons I dislike adv/disadv systems is just that min/max attitude that tends to come in to play far too often - well, I know the DM doesn't use knowledge rolls much, so I'll take the uneducated flaw, it won't come up much, now to pick my free feats!

In my games, they do come up, so do bad stats. There are mechanics tied to those stats, and they should certainly be enforced, but there are also advantages and disadvantages in the RP arena tied to those stats. In modern D&D, of course, RP is often backed by skill rolls anyway, which makes it considerably easier for any PC to play his stats. The player of Barf the Unsightly may try to sweet talk the barmaid, but his 6 cha and no diplomacy skill is going to get in his way.

I am a big fan of "the DMs friend" the circumstance bonus and use it frequently. That is where I find reward or penalty for player skill. A player doesn't have to display to the table the exact words and manner in which his smooth talking bard presents the parties proposal to the Duke, that's what his diplomacy is for. But circumstance modifiers come into play based on what line he takes and the manner he describes going about it.

 

[Celebrim]

So I'm making a barbarian, and the concept I come up for him is "Big brute who's always in trouble because he does stupid things." Okay, great. I give him an 8 Intelligence. Ready to play!

But then I play him for a while, and I start to think he's got some hidden depths. He's not truly stupid, he's just been brought up to believe that careful thinking and reasoning are unmanly, the sort of thing effete wizards in towers do. A real man acts instead of standing around wringing his hands, that's what his dad always said.

So he blunders through life, not thinking things through, not using the brains he's got, and everyone thinks he's a just big oaf. Even I, his player, thought he was a big oaf until I got a better feel for him.

Then he gets into a situation where his back is up against the wall, his friends can't help him, and the fate of thousands depends on his solving a complex puzzle... and he realizes, Hey, I can do this. He puts his mind to work for what might be the first time ever, and solves the problem.

This could be the start of a sea change for the character. He might start showing a newfound respect for the party wizard whom he previously disdained. Maybe he even asks the wizard for lessons and starts trying to fill in the enormous gaps in his education. There are all sorts of places it could go.

Uh-uh, no way.

If you have a barbarian character with unexplored depths of cunning and intelligence but who generally acts like a big clueless oaf - I don't know, let's call him 'Conan' - but who is actually when he exerts himself considerably intelligent, then you have a character with 14 INT (or whatever) which you have hitherto been playing as a character that doesn't trust or have confidence (or hasn't need to use) his own intelligence. And that's a perfectly valid and actually really interesting character concept. But if you have a character with an 8 intelligence, he doesn't suddenly get a 14 intelligence just because you decide he does any more than a character with an 8 strength gets a 14 strength just because.

But at this point, the Voice of the Stats says, "Uh, dude, you've got an 8 Intelligence. You can't possibly figure out something like this. If you're going to play fair, you have to stand there like the big oaf you are and stay in character!"

Again, not at all. If you as the player figure something out, but your character is supposed to be stupid, you find a way to work it into the game.

PC #1: If only we knew where the Priestesses of Gelska hold their festival.
PC #2: Uh.. you mean the festival where they dance underneath the moon?
PC #1: Yes... how do you know that?
PC #2: Uh... well, they hold it in the ruined temple on the summit of Mt. ... Mt.. Esbebecar.
PC #1: Mt. Esbacar? That's incredible. How did you know that, Krank?
PC #2: Krank read it in a book.
PC #3: Krank read a book? Who knew?
PC #2: It had pictures of naked women in it.
PC #3: Ahh.. yes, that our Krank.
PC #1: What our we waiting for, let's get to Mt. Esbacar!

So he stands there like a big oaf and that's that. End of story.

Yes, but isn't it a good story?

I absolutely wouldn't! That's the point. If I'm supposed to roleplay my stats, then how in hell am I supposed to play a guy with Intelligence 24?

I'm not certain, because for most of my gaming career the idea of having a character with god-like intelligence would have been considerable laughable and immature. But generally speaking, I think the answer by being able to draw upon DM omniscience regularly, and having alot of leeway from the DM to engage in secondary creation.

 

[Voadam]

Sounds like that's the way it should be to me. If the role you want to play involves something not directly channeled into your class's main strengths, then of course there will be some trade-offs. That's a good thing. It keeps D&D from just being a numbers game for those of us who don't want it to just be a numbers game.

I don't see how it keeps the game from being just a numbers game. You want a powerful smart character? Play a wizard. Want to roleplay a powerful charismatic character? Play a sorcerer or paladin (or bard). Want to play wise but with power? Play a druid or cleric. Don't care about those roleplay aspects? Play anything else.

Want to be on an even power field with everybody else? Roleplay to your class' stats.

Have a charcter concept that is contrary to your class's mental stat archetype? Sacrifice number power to effectuate the concept.

This just drives the numbers game to support certain class archetypes.

 

[Mallus]

I'm really bad with skills, but great with tactics and chess puzzles. (Low int)

For my current 8 INT Dragonborn paladin it would be:

I have a large vocabulary, educated diction, the reasoning ability of a child, an inability to separate fact from fiction, Communist leanings and an unhealthy love of fireworks.

 

[Celebrim]

For my current 8 INT Dragonborn paladin it would be:

I have a large vocabulary, educated diction, the reasoning ability of a child, an inability to separate fact from fiction, Communist leanings and an unhealthy love of fireworks.

Heheheh.

Sounds cool.

 

[Dausuul]

Uh-uh, no way.

If you have a barbarian character with unexplored depths of cunning and intelligence but who generally acts like a big clueless oaf - I don't know, let's call him 'Conan' - but who is actually when he exerts himself considerably intelligent, then you have a character with 14 INT (or whatever) which you have hitherto been playing as a character that doesn't trust or have confidence (or hasn't need to use) his own intelligence. And that's a perfectly valid and actually really interesting character concept. But if you have a character with an 8 intelligence, he doesn't suddenly get a 14 intelligence just because you decide he does any more than a character with an 8 strength gets a 14 strength just because.

Of course he doesn't suddenly get a 14 Intelligence. He's still going to fail every knowledge check he makes. My point is, that should be the extent of the limitation. Character concepts seldom start out fully formed; they start as rough sketches that get filled in over time. The more you enforce roleplay "rules" based on stats, the less effort players put into filling in those sketches, because they're concentrating on not breaking the (nebulous, ill-defined, arbitrary) rules. A character with a low mental stat becomes a cartoon caricature, like Kronk in your example - a character who has clearly never developed or grown or changed, and never will.

There are mechanical rules for how Intelligence affects the game. There are not, and should not be, rules dictating what you can and cannot figure out. If I had a DM boot me out of a game for playing a character "too smart," I would demand the DM sit down and write me up an extensive guide for exactly how smart (or stupid) my character is allowed to be, because otherwise it's just an excuse for people to be the roleplaying police.

Yes, but isn't it a good story?

You think "This character is a big dumb oaf, always was, always will be, the end" is a good story?

I'm not certain, because for most of my gaming career the idea of having a character with god-like intelligence would have been considerable laughable and immature. But generally speaking, I think the answer by being able to draw upon DM omniscience regularly, and having alot of leeway from the DM to engage in secondary creation.

This points up the silliness of the whole thing. You think Int 24 is godlike. But it's a perfectly attainable stat in 3E or 4E - not even that hard at the higher levels - so is it "godlike?" Or is it "heroic," in the same way that PCs might have "heroic" strength beyond what any real-world person does? Or is it merely "maximum human intelligence?" You might think one thing, I might think another, and the rules offer little to no guidance.

But all right, let's go by pre-3E standards and change the number from 24 to 18. That's maximum human intelligence, the smartest guy who ever lived. How can you justify this guy not being able to solve every puzzle he's presented with, if it's solvable by human minds? Why can I as player not demand the answer to every riddle the DM throws at me?