D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[TheCosmicKid]

I believe rather that roleplay is an activity in which one assumes not only the abilities of the PC, but also its skills and resources, and makes decisions about what to do with them to the best of the player's, not the character's mind you but the player's abilities.

You may believe that. Other players would call this "metagaming" and place it in stark contrast to "roleplaying". And for what it's worth, among these other players is whichever of the devs wrote p. 235 of the DMG. "Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: 'What do your characters think?' "

Anything less is simply acting out a part, whether it was you or someone else that wrote that part for you.

Acting a part = playing a role. And however heavily you load your language to imply that this is somehow a "lesser" activity... well, that really reflects more on you than it does on the activity, doesn't it?

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson's argument appears to be that the rules are ludicrous and incorrect unless they support his opinion. Also that the colloquial meaning of a term ("skills") is acceptable when used to support his argument, but not otherwise ("intelligence").

It's clear to me he's not willing to have a discussion in good faith.

I never, ever, argue in bad faith. Anyone suggesting otherwise has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[Hriston]

You may believe that. Other players would call this "metagaming" and place it in stark contrast to "roleplaying".

No, metagaming is acting on out-of-character knowledge, and if you think about it, that's exactly what's being advocated by those who insist a character be roleplayed according to its scores. A character can't possibly know what its intelligence score is, so to make stupid decisions for your character based on the OOC knowledge that the character has an Intelligence of 5 is metagaming. In my experience, less intelligent people are actually far less likely to be aware of their own cognitive limitations than a more intelligent person. Unintelligent people don't think, "I'm not very bright, so I'm going to choose to do something stupid." No, they actually choose what seems to them to be the best course of action available. That's what it means to play the role of that person.

And for what it's worth, among these other players is whichever of the devs wrote p. 235 of the DMG. "Discourage metagame thinking by giving players a gentle reminder: 'What do your characters think?' "

That developer isn't contrasting metagaming with roleplaying. His/her suggestion is meant to discourage metagaming by increasing player awareness of the metagame separation between player and character. If the point was to encourage roleplay, better advice for the DM would be to ask the players, "What do you as the character think?"

Acting a part = playing a role. And however heavily you load your language to imply that this is somehow a "lesser" activity... well, that really reflects more on you than it does on the activity, doesn't it?

The distinction I'm trying to make is between roleplaying in the sense of a tabletop RPG as opposed to the "acting out" that is more indicative of LARPing. I'm opposed to neither, but I think there's a tendency to speak of roleplay as if it only consists of the latter, while in the context of a tabletop game the latter is unnecessary for gameplay. Tabletop roleplaying is taking part in the discussion of the game in which the players decide upon and describe the intended actions of their characters. Metagame considerations, such as the ability scores of PCs, needn't be part of this process, especially when they are used to inhibit free choice in roleplay.

 

[Maxperson]

No, metagaming is acting on out-of-character knowledge, and if you think about it, that's exactly what's being advocated by those who insist a character be roleplayed according to its scores. A character can't possibly know what its intelligence score is, so to make stupid decisions for your character based on the OOC knowledge that the character has an Intelligence of 5 is metagaming. In my experience, less intelligent people are actually far less likely to be aware of their own cognitive limitations than a more intelligent person. Unintelligent people don't think, "I'm not very bright, so I'm going to choose to do something stupid." No, they actually choose what seems to them to be the best course of action available. That's what it means to play the role of that person.

A PC being played as weak with a 3 strength is metagaming? Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? The PC may not be aware of his limits, but those limits exist whether he is aware of them or not. A PC being roleplayed around stat limits does not involve metagaming. Sorry. That's just.........LOLOLOL

 

[Hriston]

A PC being played as weak with a 3 strength is metagaming?

No, you can play your character however you want. That's the point. Metagame considerations needn't be taken into account for proper roleplay. If I wish to play my Strength 3 character as someone who goes around trying to prove how strong he is by attempting to open stuck doors and lifting heavy objects, telling me I shouldn't or can't do that because of a score on my character sheet is asking me to use metagame knowledge when I decide what my character is trying to do. The truth is the rules of the game allow my Strength 3 character to lift any object that weighs up to 90 pounds without any chance of failure. Imposing restrictions on my character's ability to attempt Strength-based tasks goes beyond the RAW in a way that I feel detracts from the game.

Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds?

I agree that what you said sounds dumb, and I think now I've explained to you why it's completely missing the point of what I said.

The PC may not be aware of his limits, but those limits exist whether he is aware of them or not.

A PC's awareness of his/her own limitations is a roleplaying choice that is best left up to the player.

A PC being roleplayed around stat limits does not involve metagaming.

Yes, it is. Maybe you just don't know what metagaming means.

Sorry. That's just.........LOLOLOL

Thanks for the laughs everyone. Keep 'em coming and pretty soon I'll get to eleventh level.

 

[Warbringer]

Based on the line taken here by some, I'm going to ignore hit points: meta gaming and all

 

[Hriston]

Do characters know how many hit points they have?

 

[Warbringer]

nope .. That's my point

If I (a player) can choose to ignore the parameter values that define the character, then I can ignore hit points ... Right?

 

[Hriston]

When making RP decisions? Of course! The DM will tell you when you're hurting or when you fall unconscious. That's all your character would know.

 

[Warbringer]

Ok two things

1) when you DM do your players now how much damage themy take? ( I played in a campaign where the DM just tell us know the "impact" and it was pretty fun)

2) isnt the point of role playing to play within in the confines defind by the chararctet sheet? (Couple o great anedotes are playing with "Stoopid" the 3 int fighter (played by a Phd maths at college) and "one-word" the dwarves cleric - the player literally coveyed intention in "one word"... Another character in that party was "Cliche" the thief ... Yes the player talked in chiches )