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

[Janx]

If u want me to wear 31 pieces of Flair then make the minimum be 31 pieces of flair.

While in truth, i expect your low stat pc to have a difference in personality that contrasts with your high stat pc.

Whats not easily agreed upon is a player's interpretation as compared to the gm

 

[Umbran]

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.

I don't know if today, after 40 years and mixing with other games, there's a a solid basis for that kind of pigeon-holing. We should remember that the GNS type of framework is a theoretical construct, not an empirical one.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do ask players to play according to what is on the sheet in most cases, as that way there are actual tradeoffs in character creation. I do not punish them for not doing so, but the stats on their sheets strongly affect how the NPCs and gameworld react to the player's ideas.

OOC they can be as good as they can be.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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

Potentially.

If I mention that I'm not just going to jump into the pit without learning more, are you going to make me roll for that and make me go in if I fail, because that's what an unwise PC would do?

Probably not, but see my short summation at the end of this.

If I am a really smart person and my PC has a low INT, are you going to limit what solutions I can make my PC do?

Yes.

Am I going to have to roll for each solution I propose, to see if my PC can 'think' of it?

Not each solution, but definitely some.

Are you going to make me gullibly believe obvious falsehoods?

There'd probably be a roll for it.

Are you going to force my PC into bad squares while in combat, because he's dumb and failed an INT check?

Potentially, though it'd probably be subtly "bad".

If I am very charismatic and my PC is not, are you going to restrict the words I might say?

Yes.

Are you going to force mannerisms and ways of speech on my PC?

No.

Are you going to prevent me from saying something because my PC is not charasmatic enough to say it?

Yes.

Are there actions you would force me to take (your PC is stupid, so he jumps into the pit...and dies).

Potentially. It'd be pretty severe to make you jump in the pit, though. Like, illusions at work that you didn't pick up on.

Is there dialogue I can't have because you think my PC lacks the vocabulary or persuasiveness to assemble into a sentence?

Potentially.

Short summation: People often see low Intelligence/Wisdom as stupid in or our of combat in obvious ways, but that's only somewhat true. Wolf packs often flank their prey, for example. To that end, I'll probably enforce or force rolls for subtly bad decisions, or for someone making a good decision when the "bad" effect they're avoiding is subtle. Jumping off of a cliff? Probably not going to enforce that in most situations. Standing in a square you shouldn't because it's likely that a mechanical device will hit you when it's activated? Potentially. As always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

I don't know if today, after 40 years and mixing with other games, there's a a solid basis for that kind of pigeon-holing. We should remember that the GNS type of framework is a theoretical construct, not an empirical one.

On the other hand, there may be a solid basis for that kind of pigeon-holing.

 

[steenan]

1. A game (or a GM) should not force players to act in a specific way. Players make their own decisions. But I expect the stats to determine how successful the actions are. In a good game, stats either don't describe given area of play or have a big effect on it - so you just can't be efficient if your play style contradicts your stats.

2. I believe in honest play. That is: if we agree on what game we want to play, we play this game, instead of trying to abuse and break it (unless we agreed on breaking it, of course). Similarly, we play the characters we created, with the limitations we gave them, instead of trying to circumvent the disadvantages. Games may encourage "good play" (whatever it means in given game) through mechanical rewards and penalties, but trying to force someone to play in a way they don't want to never works.

3. In my experience, bright and charismatic players playing dumb characters work very well. An intelligent player may devise fun ways for their character to do dumb things. A charismatic player will roleplay their character accidentally insulting others or suggesting something entirely different than they wanted to say. When somebody wants to play the character they created, they put all their advantages to work.

 

[Bedrockgames]

While I think playing your character's attributes is important, I don't force players to do anything. Our group just discourages metagaming in general. I don't give XP for role play , so there isn't any penalty if you fail to play your character's low WIS.

 

[delericho]

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.

That's fine, and works quite well, provided:

- you require rolls for these things at least as often as you do for Str-based (or Dex- or Con-based) things. No roleplaying around the stat.

- and, in fact, you don't give bonuses for "good roleplaying" when players make the roll.

Otherwise, the outcome isn't consistent with the stat, since you've allowed the inconsistent roleplay to trump the character sheet.

 

[Umbran]

On the other hand, there may be a solid basis for that kind of pigeon-holing.

Sorry, but in context, I can't tell for sure what your "that kind" refers to.

 

[S'mon]

Sorry, but in context, I can't tell for sure what your "that kind" refers to.

Merely that your unsubstantiated statement holds as much water as mine.