I decided to take this topic over from the DM board to here. Essentially, the question I brought up on an unrelated thread, was whether or not ability scores have to have anything to do with how the character is roleplayed. In other words, just because I have a 7 INT or 6 WIS on my character sheet, does that mean that my character has to act dumb and be foolish, or does it mean simply that the character is going to have mechanical deficits, like not knowing many languages, being very bad at spellcasting, not having good Perception or Nature skills, or whatever else the version of D&D you're playing connects to those ability scores? Keep in mind, specfic examples may or may not have validity based on the version of the rules you're using.
The most recent place I read this suggestion was in Lamentations of The Flame Princess. The author advocates a complete disconnect between ability scores and the personality of the character. Ability scores are to be used to resolve game mechanics only: ability checks, attack rolls, skill checks, number of retainers, loyalty checks, etc. On the other side of that, inspiration, ideas, personality, problem solving, interaction with others ... that all should come from the player without worrying about what the character sheet says.
I have no problem trying to act out my ability scores somehow. I see that as a roleplaying challenge, and it can be fun.
But what happens if a player has a character with a Wisdom of 20 or an INT of 20 and let's face it ... the player just isn't that wise or smart in real life? Depending on how you interpret that high of an ability score, it's possible no one in the real world could live up to that! But let's say that the player in question is just perhaps more careless than others at the table, doesn't notice things that other players do, doesn't have as many original ideas as the others, and doesn't have tons of general or specific knowledge relevent to the situations presented in the game?
That could mean that no matter how much he wants to, the player will not be able to live up to the expectations that are printed on his character sheet, and every time he's called on to be "smart", it could mean that he needs to roll something to find out whether the DM will feed him clues or help him along in some other way. Meanwhile, there might be someone else at the table who CAN do those things better than him, and figures things out much faster, but needs to restrain himself due to the fact that Grog the Barbarian only has an INT of 7, and is getting frustrated at watching the DM feed information to the guy who takes "forever" to figure things out.
I suppose "really smart player" could always feed suggestions to "less really smart player," and that would actually be a positive for cooperative gameplay, but wouldn't it just be easier if "really smart player" just plays Grog as a highly intelligent guy who doesn't know very many languages and can't cast spells to save his life and always fails at trivia contests, and "less really smart player" plays his Wizard as a guy of average intelligence who just happens to be brilliant at spells and languages?
I suppose this is another reason why "rolling for knowledge" can be a problem. In our group, instead of a player asking a question about what their character knows, then rolling a skill check, and having me feed them correct or incorrect knowledge (or "you don't know anything about that") based on the success of the roll, the player instead states what he wants to be true, and if the group agrees that's a fun idea then we roll the skill check to see whether or not character is mistaken or whether that bit of knowledge the player contributed leads to some form of success or failure (but meanwhile, the character still believes he's correct and doing the right thing). This allows the whole group to contribute to the story, and makes it unnecessary to play guessing games with the DM, or for the DM to spoon feed information to the group.
So sure, RPing your ability scores to the best of your abilities can work if everyone's having fun with it (anything can work if you're having fun with it), but it can also be problematic in certain situations, especially where it comes to having to reign in your own ability to participate because a number on the character sheet says "you're not allowed to come up with that idea" or not actually being able to roleplay the character the way his sheet is written because you don't actually have a 300 IQ in real life.
Then we have physical ability scores. I say it's possible for a character with an 18 STR to be roleplayed as a 98lb weakling who is really good at melee fighting and gets really lucky when lifting heavy stuff, or someone who has secret inner reserves of strength that are not obvious to anyone, including himself. Conversely, the guy with a 5 DEX might be incredibly dextrous to the point where he can do magic tricks in his spare time and be a circus tight rope walker as his day job, but he's a damage magnet who can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside and always seems to trip over his own feet during crucial moments in combat due to nervousness.
So in my opinion, in this case, once again, with imagination, you don't HAVE to have a direct connect between ability scores and roleplaying.
What do you think about the relationship between ability scores and roleplaying? Do you prefer that they be closely related? No connect at all? Somewhere in between? How does it work in your campaign?
I think having to make decisions or interact a certain way based on your ability scores is a stupid concept; however, some games include this as their base assumptions and so to get the game experience intended, you should consider doing so. I choose to play games where this is not the assumption for the reasons stated.
On "roll to know," if the DM asks for a roll and then says "No, you don't know anything" on a failure, then that's a DM fail. You should always get the information in my view - the roll just determines the cost, which should be negotiated before the roll. The information can be supplied by the DM or by the players in this mode, whichever is more expedient.
I like to roleplay ability scores, but I don't like being told how to roleplay my ability scores.
Red, I think you tagged every point I usually try to make in discussions like this. I think the desire for others to roleplay their ability scores comes from some good places: wanting the numbers to match "reality" and wanting people gain advantage from their investments. But these don't work, because the reality doesn't reflect (without extensive justification) what the conclusions of the rules.
The the Strength/Intelligence "trade off" is the worst culprit. By the numbers, all you need to be a good Fighter is high Strength. But an actual, successful, independent mercenary warrior such as is often portrayed in games would not be a drooling fool, and would in-fact probably be quite clever and resourceful. But as soon as that character offers a solution to a puzzle or tries to suggest a plan, the player is accused of min-maxing and cheating.
And this is because the desire for others to roleplay their ability scores also comes from a somewhat dark place, which is the belief of the players that brains should beat brawn, a lesson that probably doesn't hold in their own lives, and which they want to be true in their fantasy life.
iserith wrote:
Of the folder of characters I play in LFR my two 8 WIS I try to roleplay impractical and unrealistic.
-one is warlock mc warlord who over thinks the tactics or destiny of everything
-one is a wild sorc changeling who is an ARTIST and a poet of the energies of the universe.
My 8CHA rogue however is perfectly friendly and makes reasonable arguments (usually better then the higher CHA, trained in CHA skills characters/players) but his failures in diplomacy come from his wicked dueling scar and the "I could kill you if I needed to" sneer on his face. ( note I never volunter to do the talking it's just the other players are sitting there breathing through their mouths for 5 minuets after the DM asks "what do you tell the NPCs")
Sea-Envy wrote:
RedSiegfried wrote:
Good ideas, iserith. I see what you mean now by having a cost for the information. I really need to pick up DW sometime. 
The not trying to be the party face with an 8CHA is mainly so I don't accrue failures in skill challenges.
The low WIS is mainly about being less practical, haveing less common sense, less awareness of the real world around you
These are easilly exagerations but they make sense for the back grounds, traveling companians should describe them as a bit clueless or impractical even if all they have is a -1 to a handfull of skills.
Sea-Envy wrote:
Centauri wrote:
Well, given that D&D is a Roleplaying game.... (as oppossed to being a board game/computer game/miniture wargame)
You should probably be making some attempt to portray the stats you've listed on your sheet beyond just being a source of modifiers to your dice rolls.
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
I fall into the "Roleplay your character, not his stats" camp. Roleplay whatever you want, if the DM calls for checks for things, your failure to get good DCs should reflect your lower ability scores. A character with low cha can try to intimidate all he wants. If the DM Calls for a roll, and the player rolls low (thanks to his 8 cha) then he isn't very good at it or effective. The math justifies the reaction, not your attempt.
RedSiegfried wrote:
Also: a person playing a high Wisdom character can just say :" And Kurik says something insightful to this NPC"
There is no requirement to be strong, agile, wise or charismatic to play this game, though some stamina and intelligence never hurt. Why would you require any of those of a player when portraying a pen and paper based character ?
I agree with baldhermit that a simple solution is to just say "I say something insightful." That works fine. But a lot of other folks would say that makes you a lazy roleplayer. I don't necessarily agree, but I would prefer that the person that did that gave it a little more of a try. Maybe just take it a bit further and proclaim you're going to say something insightful, then spout whatever you can come up with, even if it's nonsense, then roll those dice. At least you gave it a try and if you're anything like the people in my group, your insightful phrase will probably be something hilariously comic that we all enjoy.
Re: requirements. D&D has always been held up by many as an example of a game for "the smart kids," and quite a few people who play it do so because they want to be the smartest guy in the room, and show it off. I'm so over that ... since about 7th grade. But let's face it, this game encourages you to act out your fantasies of being someone larger than life. So you tend to get a lot of mind-games and oneupsmanship by everyone at the table. So while there are certainly no requirements to have any kinds of skills whatsoever, except perhaps just knowing the rules on a basic level, many games and many players certainly steer their games toward situations where the players are required to mentally outwit other players in order to succeed. (I won't even get started on beating others through metagaming, like character optimization.) And when your character sheet doesn't show an 18 INT, this can present problems, and people get called out on not acting out their low intelligence score, though they often don't get called out on not acting out their high intelligence score, cause the DM can always feed them score-appropriate information if needed with an ability or skill check.
Nobody seems to care about that kind of stuff when it's physical ability scores like STR, DEX and CON, because, after all, you're all sitting around a table and there's no requirement to do anything physical. Though a lot of folks (some of them the game designers) still insist that DEX trump everything else because I guess they like the idea of being nimble as being more potent than being strong (DEX is an uberstat, but thankfully 4e at least kept Acrobatics and Athletics seperate). I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine why that's true. Once again, that's another topic though.
RedSiegfried wrote:
This game seemingly invites a lot of quasi-intelligent people who can get really passive aggressively pissy about petty stuff. You cannot let their poorly hidden insecurities undermine your fun, RedSiegfried.
baldhermit wrote:
I didn't really mean to turn that into a tirade against passive-aggressive insecure pseudo-intellectuals, but if it came across that way, I can live with that.
But in the defense of Mr. Smarty Pants, let's say that maybe I am one of those folks who wants to be the smartest guy in the room (even if I'm not) and show everyone how clever I am all the time. As long as I'm not shutting down other players when I do stuff like that, even if my character sheet shows an INT of 6 I believe I should go right ahead and throw out as many good ideas as I can. After all, that's how I have fun ... being Mr. Smart Guy. I believe the 6 INT should simply mean I suck at INT based skills and attacks or whatever, but if as a player I really do have some good ideas that the rest of the group likes, I don't see any reason to hold back, regardless of edition.
If others feel that their spotlight is being stolen by this, resorting to pointing out a low ability score on someone else's character sheet and telling them that they're not roleplaying light is a pretty lame way to fix that problem. It's knocking someone else down to create a level playing field instead of raising someone else up. Instead, like we suggest in these forums all the time, just talk to Mr. Smarty Pants and ask him not to hog the stage so much so others can have a chance to shine too, or ask him to help other players take their game to the next level, or even feed his good ideas to others players instead of introducing them himself. If Mr. Smarty Pants isn't a jerk, this will work fine.
That reminds me, I really need to read my old books to find out in more detail what each edition has to say about this. Probably it will give a good insight into the designers' minds too, I bet.
RedSiegfried wrote:
Reading old (and new...) editions of RPG books is the worst place to look for RPG advice. There is a weird idea that the old stuff was good and should be emulated that is circling around RPGs today. The old stuff was full of bad and terrible ideas. Thats why we moved away from it.
If you want to learn to roleplay take acting classes and read books on acting in character. If you want to learn to DM read some books on leadership, teamwork and being a decent person. The last thing you should read is the Old school DMGs.
Krusk wrote:
I remember the old versions being fun, because it was time spent with good friends. We would have (and have) near as much fun playing monopoly or go fish.
For me, 4e is the version I can play with semi decent people, and still have fun.
I do wholly support Krusk suggestion on reading leadership / teamwork related materials to make someone a better DM.
RedSiegfried wrote:
Damean wrote:
Centauri wrote:
I've played a barbarian with a very VERY low IQ, and it was always the source of great entertainment among the party. I would often have my barbarian set off a trap on purpose, because he was stupid, and would sometimes even press the trigger of the trap a second time, just to make sure that it was the culprit. He would often entertain the other players with the most ludicrous tales about his superstitions, and myths of his people.
For example, he believed in the spirit of the Great Bear. At some point the party was lost, and he proposed that the party should do a ritual to ask the Great Bear for guidance. Feeling at a total loss, the party figured that they might as well humor the stupid barbarian, regardless of how stupid his ritual sounded. My barbarian told them they needed to paint their faces, and get really drunk. They should then perform a ritual dance with much noise, to please the spirit of the Great Bear. The party joined in, while feeling rather silly, until the DM decided that it would be hilarious to have the Great Bear actually appear and help the party.
In another instance, my barbarian told the party of his creation myth of his people, and how the monster Lochnar would eventually devour the world, and end all things. The party was always greatly entertained by these silly stories, but of course at some point the monster Lochnar actually made an appearance, and he really was kind of an okay guy (just misunderstood). As it turned out, Lochnar had tried to warn an ancient tribe that the world would end, and they had interpreted it the wrong way. Every tribe since then had copied this myth that Lochnar would one day come to eat the world.
But this is a great example of how ability scores can shape a character. A character can have a very low IQ and still be quite endeering in his own way.
Imaculata wrote:
Hahahaha! That is awesome! Hail the Great Bear!
I have no problem disconnecting RP from ability scores simply because of the illogical nonsense that happens when the two are connected:
Imagine that one character has 6 INT (INTmodifier -2), another has 12 INT (INTmodifier +1), and that all else is equal.
If the first character must roll a 14 or higher (35%) to accomplish something with an INT check, then the second character would be required to roll an 11 or higher (50%) to accomplish the same thing on the check.
If the 12 INT character were "twice as smart" as the 6 INT character, then:
the 6 INT character having a 35% chance would mean that the 12 INT character has a 70% chance
while the 12 INT character having a 50% chance would mean that the 6 INT character has a 25% chance.
If the game compared Ability Score modifiers to each other, then you might be able to measure that a 12 INT character is "twice as smart" as a 6 INT character. However, ability modifiers are not measured against each other, they are measured against a d20 instead, which means they need not be RPed as though they were measured against each other.
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
I have no problem trying to act out my ability scores somehow. I see that as a roleplaying challenge, and it can be fun.
But what happens if a player has a character with a Wisdom of 20 or an INT of 20 and let's face it ... the player just isn't that wise or smart in real life?
I run into low Cha Players liking Bards and high Cha Players liking Wardens (or other such uncharismatic characters). I really have no problems with an uncharismatic player making a verbal attempt at some social skill, then grabbing the dice. I do have problems with the charismatic player with the warden stealing the spotlight for something that their character is likely to fail at.
Character stats matter, Player stats don't. Being a good roleplayer has more to do with knowing what character you picked, and less with being fabulous.
Zathris wrote:
At conventions I've run into a lot of DMs that force the person speaking to make the primary roll for any skill challenge and only allow assists if you can come up with something immediately when the primary picks up the die. This lead to the players with cha-based characters having to rudely interrupt people outside our group that just wanted to enjoy some roleplay in order to prevent their warden or no-arcana-sub wizards from being forced to roll for critical skill challenges in Specs and BIs.
I’m in favor of connecting ability scores to roleplaying. Physical stats are easily reflected in the characters look (body type).
The mental stats are a bit more of a problem, because you have to actually roleplay them.
My first character, Simur the dark ranger, had a low charisma, average to low intelligence but good wisdom. I played him as a very silent, stoic character who kept himself in the background. He was competent and badass in his way but neither a riddle/problem solver nor a social character. So I often had to restrain myself.
My namesake character for this forum, Panartias, is quite the opposite: He has very high Intelligence, slightly above average charisma but a low wisdom. I had to work/plan a lot ahead because I’m not such a genius as this character. He was fun and outgoing, but disliked the responsibility that comes with leadership. And he is weak willed and lazy, and loves to play practical jokes on his comrades. I often would roll against his wisdom to see, if he would do something unwise (probably against his own better judgment)…
I could go on, with other characters, but my point stands: I enjoyed the roleplaying challenge!
However, I think Zathris was making the point that you cannot deny a shy or stupid person a shot at playing a bard or wizard.
With regard to physical stats vs appearance and roleplay: this is a game based heavilly around non-human races and magic. While it is visually aparent that Orcs trend higher Str than Elves, there are many races where their relative strength is not even remotely aparent, and then there's the whole "adventurer" aspect of leveling and magic items. You can have a halfling with a 26 in both str and con in Epic, and I doubt anyone would describe their character as having grown muscles like Arnold.
I wouldn’t deny a shy or stupid person a shot at playing bard or wizard. I would talk to them though, to make sure this is the kind of character that they enjoy and that they have to invest work and be ok when I feed them ideas occasionally as a DM. Ideally they will grow with their characters.
As for the strong Halfling, his muscles should show if it’s not magic. (In 2nd ed Halflings had a strength penalty and so couldn’t have exceptionally high strength scores) In 3.x they have no penalty and can increase attributes with levels (so I kind of see your point there) But 3.x also made dex-based fighters more feasible so there is even less reason for a hulking Halfling.
A hulking Halfling actually sounds like a GREAT ice-breaker party member for our next campaign. Thanks for the thought! ^__^
I do lean more toward the "appearance somewhat reflects stats" and all, however, I'm also of the mind that "high STR" could just mean he knows how to deadlift REALLY well.
As for the shy/stupid bard/wizard, have at! If it makes the game fun and/or enjoyable for the person let them try! A bit of facepalming from the group shouldn't stop them from attempting. In fact, it's that kind of thing that makes some games turn out quite interesting for the night.