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

[Umbran]

If i'm wiser than my PC, are you going to force me to do unwise things?

Force you to? No.

Not that I've ever run into this as a major problem in practice, but I might well withhold XP from you if you played significantly against your mental stats.

This is part of the reason I strongly prefer point-build style chargen in games.

This way, if you play a character with no social interaction skills or a dullard, you, the player, chose to do so.

It isn't like the GM is standing over you with a whip, saying that you only get one shot at rolling the dice, and you're stuck playing what you get on pain of a thrashing, or something.

The player always has a choice. If you're using random creation, then the player ultimately still chooses to take the character as a whole. You don't like what you got? We'll talk about it and maybe re-roll, or adjust the stats a little.

 

[ComradeGnull]

That's all well and good, but what happens when a player does not act in character. Can the DM veto such actions?

It's comes down to a prescriptive vs. descriptive vision of character

In my opinion, what the PC does in-game is 'the character', not some stuff on a piece of paper. A barbarian might well 1) come up with bizarre and brilliant schemes to solve problems, but 2) fail every attempt to recollect basic facts about the history of his own nation. That isn't 'out of character' for a PC with 3 Int; that's a valid possible interpretation of those stats.

I remember the 2ed AD&D PHB going into how there are multiple ways to interpret the same set of stats- a particular collection of stats might describe someone who is bookish but shy and nearsighted (high int, low wis and cha) or someone who is an insufferable know-it-all with terrible judgement. Low int or cha doesn't have to mean you are a moron in every aspect of life; it just means "in those fields resolved by Int checks, you do poorly."

 

[S'mon]

My feeling, informed by the discussion I initiated, is that:

1. In a Gamist game it's unfair to limit player behaviour by reference to PC mental stats, except to the extent hard-coded into the rules. The player is supposed to be trying hard to win/succeed. Punishing this is unfair. In hardcore gamism the PC is just a pawn to be manipulated by the player in pursuit of victory - all is fair, within the rules.

2. In a Simulation, it may well be fair to expect players to play PCs in accordance with their listed stats. The player is not supposed to be trying to 'win' using all their personal resources, they are supposed to be exploring the imaginary world to find out what happens. Dramatic or narrativist play is similar, but the player probably has a slightly different stance in regards to their PC.

D&D came out of wargames, which are gamist with a simulation element. My impression is that most people play it basically according to #1, a smaller number according to #2, whereas some other games like Call of Cthulu are more commonly played according to #2.

As I said, I think it's unfair for the GM to be running a #1 game but expect the players to stick to #2 norms. However many games occupy a space somewhere between the two, in which case the group needs to establish its particular social contract at the table. Games with a strong emphasis on 'story', but where the story is defined as 'defeat X encounters to complete the adventure', can easily fall into this grey area.

 

[cattoy]

Well, the skeevy 6 cha lounge lizard can say. All the right words can fail to get the girl because he failed his persuasion check.

How do you restrict my 6int pc when you show me a door with a rainbow painted on it that goes into a keyhole (painted, not actual). There is a keypad with letters on it.

As a player, i cracked that puzzle in microseconds when my gm presented it.

I'm not sure i'd like being forced to roll an int check to see if i can use my solution.

I don't think forced is quite the right way to address the issue, but I think obliged is the better word for it.

If the system does not enforce the weakness of the PC from coming into play, then the DM should nudge the players into the right sort of direction.

By that I mean that if you are playing a character with really really low stats/skills/attributes at this or that, the player should willingly recuse himself from interactions that rely heavily on those stats/skills/attributes for meaningful participation. I don't care if a player is a brilliant brain surgeon, if his PC is a caveman with no manual dexterity, I don't want his PC to grab a scalpel and perform a complicated operation on someone with head trauma. Especially not if he expects that his out of game expertise is going to guarantee a successful outcome.

 

[delericho]

Trying to force players to act in a particular way, even if that is "in accordance with your stats", is a fool's game. You'll just lose players (or, worse, friends).

Players should choose to play the characters they have created in accordance with the stats they chose. But if they choose not to, there's very little the DM can do to force them.

Ideally, though, the game should be structured in such a way that there is incentive for the players to highlight their weaknesses. Basically, instead of giving extra build points at char-gen for taking weaknesses (or low stats, or whatever) and then trying to force players to adhere to those, the game would be better served giving players the option of taking weaknesses or not, not giving bonuses at char-gen to compensate, and instead giving some sort of compensation in-play when those weaknesses actually come up and hinder the character (whether that is extra XP, a bonus to a later roll, or whatever). Give the player reason to play up his character's flaws, rather than having the DM try to enforce it or simply relying on player honesty.

 

[Crothian]

That's all well and good, but what happens when a player does not act in character. Can the DM veto such actions?

Of course the DM can. We usually cut in first and point it out to the player and he fixes the problem.

 

[Hussar]

If i'm wiser than my PC, are you going to force me to do unwise things? Make me roll for it?

Nope. And I'm probably the strongest proponent for what you're talking about.

Thing is, if I'm playing with good role players, I shouldn't have to. The good role players should be leaping off of bridges all without any input from the DM.

It's only the min/maxing munchkins that want their dump stats and their character weaknesses to never come up in game, while at the same time they enjoy all the benefits of the extra power that taking those weaknesses brought.

I don't play with people like that any more. It ruins my fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For my games I don't worry about player action matching 'stats', mainly because PC stats for the most part don't get to be chosen in 4E based upon how the player wants to play the character, but rather because whatever class they want to play dictates which stats have to be 'good'.

4E comes at character choice much stronger from the selection of class rather than the selection of stats. I'm more likely to have players tell me they want to play a 'rogue', rather than a 'high DEX, high CHA, low WIS' character. So while I could certainly ask them which stats they wanted to be high and low (to determine how they want to play the PC) and then offer them only those classes which fit those parameters... odds-are that wouldn't go over as well. So I let them choose the class they want to play, make those stats high which are required for mostly effective play of that character, and then just not worry that the INT 9 PC is adding his own ideas on how to get past the puzzle I've presented to the group.

 

[Luce]

I think the players should be encouraged to play true to stats as long as it does not affect their fun. There are many ways to do this as well as interpretations of what low stat is like.
Some ideas are presented in Dragon, in particular "Wise as an ox, strong as an owl" in issue 284.
Also from two editorials(cannot remember the numbers from the top of my head) one about plaing a dark mantle barbarian who used at most 2 word sentences. another about a low INT cleric whos player predeceased his smart ideas by looking up and then saying "Big guy said..."
The point is 1) not to stifle the player into a ineffectual, unfun corner
2) Memorable characters have flaws too.

Other examples from fantasy I have seen include (for Char) Tarma from "Outhbound" who at the very beginning is outgoing and a singer, then as part of the story gets her face and throat slashed and as result gets a horrible voice, start wearing a mask and avoid interacting with others as much as possible.
For INT: Bear from "To ride a rathorn" you can think of him as a half giant monk with claws, who got an amateur brain surgery with an axe. While his muscle memory is fine he cannot speak and have hard time. Occasionally memories from his past flash through his mind the result is often unsatisfying. For example, he observes the norms of hospitality offering his guest to eat first, but does not realize that moldy bread and rancid meat are not standard fair. For another, his reactions have a logical path: following the principles he had been thought "Test things to their limit, when they break take them apart to study the flaw and learn from the experience." This applies equally to both people he incidentally killed during training and wooden toys his brother leaves him to play with (he has hard time judging his strength and fine manipulation with his overgrown claws).
In essence he is incapable of the third step: learning but keeps on trying.

 

[El Mahdi]

In my opinion: No.

As long as they aren't metagaming, I don't want a player intentionally playing down. The stats on their character sheet will make any outcomes consitent with the character anyways.

Besides, low intelligence people can have good ideas...it's in execution where things likely breakdown.