Low ability scores -- more fun?

[Henry]

A single weak stat isn't by itself fun; it's what you make of the stats and how they impact the character you're playing. By itself, high stats aren't very inventive; how many people take high stats because of wish fulfillment, or just to make a character concept, and yet play the stat as average as the person behind it? Playing a wizened cleric as reckless and impulsive because it's hard for the player to be cautious and thoughtful is one example; there's nothing wrong or right with it, it just is.

Remember, the interesting characters in stories, the ones we invest in, are the ones with flaws. low scores are only one type of flaw. 1950's Superman was very hard to root for; Spider-man is a lot easier because he's ALWAYS been depicted as flawed.

One of my most fun PCs was a fighter with a 7 wisdom (it was rolled); I played him as exceptionally clueless and guileless. He once saw the party thief across a crowded square, as the thief was picking someone's pocket, and calling out to him by name and waving at him. Yet I played him as a tough guy but with a deep heart, and getting into lots of trouble because of people who prayed on that weakness. He was fun because of the cues I got off of his stats. My halfling druid who treated animals as people and humans as slightly less-than-human-beings was equally fun -- but not one score below a 12 in the mix. I didn't emphasize her 18 WIS -- I went elsewhere for her source of foible, in this case, her beliefs, loosely based on the personality of someone I've known.

 

[maddman75]

I think system has a lot of influence on the answer to this question. The more the numbers matter to the game rules, the less likely a player is to accept or work with low numbers, even if they make a PC "more interesting." But if the stats don't play a large mechanical role, players are a lot more willing to use low stats (as well as high stats) as color and hooks for defining their PCs and making them individuals. (In other words, the stats can be used just like a system of traits/advantages/disadvantages.)

This made me think of BRP Call of Cthulhu. There are the mostly familiar scores in there, Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, etc. But really, they don't matter much. They have small game mechanical effects sure, but your skills are mostly unaffected by them and the skills are what you use for the most part.

If you rolled low on Con and used that as a roleplay hook to be weak and sickly, that's cool. The mechanical difference might be you have 8 hit points instead of 11 like the guy who rolled average or 15 like the guy who rolled really well. These hit points never go up and to give you an idea of scale, a shotgun does 4d6 damage. Its not uncommon for monsters to do 2d6 or so with claws. If you get into a standup fight with a monster, or armed people, you're probably screwed no matter what your scores are.

So it doesn't matter. The main thing they are there for is to provide roleplaying hooks.

 

[AllisterH]

Role playing characters with faults and weaknesses like low abilitie scores is more enjoyable then role playing characters that are good at everything or who's weaknesses don't matter.

I'd like to point out that the most famous D&D NPC with a weakness is Raistlin Majere.

His con score from the Dragonlance Adventures book? 10.

So no, I don't think you need a low score.

 

[Henry]

I'd like to point out that the most famous D&D NPC with a weakness is Raistlin Majere.

His con score from the Dragonlance Adventures book? 10.

So no, I don't think you need a low score.

Yeah, I've always taken issue with that bit of trivia, too, even when I first noticed it back in the 1980's. Raistlin used to lean on his staff, cough blood, and take a special herbal tea. I'm reasonably sure a person with an average constitution doesn't go though all that! His CON score was way off, IMO.

A 5 or 6, I can see. a 10? Not as the original trilogy described him!

 

[cattoy]

In a setting of assumed awesomeness, it's the occasional bumbler that becomes memorable.

Imagine a game about martial artists. They're all strong, they're all fast, they're all tough - it's almost impossible to differentiate them using those criteria.

But there's that one guy with no sense of direction whatsoever. And the chick who can't cook anything even vaguely edible. And the one who is really, really phobic about cats. And that one guy who is probably the dimmest bulb you've ever seen...

In art, it's called negative space. It's the notion that what the character can't or won't do that can be just as defining as what they are capable or willing to do...

4e, having a limited set of mechanical options for defining characters pretty much has to default to dump stats to define a character's negative space. (other than just handwaving, that is)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Raistlin used to lean on his staff, cough blood, and take a special herbal tea…His CON score was way off, IMO…a 5 or 6, I can see. a 10? Not as the original trilogy described him!

Yeah, I agree. I read the main DL novels, but I never paid much attention to the game products; consequently, I had no idea they gave him a 10 Con (solidly average). That doesn't sound right at all, from what I remember of the character.

 

[nightwyrm]

Yeah, I agree. I read the main DL novels, but I never paid much attention to the game products; consequently, I had no idea they gave him a 10 Con (solidly average). That doesn't sound right at all, from what I remember of the character.

Sure, he was always coughing up blood and stuff, but it's not like he died because of it. A dude who's depicted as constantly sick as Raistlin and living without the aid of modern medicine is a goddamn miracle.

 

[billd91]

It's not the low stat, per se, that makes the character interesting to play. It's finding something interesting about the character and using it that makes the character interesting to play.

I generally roll my stats first. I may have a basic idea of the character I want to play, at least as far as class goes, and then once I've got a set of stats I arrange them into something reasonably appropriate for the chosen profession. If there's something that stands out, either particularly high or particularly low, I come up with a way to make it reasonably interesting. If they're all average, maybe I can find a way to make that particular fact interesting too...

Low stats tend toward making a character interesting in this process because they are things that contrast with other characters. And it's in the contrast, rather than the similarities, that you often find memorable portrayals. If everyone has really high stats, there's nothing to really work with, stat-wise, to generate contrast. Add in an outlier or two and contrast appears and can be exploited.

 

[nightwyrm]

One thing about way back when (1e/2e) is that the translation of stats to game mechanics is way flater. In terms of contributing to your combat effectiveness, a 6 or 7 only differs from having a 14 by a -1 or so. In WotC editions, that difference is by about 4 or 5.

Whereas in 1e/2e you could describe your Dex 7 character as clumsy (but still not having a penalty to AC) and is still as effective as a character with Dex 14. In WotC edition, having a Dex of 7 makes you gimped compared to someone with Dex 14.

 

[nightwyrm]

Yeah, I've always taken issue with that bit of trivia, too, even when I first noticed it back in the 1980's. Raistlin used to lean on his staff, cough blood, and take a special herbal tea. I'm reasonably sure a person with an average constitution doesn't go though all that! His CON score was way off, IMO.

A 5 or 6, I can see. a 10? Not as the original trilogy described him!

Well, the thing is, with a 5 or 6 in 1e/2e, you get -1 hp and about 50% system shock and resurrection survival rate. So that's about a 8 or 9 in modern editions.