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

[Zelda Themelin]

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


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.


She's also got DEX 22 and maxed Stealth!


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!

Power yeh, I used to play runequest with finnish rulesets most of the time and power is called mahti which actually translates might.


when I mentioned disadvantages I think it would be justified if player wants to play slightly or more retarded (which is how it comes out in actual play more often than not) guy he get's inconviances to skills too. Unless he has wisely picked low charisma, that satisfies game-side too. I know at least 3 people when given free change to play some atrocious personality with lot of grief-factor to other players they will. From minor irritation to actual bad-wrong-fun. I don't play with these people activly anymore but old habits die hard.


This is reason negative character traits should also be in character sheet with right penalities. I don't like giving semi vague bonuses or minuses. They are easy to forget or to go overtly moody with them.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is a tricky question. I give out XP for role playing so I will penalize a player who has a low stat and chooses to ignore it. As someone else said that is having your cake and eat it to.

If it happens a lot I will sit down and talk to the player and he will have a choice either stop doing it or rearrange his stats to reflect how he is playing his character.

Now there are out of character and in character things going on. If the players are having an out of character discussion on tactics then that is fine. If the player playing a highly skilled tactician type character but isn't one in real life I have no issue with him asking for help from a player who is good at tactics.

 

[Janx]

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.

Excellent example. Consider an 18 STR/3 INT barbarian compared to a 3 STR/18 INT wizard.

if forced to roleplay his stupidity to the extreme, the barbarian is totally screwed.

He shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any problem solving. He should probably move into the worst squares and rush into things. He should probably take the dumbest option in any situation.

How would that be fun? Sounds like the player of the barbarian would have very little choice in his actions, and in fact probably should let the GM run him.

Whereas, the wizard gets to participate in all the conversations and idea making. He never has to help carry stuff. Sounds like his dump stat was perfect AND everything because of it is in character.

Obviously, I've taken it to an extreme. The point is to show the disparity.

As Mallus points out, all this PC behavior stuff has NEVER had rules for it.

It's clear that Charisma can represent some aspect that draws NPCs to favor a PC. Perhaps it's looks, behavior, perhaps its some inner force of personality. But it doesn't HAVE to be any one of those. This likeability helps the character attract others and have them agree with proposals.

Intelligence in the rules clearly defines how many skills a PC can have. Basically representing training, practice and learing. Low intelligence represents having not trained, practiced or been taught anything. In effect, book knowledge and information, not problem solving ability (heck, there's not even an INT based saving throw).

Wisdom seems to represent a spiritual force of will. At least in regards to some skills, saves and extra cleric spells. There aren't any rules regarding the PC having common sense or not. So it must not measure that.

 

[Mallus]

Whereas, the wizard gets to participate in all the conversations and idea making. He never has to help carry stuff. Sounds like his dump stat was perfect AND everything because of it is in character.

I'd say the wizard is equally screwed by his INT of 18.

This wizard is, in all probability, much smarter than their player. In order for them to be played in accordance with that stat, the DM would more-or-less have to give the player the answers to puzzles encountered, pick which spells are cast when and where --to ensure the proper level of smartness is being represented-- and basically play the character for the player, lest there be too much dissonance between their ability score and the actions taken during play.

I may be exaggerating a bit, but still...

 

[Argyle King]

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 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.

actually, I find your position to be in support of mine.

In your example, Hubert made an effort (spent game resources such as skills) to become better at something in spite of starting with a low ability score. The character sheet and the game both reflect the decision you made.

If Hubert were to have that Dex 6 and had spent zero resources to become better at Dex related ninja skills, I would expect him to (more often than not) perform poorly as a ninja.

Likewise, if a character has a low intelligence score and has used a resource to become better at a particular skill or application (such as the example I gave in one of these threads about my GURPS character,) then I likewise am fine with that. What I have a problem with is somebody dumping Int; spending no resources to make Int skills better, and then playing as though the low score doesn't matter.

Let's put Hubert in a party with Thog the barbarian. For sake of a simple example, let's say Thog has 6 for all of his mental stats. Thog -unlike Hubert- takes 0 feats nor uses 0 skill ranks to improve any of his mental capabilities. Thog's player plays Thog as being the smartest person in the world. Do you feel it's fair that Hubert (and you as the player) are required to spend resources to make your weak points better while Thog (and his player) is free to ignore Thog's weaknesses and use feat slots and skill points on other things?

 

[Elf Witch]

A wizard with a str of 3 is also screwed if you use encumbrance rules at least in 3 which is what I play. With just the basics of a light crossbow, quaterstaff, basic backpack and a few supplies the weight is 21 pounds which is considered a heavy load. So the wizard movement is slowed to 20 a round and they are limited to a +1 on dex. That lower dex effects their AC and their tough range attacks. The -4 on str effects their melee attacks.

Even with an intelligence of 3 the barbarian has learned to swing his weapon because under the rules that is not based on int but on str besides if he has a decent wisdom that will help him not to just pick the worse possible square to be in. Even someone who is mentally challenged and has a low IQ can master certain skills like cooking a meal just as well as a person with a normal IQ. They learn it through rote. The difference is dealing with something out of the ordinary like having to make a substitution for a missing ingredient. Even a dumb barbarian has the experience to know that if he runs by people with weapons they are going to hit him and hurt him so they know better than to do that.

The issue with the 3 int Barbarian comes in is if the players has him solving puzzles and making advance tactics beyond what he would have experienced in combat.

 

[The Shaman]

What I have a problem with is somebody dumping Int; spending no resources to make Int skills better, and then playing as though the low score doesn't matter.

But the low scores do matter.

The rules of most games insure that the character with a lower INT score has fewer skills, fewer skill ranks, and a lower modifier, or even a penalty, than a character with a higher INT score. They may have other effects as well, like the number of spells magic-users may know and their chance to learn them, as in 1e AD&D.

In fact, you really missed the point of my example, because I don't care if Thog's player is a tactical virtuoso and solves puzzles with ease. I explained my reasoning in another thread a little while ago.

It was because of Boot Hill and that Bravery attribute that I began adopting a somewhat iconoclastic view of character stats. The five attributes, including Bravery, which affect combat include modifiers to a character's speed and/or accuracy with various weapons; the character's Bravery score may increase or decrease a character's speed and accuracy, for example.

Now here's the thing: the Bravery attribute score has a discrete, quantifiable impact on the character's performance in the game - it represents the character's cool under fire. But here was the kicker for me: should Bravery also affect how the character is played? For a long time I assumed, "Of course!" but the more I thought about it,, the more I realized that wasn't necessarily so.

Consider a player character who is a town marshal with a Coward Bravery rating and no Experience; maybe he got the job through a political connection, or maybe the townsfolk stuck the badge on him because no one else wanted it and he didn't have the guts to say no. Now a gang of bank robbers come to town, and it's the marshal's job to confront them. The conventional wisdom is, the character is a coward and should be played as such.

But here's the thing: there's nothing about the attribute itself mechancially which determines if or how the marshal will confront the robbers; the attribute modifiers only speak to what happens if he tries to fire his gun at them. The attribute and the modifiers influence how successful the character is in a particular task; they say nothing about when or how the character decides to attempt the task.

So the marshal checks his six-shooters, grabs a double-barrel from the rack, and walks into the dusty Main Street to face-down the robbers. Now some gamers will cry foul here: "That's not roleplaying the character! He should be running for cover or something!" to which I say, malarkey. The marshal's hands shake like he has the palsy, sweat pours off his brow into his eyes, and his mouth is as dry as an arroyo in August so that when he shouts, "Throw up yer hands!" it comes out as little more than a hoarse whisper, and that is what is represented by the Bravery attribute modifiers, not the decision to confront the gang - that decision is solely the province of the player, who's decided that the reason the marshal accepted the badge in the first place is that he is determined to overcome his fear, no matter what it takes, and is roleplaying that aspect of his character.

In thinking this through, I came to a conclusion, one which seems to get under some gamers' skins: by treating character attributes as a nothing more than a rules interface and not a determinant of personality, roleplaying and character stats may be wholly independent of one another. Put another way, roleplay your character as you like, and let the stats take care of themselves.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

But, that's entirely been the point all the way along. Your Hubert character is playing exactly to type. He spent the character resources to do EXACTLY what you want him to do. Will he be as good as the Dex 18 guy? Nope. But, he's still perfectly capable of doing all the ninja things that you want him to do.

That's never been the arguement.

The argument is, that I can play Hubert, spend NO CHARACTER RESOURCES, and STILL be able to do all the ninja stuff.

In thinking this through, I came to a conclusion, one which seems to get under some gamers' skins: by treating character attributes as a nothing more than a rules interface and not a determinant of personality, roleplaying and character stats may be wholly independent of one another. Put another way, roleplay your character as you like, and let the stats take care of themselves.

Meh, to each his own. I think that if someone picks up your character sheet and says, "Huh what?" then you (the impersonal you here, not you specifically) have poorly portrayed that character. A cowardly marshall facing down several armed gunman in the middle of the street is not good roleplay IMO. It's not accurately portraying the character that has been created. Note, I don't know the Boot Hill mechanics well enough to know exactly what cowardly means in that system, but, nothing you've described here says "Cowardly" to me. It says, "Hey, I'm a big damn hero. I might die, so, sure, I'll fudge over the fact that my character is scared, but, dammit, actually playing my character would be less fun for me, so I'll just ignore my character sheet and do whatever the heck I want to do".

Yeah, it's certainly one way to play, but, not one I'd ever condone, nor would I willingly play at those tables where it is condoned anymore. It's totally immersion breaking and it's cheating.

 

[Hussar]

Excellent example. Consider an 18 STR/3 INT barbarian compared to a 3 STR/18 INT wizard.

if forced to roleplay his stupidity to the extreme, the barbarian is totally screwed.

He shouldn't be allowed to contribute to any problem solving. He should probably move into the worst squares and rush into things. He should probably take the dumbest option in any situation.

How would that be fun? Sounds like the player of the barbarian would have very little choice in his actions, and in fact probably should let the GM run him.

If it wouldn't be fun, THEN WHY ARE YOU PLAYING THIS CHARACTER?

You CHOSE this character. That's what this always comes back to. No one forced you to play it. This was YOUR CHOICE. If you chose this character, recognizing those limitations, then you have two options:

1. Don't take a 3 Int character and then expect to be able to ignore the stat
2. Actually play the 3 Int character, portraying his imbecility.

What you don't get to do is take the 3 Int character and then completely ignore the downsides of that. That's just poor roleplaying.

Whereas, the wizard gets to participate in all the conversations and idea making. He never has to help carry stuff. Sounds like his dump stat was perfect AND everything because of it is in character.

Obviously, I've taken it to an extreme. The point is to show the disparity.

As Mallus points out, all this PC behavior stuff has NEVER had rules for it.

It's clear that Charisma can represent some aspect that draws NPCs to favor a PC. Perhaps it's looks, behavior, perhaps its some inner force of personality. But it doesn't HAVE to be any one of those. This likeability helps the character attract others and have them agree with proposals.

Intelligence in the rules clearly defines how many skills a PC can have. Basically representing training, practice and learing. Low intelligence represents having not trained, practiced or been taught anything. In effect, book knowledge and information, not problem solving ability (heck, there's not even an INT based saving throw).

Wisdom seems to represent a spiritual force of will. At least in regards to some skills, saves and extra cleric spells. There aren't any rules regarding the PC having common sense or not. So it must not measure that.

Yes, because it's not codified in the rules, therefore you don't have to do it. The battle cry of rules lawyers everywhere.

As I said in the other thread, if you wouldn't give Einstein a 3 Int, why should your PC be able to do it?

 

[The Shaman]

That's never been the arguement.

Actually, that was exactly the argument, for which Hubert was the rebuttal.

A cowardly marshall [sic] facing down several armed gunman in the middle of the street is not good roleplay IMO. It's not accurately portraying the character that has been created. . . . It says, "Hey, I'm a big damn hero. I might die, so, sure, I'll fudge over the fact that my character is scared, but, dammit, actually playing my character would be less fun for me, so I'll just ignore my character sheet and do whatever the heck I want to do".

The character's Bravery attribute affects every single shot the character takes in the gunfight. The player cannot ignore the effect of the attribute.

That's the beauty of it.