Am I understanding the role-play difference between INT and WIS correctly?

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Intelligence is how quickly you process things consciously (logically, one step at a time, goes along with book-learning), Wisdom is how quickly you process things unconsciously (randomly juggling a few things at a time, goes along with instinct and common sense).

Intelligence is how big the words are that you use, Wisdom is whether you are correct:
High-WIS, low-INTs just don't gamble
High-WIS, high-INTs go into sweeping lectures about the dangers of gambling
Low-WIS, low-INTs gamble
Low-WIS, high-INTs go into sweeping lectures about an imaginary "system" for gambling (or don't, because they don't want it to "work" for anybody else)

Real life example:

A firefighter was convinced that he was some kind of psychic after ordering his team out of a burning building seconds before it collapsed. After the fact, and interview let him realize that, at the time, he could tell that: the air was even hotter than it was supposed to be; the fire wasn't being effected by the water hoses; there was more smoke than there should've been; subconsciously, he realized that the fire wasn't in the kitchen like everybody thought, but the basement, which he got by using his instincts and common sense (WIS) instead of book-learning and analysis (INT).

If he hadn't been able to figure that out subconsciously, if he had needed to think "logically" about each piece individually (or if he had talked them over with everybody else before doing anything), than the floor would've collapsed under their feet before they could get out.

Our subconscious minds are built to be much faster than our conscious minds since running from a lion does not require us to be aware of every single step in our mind realizing "there is a lion, run!" rather we just see the final picture and act on instinct, whereas logical, step-by-step analysis is saved for when something isn't that much of a crisis yet. Therefore, it would take a lot more INT points to get the same result as quickly as a few more WIS points, to be able to think almost as fast consciously as most do subconsciously, although you could explain yourself more easily after the fact.

WIS is also used to "measure" one's connection to their deity, who would normally rather give their followers accurate instincts now than give them a step-by-step analysis and wait for them to get to the end.

Am I getting this right?

Founder - but not owner - of Just Say Yes!

Member of LGBT Gamers

Odds are, if 4-6 people can't figure out an answer you thought was obvious, you screwed up, not them. - JeffGroves
Which is why a DM should present problems to solve, not solutions to find. -FlatFoot
Why there should be the option to use alignment systems:
Show
If some people are heavily benefiting from the inclusion of alignment, then it would behoove those that AREN'T to listen up and pay attention to how those benefits are being created and enjoyed, no? -YagamiFire
But equally important would be for those who do enjoy those benefits to entertain the possibility that other people do not value those benefits equally or, possibly, do not see them as benefits in the first place. -wrecan (RIP)
That makes sense. However, it is not fair to continually attack those that benefit for being, somehow, deviant for deriving enjoyment from something that you cannot. Instead, alignment is continually attacked...it is demonized...and those that use it are lumped in with it.

 

I think there is more merit in a situation where someone says "This doesn't work! It's broken!" and the reply is "Actually it works fine for me. Have you considered your approach might be causing it?"

 

than a situation where someone says "I use this system and the way I use it works really well!" and the back and forth is "No! It is a broken bad system!" -YagamiFire

No. Int and Wis are numbers that are just modifiers for mechanical parts of game. They dont tell you how to roleplay.


Am I getting this right?



Sure, if that is how you want to RP what you are playing.  While you shouldn't be strictly limited to following the numbers on the sheet, the isn't a reason you can't have the numbers and the RP line up as you want it to.  If you want to make a thing of RPing to your strengths and weaknesses as a physical character, have at it.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
We used to distinguish the two as INT = factual knowledge, WIS = functional knowledge.  So high INT means you could know encyclopedias of facts but wouldn't necessarily be able to correlate information, the ability simply measures the VOLUME of your learning.  High WIS on the other hand has a lot more to do with intuition and understanding.  INT allows you memorize information, WIS allows you to actually comprehend data which your INT enables you to spit out.

Really, the two are HIGHLY INdistinct.  Other RPG's which rename them into, say, Learning and Intuition, tend to distinguish better between them. 

Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.

My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm

"Who says I can't?" "The man in the funny hat..."

the ability scores are simply a mechanic for you to gain bonuses towards various parts of skills, abilities etc..  If you choose to base roleplay for a character off them that is your decision but it is not required, the norm or what you should expect others to do.  Roleplay in 4E is very much free-form.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

No. Int and Wis are numbers that are just modifiers for mechanical parts of game. They dont tell you how to roleplay.

I agree. As long as you can plausibly explain the mechanical results of Int and Wis based rolls made in the game, you should feel free to roleplay however you want. The same goes for the other attributes too. And frankly, almost every piece of mechanics in the game.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

In general, Int represents your character's factual knowledge as well as their ability to learn and reason.  Wisdom represent the characters common sense, intuition, and ability to "read" people. 

Another common explaination is that Int represents book smarts, while Wis represents street smarts. 

Of course, these are just rough guidelines.  Flavor is mutable, and there is no right or wrong way to play either stat.  So long as the mechanics stay in place, you can describe, explain, and justify your choice of roleplaying however you like.  Or ignore trying to roleplay those stats completely if you prefer.  Whatever works for you.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Intellect = ability to navigate intellectual problems (mathematics, sciences, etc)

Wisdom = ability to navigate philosophical problems (religions, philosophies, etc)

Cha = ability to navigate societal problems (other people, politics, etc)

That is how I've always handled them.

This also lets you look at a situation and see which of the above categories it might fit into (might be more than one) and go from there when applying stats to it.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

I stick to how the 3.5 dmg describes it. Intelligence is logic, brain power, and recall. Wisdom is sensory perception, intuition, and spiritual sense. Charisma is willpower, elan, and strength of personality.
@yagamifire, how you reconcile that with the religion skill being tied to INT?


Am I getting this right?



Sure, if that is how you want to RP what you are playing.  While you shouldn't be strictly limited to following the numbers on the sheet, the isn't a reason you can't have the numbers and the RP line up as you want it to.  If you want to make a thing of RPing to your strengths and weaknesses as a physical character, have at it.



This.  The mental attributes are abstract qualities; codifying them is difficult at best.  RP your character how you wish.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
@yagamifire, how you reconcile that with the religion skill being tied to INT?



The Religion skill is an intellectual knowledge of both your religion and others. It is book knowledge. This is seperate from actual religious thinking...the sort that involves deeper meanings, conceptualization, introspection, etc, etc. That's all wisdom.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.



This.  The mental attributes are abstract qualities; codifying them is difficult at best.  RP your character how you wish.



Huh, I was just wondering if you had me on ignore or not.  Questions = answered.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here


This.  The mental attributes are abstract qualities; codifying them is difficult at best.  RP your character how you wish.



Huh, I was just wondering if you had me on ignore or not.  Questions = answered.



Admittedly, the odds *are* pretty good, considering how many people I've put on ignore, but no.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
@yagamifire, how you reconcile that with the religion skill being tied to INT?



I'm not YagamiFire, but I personally think that it might have been a mistake to tie religion to INT in 4e.  It just doesn't feel right that the Cleric's dump stat is the one that tells you how much you know about religion.  I've been considering houseruling that divine classes can use Wis instead of Int for religion.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
@yagamifire, how you reconcile that with the religion skill being tied to INT?



I'm not YagamiFire, but I personally think that it might have been a mistake to tie religion to INT in 4e.  It just doesn't feel right that the Cleric's dump stat is the one that tells you how much you know about religion.  I've been considering houseruling that divine classes can use Wis instead of Int for religion.



It makes perfect sense to me.  If I want to know something about religion in general, I'm not going to a priest.  I'm going to a theologian (aka a scholar).  I wouldn't expect a cleric to know anything about any religion other than his own.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
@yagamifire, how you reconcile that with the religion skill being tied to INT?



I'm not YagamiFire, but I personally think that it might have been a mistake to tie religion to INT in 4e.  It just doesn't feel right that the Cleric's dump stat is the one that tells you how much you know about religion.  I've been considering houseruling that divine classes can use Wis instead of Int for religion.



It makes perfect sense to me.  If I want to know something about religion in general, I'm not going to a priest.  I'm going to a theologian (aka a scholar).  I wouldn't expect a cleric to know anything about any religion other than his own.



Exactly

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

To go along with what all the others are saying, you can learn all about the details of a religion without actually experiencing their traditions, or growing in their prescribed methods and paths. Though it's generally true that the latter will result in the former.
No. Int and Wis are numbers that are just modifiers for mechanical parts of game. They dont tell you how to roleplay.

I agree. As long as you can plausibly explain the mechanical results of Int and Wis based rolls made in the game, you should feel free to roleplay however you want. The same goes for the other attributes too. And frankly, almost every piece of mechanics in the game.


You say that, but how many characters have you ever seen do this as heavily as if they did act out their stats?  For example.  How many wizards who emulated stupidity(not just culture stuff).  How many high strength barbarians have you see described without any muscle?

While there is a slight variance amoung players, they all tend for look at their stats for roleplay aids.  The only time you find a wizard do something stupid is either because of the player not catching on, or the player pulling a stunt.


I'm not saying you are wrong.  I'm just saying it's not practical.

Older editions actually reccomended that you use stats to help determine how the character should be roleplayed.  And really, a guy with a subpar intelligence shouldn't be the one to solve all the riddles, and one with a low charisma probably shouldn't be the face of the group.  So it makes sense. 
The older editions were wrong. They make a whole generacion of gamers think like this and try to tell other people how to play! Just like alignments!

If a player need the ability score as a guide for himself, okay fine. If someone tell me I can't solve a riddle because "No, you have 8 int," that person is a jerk. All this 8 int means is I probably dont have a good chance of succeeding at some rolls or don't have enough Int to take a feat. That is it, nothing more.
Older editions actually reccomended that you use stats to help determine how the character should be roleplayed.  And really, a guy with a subpar intelligence shouldn't be the one to solve all the riddles, and one with a low charisma probably shouldn't be the face of the group.  So it makes sense.



The older editions were wrong. They make a whole generacion of gamers think like this and try to tell other people how to play! Just like alignments!

I'm going to guess you haven't actually read in detail the older rules about alignments.  People still misinterpret their function in the game and distort or disregard the rules that were actually presented for them.  Not saying alignments were perfectly conceived and presented - they weren't by even a great stretch.  However, their purpose WAS and STILL IS to control how players have thier characters behave.  The ultimate goal of alignment is to facilitate and promote better roleplaying, more consistent and believable character development, and thus make for a better game for everyone.  You can argue how well you think any given edition has done that, but it doesn't make older editions any less correct than more recent editions on what they were trying to do.

Recent editions have taken a signficant turn in design regarding what stats are to be used for and how.  There is absolutely nothing wrong and EVERYTHING right about suggesting that a player use his stats to assist him in determining how to roleplay his character.  This approach which you are dumping on is a key part of what made the game popular in the first place.  It is an outgrowth of how and why the game was even created - to go BEYOND the stats on a page to develop and play a character role as much, if not MORE than, simply manipulate a set of numerical mechanics.  More recent editions have taken an approach closer to saying, "No, that's NOT where the fun really is.  The fun IS in the numbers, in the mechanics, so THAT is what our new rules focus on."

As is so frequently repeated, however, every gaming group gets to play the game the way they want to.  If you're having fun buying and poring over endless player splats searching for the next awesome character "build" then you should game and be happy.  If you want to be the Meryl Streep of your kitchen table through your raw roleplaying skillz then good on ya.  Some editions are clearly better for certain gaming approaches than others, but it isn't as if the older editions somehow polluted the game which only a more modern filter of rules could screen out.  The OSR movement exists in large part because of a very valid perception that newer editions have LOST important elements that the game needs.  I'd suggest you be a little more appreciative of what the old editions managed to create - like the edition that you play today.
  
If a player need the ability score as a guide for himself, okay fine. If someone tell me I can't solve a riddle because "No, you have 8 int," that person is a jerk. All this 8 int means is I probably dont have a good chance of succeeding at some rolls or don't have enough Int to take a feat. That is it, nothing more.

But there IS more when the game rules USE those scores to do just that - to quantify efforts at diplomacy, intimidation, problem-solving, comprehension, trickery, etc.  THAT is what teaches players to think in the way that you seem to dislike.

Old School: It ain't what you play - it's how you play it.

My 1E Project: http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/Building%20D&D/buildingdnd.htm

"Who says I can't?" "The man in the funny hat..."

The older editions were wrong. They make a whole generacion of gamers think like this and try to tell other people how to play!



So telling other people how to play... you mean like telling people the older editions are wrong?  That kind of ludicrous thinking?
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
You say that, but how many characters have you ever seen do this as heavily as if they did act out their stats?  For example.  How many wizards who emulated stupidity(not just culture stuff).  How many high strength barbarians have you see described without any muscle?

I've seen plenty of people roleplay their characters as less "intelligent" than their Intelligence score supposedly implies, regularly failing at mental efforts that, were the DM to actually apply a DC, the character could probably accomplish. I've seen plenty of people play high Strength halflings, who were not as musclebound as they "should" have been, or high Charisma characters who have been dark loners.

Strength, Dexterity and Constitution are worth thinking about in this kind of discussion, because there's no "practical" way to roleplay these. They're almost entirely descriptive, and if they're never described or otherwise interacted with, there's nothing to question about how they're represented. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are expected to be interpreted every time a character opens its mouth, and these are then given more weight. There's also a stigma regarding players who maximize Strength or Dexterity (garnering all their numerical advantages) while minimizing Intelligence and Charisma. People often feel as though someone who then doesn't play as a grunting dullard is cheating.

While there is a slight variance amoung players, they all tend for look at their stats for roleplay aids.  The only time you find a wizard do something stupid is either because of the player not catching on, or the player pulling a stunt.

I've seen highly intelligent people not catch on. There's no DC for "catching on." Intelligence doesn't mean one gets everything right.

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I'm just saying it's not practical.

There are creatures, and even some PCs, in the game who have Intelligence scores far beyond genius level, if one buys many of the common interpretations of the Intelligence stat. No human player could ever roleplay such a character as intelligently as they "should," unless everything the character attempts is given a DC, or is narrated (which is how genius characters in books are often operated).

Some monsters are lower intelligence than a human can really conceive, but operate on instinct, or orders, or magic that make them seem intelligent in a certain narrow range. Wolves are good tacticians, skeleton archers can pick targets, golems can protect their masters.

So, I'd say it's also not practical to roleplay low intelligence in some particular way.

Older editions actually reccomended that you use stats to help determine how the character should be roleplayed.  And really, a guy with a subpar intelligence shouldn't be the one to solve all the riddles, and one with a low charisma probably shouldn't be the face of the group.  So it makes sense.

It doesn't make that much sense. Things are extraplolated further than the rules require. No, you wouldn't want the low-Charisma PC to be the "face," but that doesn't mean he smells or drools or anything else. The low-Intelligence guy might actually be really good at solving puzzles, just not great at knowing the details of history, magic, and the gods.

In any case, someone who has a low stat is not debilitatingly bad at that thing. If they can take their time, they can probably succeed on most average things. Even in a pinch, they can sometimes succeed on really difficult things. If there's no DC for a given task, then it's really up to the player if he or she wants the character to succeed. That doesn't "make sense," according to how I think of people who are "dumb," or "weak," or anything else.

If a player need the ability score as a guide for himself, okay fine. If someone tell me I can't solve a riddle because "No, you have 8 int," that person is a jerk. All this 8 int means is I probably dont have a good chance of succeeding at some rolls or don't have enough Int to take a feat. That is it, nothing more.

Right. It's okay to play however you want. It's questionable, but probably acceptable to advise people on how to play (though check oneself for self-serving motives). It is not acceptable to out-and-out tell someone that they cannot play their character a certain way, because of some numbers on their sheet. If you have an issue with how someone is playing something, make your case without reference to those numbers, or you don't have a case.

You can argue how well you think any given edition has done that, but it doesn't make older editions any less correct than more recent editions on what they were trying to do.

There's no way to know exactly what they were trying to do, and it doesn't matter because of what alignment (and intelligence scores, and lots of other things about the game) has become. The "misinterpretations," if they are that, have become to ingrained. Sadly, trying to overcome the old, tired, argument-inducing tropes does not appear to be a good business model for Wizards of the Coast.

There is absolutely nothing wrong and EVERYTHING right about suggesting that a player use his stats to assist him in determining how to roleplay his character.

Not in suggesting that a player play their character how they want.

"Suggesting," easily turns into "telling." It's not right to tell other players how to roleplay, and suggesting is walking a fine line, depending on how the suggestion is made, and how the player is likely to take it. I "suggest" that no one ever tell a player to do anything other than play the way they feel like playing and backing that up by supporting that player's choices.

  This approach which you are dumping on is a key part of what made the game popular in the first place.

It's part of what made the game a joke.

It is an outgrowth of how and why the game was even created - to go BEYOND the stats on a page to develop and play a character role as much, if not MORE than, simply manipulate a set of numerical mechanics.

That's all that's really going on when we say a low-Intelligence character "shouldn't" solve riddles. We're imagining that the numbers permeate everything, even when no roll is being called for. Allowing players to play their character how they want is moving away from number-centric play. Not that there's generally anything wrong with number-centric play.

  More recent editions have taken an approach closer to saying, "No, that's NOT where the fun really is.  The fun IS in the numbers, in the mechanics, so THAT is what our new rules focus on."

No. The "Yes, and..." philosophy is one key counter to this claim. "Interesting failure" is another.

As is so frequently repeated, however, every gaming group gets to play the game the way they want to.  If you're having fun buying and poring over endless player splats searching for the next awesome character "build" then you should game and be happy.  If you want to be the Meryl Streep of your kitchen table through your raw roleplaying skillz then good on ya.  Some editions are clearly better for certain gaming approaches than others,

It's equally possible to roleplay in every edtion. One of the editions solved some long-standing issues with combat balance, but didn't touch roleplaying, except to enhance it by explicitly talking about "Yes, and...."

Numbers are not the opposite of roleplaying. I'll roleplay a roll, if I'm asked to make one, and I'll make it make sense in terms of how I want to roleplay my character. Is it easier to justify bad Intelligence-based rolls if one hasn't played the character as a genius? Maybe, or maybe the character IS a genius, just not at anything having to do with adventuring.

Oddly, there's no similar restriction on how a low-Strength character must be roleplayed.

If a player need the ability score as a guide for himself, okay fine. If someone tell me I can't solve a riddle because "No, you have 8 int," that person is a jerk. All this 8 int means is I probably dont have a good chance of succeeding at some rolls or don't have enough Int to take a feat. That is it, nothing more.

But there IS more when the game rules USE those scores to do just that - to quantify efforts at diplomacy, intimidation, problem-solving, comprehension, trickery, etc.  THAT is what teaches players to think in the way that you seem to dislike.

We don't have any problem with the rules, or any problem with any way in which any particular player wants to think or play. The issue is with players telling other players how to play, which does happen and is a scourge upon the hobby.

Unless a problem calls for an Intelligence check, "problem-solving" has nothing to do with Intelligence. It might have to do with intelligence, but that's up to the player, and is not the same thing at all. The same reasoning applies to every other ability score and skill. Want the numbers to matter? Call for a roll. Otherwise, the numbers don't matter. Is the way someone's roleplaying wrecking immersion? Talk to them about it, without reference to numbers, so they can be away of exactly what hang-ups they have to deal with in their fellow players.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Just want to pop in (without reading the long posts) with an example of playing a character "against" the stat:
In one campaign I'm in our Hunter ranger (4e Essentials verision) has the stat 8 charisma, but still is the de facto party face. This is because he is roleplayed as being very talkative and social, but also egocentric and sometimes clumsy with words. In one situation he talked a lot with the highest ranking member of the local lord's guard, resulting in all present members of the party being forbidden from entering the castle (altough my character -- who has the stats and skills to be the party face -- did get a couple of bad rolls that helped making it worse). This is all playing the character against the sterotypical intepretation of the stat while still having the mechanical effect of the stat making sense. 
Just want to pop in (without reading the long posts) with an example of playing a character "against" the stat:
In one campaign I'm in our Hunter ranger (4e Essentials verision) has the stat 8 charisma, but still is the de facto party face. This is because he is roleplayed as being very talkative and social, but also egocentric and sometimes clumsy with words. In one situation he talked a lot with the highest ranking member of the local lord's guard, resulting in all present members of the party being forbidden from entering the castle (altough my character -- who has the stats and skills to be the party face -- did get a couple of bad rolls that helped making it worse). This is all playing the character against the sterotypical intepretation of the stat while still having the mechanical effect of the stat making sense. 

A good example. I hope that being forbidden from entering the castle was not a complete dead-end.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

A good example. I hope that being forbidden from entering the castle was not a complete dead-end.



Unfortunately it was. In protest, the party priest immolated himself on the front steps of the castle. He will be missed (until such time as he is res'd)

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Just want to pop in (without reading the long posts) with an example of playing a character "against" the stat:
In one campaign I'm in our Hunter ranger (4e Essentials verision) has the stat 8 charisma, but still is the de facto party face. This is because he is roleplayed as being very talkative and social, but also egocentric and sometimes clumsy with words. In one situation he talked a lot with the highest ranking member of the local lord's guard, resulting in all present members of the party being forbidden from entering the castle (altough my character -- who has the stats and skills to be the party face -- did get a couple of bad rolls that helped making it worse). This is all playing the character against the sterotypical intepretation of the stat while still having the mechanical effect of the stat making sense. 

A good example. I hope that being forbidden from entering the castle was not a complete dead-end.


No, it was no problem at all. It was just after the Kobold Lair adventure from DMG, and Lord Warden was away from Fallcrest, so we had some time to do other things. Also, we had split the party and left our Fighter (Knight) and Swordmage to make sure we did not miss the wizard who was supposed to translate a letter we found in the lair. The defenders (in-game a couple of noble brothers in exile) were still very welcome in the castle and could sort everything out. So in the end we all just had a lot of fun, doing two or three sessions of non-xp-granting roleplay, almost triggering about 3-5 adventure hooks in the city and getting to know the group really well. Lastly, the group has now learned that if we want a person friendly to us, keep the ranger distracted and ALWAYS keep someone around to handle problematic situations (creating even more fun situations).
No, it was no problem at all. It was just after the Kobold Lair adventure from DMG, and Lord Warden was away from Fallcrest, so we had some time to do other things. Also, we had split the party and left our Fighter (Knight) and Swordmage to make sure we did not miss the wizard who was supposed to translate a letter we found in the lair. The defenders (in-game a couple of noble brothers in exile) were still very welcome in the castle and could sort everything out. So in the end we all just had a lot of fun, doing two or three sessions of non-xp-granting roleplay, almost triggering about 3-5 adventure hooks in the city and getting to know the group really well.

Sounds good.

Lastly, the group has now learned that if we want a person friendly to us, keep the ranger distracted and ALWAYS keep someone around to handle problematic situations (creating even more fun situations).

But I take it that the player plays the character as talkative and social in general, despite the low numbers in that area? If so, that's good to hear.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Oh yes, he is VERY talkative! The prime way of keeping him distracted is finding a low risk person for him to talk to instead, preferrably making him talk/brag about himself. Another great way is sending him off scouting by telling him how good he is at that (and in this case the stats agree).

I might also mention that the dynamics among the characters is very different from the dynamics among the players. There is still a similarity in that players who like to talk play characters who like to talk and vice versa, but the conflicts are very different. So yeah, it is a wonderful campaign (despite it being the DM's first campaign as DM if I understand things correctly). 
Anyone watch The Big Bang Theory?

Dr. Sheldon Cooper is a prime example of a person with high INT, low WIS, and abysmal CHA. 

Intellect = ability to navigate intellectual problems (mathematics, sciences, etc)

Wisdom = ability to navigate philosophical problems (religions, philosophies, etc)

Cha = ability to navigate societal problems (other people, politics, etc)

That is how I've always handled them.

This also lets you look at a situation and see which of the above categories it might fit into (might be more than one) and go from there when applying stats to it.

This is how I see it too.
INT. is your I.Q.  How smart with learning and retaining knowledge you character is.
WIS. is your common sense.  How likely your character is to just walk down a dark alleyway without looking for traps or potential enemies.
10 is normally the average for any stat, so anyone with a score of 10 or lower could seem dimmer, slower/not as nimble or stronger than someone with a 0 or higher.  I've been in games where this kind of thing gets mixed up constantly.  One minute the INT 8 Barbarian is acting rediculous and silly, withing his stat, the next moment he's coming up with brilliant battle plans as to how to opperate war machines and underhand bandits out of games of wit. 
INT. is your I.Q.  How smart with learning and retaining knowledge you character is.
WIS. is your common sense.  How likely your character is to just walk down a dark alleyway without looking for traps or potential enemies.
10 is normally the average for any stat, so anyone with a score of 10 or lower could seem dimmer, slower/not as nimble or stronger than someone with a 0 or higher.  I've been in games where this kind of thing gets mixed up constantly.  One minute the INT 8 Barbarian is acting rediculous and silly, withing his stat, the next moment he's coming up with brilliant battle plans as to how to opperate war machines and underhand bandits out of games of wit. 

What's the DC for a warrior to come up with a brilliant battle plan?

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

The issue in his example is not 'a barbarian coming up with a great idea,' it's 'this player wasn't roleplaying consistently.'  The stats seem to have nothing to do with it.

I agree with YagamiFire, his approach is what I've been doing for decades, and seems to work the best at my table. 
Who get to decide when a player is not roleplaying consistently? How do you force somebody to roleplay the way you think they should?
The issue in his example is not 'a barbarian coming up with a great idea,' it's 'this player wasn't roleplaying consistently.'  The stats seem to have nothing to do with it.

I agree with YagamiFire, his approach is what I've been doing for decades, and seems to work the best at my table. 



One of my favorite figures of speech is, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."  Someone can have a low IQ and still come up with great ideas, just like someone can generally say the wrong thing and endear him or herself to certain individuals.  Even if you desire to play your rolls -- which is cool if you want to -- that doesn't mean you have a play a INT 8 barbarian as equally clueless in all situations which would key off his INT skill.  Would it also be unrealistic if he rolled a 20 on his Arcana check?
The description given implied no rolling, due to not mentioning rolls.  He was offended that the barbarian, that had been played as "rediculous and silly," randomly was played as a skilled engineer and tactician.

As to how do you deal with it?  Its a player issue, not a character issue, so you say something at the table if its a big deal.  If its not, you crack a joke about Orkimedes, the barbarian engineer, and get on with the game.
So does that mean DM is in charge of making sure the players roleplay consistently?

How will the DM know when someone roleplays in a way that is a big deal? What do you say to the player? "You are not playing your character the way I think you should?"
Are you truly asking those questions, or being facetious/rhetorical?

Because its easy.  I'm not the DM usually, and if someone at my table roleplays completely out of character for whatever reason, someone at the table will usually ask why, since its a departure from how they've been roleplayed for the previous X amount of time.  And you know its a big deal if someone at the table says something about it.

Every table is different of course, but mine tends to prefer medium to longterm character and story driven campaigns.  When someone has a bit of a sea-change, it matters to the campaign.  Hell, it would be fun to roleplay the confusion of the barbarian, who thought everyone knew that he could work a catapult, he's not stupid after all.

I just don't like when character's personalities are ignored in favor of metagaming, I suppose. 
The description given implied no rolling, due to not mentioning rolls.  He was offended that the barbarian, that had been played as "rediculous and silly," randomly was played as a skilled engineer and tactician.

As to how do you deal with it?  Its a player issue, not a character issue, so you say something at the table if its a big deal.  If its not, you crack a joke about Orkimedes, the barbarian engineer, and get on with the game.



I understand that the description implied no rolling, but I bring up rolling high on a low stat to show that the game rules support a character acting outside the norm of what his ability scores would imply.  One should be able to roleplay the same even while roleplaying their stats.