What's the hardest attribute to effectively role-play?

[zakael19]

I think it's easier to consider this instead of going by the "stat" to instead think of a descriptor or two a person could reasonably base a depiction around.

In that regard, I can think of a way to roleplay lower then average wisdom ("impulsive, oblivious"), intelligence ("blunt, straightforward, incurious"), strength ("weak, dependent"), dexterity ("clumsy, imprecise"), charisma ("rude, offensive, repulsive"), and con ("sickly, frail, weary").

I think that significantly standard deviation higher then average of any stat is somewhat difficult to RP maybe? Because a lot of that might depend on a GM allowing certain expressions, or the roll of a dice. I can say that I try and demonstrate my high strength ("mighty? robust?"), but can I do that without asking permission? How do I show off my high constitution? Do I need to say "well obviously the rest of you are exhausted after walking today, but I am not!" That requires the fellow players to maybe weigh in. Other folks have pointed out significant difficulties in RPing Int & Wis already.

So I think maybe a split here is between the ability to describe color easily in the case of sub-par attributes, vs have to try and demonstrate it via action with chance of failure?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

We can think of what it means to be intelligent, or charismatic, or wise, but how do you roleplay “I’m the healthiest person in the party?”

Your character never shuts up about Crossfit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

how do you roleplay “I’m the healthiest person in the party?”

Your character never shuts up about Crossfit.

“Do you even lift, bro?”

“Meat is murder! You should go vegan like me!”

“I’m not struggling for breath, but I can hear you wheezing. You need to work on your endurance.”

“More gains means heavier chain!”

 

[aramis erak]

On Intelligence, Men & Magic (the first book of OD&D in 1974) says:

"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken [sic]." (pp.10).

I take this as meaning that if the player has a clever idea but their character has low intelligence, that idea should be ignored. Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether the character could have had that idea. This is the beginning of role-playing; wargamers in 1974 had always played to win, now they were being told to play to their character.

I'm writing a book on the psychology of TTRPGs and this question really interests me. Of the six D&D attributes, what do you think is the hardest to effectively role-play (as a player) or police (as a DM)?

Any thoughts appreciated!

Charisma is harder. Those who are charismatic generally can't play uncharismatic well, and those who are personally uncharismatic simply don't know how to be charismatic.

Intelligence, the smart guy can play being low-intelligence. The GM can use attribute saves to guide the low-intelligence player away from choices the character shouldn't make... and some such players will actually enjoy the game more if that is done. (Some won't.)

 

[Artamo]

“Do you even lift, bro?”

“Meat is murder! You should go vegan like me!”

“I’m not struggling for breath, but I can hear you wheezing. You need to work on your endurance.”

“More gains means heavier chain!”

“No, I buy the more expensive iron rations - less carbs, more protein”

“Doing wind sprints in chainmail is a total body workout - you should really stop reading that spell book and strap on some armor; it’ll do wonders for your Con.”

 

[Hriston]

On Intelligence, Men & Magic (the first book of OD&D in 1974) says:

"Intelligence will also affect referees' decisions as to whether or not certain action would be taken [sic]." (pp.10).

I take this as meaning that if the player has a clever idea but their character has low intelligence, that idea should be ignored. Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether the character could have had that idea. This is the beginning of role-playing; wargamers in 1974 had always played to win, now they were being told to play to their character.

I'm writing a book on the psychology of TTRPGs and this question really interests me. Of the six D&D attributes, what do you think is the hardest to effectively role-play (as a player) or police (as a DM)?

Any thoughts appreciated!

I completely disagree with your take. The quoted passage isn't even directed at players and says nothing about the referee limiting their ideas. It's talking about how the Intelligence score can be used by the referee to determine the success of "certain action" (i.e. actions that rely on the PC's Intelligence). This is in parallel to the description of Strength as aiding "in opening traps and so on", Constitution as influencing "such things as the number of hits which can be taken and how well the character can withstand being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc.", Dexterity as indicating "the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.", and Charisma as determining "how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract." It's an instruction to the referee to adjudicate success with reference to the character's score, perhaps by consulting a die roll, so it's not about what choices a player is allowed to make for their character (i.e. how a player is allowed to roleplay). It's about how the player's choices will be determined by the referee to succeed or to fail.

 

[Steven Samuel]

I completely disagree with your take. The quoted passage isn't even directed at players and says nothing about the referee limiting their ideas. It's talking about how the Intelligence score can be used by the referee to determine the success of "certain action" (i.e. actions that rely on the PC's Intelligence). This is in parallel to the description of Strength as aiding "in opening traps and so on", Constitution as influencing "such things as the number of hits which can be taken and how well the character can withstand being paralyzed, turned to stone, etc.", Dexterity as indicating "the character's missile ability and speed with actions such as firing first, getting off a spell, etc.", and Charisma as determining "how many hirelings of unusual nature a character can attract." It's an instruction to the referee to adjudicate success with reference to the character's score, perhaps by consulting a die roll, so it's not about what choices a player is allowed to make for their character (i.e. how a player is allowed to roleplay). It's about how the player's choices will be determined by the referee to succeed or to fail.

Hence "Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether that character could have had that idea."

 

[Hriston]

To answer the OP's question, I don't find that any of the abilities make roleplaying more difficult because, as a player, I play my character as I imagine them rather than according to their scores, and, as DM, I most definitely don't "police" players' roleplaying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To answer the OP's question, I don't find that any of the abilities make roleplaying more difficult because, as a player, I play my character as I imagine them rather than according to their scores, and, as DM, I most definitely don't "police" players' roleplaying.

So your scores have no connection to how you roleplay your PC? To me, modeling your PC is basically the whole point of them. If they don't inform your character, what's the point of them?

 

[Hriston]

Hence "Or, more accurately, that the DM should judge whether that character could have had that idea."

No, it's not about whether a character can have an idea (unless maybe the character in question is an NPC, in which case the referee can make that decision based on the NPC's score). The player gets to choose (roleplay) what ideas the PC has. It's about whether the player's idea leads to success.