I don't see what business of the DM's it is how the character's are roleplayed. Unless things are drastically inconsistent (such as CraggleRock went into), it's not an issue the DM should be involved with regulating. Is it the DM's job to tell them how their character's look as well?
Want to play a genius fighter, able to untangle the deep mysteries of the cosmos, but don't want to burn an 18 in intelligence? It's all good. Your character possesses an intellect of truly epic proportions that he cannot bring to bear in any practical way. Pick up a couple of knowledge skills if you want the sort of codified learning and intellectual capability to be practically effective.
Want to play a chatty wizard, comfortable in almost any social situation? Sure, your personality and wit make you into a virtual social chameleon. You won't be noticed unless you attempt to manipulate or force your will on someone (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, streetwise). If you try that, well you're likely to be noticed for all the wrong reasons.
If a player wants to run a character to their own tune, by all means let them; just make sure you enforce the dice-roll penalties where appropriate. By the same token, the characters and the world itself are more than the sum of their numbers. If a given character pulled a farmer's child from the jaws of death, the farmer should be inclined to help the character whatever the character's social capability. But what if the character is a drow (generally charismatic and evil)? The farmer's reaction might be totally different still, though it's no fault of the character's social (mis)steps.
No, having the DM enforce his idea of what the character should be is a bad idea. Tying it to a limited resource, such as ability scores in a point buy, is an even worse idea.
I ask that the players play the characters they made and represented to me. If they can't do that, what I sometimes end up doing is playing the NPCs reacting to the PC's stats, rather than the Player's actions.
So when Thogdar the Dumbarian starts acting like the love-child of Marie Curie and Sherlock Holmes, the NPCs will all act like he's spouting utter gibberish, and pay no attention to him.
Even so, assuming you don't roll stats, you'll never have more than the mildest penalty to any social action in 4E - never more than -1, and that's only for the first couple of levels. It's not something that really comes up anymore.
Kaldric translated: I circumvent this whole "stats relative to personality" issue by having the NPC's react to how the I think the characters should act rather than how the player wants them to act.
Are you serious? You overrule the player on their own character? It's not about penalties, those will wash out in the dice. It's about letting a player other than the DM determine how a player character interacts with the world.
Kaldric translated: I circumvent this whole "stats relative to personality" issue by having the NPC's react to how the I think the characters should act rather than how the player wants them to act.
Are you serious? You overrule the player on their own character? It's not about penalties, those will wash out in the dice. It's about letting a player other than the DM determine how a player character interacts with the world.
That said, it can be quite frustrating to DM to players who don't roleplay their characters deficiencies. Let's say you've got a character who's a complete meatshield - Great Str and Con, above-average Dex, average Cha, Wis, and below-par Int. This character is enjoying the benefits (in combat, and skill-challenges) of his physical endowments. However, it can be somewhat grating to have that same PC (with average-to-low, or at least bland, social stats) roleplaying as charming, deep-thinking and so on. D&D, like a lot of "Let's Pretend" hobbies, relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and shared imagination. It's difficult to continue to suspend disbelief, when the party's meathead warrior sounds like a combination of Shakespeare and Feynman every time he opens his mouth.
I think it can be tempting to roleplay an NPC's response to particular statistics, particularly if you're trying to encourage the player to -roleplay- those self-same stats.
Despite this, I do think that good roleplaying should be rewarded, and a different way of encouraging effective playing of characters is through XP rewards and so on...
I want the barbarians in my group playing barbarians. The fighters to be fighters, and the wizards to be wizards. If the fighter is acting like a scholar, he better be trained in history, other knowledge skill, or have a positive modifier in intelligence (id accept a 12!).
btw why does anyone here think players have the right to do what ever they want? Player freedom often ruins their own fun or leads to interparty destruction, this is why I limit evil alingment in my game(unless they talk to me and make a relevant story line exception. AKA it must move the plot along beneficially.) It is the DM's right to control the world, if he goes too far the players are completely free to replace the dm or leave. The player has the right to make decisions, but they DONT get to make consequences. If a player barbarian is trying to act like he has 10 int higher than he has, it makes sense the dm as kaldric suggests to rule it that no one understands what he is trying to say, To make this point you COULD make the players have to roll a INT check EVERYTIME THEY TALK but thats stupid and will bog game time down so instead i as dm will just ask the TO ROLEPLAY THEIR CHARACTER.
Now personally I like what they talk about in the dmg2 where players and dm collaberate on world building, but my players seem unwilling to go this route.
That said, it can be quite frustrating to DM to players who don't roleplay their characters deficiencies. Let's say you've got a character who's a complete meatshield - Great Str and Con, above-average Dex, average Cha, Wis, and below-par Int. This character is enjoying the benefits (in combat, and skill-challenges) of his physical endowments. However, it can be somewhat grating to have that same PC (with average-to-low, or at least bland, social stats) roleplaying as charming, deep-thinking and so on. D&D, like a lot of "Let's Pretend" hobbies, relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and shared imagination. It's difficult to continue to suspend disbelief, when the party's meathead warrior sounds like a combination of Shakespeare and Feynman every time he opens his mouth.
I think it can be tempting to roleplay an NPC's response to particular statistics, particularly if you're trying to encourage the player to -roleplay- those self-same stats.
Despite this, I do think that good roleplaying should be rewarded, and a different way of encouraging effective playing of characters is through XP rewards and so on...
Is it tempting to have the NPC's reacting to the character's strengths as well? Do you allow a player to lean completely on their character's stats when the stats outstrip the player's capability? Why should a weakness be any different? Do you let the player of an unintelligent character participate in puzzle solving or mysteries?
Let the player run whatever character he wants, and let the dice decide the outcome. It's not until the player gets upset about a roll undermining what they saw as a convincing performance that it can become a problem. Tempting or not, it's still a bit silly IMHO.
I want the barbarians in my group playing barbarians. The fighters to be fighters, and the wizards to be wizards. If the fighter is acting like a scholar, he better be trained in history, other knowledge skill, or have a positive modifier in intelligence (id accept a 12!).
btw why does anyone here think players have the right to do what ever they want? Player freedom often ruins their own fun or leads to interparty destruction, this is why I limit evil alingment in my game(unless they talk to me and make a relevant story line exception. AKA it must move the plot along beneficially.) It is the DM's right to control the world, if he goes too far the players are completely free to replace the dm or leave. The player has the right to make decisions, but they DONT get to make consequences. If a player barbarian is trying to act like he has 10 int higher than he has, it makes sense the dm as kaldric suggests to rule it that no one understands what he is trying to say, To make this point you COULD make the players have to roll a INT check EVERYTIME THEY TALK but thats stupid and will bog game time down so instead i as dm will just ask the TO ROLEPLAY THEIR CHARACTER.
Now personally I like what they talk about in the dmg2 where players and dm collaberate on world building, but my players seem unwilling to go this route.
If the player's don't run their character the way you see fit, screw them, huh? They should just run off and play with a different DM, and that'll show him. It's a game, not a system of government.
Nobody's said that the player's can do whatever they want. They've just said that the player's can have their character say whatever they want and expect to have the dice rolls decide their success or failure. Do you, per chance, force players of generally timid characters to give in to NPC's who try to intimidate them?
A fighter can act like whatever he wants outside of die rolls. I'm fond of characters with musical skill, really fond of them. Almost every character I make will have some singing or musical instrument worked into them. I don't expect NPC's to change how they're going to react based on my character's performance without a successful roll. I do, however, expect to be at least given the chance to make an impression by way of the roll.
Most DM's expect a player to RP their character. Some expect them to RP the DM's interpretation of their character. There is a difference.
The physical stats of the PCs are difficult to completely translate over to actual Roleplaying. As a player, I like my characters to work well mechanically. I also generally have an idea of how I want to roleplay my character. Flavor and optimization don't often meet hand to hand. It seems unfair to hinder my roleplaying due to wanting my character to work well mechanically. I want to be able to play my character how I imagined him, not how I rolled or stat'd him. This doesn't mean I can do whatever I want, I'm still limited to what I can roll, but I should be able to try anything I'd like and have the dice decide the outcome.
As a DM, I also get frustrated when my players don't actively engage in roleplaying. I encourage them to roleplay their characters by rewarding them with XP for real, interesting character play. This is not controlled by the success or failure of a roll, but if they stayed true to their character. The wizard who sees his long time friend fighter is in danger of being overwhelmed by some physical task, but dives in anyway to try and do everything he can to save him will be rewarded for playing his character instead of him saying "my athletics score is low, so you're on your own buddy". Now the wizard in all likeliness will fail, but him trying and playing his character is the important part. Success or failure of the roll will decide the outcome and consequences of the action, but regardless the player knows that if they roleplay well I will reward them. I try my best to get players to roleplay their characters, but I won't tell them what to do or control them. Often at the end of a session, I'll tell players how they've acquired their bonus XP. In this case, the wizard would be reward for his daring courage to try and do everything in his power to try and save his friend.
If your players still aren't encouraged enough to roleplay with whatever incentives you offer, you may want to consider playing with a different group. Some players don't like to dive deep into roleplaying and you can't force it on them. If you're someone who is looking for an epic, in-depth adventure, then find players who are searching to play that way. If you get a group of combat savvy players who never say more than "can we kill it?", and that isn't what you're looking for then don't DM for them. It's all about players and DMs understanding one another and understanding what everyone wants from the game.
That said, it can be quite frustrating to DM to players who don't roleplay their characters deficiencies. Let's say you've got a character who's a complete meatshield - Great Str and Con, above-average Dex, average Cha, Wis, and below-par Int. This character is enjoying the benefits (in combat, and skill-challenges) of his physical endowments. However, it can be somewhat grating to have that same PC (with average-to-low, or at least bland, social stats) roleplaying as charming, deep-thinking and so on. D&D, like a lot of "Let's Pretend" hobbies, relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and shared imagination. It's difficult to continue to suspend disbelief, when the party's meathead warrior sounds like a combination of Shakespeare and Feynman every time he opens his mouth.
Thing is, I don't see the need to force every fighter to be a "dumb meathead warrior" because they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot and become next to useless in combat by expending resources into a stat purely for "supporting their roleplay". And it's easy enough to support a smart character without a high INT stat in 4E: he knows plenty of information, but doesn't know more than a smattering of history, can't identify those extra-planar creatures, and doesn't have a clue as to the resistance and vulnerability of that particular flavour of ooze the party just stumbled upon. Basically, anywhere where it has a game effect, it's not much help (aside from those occasional lucky 20 on the skill checks), but any where where it doesn't, what harm does it cause if that fighter is roleplayed as smart?
thats a non-issue. Most fighter have high wisdom scores, aka they are smart just rarely educated.
Int =/= smartness Int== education, general knowledge, ability to think ahead wis== common sense and awareness.
Fighters with low int and high wisdom are common sense thinkers, who know their craft of war and know their role in battle. If you wanted to play a tactical genius warrior there is a warlord class i can reccomend instead.
The only fighters that should be dumb as bricks are the over specialized rageblood vigor types (they are barbarians and that does fit with character)
That said, it can be quite frustrating to DM to players who don't roleplay their characters deficiencies. Let's say you've got a character who's a complete meatshield - Great Str and Con, above-average Dex, average Cha, Wis, and below-par Int. This character is enjoying the benefits (in combat, and skill-challenges) of his physical endowments. However, it can be somewhat grating to have that same PC (with average-to-low, or at least bland, social stats) roleplaying as charming, deep-thinking and so on. D&D, like a lot of "Let's Pretend" hobbies, relies heavily on suspension of disbelief and shared imagination. It's difficult to continue to suspend disbelief, when the party's meathead warrior sounds like a combination of Shakespeare and Feynman every time he opens his mouth.
Here's the thing: as the DM, you are responsible for playing the parts of everyone in the world who isn't the characters. If he sees his character as glib and intellectual, or plays it that way, then that's his choice. It's your job to react to that in a way that reflects the character's actual ability. He sees himself as a charming, smart fellow; the rest of the world sees him as a pseudointellectual bore. You need to react to his character as if what he's saying isn't clever or charming, but is trying to be despite that.
There was a great example of that in effect in my game group (in which we take turns playing DM). The ranger I'm playing isn't exceptionally smart or outgoing, but he's very eloquent as far as other wood elves are concerned. He's got very little experience with other cultures, so when he interacts with people (who, because of the events of the campaign, are overwhelmingly unlikely to be other wood elves) he speaks in a way that would be acceptable to his people, but comes off as overly formal, austere and bloody boring.
So when we lost enough characters that he was the only person available to play the spokesman in a social encounter, he contrived a gesture that would've earned him respect among his own people. What he heard himself saying was carefully crafted, appropriate to his station and even a little inspiring. What the assembled people heard was a woodenly delivered, extremely overwrought demand for fealty. They were offended by it. They were disgusted that some presumptuous savage tried to conscript them with a slab of uncooked meat, basically.
Had I been playing a cunning, charismatic character instead of an overly proud, stodgy loner in need of a coat of social polish, the exact same words would have been a stirring call to action. The people in the clearing would've been borne the character up on their shoulders and heralded him as the hero they'd been waiting for to lead them to glory. I wasn't, though, so the DM reacted to the words rather than telling me it wasn't in keeping with my character's abilities to say such things. He worked with what I gave him, and it was good.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
