Should stats have any bearing on roleplay?

[Umbran]

I HATE it when smart players playing stupid PCs nevertheless do the bulk of the problem-solving:

One possible solution is to have the puzzle bits require appropriate skill checks, so some of the problem be completely abstract mechanic. If you are using puzzles for the players to represent things in game, solving the puzzle gets a bonus on the check, but doesn't fully finish the issue.

So, the smart player may solve the puzzle, but you still need the smart character to pull off the solution.

 

[L1qw1d]

Ok. IMO this could be 2 FAR separate queries- one for players and one for people who run things.

Stats are important because you do need to quantify what the MAXIMUM ABILITY your character can do actually IS. I mean... does a character REALLY know he can lift 20 foot boulders to open a door? (Oh and fun fact- the Strength 18 wouldn't be great. You'd NEED leverage and assistance to actually avoid becoming a very lovely stain while the kobolds giggle at you). How many people walk around going "Oh noes! I only have 4 hit points!!!" or "HA! I critted him for 35 points!" instead of "Oh noes! I feel so weak from blood loss!!!" or "HA! I raked my frikkin blade upside his head! Lookit the blooooood!"

I actually focused on "playing blind" for the first 5 levels with my current group and it really changed a lot of decisions they made, and their survivability.

I like a middle road between Statline and FreeForm (I have to be. I have a 1 in Appearance!) and I actually LIKE having a character with a flaw in the numbers.

I know this is a strange twist on the answer I'm giving, but @ the GDC one year, we talked about "how do you know you're going to die in a fighting game?" and currently, it's really appearing (look at infamous, or red dead, or the like. There ARE stats, but you know how poor off you are because vague indicators show you).

I don't have a problem with STATS- I have problems with "Levels"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One possible solution is to have the puzzle bits require appropriate skill checks, so some of the problem be completely abstract mechanic. If you are using puzzles for the players to represent things in game, solving the puzzle gets a bonus on the check, but doesn't fully finish the issue.

So, the smart player may solve the puzzle, but you still need the smart character to pull off the solution.

True, but with a problem like the one described, once the solution is blurted out, the puzzle is solved.

And if the player is particularly smart, the next time, he won't blurt out the answer, but merely test his hypothesis out "at random."

 

[Dausuul]

My strong preference is to have stats work on a mechanical level only. You play your character however you like. If you have an 8 in Charisma, you may be able to come up with oratorical masterpieces off the cuff, but they fall flat because you have a crap Diplomacy check, indicating that you don't deliver them convincingly.

Similarly, I prefer to treat your Intelligence score as "book-learning" and Wisdom score as alertness and perceptiveness. If you have an 8 Intelligence, you won't know much about the world (lousy knowledge skills), but you can still come up with clever ideas. If you have an 8 Wisdom, you don't have to be reckless and crazy, but you won't notice important clues and you'll be taken in by every con artist you meet (lousy Perception and Insight).

If the Int score represents general intelligence, then given how smart the average gamer is, most of us should be dumbing down our tactics whenever our PCs' Intelligence scores are less than 15. (Conversely, the wizard with Int in the high 20s has a strong case for being able to solve all puzzles in the blink of an eye, even if the player is utterly stumped.) I think this is silly. If you want to use your stats as a roleplaying hook, go for it, but if you don't, that's fine too.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'll go with B.

Yes, they should affect roleplay, but only as far as the player is able to and comfortable with. Try, but I won't expect them to necessarily make it the focus of the game.

I don't grade on roleplaying ability. First and foremost, I'm there to have fun, and make the game fun for my players. I also won't penalize a player (compared to other players) for being able to (or not) roleplay based on their stats. I'd like them to try, and stats will always determine mechanical outcomes, but first and foremost I want them to have fun...not feel like they have to deliver a professional quality display of improvisational acting.

 

[MinistryOfGame]

I used to struggle with this issue from time to time. One of the things I basically did was as suggested above by the_orc_within - you basically split up every stat into constituent parts, and that means that someone with a high stat will mechanically do better in things linked to that stat overall, but you can still roleplay they they have a flaw somewhere, and people with a low stat will do worse overall in things linked to that stat, but might have one silver lining. There's no need to make this mechanical (D&D 2E Player's Options tried to, and I didn't really like it personally) - it is a good way of explaining roleplaying results for mechanical decisions, though.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned enough in this thread is the role of the DM in this area, and just how much power they have to make or break this whole area. One thing I found incredibly helpful in this regard was a passage in Tracy Hickman's book Xtreme Dungeon Mastery (which you should all rush out and buy, so I get more levels). Tracy points out that as the DM, you of course have the authority to make the game world bend to make smart characters smart, wise characters wise and charismatic characters charismatic, even if their players are not as smart, wise or charming.

What do I mean? Take the classic intelligence problem - you have a puzzle that needs to be solved by the characters (ie not one that is meant to tax the players alone, but their characters specifically). A is playing a wizard with a high intelligence, but isn't that smart. B is playing a barbarian, but in real life has a PhD in astrophysics.

Player B, of course, thinks he knows the answer, and so suggests turning knob X and fiddling with the dials until they all point south east and create congruent triangles. Even though it makes perfect sense, for some reason it doesn't work.

Player A doesn't really get how this whole thing is meant to work, but he suggests maybe it's a magical flux created by puppies, and offers the pedestal walkies. Amazingly, the door opens!

What happened there? The puzzle worked the way the smart character thought it would work, because he's smart.

If you wanted to roll an intelligence check for both of them, that's fine - probabilities are that the wizard will succeed and the barbarian will fail.

This isn't a stand-alone solution obviously - but I find it good for putting players in their place when they think they know it all, and can solve it all, because they are smart, witty and charming in themselves. Players of moderate wisdom in my games always feel wise, because their characters just happen to regularly make decisions that work out, sometimes changing the nature of commonsense itself in the game world.

 

[NewJeffCT]

A) Yes always where appropriate.
B) Yes, but not always, a general loose guideline that can be deviated from.
C) No. The game mechanics is the game mechanics and the roleplaying something detached and separate?
D) Something else, then please state...

P.s. I´m probably on option (B) with this...

I tend to go with B on this one. Stats are generally a loose guideline - there is no reason why, on occasion, the gruff dwarf can come up with something that is nicely diplomatic, or the genius wizard can't do something stupid - i.e., last campaign, the players had a cliffhanger ending with a marilith emerging & striking down the party rogue (he got better...). The group had a week or two between sessions to strategize, and the guy playing the 20 INT psion decided to do something that would require the marilith to make a Will save. I reminded him that he was smart enough in game and the party had faced enough demons so far to know that a demon this powerful likely had a pretty good chance of shaking off his Will save power. However, he did it anyways, I rolled a "6" and still made the save and the psion had basically wasted his turn doing something he knew had only a small chance of success. (the guy was normally a very smart player who often came up with creative solutions to tough problems)

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think stats should give you some sort of indication of the type of character and that character's general abilities. If a player wants his character to be smart, he should purchase more IQ; likewise, if he wants to have more Charisma, he should buy the Charisma advantage.


However, I also realize there are games in which it's difficult to do this due to the way the game mechanics interact with stats. In such games, the structure of the mechanics dictate that someone of a certain class needs to have certain stats for their abilities to function. In such games, I think stats should be a loose general guideline or just not used as a guideline at all. I highly prefer for stats to have meaning beyond simple mechanics, but I realize that some games are built in a manner which clash with what I prefer.

In my old game back in the late 90s, the DM insisted that one guy not use CHA as a dump stat, as his personality tended to lead to him being the group leader & spokesman (he's a successful lawyer IRL). So, he'd play the elf fighter/mage with WIS or CON as 'dump' stats.

On the other extreme, we had another guy in the group that was often so bad at role-playing that the same DM only allowed him to play single classed human or dwarven fighters.

he was otherwise a pretty open DM and handled our huge gaming group (him, plus 9/10 players) amazingly well.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Attributes should effect either mechanics or roleplaying - not both.

"But I want my fighter to be intelligent!"
"Nope, pour it all into strength."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The term 'piffle' has just jumped into my mind... I wonder why?

It can, and should inform both. Unless the player is unable to do so - allowances can be made for less than gifted players (and GMs), but I prefer to err on the side of assuming that my players can handle both. They may or may not be able to pull it off, but I expect them to try.

You know what's funny?

I am seldom disappointed - even hack and slashers can, and do, rise to the challenge of roleplaying.

The Auld Grump, yes, I am publicly saying something nice about my players....