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

[Celebrim]

If a fighter or wizard dump stats charisma though and avoids most of the drawbacks, this is cheating?

It depends on what you mean by that. If I dump stat Charisma, I can 'avoid' most or even all of the drawbacks by simply not interacting with NPC's and resolving the challenges I'm faced with by some other means - brute force or magic or stealth or whatever. Is that cheating? Of course not.

But, if I dump stat Charisma and then interact with NPC's with the expectation that my personal charisma as a player exempted me from the penalties of reduced Charisma (as it generally would in a system without a lot of social rules), then its a much grayer area.

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?

 

[Celebrim]

I n my ideal game, the player puts himself in the mindset of the character and acts as him to the best of their ability. Physical stats and dice are used to represent their interaction with the world. I just don't like when someone wants to play a wise character but to do so they'll have to give up a bunch of combat effectiveness for a few skill bumps and the right to roleplay as wise.

Which is fine, except that:

1) Being 'wise' usually carries extensive mechanical benefits

And

2) No one then could play a character who was wiser and more perceptive than themselves.

 

[Theroc]

A wizard can dump stat str, and this is fine. He can avoid the drawback in play and this is fine.

False. The Wizard STILL cannot effectively wield a sword, or successfully break objects without the aid of his magic(which is substituting his forte with his weakpoint, not directly avoiding it.).

A melee fighter in heavy armor can dump stat dex fine and avoid most of the drawbacks. And this is fine.

Again, no.

Mechanically the melee fighter still suffers from low initiative, poor ranged ability(if they are fighting an aerial foe, he still needs a method to contribute, whether he focuses on it or not, generally.), and a low touch AC. How precisely does this "avoid most of the drawbacks"?

If a fighter or wizard dump stats charisma though and avoids most of the drawbacks, this is cheating?

That depends how they are doing it? Are they avoiding interaction with NPC's and avoiding attempting to use animal handling and avoiding casting sorcerer spells and avoiding turning attempts? If so, then no, it is not cheating.

If they are interacting with NPC's and expecting to be loved and well-liked and become angry when the DM determines that this is not the case(usually by means of a die roll), then they are attempting to cheat.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think RP disadvantages (personal fears, acting dumb, et cetera) should exist in a mechanical form at all.

Which is fine, but it strays close to saying systems like GURPS or CoC are badwrongfun. Let's however say that they are bad design, despite the wide acclaim that such systems have recieved for their design.

Saying that RP disadvantages like 'dumb' shouldn't exist in a mechanical form at all is pretty much the same as saying that RP advantages (courage, alertness, vast knowledge) shouldn't exist in a mechanical form at all. Now, there are some arguments in favor of that view, and if you follow that view I suggest playing oD&D or similar systems without a skill subsystem however there are also problems with that view, the most famous of which being that you are now unable to play anyone smarter, wiser, and more intelligent than you are.

Playing up a personality quirk is its own reward, and if you don't enjoy it...

You shouldn't take it.

the rules should not push you to do it by dangling the carrot of greater mechanical effectiveness. Balance mechanics against other mechanics, not against RP.

I don't think the line between mechanics and RP is so clearly drawn in the case of social skills. I think we can only draw the line clearly by not RPing at all and leaving everything up to mechanics. If a character says, "I attempt to persuade Queen Arlimneus to loan us her personal gaurd for the defense of the bridge.", then that clearly draws the lines between mechanics and roleplay, but it does so at the expense of all role-play. If the character actually says in character to Queen Arlimneus what his character says in an attempt to persuade the Queen, then the line becomes blurry because we can't easily ignore that the character called the queen a strumpet when we are attempting to adjudicate how the queen responds to the character.

In most RPGs character grows and changes all the time, both by acquiring new experiences and by acquiring new skills, feats, and abilities. If playing out a limitation is so rewarding, why is the focus of your argument how easily you ought to be able to escape them? A character can grow and change in lots of ways that don't have to do with suddenly becoming smarter, and that is to be expected, since in the real world most people above a certain age (let's just randomly pick a number, like, I don't know... 5) don't appreciably seem to get any smarter no matter how much they change.

 

[Voadam]

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? 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.

 

[delericho]

Accordingly with what?

Accordingly with the stats that he has chosen for his character - if the character has a low Int, he should be played accordingly. (And the same for low Wis and low Cha)

The more time you spend thinking, "My Intelligence is too low for me to do this, my alignment is too Lawful for me to do that," the more your character comes to be defined by those stats, at the cost of more interesting traits and quirks.

Your 'character' and the game elements that make him up are intertwined. If you wanted to roleplay your character as always towering over everyone, why did you choose to play a halfling? If you wanted your character to be a master of the eldritch arts, why did you choose to play a fighter? If you wanted your character to be a happy-go-lucky rebel, why did you give him a lawful alignment? If you wanted your character to be super-intelligent, why did you give him an intelligence of 6?

The game provides a mechanism for defining characters who are both super-smart and dumb as a box of rocks. IMO, the player should stat his character to match his concept as best he can, and then play him accordingly. Concept -> stats -> roleplay.

 

[Nai_Calus]

Depending on the degree of dumpstatting, though, massive 'you are shunnnnned' reactions from the DM are a dick move, though.

8 CHA, meh, you've got a slightly dull personality, or you're a little odd, or whatever. 10 is your average person that we all get along with and even like on a daily basis, after all. 8 really isn't that far from it, just one modifier down in D&D. Would you argue that a 12 CHA character is massively more dazzling than one with 10 CHA and should be rewarded for it with love and attention at every turn?

Now, go down to 6 CHA, and *then* you have the point of real social problems and nobody liking you. Same with 14 CHA, at that point it's starting to become a significant factor.

8 INT is a little slow, not complete mental deficiency. 8 WIS is slightly scatterbrained, not completely out to lunch.

I find that for the mental stats in D&D people tend to place far too much emphasis on that -1 modifier, and then not care about the difference between 10 and 12 at all. I've seen people not care about the difference between 10 and 14, for that matter. But dip below that sacred average, and suddenly you're a complete idiot/out of it completely/a social retard. What.

I wonder how opinion would differ with regards to D&D and mental stats if the modifiers ran from 0 on upwards, with 0-1 being 0, 2-3 being 1 and so on.

 

[Celebrim]

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's certainly more to the point. I'm fine giving the player wide latitude to interpret what and how a particular disadvantage (or advantage) impacts his RP. In this case, I'd probably handle the situation by having NPCs to react negatively at first to the character, but allowing him to win over the NPCs (or at least the better sort of them) by force of his personality and charm (and perform and diplomacy skill).

It's worth noting that the original Cyrano character manifests his low charisma in another fashion as well - by being very self-conscious of his appearance and by having chronic low self-esteem with regards to everything associated with personal appearance. The original character is therefore complex and believable. I would consider a Cyrano like character to be a well played realization of a character with low charisma (or some social drawback) but exceptional intelligence (and suitable skills).

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.

Sure, but you would also - if you are playing the character well - be willing to both signal your low charisma in play by various acts on your part, and willing to accept me as DM roleplaying most NPCs you meet as having various negative reactions to you initially - some of which might make life interesting and uncomfortable.

And we could equally do the other way around, with you claiming your charisma indicated a high degree of physical attractiveness, but loathsome personal habits, extremely introverted, a vapid personality, and/or just being really annoying to talk with. In which case, your roleplay and my responce to it would be different, but accomplish the goal of signaling your characters low charisma and occasionally making your life difficult because of it.

 

[Akaiku]

As an aside, 4th ed's standard rules helps mitigate this quite a bit, as there is only ONE dump stat at best and it's only 8.

Another thing I see glossed over often enough is the views of an int 24+ person to a normal person. As the high int person is actually a fair deal more smart from a normal person then a normal person is from a turtle.

 

[Voadam]

That depends how they are doing it? Are they avoiding interaction with NPC's and avoiding attempting to use animal handling and avoiding casting sorcerer spells and avoiding turning attempts? If so, then no, it is not cheating.

If they are interacting with NPC's and expecting to be loved and well-liked and become angry when the DM determines that this is not the case(usually by means of a die roll), then they are attempting to cheat.

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?