Low ability scores -- more fun?

[Chainsaw]

I don't think you'll find many people lining up to play a character whose distinguishing trait is "sucks at chosen role".

I agree.. and while the weak wizard or dumb fighter may be boring cliches to those of us who have played or DM'd for 20 years, I regularly play with new and novice gamers (RPGA pick-up games). Designing a character like that doesn't really seem boring or cliche to them. Recreating some of the characters and group combos that they've seen in movies or read about in books appeals to them. Eventually the "weakness" may become subtler and more nuanced, I guess.

 

[Garthanos]

We play in my own campaign world and their are great character concepts that come out of the world that would support straight 18's.

Well now I am curious what a straight 18s character might feel like

Beratos is verging on becoming a transcendent hero.. a bodhisatva and fears losing touch with the world, his charisma is the kind that demands a response almost magically ... not the comfortable "I really do get you" kind of charisma and it actually embarasses him (making him feel like running) when somebody hooks up on it (insert cult of personality addict). He often refrains from voicing his opinion until everyone else has had there say and prompts those who may seem reluctant, for fear that his opinion may carry too much weight. He barely notices that his musculature is perfect and may need to be prodded in to physical recourse usually letting somebody else do the physical things even if he is better suited to them. He remembers the languages from many life times.. and waffles between being totally baffled by and angry at most forms of prejudice. He has a sword made up of raw mystical runes wrapping power which is his own spirit which echo with memories of his earlier lives and woven with his cumulated wisdom and which he oft sits reading in meditation sometimes falling in to a protracted past life dream... he frequently uses a ritual to prevent this but a part of him values these super flashbacks (one time he entered one for a week and awoke in a tomb, apparently they thought him dead and it annoyed him that he hadn't connected well enough with his companions that they didn't know the difference. He wields healing and benign magic in his right hand and his sword of runic justice in his left, .... He once knew an earth goddess who helped him retain his connection to the world and its people by showing him how to die and be reborn, so in battle sometimes echoes of her power ripple through the earth in his defense. He has this habit following others lead until something inspires him.

When he first discovers his sword in any given life time he thinks it is a magic item but realizes gradually it is a part of him and he can summon it to hand or manifest it with ease. He has other items associated with him a shield of white hot truth and a cloak which protects ones identity from outside influence.

 

[Theroc]

Not our group. We don't usually call the other players names. The group is all in their 30's with families and jobs and everyone is friends out of game as well as in game. Most of the time they don't even know what the other people's ability scores are, it just isn't all that important to them to know the specific mechanics of the other characters.



Ugh, if any of my players threw around phrases like "true role player" then they would get made fun of. We role play, but they aren't the strongest group for that but they are getting better.



No worries. I remove the peer pressure not that there is much by having players select their scores in private (we have our own message boards for this) and not share what they pick. Last time I did this it was a great social experiment. After everyone picked their stats I asked all the players to write down who they thought who have picked the highest point buy total and then rank everyone else. It was funny to see who everyone thought was going to pick the highest scores and then to see that their perception was very wrong when they saw the reality.



We play in my own campaign world and their are great character concepts that come out of the world that would support straight 18's. I've shown them that balance between PCs is not as delicate as some people think and by some people I'm including them in that. As a DM I like to break people's expectations and show them that the game can still be fun by doing things different and its worked. I've gotten a little lucky at times, but my basic premise has always been as long as we are gaming with friends fun will be had.

Sounds cool. I'd like to play in a game like that sometime. Anyways, I just had to chime in that oftentimes that sort of offer would actually make me paranoid to pick all 18's if I was allowed, because of the stigma I've seen with the 'rollplayer vs roleplayer' argument. Glad that isn't the case with your group and you all have fun, as that's what really matters.

If the group can play with low or high scores and everyone has fun, it doesn't much matter at that point.

 

[pawsplay]

Character flaws are interesting.

"Clumsy" is not a character flaw.

But being ashamed that you are clumsy could be a character challenge.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So, if you are one of those Players who think a low attribute is more fun or more interesting, have you ever willingly taken a weak attribute when you didn’t have to? Without some balancing benefit?

No. For the same reason my character doesn't deliberately throw himself down a flight of stairs before beginning a combat.

If, however, my character unintentionally begins a combat at less than 100% hit points, the increased challenge can make the encounter even more fun. And the same is true of a randomly rolled low stat. The character I played just before my current one was a ranger whose randomly rolled Strength was lower than I would have chosen, and that flaw made him much more fun for me to play than he would have been had I simply picked the "appropriate" Strength for him. YMMV.

 

[Theroc]

No. For the same reason my character doesn't deliberately throw himself down a flight of stairs before beginning a combat.

Maybe it's just late, but it made me chuckle to imagine someone's character throwing himself down a flight of stairs, just to handicap himself before a fight.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes.

Why? It's more challenging, generally speaking. And I like that. I like my characters to fight for every victory. I prefer it to be difficult for them, and for me. This, I find, is far more rewarding than the alternatives.

The most fun I've had recently - as a pleyer, anyway - is with a 3d6-in-order 'tragedy' with 10,13,7,9,8 as his stats (there are only five in that game). The modifiers are rather different to 3e's or 4e's, say. The stats also get used directly at times, since there are no skills at all (or feats, etc., incidentally). Not the brightest chap, but I don't play him stoopid, just not an intellectual in any sense of the word. Practical, straightforward, leaves the complexities to others for the most part. Oh, and by the way, he is a caster (of sorts) and his prime stat for that is, well, average. Worst case of, in fact.

But he's still going strong! Only just, I might add, as if I have to. And damn, it's been fun, and I really hope he manages to pull through whatever further deadly scenarios crop up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

”It’s low scores that make a character interesting.”

I’ve read and heard comments like this for years. One of the Players in my current group has said this several times. It’s supposedly one of the benefits of random rolling for ability scores.

I wonder, though, if a low score makes a character more interesting or more fun to play, why don’t the believers willingly drop one of their PC’s attributes to something low? I’ve told more than one Player through the years that I’m fine with them dropping a score if they feel it will make their character more fun for them, however, no one has ever taken me up on that offer.

Well, that is, they’ve never been willing to lower a score without wanting some other benefit to compensate for the weakness.

So, if you are one of those Players who think a low attribute is more fun or more interesting, have you ever willingly taken a weak attribute when you didn’t have to? Without some balancing benefit?

For me, I’m willing to admit that it’s the high attributes that make a character more fun and interesting for me. A fighter with 20 Strength, a wizard with 20 Intelligence, a rogue with 20 Dexterity gives me more fun than a fighter with 3 Wisdom, a wizard with 3 Strength, or a rogue with 3 Charisma.

Bullgrit

A PC with lower stats isn't inherently more interesting, but IMHO, it IS generally more of a challenge to a roleplayer*, and that can lead to more interesting PCs. They add definition and depth. They can set him apart from the other supermen in the party. They can humanize.

Consider, Superman (esp. the one of the 1980s) as a virtual god among mortals...potentially a yawner of a character if nobody could oppose him. But he was still interesting because something that is harmless to us- kryptonite- is lethal to him. Ditto Green Lantern- capable of nearly anything, but unable to directly confront anything colored yellow.

Tony Stark is Iron Man- how cool is THAT!?!- but what sets him apart from most other characters is his alcoholism- something that nearly cost him everything...including his heroic identity.

In an AD&D campaign, I once made a deal to run Bear: a fighter with max physical stats and all mental stats at 6. I've told his story more than once on these boards. He's one of the most memorable PCs I ever ran.

Johnny Bones was a 3Ed Ftr/Th with 15s in Str & Dex, 13 Con, Int 10, Wis8, Cha 6. Those stats were generated by 4d6 drop lowest, and placed in order rolled. The DM offered to let me re-roll the Wis & Cha stats- I refused. Again, he became one of the more interesting PCs I've run in the past 10 years.

* I'm not saying one who only plays paragons & demigods is an inferior roleplayer. I'm just saying its a lot easier for most people to role-play someone better at something- or everything- than they are, mainly because we spend more time fantasizing about that possibility. Rarely, if ever, do we wonder about what its like to be weaker, dumber, or less charismatic than ourselves.

 

[The Shaman]

More fun? No, but not less fun, either.

 

[Tyler Do'Urden]

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!

Raistlin, in the original trilogy, was described as a weakling. Yet you're forgetting about Caramon. He thought himself dumb, compared to his brilliant brother- yet if I recall, Dragonlance Adventures listed his intelligence as an above-average 13!

This, however, was on purpose- in the Chronicles trilogy, Raistlin comes back a "whole man", realizing that while he may be weak compared to his brother, he can stand on his own. Through the books, Caramon begins to realize the same thing- that he's actually a fairly intelligent man and not the dummy that he thought he was. Raistlin was a hypochondriac, Caramon was an underachiever- neither one was truly weak or dumb, they simply were in comparison to their exceptional sibling.