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

[Hussar]

My question is, The Shaman, is this how this character is portrayed every single time?

See, everyone keeps stepping up with individual examples, but, that's not really the problem. When the low Int Barbarian solves the riddle once, it's fine. After all, a little light's gotta shine on a dog's petoot once in a while. But, if the low Int Barbarian is doing it every, or even a majority of the time, then that character is not being portrayed very accurately.

So, in the marshal's case, does he gird on his guns every single time danger rears its head? Does the marshal confront that danger every time? If he does, then how does "cowardly" accurately describe this character?

Being brave once? Sure, great moment of overcoming a weakness. Being brave every time? Well, that's just ignoring the weakness because it's inconvenient.

----

Btw, who the heck is Hubert? I get that he's some guy who wants to be a ninja and has a low dex, but, sorry, totally not getting the reference.

 

[Janx]

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

So what your saying, is regardless of what the stat is called, it only governs that which the rules define?

Afterall, calling it the Bravery stat and NOT designing some sort of force reaction roll (like the effect of a Fear spell) seems pretty deliberate. Instead, they died it to the act of shooting a gun. Either the designers have no clue that it takes no great strength of character to gun a man down, or they knew that if'n you wanted to keep a PC out of combat, then you darn well make him suck at it.

I'm thinking they thought the latter. Enforce the stat at the one chokepoint that matters, combat. A man who sucks at combat and doesn't want to die is going to be afraid.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

Which is all well and good if we're talking specifically about D&D and the other games you've used as examples. However, there are rpgs in which the stats are intended to... more simply put, the fluff and the mechanics are supposed to have a pretty close relationship.

I've even said somewhere in either this thread or one of the others (honestly, there are so many threads of this nature right now that I forget where) that I view things differently while playing D&D. Partially because -especially in 3rd and 4th Edition- the game prompts you to place stats according to class and class mechanics if you want to be proficient at your chosen role; rp choices come second. In the case of 4th Edition, the first round of core books actually state in them that the mental stats on the sheet are not what should be considered when a player is trying to solve a puzzle and things of that nature.

It's not a playstyle I feel is badwrongfun. However, for me personally, I prefer a more coherent relationship concerning in-game abilities of the character and in-game problems.

edit: What I was trying to say is that a player can benefit from ignoring a low stat or a disadvantage. An example would be a character from a GURPS game I GMed earlier in the year. One of the players built a character who actually wasn't too much different from the Thog I used as an example. His character had combat skills out the wahzoo; against my advice, took some rather severe mental disadvantages so he would have extra points. Needless to say, the player often tried to ignore those disadvantages in play, and seemed upset when I would ask him to make a control roll for them.

I do not feel I was a jerk GM for expecting the disadvantages chosen by the player to matter. I do not feel I was a jerk for asking for a control roll when the player was trying to (for his benefit) pretend those disadvantages were not part of the character. Strangely, I never needed to ask for a control roll when failing his Berserk control roll meant he could fly into a rage while surrounded by foes.

 

[Umbran]

Personally I'd rather have a game where fighters can be good tacticians.

Nobody's saying that a fighter (or, in my example, a barbarian) cannot be a good tactician. The class is actually irrelevant, as there's no class that has it as a class skill, a member of any class can be a good tactician. The question isn't of class, but of Intelligence or Wisdom (or their analogs, in other systems - the argument isn't really D&D specific).

Note from earlier - I'm not saying I'd generally tell the player that they cannot have their character do good tactical analysis. I would consider docking them some XP, however, if they did so very regularly.

 

[The Shaman]

When the low Int Barbarian solves the riddle once, it's fine. After all, a little light's gotta shine on a dog's petoot once in a while. But, if the low Int Barbarian is doing it every, or even a majority of the time, then that character is not being portrayed very accurately.

I can't tell if you're missing what I said or ignoring what I said, but in any case I've already addressed this: what the character's INT, WIS, CHA or whatever ability stats represent is limited to what is covered by the rules, and everything else comes from the player, so I don't give a if the barbarian solves every puzzle the adventurers encounter in the course of the game.

If you want the ability stats to provide discrete direction on how the character acts and reacts, write rules that reflect this. Pendragon is a great example of how to do this very thing.

So, in the marshal's case, does he gird on his guns every single time danger rears its head? Does the marshal confront that danger every time? If he does, then how does "cowardly" accurately describe this character?

Being brave once? Sure, great moment of overcoming a weakness. Being brave every time? Well, that's just ignoring the weakness because it's inconvenient.

When the marshal draws his guns, he hesitates, and when he aims them, his hands shake. Know how I know that? Because with his low Bravery score, his Speed and Gun Accuracy are reduced. I cannot ignore that weakness; it is hard-coded into the character.

What you seem to be missing is that there is more than one way to play a coward. Maybe he's ashamed of his weakness and fear, and overcompensates as a way of facing it. Or maybe he's a bully who hides his fear as deeply as he can beneath a veneer of rough braggadocio, but can't stop it from revealing itself when faced with an actual threat.

The idea that the only way to play a coward is to avoid danger is pretty thin soup.

Btw, who the heck is Hubert? I get that he's some guy who wants to be a ninja and has a low dex, but, sorry, totally not getting the reference.

There is no reference to get. I grabbed the name out of thin air for the example of the clumsy ninja.

 

[The Shaman]

In the case of 4th Edition, the first round of core books actually state in them that the mental stats on the sheet are not what should be considered when a player is trying to solve a puzzle and things of that nature.

Sounds like good advice to me.

What I was trying to say is that a player can benefit from ignoring a low stat or a disadvantage.

I understand what you mean.

So far the thread primarily addressed roleplaying ability scores, but as you note, those aren't the only examples of rules which are intended to influence how a character is played. Flashing Blades has Secrets - some examples include Duelist, Don Juan, and Religious Fanatic. I do expect a player to roleplay her character in accordance with her chosen Secret, though I also encourage them to be creative about how they do it.

If a player doesn't, and won't, then the character forfeits two skill points. I'm not going to waste my time trying to browbeat the player.

 

[The Shaman]

So what your saying, is regardless of what the stat is called, it only governs that which the rules define?

Pretty much.

[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] 's Thog the Barbarian may be a savant at tactics and puzzle-solving, but he may not know how to read or write, may never speak another language other than his native tongue, cannot tell the value of the jewel the merchant gave him as payment for guarding the caravan across the wastes, and cannot call upon a deep well of knowledge from previous study, all per the rules for the INT ability.

 

[S'mon]

Nobody's saying that a fighter (or, in my example, a barbarian) cannot be a good tactician. The class is actually irrelevant, as there's no class that has it as a class skill, a member of any class can be a good tactician. The question isn't of class, but of Intelligence or Wisdom (or their analogs, in other systems - the argument isn't really D&D specific).

You know fine well that a Wizard will have higher INT, and a Cleric higher WIS, than almost any Fighter PC in 3e or especially 4e D&D. If I play a Fighter in 4e and I pump my INT so as to be allowed to think tactically, I'm crippling my PC at his core role of being a good Defender - a good Fighter - and the other players will be rightfully angry at me.

 

[S'mon]

Pretty much.

[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] 's Thog the Barbarian may be a savant at tactics and puzzle-solving, but he may not know how to read or write, may never speak another language other than his native tongue, cannot tell the value of the jewel the merchant gave him as payment for guarding the caravan across the wastes, and cannot call upon a deep well of knowledge from previous study, all per the rules for the INT ability.

Yeah, this is how I'd run it. I have no problem with the INT 8 half-orc PC being the Shaka Zulu or Genghis Khan of half-orcs; INT 8 only limits him in the ways the rules say it does, which is mostly Knowledge checks (& in 4e it affects your AC!), in 3e it means low numbers of skill points, etc. INT 8 means reduced resources in that area for the PC to call on, it doesn't force the player to play the PC as a bumbling idiot.

 

[Janx]

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.



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?

In hardcore pre-2e, you roll 3d6 in order. And that's the PC you play. there are no re-rolls. And no pansy self-ganking because you don't like your PC.

Of course, Einstein has >3 INT. He knows multiple skills and at least 2 languages.