Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?

[billd91]

Except that isn't the case in many scenarios. Many things don't have mechanics tied to them (problem solving, strategy and making plans, unraveling conspiracies, etc.). For example, I think Hussar and I have a problem with a 6 Intelligence and 6 Wisdom character being just as good at the listed traits as an 18 Intelligence and 18 Wisdom character.

Because, to us, stat should inform play. If you have a low Intelligence, you should probably be worse at reasoning, puzzles, math, solving abstract problems, long term strategy, court complexity, and the like. The player in my group is expected to play down in-character (though I'd allow meta communication to a high Intelligence player to someone who can't play up to that).

But you're still left the question of "By whose standards?" How intelligent does a PC have to be to solve the puzzle? To use good tactics? How charismatic to get in the milkmaid's panties? To talk his way out of a night in the gaol for brawling? These are all fuzzy areas. Is it worth raising a stink about it? Is it worth micromanaging what a PC can or cannot do? Should the DM be a filter between the player and the PC?

For that matter, is a PC with an intelligence of 6-8 that much dumber (unpersonable for Charisma, unenlightened for Wisdom) than the player trying to play him that he couldn't have succeeded at a task the player attempted with his own abilities? How can you be sure? I suppose you could make the players roll for virtually every mental/social task they undertake, but that seems to remove a whole lot of fun from the game in favor of tossing dice around. I do not believe any edition of D&D intended that to be the result.

 

[Janx]

But, I was told repeatedly that I could play Cliff Clavin and succeed just as well as The Doctor because stats don't matter. That if I make a good speech as a player, my character should get the same results, regardless of his actual stats.

I don't think I ever said that. else I mispoke if I did. In fact, at some point I stated in one of these threads that I may even reconsider giving situational "performance" bonus in order to more accurately reflect the PC's skill impact, and instead give XP to reward being in-character.

Cliff may "act" the same as the Doctor. But he will not succeed like the Doctor.

Cliff can't know as many skills as the Doctor. Cliff has worse skill checks than the Doctor. So he may try the same things, say the same words, but he will not have the same results.

This is different than saying Cliff must ACT a different way than his stats. He can act how he wants, his success at the game mechanics will be constrained by his stats.

 

[JamesonCourage]

But you're still left the question of "By whose standards?"

Yep, and it's a hard question (I'd say "the groups' perceptions, or failing that, the GM's"). However, taking ability scores into account (past "the mechanics cover it) seems reasonable.

How intelligent does a PC have to be to solve the puzzle?

It'll vary from group to group, obviously. Solving a puzzle might be an Int check, but unraveling a conspiracy probably isn't. I think it's safe to say that it'd be reasonable to ask the player of a 6 Int and 6 Wis character not to keep revealing story points that he figures out because the player is brilliant.

To use good tactics?

Tactics are different from long term strategy (which is what I mentioned). Wolves will flank, and animals will try to avoid dangerous areas (or squares). However, long term planning is something else entirely.

How charismatic to get in the milkmaid's panties? To talk his way out of a night in the gaol for brawling? These are all fuzzy areas. Is it worth raising a stink about it? Is it worth micromanaging what a PC can or cannot do? Should the DM be a filter between the player and the PC?

Some groups would find it worth it, yes. Mine does. And, we collectively try to catch players who metagame, which would include breaking the mold of our perception of ability scores. Doing so breaks our suspension of disbelief, which in turns draws us out of immersion. This is important to us.

That why I've said I don't understand why people can't understand that it might be important to some people.

For that matter, is a PC with an intelligence of 6-8 that much dumber (unpersonable for Charisma, unenlightened for Wisdom) than the player trying to play him that he couldn't have succeeded at a task the player attempted with his own abilities? How can you be sure? I suppose you could make the players roll for virtually every mental/social task they undertake, but that seems to remove a whole lot of fun from the game in favor of tossing dice around. I do not believe any edition of D&D intended that to be the result.

Play style difference detected. You can understand that your way isn't right for everyone, and that people that want to play in a different way have legitimate reasons for doing so, right?

And, honestly, I don't care how any game is meant to be played. If I'm following the rules, I don't care if my party never goes dungeon hopping or assumes an adventuring career. We're playing by the rules, and we're having fun. Many things fall outside the rules (like, all RP), and to some people, playing to your character's mental scores is important.

This seems very logical and reasonable to me. Again, not saying you should play that way, but I'm still having a problem seeing why people don't get why it's important to some people. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

Play style difference detected. You can understand that your way isn't right for everyone, and that people that want to play in a different way have legitimate reasons for doing so, right?

In a threat titled "Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?" [emphasis mine] that is MY point.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think I ever said that. else I mispoke if I did. In fact, at some point I stated in one of these threads that I may even reconsider giving situational "performance" bonus in order to more accurately reflect the PC's skill impact, and instead give XP to reward being in-character.

Cliff may "act" the same as the Doctor. But he will not succeed like the Doctor.

Cliff can't know as many skills as the Doctor. Cliff has worse skill checks than the Doctor. So he may try the same things, say the same words, but he will not have the same results.

This is different than saying Cliff must ACT a different way than his stats. He can act how he wants, his success at the game mechanics will be constrained by his stats.

So, you have no problem with the huge disconnect between how the player is portraying the character and what is actually happening at the table? He's portraying himself as The Doctor - and all that that entails. Yet, in play, he's failing all the time and is most certainly not The Doctor. Not only that, but, he has less skills and whatnot than The Doctor as well, meaning that in play he actually cannot try the things that The Doctor could. For example, any Trained Only skill will be entirely beyond his reach, like, say, Knowledge Sklls which are pretty part and parcel to any depiction of The Doctor.

Despite the fact that in play, our Cliff Clavin character in no way actually resembles the Doctor, you have no problem with the player playing him as The Doctor?

In a threat titled "Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?" [emphasis mine] that is MY point.

Considering that point has been laid to rest about ten pages ago, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again. Forced? Nope. Never. Then again, it's like saying, "Should a DM be forced to never run a railroad campaign?" It's completely unenforceable (sorry about the pun). Yet, we'd mostly agree that a railroad campaign is something to be avoided.

What determines a railroad campaign and to what degree? Certainly not the mechanics. It's determined by the tastes of the table. Portraying character is no different.

So, you agree that Thog's player can play Thog as the best tactician in the group and solve puzzles for the party despite having an 8 INT on his character sheet, because the neither tactical acumen nor puzzle-solving ability are covered by the character attributes?

That's a bit trickier isn't it? You're talking about a character with brain damage - an idiot savant. The mechanics are certainly not designed to deal with something like that. And, this way lies a LOT of powergaming. I can simply dumpstat and then ignore any penalties because I'm a "savant".

After all, that's some pretty specific savant abilities. He's dumber than a plank in all things except the two things that come up most often in an adventure.

See, the problem that I'm seeing here is that you're rejecting the definitions that are given for the stats. Which is fine for your game. Playstyles and all that. But, I'm thinking that the system is not loving you here. In a system which defines mental stats, they usually broadly define what those stats govern. Problem solving is typically in D&D related to Int or perhaps Wis. Tactical acumen is also directly linked to Int in D20 (Combat Expertise feat tree gives a pretty good example here - Int 13 required). If you want to do more than just bash away at baddies, you need to have a pretty high Int in D20 D&D. All of the improved maneuver feats are linked to Combat Expertise.

In the same way if you want the big bashing maneuvers in D20 D&D, you need Power Attack - Str 13 required. If you want Two Weapon Fighting and the related feats, you need a Dex of 15. Stats will directly impact how your character operates.

As far as the idiot-savant angle goes, I'm going to file that away under a pretty rare corner case. I'd be taking a really hard look at any player that brought that to play because my first reaction is that the player is just powergaming the system - trying to get an advantage without paying the requisite weakness.

 

[Janx]

So, you have no problem with the huge disconnect between how the player is portraying the character and what is actually happening at the table? He's portraying himself as The Doctor - and all that that entails. Yet, in play, he's failing all the time and is most certainly not The Doctor. Not only that, but, he has less skills and whatnot than The Doctor as well, meaning that in play he actually cannot try the things that The Doctor could. For example, any Trained Only skill will be entirely beyond his reach, like, say, Knowledge Sklls which are pretty part and parcel to any depiction of The Doctor.

Despite the fact that in play, our Cliff Clavin character in no way actually resembles the Doctor, you have no problem with the player playing him as The Doctor?

While I hate stupid or joke characters, I don't think it's in my domain as GM or PC to do anything about it. At most, it MIGHT violate my "make a PC the party would hire" rule because as an adventurer he's useless.

While I don't encourage the making of incompetent PCs, it's possible. That's what the Dumb Doctor represents to me. In your original example, he's not actually useless, he's acting uselessly (by ignoring his strengths and insisting his weaknesses aren't.

The dumb doctor is stumbling because he's got bad stats on the rules he's trying to use (skill checks).

In the case of the 3 INT barbarian with no skills but awesome combat tactics, there's no rules making it a problem. So I don't have a problem because I interpret the stat to what the rules model, not what the fluff says.

Considering I also don't get "this is what my PC is like" from all players, I don't have a baseline to compare to.

So somebody saying "I'm CN" but acting "LG" would obviously make me go "huh?"

But another player may not even announce that their PC is like the Doctor. How can I say Cliff is acting out of character when I don't know the player is acting like the Doctor and has bad stats?

Now you might ask, how I could have PCs in my game that I don't know this stuff?

1) I trust my players not to cheat
2) I'm lazy and assume their PC makes sense
3) they followed the limits on source material
4) they followed the house rules on PC behavior (make a PC the party would hire)

As such, I might not have been told "my PC is just like the Doctor and he like never fights and stuff!"

 

[JamesonCourage]

In a threat titled "Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?" [emphasis mine] that is MY point.

And in the discussion we're having, expressing that you understand why some people think this should apply is somehow bad, because...?

 

[billd91]

Considering that point has been laid to rest about ten pages ago, I'm not sure why you're bringing it up again. Forced? Nope. Never.

Then what do you do when some one plays the Doctor with a low Int and/or Charisma. It sounds like in JamesonCourage's game, they apply peer pressure to bring the offending player into line. What do you do? Boot the player? Tell him he can't play like that? What if he disagrees with you and thinks that an Int 6 is good enough to play with reasonable tactics? How do you get the player who is playing the PC "wrong" in your estimation to play them "right"? What is the enforcement mechanism here?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Then what do you do when some one plays the Doctor with a low Int and/or Charisma. It sounds like in JamesonCourage's game, they apply peer pressure to bring the offending player into line.

An agreed social contract ≠ peer pressure, but that is wildly amusing. This board has been good for that today.

What do you do? Boot the player? Tell him he can't play like that? What if he disagrees with you and thinks that an Int 6 is good enough to play with reasonable tactics? How do you get the player who is playing the PC "wrong" in your estimation to play them "right"? What is the enforcement mechanism here?

(I'm ignoring the use of "tactics" again, even when I've specifically mentioned long term strategy, not tactics).

"Roll a check," "you didn't think of that," or "it slipped your mind." I mean, yeah, darn, it's hard for us. And if he disagrees? I'll hear his case, accept outside player input, and then make my decision. He goes through with (or doesn't go through with) the action, based on that decision. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't need to play.

Again, while it seems tough, I've yet to have to apply this in any sort of extreme case, and no player has tried to push hard against it. As I said, the other players tend to back me up, or ask "can I roll to think of this?" It's what we've agreed upon. Go by our rules, or don't play. Just like any other group. And, since a player has never quit playing with me because he dislikes how I run things, I feel pretty safe assuming I'm not tyrannical, or using "peer pressure to bring the offending player into line."

Go ahead and do things your way. I'm cool with it. Just, please, don't purposefully mischaracterize my position now that I've clarified it. Thank you. As always, play what you like

 

[billd91]

An agreed social contract ≠ peer pressure, but that is wildly amusing. This board has been good for that today.

Some groups would find it worth it, yes. Mine does. And, we collectively try to catch players who metagame, which would include breaking the mold of our perception of ability scores. Doing so breaks our suspension of disbelief, which in turns draws us out of immersion. This is important to us.

How is this not peer pressure? You collectively try to catch players who metagame. You're all peers aren't you?