Where/when did the “Low Stats Make for Better RP and Creativity” originate?

[Xervous]

Time and again various divides come up in the course of RPG history. We have time stamps on various fallacies, release dates laying down the chronological boundaries between editions, but I’ve never seen the opinion presented in the title tied to one specific time period or system. As of late I haven’t seen it all too frequently, mostly in rolled abilities/attributes/whatever cases.

Anyone care to shed some insight on what produced the “low stats make for better creativity and/or RP” school of thought?

[Dragonsonthemap]

I have no idea where it originated for sure. I will say that I saw it for the first time right after 5e came out, and not once in the days of 4e/Pathfinder. I sort-of got the impression it came of out backlash against the prevalence of power-gamers who seemed to view a narrow focus on mechanical optimization as the only "proper" way to play in the 3.5 days. I have a vague suspicion it may be tied to other systems whose player bases have seen better day, like WoD, but only because WoD and its cousins are popular among the people I have personally met who lean towards this idea.

[Xervous]

In my mind I was drawing parallels to grittier and sometimes darker systems. Without exceptional familiarity with such systems or the discourse that occurs in their communities I can’t say much for certain, operating almost exclusively off hearsay.

Could it be one lens of viewing RPGs, where with incompetence or impotence the player’s only true hope for engaging with the game is through RP? I lack many of the details to understand the whole mindset and it doesn’t come across in a full, justified expression most of the time. Attempting to piece explanations together I end up with a chicken/egg conundrum.

[Nifft]

Maybe 2e / Dragonlance?

One of the most memorable characters was memorable because he had Con 4 and was obsessed with surviving in spite of his sickly body. Eventually IIRC he either killed or replaced a god.

[Xervous]

Why 2e if not 1e? From what I gather there were no grand paradigm shifts in that transition. Stats were still rolled merry as you please in either case. Was there a need for the existence of alternate generation methods beyond rolling in order for the low=rp mindset to express itself?

[Max_Killjoy]

This isn't just a D&D thing, it cuts across gaming and has for a long time -- I first came across it in the late 80s.

[Democratus]

I've only seen it as a retort to the school of thought that high stats are necessary to have a good character - not as prerequisite for a good character.

I do recognize that overcoming obstacles makes for compelling storytelling. But these obstacles can be from a character's own limitations or from active opposition by others.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've only seen it as a retort to the school of thought that high stats are necessary to have a good character - not as prerequisite for a good character.

I do recognize that overcoming obstacles makes for compelling storytelling. But these obstacles can be from a character's own limitations or from active opposition by others.

It's common enough that there's even a name for the "formal fallacy" that claims that roleplaying or "narrative" quality of a character is inversely proportional to their competence or power level... I'm blanking on it right now, maybe Oberoni Stormwind. As corrected below, it's Stormwind.

[prabe]

It does seem to be a retort to feeling as though one needs awesome stats for a character to be enjoyable to play. I know there are people who feel as though having at least one substandard stat gives them a handle they can grab onto when it comes to playing the character, but that's not exactly the same thing.

Those of us who remember rolling 3d6 in order for stats (say, in older editions of D&D) almost certainly remember characters with mediocre-at-best stats.

[Composer99]

I am sure versions of this argument, or related ones, have sprung up in many contexts. I do recall a form of it coming up in the AD&D 2e PHB.

Obviously, Rath's ability scores (often called "stats") are not the greatest in the world. Yet it is possible to turn these "disappointing" stats into a character who is both interesting and fun to play. Too often players become obsessed with "good" stats. [...]


In truth, Rath's survivability has a lot less to do with his ability scores than with your desire to role-play him. If you give up on him, of course he won't survive! But if you take an interest in the character and role-play him well, then even a character with the lowest possible scores can present a fun,
challenging, and all-around exciting time. [...]

Don't give up on a character just because he has a low score. Instead, view it as an opportunity to role-play, to create a unique and entertaining personality in the game. Not only will you have fun creating that personality, but other players and the DM will have fun reacting to him.

I would say this text, upon review, is arguing something more like "creativity and good roleplaying can make a character with poor stats worth playing", rather than saying that "poor stats make for better RP/creativity" as such. But it's not too far of a stretch to get from one to the other.

[Dimers]

Low stats making for better RP, I find ridiculous. For in-game creativity, though, it actually makes sense. If you can't simply power through on sheer potency, you have to get creative if you want to survive and thrive. If you're talking about creativity in chargen ... again, makes no sense to me; explaining or describing a high stat is just as creative as explaining/describing a low one.

As for when and where ... I've seen hints of it as far back as the 2e PHB, in the sample character generation for Rath, the dwarf fighter. The book gives two examples of how to portray a poor stat array and no examples of how to portray an amazing one. So, creativity and RP only happen when stats are bad, I guess?

I've never played an RPG older than 2e.

EDIT: Hah! Ninja'ed on Rath the dwarf warrior specifically!

[KineticDiplomat]

I suspect that as point/priority buy systems came into play - as opposed to basically random chargen.

Once you could essentially build exactly the character you wanted, people began building them somewhere between "extraordinarily gifted" and "reality breaking uber-menschen" as the baseline. That created an arms race - if you didn't at least somewhat optimize, you fell behind in a genre of game that really only cared about being awesome at combat. That in turn limited what you could actually build - oh sure, you could choose not to, but when someone said "tonight we're basically going to throw dice for three straight hours to tell the tale of how awesome you are - sorry bob, your guy kind of sucks at this because I built the enemies to face your demigod friends - but I think next session we'll have three minutes of exposition?" that made it pretty clear where it all stood. In many ways, you can still see the descendants of that view point today when someone on a forum sneers because "a soul focused warlock is a better healer - why did that [name here] play a cleric if he wanted to heal? [insert derisive snickering here]." or in the multitude of balance topics that come up.

With so much effort going into mechanical optimization, it left little room for characterization. There wasn't mental effort for it. And there wasn't a mechanical reflection of anything other than a few optimized paths. You could theoretically play the awkward blacksmith's son who found out he could wield magic intuitively, but when push-came-to-dice-throwing-shove he somehow had the force of personality that would shame Stalin and the strength of an anemic 98 lb model. Or you tried to make him elsewise, but then he was dead meat when he met the same challenges that had to be in place to handle the rest of the uber-party.

This naturally also slaughtered many a GM's attempt at a story or even (within the bounds of the setting) believable world. You can guess that the Shadowrun of intrigue and betrayal didn't stand up that well to a Porno-mancer (yes, this is an actual term) throwing 38 dice at a social scene, or indeed, whenever they wanted to. As you can also guess, when players can solve everything with an overwhelming dice pool until the game becomes nothing but stacking dice against each other, well those other arts of the game tend to fade or take on a very odd tone in contrast to the dicing.

More meta, imagine the worst stereotypes of a gamer - fat, sweaty, and snorting over how his number was bigger for killing goblins with some pretty clear indicators he thought this somehow made him cool/big/whatever in real life - and you might find that the trend towards forced optimization didn't do the community any favors in that regard.

[Nifft]

I suspect that as point/priority buy systems came into play - as opposed to basically random chargen.

Once you could essentially build exactly the character you wanted, people began building them somewhere between "extraordinarily gifted" and "reality breaking uber-menschen" as the baseline. That created an arms race - if you didn't at least somewhat optimize, you fell behind in a genre of game that really only cared about being awesome at combat. That in turn limited what you could actually build - oh sure, you could choose not to, but when someone said "tonight we're basically going to throw dice for three straight hours to tell the tale of how awesome you are - sorry bob, your guy kind of sucks at this because I built the enemies to face your demigod friends - but I think next session we'll have three minutes of exposition?" that made it pretty clear where it all stood. In many ways, you can still see the descendants of that view point today when someone on a forum sneers because "a soul focused warlock is a better healer - why did that [name here] play a cleric if he wanted to heal? [insert derisive snickering here]." or in the multitude of balance topics that come up.

With so much effort going into mechanical optimization, it left little room for characterization. There wasn't mental effort for it. And there wasn't a mechanical reflection of anything other than a few optimized paths. You could theoretically play the awkward blacksmith's son who found out he could wield magic intuitively, but when push-came-to-dice-throwing-shove he somehow had the force of personality that would shame Stalin and the strength of an anemic 98 lb model. Or you tried to make him elsewise, but then he was dead meat when he met the same challenges that had to be in place to handle the rest of the uber-party.

This naturally also slaughtered many a GM's attempt at a story or even (within the bounds of the setting) believable world. You can guess that the Shadowrun of intrigue and betrayal didn't stand up that well to a Porno-mancer (yes, this is an actual term) throwing 38 dice at a social scene, or indeed, whenever they wanted to. As you can also guess, when players can solve everything with an overwhelming dice pool until the game becomes nothing but stacking dice against each other, well those other arts of the game tend to fade or take on a very odd tone in contrast to the dicing.

More meta, imagine the worst stereotypes of a gamer - fat, sweaty, and snorting over how his number was bigger for killing goblins with some pretty clear indicators he thought this somehow made him cool/big/whatever in real life - and you might find that the trend towards forced optimization didn't do the community any favors in that regard.

That last paragraph reads like a group attack, you might want to rein that in.

[Unavenger]

It's common enough that there's even a name for the "formal fallacy" that claims that roleplaying or "narrative" quality of a character is inversely proportional to their competence or power level... I'm blanking on it right now, maybe Oberoni.

Stormwind is the name of the closest named fallacy I can think of ("If you optimise, you must be bad at roleplaying") - Oberoni is "It's not a problem if it can be fixed."

[Max_Killjoy]

Stormwind is the name of the closest named fallacy I can think of ("If you optimise, you must be bad at roleplaying") - Oberoni is "It's not a problem if it can be fixed."

Thank you, yes, Stormwind.

[Nifft]

I am sure versions of this argument, or related ones, have sprung up in many contexts. I do recall a form of it coming up in the AD&D 2e PHB.

(...)

I would say this text, upon review, is arguing something more like "creativity and good roleplaying can make a character with poor stats worth playing", rather than saying that "poor stats make for better RP/creativity" as such. But it's not too far of a stretch to get from one to the other.

Thanks for finding that.


IIRC that came out of a shift in how the game was played between 1e and 2e.

In oD&D and 1e, you rolled stats and played them for a while before you named your PC. The most popular example of this seems to have been Melf, who remained unnamed until someone needed to name a spell after him, and the player decided that the male elf which had "M. Elf" written at the top was Melf.

That's how much thought went into some of the iconic 1e characters. In many 1e games, your PC wasn't a named person until the PC had survived for a while and accumulated sufficient deeds to be worth the effort ... and in Melf's case, the effort was truly low.



Many 2e games seem to have diverged from that premise. DMs started asking for PC backstories; players started expecting their first PCs to be important to the setting or storyline, and to survive through the end of the game, or at least until some sort of important and heroic death.

I'm not sure exactly why the expectations changed, but IMHO it's this change in expectations which caused both point-buy and this idea about weakness being "more interesting".



In oD&D and 1e, weakness wasn't more interesting -- if you rolled poorly, your PC had fewer options. You couldn't be a Paladin if you didn't roll high enough. And yet, people played weak characters anyway. Why did players tolerate these imbalances in those older editions?

Perhaps because PCs died early and often.

Players might have tolerated a temporary imbalance because over time it would even out -- even a character with 18s in every stat could die to a bad saving throw, for example, or a no-save-just-die trap like a face-carving with a Sphere of Annihilation inside its mouth. The strong and the weak died alike.

Since all PCs were temporary, one being flat-out better than another was a temporary problem. The ability rolls might have been unfair at any specific moment, but across a large sample of PCs they will tend towards fairness, and since PCs die frequently the sample sizes do tend to be large.


The changed expectations around the era of 2e, whereby PCs were expected to remain for an entire campaign, changed that from being a temporary problem into a campaign-long problem.

Statistical fairness becomes irrelevant if your sample size is expected to be 1. You want to start from a position of relative fairness, because that situation was going to persist for a longer duration.

But some people were used to rolling for stats. So, DMs who grew up rolling for stats now had to convince players to accept those stats, even after the expectations around how long they'd need to keep the stats had changed.

I think that's one place where this argument about weak-is-interesting comes from.


There are some concrete examples of characters being weak and interesting, such as the one from Dargonlance (Raistlin in specific) -- but that's a character written by a successful author, so it's arguable that the character was interesting because of the author rather than the weakness.

[Zarrgon]

This really goes back to the start. There has always been the split between players that want to play only all powerful demi god characters and players that want to play an average gritty characters. And while gritty has a set low level, the demi god side had no limit and would quickly spiral out of control in power..as after all that is what power does.

Though, there was also the role play vs roll play split that also doubled with this, almost exactly. And almost to a player, the role players wanted to role play a average gritty character and the roll players wanted to play the powerful demi god character. After all stats, class abilities and all game rules don't matter too much to a role player as they can role play just fine no matter what. But the roll players are tied to the stats, class abilities and all game rules: they can't roll play unless their character has high ability scores and other overpowered rules.

So the end result would come down to:

Player 1: Has a role playing character with a background, history, personality, goals and such making them a "real like" fictional character.

Player 2: Had a character that could do all sorts of amazing all powerful rule based things.....but mostly would just count the numbers and brag about how much damage their character could do.

So “Low Stats Make for Better RP and Creativity” was just obvious from this.

Player one would role play a clumsy character with a Dexterity of 5 and have a fun role playing time in an adventure that was a mix of role playing, roll playing, and more.

Player two would roll play a character of all high ability scores and have fun roll playing a pure all combat by-the-numbers adventure.

[MeimuHakurei]

It's most likely an inverse that originates from the Stormwind Fallacy - if you believe that powergamers can't roleplay, this means that you believe crappy characters are inherently more interesting (nevermind that there's a whole host of strengths and weaknesses independent of stats and weaknesses need not inform a certain power level).

But what's far more likely the case is control freak DMs deriding effective play as munchkinry and antisocial so everyone stays in line by declaring that PCs that can't impact the plot in any way the DM didn't script for are more interesting in RP.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's most likely an inverse that originates from the Stormwind Fallacy - if you believe that powergamers can't roleplay, this means that you believe crappy characters are inherently more interesting (nevermind that there's a whole host of strengths and weaknesses independent of stats and weaknesses need not inform a certain power level).

But what's far more likely the case is control freak DMs deriding effective play as munchkinry and antisocial so everyone stays in line by declaring that PCs that can't impact the plot in any way the DM didn't script for are more interesting in RP.

Those are both contributors.

But there's also a broader idea, from fiction in general and lit-fic in particular, that elevates characters like Willy Loman as "realist" and "valid", and disdains even highly competent characters as "power fantasy" / "escapism".

[Xervous]

Those are both contributors.

But there's also a broader idea, from fiction in general and lit-fic in particular, that elevates characters like Willy Loman as "realist" and "valid", and disdains even highly competent characters as "power fantasy" / "escapism".

I find it funny that you bring up Willy of all characters when offing oneself to better the group is something that players consider for unfavorable characters.

[Max_Killjoy]

I find it funny that you bring up Willy of all characters when offing oneself to better the group is something that players consider for unfavorable characters.

Speaking entirely of the way certain circles laud indecisive, vaguely obsequious and feckless, general mediocre characters as "realistic" and "deep".

[Nifft]

Those are both contributors.

But there's also a broader idea, from fiction in general and lit-fic in particular, that elevates characters like Willy Loman as "realist" and "valid", and disdains even highly competent characters as "power fantasy" / "escapism".

I have never heard of Willy Loman being held up as an ideal for any type of RPG character, and googling gives me nothing but literary analysis -- nothing about him as an RPG character, even on the deep web (i.e. the second page of search results).

Can you link some examples of that?

[King of Nowhere]

like most other fallacies, it has a root in truth, and it only becomes a fallacy if taken to the extreme.

and i think weaknesses are good for at least two reasons:
1) a boring invincible hero is just that: boring. looking at movies, pretty much any hero has weaknesses he must overcome. there's a narrative reason for it. yes, i know, d&d is not a movie or book, but still some tropes apply (and most people don't bring a TO tier 1 at the table)
2) d&d is a team game. having weaknesses means you have to rely on your teammates, it encourages teamplay. we are all thaught to not overshadow your fellow player.

i could also add another reason, this one false but enticing
3) if you have bad stats you won't be able to fight your way through everything, so you'll have to look for indirect solution, hence rp and creativity
yes, of course 3 is false, but can become true in certain conditions.

do notice that having weaknesses does not actually equate to having bad stats, or viceversa. optimization plays a much larger role than stats into it.

but yes, I think that concept can form the root of the fallacy. add also a pinch of stormwind fallacy, which is also very close in meaning (and it also has a root of truth, in that while it is possible to be good at both mechanics and roleplaying, most people only have time/interest for one of the two)

[Xervous]

i could also add another reason, this one false but enticing
3) if you have bad stats you won't be able to fight your way through everything, so you'll have to look for indirect solution, hence rp and creativity
yes, of course 3 is false, but can become true in certain conditions.

Could it be that poor stats force the player to resort to creativity, and that some GMs might think it fine to eliminate players' other options to coerce RP they think they might not otherwise get?

[Max_Killjoy]

I have never heard of Willy Loman being held up as an ideal for any type of RPG character, and googling gives me nothing but literary analysis -- nothing about him as an RPG character, even on the deep web (i.e. the second page of search results).

Can you link some examples of that?

I was not citing him as an example of the RPG incarnation of this fallacy.

I was citing him as an example of the sort of character held up in the broader incarnation of this fallacy, within as you note literary circles, where mediocrity is seen as a sign of a solid fictional character, and competence is seen as a sign of "power fantasy" or "escapism" to be stamped out.

[Nifft]

I was not citing him as an example of the RPG incarnation of this fallacy.

I was citing him as an example of the sort of character held up in the broader incarnation of this fallacy, within as you note literary circles, where mediocrity is seen as a sign of a solid fictional character, and competence is seen as a sign of "power fantasy" or "escapism" to be stamped out.

Huh.

I remember some 400-level literature seminars discussing the distinction between "everyman" stories vs. "heroic fantasy", including classical epics, but there was never a suggestion that one or the other ought to be stamped out.

It was more about how the things which authors want to talk about have changed over time.


What literary circles want to stamp out heroic fantasy? Can you link some?

[Xervous]

I was not citing him as an example of the RPG incarnation of this fallacy.

I was citing him as an example of the sort of character held up in the broader incarnation of this fallacy, within as you note literary circles, where mediocrity is seen as a sign of a solid fictional character, and competence is seen as a sign of "power fantasy" or "escapism" to be stamped out.

If we're going to label it a fallacy I don't see much better than can be done past Rath's Fallacy, but I feel that is short circuiting some debate and recollection. That excerpt from 2e stands as a solid landmark in the D&D scape, but others are saying it may very well be independent of D&D or at least emerging in other circles prior to the debut of Rath. I am curious what others of less/non D&D backgrounds have to recall on this matter.

[icefractal]

I think it comes from a similar cause to the Stormwind fallacy. I'm not saying this is only reason, but consider a GM who doesn't care much about the mechanics, viewing the story and/or character personalities to be infinitely more important.

That GM then encounters several types of players:
A) Good at RP, bad at mechanics - Remembered as "a good player", maybe remembered as being mechanically weaker than ...
B) Good at mechanics, bad at RP - Remembered as "that annoying guy who didn't even have a personality for his character but somehow one-shot the BBEG"
C) Good at both - Remembered primarily as "a good player". Depending how much the GM doesn't grok mechanics, maybe not even perceived as different than A, just luckier.
D) Good at neither - Fades into the background and doesn't get remembered.

So while they're two independent factors, the combination of "no goals, no personality, huge combat stats only, final destination" ends up as standing out the most and being the most memorable.


Another part is, I think, overreaction to people saying that a class or character type is worthless. In practice, a character's screen-time and perceived importance (by the rest of the group) doesn't always correspond to that character's mechanical effectiveness. And even within mechanical effectiveness, build > class. On this very board, multiple people created Monks that could solo the Elder Evils, a feat which the majority of characters being played in campaigns, even T1 casters, would be unlikely to succeed at.

So if someone says, "Monk is useless, a Monk could never be the most important character in the party," that's incorrect. What's also incorrect is to claim that the possibility of a MVP Monk means that Monks are a better class in general. But not too surprising a thing for people to claim.

[Pauly]

Time and again various divides come up in the course of RPG history. We have time stamps on various fallacies, release dates laying down the chronological boundaries between editions, but I’ve never seen the opinion presented in the title tied to one specific time period or system. As of late I haven’t seen it all too frequently, mostly in rolled abilities/attributes/whatever cases.

Anyone care to shed some insight on what produced the “low stats make for better creativity and/or RP” school of thought?

I've been RPing since the ‘80s. This argument has come up in every game system since year dot.

There is a tension between being able to achieve what you want and the pool of resources you use to create a character.

Some players want uber characters that ROFL stomp whatever bad guys are out there, for them it’s about how stylishly you beat the bad guys, not sweating if you can beat them Other players want to MacGayver their way to defeat the ancient red dragon with a bent fork and a cantrip. Most players are on a spectrum between the two extremes.
Neither approach is inherently wrong. However when you have the two opposite types of player in the party is that the MacGayver player thinks the RIFL stomper is being lazy and unimaginative. The ROFL stomper thinks the MacGayver is handicapping the party and selfishly hurting other people's fun.

[Max_Killjoy]

I've been RPing since the ‘80s. This argument has come up in every game system since year dot.

There is a tension between being able to achieve what you want and the pool of resources you use to create a character.

Some players want uber characters that ROFL stomp whatever bad guys are out there, for them it’s about how stylishly you beat the bad guys, not sweating if you can beat them Other players want to MacGayver their way to defeat the ancient red dragon with a bent fork and a cantrip. Most players are on a spectrum between the two extremes.
Neither approach is inherently wrong. However when you have the two opposite types of player in the party is that the MacGayver player thinks the RIFL stomper is being lazy and unimaginative. The ROFL stomper thinks the MacGayver is handicapping the party and selfishly hurting other people's fun.

Then there's me, who doesn't understand how system mastery and optimization became dirty words, or somehow antithetical to the MacGuyver character.

You can use understanding of the rules and how they work to build a MacGuyver character who is highly capable of MacGuyvering given the character build resources you have to work with.