Should personality or mental stats exist?

[MNblockhead]

I like it. I, and in my experience many players, like to play characters that are smarter and more charismatic than them. You don't have to act it out any more than the player has to actually play a musical instrument when playing a bard. You role the dice and maybe your much-smarter-than-you character figures out a clue to a puzzle you as the player were unable to figure out yourself or talk your way into/out of a situation that you as a player wouldn't be able to pull off. I think mental stats are just as important as physical stats for the experience of playing a character that is better or worse than you IRL.

As for PCs that are less intelligent or charismatic than the player is IRL, well first I keep in mind that this is a game. I'm not an anti-metagame dictator. I may still call for a role to talk your way past a guard, but generally I try to reward player creativity. That might just mean letting the character succeed because of the "rule of cool" or it may mean lowering the DC or giving advantage for a roll. And, while I do this for gamest reasons, I don't think it breaks verisimilitude in most instances. I can think of many time IRL where the "dumb" guy figured something out that the smarter people missed or where someone is just more convinced or attracted to the person who is not the typical charismatic personality.

The pluses of having mental score far outweighs any negatives due to metagaming in my opinion.

 

[payn]

I wish fantasy D&D and derivatives were designed to be MAD where making a smart or suave fighter is seemingly more possible. 3E/PF1 did this, but came with a lot of mechanical baggage and bad math. Also, the fact a character could go SAD and reap the benefits ruined the overall experience. I think in order to do this correctly, the design must make all classes MAD to balance it out. 4E went way into the fully SAD bucket, which I didn't like, and 5E is a mixed bag (but not as bad as 3E was).

I do use ability scores as a guide for roleplaying my characters, but its not the end all be all. I assume its the mechanical engine in which my character accomplishes things. I don't consider a 10 in a score to be an invalid, or person devoid of intelligence or personality. I also dont think a fighter needs 18 to be considered intelligent. Though, often folks do in these discussions.

Overall, I do not support removing intelligence and/or charisma from the game to make folks feel better about their fighters. Nor do I think the existing stats need to go through a renaming so they make more sense for folks either. I do not think roleplay needs to be policed or enforced by folks at the table. The mechanics are neutral and will do that on their own.

 

[billd91]

I don't think mental stats are any more personality driving than physical stats are. After all, a very strong character should probably reflect that in their personality as much as a very intelligent character would reflect their intelligence. And I have absolutely no problem with mental stats for any other general purpose.

 

[overgeeked]

That's a tough one. I can see both sides to this.

I absolutely hate it when the smart or charismatic player at the table dumps INT or CHA on their character only to refuse to roleplay that character according to their stats. But I also really enjoy having shy or introverted players trying to break out of their shell and roleplay high INT and CHA characters.

If push came to shove, I'd go with player skill over character stats. The problems that causes are far smaller than the problems stats over skill causes.

 

[GMMichael]

Should personality or mental stats exist?​

Well, there's a qualitative/quantitative aspect to it. We can measure strength by how much weight someone can lift. We can measure speed by how much time elapses when someone swats a fly or charges across the room. Can we measure personality? Mentality? Or should we use qualitative terms (like a Fate aspect) instead?

Then there's the trouble with role-playing characters of different intellect than your own, which (hopefully) is never really enforced anyway. "Oh, you think you just did a clever plan to stop the ogre? Well, your Int is only 8, so your character wouldn't do that! And why haven't you come up with a brilliant idea no one else has thought of yet, Gundalph?! Your character has 18 Int! Start role-playing like it!"

What's the point of a rule (intellect score) if it's not enforced? Roll a check on the Int 8. If it fails, the clever plan goes through, but an important detail was missed. Roll a check on the 18. If it succeeds, the GM makes a suggestion for what the brilliant idea might be.

If we separate things like charisma and intelligence from from ability scores and mechanics, the player no longer has to sacrifice "fun" to play a desired personality. But then we don't have a lot of stats left, do we?

What if the attributes were Physical, Mental, and Metaphysical!? Then you'd just be stuck with Physical!

So yes, personality/mental stats should exist in a game where personality and/or mental ability are important. The problem isn't that they're quantified; it's that the rules and examples don't (even though they probably do) explain how to use the stats properly.

 

[Lanefan]

Even if you take personality etc. out of it there's still reasons to keep Int-Wis-Cha:

Intelligence: knowledge, memory, languages
Wisdom: perception, reasoning, deduction
Charisma: strength of spirit/soul, willpower, attractiveness

Yes, I went there: attractiveness is part of Charisma.

Even beyond that, however, I'm happy to keep these stats in the game as personality and role-play guides if only so players don't just end up playing themselves with every character they play.

At the low end, sometimes it can be an interestng challenge to roleplay an idiot, or someone who nobody really wants to talk to because they're so offensive to be around; and low-Wisdom characters are just plain fun in a bottle while they role-play themselves into an early grave. That, and as 5e at least seems to have a soft cap where stats don't really go below 8 (which isn't far below average) it's not a big deal anyway.

At the high end, the challenge for the player is often to "keep up" with the character.

@GrimCo - given the average of 3-18 is 10.5, commoners get ripped off if all their stats are 10; they should be three 10s and three 11s to give the right average.

 

[loverdrive]

Lets take commoner as a baseline. 10 on all ability scores.

So, your fighter with 10 int or cha is average in that regards. Like most people in the world, he isn't particularly charming or smart, but he is just fine. Even 8 is in the lower range of average person.

Or take average DC of 15 as a baseline. Yeah, an "average" person has only 25% chance of a successful negotiation!

That said, this isn't an issue with stats themselves, that's an issue of the very specific way D&D stats work that is not universal to all games that have social and mental stats.

 

[Andvari]

Even beyond that, however, I'm happy to keep these stats in the game as personality and role-play guides if only so players don't just end up playing themselves with every character they play.

At the low end, sometimes it can be an interestng challenge to roleplay an idiot, or someone who nobody really wants to talk to because they're so offensive to be around; and low-Wisdom characters are just plain fun in a bottle while they role-play themselves into an early grave.

My point is that you can have those traits without ability scores for them, though. Similar to how you can play a whiny, brave or impatient character even though you're playing a game without Whining, Courage or Patience stats. This opens up more character options as you are less restricted by your stats, I think.

 

[CleverNickName]

I've grown to dislike ability scores that indicate personality or the intelligence of PCs, for various reasons. For one, it makes certain personality choices highly punishing for some characters. If you want to play a smart or charismatic fighter, you'll be punished by being less effective at your role. Of course, you can just roleplay your character that way regardless of stats, and I see this done constantly. Does that mean players roleplay their character "wrong?" Or is the stat wrong?

...

Should some characters just check out of the role-playing game when it's time to role-play? Should the GM keep putting the shy player with the high Charisma score on the spot? Should the GM berate an average intelligence player for not coming up with genious plans all the time when playing his 18 Int Wizard? Should he make the Int 3 cleric walk blindly into the dark room and onto the pit trap? How many stats should there be at minimum? Do I even have a point, or am I just over-analyzing and rambling? Make up your own questions and add them to the list!

I reject the notion that a character needs high stats to be "effective." The average for any ability score is 10... so anything higher than 10 is above average. In other words: a "smart, charismatic fighter" is a fighter with 11 or higher in both Intelligence and Charisma.

As for the roleplaying vs. game mechanics, here's how I do it. In social situations and challenges, roleplaying determines what gets rolled, and whether or not it's with advantage or disadvantage. The stats and the dice are only used to see whether or not it succeeded. Like this example:

Player: I approach the guards confidently, taking off my gloves so that they both can see my signet ring. I tell the guard on the right that I'm a member of the Duke's court, I'm running late for important business, and I demand he stand aside and let me pass.
Me: Okay. That sounds like either Deception or Intimidation, your choice. And roll with advantage, since you're showing that ring.
Player: Um, let's go with Intimidation. (rolls) Uh-oh. Thirteen?
Me: (rolls Insight for the guard, who gets an eleven.) He bought it! The guard starts to object, but then his friend clears his throat and points at the ring on your finger. They both snap to attention so quickly they almost drop their halberds. "S-s-sorry, my good sir," he says, "Of course any member of House Ardonis is welcome here." The two guards not only stand aside, they bow deeply as they open the gate for you.
Other player: (once they're out of earshot) Where did you get that ring anyway?
Player: Won it in a game of Three Dragon Ante.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So in my game, Crossroads, I treat each Attribute as something you draw upon, rather than a descriptor, and skills are not directly tied to them.

Instead, you can use certain attributes to push a failed check to a success, as long as it makes sense. Ie, you can use Strength to push a failed Command check by picking someone up off thier butt and dragging them back into the fight, or use Will by charging past them crying the battle cry of your group to inspire them. Either way, an attribute only matters to a skill check when you actually need it to, and at other times attribute points fuel special abilities and the like.