Should strong players have an advantage?

[Janx]

Ahhh, there is the word I was looking for. "Characterization".

I have to admit, I tend to think that role playing and characterization go hand in hand. But, CJ, you do make a darn good argument.

Let me try to take a slightly different stab at the beast. If I watch someone play their character for a session or two, I should be able to pick up that character sheet and there should be no surprises, IMO. If the player is playing a highly intelligent, tactical character, then I should see a decent Int score on that character.

Let's say that a year ago, I would have agreed with you. That a 10 CHA character doesn't try to be Face.

Reconsideration of the topic and the factors involved and the people I've known and met contradict that.

a) i've already stated in the other thread that real-world skill bleed-over is hard to block (talk player is more likely to be a talky PC).

b) just because somebody THINKS they are good at something doesn't mean they are. In fact studies have shown an inverse relationship. Ignorant people think more highly of their ability (when they actually suck), and vice versa. So you're 6 CHA PC is MORE likely to be trying to act all suave and stuff and always be turning others off (and not know why).

c) since D&D is interfacing verbally with your GM, your GM still gets to apply your stat to the actual outcome. Your stat is the final gate-keeper to success. This models how real people behave in ways that they TRY to impress or ways that they play it down and the former can fail at it because of charisma they lack, the latter succeeds because they are very charismatic.

d) 10 CHA is not so awful that you can't attempt to be charming. We all do it and eventually we all get laid. You might strike out a lot however... 10.5 is the statistical average and it would be disingenuous to assume it means we are all uncouth spazzes who could never convince anybody of anytng like buying our car in the driveway. higher levels of CHA are what get you elected to political office or get a following for your band or cult.

e) Real smart people do dumb things like get addicted to coke and become coke-whores (true story). The number on the sheet does have mechanical impact on abilities in the game. However, that doesn't mean that in all things they make smart choices. Just like in real life. Vice versa, there are dumb people who manage to not make any fatal mistakes and pay their rent, etc. They still suck at math and such.

f) D&D is a game for smart people, by smart people. A large part of playing it is learning strategic knowledge and applying it to subsequent characters. As such, the player only makes a mistake once. Subsequent PCs never make certain mistakes. Nobody wants to play old school and roll up a 4INT PC and be forced to play him so stupid he gets the party killed. So there has always been some bleed-over of the real-world player into the PC. We are not fully acting AS our PC as written, though we may try to.

anyway, that be a summation of reasons I see. And by all means, I play my lower CHA half-orc Barbarian as much less verbal and nuanced than my other PCs with higher charisma.

I simply see that there can be other ways to interpret the stat as compared to the player's behavior.

 

[gamerprinter]

Perhaps this is missing what you're saying, but I think smart people getting involved with addictive drugs is not an exercise of intelligence, rather wisdom. INT does not equal WIS. It's unwise to get involved with addictive substances, one might think it's just an experiment and they are 'smart' enough to avoid addiction, but then that is an affliction beyond the control of INT or WIS. Maybe your weren't comparing this afflication to a real person's 'stats' - but that's what I read in your post.

 

[Janx]

Perhaps this is missing what you're saying, but I think smart people getting involved with addictive drugs is not an exercise of intelligence, rather wisdom. INT does not equal WIS. It's unwise to get involved with addictive substances, one might think it's just an experiment and they are 'smart' enough to avoid addiction, but then that is an affliction beyond the control of INT or WIS. Maybe your weren't comparing this afflication to a real person's 'stats' - but that's what I read in your post.

the drug addict one was meant as an extreme case. and I agree, might be a wisdom problem. But then we can make the same case for "wise" people doing "unwise" things.

Growing up, I had one friend who always thought of himself as smart. His parents thought he a genius. But he was in remedial math, sucked at spelling and language. Loved reading and RPGs. So clearly, the guy wasn't stupid. But as an overall package, he was not actually as functionally effective as he thought he was. Now I can certainly attribute some of his flaws to a lower wisdom, but as someone who knew him, I assert that he truly believed he was smarter than some indicators contradicted.

And that's a scenario that can justify a low actual stat, but the person believing (having higher confidence) that it is higher than that. A form of false confidence.

I suspect you're always going to have bleed-over, where a player's actual ability (or lack thereof) is going to contradict the stat. That can happen for a smart player with a dumb PC, or a dumb player and a smart PC.

If the GM is consistent in performing skill checks against the stat to minimize inflation of success for the smarter player, that'll probably nip that in the bud (and correctly protray the PC as being over-confident). For a dumb player, I think that'll work itself out as they get themselves kiled (and is thus a self-correcting issue).

 

[gamerprinter]

In the end its a question of 'free will' I think. People make decisions on what they want to do - and that does not necessarily reflect a decision of intelligence nor wisdom, rather desire. And desire often out scores over reasonable considerations.

 

[Mallus]

And, yes, I do think that player is a bad role player. He's not playing the character he created. I keep coming back to this, but, that's the long and the short of it. If your character doesn't have the ability to do whatever it is you as the player are trying to do, then you are not playing that character, you're playing something else.

So every less-than-gifted player running a PC with a Christ-like WIS or an Einstein-like INT is playing them wrong?

 

[GSHamster]

So every less-than-gifted player running a PC with a Christ-like WIS or an Einstein-like INT is playing them wrong?

Technically yes.

But practically there's not much you can do about it. The best situation here is rely heavily on the dice, and less on roleplaying. Instead of talking about specific tactics, maybe talk about general strategy and then roll the dice. "My character's pretty smart, Can he figure out the Sphinx's Riddle?"

But ultimately, I think that path is unsatisfying. It's why I'm coming to the conclusion that non-physical stats simply should not be assigned a numeric value in game.

 

[Mallus]

Technically yes.

I have to question the validity of any definition of "role-playing" in D&D which implies virtually every player of two of the most popular character classes is role-playing incorrectly.

But practically there's not much you can do about it.

Sure there is. For example: use a better definition of role-playing, one that accepts the inevitable disconnect between the player's and character's mental abilities.

Instead of talking about specific tactics, maybe talk about general strategy and then roll the dice. "My character's pretty smart, Can he figure out the Sphinx's Riddle?" But ultimately, I think that path is unsatisfying.

It sure is. It denies the players the satisfaction/enjoyment of solving the problem themselves, which is a big deal in a game that revolves around various kinds of problem-solving.

It's why I'm coming to the conclusion that non-physical stats simply should not be assigned a numeric value in game.

Exactly right!

Have stats like Faith and Power, instead of WIS and INT.

 

[Janx]

In the end its a question of 'free will' I think. People make decisions on what they want to do - and that does not necessarily reflect a decision of intelligence nor wisdom, rather desire. And desire often out scores over reasonable considerations.

I like this point. It certainly highlights why people do dumb things.

But it also reflects that in-game, I want to try to do what I want to try to do. I do not want to roll the dice to see if my PC is "smart" enough to be able to attempt a strategy to flank the enemy.

I do not want to roll willpower saves to avoid doing something reckless and stupid every time the GM thinks my PC would do something dumb right about now.

As a player, I certainly look at my stats, particularly low ones, and down town aspects of how I portray my PC. A lower wisdom PC may be more likely to rush in, rather than pause and plan. A low CHA pc might be less friendly and more tactless. A low int PC may not propose strategies and ideas (which is counter to my own personality as I am the idea-man).

Though I will take on limitations on how my PC behaves, that's my free-well to do so. I would resent playing a game that limited my ability to solve problems and to decide what I try to do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How much importance do you place in your game on a player roleplaying his character according to the character's strengths and weaknesses rather than his own; and if you place high importance on it, how do you deal with it?

The Roll Is The Law.

Okay, so you personally remember the bit about the Draconic Prophecy in the setting book. But that doesn't mean your character knows it. Roll a History check against a DC I determine for the obscurity of the knowledge (perhaps with a +2 bonus for knowing it yourself), and your character can know it, too.

What? Your barbarian didn't roll high enough? Aww, guess you can't use that.

Okay, so you personally bat your eyelashes and stroke my ear and affect a sultry voice while telling me you're trying to charm the wayward noble at the bar. But that doesn't mean you charm him. Roll a Diplomacy check against a DC I determine for the willpower of the noble (perhaps with a +4 bonus for being...er...really in character), and you might seduce him.

What? Your grizzled veteran fighter with an eyepatch used Cha as a dump stat? Awww, guess you can't charm your way into the noble's heart.

Okay, so you heard that the magic armor of an expert adventurer in the city has a vulnerable chink in it, and, in the next combat, you state that your character lunges for the opening. But that doesn't mean you automatically hit it. Roll an attack roll against a DC I determine for that spot (perhaps with a +2 bonus for using an in-character exploit), and you might hit him.

What? Your frail spellcaster can't hit the broad side of a barn with his dagger? Awww, guess you should leave fighting to the fighters.

In every circumstance, the stats govern what you can actually accomplish. I don't say "pretend to be stupid." I do say, "just because you are smart doesn't mean your character is." The stats provide you with the tools for interacting with the world.

It's the way I prefer to play, because I don't care for the metagame nature of relying on the player's inherent ability. It removes me from the fiction of the world. Your barbarian isn't smart. Your fighter isn't persuasive. Your wizard isn't strong. Your stats dictate this, and, to have a stroke of genius, a moment of persuasion, or an instant of strength, you need to overcome the odds. Smart play can help you -- bonuses are the candy I give out -- but it won't just do it for you.

Wanna do something with a chance of failure? Roll for it. This includes "having great ideas" if your character has an Int of 5, "persuading NPCs" if your Cha is 3, and "hitting hard" if your Str is 8.

 

[Hussar]

So every less-than-gifted player running a PC with a Christ-like WIS or an Einstein-like INT is playing them wrong?

No, absolutely not and that's not what I said at all.

So long as there is an honest attempt to characterize your character in a manner which is consistent with what is on that character sheet, I'm happy.

The problem comes when people deliberately ignore their character sheet. The player who is smarter than his character has his character never make a mistake, always choose the tactically superior option and never acts in an irrational manner is a perfect example of this.

If your character is actually BETTER than you, well, then it's the effort that counts. Play to the best of your ability to portray a character that has a Christ like wisdom and I'm a happy camper.

However, when your Wis 4 character is dispensing life advice to all and sundry and that life advice actually makes a lot of sense, then you're not role playing your character anymore.