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

[Ragmon]

Really? There are several examples in the original post of traits and flaws to roleplay that might be appropriate for a character with a low Intelligence score. How is that "only play our self?"

Most of the examples aren't all that good, have little to do with intelligence.

These don't need to be role-played, they manifest when rolling to see if you are good at a task:

• Yes, knowledge is INT based, but is also affected by training/skill rank/proficiency. Meaning some one who doesn't know about a subject all that much isnt stupid. (but can be).
• Paying attention, this I can see being used for all 3 mental stats. Not paying attention to the environment (Wis), not paying attention to social ques (Cha), not paying attention to details in a math problem or while reading some text.

• Risky behavior, this tied to Wisdom, not INT.
• Lack of confidence (cause you think you are stupid), this is Charisma based.
• Entering a new culture and having issue communicating, Charisma again.

Lack of intelligence manifests as such:

• You know less languages, and/or have a limited vocabulary.
• You have issues with basic math.
• You often choose the simple solution to a problem, cause complexity confuses you easily.
• As said above, yes it can manifest as lack of Knowledge too.
• Remembering/memorizing is a problem.
• How your lack of INT manifest, depending on your other mental stats may vary.
• Don't get me started on how culture, upbringing, schooling, family, friends... influence your personality as a low INT person.

OP doesn't want us to play our characters as "Hurr-durr" dumb at 8 INT. And I will respect that, if you are insulted and at my table.

And to get to the original counter argument. Playing a character as very dumb is ableist, right? Then how about:

• playing low CHA, is it ableist to play a socially awkward, withdrawn from society, rarely talking to others, kind of person?
• playing a character that takes unescecery risks, makes bad choices (low Wis)?
• playing a very sickly character (low Con)?
• playing up the fact that you can't carry all that much cause you have low STR or are very clumsy (low Dex)?

We need to play up the stats when role-playing, else it wont be noticed or be memorable. Like in theater the actors have to make over exaggerated gestures, so that the audience sees and understands it. If we don't do so, then you are left with a character whos personality isn't influenced by their stats (which is fine in my book, that is another way to play your character).

Let players play their characters as they see fit, as long as noone is insulted at the table and everyone is having fun.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a very good question. In mechanical terms, it means 6 INT Ug is 10% less capable than average when it comes to mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason.

If all you look at is the bonus on die rolls.

I'm looking at that 6 and realizing 6 is less than 60% of 10.5, the bell-curve average; and thus dear old Ug is over 40% less capable than average on a day-to-day basis. If it was a linear progression.

That said, I don't see it as a linear progression (and in so doing I disagree with 3e-4e-5e design, but so what). To me, the closer you get to the extremes the bigger the day-to-day difference becomes; thus the difference in effectiveness between a 5 and a 6 is greater than the difference between a 6 and a 7 which in turn is bigger than that between 7 and 8. The difference between 10 and 11 is negligible, between 11 and 12 (or 10 and 11) only slightly less so; and most of the population falls into that mushy 8-13 range.

Some people in the thread want that to be role played like it is dramatically and noticeably lower than average. Others want it to be played however the player wants it to be played. Either way, most people don't want it to be played as a negative stereotype. In the end, this becomes an argument about metagaming, IMO. Those that care about it are going to have compliant players so it just works at their table - or else it's possibly the dreaded: "Your character wouldn't do/say/think that." Or, more likely with a little less active policing, just gently interrupting game flow once in a while to ask the player how their character would do/say/think something. This latter scenario could actually be beneficial in that it gives the player an opportunity to share something about their character with the table.

Don't want players solving puzzles in your game using their own noggins b/c their PC has low INT? One answer is to police the roleplaying based on stats. Another is to avoid putting this problematic challenge in your game to start with. Yet another answer is to, like The Bad News Bears II, let them play - give the players and PCs their due and move on to the next challenge.

The best answer is for the individual players to self-police, play to their stats (good or bad), and play with integrity. Do that and many of these problems largely Go Away.

 

[Lanefan]

In my view, if a player comes up with an idea, the character can come up with the idea, since the premise of D&D is that the group is making believe that the player is the character.

That's an interesting take on it.

I've always seen it the opposite: the group is making believe the character is the player; i.e. when I look across the table ideally I'm seeing Falstaffe the Fighter in my mind's eye, not Bob the player.

Put another way, the player changes to "become" the character rather than the character changing to become the player.

 

[Ragmon]

Not quite. But I'm getting the vibe in certain gaming circles that D&D is still too focused on numbers and making them mean something. For example, much of the hoopla about racial ASI was the notion that ideas like "strong" or "small" or "graceful" should have corresponding mechanical, numeric representation in the game. A strong race should have a bonus to Strength, for example. However, if you remove the concept of Strength as a mechanic, then "strong" race no longer has a mechanical expression, it's strictly a role-playing tool. Or if Strength exists, maybe it shouldn't affect other systems mechanically (such as bonus to hit and damage) since a.) no one agrees if using a longsword relies of muscle or agility anyway and b.) it would break the notion that warriors are strong and strong races are the best warriors.

Once you remove specific numeric expressions of a character's abilities, you open a huge amount of potential to design and play characters however you like.

I managed to solve this issue. You remove any Racial ASI, add that same amount to the stat distribution pool (nothing special so far). The players can make what ever character they want with what ever race. They are special snowflakes, not an average speciment of their race anyway.

On the DM and mechanical side, the races will have tendencies to distribute stats in a certain way. On average the NPC orks will have high STR and CON, not because they have a bonus, but instead cause the points are distribute in that way.
The elven population of the world will have high Dex and low Con, not cause they receive bonuses and penalties, but instead cause they allocated their stats that way (cause elves have a tenancy to do so).

I think this is a Win-Win solution. Players get to build what ever special character they want, without feeling like they are forced to play a race cause of the stat bonuses they get. And you avoid the irate SJWs by not having fix numbers for races.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

OP doesn't want us to play our characters as "Hurr-durr" dumb at 8 INT. And I will respect that, if you are insulted and at my table.

And to get to the original counter argument. Playing a character as very dumb is ableist, right? Then how about:

• playing low CHA, is it ableist to play a socially awkward, withdrawn from society, rarely talking to others, kind of person?
• playing a character that takes unescecery risks, makes bad choices (low Wis)?
• playing a very sickly character (low Con)?
• playing up the fact that you can't carry all that much cause you have low STR or are very clumsy (low Dex)?

We need to play up the stats when role-playing, else it wont be noticed or be memorable. Like in theater the actors have to make over exaggerated gestures, so that the audience sees and understands it. If we don't do so, then you are left with a character whos personality isn't influenced by their stats (which is fine in my book, that is another way to play your character).

Let players play their characters as they see fit, as long as noone is insulted at the table and everyone is having fun.

And, thirty plus pages later, we're still stuck on missing the point.

See, there's no issue playing a low intelligence character. That's never been the problem. Playing a low intelligence character as a caricature of real world mental issues, IS the problem.

So, no, "playing a character as very dumb" isn't ableist, any more than any or your other examples are problematic. If the player is being respectful, not passing it off as comedy or mocking, then there's no problem. Heck, you last line there, " Let players play their characters as they see fit, as long as noone is insulted at the table" is pretty much on point. I'd take it a step further and say as long as no one is being insulting, full stop. But, that's quibbling over verbiage and I do agree with the basic point.

Which, as it always has been, comes down to Wheaton's Law - don't be a dick. Wasting everyone's time on hypotheticals and whatabouts is pointless arguing for the sake of arguing. It resolves nothing and simply obfuscates the actual issue here.

But, hey, 30+ pages on and people are STILL making the same arguments they were making on page 3.

 

[Morrus]

They are special snowflakes, n

...

And you avoid the irate SJWs by not having fix numbers for races.

Oh boy, did you misunderstand the rules. Take the time to refamiliarize yourself with them, please.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And, thirty plus pages later, we're still stuck on missing the point.

See, there's no issue playing a low intelligence character. That's never been the problem. Playing a low intelligence character as a caricature of real world mental issues, IS the problem.

I will just point out again that is NOT what the OP says.

And I will also point out that it's not something that many people do, not for reasons of morality, but because such characters are boring and unfun.

So what we have is an original post accusing lots of people of a crime they did not commit.

 

[Voadam]

I disagree, but we’ve been told not to have that discussion in this thread.

Could someone point out the applicable moderator post? I remember one about not to debate the specifics of IQ, but not anything about ableism and whether the harms of the concept of inherent intelligence are distinct from ableism and oppression of the mentally disabled.

 

[Oofta]

Respectfully I suggest that you look into what ableism is. I think this topic is done in this thread so I will leave it there.


People are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. If we were to try to capture that with scores in the game each character would need 10 000 different ability scores to scratch the surface.

1 score to represent "all of intelligence" is non-sensical.

You said it yourself, people have different strengths and weaknesses. In one regard a person may look highly intelligent but with a different task or through a different lens and they would be judged as stupid.

Our 'intelligence' is also highly malleable and is largely a matter of training and practice. Not something captured by a stat that tends to remain static over the entire course of the game unless the character is a Wizard.

Let's start with

Ableism: the tendency to regard people with a disability as incomplete, diminished, or damaged, and to measure the quality of life with a disability against a nondisabled standard​

I 100% agree that ableism or making fun of people with lower intelligence has no place in my games. I will also note that I don't think an 8 intelligence and/or wisdom models someone who is disabled.

D&D vastly oversimplifies everything, but I think the combination of intelligence and wisdom does a decent approximation. It's as good as strength and dexterity. In 5E proficiency and expertise can implement training and learning in a way that intelligence does not. The fact that most people have input into what their scores are either by placement or point buy can reflect the impact of environmental factors.

I will never be a basketball player because of my size, nor will I ever win a strong man competition no matter how much I exercise because I'm just not big enough. Most people will never be Einstein and don't have the capability no matter how much they apply themselves. People make fun of or discriminate against people (mostly men) that are short all the time. A short person that's aggressive and successful? Napolean complex*. Short guy attracted to a taller woman? Forget about it, she's too good for you. So I understand not thinking of someone less smart than average as less.

People have an inherent mental capacity. It's multifaceted, complex and messy. We don't have a good way of measuring it. Randy, my good friend growing up, was not very bright. He just wasn't. If I were going to represent him in D&D terms he'd have an 8 for intelligence. It didn't make him any less of a friend or any less worthy. Acknowledging that I'm more intelligent than he is not ableism, it's just acknowledging that because he was taller he had a better shot at making the basketball team than I ever did.

*Which is actually kind of funny/sad because Napolean was average height or a little taller than most for his time. The short thing was a caricature and an insult, a way to make fun of him in cartoons of the time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I have seen this sort of thing often enough after playing for over 40 years. Fighters with INT 6-8 come up with brilliant tactics, solve complex puzzles, etc. because the players are brilliant. Then, to offset the INT penalty (in 5E), they rely on other PCs to make the Intelligence checks with their bonuses and even take Resilience for INT saves, or choose classes (like Rogue) with INT saves...

I’ve known people in real life that weren’t particularly intelligent, but were extremely good in one or two areas. So no, I don’t find it surprising that a character that knows nothing about religion, world history, etc. might be particular good at combat tactics (particularly since combat tactics is often the province of cunning, which is often associated with Wisdom, not Intelligence).

As for puzzles, yes, on occasion, a dumb character will come up with the solution. The classical example, of course, being the Gordian knot. It seems to me that the more intelligent characters were hamstrung by their intelligence, while cutting the knot is exactly the behaviour I would expect from an uncouth barbarian.

Of course, there is that other classic: the Sphinx riddle. Oedipus probably was pretty clever in figuring it out, but since then, virtually 100% of the people who answer the riddle do so because they have heard it before. Even an Int 8 fighter may have heard a riddle before carousing in taverns (even if the player had to work it out for themself).

And never discount sheer luck in solving puzzles. Unless the DM is throwing mountains of puzzles at the players (if so, why?), it seems a mixture of dumb luck, thinking differently, and different reference pools/abilities can pretty easily explain a “dumb” character figuring stuff out.

Bottom line is, the game does not really give any guidance as to what low Intelligence is (nor should it), and DMs are far too ready to treat characters with even moderately low intelligence (who may even have above average Wisdom), as totally incompetent.

This is when I, as DM, step in. Your INT 8 (or lower) PC probably won't think of the things you, as a smart player, would. I might require you to make a check and if you succeed I'll allow the PC the "moment of brilliance" the thought represents. If you fail the check, you can't have your PC use the idea or whatever.

A lot of people (myself included) have issues both with DM micromanagement and DM’s usurping player agency.