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

[The Shaman]

I fail to understand your question.

Clearly.

You're assuming that Hubert is a wannabe. He's not. He's studied and practiced, enough to qualify as a first level character.

Let's try this with an actual character, a d20 Modern Fast Hero, level 1.

Hubert
Human Male Fast Hero 1

Representing The Shaman

Strength 10 (+0)
Dexterity 6 (-2)
Constitution 11 (+0)
Intelligence 13 (+1)
Wisdom 10 (+0)
Charisma 10 (+0)
Size: Medium
Height: 5' 9"
Weight: 165 lb
Eyes: Dark Brown
Hair: Light Brown
Skin: Pale

Talents: Evasion

Total Hit Points: 8

Speed: 30 feet

Armor Class: 11 = 10 + 3 [class] +-2 [dexterity]

Touch AC: 11
Flat-footed: 11
Initiative modifier: -2 = -2 [dexterity]
Fortitude save: +0 = 0 [base]
Reflex save: -1 = 1 [base] -2 [dexterity]
Will save: +0 = 0 [base]
Attack (handheld): +0 = 0 [base]
Attack (missile): -2 = 0 [base] -2 [dexterity]
Grapple check: +0 = 0 [base]
Reputation: +0 = 0 [base]

Action points: 5 (lifetime)

Student (starting occupation) -
Computer Use
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (popular culture)

Feats:
Combat Expertise
Exotic Melee Weapon Proficiency Weapon:
Simple Weapon Proficiency [free]

Skills:
Balance Dex* 2 = -2 +4
Bluff Cha 0 = +0
Climb Str* 2 = +0 +2
Computer Use Int 1 = +1
Concentration Con 0 = +0
Craft (Structural) Int 1 = +1
Craft (Visual Art) Int 1 = +1
Craft (Writing) Int 1 = +1
Diplomacy Cha 0 = +0
Disguise Cha 0 = +0
Drive Dex* -2 = -2
Escape Artist Dex* -1 = -2 +1
Forgery Int 1 = +1
Gamble Wis 0 = +0
Gather Information Cha 0 = +0
Hide Dex* 2 = -2 +4
Intimidate Cha 0 = +0
Jump Str* 0 = +0
Knowledge (history) Int 2 = +1 +1
Knowledge (popular culture) Int 3 = +1 +1 +1 [Student]
Listen Wis 0 = +0
Move Silently Dex* 2 = -2 +4
Navigate Int 1 = +1
Perform (Act) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Dance) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Keyboards) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Percussion) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Sing) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Standup) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (String Inst.) Cha 0 = +0
Perform (Wind Inst.) Cha 0 = +0
Research Int 1 = +1
Ride Dex -2 = -2
Search Int 1 = +1
Sense Motive Wis 0 = +0
Sleight of Hand Dex* -1 = -2 +1
Spot Wis 0 = +0
Survival Wis 0 = +0
Swim Str** 0 = +0
Treat Injury Wis 0 = +0
Tumble Dex* 2 = -2 +4

Hubert compensates for his lack of natural physical ability with the most rigorous training he can manage. At comparable levels, he will never be as good as someone with 18 DEX, but compared to someone without ranks in the same skills, he's ahead of the game, and will continue to be so as the campaign progresses.

I think it's a massive mistake to assume that a character's personality is predicated solely, or even predominately, on their ability scores. I've known actors and musicians who can give an amazing performance on stage but are shy and awkward away from it. I knew a would-be Lothario with the Charisma of a skunk who nonetheless never lacked for feminine companionship by virtue of law of averages - he asked out every woman he met, and sometimes rolled a twenty, if you know what I mean. I knew an honest-to-Jesus rocket scientist who couldn't figure out which bills to give the cashier when he bought his lunch.

Here it is in a nutshell. Let the rules take care of the rules, and let the player player play the character he wants. In the campaign I'm running right now, one of the characters is a would-be great lover of women, who started the game with a Charm of 11. He's gotten some play, and he's gotten his face slapped, exactly as one would expect from such a character. The point is, the player plays him as if he is Don Juan, and that's friggin' AWESOME.

I reject the notion that characters must play to type. A character's ability need not determine a character's aspirations or self-image. You want to play a character who aspires to command an army with a 6 CHA? Great, make your stirring speeches, order men-at-arms to your banner, lead them in a charge - but don't be surprised if they don't follow you 'cause they failed their morale check.

In my book, that's GREAT roleplaying.

 

[Mallus]

So far these threads have mainly focused on low-playing-high, but what about the reverse?

My current Pathfinder PC is a 13th level Oracle, which is a CHA-based spontaneous divine caster class, in case you didn't now. Her CHA is 22. However, that 22 Charisma says very little about who she is, her personality, all the things that commonly comprise characterization in fiction.

She's laconic and somewhat mean woman from a warrior culture who, later in life, has decided to fully embrace her heritage. She's almost without charm, she's not a leader, and she delights in being rude to those she deems dishonorable. At best, she's striking looking, without ever exactly being pretty... I picture her as the Bedouin Elven version of Tilda Swinton (actually, I think Tilda Swinton *is* beautiful, but that's just me...).

She has no training in diplomacy. She does have Bluff, but she only uses the distract-and-hide function, reflecting her training as a military scout.

But, in the end, she's super-humanly charismatic. Am I playing her wrong?

And if I'm not... then what's the relationship between stats and characterization again??

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Well in D&D (and Pathfinder) animals often have high wisdom and there are many monsters with cha on nothing really charming about them.

I think cha in D&D could be seen both as combination of charm and power of personality and in some cases striking looks (beutiful or unique). And it could be handled like Might in oldie Runequest. It was for magical might, strengh of personality and "aura". High might actually made it harder to hide/sneak because you drew attention, negative might made you easier to miss, and also more suspensible for possesion by various spirits.

I think your Oracle would be good fit for Runequest-like take on charisma.


For D&D usual take, depends on dm I think. Still monster book points out that hags have high cha as do many other less cute things. So that superhuman-charsima is indeed found in things not human. Which might also be what people start feeling around her.
Charismatic people with high lv/creepy magic without proper social skill feel eerily alien IMO.

I think she would be one of those people that gets lot of instant likes/dislikes without even trying. People would pay attention to her even when she is not saying anything. People would expect her to have an opinion unless they have know her long and learned other facts about her personality. Her moods might be catchy/unnerving to people around. She would get called creepy behind her back.
Then again she is oracle that is double creepy.

However since D&D doesn't use might but cha she would't have to compensate visibility when scouting and hiding. Good for you save some points here.
Oh you use bluff, mmh I think you need sneaky skills too.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

hubert the boy who would be ninja.
Rather funny. Suitable for some games, but...

I am min-maxer as dm I would hate to see this character for combat heavy game. Because without doubt the player would start at some point complain that I should nerf other people characters. This is true with real roleplayers I have played with.

I play games which are more about characters but I don't really use d&d roles for them.


As to other things, ye, I have known repulsive people who get company thanks to trying and not starting to feel bad for all the negative reactions.


The rocket scientist guy in your example has some mental issues that are common with some genious types. To create that kinda character in D&D is hard because you would need disadvantage system. You are this super-smart guy with some mental challenges.

 

[Umbran]

I reject the notion that characters must play to type.

You make a fine point. However, I think the issue isn't so much whether players play to type, so much as they play against type, and get results against type.

It is fine to have a guy who wants to be Lothario, but usually fails due to his low stats. That, as you say, is role playing. And anyone can have an occasional flash of brilliance.

However, the barbarian who has used his Int and Wis as dump stats to gain mechanical combat benefits, and yet *consistently* delivers the best tactical plans imaginable (which the can bypass mechanics to do), is having his cake and eating it too. It is the equivalent of taking a flaw to gain build points, but conveniently forgetting it is on the character sheet when it matters.

 

[S'mon]

However, the barbarian who has used his Int and Wis as dump stats to gain mechanical combat benefits, and yet *consistently* delivers the best tactical plans imaginable (which the can bypass mechanics to do), is having his cake and eating it too. It is the equivalent of taking a flaw to gain build points, but conveniently forgetting it is on the character sheet when it matters.

There's no rules for coming up with tactical plans. If there were, and they were INT-based, then wizards would be the best tacticians. Personally I'd rather have a game where fighters can be good tacticians.

 

[Janx]

However, the barbarian who has used his Int and Wis as dump stats to gain mechanical combat benefits, and yet *consistently* delivers the best tactical plans imaginable (which the can bypass mechanics to do), is having his cake and eating it too. It is the equivalent of taking a flaw to gain build points, but conveniently forgetting it is on the character sheet when it matters.

Which gets to the crux of the OT (oh wait, that's me).

How do you arbitrate that without invoking your own bias.

I can see a clean ruling for doing a skill check for the Don Juan attempt with each lady.

How do you arbitrate the quantity or quality of my ideas for my 8 INT/WIS barbarian?

I realize, you'll never please all of us with a rule proposal. But I think if you're going to have expectations on how such a PC behaves, you've got to codify it if you're going to enforce it.

I know I don't like the idea of making the party roll per PC to see if they think of my idea. Or of my PC being forced to say your idea because your PC is stupid and mine is smart. My ideas are mine, yours are yours. That's why I file patents with my name on them.

I'd also caution that when you put a limit or counter on ideas, then you need to fully account for all ideas. Like the old joke at HP, if the company owns all my good ideas, don't they also own all my bad ideas and therefore I am not responsible for them either?

There's also the table-chat bleed-over problem. If we're all in the middle of a combat and the players are discussing tactics, then the smart players are feeding ideas to the dumb players. This bypasses any segregation of ideas to PC silos by their stats.

As a note from the other thread, I have a hypocritical view on this. I do play my half-orc barbarian with low/average INT/CHA as less social, less friendly and not contributing to battle plans and solutions. Being a smart player, I still cheat and avoid taking stupid actions myself. But I try to play in a way that does not present him as a genius diplomat to the rest of the party.

But like Shaman, I see that this is an area the rules do not manage very well, and as such I avoid interfering with as a GM.

 

[Dausuul]

You make a fine point. However, I think the issue isn't so much whether players play to type, so much as they play against type, and get results against type.

It is fine to have a guy who wants to be Lothario, but usually fails due to his low stats. That, as you say, is role playing. And anyone can have an occasional flash of brilliance.

However, the barbarian who has used his Int and Wis as dump stats to gain mechanical combat benefits, and yet *consistently* delivers the best tactical plans imaginable (which the can bypass mechanics to do), is having his cake and eating it too. It is the equivalent of taking a flaw to gain build points, but conveniently forgetting it is on the character sheet when it matters.

Is it, though? Compare to the wizard who dumps Str. Wizards are seldom required to carry heavy loads (they can't wear armor anyway), so a poor Strength is a minor inconvenience.

If the effect of low Intelligence is limited to the mechanical, it's roughly equivalent. A barbarian who dumps Int has (in 3E) fewer skill points and languages known, which is a minor inconvenience. But if the barbarian has to dumb down everything he thinks and does, dumping Int becomes a major headache.

I can see verisimilitude arguments for requiring people who dump mental stats to "roleplay them." I don't agree with those arguments, but I can see them. What I can't see is any kind of a balance argument.

 

[billd91]

How do you arbitrate the quantity or quality of my ideas for my 8 INT/WIS barbarian?

I realize, you'll never please all of us with a rule proposal. But I think if you're going to have expectations on how such a PC behaves, you've got to codify it if you're going to enforce it.

Yep, that's a real problem for anyone saying that players have to play their mental stats. The standards of judgment in these matters are subjective. What plan or idea is "too smart" for an Int 7 character to have? Or on the flip side, what player mistake is too dumb for an Int 25 character to make? Who gets to decide that?

 

[Mallus]

I think your Oracle would be good fit for Runequest-like take on charisma.

Good comparison. With regard to classes like Oracle and Sorcerer, D&D Charisma is more like RQ's Power stat.

I think she would be one of those people that gets lot of instant likes/dislikes without even trying.

Sure... but the way I play her, she gets more dislike than like, and my position is that's totally congruent with her CHA 22.

Oh you use bluff, mmh I think you need sneaky skills too.

She's also got DEX 22 and maxed Stealth!

To create that kinda character in D&D is hard because you would need disadvantage system. You are this super-smart guy with some mental challenges.

You don't need rules for disadvantages to do that in D&D... all you need to do is accept that each mental stats represents an average of a group of related abilities -- which is how they're described in the rules!

In other words, the solution to this problem is: stop making in into a problem for yourself (and your PC!)

However, I think the issue isn't so much whether players play to type, so much as they play against type, and get results against type.

The real issue is to what extent the actual play at the table influences the in-game results. Everything is just silly conjecture about how D&D ability scores translate into behavior -- a topic the rules themselves have been silent on for the past 35 years.

And anyone can have an occasional flash of brilliance.

Here's a question: what percentage of a PC's imaginary life is actually played out at the table? A very small percentage, I should think. Couldn't then everything done during play be the sum of their "flashes of brilliance"?

If we're going to deploy dubious rationalizations about out characters capabilities, shouldn't we at least do so in ways that lead to smart and clever play, not legions of bland protagonists who have to choose between being competent or interesting as the stars of homemade fantasy fiction?

There's no rules for coming up with tactical plans.

Or plans of any sort, really. Or rules for characterization.

Why do people keep ignoring this excellent point?