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

[Hussar]

/snip.

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

Whereas to me, an engaging portrayal that adds to the group's fun while remaining true to the character that that player created is the best of both worlds.

If you have to ignore the character sheet in order to play the character you want to play, WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT CHARACTER?

 

[Hussar]

If the 18 DEX ninja is the same level, he will be more skilled, yes; but if there's a reasonable level disparity, that's not true; it also overlooks the fact that Hubert will have better ninja skills than others in the party who are not ninjas or similarly stealthy characters.He may well be, but if the player's having fun running a character who believes he's a commanding presence, and he gets lucky enough once in awhile to reinforce that belief, then who care if it's epic or not?

This I totally agree with. There's nothing saying that every character you play has to be great at what he does. Of course not.

And, yes, if the character tries to do something, and he's spent the character resources to let him succeed from time to time, GREAT. No harm no foul.

Let's stick with 3.5 D&D for a second. To use diplomacy to change someone's reaction from hostile to indifferent is DC 25 by RAW. Now, a 10 Cha, no ranks in diplomacy character can never succeed at that without some form of outside help (Aid Another perhaps, spells, whatever). But, by himself, he will never, ever succeed.

So, sure, you could try all you like. But, you're never going to succeed. So long as the player understands this and plays that, I'm perfectly happy.

My issue comes when the player gives the good talky and the DM starts ignoring the mechanics and giving auto-successes based on how well the player talks. The Low Cha, No Skills guy tries to stop a fight and succeeds when, by the rules, he never, ever should.

How is that making the stats matter?

In your example, TheShaman, the stats inform play. Hubert spends the character resources to be the best ninja he can be. So, while he's not better than the best ninja, he's still a ninja and will succeed some of the time. The cowardly marshal plays that fact - his hands shake, he acts a particular way (a bully for example) because of that Cowardly stat.

FANTASTIC. I would watch either character in play, pick up the character sheet and there would be no surprises.

Yes I would with the understand for certain things like traps or weapons that only effect a certain alignment I as the DM get the final judgement based on how the character is played on how if effects the character.

I had a player once say he wanted to play a character who thought he was lawful good but in reality was far from it. So on his character sheet he listed lawful good but he left it up to me to decided what his real alignment was if it came to items and other things.

Now, what do you do if the player disagrees? If the player didn't leave it up to you and insisted that he actually was LG?

Me, I just kinda ignored it to be honest. CN wasn't something that was going to be a problem in the game and I just didn't bother. But, good and evil comes up a LOT more in the game. Lots of effects trigger off of these alignments.

Do you over rule the player or not? And, if you do, isn't this forcing players to play a certain way?

IMO, if it's reached this point, there's been a failure already. This should have been discussed LONG before this point. Once it's gotten to the point where there is radical disagreement over interpretation, it's going to be a tangled mess to sort out.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Well, other than the fact that his portrayal is actually contradicted by the alignment he chose for that character. Yup, his portrayal was perfectly good for a lawful character.

So what do you, as DM, do about it? How to you regulate his behavior in this respect? What is the practical, at the table, in-game adjudication you apply in Dave's case?

Other than the fact that alignment in 3e D&D (and previous editions) has a concrete, mechanical effect? How should I have his character interact with a Dispel Chaos spell?

Have it interact as the rules indicate, since there are rules for how his alignment interacts with that spell.

 

[Elf Witch]

Now, what do you do if the player disagrees? If the player didn't leave it up to you and insisted that he actually was LG?

Me, I just kinda ignored it to be honest. CN wasn't something that was going to be a problem in the game and I just didn't bother. But, good and evil comes up a LOT more in the game. Lots of effects trigger off of these alignments.

Do you over rule the player or not? And, if you do, isn't this forcing players to play a certain way?

IMO, if it's reached this point, there's been a failure already. This should have been discussed LONG before this point. Once it's gotten to the point where there is radical disagreement over interpretation, it's going to be a tangled mess to sort out.

To be honest I have never had to deal with this in game. I sit down and talk with new players to my game on how I view alignment in my game and how each alignment works.

And if I noticed that there was an issue I would talk to the player about it long before it became a tangled mess.

Now I have had discussions in game with a player when they have asked me if I thought something they wanted to do was out of their alignment. And there have been times we have not agreed on my ruling. But in the end they accept my ruling on the matter because I am the DM and have final say on adjudicating the rules.

I am pretty flexible about alignment I look at motivation as well as actions. I don't view it as a straight jacket and I never put paladins in a situation that the only answer to a problem is one that will cause them to have to break their alignment.

 

[Hussar]

So what do you, as DM, do about it? How to you regulate his behavior in this respect? What is the practical, at the table, in-game adjudication you apply in Dave's case?

I don't. I don't regulate his behavior. It's his character and he can do what he wants with it. If he wants to ignore his character sheet, there's not a whole lot I can really do about it is there?

I will, however, have a friendly conversation with Dave (which is what I did) and try to point out how his portrayal doesn't actually fit with the mechanics of the game, and the actual character that has been created.

If he still chooses to ignore that, well, again, it's his character. I vehemently oppose any DM getting his grubby paws on a player's character. I bite my tongue and move on.

That doesn't mean that I think it's good roleplaying though.

Have it interact as the rules indicate, since there are rules for how his alignment interacts with that spell.

Which alignment though? The one he's portraying or the one that's on his character sheet? Should I ignore his wishes and treat his character as lawful? Or should I abide by his wishes and treat his character as chaotic?

Which would you do?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I don't ignore my character's Int. If I'm playing 3E, that number modifies my skill points and knowledge skills, and is a prereq for certain feats.

In my game, you can play your Int 8 character as a bloody genius if you like... just so long as you remember to apply the -1 penalty whenever you make a roll to know anything about anything. You may be a brilliant natural strategist, but you ain't been edjumacated for squat.

3.X describes Intelligence as "how well your character learns and reasons." Before any mechanical description, it says this about Intelligence. For those groups who adhere to this description, playing your example character as a genius goes against what the books say. It's fine to do, but to not even understand why someone disagrees with your method of playing the game (for their group) when they're trying to follow the book is odd to me. Just my view, of course. As always, play what you like

 

[The Shaman]

3.X describes Intelligence as "how well your character learns and reasons." Before any mechanical description, it says this about Intelligence.

Yes it does, and I think this creates a real disconnect between the fluff and the crunch, for the reasons I outlined upthread.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes it does, and I think this creates a real disconnect between the fluff and the crunch, for the reasons I outlined upthread.

I understand your view. This doesn't really address my point, though. It's that people don't seem to even express understanding people trying to follow the description of Intelligence (for example) in the book. As always, play what you like

 

[Janx]

I understand your view. This doesn't really address my point, though. It's that people don't seem to even express understanding people trying to follow the description of Intelligence (for example) in the book. As always, play what you like

Some of us are lazy and havent actually read the PH's description of the attributes since it was printed.

So thatsa fine description. But it still fails my goal of mechanical enforcement.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Some of us are lazy and havent actually read the PH's description of the attributes since it was printed.

So thatsa fine description. But it still fails my goal of mechanical enforcement.

I thought we were talking about acting in a way that transcends mechanics? Having a low Intelligence but acting like a genius is acting in a way that transcends mechanics, even if you take a penalty to Intelligence checks. That is, the mechanics do not dictate your actual personality.

If it's fine to break because there's no mechanical straightjacket on personality enforcement, why is it odd to follow what the book describes Intelligence as, even if there's no mechanical enforcement?