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

[Jfdlsjfd]

It isn't "hard to grasp" I just don't agree with you. (maybe...?)

View attachment 147423
So, Ug has an INT 6: what does that mean in terms in of mental acuity, accuracy of recall, or the ability to reason?

I see the disconnect lying with how the stat is distributed against these three pillars. INT 6 means "acuity 6, recall 6, reasoning 6". Sure you can envision a character raised in the woods and for some reason having nothing to recall at all and no need to recall anything in his education, so he never trained to it. I'd say it's OK, but it would be "acuity 10, recall 2, reasoning 10" to make it 6ish INT. I'd probably want this character to be INT 10 and take a flaw of a -4 penatly to knowledge skills as part of a custom background (balanced by other things). Other would say that the -2 to knowledge skill (the mechanical parts) are enough to reflect the three pillars of intelligence, and if you're not going to roll the other ones they can be roleplayed freely. Different takes, I guess, as others would want all three aspects of the INT stat given equal importance, whether through rolling a skill or roleplay (and a third group wanting to roll everything anyway, including player-solved puzzles).

 

[Charlaquin]

I think we're aiming for the same goal but from different directions.

You're arguing ability scores shouldn't define how a PC should be played. I'm arguing why even have the scores in the first place. The net effect is the same; you can play your wizard and strong, weak, or average. I just think that removing the concept of "strength" as a definable mechanic fixes the problem more eloquently than "my Strength score is 8, but I play a character them however I like".

I’ve said this in this thread before, though I don’t blame you for having missed it, but I wouldn’t be opposed to ability scores being removed from D&D. I do think if they are removed, something should replace their function of allowing you to specialize in certain areas at the cost of being less effective at others. I don’t care about having stats that represent how strong or how smart the character is, but I do care about having the option to choose to be worse at (for example) tasks involving recalling lore in order to be better at (for example) tasks involving moving or breaking heavy objects, etc.

 

[Irlo]

With an Int=6, Ug is capable of casting wizards spells. He can probably solve some puzzles.

 

[Charlaquin]

Narration.

If a player consistently narrates their Dex-6 character as nimbly dancing along narrow ledges or as turning cartwheels across the ballroom (and isn't being sarcastic) there's a problem.

The physical stuff largely has to be abstracted either by narration or dice unless the table's in full-on LARP mode.

The mental/social stuff doesn't need nearly the same degree of abstraction as much of it can be LARPed at the table. Abstracting any more of this than the bare minimum IMO takes away from the role-playing side of the game, and thus defeats a lot of the purpose.

So, again, it seems you’re treating physical stats and mental/social stats differently, with physical being almost totally abstracted with narration added for flavor, and mental/social being mainly LARPed with some abstraction where necessary. So, in my view, it’s to be expected that players would trend towards putting higher scores in the physical stats to shore up their chances of success on abstract rolls that involve them, and lower scores in the mental/social stats and rely on LARPing their way through mental/social challenges. I think, rather than policing roleplaying, a better solution to this problem would be to treat the stats more equitably. For all tasks, mental, physical, and social, create an expectation that goal and approach be described with reasonable specificity. Use the stated goal and approach to evaluate if there is a reasonable possibility of success and failure and meaningful stakes. Then resolve the action without a roll if possible and with one if necessary, based on that evaluation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not a huge fan of puzzles in RPGs, but ideally they would engage both stats and player skills. Checks to gain information (history: in this culture frog is known as symbol of death, whereas monkey symbolises hospitality; investigation: it seems these statues next to the door can move) and player skills (player conclusion: pushing the frog statue sets off a trap, pushing the monkey statue opens the door.)

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not a huge fan of puzzles in RPGs, but ideally they would engage both stats an player skills. Checks to gain information (history: in this culture frog is known as symbol of death, whereas monkey symbolises hospitality; investigation: it seems these statues next to the door can move) and player skills (player conclusion: pushing the frog statue sets off a trap, pushing the monkey statue opens the door.)

It’s funny how, despite our often quite staunch disagreements about process, when you get down to it we have pretty similar goals.

 

[Oofta]

So, again, it seems you’re treating physical stats and mental/social stats differently, with physical being almost totally abstracted with narration added for flavor, and mental/social being mainly LARPed with some abstraction where necessary. So, in my view, it’s to be expected that players would trend towards putting higher scores in the physical stats to shore up their chances of success on abstract rolls that involve them, and lower scores in the mental/social stats and rely on LARPing their way through mental/social challenges. I think, rather than policing roleplaying, a better solution to this problem would be to treat the stats more equitably. For all tasks, mental, physical, and social, create an expectation that goal and approach be described with reasonable specificity. Use the stated goal and approach to evaluate if there is a reasonable possibility of success and failure and meaningful stakes. Then resolve the action without a roll if possible and with one if necessary, based on that evaluation.

This is one of the reasons I tend to ask for rolls to achieve goals. I think character build and choices should matter.

So if you have an 8 strength it's going to matter, at least now and then.

 

[Voadam]

But what I've been seeing, both in this thread recently and at the table for decades, is example after example of players doing their best to not remain consistent with that; to find loopholes or exploits to mitigate or outright negate the weakness(es) that low stat implies.

I don't think I have seen any examples in this thread of a player agreeing to what a low stat means and then not remain consistent with it.

What I have seen is different people having different understandings about what a Dex 6 means, which is the first step, where the DM and player talk about it. Whether it means -2 on Dex rolls only or whether it means that and the player should roleplay being clumsy or something else to narratively match the stat.

I think a standard build fighter or heavy armor cleric putting their low stat/dump stat 8 in Dex makes sense but I would not expect such characters to go out of their way to necessarily narratively roleplay their low Dex stat. I would be fine with someone using such a low stat as a roleplay hook, but I would not require it or think that requiring it makes for a better roleplay experience, just a specific archetype one.

 

[Mordhau]

Me: If we interpret Int as B rather than A than C can follow. Here's why we might want C.
Response: But you can't have C because Int = A.
Me: But I'm saying, If Int = B, we can have C.
Reponse: If you try to make C follow from A it's bad faith
Reponse: If you try to make C follow from A it's bad roleplaying.
Response: But Int does = A. Look.
Me: Ok let's have an example. If Int = B then Ug can solve the puzzle.
Response: But that's not right because Int = A

What more can I say?

Imagine if we interpret Int to mean your level of formal education and knowledge. What are the benefits of this? More freedom for players to define their character. More variety in how people play their classes (As classes heavily constrain who can have high Int and who can't), less encouragement for painfully annoying comic relief characters, less incentive for actively offensive characters and less situations where characters can't really contribute their best ideas to the game).

What incongruities arise in the game as a result of Int=B. Very little - nothing worse really than an Dex 8 fighter being as skilled with a longsword as a Dex 20 one, or a Strength 8 Fighter doing the same damage with a longbow as a Strength 20 one.

What else need be said. Int=B is not equal to Int=anything. It does not equal you can ignore your ability score and do whatever you want. It is the substitution of one specific interpretation of what an ability score means for a different specific ability score. So if you think the Dex 6 character can be graceful - what is the alternative definition you are using for Dex, and does it map onto the things you roll Dex for reasonably effectively?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

If you point was that you suggested a rule change to replace the ill-defined INT stat with a much clearer EDU stat from CoC or a Memory stat maybe, then yes, this change would let one roleplay Ug as a smart yet ignorant half-orc without problem, keeping only the penalties for the rolls. This is, however, not what I got from your earlier attempts, despite you thinking it was very clear. From the others' answers, I guess I wasn't the only one not to understand you proposed an actual change ; I thought you tried to explain what INT meant right now and how it was possible to play it within the current framework for INT. Did I understand your point? (I am really not sure because we apparently have great trouble communicating).