LordEntrails
Hero
So, if I can't role play a stupid character, can I play a smart one?
How’s it go? Play stupid characters, win stupid prizes?So, if I can't role play a stupid character, can I play a smart one?
I agree!Fair enough.
That's certainly a valid way to play. I can and do enjoy games which function that way. I'd even go so far as to say that style is at the heart of how D&D is designed.
Different style than skilled play, you mean? Eh, I think D&D is flexible enough to work for other styles of play. And while some other games may be better for more specific styles, there’s a tradeoff there in terms of familiarity and reach, so I don’t like to judge people for choosing to play D&D over a more bespoke system.Personally, when I want something with a different style, my first choice would likely be a different rpg.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “elements which have little tangible meaning.”Elsewhere I had mentioned what I see as a clash between the game people say they want and the actual game they want. That clash is, I think, present in D&D. Simultaneously, there seems to be a push for game elements which have little tangible meaning and a push to recognize real-world meaning within game elements.
Yeah, I think we’re largely in agreement, despite arriving there from opposite directions.I am a bit opposite but get to the same place.
I see them as so broad and multidimensional that, like alignment, you can justifiably take multiple contradictory approaches to roleplaying them, and that focusing on the direct mechanical game impacts is my preferred way to do so while letting players define themselves as they see fit.
"Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.
INTELLIGENCE CHECKS
An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning. The Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, and Religion skills reflect aptitude in certain kinds of Intelligence checks."
So narratively a high int is completely consistent with a poor ability to reason if the accuracy of recall is great.
So a high int wizard is really good at the technical aspects of wizard spell casting and a good base for knowledge skill checks even before proficiency, but I will require the player to make any non-abstracted logical deductions, or fail to do so, on their own.
- abstract game stats that represent no more and no less than the character’s aptitude at the specific tasks they contribute to
You can do whatever you want. Some people might not want to play with you if they feel the way you roleplay your characters is distasteful.So, if I can't role play a stupid character, can I play a smart one?
Not one person here - not one, has defended portraying someone who is "stupid" for comedic reasons. That is a made-up argument.Seems to me that people are using a poorly written OP, an absence of a good definition of "stupid", an OP who won't engage, and various other distractions to avoid having to admit that there's absolutely nothing positive to be said about imitating people with disabilities as a means of comic.
Not really. That's the basic message of the OP. It's not a made-up argument, it's the core of the discussion. All this other pontificating is just so much hot air.Not one person here - not one, has defended portraying someone who is "stupid" for comedic reasons. That is a made-up argument.
I agree!
Different style than skilled play, you mean? Eh, I think D&D is flexible enough to work for other styles of play. And while some other games may be better for more specific styles, there’s a tradeoff there in terms of familiarity and reach, so I don’t like to judge people for choosing to play D&D over a more bespoke system.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “elements which have little tangible meaning.”
Please! Mind the Grandmother rule!Sexiest ooze ever?
Is there something especially convincing about the bubbling sounds coming from that pudding?
Hmmm "This is the whole “if you let a Nazi stay in your bar, it will become a Nazi bar” phenomenon.."Just had to help a friend deal with that recently. First time in over 10 years he’s had to deal with it. The comments that preceded him asking for backup were directly relevant to this thread.
Yeah, we've been imagining all the "B-but it's not real! That makes saying, doing and acting out terrible things A-OK!" arguments in defense of such characters.Not one person here - not one, has defended portraying someone who is "stupid" for comedic reasons. That is a made-up argument.
29 pages now of avoiding the issue in order to discuss the definition of "don't be a douche".
That dynamic works fine in person, IME. But online people don't have to look you in the eye.The trouble with Wheaton's Law is that everyone agrees it should apply to other people.
The trouble with Wheaton's Law is that everyone agrees it should apply to other people.
Please! Mind the Grandmother rule!
More likely IME the dumb (unwise) PC would just pull the lever without saying a word other than, shortly afterward, "oops".Right. But the character is probably being played by someone with relatively average IQ who is deliberately acting dumb and isn't differentiating between low Int and low Wis.
Example:
Dumb PC: Huh, I wonder what this lever does. <reaches out to touch the lever>
Other PCs: Don't touch it! If you pull the lever, the sign says it'll summon demons.
Dumb PC #1: Whoops, better not touch it. <this player is playing a not-smart, illiterate character, but isn't being a jerk about it.>
Dumb PC #2: Dur-hurh, I'm so dumb, I'll pull it anyway. <this character is being a jerk about it, by doing the dumb thing deliberately>
CN Int 10 might not do disruptive things but CN Wis 7 sure will, now and then.Now, in this case, Dumb PC #2 isn't necessarily making fun of real people who aren't "smart," but they are being disruptive. Even my chaotic neutral, 10 Int character doesn't deliberately do things just to be disruptive. (I swear, she didn't mean to start a riot; it just happened!)
That "trusted" person would be the CN higher-Wisdom character, who has already found the safest place in the room from which to watch the outfall of pulling the lever.Now, if they had a good, in-character reason to pull the lever (someone they trusted told them to or said that it summoned candy, etc.) that'd be one thing.
For me it depends on the actions and the bothering. Outright traumatizing someone, no. Mocking a real-world difference, no (unless I know the person is more than capable of giving it right back, in which case all's fair).Right, and mine too (that rogue is based on my own character, although nobody has called her a numbskull; I did get a stern in-character lecture from the cleric though).
I'm not quite seeing that undercurrent, though. What I'm seeing is, especially from folks like Charlaquin, is that if your actions are actually bothering someone else, don't do those actions.
Depending on the situation, there's times where the choice of what I do in-character is made based on what's (potentially) funnier; but our games sometimes tend toward the slapstick anyway so it usually fits in fine.For me, I asked the DM to tell me if my character was ever getting disruptive, and he swears my character is doing just fine. But I have actual, legitimate in-game reasons for any in-game actions, and I often explain those reasons out of character. I don't do things just because it's funny.