D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[Argyle King]

I see from some people is this idea that 'intelligence' is this objective thing and innate to our being rather than a product of traits and behaviours we've learned throughout our lives and what we consider 'intelligence' is a product of our culture and what it values.

Instead of playing a "dolt" play a character who doesn't care about learning facts and doesn't have patience for thinking through problems. Or whatever. Give the character some traits and behaviours. Don't just say 'well this character is stupid, I need to come up with stupid things for them to do and since it is innate to their being there is no growth or learning to be had'.

Another thing is to not just make the character 'stupid' in all aspects. People can be below average at some cognitive tasks while being average, good, or great at others. Let the character have strokes of genius particularly when something interests them.

Intelligence is not a monolith, even though our characters have a score for it. D&D has trained us to see characters, and by extension real people, this way. That's not how it works for real life people.

Here is an anecdote - My mother was terrible at math throughout high school. To the point where she had borderline failing marks in each course. When she went to nursing school she was among the best in the class for all of the math related tasks because it was something she was interested in and could visualize it better when she was actually doing something with it.


The thing is, the below average Int score does not actually do what many people envision it does. People greatly exaggerate it and then say 'well my character has to be that way because ability score'.

It means the character has a slightly worse ability to memorize and recall facts and a slightly lower cognitive resilience.

Even if it did all the things people attribute to it, it would make for unrealistic 2 dimensional characters made up of harmful stereotypes.

Thankfully it doesn't but it really needs to be renamed. If we're renaming races let's rename these ability scores.

I agree with many things here.

My own personal tastes for gaming prefer more granularity and more nuanced character design.

I'm of the impression that the D&D audience tends to prefer more abstraction: alignment, HP, weapons & armor categories; etc.

I think for some people, that abstraction also applies to characters -in a way which isn't entirely unlike Four Color Supers. That is to say that character traits (whether good or bad) do tend to be exaggerated.

None of that is in any way meant to suggest a defense for reprehensible behavior. It's simply an anecdotal observation.

My perception is that there's a clash between the game many people say they want designed versus the game desired to be played.

At any rate, if it ends up being a group issue about expectations or a group issue about acceptable behavior among a group, I would suggest having a discussion which establishes shared expectations and some framework of a social contact.

If we're talking about redesigning the game's ability scores, I posit that Charisma shouldn't be an ability score at all; we should also divorce initiative from Dex.

 

[Faolyn]

I agree. But it should be pointed out that in all my years of playing D&D, I have never seen your latter example. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I have a pretty broad base with different places and types of players. Maybe I am just lucky.

But in the end, we agree.

I haven't played with people deliberately playing stupid people to make fun of them. I did know people (men) back in college who would play female characters just to deliberately play them as blatant and ridiculous stereotypes of what women are "supposed" to be like. Since I am a woman, they would sometimes reign it in around me, if I happened to be nearby or in a game with them, but I was aware of it.

 

[Umbran]

I imagine that if that is your experience with friends, then you need new friends.

It isn't about my personal experience with friends. This was an description of how behavior patterns and beliefs become normal, accepted behavior - by them occurring in peer groups, and nobody stops it and says, "Hey, that's not okay."

But again, your definition of sleazy and misogynistic need to be concrete

No, they don't. As soon as you make these concrete, folks learn those concrete definitions, and simply work around them, and find loopholes, but get the same results. If Mom tells you not to poke your sister, then you instead pinch her, and say, "But I didn't poke her!" And them Mom says you can't pinch her, so instead you throw spitballs. The ways you can show disdain for another person are nigh infinite.

This is why, by the way, the rules of EN World are flexible, not set and concrete - because human interaction is not made of fixed, concrete patterns. Human interpretation and understanding of meaning gets better results than concrete rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is why, by the way, the rules of EN World are flexible, not set and concrete - because human interaction is not made of fixed, concrete patterns. Human interpretation and understanding of meaning gets better results than concrete rules.

...and the voices of 10 million rules lawyers cried out in unison and terror ... NOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Scott Christian]

I see from some people is this idea that 'intelligence' is this objective thing and innate to our being rather than a product of traits and behaviours we've learned throughout our lives and what we consider 'intelligence' is a product of our culture and what it values.

Instead of playing a "dolt" play a character who doesn't care about learning facts and doesn't have patience for thinking through problems. Or whatever. Give the character some traits and behaviours. Don't just say 'well this character is stupid, I need to come up with stupid things for them to do and since it is innate to their being there is no growth or learning to be had'.

I hate to be that person... but no. Some NPCs might be doltish. They can't figure things out, and thus their actions represent that. The ol' - show don't tell. This is not about naivete, which is often the ignorance of a societal or cultural value. It is about not being able to figure out things. Kevin from The Office is an example. Did he have other traits? Sure. But his primary trait was being doltish.

Another thing is to not just make the character 'stupid' in all aspects. People can be below average at some cognitive tasks while being average, good, or great at others. Let the character have strokes of genius particularly when something interests them.

(Bold) Absolutely. And sometimes, no.

All NPCs can't be round or dynamic characters. And some might not ever have a genius moment. There is only so much time at the table, and to place real life constraints of character creation, as if we are psych study is unrealistic.

And, of course, people can have strengths and weaknesses, including people with cognitive difficulties. Even IQ tests denote this fact, by use of spatial, logical, language, etc. No one is debating that.

Intelligence is not a monolith, even though our characters have a score for it. D&D has trained us to see characters, and by extension real people, this way. That's not how it works for real life people.

And, as many have noted, the table is not real life - not in characterization nor in time. And time is the key here.

Here is an anecdote - My mother was terrible at math throughout high school. To the point where she had borderline failing marks in each course. When she went to nursing school she was among the best in the class for all of the math related tasks because it was something she was interested in and could visualize it better when she was actually doing something with it.

There are many reasons your mom might have excelled later in life: she didn't apply herself when she was in high school because she didn't like it. Interest is directly correlated to application. Or maybe she reached an age where the lightbulb went off. That happens quite a bit. Or maybe the math done in nursing was better suited to her skills, as opposed to a geometry course. Maybe ratios and converting fractions to percentages and straight calculations were her strength, and those skills were not as needed in Algebra or Geometry or Calc. Your mom did not have a low IQ. A low IQ means she might never have never have learned the math.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your mom did not have a low IQ. A low IQ means she might never have never have learned the math.

Incorrect. This, quite simply, is not how people’s brains actually work.

 

[ad_hoc]

Your mom did not have a low IQ. A low IQ means she might never have never have learned the math.

IQ is a load of nonsense.

You might as well be in here telling us all about how the shape of our skulls determines our cognitive traits.

 

[Scott Christian]

No, they don't. As soon as you make these concrete, folks learn those concrete definitions, and simply work around them, and find loopholes, but get the same results. If Mom tells you not to poke your sister, then you instead pinch her, and say, "But I didn't hit her!" And them Mom says you can't pinch her, so instead you throw spitballs. The ways you can show disdain for another person are nigh infinite.

Mom's say don't bother or hurt your sister. This way it is up to the sister to determine whether you get into trouble.

And sorry, I have to disagree. When you make it concrete, you are expressing your view on said misogyny or sleaze. One person's view of sleaze might be the Sport's Illustrated naked edition and another's might be YouPorn and another's might be some weird anime thing. So the boundary needs to be set. Expectations need to be clear. Especially if you are telling someone not to do something.

It isn't about my personal experience with friends. This was an description of how behavior patterns and beliefs become normal, accepted behavior - by them occurring in peer groups, and nobody stops it and says, "Hey, that's not okay."

PS - I was using "you" in a general sense - because it was a joke. Hence, needing new friends. I doubt very seriously, anyone calls someone a friend, and then tolerates behavior from their friend they think is abhorrent.

 

[Argyle King]

And I think that is the root of the counter-argument. There's a rather large group of people who want that misogynistic crap to stay normal, and they are pushing back against efforts to change it. They want havens where they can continue to "act normally" and not have to worry about being judged by others for their normalized misogynistic (or racist, or transphobic, etc) behavior. These days, there's a lot more social pressure to change those normalized toxic behaviors, and that pressure is usually met with...well, we have 27 pages of examples.

Maybe.

But I'd argue that these days you have people who are doing the same things but just doing it under the facade of a hashtag or changing the border on their social media profile.

 

[Faolyn]

Incorrect. This, quite simply, is not how people’s brains actually work.

Indeed. It's much more likely that she had a teacher who didn't do a good job teaching her, or who even discouraged her because "girls don't need math."