Low ability scores -- more fun?

[nightwyrm]

Wait, didn't the Heroes of the Lance began as PCs in Hickman and Weis' home game and was only turned into novel and game module form afterward? Anyone know what Raistlin's original stats were?

 

[LostSoul]

Character flaws are interesting.

"Clumsy" is not a character flaw.

 

[Nifft]

Clumsy isn't a personality flaw, but it is a character limitation. Do you have a low Dex because...
- you're fat?
- you're covered in plates of chitin?
- you're constantly trembling due to a creeping fear of your own unholy sword?
- you were cursed by the Eladrin Goddess of Dancing Without Shoes, so your feet twist and chafe in the condemned confines of your boots?

I usually play smart dudes who kill you with their brains, so playing a half-orc Barbarian with a low Int was a fun challenge. I dunno if I needed a low Int to roleplay Lubash the Brash Blade* effectively, but it was sure nice to have the excuse.

Cheers, -- N

*) Yes, he kills anyone who mispronounces "Lubash the Brash Blade". Or anyone who says it too slowly. Or ...

 

[Garthanos]

So you are claiming that if Raistlin hadn't have had a 10 Con, but a 16 Con, and had been turned over to the writers with a physical description like, "He has a wiry athletic physique." rather than, "He has a slight build.", that we would have ended up with the same character?

No I was saying when we played we sometimes responded to the reality of if you sneeze this character falls over... more than the psuedo truth of them having a 10 constitution.. low hitpoints implied fragility... he could have had a 14 con and 1 hitpoint.

And as far as I know the writers of this were the players

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I notice that no one has taken the OP up on his offer, so I think he's made his point.

As for myself, I've played the occasional character with a low stat or two and not had a problem with them. But that was in 1e when it didn't make much mecanical difference. I much prefer to play characters with above average stats. Hey, the ads always said you could play a Mighty Fighter, a Powerful Wizard, etc. And that's what I want to do when I sit down to play. I don't want to play a character who has a 50/50 chance of dying if a Goblin looks at him hard. (Although I've certainly played enough of them in the past.)

 

[Mallus]

About all you can say on this subject is that low stats can help inspire some players create interesting characters.

 

[Celebrim]

I notice that no one has taken the OP up on his offer, so I think he's made his point.

No, he hasn't. He's rigged the challenge by incorporating it in the framework of a game that is already obeying the fundamental law of roleplaying - "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

As such, a player doesn't need to willingly drop his attributes. He is already forced by the system to make tradeoffs and have relatively weak scores, and usually, to have a very weak score if he desires a strong one. So the OP's challenge amounts to, "If you are serious about this, why don't you take more weak scores than you already do?", which is not the same thing.

The easy way to rebuff the challenge is to propose a more fair counter challenge. "If the DM allowed you to take all 18's, would you do it?"

I wouldn't. I'd choose at least one attribute that was relatively weak because my character is more interesting that way. And I suspect that I'm not alone in that regard.

 

[Crothian]

The easy way to rebuff the challenge is to propose a more fair counter challenge. "If the DM allowed you to take all 18's, would you do it?"

I've given that offer to groups and no one has ever taken it. I've seen dozens of characters created in which I as DM have allowed players to pick their own stats and about 80% of the time people come to the table with at least one ability score of 8 or lower. We've had less characters created with a score higher then 16.

 

[nightwyrm]

I wouldn't. I'd choose at least one attribute that was relatively weak because my character is more interesting that way. And I suspect that I'm not alone in that regard.

Sure. But I also noticed that the "flawed PCs" that people tends to make are dumb fighters, weak wizards etc. I've never seen weak, sickly fighter or a stupid wizard. The flaws that people chooses for their character (if given a choice) are always ones that has a minimal impact on their performance in their chosen field.

 

[Scribble]

In my opinion, low scores translating into character "concept" can make the concept more interesting to the player(s.) The who flawed character idea brought up earlier.

I DON'T think they make the actual game play more fun though.

The game is most fun (in my opinion) when my scores give me a fair shot at doing something. I'm neither guaranteed to hit or miss, it could go either way.

That said, I DO tend to like characters the most who have flaws- the ones that aren't perfect but do the job anyway.

This is why personally I don't think translating the numbers and actions of the game directly into the story part works very well.

Just like Raistlin is still described as being sickly and weak despite his "average" con score, I like to decribe my characters anway I want, and then if I need to- find a way to use the numbers in the situation. (IE instead of my character being "lithe and nimble" because of my 18 DEX, he's bumbling and awkward, but his clumsiness tends to work out in his favor a lot- he slips, but slipping actually took him out of the way of the incoming sword thrust.)