Roleplaying Your Stats

[KingFerret]

Hi Playgrounders,

I've seen a few different posts on this forum regarding DnD stats and trying to match them up with real life. Probably the most common example is people asking what having an 8 intelligence really means, is it barely noticeable from the norm or is it the dumbest sort of people you might meet on a weekly basis.

I've also seen lots of people asking how they should properly roleplay their stats - how a low int character or a high charisma character would/should behave for example.

I was surprised to see how few people were replying with the advice that I would give my players in the same situation: DON'T ROLEPLAY YOUR STATS!

Or certainly, don't feel like you HAVE to roleplay your stats if you don't want to.

I'd like to list a few positives that I see from playing this way:


Doesn't discourage playing non-archetypal characters.


If you want to play the Charismatic Barbarian Warlord who inspires confidence in those around him, but don't want to gimp your character by making CHA your highest stat on a very MAD class already - then you can, and not feel bad about it. I'm sure there will be those who want to respond in the comments that people should just suck it up, that in 5e it's hard to make a bad character, and you can still make a strong Barbarian who has CHA as his highest stat. Sure. Numerically there won't be THAT much difference between an optimised and non-optimised Barbarian. But that doesn't mean it won't feel bad for a lot of players. And in the end, we're all here to have fun, so how something feels really is the be all and end all. It's not that I think that you CAN'T play a successful non-optimised Barbarian like this, just that the way the system is set up actively discourages it by imposing mechanical penalties. In my mind, in a perfect world there would be a subclass/archetype for every class that uses a different stat...but that's a whole different discussion...


Lets characters evolve through roleplay rather than level-ups


Eadric the proud is a foolhardy knight whose confidence has carried him a long way, but has finally lead him to fall. A friend dies. The BBEG triumphs and Eadric knows that it was his misplaced confidence that caused all of this. From this day forth Eadric vows to be more cautious and to think through his decisions...but wait. His Wis is an 8. That's why his player has been playing him so foolhardy. And Eadric isn't due to get his next ASI for three more levels. So I guess Eadric's hard-learned character progression (i.e the essence of storytelling...) will have to arbitrarily wait for three levels (several in game months) to have his Wis bumped up... How...awkward....


Encourages players to play a real personality rather than a set of arbitrary and confusing numbers.


Similarly to alignment, I find roleplaying stats restrictive and confusing more than helpful, for the most part. The endless discussions regarding both are evidence enough of this. What 'Intelligence' really means is complicated enough, let alone something as vague as 'Wisdom' or 'Charisma'. Seeing these as static, unchanging numbers really reduces the potential for character complexity. A character who is level-headed and calm, always making wise and rational decisions (WIS 20) - except when his most hated enemy/true love is involved and then he acts like a (WIS 8). A character who has a near photographic memory at good times (INT 20) but crumbles under pressure, suddenly finding he can't even remember his own birthdate when put on the spot (INT 8).



The most obvious 'problem' I come across with playing the game this way comes from the disconnect between mechanics and roleplay. Let's use the example of the Charismatic Barbarian Warlord again. So the player describes and roleplays his character as a leader of such charisma that his warriors would follow him to hell. He has a silver tongue and an intimidating presence when needed, and when he walks in the room he looks like he owns every inch of it. But wait, the player dumped Charisma as an 8 and now they have to roll persuasion.

The way I get around this (to some extent) is to make sure that I only ask for rolls when a character is actually pushing themselves. So if my player roleplays his character as charismatic and then makes a genuinely convincing argument or empowering speech - no roll required. However if the argument my player uses isn't entirely convincing, then the roll happens (and with a -1 they will probably fail). I think of this as player empowerment. As a DM I should facilitate my player's vision for their character as much as possible. If both myself and the player would be disappointed if they failed the roll (because it just wouldn't fit the character if the Barbarian rolled poorly for athletics and couldn't kick in the crappy wooden door) then don't make them roll at all! Just ask them to describe it happening. I think for this method to be effective it requires maybe a little more work from both sides (because the DM has to tailor whether a roll should be made or not to each character, while the player has actively roleplay a character stat rather than just saying 'I roll persuasion on the guards!'), but I think overall when it works it is very rewarding.

Anyway, this was a long post - I hope you found it interesting at least, even if it didn't convince you. I'd love to hear what you guys think about all this.

[DarkKnightJin]

I love your solution for the -1 Cha Barbarian.
If they RP their character and they have a good speech.. why would there be any doubt if it would work?

I've noticed that a lot of players, and DMs, will grab dice and make a roll when it isn't needed.
"What does [my character] see as he looks about the room?"
"Roll Perception".
...Why? Is the furniture trying to hide itself?

[KingFerret]

Yeah I think it can be campaign dependant. For a more comedic campaign, having characters who should be competent failing at things can be pretty funny. In the example that you used, it can be funny if the hero rolls a 1 for perception, and is distracted by the pretty tiling so he doesn't notice the monsters - funny.

If your campaign however is more about high drama and your character who is meant to be taken seriously stubs his toe when he tries to kick the door in because your DM made you roll for it and he got a 1 (despite his +7 atheltics) - that can be very annoying.

[daemonaetea]

I'd like to push back on this, gently.

Don't feel completely constrained by your stats, surely. If you have an INT of 8, it doesn't mean you always have to be dumb. But I would say that, if your idea is to play a Rocket Scientist, maybe it shouldn't actually be an 8. Perhaps a 12, which is pretty easy to pick up, and then proficiency in Rocket Science.

Similar to the Barbarian leader example. Does he have to have CHA as his highest stat? No, I don't believe so, but if it was 8 and he had no proficiency in social skills I'd be pretty disappointed. But even a 12 and proficiency in Persuasion might legitimately make him the most social person around, and that seems pretty alright.

Basically I think it's reasonable to expect a characters stats and proficiencies to at least reference concepts, but I don't demand that those concepts take up all the character's resources. But that's just me, and I don't insist it's right. I've just played with a few too many people who put all their points into their combat stats, had no INT or CHA skills at all, but still wanted to be able to navigate complex social situations with ease or build catapults and huge engineering projects. I think there exists a reasonable middle ground.

[Kadesh]

If you have low strength you should be female according to MaxWilson.

[KingFerret]

I'd like to push back on this, gently.

Don't feel completely constrained by your stats, surely. If you have an INT of 8, it doesn't mean you always have to be dumb. But I would say that, if your idea is to play a Rocket Scientist, maybe it shouldn't actually be an 8. Perhaps a 12, which is pretty easy to pick up, and then proficiency in Rocket Science.

Similar to the Barbarian leader example. Does he have to have CHA as his highest stat? No, I don't believe so, but if it was 8 and he had no proficiency in social skills I'd be pretty disappointed. But even a 12 and proficiency in Persuasion might legitimately make him the most social person around, and that seems pretty alright.

Basically I think it's reasonable to expect a characters stats and proficiencies to at least reference concepts, but I don't demand that those concepts take up all the character's resources. But that's just me, and I don't insist it's right. I've just played with a few too many people who put all their points into their combat stats, had no INT or CHA skills at all, but still wanted to be able to navigate complex social situations with ease or build catapults and huge engineering projects. I think there exists a reasonable middle ground.

I like this response. This is a nice response.

Seriously though, I do agree with this. In general when I make characters I do my best to make my stats and skills to match up with my character vision - I don't just completely disconnect roleplay with what is on the character sheet. I just prefer to leave that side of things as a very much minor, secondary or tertiary concern rather than something taht a player should be worrying themselves about, because i find it hurts more than it helps.

[Lunali]

I love your solution for the -1 Cha Barbarian.
If they RP their character and they have a good speech.. why would there be any doubt if it would work?

I've noticed that a lot of players, and DMs, will grab dice and make a roll when it isn't needed.
"What does [my character] see as he looks about the room?"
"Roll Perception".
...Why? Is the furniture trying to hide itself?

The furniture may not be hiding, but something else may be. How much you see depends on the result of the perception roll. Asking for the roll before beginning the description makes it easier to hide whether there's something hidden.

[DarkKnightJin]

The furniture may not be hiding, but something else may be. How much you see depends on the result of the perception roll. Asking for the roll before beginning the description makes it easier to hide whether there's something hidden.

I've seen DM's ask for Perception rolls, even when the room is empty beyond the furniture.

Then again, I've seen a DM rule that my character with passive Perception of 13 didn't see someone with a Stealth check total of 12, because "the DC is for active Perception". I didn't grind the game to a halt, but I am very much aware that 'passive' Perception doesn't work that way.

[Tanarii]

As a strong advocate of not requiring additional roleplaying due to stats, other than when they come into play ... I have some disagreements with your position.

My position is:
1) roleplaying is making decisions for you character in the fantasy environment
2) if ability scores come into play, they will affect a player's decision making automatically.
3) if ability scores don't come into play, it's not required that a player take them into account when making decisions. They can, of course, still choose to for their own purposes.

I also assume players are taking their personality traits (personality, ideal, bond, flaw, potentially typically alignment behavior) into account when making decisions. There's no reason a player can't base one of these on their interpretation of what a particular high or low ability score means. Xetheral suggested something like is in the other thread on this matter, and it's entirely reasonable thing to do.

Here's where I disagree with you:
IMO this view depends on the DM bringing a ability score into play whenever players do something that depends on it. You can't just hand wave away a check because of what the player declares.

If a player take an approach that makes a check unnecessary, automatically successfully or failure, then as a DM you're declaring that thing not to depend on an ability score. Be it because that's the case (using an effective negotiation tactic), because they take the time to do it until they get it right (searching a room for ten time as long as it would take to find something with a single check), or because it's something no one can do regardless of ability score.

If they don't take an approach that makes it automatically successful or fail, and it depends on ability score, call for a check. Otherwise you're just invalidating the differences between ability scores and the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of different characters at doing the thing.

For more on effective adjudication see Angry DMs take on the matter:
https://theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

[GreyBlack]

I've seen DM's ask for Perception rolls, even when the room is empty beyond the furniture.

Then again, I've seen a DM rule that my character with passive Perception of 13 didn't see someone with a Stealth check total of 12, because "the DC is for active Perception". I didn't grind the game to a halt, but I am very much aware that 'passive' Perception doesn't work that way.

It could also be that the DM is trying to make it seem like something more important is going on and intentionally trying to misdirect them/create tension in the scene.

Not saying it's a good strategy but it is a DM strategy.

[DarkKnightJin]

It could also be that the DM is trying to make it seem like something more important is going on and intentionally trying to misdirect them/create tension in the scene.

Not saying it's a good strategy but it is a DM strategy.

I didn't even get to make an active Perception roll, because I "wasn't actively looking for people trying to be sneaky". No. That's why you have the passive Perception. That's your character keeping a eye out for people trying to sneak up on them.

When I DM, I make it a point to have a little list with each PC's passive Perception score listed, so I don't have to ask for a Perception check when they would see it without rolling.

They want to try actively searching for something more? That's gonna be an Investigation or Perception check, depending on how they want to go about it. Probably Investigation, as they tend to do this when seeking loot.

[Tanarii]

I didn't even get to make an active Perception roll, because I "wasn't actively looking for people trying to be sneaky". No. That's why you have the passive Perception. That's your character keeping a eye out for people trying to sneak up on them.

That's not what a passive check means. Passive perception usually works out that way, because your character is actively looking for a secret thing (threat or hidden thing) you as a player don't know about, over and over again. But it's an important distinction for other passive checks.

[the secret fire]

Players at my table are required to roleplay their Str scores at all times.

[Darth Ultron]

It works out most of the time if players don't try to role play their character's stats. Most of the time it is impossible for the player to do that anyway. The vast majority of players only have average or below stats, and they are not the best of role players, so they can't act out higher stats. It's rare for a PC to have low stats, but few players are willing to ever role play them anyway.

So, as the average thing a player will role play is really just fine no matter what the character's stats.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, I’m fully in the camp that you don’t need to account for your mental stats when you role play. You just play as you think (using your own unfiltered mental faculties) your character would act. If your character’s mental stats are supposed to influence the result, that’s where the resolution mechanics (or more generally the rules) come into play.

However, to me the idea that you can just make a barbarian with 8 charisma, and that playing him as if he was a charismatic warlord should translate into his treatment (mechanically) as a charismatic warlord, is fundamentally wrong.

To illustrate this point, ask yourself how you “feel” about the inverse situation. Suppose a character wanted to play a physically strong character, but the mechanics of his class dictated that he spent his points elsewhere and he ended up with 8 strength.

So you tell the player to just play the character as if he had a higher strength score. That’s all well and good. But the moment you decide to over-ride a resolution mechanic you’re making a mistake.

Now, as a disclaimer, I don’t have any problem with a DM deciding that a roll is unnecessary. Nor with particular actions being auto-successes. However, any time a character is using his charisma to accomplish a task, the mechanics of charisma must be considered. Just as they would be with strength, for example.

[Beelzebubba]

I'm backing up what others are saying it (but in a slightly different way), the idea that 'bad Charisma means you are bad at talking' is so short-sighted and limited.

Charisma? Have you ever met someone who was really nice, had no problems talking, and always tried to take leadership positions or get people to do what they want...and nobody ever listened? Yes, I bet you did. THAT is low Charisma.

Intelligence? Same thing with someone who thinks they're smart, talks a lot about really intellectual things, uses really big words, but is actually reciting a bunch of stuff they read verbatim and doesn't actually get it at all - and may be reciting facts that are true but have absolutely no bearing on the situation at hand.

Wisdom? Yeah, those are people that keep making dumb decisions but rationalizes their mistakes away afterwards and never learns. Like, they repeatedly 'invest' their money in get-rich-quick schemes because they can't realize they're being taken by yet another smooth-talking grifter, but always find some explanation for the loss that doesn't involve them.

Some of the funniest and most refreshing things to do in RP is to play that person that talks big but never backs it up. And, what's even better, is that a below-average Wisdom and Intelligence person could be too dim to realize that they don't have what it takes to actually be Charismatic but will always keep trying.

That's what's so great about the dice. RP it they way you want, then roll. The dice will tell the real story. And, it's up to you as a player to have the guts to take the failure and make it entertaining.

[Tanarii]

Wisdom? Yeah, those are people that keep making dumb decisions but rationalizes their mistakes away afterwards and never learns. Like, they repeatedly 'invest' their money in get-rich-quick schemes because they can't realize they're being taken by yet another smooth-talking grifter, but always find some explanation for the loss that doesn't involve them.
I would have gone with:
Wisdom? Yeah, those are the people that constantly spout life quotes and snippets of spiritual texts and trying to give others advice on what to do ... but are always bumping into people, can't see the ship in the magic picture, getting clawed by cats and bit by dogs, have no idea how to calm a fussy baby, and never get the joke.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would have gone with:
Wisdom? Yeah, those are the people that constantly spout life quotes and snippets of spiritual texts and trying to give others advice on what to do ... but are always bumping into people, can't see the ship in the magic picture, getting clawed by cats and bit by dogs, have no idea how to calm a fussy baby, and never get the joke.

Yeah. Wisdom has nothing to do with making good decisions in this edition. It's mostly about seeing the world as it really is. Decision making is a player side thing, not a character side thing.

[ZorroGames]

If you have low strength you should be female according to MaxWilson.

Really? I know several military women who are much stronger in most senses of the word than when I was moving 400+ pound patients in nursing.

[Kadesh]

Really? I know several military women who are much stronger in most senses of the word than when I was moving 400+ pound patients in nursing.

Apparently so. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?567304-Variant-rule-bringing-back-biodiversity-(simulationism))

[Clistenes]

I'm backing up what others are saying it (but in a slightly different way), the idea that 'bad Charisma means you are bad at talking' is so short-sighted and limited.

Charisma? Have you ever met someone who was really nice, had no problems talking, and always tried to take leadership positions or get people to do what they want...and nobody ever listened? Yes, I bet you did. THAT is low Charisma.

Mmmm... I wonder, the typical absent-minded scholar or scientist stock character (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent-minded_professor) who can't hold a conversation without giving a speech about his field of study and can make sheep fall sleep out of boredom, but on the other hand, everybody who meets him trusts him and accepts his judgement, because, hey, he looks like old Sigmund Freud and sounds like Albert Einstein... how can you not trust him?

...Does that guy count as having good CHA?

[NaughtyTiger]

Mmmm... I wonder, the typical absent-minded scholar or scientist stock character (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absent-minded_professor) who can't hold a conversation without giving a speech about his field of study and can make sheep fall sleep out of boredom, but on the other hand, everybody who meets him trusts him and accepts his judgement, because, hey, he looks like old Sigmund Freud and sounds like Albert Einstein... how can you not trust him?

...Does that guy count as having good CHA?

Does that guy exist? No sarcasm (maybe a little) but in my 20 years of engineering, boring guys are ignored. The old guys that get to point, have a gravitas about them are trusted and listened to.

[KingFerret]

However, to me the idea that you can just make a barbarian with 8 charisma, and that playing him as if he was a charismatic warlord should translate into his treatment (mechanically) as a charismatic warlord, is fundamentally wrong.

To illustrate this point, ask yourself how you “feel” about the inverse situation. Suppose a character wanted to play a physically strong character, but the mechanics of his class dictated that he spent his points elsewhere and he ended up with 8 strength.

So you tell the player to just play the character as if he had a higher strength score. That’s all well and good. But the moment you decide to over-ride a resolution mechanic you’re making a mistake.

Now, as a disclaimer, I don’t have any problem with a DM deciding that a roll is unnecessary. Nor with particular actions being auto-successes. However, any time a character is using his charisma to accomplish a task, the mechanics of charisma must be considered. Just as they would be with strength, for example.

Yeah I do understand a lot of your points. This is one of those issues where I think there is no easy solution. As with most discussions on these forums, the real answer is to do things in a way that makes you and your players happy.

I think perhaps the biggest issue with my suggested 'solution' to this is that if you push it too far, a player may be given an unfair advantage - possibly upsetting game balance, or making other players think you are playing favourites or both. The only answer I can really give to this is to be mindful as a DM. It helps if the player in question understands the situation and doesn't try to push their luck. It's a difficult line to walk, but if you make sure that when you allow a player to 'get away without rolling' the primary result from this is that you help them to achieve their character-vision, not that they gain some kind of mechanical benefit.

If we use the example of the low strength character who the player is roleplaying as medium/high strength - let's say the player wants to kick a door open (to have a bad-ass entrance). There's no real mechanical benefit to doing this, it's for the roleplay flavour. Let them do it without rolling. If on the other hand they are being grappled by a monster, or trying to lift rubble off their fallen companion - then by all means make them roll (and probably fail). If you've balanced it right, the player's vision of their character is not broken (because you've reinforced their strength in other, less high stakes situations by not making them roll).

I hope that makes sense?

[Darth Ultron]

Okay, I’m fully in the camp that you don’t need to account for your mental stats when you role play. You just play as you think (using your own unfiltered mental faculties) your character would act. If your character’s mental stats are supposed to influence the result, that’s where the resolution mechanics (or more generally the rules) come into play.

However, to me the idea that you can just make a barbarian with 8 charisma, and that playing him as if he was a charismatic warlord should translate into his treatment (mechanically) as a charismatic warlord, is fundamentally wrong.


There is no reason you can't role play a character any way you want to, no matter the character stats. It is utterly impossible to say what a single mental stat point represents. How different is one point of charisma? How can you really tell CHR 8 from CHR 9? Even more so as life always has the wild card, where that CHR 18 guy does not do/get something, but the CHR 10 guy does. And the high stat person can always make a bad choice or mistake and the low stat person can always make a good choice or mental leap.

Training and experience also play a big part in stats. I character that does something everyday will often be an 'expert' on that one thing. This is the classic shade tree mechanic: he can rebuild an engine and really does not grasp any of the physical science. Or the bartender that has no formal medical training, but sure knows a lot about how people think.

[ZorroGames]

Apparently so. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?567304-Variant-rule-bringing-back-biodiversity-(simulationism))

Oh, that thread. Did we not do that in an earlier edition and, for once, the PC police had it right? Red Sonja might not be Conan but then no one else, male or female, was either.

[Kadesh]

Oh, that thread. Did we not do that in an earlier edition and, for once, the PC police had it right? Red Sonja might not be Conan but then no one else, male or female, was either.

Don't know, don't particularly care. I just saw another opportunity to poke fun at that threads OP.

[Clistenes]

Does that guy exist? No sarcasm (maybe a little) but in my 20 years of engineering, boring guys are ignored. The old guys that get to point, have a gravitas about them are trusted and listened to.

I'm speaking about stock characters from movies and such, not about real people...

[RazorChain]

IMO you should act out your stats.

I mean if Rob, who is very charismatic, is playing Grognard the Barbarian doesn't mean that Grognard is charismatic. Just like if Steve who is a bear of a man and very strong is playing Merlin the Mage, that doesn't make Merlin strong as well.


I have one player who is a rather timid girl but is playing out her fantasy as strong warrior woman with a good tactical skill and intimidating presence, I'm not going to invalidate her choices because she is bad at tactics and isn't intimidating herself. That's why she gets state her intention and roll a die and we'll take it from there. If Steve is trying to intimidate people in the game as Merlin the Mage and Steve is rather intimidating himself, I'm not going just to give him a free pass because he growls how he's going to tear that town guard limb for limb if he doesn't back off, he'll have to roll his non existent intimidation skill as Merlin the Mage.


If you want to play a charismatic warlord then.....maybe put some points into charisma? That's what I did when I was playing my monk who was a famous fistfighter, I put 14 in charisma and took public speaking to be able to trash talk my opponents and rile up the crowds.

I partly blame the system though....because you should put your points or best stats into STR, DEX and CON as a Barbarian and dump the rest because all Barbarians are strong, hardy and have cat like grace...and are dumb as a brick, uncouth and not that wise.

[BurgerBeast]

There is no reason you can't role play a character any way you want to, no matter the character stats. It is utterly impossible to say what a single mental stat point represents. How different is one point of charisma? How can you really tell CHR 8 from CHR 9? Even more so as life always has the wild card, where that CHR 18 guy does not do/get something, but the CHR 10 guy does. And the high stat person can always make a bad choice or mistake and the low stat person can always make a good choice or mental leap.

Training and experience also play a big part in stats. I character that does something everyday will often be an 'expert' on that one thing. This is the classic shade tree mechanic: he can rebuild an engine and really does not grasp any of the physical science. Or the bartender that has no formal medical training, but sure knows a lot about how people think. (Emphasis added.)

I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with me here. Nothing you’ve said, here, runs contrary to my way of thinking on this, except, maybe, the bolded part.

I think you should role-play your character however you want, as you do, it seems. As for the bolded part, maybe we disagree. What you’re describing appears, in my view, to be exactly what Charisma checks accomplish. Sometimes the low Charisma character beats the higher Charisma character. If we’re disagreeing here, it’s only because I think the mechanics should determine outcomes but you think the player’s acting and judgement should determine it at least some of the time. If that’s so, well then we disagree, but I’m not too concerned about it.

Your other examples also can be resolved by the existing mechanics, in my opinion. Training and experience are modelled in the skill system, and the bartender can be explained in multiple ways (low Int, high Wis; or low Wis but training in Insight).

[KorvinStarmast]

If you have low strength you should be female according to MaxWilson. Naughty Kadesh. :smallcool:


Does that guy exist? No sarcasm (maybe a little) but in my 20 years of engineering, boring guys are ignored. The old guys that get to point, have a gravitas about them are trusted and listened to.
Yeah. True.

For the OP:
Let's go back to old D&D. The stats only indicated if you got an XP bonus for your class if it was high enough. +1 to HP for an pretty high con, +1 to missile attacks for a dexterity above 12. You did not get + to hit for high strength. (You could carry more). Bonus to Charisma was kind of neat, since it allowed you to have a better chance to get people to follow you and help out.
( Then Greyhawk came out. Then AD&D 1e came out, and the numbers chase got to be a little bit of a mini game in and of itself.)

But they way the game began, you played your character, not your stat sheet. Here we are, in edition 5, and some people really don't understand the basic framework of the game.
1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

You only roll dice when necessary.

A long time ago we played an OD&D game where the DM had an assistant who took care of all dice rolling (it was his girlfriend, who at the time wasn't all that into this silly game we were playing. That changed over time). 50's of rope, 10' poles, flasks of oil, torches as needed for going into caverns ...

There were four of us. The only dice we threw, as players, were attack rolls, and IIRC "chance to break down doors" which was a 1d6 roll.
All other rolls were rolled by her.
Saves, Damage, Pick locks, Morale Checks/Reactions by NPC's to us: Charisma checks based on 2d Etc.

DM would read the dice and consult the table; and off we went. None of us knew how many HP we had. But if we got hurt, we were advised "how we felt".

It was insane fun.

We played for most of a Saturday afternoon and evening. Our adventure was just outside of the City State of the Invincible Overlord. All four of us survived, and by the end of the adventuring session we had acquired 7 henchmen/followers/NPC's to help us and carry loot. We all leveled up. (GP for XP is neat when you hit the mother lode ...)

PS: also, the pace of play was quite fast.

[Beelzebubba]

I would have gone with:
Wisdom? Yeah, those are the people that constantly spout life quotes and snippets of spiritual texts and trying to give others advice on what to do ... but are always bumping into people, can't see the ship in the magic picture, getting clawed by cats and bit by dogs, have no idea how to calm a fussy baby, and never get the joke.

Those are good too, but my take was more about terrible insight and perception being taken advantage of by high deception than decision making.

[BaconAwesome]

It can be hard. I have an Int 8, Cha 16 paladin that I love, but it's hard to do both. When I try to "face" someone, I often get tongue-tied, and I frankly love tactics personally, so there's no way for me to resist calling out suggestions in combat.

My compromise was to give him the soldier background and some traits that indicate he's super prepared and trained in squad encounters - basically a veteran non-com - and to try really hard to avoid metagaming. He don't know what's in the monster manual, but once he sees what an opponent can do, he has five contingency plans to respond, and he has taken the time to ask his party members to tell him (maybe more than once) everything they can do.

[MaxWilson]

Really? I know several military women who are much stronger in most senses of the word than when I was moving 400+ pound patients in nursing.

No, Kadesh is just lying about me. Don't take her/him/g'ya seriously. Kadesh's post is false.

[MaxWilson]

Don't know, don't particularly care. I just saw another opportunity to poke fun at that threads OP.

You mean, an opportunity to lie about me behind my back.

Apparently the downside of putting people on Ignore is when they go around telling lies about you to other people. >:-| Cease and desist immediately.