Fear of the Negatives

[Cluedrew]

You sometimes I see people post there real life state line. After seeing a few I wondered I what mine looked like and one thing led to another and recently I realized something, the numbers I would need to make my stat line are almost or completely unachievable with point buy (depending on the edition). If you are wondering those numbers are: 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, and it wasn't the 10, 16 and 17 that were giving me trouble.

And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).

Which brings me to the main point. In many stories it is not what the main character is good at that defines them, but what they are bad at and what gives them trouble. In fact having read stories that are defined by what the main character is good at I'm going to say most good stories spend time on the hero's weaknesses. Yet the role-playing community at large, myself included, seems to have an aversion to so much as giving a below average stat to their characters.

I suppose part of it comes from the "power fantasy" side of role playing, which can go pretty badly some times if you have been following the worst player threads. But in a way I think it is more deeply ingrained than that. In fact I occasionally see threads that boil down to: "Hi, I want to do this non-optimal thing to try and make a different and hopefully more interesting character, how should I do that?" "Don't even think about it. You should be ashamed of yourself for considering it. It would be a black mark on your group and the gaming community as a whole if you ever did that." And it is kind of sad in a way. Now I'm sure there are games where cranking every +1 out of your character you can is important, but there are many where it is not.

Any no this is not role vs. roll. This is, if I want to role- or roll-play being bad at something, is that so wrong?

Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

[endur]

It is not wrong to have a character who is not great at something.

The standard D&D point buy system assumes everyone is pretty good (8 or higher, unless you have a racial penalty).

They really should have a sliding scale similar to above 13, i.e. 6 is 1 point less than 8, 3 is 2 points less than 8, or something like that, where you can go lower, but don't get as much power gaming benefit for it, so power gamers won't do it, but role players can do it and still get something.

Systems like champions handle flaws and handicaps pretty well.

[Âmesang]

I recall Noah Antwiler's comments on the subject in his Counter Monkey episode, "3d6 in Order" — "Some of you will dump stat down to an 8… and those people are considered fools!"

Now, to be fair, my favorite and longest lasting character was not generated 3d6 in order. Though her dad might be, if I ever get a chance to play 1st or 5th Edition WORLD OF GREYHAWK^®. Originally… actually, I forgot how I originally generated her stats. I think it was 4d6 drop the lowest, reroll 1's? Maybe? Either way she had, from Str to Cha, 12-17-16-17-15-18.

After awhile I started growing distasteful regarding those stats; almost as if I had somehow cheated. So, one day, I decided to rebuild her stats using (admittedly) one of Pathfinder's stat-buy systems, producing a much more reasonable 7-15-13-16-9-18. This produced a human sorceress who was as strong and healthy as a wealthy, noble-born person could be expected to be, without being anything close to an Olympic-level weight lifter (as a bad joke I gave her 13 in Con to represent her, ahem, voluptuous figure). She was very agile and graceful, the type who'd have balanced books on her head, while also undoubtedly charismatic with a brilliant mind… yet lacking in any kind of keen awareness to the world around her, instead being horrifically vain, conceited, selfish, self-centered, proud, perhaps with delusions of grandeur.

Now it some ways this works out very well. I consider myself to be far more eloquent as a typist than as an actual speaker, but in either case I often joke that, as smart as I consider myself to be I lack wisdom; so if I fail to do something correct that might seem obvious, or if I miss an important detail or two in an otherwise "perfect" plan, I guess I can chalk that up to bad wisdom for the both of us, huh? (In comparison another favorite character of mine is a human ranger with a 7 Cha, so I can take all of my own quiet, almost timid-like personality quirks and use it towards her, making her the strong, silent type — one who hangs back [with bow in hand] and only speaks when having something important… or sarcastic… to say, otherwise being rather gruff and feeling almost uncomfortable talking despite possessing a high Wisdom and above-average Intelligence. After all, the plants of the animals of the wilderness rarely have any reason to talk — why should she?)

…I kind of lost my train of thought just now.

Well, anyway, I like having "low" ability scores at times because it can make for some interesting roleplaying. Having a low Str for a sorceress isn't all that big of a deal — Hell, it's more or less expected, especially after becoming an archmage with Arcane Reach — but having a low Wisdom, lower than her quasit familiar (even after having his own decreased due to a certain effect), yet still possessing an Iron Will because of class combination could make things fun. She's focused, ambitious, doesn't easily back down, has a strong spirit but is so lost in her own, little world that she thinks everything she does is right or best and may act without fully realizing the consequences of her actions. Plus it's a kind of silly cliché to have the big baddie have a subordinate that "knows better," no? Makes me think I should try and channel a little bit of MCU Tony Stark/Jarvis into her and her familiar, respectively.

Of course I have to keep in mind that her Wisdom is only a 9 — slightly below average, so I shouldn't make her too foolish. Just… a little foolish.

[RadioDask]

This is literally the reason I don't play much DnD. And usually when I do I modify it to include a disadvantages mechanic of sorts.

The absolute best IMO for disadvantaged characters would be Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, disadvantages not only are crippling, they cost points in character creation. This is because you can earn "Artha" (karma, luck, mystical storytelling energies, whatever) by playing out those disadvantages in an intriguing and plot changing way. This encourages actively to play flawed characters; not only are they more fun, but there are a few tangible system mechanics to reward it behind the scenes. Artha can do things like cause dice to explode, add more dice, shrug off pain, avoid death through a complication, and more. This however, does not reduce the penalties the disadvantages cause; blind characters are still blind and cannot shoot, read, or do just about anything sight related for the life of them; crippled characters will easily be chased down and will lag behind in travel.

Most other systems seem to use disadvantages as a way to earn more character creation points or a similar effect. This encourages players to basically min max, taking disadvantages in what they don't plan on doing much of or things they don't care about to make unrealistic ultra-specialist characters.

[Rhaegar14]

In the spirit of a good debate, I'm going to offer a dissenting opinion!

First of all, unless your racial bonuses are perfect, it's hard in most (not all, but most) editions of D&D to get a character with optimized ability scores to have no 8s or 9s. And even 10s are still well below average. You have to remember, the player characters are special. An average NPC's ability score is 10, but an average PC's is 13. They are a cut above. 10 is low.

Secondly, I do not need mechanical penalties to roleplay a flawed character. I place very little stock in what ability scores, especially mental ones, represent when I am creating a character's personality, though I admit that this is because I find it extremely frustrating to try and roleplay a character of low or even average intelligence. They're mechanical numbers that determine bonuses on the d20. Besides, in a dramatically appropriate moment, to me it's more fun that they have a chance at overcoming those flaws -- when everything is on the line, heroes rise above. My Dex 9 Paladin is not very likely to win initiative in any combats, but it's still in the realm of possibility if it's important. If he had, say, a "Slow Reactions" flaw that acted as the opposite of Improved Initiative (chosen for this example because his lousy initiative rolls are, to me, possibly his most meaningful weakness), then that would go from "not very likely" to "almost never."

As far as systems that model this well go, Savage Worlds characters are all but required to take one Major and two Minor Hindrances at character creation. Some of them, like Heroic, are entirely roleplay based. Some, like One Eye and Blind, have mechanical drawbacks. So in that respect it's a pretty good system for this kind of thing.

[Faily]

Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

1. All the time. A low stat can often be a source of inspiration for a character's personality or how to play them. Low stats can be interpreted in different ways too. I have a favorite Ars Magica character that has an Intelligence of -2 (very slow and simple) and Communication of -2 (stammers).

2. Legend of the Five Rings have Disadvantages like Bad Eyesight, Blind, Missing Limb, Lame, Permanent Wound, Bad Health, Missing Eye... I see people take them for fluff all the time. Like if someone wants to play a veteran fighter, they might give him Missing Eye and Permanent Wound. All those Disadvantages give suitable penalties. A
Ars Magica also have Flaws that can do the same as above (Missing Eye, Lame, Missing Limb, Clouded Vision, Blind, etc).

3. You do know that D&D have rules for most of the things mentioned, right? Blindness is a status effect that is very much covered, so is mute and deaf. Having one hand limits you to, surprise, one-handed weapons (though depending on your GM's sense of realism, you might have difficulties drawing it out of its sheath). I'd agree that they don't have any specific rules on having a lame leg or a peg-leg, but most D&D effects that "injure" feet tend to reduce movement to half speed, so I guess that would be a logical conclusion.

[BWR]

And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).

You need to look a bit harder. There are rules for blindness in D&D. There are obvious consequences for one-handedness and muteness too. Do you really need special rules for this?
There are also plenty of games out there with specific mechanics for these things (on the order of 'take this penalty, gain some other bonus').

Do I enjoy characters with low stats? Sure, sometimes. A bad stat can be a great source of entertainment and character. It's really only a problem if, as often happens in d20 games, you really do need a high score in several abilities to make a mechanical concept work decently and you don't get that.

[Cluedrew]

There are a few little things I should clarify. First being I did not do a lot of research on this topic before-hand. There are various reasons for this but one is no matter how much research I do on this topic my knowledge base will be insignificant compared to that off all the other people who will read this thread. So for a simple conversation I'm willing to make a few mistakes and be corrected. So feel free to make them. So D&D has more rules for disabilities that I thought, in hindsight I shouldn't be surprised. Besides which I have yet another reason to go look at Burning Wheel.

I recall Noah Antwiler's comments on the subject in his Counter Monkey episode, "3d6 in Order" — "Some of you will dump stat down to an 8… and those people are considered fools!"

I know of that video and although that line highlights my point I think the main point was not fear of weakness but fear of "losing control" of your character. Or that is my reading from things like the innkeeper rule and the line "I take that back, you guys aren't cowards, you're boring."

[goto124]

fear of "losing control" of your character.

Personal opinion: I play games (video or tabletop) for the purpose of having power and control, instead of getting pushed about by other people and circumstances I can't do anything about.

[Cluedrew]

I put it in quotes because you are not really losing control of your character, at least not in a large way. I guess the message that if you relinquish a bit of control you might be pleasantly suppressed by the results. But there is a half hour or so video on it if you want Spoony's opinion on the matter. I'm including the that sort of thing here, but I'm also talking about when the character is constructed without randomness as well.

[GloatingSwine]

Personal opinion: I play games (video or tabletop) for the purpose of having power and control, instead of getting pushed about by other people and circumstances I can't do anything about.

3d6 in order doesn't remove control from you, it sets you a challenge.

Rather than having an idea for the character first, roll the stats, look at them, and think "what fun character could I play with these stats?".

Probably works better in one of the less rules heavy editions though. 3.X tends to assume a level of mechanical competence on the part of your characters' statline, 2nd cared a lot less about that.

[nedz]

Some of my best characters have had a 5 or a 6.

This adds definition and makes space for someone else to fill in.

Int 6 on a Cleric, Cha 5 on a Dwarf Ranger (promoted to party leader ), Str 7 on a Beguiler.

The only one which annoyed me was an in-order generation method which left me with a 9 in a place I didn't want it. I knew the character I wanted to play, but I wasn't allowed to play it.

[Knaight]

I've played plenty of characters with serious negatives about them, and some of them have been the most fun to play. What the serious negatives were varied, and not all of them line up particularly well to the D&D attributes, but more than a few would be equivalent to very low stats in something. As for systems which can handle characters with major flaws well, I'd honestly list most systems that were generally decent systems.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't tend to have particularly low stats, about an 8 would be my typical minimum. I like weaknesses, but they don't line up with the six stats, my current character's weakness is that he's too Lawful, this is causing problems.

[CantigThimble]

The problem is there aren't really any interesting or flaws in D&D. Having a bad ability score is just... annoying. Shadowrun's system has flaws that really add a lot of character depth and opportunities for roleplaying and those characters often end up defined just as much by their flaws as their positive qualities. You really just need flaws that are genuinely interesting and some mechanical motivation for players to take them.

Edit: A few examples
Code of Honor: You have some kind of honor code you follow, they have a few suggestions but it's really up to you and the GM. If you break it you get penalties until you do something to make up for your breach.

Dependents: People are counting on you for something, this can be anything from sending part of your paycheck to your family to spending weekends taking care of your aunt.

Elf Poser: You're a human who thinks elves are the best thing since sliced bread. You want to look and act like elves do. Elves are usually weirded out by this and some humans consider you a race traitor.

Combat Paralysis: You freeze up when combat starts and your initiative gets chopped in half in the first round.

These are all really specific and interesting, being an elf poser doesn't delete your social skills from the game like charisma 7 does, but it DOES give some penalties. Same with combat paralysis and your combat skills.

[Quertus]

Any no this is not role vs. roll. This is, if I want to role- or roll-play being bad at something, is that so wrong?

Related Questions:
Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?
Do you know of any systems that represent disability or below average ability characters well?
Have any related thoughts to share?

First, let me say that most of my 3.x characters are very sub-optimal. Which means that, in some parties, the party would have been better off ditching my character than splitting the loot and XP with someone who made such a disproportionately low contribution.

That having been said, my favorite 2e character was a statistically powerful but tactically inept wizard. There was no mechanical advantage to making him bad at combat, it just fit his character.

My second favorite 2e character... His stats were rolled in order. Happily, they worked out to be about what I envisioned for the character, except that his strength was too high. So I asked the DM if I could lower his sterength. I was told no. Then I asked if he still allowed 2-for-1 trades. He said yes. So I took 2 points off of his strength, and added 1 to his strength. Several times. Until the character was how I envisioned him. Again, no advantage to this aside from allowing me to play the character I envisioned.

In WoD, I usually have trouble limiting myself to just 7 points of flaws. Probably my favorite (certainly my most played) WoD character often tries to intimidate beings, but really isn't any good at it. Although it would be easy to spend a few off his many XP to make him good / great / nigh-unrivalled at intimidation, I don't, and continue to play him as overconfident in his (otherwise good) social skills.

I like playing characters with flaws. While I have greatly enjoyed a number of flawed characters, this only works for certain play styles. When you play in a system that cares more about game balance, like 3.x, with its CR system, expected wealth by level, and shared XP/treasure, it becomes much more important that the characters be able to pull their own weight. Which is, IMO, why I had less fun with my flawed characters in 3.x than in 2e or other systems.

As to a system that models flaws... There was no "tactically inept" flaw in 2e - and there didn't need to be. The issue is, are you taking flaws because that's how you want to play the character, or do you need mechanics to give you benefits for your flaws due to game balance being part of the implied social contract under which you are playing?

[CantigThimble]

As to a system that models flaws... There was no "tactically inept" flaw in 2e - and there didn't need to be. The issue is, are you taking flaws because that's how you want to play the character, or do you need mechanics to give you benefits for your flaws due to game balance being part of the implied social contract under which you are playing?

My opinion on this is that story feeds mechanics just as much as mechanics feed story in roleplaying games. Some people can come up with great concepts with no rules backing and thats fine, some people need that incentive to start thinking about what flaws their character can have and learn to make it interesting from there. Sometimes game mechanics cause you to do things you never would have otherwise and those become a key part of how you play your character.

Restrictions breed creativity as Mark Rosewater says. You tell someone 'Come up with a character.' And they sit there for 10 minutes and come up with something bland and half-baked. You tell someone 'Describe a ranger who hates wizards.' and ideas about backstory, character traits and mannerisms are popping into their head right away. I've come up with richer Shadowrun characters than I ever would have without that positive/negative trait system. Even characters I was only ever designing mechanically took on a life of their own as I picked those traits.

Edit: And just to be clear about this, these traits were optional. You got great benefits and it almost always made your character stronger to pick your full allotment but there was enough selection that you could avoid making your character useless at what the party needed him to be able to do. Combat paralysis was a trait intended for utility characters, taking it on a fighter was a suicidal.

[oxybe]

the challenge of a game should be due to challenging play, not being hobbled by the character generation system in a forced attempt to make the character "interesting".

hercules is an interesting and tragic character because of what happened to him, not for his likely average mental stats.

a halfling having to deal with a world built for someone human-sized or larger is interesting not because the halfling is weak but simply the nature of being a small creature in a medium-sized world. the opposite is also true: a human visiting halfling lands will likely have to deal with rooms and food portions made for someone much smaller then him. again: interesting due to the circumstances and characters involved, not rolled stats.

it's fine to you your stats as a vaulting point to help get an idea of your character's personality, but in no way does low stats a good character make. at best it's one facet of the character and not something that matters for every character. a flawed personality is generally far more interesting to interact with then the inability to bench press a small child.

[Knaight]

hercules is an interesting and tragic character because of what happened to him, not for his likely average mental stats.

Sure. On the other hand, Othello being an interesting and tragic character corresponds more than a little to him having absolutely terrible judgement when it comes to friends; in D&D terms his wisdom probably isn't too strong, in any system which actually has a more applicable stat it should absolutely be tanked.

[Jay R]

Do you have any good experiences with low stat or weak characters?

Yes, indeed. I once rolled an original D&D character with STR 3, DEX 16, low wisdom and high charisma. I was about to toss him when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid."

So I played a very successful nine-year-old thief named David. Once, trying to get into a walled city, he walked up to the guard sniffling and saying, "I'm lost, and I'm tired, and I'm thirsty, and my feet hurt, and I can't find my mother, and .. and ... (start crying)." When the guard turned to get him something to eat, David stabbed him in the back.

[oxybe]

Sure. On the other hand, Othello being an interesting and tragic character corresponds more than a little to him having absolutely terrible judgement when it comes to friends; in D&D terms his wisdom probably isn't too strong, in any system which actually has a more applicable stat it should absolutely be tanked.

the point is though, you can still have an interesting and fully fleshed out character without requiring negative stats and there is nothing wrong with not wanting those negative stat, especially since they can impact areas of play outside of "terrible judgement in friends" (in 3.5 wisdom's case it would affect your character's ability to withstand mental attacks (will save), notice things (perception skills and sense motive), have a job (profession skill), use divine magic (wisdom is the core "divine caster" stat)).

[BootStrapTommy]

This is another thread where I tell the story of the time I played a mute precog in GURPS and it was awesome.

It was awesome.

And for the record, GURPS very much functions on the assumption that all characters have flaws they must overcome.

[Slipperychicken]

And then it occurred to me, in all the rules of D&D I don't know a single one that tells you how to play a one handed swordsman. Or a mute wizard (I'd just grab Silent Spell as a feat and only speak in character to people who knew sign-language). Nor does any game I know of have any rules for playing a blind character (unless they have an even more powerful second sight).

Each edition of D&D has rules for blindness and deafness, and they tell you what effect being mute has on spellcasting. Third edition D&D had a boatload of flaws for stuff like this (i.e. obesity, insomnia, addiction, bum leg, poor eyesight, shaky hands, etc). Being one-handed is pretty obvious: No two-handed weapons, can only wield one weapon at a time, unless you somehow figured out how to use a sword with your feet or something.

Shadowrun encourages players to take all kinds of negative traits and disabilities. Even if you ignore them, it's pretty hard to make a good character without some low stats. And you can't cover every skill either, so there are always going to be deficiencies even if you have great stats and no negative qualities. Granted, it tends to be pretty unforgiving, so taking an extreme disability (like blindness

[Arbane]

Some games, like the Riddle of Steel and Space: 1889 have a character generation system that GUARANTEES your character will be bad at something: Priorities you assign for stats & such, which mean you're going to have some weak stats.

[Malifice]

This is literally the reason I don't play much DnD. And usually when I do I modify it to include a disadvantages mechanic of sorts.

The absolute best IMO for disadvantaged characters would be Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, disadvantages not only are crippling, they cost points in character creation. This is because you can earn "Artha" (karma, luck, mystical storytelling energies, whatever) by playing out those disadvantages in an intriguing and plot changing way.

Thats an intresting mechanic. I like it!

You can do something similar with 5E. The DM can award a PC advantage (a mechanical benefit) for roleplaying a drawback or personality quirk (flaw, bond or ideal).

It's not much, but its the first 'narrative' mechanic I can recall seeing in a DnD edition ever.

[RadioDask]

Yes, one of the reasons I was excited to play-test 5e.

[goto124]

Even when given flaws, I end up downplaying the flaws a lot just so I can fit in the party instead of being one of those disruptive jerks who say "that's what my character would do". The flaws turn out to be useless, and might as well not exist.

Ranger who hates wizards? Well wizards can kill me with a fireball or the bazillion other spells they have so there's no way to act on it other than squirming about and muttering under my breath.

I may earn "Artha" for RPing my hate of wizards, but I'll waste all that Artha to get me out of the magic-powered jail with antiteleportation, antimagic, and all that jazz. And it's my flaws that got me into the jail.

Unless the entire campaign is about getting into those sticky situations to begin with, why bother with my flaws? I could just concentrate on the main plot that I signed up for, without making the other players frustrated about me hogging up the spotlight by being a troublemaker.

[Âmesang]

Out of curiosity would it be considered "wrong" for my 3.5 gnome cowboy to take the "murky-eyed" flaw from Unearthed Arcana?, considering the ranger's archery style would allow him to partially counter the affects via a free Improved Precise Shot (and fully counter it at epic with Uncanny Accuracy).

Well, at least with regards to ranged attacks. I've been so obsessed about him being able to craft/enhance his own rifles I completely forgot about giving him a melee weapon!

[goto124]

would it be considered "wrong" for my 3.5 gnome cowboy to take the "murky-eyed" flaw from Unearthed Arcana?, considering the ranger's archery style would allow him to partially counter the affects via a free Improved Precise Shot (and fully counter it at epic with Uncanny Accuracy).

Those are feats right? He's bascially countering his own flaw with lots of training and maybe some smartness by relying on other senses (hearing or even smell).

You could spin a nice backstory about how he loved archery, but was hit with an unfortunate curse/disease/accident that left him partially blind, and nearly gave up but decided to press on with the one thing he loved so much.

Fluff it right and your GM can accept it

[Âmesang]

Except instead of a bow he'd be using a rifle. Though it would require some retooling of Rapid Reload (via the breechloading option from Dragon Magazine #321) and Manyshot (double/triple/quadruple?!-barreled rifle? Gnomes be crazy!).

Sort of like a cross between Clint Eastwood and Chuck Connors. The "Gnome with Gno Gname?"