How would YOU role play these stats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

How would YOU role play these stats? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Black_Kaioshin
11-04-04, 10:26 AM I'm playing a monk character. 1st level... yay. His mental stats are 17 intellegence, 20 wisdom, and 8 charisma. Fun, eh?

How would you portray this character? Obnoxious? Shy? Stinky?
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger
11-04-04, 11:36 AM Obnoxious. I would play him like he knows everything, or at least acts it, but it extremely rude. "It's OBVIOUS that the Orc's went this way stupid, what do you have for a brain, pond scum?"

But that would iritate your fellow players so I would use such comments sparingly and add a few more quirks that would show high knowledge and perception but not liked very well.
nihility
11-04-04, 01:07 PM Obnoxious. I would play him like he knows everything, or at least acts it, but it extremely rude. "It's OBVIOUS that the Orc's went this way stupid, what do you have for a brain, pond scum?"

But that would iritate your fellow players so I would use such comments sparingly and add a few more quirks that would show high knowledge and perception but not liked very well.
I disagree. The wisdom score is significantly higher than the intelligence; with a 20 in wisdom, the character should be easily able to realize when they are annoying somebody. The character is intellegent, but even more perceptive. Thus, it seems to me that the only reason that they would be consistantly rude is if they wanted to be; they're more than smart enough to notice a pattern (calling the fighter stupid = fighter gets annoyed), and perceptive enough to notice how others feel and act. With the low charisma, they're not good at speaking, but they don't need to be a jerk, either.

I'd go for boring, personally. I'm thinking of a sharp-eyed, quick-minded person who basically lacks any sort of passion, but there are others ways. For example, the party finds some tracks. Let's assume the character is a ranger.

Party Leader: Look, tracks!

PC: (in a deadpan monotone) Hmm... yes, made... 3 hours... 18 minutes ago... plus or minus five minutes, based on the wind and the humidity... by three orcs... of the Angart tribe, based on the tread patterns of the shoes. They make the shoes through a lengthy process of tanning the hide of the wild Gumgum beast, after a ritual...

Party Leader: Whatever. Which way did they go?

PC: Hmm... yes... north... north by northwest, at an angle of (pulls out a measurement device)...

Party Leader: Right, close enough. Move out!

You can do something similar with the monk concept; just launch into an imitation of your most boring professor or teacher whenever you get the chance. Don't be rude, just don't be interesting.

Edit: some additions.
Ilium
11-04-04, 01:18 PM I just realized that the character in question is a monk, and Nihilty's description perfectly matches a TV character I love:

Monk (http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/index.html)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
k176034
11-04-04, 06:53 PM I'd proberbly play the monk as highly intelligent and wise in a surreal way with taking many things as abstract Smart, on the ball but charismatically lacking, possibly very blunt.

(cross GS Hartman with the archetypical Bhudda and add sun tsu proberbly)
Zee'Tah
11-04-04, 07:52 PM A Smart but low charisma monk

Have him be out of the way of the decision making. He should not like to argue his points but instead just state "The best course of action is..." but let the rest of the party actually decide on weather or not they actually follow your advice.

Also be the one who gets things done. Remember a monk is always looking to strengthen himself, always looking for the opportunity to fight, so he shouldn't beat around the bush while asking questions. I think you could play him best while questioning people, straight to the point and then moving on.
nihility
11-04-04, 07:53 PM The Gil Grissom character on "CSI" might be another good model. He's very smart, quite perceptive, and really boring. He has no meaningful life outside of his work and only relates well to people within the context of work. He can't socialize very well, but he can "talk shop" just fine. He annoys or offends people on occasion, usually because he doesn't like the person he's dealing with or because he's dealing with them for the first time - that is, before he's had time to figure out how to deal with them, since he needs that time to learn enough to compensate for his low charisma.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger
11-04-04, 09:07 PM I disagree. The wisdom score is significantly higher than the intelligence; with a 20 in wisdom, the character should be easily able to realize when they are annoying somebody. The character is intellegent, but even more perceptive. Thus, it seems to me that the only reason that they would be consistantly rude is if they wanted to be; they're more than smart enough to notice a pattern (calling the fighter stupid = fighter gets annoyed), and perceptive enough to notice how others feel and act. With the low charisma, they're not good at speaking, but they don't need to be a jerk, either.

What I said was just my first thought from my head. Those stats can be played a million +1 ways. Prehaps the character knows he is annoying the fighter, but then again, prehaps he doesn't care. Prehaps he is arrogent and feels superior than the rest of the party members.

Another thought is some sort of speech problem. While the character is smart and wise, prehaps they have a hard time getting things across to other people. Prehaps the character stutters, or it might be something along the lines that the character knows what to say in their head, but can't get it past their mouth.

I like the CSI suggestion personally.
nihility
11-04-04, 09:21 PM Another thought is some sort of speech problem. While the character is smart and wise, prehaps they have a hard time getting things across to other people. Prehaps the character stutters, or it might be something along the lines that the character knows what to say in their head, but can't get it past their mouth.
Interesting. This could be done to good effect, I think. In particular, I think you could tie this in with Zee'Tah's ideas of being "the one that gets things done." It's not that you're the silent type, it's just that communication is, for some reason, difficult and frustrating to you. Thus, you focus on what you can do - action and thought rather than speech.
Black_Kaioshin
11-04-04, 10:36 PM Thank you all for the replies. I like some of the ideas being thrown at me. The specch problem sounds interesting.
Needle
11-04-04, 10:47 PM He's smart, and wise... but with the charisma, i would say s/he's a silent type.
amethal
11-05-04, 10:36 AM 8 charisma isn't that bad, surely!

I was going to suggest silent and withdrawn, but Needle has already done that.

Instaed I suggest he is a bit of a smug know it all, who can be a bit patronising - but there's no need to overdo it, since a -1 penalty to charisma doesn't make him much of a social misfit.
Larielle Moonwhisper
11-05-04, 08:44 PM What about a scarred face that he keeps hidden beneath a hooded robe? Or maybe an unusual birthmarth that forms a funky pattern on his face and neck that shocks people when they see it?
nihility
11-05-04, 08:53 PM 8 charisma isn't that bad, surely!

I was going to suggest silent and withdrawn, but Needle has already done that.

Instaed I suggest he is a bit of a smug know it all, who can be a bit patronising - but there's no need to overdo it, since a -1 penalty to charisma doesn't make him much of a social misfit.
It's not so much the CHA score itself, it's the score relative to the other mental scores. Being so much smarter and more perceptive than expressive is what I've been working off of, particularly with the "CSI" example. I agree that there's no reason to automatically make the character into a social outcast, but, at the same time, the character's ability to express himself or herself is far behind the character's other mental talents.
Cantankerous
11-06-04, 05:21 AM Low Charisma, but not terrible, extreme intelligence and super human common sense and perceptivity:

I'd play him as cold and aloof. The Monk, as per the book, seeks self perfection. This one might simply seek it obsessively and thus has no spare words for even close companions. He gets things done, he's intelligent and wise enough to recognize the value of companions and to be a positive force in the group, but they and their concerns have no meaning for the character. All that he cares about is his own absolute perfection.

He won't be obnoxious. He's too perceptive to miss it in himself and too intelligent not to know what effect that has on others. He'll also know the drawbacks of being the silent type, but he will also recognize his own lack of empathy and will be wise enough to avoid trying to force an issue where he has a weakness. He'll concentrate on maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses, and his Charisma is such a weakness that conscentrating on it or it's related skills makes less sense for him.

Isshia
eagleye
11-07-04, 05:38 PM As been said before: 8 CHA isen't really that low. Keep in mind that the average commoner has 8 in all stats. So 8 CHA is not high, but it isen't low either. It's average.
nihility
11-07-04, 06:57 PM As been said before: 8 CHA isen't really that low. Keep in mind that the average commoner has 8 in all stats. So 8 CHA is not high, but it isen't low either. It's average.
Mind giving a source for that? I had assumed that the average commoner would have 10s in all stats, since, you know, those are the average stats for a human.
Iyestorm
11-07-04, 10:02 PM maybe he's using 3.5?
nihility
11-07-04, 10:21 PM maybe he's using 3.5?
3.5 humans have 10s across the board for their default stats, too.
eagleye
11-08-04, 11:27 AM I just looked it up and I stand corrected. The standard for humans is indeed 10-11. Strange, I always assumed they had an 8 in all ability scores..
The_one_wit_a_reason
11-08-04, 06:39 PM my way is

make him freindly and polite to people make him voice his opinions and his reosing but if somebody messes up in front off him make him wig out like he yells and cusses possibly storm off until he calms down

or

make him as said before blunt and completly honest but is easy to ask advice from
Dispeyr
11-09-04, 05:47 AM I rather like the concept of the detail-obsessed bore, myself, but the first thing that jumped into my mind was an individual with the ability to discern what to them is the best possible course of action in any given scenario (and is probably among the top ways to go about doing things), but who has given up on the relative idiocy of the remainder of the humanoid races and so tends to take an approach to sharing their insight that involves only shooting down others' obviously inferior solutions, in a devil's advocate style. If argued with, they just throw up their hands and allow the others to do it their way, thinking they'd never get through to these people anyway, but are right there to say "I told you so" when things go wrong, albeit most likely in a somewhat more lofty way.
Black_Kaioshin
11-09-04, 11:33 PM I think I'm digging the idea of being bluntly honest. So far in game, I've said very little in the ways of polite converse. I typically end up speaking my mind when I hear stupidity.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Black_Kaioshin 11-04-04, 10:26 AM	I'm playing a monk character. 1st level... yay. His mental stats are 17 intellegence, 20 wisdom, and 8 charisma. Fun, eh? How would you portray this character? Obnoxious? Shy? Stinky?
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 11-04-04, 11:36 AM	Obnoxious. I would play him like he knows everything, or at least acts it, but it extremely rude. "It's OBVIOUS that the Orc's went this way stupid, what do you have for a brain, pond scum?" But that would iritate your fellow players so I would use such comments sparingly and add a few more quirks that would show high knowledge and perception but not liked very well.
nihility 11-04-04, 01:07 PM	Obnoxious. I would play him like he knows everything, or at least acts it, but it extremely rude. "It's OBVIOUS that the Orc's went this way stupid, what do you have for a brain, pond scum?" But that would iritate your fellow players so I would use such comments sparingly and add a few more quirks that would show high knowledge and perception but not liked very well. I disagree. The wisdom score is significantly higher than the intelligence; with a 20 in wisdom, the character should be easily able to realize when they are annoying somebody. The character is intellegent, but even more perceptive. Thus, it seems to me that the only reason that they would be consistantly rude is if they wanted to be; they're more than smart enough to notice a pattern (calling the fighter stupid = fighter gets annoyed), and perceptive enough to notice how others feel and act. With the low charisma, they're not good at speaking, but they don't need to be a jerk, either. I'd go for boring, personally. I'm thinking of a sharp-eyed, quick-minded person who basically lacks any sort of passion, but there are others ways. For example, the party finds some tracks. Let's assume the character is a ranger. Party Leader: Look, tracks! PC: (in a deadpan monotone) Hmm... yes, made... 3 hours... 18 minutes ago... plus or minus five minutes, based on the wind and the humidity... by three orcs... of the Angart tribe, based on the tread patterns of the shoes. They make the shoes through a lengthy process of tanning the hide of the wild Gumgum beast, after a ritual... Party Leader: Whatever. Which way did they go? PC: Hmm... yes... north... north by northwest, at an angle of (pulls out a measurement device)... Party Leader: Right, close enough. Move out! You can do something similar with the monk concept; just launch into an imitation of your most boring professor or teacher whenever you get the chance. Don't be rude, just don't be interesting. Edit: some additions.
Ilium 11-04-04, 01:18 PM	I just realized that the character in question is a monk, and Nihilty's description perfectly matches a TV character I love: Monk (http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/index.html) :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
k176034 11-04-04, 06:53 PM	I'd proberbly play the monk as highly intelligent and wise in a surreal way with taking many things as abstract Smart, on the ball but charismatically lacking, possibly very blunt. (cross GS Hartman with the archetypical Bhudda and add sun tsu proberbly)
Zee'Tah 11-04-04, 07:52 PM	A Smart but low charisma monk Have him be out of the way of the decision making. He should not like to argue his points but instead just state "The best course of action is..." but let the rest of the party actually decide on weather or not they actually follow your advice. Also be the one who gets things done. Remember a monk is always looking to strengthen himself, always looking for the opportunity to fight, so he shouldn't beat around the bush while asking questions. I think you could play him best while questioning people, straight to the point and then moving on.
nihility 11-04-04, 07:53 PM	The Gil Grissom character on "CSI" might be another good model. He's very smart, quite perceptive, and really boring. He has no meaningful life outside of his work and only relates well to people within the context of work. He can't socialize very well, but he can "talk shop" just fine. He annoys or offends people on occasion, usually because he doesn't like the person he's dealing with or because he's dealing with them for the first time - that is, before he's had time to figure out how to deal with them, since he needs that time to learn enough to compensate for his low charisma.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 11-04-04, 09:07 PM	I disagree. The wisdom score is significantly higher than the intelligence; with a 20 in wisdom, the character should be easily able to realize when they are annoying somebody. The character is intellegent, but even more perceptive. Thus, it seems to me that the only reason that they would be consistantly rude is if they wanted to be; they're more than smart enough to notice a pattern (calling the fighter stupid = fighter gets annoyed), and perceptive enough to notice how others feel and act. With the low charisma, they're not good at speaking, but they don't need to be a jerk, either. What I said was just my first thought from my head. Those stats can be played a million +1 ways. Prehaps the character knows he is annoying the fighter, but then again, prehaps he doesn't care. Prehaps he is arrogent and feels superior than the rest of the party members. Another thought is some sort of speech problem. While the character is smart and wise, prehaps they have a hard time getting things across to other people. Prehaps the character stutters, or it might be something along the lines that the character knows what to say in their head, but can't get it past their mouth. I like the CSI suggestion personally.
nihility 11-04-04, 09:21 PM	Another thought is some sort of speech problem. While the character is smart and wise, prehaps they have a hard time getting things across to other people. Prehaps the character stutters, or it might be something along the lines that the character knows what to say in their head, but can't get it past their mouth. Interesting. This could be done to good effect, I think. In particular, I think you could tie this in with Zee'Tah's ideas of being "the one that gets things done." It's not that you're the silent type, it's just that communication is, for some reason, difficult and frustrating to you. Thus, you focus on what you can do - action and thought rather than speech.
Black_Kaioshin 11-04-04, 10:36 PM	Thank you all for the replies. I like some of the ideas being thrown at me. The specch problem sounds interesting.
Needle 11-04-04, 10:47 PM	He's smart, and wise... but with the charisma, i would say s/he's a silent type.
amethal 11-05-04, 10:36 AM	8 charisma isn't that bad, surely! I was going to suggest silent and withdrawn, but Needle has already done that. Instaed I suggest he is a bit of a smug know it all, who can be a bit patronising - but there's no need to overdo it, since a -1 penalty to charisma doesn't make him much of a social misfit.
Larielle Moonwhisper 11-05-04, 08:44 PM	What about a scarred face that he keeps hidden beneath a hooded robe? Or maybe an unusual birthmarth that forms a funky pattern on his face and neck that shocks people when they see it?
nihility 11-05-04, 08:53 PM	8 charisma isn't that bad, surely! I was going to suggest silent and withdrawn, but Needle has already done that. Instaed I suggest he is a bit of a smug know it all, who can be a bit patronising - but there's no need to overdo it, since a -1 penalty to charisma doesn't make him much of a social misfit. It's not so much the CHA score itself, it's the score relative to the other mental scores. Being so much smarter and more perceptive than expressive is what I've been working off of, particularly with the "CSI" example. I agree that there's no reason to automatically make the character into a social outcast, but, at the same time, the character's ability to express himself or herself is far behind the character's other mental talents.
Cantankerous 11-06-04, 05:21 AM	Low Charisma, but not terrible, extreme intelligence and super human common sense and perceptivity: I'd play him as cold and aloof. The Monk, as per the book, seeks self perfection. This one might simply seek it obsessively and thus has no spare words for even close companions. He gets things done, he's intelligent and wise enough to recognize the value of companions and to be a positive force in the group, but they and their concerns have no meaning for the character. All that he cares about is his own absolute perfection. He won't be obnoxious. He's too perceptive to miss it in himself and too intelligent not to know what effect that has on others. He'll also know the drawbacks of being the silent type, but he will also recognize his own lack of empathy and will be wise enough to avoid trying to force an issue where he has a weakness. He'll concentrate on maximizing his strengths and minimizing his weaknesses, and his Charisma is such a weakness that conscentrating on it or it's related skills makes less sense for him. Isshia
eagleye 11-07-04, 05:38 PM	As been said before: 8 CHA isen't really that low. Keep in mind that the average commoner has 8 in all stats. So 8 CHA is not high, but it isen't low either. It's average.
nihility 11-07-04, 06:57 PM	As been said before: 8 CHA isen't really that low. Keep in mind that the average commoner has 8 in all stats. So 8 CHA is not high, but it isen't low either. It's average. Mind giving a source for that? I had assumed that the average commoner would have 10s in all stats, since, you know, those are the average stats for a human.
Iyestorm 11-07-04, 10:02 PM	maybe he's using 3.5?
nihility 11-07-04, 10:21 PM	maybe he's using 3.5? 3.5 humans have 10s across the board for their default stats, too.
eagleye 11-08-04, 11:27 AM	I just looked it up and I stand corrected. The standard for humans is indeed 10-11. Strange, I always assumed they had an 8 in all ability scores..
The_one_wit_a_reason 11-08-04, 06:39 PM	my way is make him freindly and polite to people make him voice his opinions and his reosing but if somebody messes up in front off him make him wig out like he yells and cusses possibly storm off until he calms down or make him as said before blunt and completly honest but is easy to ask advice from
Dispeyr 11-09-04, 05:47 AM	I rather like the concept of the detail-obsessed bore, myself, but the first thing that jumped into my mind was an individual with the ability to discern what to them is the best possible course of action in any given scenario (and is probably among the top ways to go about doing things), but who has given up on the relative idiocy of the remainder of the humanoid races and so tends to take an approach to sharing their insight that involves only shooting down others' obviously inferior solutions, in a devil's advocate style. If argued with, they just throw up their hands and allow the others to do it their way, thinking they'd never get through to these people anyway, but are right there to say "I told you so" when things go wrong, albeit most likely in a somewhat more lofty way.
Black_Kaioshin 11-09-04, 11:33 PM	I think I'm digging the idea of being bluntly honest. So far in game, I've said very little in the ways of polite converse. I typically end up speaking my mind when I hear stupidity.