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

[Lanefan]

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.

Not so much specializing in certain tasks over others but being inherently good at certain tasks over others whether specialized or not.

I also want some sort of quantification of the differences between individuals in the setting (including monsters) that affect interactions and-or game play, such that I as both player and DM can have at least some grasp on how those things might go simply by listening to the DM's narration.

For example, if my PC meets a significant NPC that I half-expect I'm going to have to fight against either socially or physically then just by the DM's narration I should be able to get an idea of whether this person is stronger/weaker than I am, more or less dextrous/lithe than I am, and better or worse looking than I am. While talking with the person (if the chance arises) I should also be able to vaguely determine intelligence relative to me, and maybe persuasiveness as well. The DM doesn't have to (and shouldn't) give me numbers, but the DM still needs numbers in order to inform her narration.

Now, take those comparisons and apply them to everyone in the setting - I'm not just ocmparing this person to me right now but to everyone else in my party and maybe all sorts of other people I've met as well. And suddenly, boom, you need a global standard; and that's what the stats serve as.

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.

Without quantification, however, this would quickly become just a breeding ground for arguments at many tables.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I also want the stats to do some work in describing and-or outlining the character both physically and mentally, at least in general or comparitive terms. Further, I expect players to at least make an attempt to play to their characters' stats; particularly if-when those stats are low enough to impose limitations. Otherwise, the commitment made when the low number was put in that stat isn't being honoured.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Cool; but I also want them to represent the things a character is bad at.

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.)

If you're not willing to play the character you generated, warts and all, then I think I'd be quite justified in calling that bad-faith play.

 

[Mordhau]

Cool; but I also want them to represent the things a character is bad at.

Well obviously that's implied isn't? Being good at some things means being bad at others.

Sooner or later someone is going to to respond to a post of mine by saying "the sky is blue", because they've assumed that my failure to spell it out in a post means I must be in doubt.

If you're not willing to play the character you generated, warts and all, then I think I'd be quite justified in calling that bad-faith play.

Playing the character you rolled means playing a character that has a certain percentage chance of succeeding on a roll.

Everything else is just someone's interpretation.

(Although of course since we're largely discussing 5e we are not rolling up a character to see what we get (even when the rolling method is used players decide where the scores go - so they design the character). I know you play a more old school style of game - but you really need to not interpret other people's posts as if they're approaching things the same way you are when obviously we are not.

In modern D&D the purpose of ability scores is not to see what kind of character you are going to paly.)

I reserve the right to decide what it means that my character is not good at certain things.

I don't see where the bad faith is supposed to be and frankly, resent the implication.

Where's the bad faith here?

Me: "I rolled a 6 on Int. I want to interpret this as my character is smart but has had a very sheltered upbringing and no formal education.
DM: No 6 Int means he's an imbecile. You have to play it that way.
Me: Ok seeya.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Where's the bad faith here?

Me: "I rolled a 6 on Int. I want to interpret this as my character is smart but has had a very sheltered upbringing and no formal education.
DM: No 6 Int means he's an imbecile. You have to play it that way.
Me: Ok seeya.

I'd say differing expectations. If INT 10 is the average, then resulting in 6 by being above average in one of the field covered by the stats must mean an extremely low or inexistant ability in another field. I feel that "no formal education" is difficult to model in DD5, because of the way signs of a formal education, like literacy and fluency in foreign languages, including the equivalent of dead languages, is handled. Being smart and uneducated to the point of being INT 6 would be like not knowing everyday knowledge. It's not "not being proficient in History" it's not knowing very basic historical thing... "Who's this Hitler guy you're speaking of? Did he fight in the Independance War alongside the famous first king of America, Denzel Washington?" [Lack of player knowledge of the setting can be a boon to roleplay an uneducated character]

 

[Mordhau]

I'd say differing expectations. If INT 10 is the average, then resulting in 6 by being above average in one of the field covered by the stats must mean an extremely low or inexistant ability in another field. I feel that "no formal education" is difficult to model in DD5, because of the way signs of a formal education, like literacy and fluency in foreign languages, including the equivalent of dead languages, is handled. Being smart and uneducated to the point of being INT 6 would be like not knowing everyday knowledge. It's not "not being proficient in History" it's not knowing very basic historical thing... "Who's this Hitler guy you're speaking of? Did he fight in the Independance War alongside the famous first king of America, Denzel Washington?" [Lack of player knowledge of the setting can be a boon to roleplay an uneducated character]

... my character is smart but has had a very sheltered upbringing and no formal education.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Since I fail to see any relation between protective parenting and the things covered by the INT stat, I'll reply to several possibilities.

Hypothesis A: you meant that sheltered upbringing was detrimental to the INT stat and thus part of the explanation of the 6 INT, not only education level.

I'd say that at most it would, at most, explain low WIS, because I don't see how this aspect has any bearing over reasoning, ability to recall facts, logic or education. It illustrate the differing expectations: you'd say think that you're making a character fitting to a stat value since you integrated "sheltered upbringing" to the DM into your background and didn't explain what link you saw there, while he saw none. It illustrate perfectly my point about different expectations.

Hypothesis B : since sheltered childhood evokes staying in a bedroom reading books instead of doing dangerous things like climbing up a tree with other children, you meant that the PC was smart and knowledgeable thank to his self-taught education through bookreading instead of getting a "formal" education (but achieved the same through homeschooled education).

In this case, I'd concur with Lanefan about the bad faith. It's like having a dump stat and trying to mitigate the discomfort of it by ruleslawyering around the meaning of formal education.

Hypothesis C : you meant something else

In this case, feel free to use words to convey your meaning. Just bolding a part of your previous answer didn't help me to understand your point.

 

[Umbran]

But I well remember one guy I played with who got wigged out when my character developed a crush on his character and I roleplayed (voice only) how she was flirting with him; and call me callous if you like but IMO if something like that bothers someone then that person might have some self-examination to do.

And as it turned out I really was on to something in his attitudes without realizing it: a few years later (after he'd left our games not entirely by his own choice) he was had up and convicted on kiddie porn charges.

So, this sounds like a great story, until one realizes that you are implying a link between being uncomfortable with a roleplaying situation with being a sexual predator.

You know, you really should ask a player before you start flirting or romance with their characters. Consent's a thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That story usually gets told from the opposite direction to make the opposite (equally wrong) implication too.

Like, maybe just don't press people's buttons when they ask you not to?

 

[aco175]

I wonder how many people play a low Int, Wis, and to some extent Cha as just the player's abilities with the character's modifier if a roll is needed. A player may be a genius and playing a fighter with a dumpstat of Int. There is no real penalty of playing the game with the strategy and meta gaming of how to go about things and piece clues together. It seems that every PC is the extension of the player in these mental abilities so the only problems in when roleplaying something less.