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

[dragoner]

Once away from D&D, such as in Traveller, there are characteristic DM's such as Dexterity 9 is +1 DM, and gets used with a check, or skill use. Hits differently than say role-playing it.

 

[Hriston]

You are correct. The setting and interacting with it, whether through your PC as a Player or through everything else as a GM, is my top priority as a Player, GM, or designer. It is my primary reason to engage in the hobby.

I never would've put that together with portraying ability scores, but it makes sense.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I used to play a low IQ GURPS character. When I the player had an idea that was even remotely appropriate, I'd roll an IQ test. If I failed, my PC didn't say anything. If I succeeded, my PC could say the idea. It was fun, although we only did it if my idea seemed a bit above what a 6 IQ character would say (6 IQ is not quite the same as D&D 6 INT, but close enough so y'all get the concept)

 

[Golden Bee]

I originally took this thread to mean attribute as in trait, and #1 is shyness. In any game where you can't see the other players, it's identical to AFK. Physical discomfort is something that's difficult unless you're in person and can nudge the other players, mumble but still be understood, hide in your hoodie, etc.

 

[Clint_L]

I get it. So the DM is perhaps best-placed to roleplay some high PC attributes by removing a bit of mental 'fog of war'. Players would not be able to do this alone. But maybe players should be more responsible for sticking to their character's low scores. Make sense?

There is a long thread about this in the D&D forum, but my take is let the players RP their characters however they like; their attributes only matter when it comes to making rolls for the specific situations described in the rules. There are lots of people who are brilliant in some ways and stupid in others (all people, actually), and the same is true of all the others. Thus, the rules just describe their attributes as they relate to specific dice rolls.

As far as denying a player a good idea because their character is bad at arcana checks or whatever, I blow a fat raspberry at that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There is a long thread about this in the D&D forum, but my take is let the players RP their characters however they like; their attributes only matter when it comes to making rolls for the specific situations described in the rules. There are lots of people who are brilliant in some ways and stupid in others (all people, actually), and the same is true of all the others. Thus, the rules just describe their attributes as they relate to specific dice rolls.

As far as denying a player a good idea because their character is bad at arcana checks or whatever, I blow a fat raspberry at that.

Hear, hear.

I am all for people roleplaying their low attributes in exaggerated ways, if that's what they want.

I'm also all for people treating their low attributes as nothing more than what they are: a 5-25% penalty on certain checks. If that's what they want.

I do admit to having a soft spot for creatively contrary interpretations. For example, playing a high Int as an idiot savant, or a low Int as an absent-minded genius.

What I have no patience for is telling others how to interpret their ability scores.