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

[Argyle King]

I do. I think the actual functions of the abilities are so far removed from anything resembling reality that any attempt at “roleplaying your stats” is ultimately futile, and in some cases (like the case under discussion) problematic to try. Better to accept them as what they are - abstract game stats that represent no more and no less than the character’s aptitude at the specific tasks they contribute to. And if I understand what you mean by “old-school competitive play” correctly (it’s also often referred to as “skilled play,”) then I am definitely a fan of and advocate for it.

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.

Personally, when I want something with a different style, my first choice would likely be a different rpg.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have to say that to me this is highly unsatisfying approach. If abilities don't actually represent anything, then they shouldn't exist.

Well, couple things here. First and foremost, if that approach isn’t satisfying to you, don’t use it. Nothing wrong with that at all, we just have different preferences. Second, they do represent something under the approach I’m advocating for - “no less” is an important part of “no more and no less than.” Third, I actually wouldn’t be opposed to D&D getting rid of ability scores, but there should be something in place they serves their function, of allowing players to differentiate their characters from one another by specializing in certain tasks over others. There’s value in being able to sacrifice aptitude at, say, attempts to recall lore in order to improve your aptitude at, say, attempts to leverage NPCs in social interactions.

 

[Voadam]

I do. I think the actual functions of the abilities are so far removed from anything resembling reality that any attempt at “roleplaying your stats” is ultimately futile, and in some cases (like the case under discussion) problematic to try. Better to accept them as what they are - abstract game stats that represent no more and no less than the character’s aptitude at the specific tasks they contribute to. And if I understand what you mean by “old-school competitive play” correctly (it’s also often referred to as “skilled play,”) then I am definitely a fan of and advocate for it.

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.

 

[Mordhau]

I tend to feel ability scores just represent the things the character is good at.

I've found in the past that this creates a divide between how people see things. A lot of people want to see a character with high intelligence as very smart. But, I tend to see it these days as a character with a good intelligence score has a somewhat better chance of rolling high on certain rolls, and I would prefer to build the character around that more or less.

It's funny, in that people seem to take my view of it these days in regards to Strength. It used to be in the 90s that people would complain that their Fighter had to be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in order to fight well and that wasn't how they pictured it. This doesn't seem to worry people so much these days (in part because the idea of Strength in our culture has changed a lot to include things like functional strength rather than just raw muscle size.)

I've written in the past about the weird obsession people have with players 'dumping' an ability score, based purely off the fact of a negative number (when in practical terms if 8 is a dumped score, then so is 10 - the difference between them is so small).

Honestly, these days, I find the "you have to role-play your ability scores" so tedious I don't think I could play in a game with a GM who insisted on it - (whatever they imagine that meaning.)

 

[Oofta]

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.

Not that I completely disagree, but that paints a lot of people with a pretty broad brush. There's a lot of ambiguity here. If I play a PC based on The Tick, is that wrong? Mongo from Blazing Saddles? Because I've done the former, the latter is about as extreme as I've ever seen.

Toxic behavior, unless it's fairly extreme, is in the eye of the beholder. Given the title of the thread it's part of the reason there's pushback. I'm not a big fan of "extremely dumb guy" comedy, nor do I think certain things should be dismissed as "locker room talk". But it's easy to get into the slippery slope argument here which doesn't really help.

In other words, telling people on this thread that their misogynistic because they disagree with the OP comes across as judgmental.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have to say that to me this is highly unsatisfying approach. If abilities don't actually represent anything, then they shouldn't exist.

Eh. They're anchors for game structures and a means of grouping like abilities together. They don't have to matter in-universe.

As it stands, they are each pulling double, triple, quintuple duty to represent a lot of things already to the point they're meaningless.

Dex for example is agility, flexibility, reflexes, hand-eye-coordination, and spacial perception.

Charisma is social grace, literal charisma, and the power of your soul.

None of these are actually linked beyond thematically.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

IIRC, ad_hoc tends to put people on ignore temporarily, then remove them from their ignore list after there’s been some time to let the dust settle.

I do the same. Which reminds me, there are some folks that I need to review on my list.

 

[Irlo]

In other words, telling people on this thread that their misogynistic because they disagree with the OP comes across as judgmental.

It’s a good thing that no one said that, then.

 

[Umbran]

First, I am not having an IQ debate. This thread brought it up - not me....

Second, IQ can be a load of crap. ...

No one said IQ is the be all, end all. ...

You say you're not having the debate but then list arguments for it.

Mod Note:
How about we just make it official:

There will be no more IQ debate in this thread.

 

[Umbran]

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

EXACTLY! Got it in one.