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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I’m not saying strength is more mediocre than intelligence, I’m saying both abilities have mechanical uses that dumping them impacts, but in the case of strength, those mechanical effects are generally treated as sufficient to represent the low stat, while in the case of intelligence, a lot of DMs insist that players who dump it also meet some arbitrary standard of “roleplaying their intelligence” in addition to its mechanical effects.

Ahem ... I already addressed this in the post-

I would say that most tables I have played at that have been heavy into "role playing" to tend to incorporate the physical abilities into the character conception, and that we have the same divide. In other words, people who aren't taking the physical abilities into account for RPing say, "Look, we don't do this for the physical abilities, so why should we for the mental ones!" While the people who do it for the mental ones say, "Look, we do it for the physical abilities, so of course we do it for the mental ones!"

Two ships passing in the night.

I wrote a long-ish piece on this outlining the issues as I saw them (that you are ignoring) and stating that I didn't want to argue them (so you can accuse me of double-standarding, I guess?).

 

[Charlaquin]

Ahem ... I already addressed this in the post-

I would say that most tables I have played at that have been heavy into "role playing" to tend to incorporate the physical abilities into the character conception, and that we have the same divide. In other words, people who aren't taking the physical abilities into account for RPing say, "Look, we don't do this for the physical abilities, so why should we for the mental ones!" While the people who do it for the mental ones say, "Look, we do it for the physical abilities, so of course we do it for the mental ones!"

Two ships passing in the night.

I wrote a long-ish piece on this outlining the issues as I saw them (that you are ignoring) and stating that I didn't want to argue them (so you can accuse me of double-standarding, I guess?).

I read that, and I disagree. I’ve asked folks who do “incorporate physical abilities into character conception” what they think it looks like to roleplay a low strength or dexterity, and it comes down to the way they describe their actions. The roleplaying effect of dumping strength at such a table is narrative flair. The roleplaying effect of dumping intelligence at such a table is being told “you can’t take that action because your character isn’t smart enough to think of it.”

Additionally, characters with high intelligence are allowed to rely on the mechanical effects of high intelligence alone to represent the difference, without having their action choices policed on the basis of their character being too smart to think of them.

 

[Remathilis]

However, when you 'play at' having a disability that you have never experienced, there are many people that consider it to be demeaning to those that actually do have experience with the disability. Regardless of your respect, your consideration, or your attempts at authenticity, there are those out there with the disability, and their allies, that are offended by the attempt.

This is a very dangerous area though because role playing is supposed to be something your not, and if the consensus is that you shouldn't play something you haven't experienced, you are cutting at the heart of role-playing. Taken a step farther, you could argue you should not play a character that is of a different gender than yourself, or a different culture/rw race, or sexual orientation, since you cannot understand the experiences of those people regardless of you respect or authenticity.

It will be a true loss if, out of respect, we lose the ability to try to experience another perspective via role-playing. I've played female PCs. I've played bisexual and asexual ones. I've played African, First World and Asian ones. I've had blind and deaf PCs. I've done my best to not be a caricature of them. I don't always hit the mark. But the notion that those characters should be off limits because I'm an AB cis white male is defeating the purpose of the game in the first place.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

When I play stupid characters, I am roleplaying my lived experiences (as a stupid).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I read that, and I disagree.

Good for you! How's that working for you so far?

The whole "I'm trying really hard to pick an argument with someone," thing?

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a very dangerous area though because role playing is supposed to be something your not, and if the consensus is that you shouldn't play something you haven't experienced, you are cutting at the heart of role-playing. Taken a step farther, you could argue you should not play a character that is of a different gender than yourself, or a different culture/rw race, or sexual orientation, since you cannot understand the experiences of those people regardless of you respect or authenticity.

It will be a true loss if, out of respect, we lose the ability to try to experience another perspective via role-playing. I've played female PCs. I've played bisexual and asexual ones. I've played African, First World and Asian ones. I've had blind and deaf PCs. I've done my best to not be a caricature of them. I don't always hit the mark. But the notion that those characters should be off limits because I'm an AB cis white male is defeating the purpose of the game in the first place.

I’ve definitely heard from people who ban playing cross-gender, usually because they’ve had a bad experience with a creepy dude playing a female character in a gross way.

I think it comes down to how you portray a character with different experiences than you. If it’s out of a good faith desire to better understand someone else’s perspective and done with every effort at being respectful of the group you’re portraying, I think most people will be cool with that (outside of a professional acting context where you could be taking the role from someone who actually belongs to that group). If it’s done carelessly and relies on unquestioned assumptions and stereotypes, it’s going to end up cringe at best and insulting at worst.

 

[Remathilis]

I’ve definitely heard from people who ban playing cross-gender, usually because they’ve had a bad experience with a creepy dude playing a female character in a gross way.

I think it comes down to how you portray a character with different experiences than you. If it’s out of a good faith desire to better understand someone else’s perspective and done with every effort at being respectful of the group you’re portraying, I think most people will be cool with that (outside of a professional acting context where you could be taking the role from someone who actually belongs to that group). If it’s done carelessly and relies on unquestioned assumptions and stereotypes, it’s going to end up cringe at best and insulting at worst.

Considering "cringe" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess I'll just stick to my lane from now on. Might make being a DM a little harder though...

 

[Lanefan]

This I agree with.

The average is 8-12, not strictly the exact number 10.

Quibble: it's 8-13, with the true average being 10.5.

 

[Charlaquin]

Considering "cringe" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess I'll just stick to my lane from now on. Might make being a DM a little harder though...

I mean, if you’re not relying on unquestioned assumptions and stereotypes, you should be fine.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Sure, but this is about playing a character, including their weaknesses, instead of allowing your personal strengths to compensate for them. Yes, the mechanic of the die roll doesn't let you around this, but neither should role-playing IMO. If a player at my table has an issue with how I run the game, we can discuss it and if a reasonable solution can't be reached, they are welcome to leave.