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

[The Shaman]

Shaman's Bravery example was exactly the insight I'm looking for. Make INT 8 actually matter or it doesn't matter.

 

[Gentlegamer]

And I still believe that. No one should ever be forced to do anything. By the same token, if it reaches the point where the DM, or anyone at the table is turning to me and saying, "Dude, really? You really have your character do that?" then I know that I haven't really been true to that character.

How can your character really be anything other than how you have it act in-game? The dissonance you describe seems like objecting that the player is deviating from a script of some kind. You have repeatedly mentioned 'immersion' as something valued at your table: why are the players acting on outside the game knowledge regarding the character sheet and not the in-game play of the character? That's . . . METAGAMING.

Funny story. Few years back I had a fairly new player in my group. Nice guy. He insisted that his new PC was chaotic neutral because, in his words, he wanted to be able to do anything he wanted to do. Ok, fair enough.

Several sessions go by and I come back to the player. "Umm, Dave, your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively, is cautious, rational, and a total team player. How exactly is this character Chaotic Neutral?"

"I'm Chaotic Neutral. I want to be able to do anything I want. I don't want any restrictions."

"Ok," I answered. "But, what you apparently want to do is act about as lawful as any Paladin player I've ever seen. You've never actually done anything that could remotely be described as chaotic with this character. I have explained that I believe the alignment is simply descriptive, not proscriptive right?"

Dave answered, "Yeah, I get that. It's no problem. But my character is still totally Chaotic Neutral because I want to be able to do anything I want to do."

Honestly, I left it at that. It wasn't really worth getting worked up about and what the hell, it's his character. But, it really does tie into this conversation. His portrayal of that character was very, very far removed from the alignment of this character. It was jarring to me and to a few of the other players. Not enough that anyone got really annoyed by it, but, it was jarring.

If you and the other players stopped metagaming his character sheet, nothing would be wrong with the portrayal.

To me, this is exactly the same thing as ignoring any other part of your character sheet. If I have an 8 Cha and no social skills, I would try to portray that with my character. His social interactions are going to be a bit awkward and he's probably not going to be giving any speeches in the near future. Is he going to be Cat Piss man? No, of course not. He's not that bad. But, he's certainly no Sean Connery either. Exactly how would I portray it?

I'm not sure to be honest. There are too many other factors to bring in that might affect things. But, I'd at least keep half an eye on the character sheet whenever I do try to portray this character.

As far as I'm concerned, that's all I would expect from anyone.

As much as you say you aren't for a player being *forced* in respect to mental and social attributes, you do object to players 'deviating' from them in a way that "breaks immersion." If you can't force a player (as a DM) to 'play right' in regard to mental and social attributes, can't you see that falls outside of what can be adjudicated in practical game-terms?

That's why I have arrived at my view over time, it's not because I think play acting and role assumption have no value or place at the table, it's because as DM I have found it impossible to fairly regulate such things. That made me realize I should stop worrying about them, and consequently, care about them in so far as my enjoyment of the game-form is concerned.

The end result is that most players will enjoy 'hamming it up' and 'play' their mental and social attributes (or make an effort to) but when a 'Dave' joins the group we don't have to spend time 1) having the DM try to make him 'play right' and 2) give him the sort of 'black looks' and 'roll-eyes' that harm the social vibe of the playing group because he portrays his character in a way *we* don't approve. I've found that if a player is the 'odd man out' in that way initially, the characteristics of the group will rub off on him over time, so it's a 'problem' that generally takes care of itself. There are far more grievous 'role-play' issues out there that are real problems, such as 'Cat Piss Man' or 'Betray the Party Guy.'

 

[S'mon]

I think we can all agree that if your PC doesn't have the Metallurgy skill (or equivalent) than your PC does not actually know anything about it and anything he says is out of character or retconned to be the incorrect ramblings of the incompetent.

No, that depends on the game system. In some systems Metallurgy skill might mean you have studied it professionally. Some may require that only those with training can make metallurgy checks. But in plenty of systems it's undefined and a player can say their PC is an amateur metallurgist if they want. They just don't have the mechanical support to be good at metallurgy checks.

There is stuff I won't let PCs do, eg D&D PCs discussing in-character 21st century Earth popular culture or concepts they couldn't possibly be exposed to would usually be a no-no. "I invent gunpowder (etc)" type claims may fall into that bracket. But unless it's a stone age setting, I'm not going to forbid them talking about basic metallurgy.

 

[S'mon]

My interpretation of the stats says if Hussar thinks his 8 INT half-orc barbarian acts in a certain way, thats fine.

I will consider another player's different interpretation of the same stat as also being OK.

I would say there's nothing wrong with an INT 8 half-orc barbarian PC who's very good at small unit tactics, BTW. Or even large-scale battle tactics, at least of the Shaka Zulu kind - making best use of warriors who fight like him. You don't have to have high INT, on the kind of stuff INT measures, to be good at war.

 

[Janx]

No, that depends on the game system. In some systems Metallurgy skill might mean you have studied it professionally. Some may require that only those with training can make metallurgy checks. But in plenty of systems it's undefined and a player can say their PC is an amateur metallurgist if they want. They just don't have the mechanical support to be good at metallurgy checks.

There is stuff I won't let PCs do, eg D&D PCs discussing in-character 21st century Earth popular culture or concepts they couldn't possibly be exposed to would usually be a no-no. "I invent gunpowder (etc)" type claims may fall into that bracket. But unless it's a stone age setting, I'm not going to forbid them talking about basic metallurgy.

Either you took me too literally and applied my statement to your specific rule-set or I spoke imprecisely.

I suspect that most GMs will not allow a player who has real world knowledge of a topic the game has specific skill rules for and their PC does not have that skill to be gain in-game advantage.

If you know how to ride horses and your PC did not buy the Ride Horse skill, then he sucks at riding horses, regardless of how much you actually know about the subject and can talk about it at length.

The point is, that which the game has defined within the rules holds dominion over outcome, not player knowledge trumping the rules.

If anybody disagreed with that, assuming I worded it right, they are probably not following the RAW.

If a game (like 1e where no skills exists), then it is not possible to violate the RAW because it has no skill system to bypass.

 

[Dausuul]

Several sessions go by and I come back to the player. "Umm, Dave, your character is totally dependable, never acts impulsively, is cautious, rational, and a total team player. How exactly is this character Chaotic Neutral?"

"I'm Chaotic Neutral. I want to be able to do anything I want. I don't want any restrictions."

"Ok," I answered. "But, what you apparently want to do is act about as lawful as any Paladin player I've ever seen. You've never actually done anything that could remotely be described as chaotic with this character. I have explained that I believe the alignment is simply descriptive, not proscriptive right?"

Dave answered, "Yeah, I get that. It's no problem. But my character is still totally Chaotic Neutral because I want to be able to do anything I want to do."

What you take away from this is that the player should have played true to his CN alignment, or picked an alignment that matched how he intended to play his character.

What I take away from this is that the player didn't want to be hassled by the Roleplaying Police about his alignment, and so chose an alignment he felt would put him outside their jurisdiction. It's not because he actually thought his character was chaotic--he just didn't want to have to try and divine what your particular group meant by "lawful" and "chaotic" and "good" and "evil."

The player was apparently quite consistent in how he played the guy, so I find myself wondering why it was important to make him declare an alignment at all, since he evidently didn't want to and could play his character perfectly well without.

I see mental stats the same way. I don't want to have to sit down and suss out what your group means by "Int 11" or "Cha 8." Or, for that matter, "Int 18" or "Cha 20." I want to make a character and play that character in the way that feels right to me, and if that character seems smart or dumb to you, you have my permission to slap whatever number you like on the sheet.

If that means you tell me to slash my fighter's other stats to buy up her Intelligence to the level you find acceptable, so be it. I think it's pretty lame that fighters pay in-game resources for the option to play smart while wizards effectively get it for free (I have never yet met the edition of D&D where wizards needed the power boost!), but whatever. If it spoils your fun that there's not a certain number on my character sheet, tell me the number and I'll write it. But I don't see that it's my job to play twenty questions and figure out what that number ought to be.

 

[Janx]

If you and the other players stopped metagaming his character sheet, nothing would be wrong with the portrayal.
As much as you say you aren't for a player being *forced* in respect to mental and social attributes, you do object to players 'deviating' from them in a way that "breaks immersion." If you can't force a player (as a DM) to 'play right' in regard to mental and social attributes, can't you see that falls outside of what can be adjudicated in practical game-terms?

And this is why I made my perfectly funny Office Space reference about 31 pieces of flair.

If the group, table or GM has an expectation on behavior for my PC, then you are in effect trying to force me to comply. You may not be strong-arming me, but you are applying an unwritten rule to my PC.

There's a bunch of things I think are acceptable for the GM/table to enforce as rules. Including some player/PC behaviors regarding getting along and playing a group game.

My PC throwing your PC into a pack of zombies so I can get away = bad.
My PC playing smarter than you think I should = OK

In the example of Dave the CN-So-I-Can-Do-What-I-Want-Which-Is-Be-Lawful player, clearly he had a completely different interpretation of the alignment rules. And in fact he chose CN for exactly the reason everybody chooses CN when they don't understand the Alignment concept.

Do you make a big deal that Dave's PC is actually acting wrong (by contradicting the words on his sheet)?
Do you waste more time explaining to somebody who doesn't get it and probably isn't ready to get it?
Do you ignore the words on his sheet and take the PC a presented, not as written down?

And this is in a case where the player has clearly mis-interpreted the definition of CN (a very common mis-interpretation mind you).

For INT, we're talking about something that's not even in the rules or written about. Why can't my 8 INT orc be Sun Tzu of the battle mat?

Part of the difference in my and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s viewpoint is that he seems to take the stat name at it's word. the Intelligence stat describes how intelligent you are and we kinda-sorta agree on what intelligence means (note the lower-case) it's the same reason for his initial reaction to the Bravery skill and its example story.

I'm inclined to ignore the word used and look at how it's used in the game (3e D&D). INT clearly controls how many spells or skills you get. There do not appear to be any rules about problem solving or tactics and intelligence.

Keep in mind, professionally, I help businesses automate their processes and generally I find they have terrible terminology to describe things. I am therefore accustomed hearing the word they used, and replacing it with the meaning they apply to it.

Therefore, despite what they called it, the Intelligence stat defines learning/knowledge to me.

 

[avin]

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.

In my book, that's GREAT roleplaying.

In my book he's still a ninja wannabe and will be humiliated by any DEX 18 ninja, no matter if his character sheet says lv 3 ninja or what.

That does not prevent great roleplaying, I've never said that. On the opposite. I love that kind of characters and players who have the will of trying this kind of stuff.

But a CHA 6 leader is probably going to be comic instead of epic.

 

[Voadam]

It seems to me at heart you keep focusing on the character sheet.

The measure of how well a character is roleplayed is how closely does the portrayal of that character match what that character is [on the character sheet].

Now, what that character is will be a combination of concrete factors [on the character sheet] like skills and powers and hit points and the like and all sorts of fuzzy bits [on the character sheet] like alignment and stats. Like I said, I don't care if the 8 Int character pulls something smart off once in a while. That's great [its within the realm of possibilities for the fuzzy stat on the sheet].

But, if my 8 Int character turns into Sun Tzu every time initiative is rolled, then I'm not portraying that character [sheet] very well. Someone watching my play would be very surprised to learn that my character is actually below average intelligence [according to the ability score on the sheet]. If I'm constantly doing the most optimum thing, always making the best decision, taking the time to learn more information before making any decision and the like, I'm not portraying that character [sheet] very well.

The stats inform how that character is played [correctly according to the character sheet].

You and your group apparently care about everybody roleplaying the fuzzy aspects of the character sheets way more than I do.

For me that seems an off-mark choice to value for roleplaying.

I'd say the character is a combination of the hard mechanics of the sheet that interact with the mechanics of the game world (hp, attacks, powers, etc.), the player's concept of the character, and the player's portrayal of the character in the game. The fuzzy bits on the character sheet can be used as roleplaying hooks ("I'm chaotic neutral") but they are not big deal things.

To evaluate roleplaying I would not even measure against how well do they portray any particular view of their character, I would measure whether their character portrayal was engaging and led to a fun gaming experience.

An engaging portrayal that added to the group's fun is better IMO than an accurate portrayal of a character sheet or character concept.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree that a character is much more than what is on the sheet and it is often at this higher level that interesting details emerge (like why a character with a 7 INT is good at combat tactics). But a player, IMO, should at least consider and weigh his attributes when designing the personality. If a player hands me a character sheet with background and I see a 3 WIS, but the character is described as a worldly sage known for his keen observation and intuition, I am going to do a double take and ask him to justify it (I am not sure this one can be justified but it is an extreme case).