One of my players, who is relatively new to D&D, recently brought a concern to my attention that I don't really have an answer to. This players was frustrated with the game mechanics of ability scores (e.g. Intelligence, Charisma, and so on) in connection to their character in game. Until now, I have recently thought of these two aspects as the same mechanic, but now I am not so sure.
My question is on whether or not ability scores must determine how a person roleplays their character. In other words, can a fighter who has a way with swords still be a bookworm who is knowledgeable with a Strength score of, say 16, and an Intelligence of 6? Can a bard with high charisma still fend off attackers with a bow and arrow if their Charisma is 18 and their Dexterity is 10? Do you have to talk stupid with low intelligence? The list goes on, but I think you can understand what I'm saying... (if not let me know)
In other words, has anyone found that the game does not always have to be played like this? If so, what are some techniques that you recommend applying to gameplay so as to make players feel less limited in what their character has to do or how they can act?
Someone with an intelligence of 6 probably doesn't know a lot of facts, but they may still have a large vocabulary and often read fiction. Someone with a dex of 10 is still quite capable of being competent with a bow, they just won't be Robin Hood.
Do you have to act accordingly? No. It's a game; it's your game: do what you will.
But part of an RPGs is role playing - which means making choices in the game, based on the person you're pretending to be and not based on the person you are.
I think feeling that you're being limited by low scores is understandable - but it might not be the best way to approach the game. Low scores are usually balanced by high ones - so it's not like the Player is suffering a game advantage. And learning to work around not being the best at something, and finding other means of succeeding, makes for an interesting game challenge, and quite often memorable Characters.
If you have ever watched Critical Role, the first campaign, the Character of Grog is literally a Character with an Intelligence of 6. Does Travis Willingham play him as dumb? Very. Is he less effective, less interesting, or less humorous for that? Not at all. In fact, Grog being played "smart" because Travis Willingham is intelligent in-real-life would lose most-if-not-all of the charm of the Character.
Low ability scores - and playing to them - isn't a game handicap ( unless you have overall poor scores ), it's just an in-game challenge to be overcome, and often the basis for memorable Characters.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My question is on whether or not ability scores must determine how a person roleplays their character. In other words, can a fighter who has a way with swords still be a bookworm who is knowledgeable with a Strength score of, say 16, and an Intelligence of 6? Can a bard with high charisma still fend off attackers with a bow and arrow if their Charisma is 18 and their Dexterity is 10? Do you have to talk stupid with low intelligence? The list goes on, but I think you can understand what I'm saying... (if not let me know)
Intelligence is a measurement of the character's reasoning and memory. So they may be able to read and enjoy reading, but their retention and application of that knowledge will be below average. You don't have to talk stupid (it is an option if you like, particularly if you also have low CHA), just be aware that your character would not be good at recalling information they may have heard or applying the information in a useful way even if they do recall it.
There are 2 things that determine how good you are at something, your ability (natural talent) and proficiency (practice with that skill). A character with average or below average INT may have actually studied nature for a while amd that makes up for their low INT, but a character with high INT may naturally remember more facts about nature without having specifically studied it.
10 in an ability score is average, so if you have proficiency in a weapon even with 10 in the relevant ability, you can defend yourself better than the average person.
It's part of the game - play a strong barbarian and look for your moments to shine, coming up with the plan each time could actually be taking away from someone else who's character can't roll high enough to tear a door off of its hinges.
As a player, I'm always conscious of others PCs strengths. They rolled a charismatic high Dex Rogue, and maybe chose to not put much in STR so they will be disadvantaged more so than a high STR character's dice rolls - and thats baked into the mechanics, nothing they can do about it.
So I should exercise caution and let them come up with the cunning heist (even if as a person I have a better idea), and they should be the one that sneaks ahead to pick a pocket, check a trap, pick a lock, or work out if an NPC is lying
I don't think you have to 'talk stupid' if you have low INT, that could actually come off disrespectful to others at the table (Travis certainly is not 'talking stupid').
Low INT to me means that maybe when you come up with a plan it's not the best thought out, or maybe you think that if the rouge really wants to get into that room, smashing the door down for them is an option - a low INT character that is good at fighting, may indeed have the best observation (WIS) of a blood thirsty NPC because thats the life they live.
A low score isn't a limitation, playing to weaknesses actually adds a lot more fun to the game. Rather than trying to have a character that is great at everything you let everyone shine, and maybe occasionally try something you're not good at and fail much to everyones amusement (or you succeed which can at time be even more amusing).
My high DEX monk can't resist a pretty face- he's still convinced that the person that double crossed us months ago is ok and will come back to him. The party realise this flaw, and try to distract him when negotiating to buy things, as he's also prone to straight away agree that the initial price is fair, or even offer more than the asking price.
My Barbarian is very prone to being tempted by substances and my accidental ingestion of a suspicious substance led the entire party on a crazy goose chase that was much more memorable than the actual reason we were sent there to investigate - because I had misunderstood a direction given to me, the party decided that my character needed a babysitter, and the party member that was told to watch me was also partial to substances... which we both discovered when we were offered 'something' by a shady fellow in town... we ended up wandering off in a stupor and were nearly sacrificed in a Yuanti ceremony, much to the horror and anger of the other PCs - as players we were all laughing and couldn't believe how quickly things went from bad to worse... there were constant cries of 'we had just come to town for supplies, and now we are fighting a snake cult!'
Finally, I do believe it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that there are sections where each character can shine using their skills. I structured an encounter where bandits shoot the driver of a wagon and it careened down a hillside because my paladin has vehicle proficiency and I felt I hadn't done anything to showcase her skills in driving and how much 'better' she was at driving compared to other players. I had her roll at the top of initiative to see how the wagon handled, if she rolled bad, everyone in the back of the wagon had disadvantage on attacks that round as they were bounced around.
Unrelated - players will be players- they've now painted a red stripe on the cart and cast Light on it's undercarriage when they roll into town...
Many good things about the subject have already been said here, but I've got this to add: if you are playing a character that isn't so smart or for another reason doesn't have access to certain information that you, as the player have, nothing stops you from sharing that information out-of-character with the party. Most of us aren't mentally equivalent of an Intelligence 18 Wizard, so sharing ideas out of character so that smart characters can present them in-character is a good way to create roleplaying. Otherwise, I feel like your character's ability scores should reflect how you roleplay them at least to some extent. I like playing canny, shrewd characters, so even my Barbarians tend to dump physical attributes for some Charisma and Intelligence as a way to justify that. But having low mental scores isn't an obstacle for roleplaying, quite the contrary, for reasons mentioned in posts above.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of my players, who is relatively new to D&D, recently brought a concern to my attention that I don't really have an answer to. This players was frustrated with the game mechanics of ability scores (e.g. Intelligence, Charisma, and so on) in connection to their character in game. Until now, I have recently thought of these two aspects as the same mechanic, but now I am not so sure.
My question is on whether or not ability scores must determine how a person roleplays their character. In other words, can a fighter who has a way with swords still be a bookworm who is knowledgeable with a Strength score of, say 16, and an Intelligence of 6? Can a bard with high charisma still fend off attackers with a bow and arrow if their Charisma is 18 and their Dexterity is 10? Do you have to talk stupid with low intelligence? The list goes on, but I think you can understand what I'm saying... (if not let me know)
In other words, has anyone found that the game does not always have to be played like this? If so, what are some techniques that you recommend applying to gameplay so as to make players feel less limited in what their character has to do or how they can act?
Someone with an intelligence of 6 probably doesn't know a lot of facts, but they may still have a large vocabulary and often read fiction. Someone with a dex of 10 is still quite capable of being competent with a bow, they just won't be Robin Hood.
Do you have to act accordingly? No. It's a game; it's your game: do what you will.
But part of an RPGs is role playing - which means making choices in the game, based on the person you're pretending to be and not based on the person you are.
I think feeling that you're being limited by low scores is understandable - but it might not be the best way to approach the game. Low scores are usually balanced by high ones - so it's not like the Player is suffering a game advantage. And learning to work around not being the best at something, and finding other means of succeeding, makes for an interesting game challenge, and quite often memorable Characters.
If you have ever watched Critical Role, the first campaign, the Character of Grog is literally a Character with an Intelligence of 6. Does Travis Willingham play him as dumb? Very. Is he less effective, less interesting, or less humorous for that? Not at all. In fact, Grog being played "smart" because Travis Willingham is intelligent in-real-life would lose most-if-not-all of the charm of the Character.
Low ability scores - and playing to them - isn't a game handicap ( unless you have overall poor scores ), it's just an in-game challenge to be overcome, and often the basis for memorable Characters.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Intelligence is a measurement of the character's reasoning and memory. So they may be able to read and enjoy reading, but their retention and application of that knowledge will be below average. You don't have to talk stupid (it is an option if you like, particularly if you also have low CHA), just be aware that your character would not be good at recalling information they may have heard or applying the information in a useful way even if they do recall it.
There are 2 things that determine how good you are at something, your ability (natural talent) and proficiency (practice with that skill). A character with average or below average INT may have actually studied nature for a while amd that makes up for their low INT, but a character with high INT may naturally remember more facts about nature without having specifically studied it.
10 in an ability score is average, so if you have proficiency in a weapon even with 10 in the relevant ability, you can defend yourself better than the average person.
It's part of the game - play a strong barbarian and look for your moments to shine, coming up with the plan each time could actually be taking away from someone else who's character can't roll high enough to tear a door off of its hinges.
As a player, I'm always conscious of others PCs strengths. They rolled a charismatic high Dex Rogue, and maybe chose to not put much in STR so they will be disadvantaged more so than a high STR character's dice rolls - and thats baked into the mechanics, nothing they can do about it.
So I should exercise caution and let them come up with the cunning heist (even if as a person I have a better idea), and they should be the one that sneaks ahead to pick a pocket, check a trap, pick a lock, or work out if an NPC is lying
I don't think you have to 'talk stupid' if you have low INT, that could actually come off disrespectful to others at the table (Travis certainly is not 'talking stupid').
Low INT to me means that maybe when you come up with a plan it's not the best thought out, or maybe you think that if the rouge really wants to get into that room, smashing the door down for them is an option - a low INT character that is good at fighting, may indeed have the best observation (WIS) of a blood thirsty NPC because thats the life they live.
A low score isn't a limitation, playing to weaknesses actually adds a lot more fun to the game. Rather than trying to have a character that is great at everything you let everyone shine, and maybe occasionally try something you're not good at and fail much to everyones amusement (or you succeed which can at time be even more amusing).
My high DEX monk can't resist a pretty face- he's still convinced that the person that double crossed us months ago is ok and will come back to him. The party realise this flaw, and try to distract him when negotiating to buy things, as he's also prone to straight away agree that the initial price is fair, or even offer more than the asking price.
My Barbarian is very prone to being tempted by substances and my accidental ingestion of a suspicious substance led the entire party on a crazy goose chase that was much more memorable than the actual reason we were sent there to investigate - because I had misunderstood a direction given to me, the party decided that my character needed a babysitter, and the party member that was told to watch me was also partial to substances... which we both discovered when we were offered 'something' by a shady fellow in town... we ended up wandering off in a stupor and were nearly sacrificed in a Yuanti ceremony, much to the horror and anger of the other PCs - as players we were all laughing and couldn't believe how quickly things went from bad to worse... there were constant cries of 'we had just come to town for supplies, and now we are fighting a snake cult!'
Finally, I do believe it is the responsibility of the DM to make sure that there are sections where each character can shine using their skills. I structured an encounter where bandits shoot the driver of a wagon and it careened down a hillside because my paladin has vehicle proficiency and I felt I hadn't done anything to showcase her skills in driving and how much 'better' she was at driving compared to other players. I had her roll at the top of initiative to see how the wagon handled, if she rolled bad, everyone in the back of the wagon had disadvantage on attacks that round as they were bounced around.
Unrelated - players will be players- they've now painted a red stripe on the cart and cast Light on it's undercarriage when they roll into town...
Many good things about the subject have already been said here, but I've got this to add: if you are playing a character that isn't so smart or for another reason doesn't have access to certain information that you, as the player have, nothing stops you from sharing that information out-of-character with the party. Most of us aren't mentally equivalent of an Intelligence 18 Wizard, so sharing ideas out of character so that smart characters can present them in-character is a good way to create roleplaying. Otherwise, I feel like your character's ability scores should reflect how you roleplay them at least to some extent. I like playing canny, shrewd characters, so even my Barbarians tend to dump physical attributes for some Charisma and Intelligence as a way to justify that. But having low mental scores isn't an obstacle for roleplaying, quite the contrary, for reasons mentioned in posts above.