role playing a wisdom of 4

[Casey]

I recently rolled up a human thief with a staggeringly low wisdom of 4.

After thinking about it, I'm still at a loss as to how to play this guy. I understand people lacking will power, prudence, and forethought, but this seems ridiculous. I'm thinking that a wisdom of 4 might be indicative of some serious clinical disorder .

I can't imagine that this fellow will survive long, but I'm gonna try to play him correctly till he's dead, jailed, or forced into a career ending marriage .

Anybody have any specific tips/advice on role playing this character correctly.

Casey

[Scott]

Be gullible, short-sighted, indecisive, tantrum-prone, impulsive, etc. Make lots of bad decisions.
Scott

[GRWelsh]

Go off on your own a lot. Do and say nonsensical things. When the party is trying to do one thing, suddenly decide to do something on your own. Get angry at inappropriate times, and show no anger when you actually should. In general, be a liability to the group you are with.

[Casey]

All good stuff, guys. Tomorrow evening, I play Gabriel (the fool in question) in Against the Cult of the Reptile God.

With your suggestions, here are some preplanned ideas that should get the ball rolling:

1. If we meet any high ranking clergy persons of the opposite sex, Gabriel will goose them (just to be friendly...).

2. He’ll forget to take most of his adventuring equipment to the reptile god’s layer (all that stuff is just too heavy to lug around). Whenever he needs something, he’ll whine or throw a fit until one of the other party members shares rations, water, weapons, etc.

3. I think that I’ll have him hold going to the restroom until we get inside a dungeon complex. After an hour or two, he’ll alert the rest of the party that he has to “go real bad.” If the party tries to get him to hold it, he’ll carry on loudly. If he gets really upset, maybe he'll soil himself in defiance. Otherwise, he’ll wander off alone looking for some privacy...

4. Lastly, if the opportunity presents itself, perhaps he’ll join the reptile cult (if they’ll take him).

Casey

[dcas]

I see -- you're playing him as immature. Not exactly how I would do it, but not bad, either.

[Axe Mental]

Well, I had a fellow player with a 4 wisdom in real life, This guy was a regular player, and if you new him and could emulate his ill choices, you could play a 4 wisdom without any trouble. However, it wouldn't be easy. I guess its like George on Sienfeld just do the opposite thing you would normaly do (which he did on one of the episodes).

[foster1941]

I'm such a non-roleplayer that I would play this character the same as any other character. As far as I'm concerned the character's lack of wisdom is already adequately reflected in his stat penalties (saving throw penalty, limited class choices) and there's no need for me as a player to further cripple him by deliberately making what I recognize to be bad choices or doing stupid things. Perhaps for some players the idea of 'exploring the role' in such a way is more enjoyable or entertaining than actually solving problems and achieving success in the game, but not for me. The only thing I'm interested in is the Game -- the set of tactical and strategic challenges and how I, as a player, deal with and overcome them to achieve success -- and straitjacketing my options for the sake of 'roleplaying' or 'character verisimilitude' gets in the way of my enjoyment.

It's the flip-side of the old "Intelligence check" (or Charisma check) debate -- if I, as a player, am not smart enough or charismatic enough to live up to my character's stats, I don't ask for a die-roll "check" to let my character achieve what I as a player can't, I just live with it and accept it as part of the game (and try to improve my performance level next time). Likewise, I don't want to be forced to underachieve -- to know the correct course of action, solution to a problem, etc., but not be allowed to act on it because my character's too dumb. That's not an enjoyable game to me, that's some kind of bullshitty improvisational theater.

Why bother to have stats at all then, if I'm just going to ignore them and play the character the same way anyway? Because they all have tangible in-game effects -- intelligence determines how many languages the character can learn, and his performance as a magic-user, wisdom affects saving throws and the character's performance as a cleric, charisma affects reaction rolls and followers' loyalty. If my character's dumb he can't be a magic-user (or at least not a very good one) and he can't learn extra languages. That's penalty enough. I see no reason why I should also be forced to compromise my own enjoyment of the game (i.e. ability to solve problems and overcome challenges) on top of that.

But that's just me...

[Scott]

Since some players will be playing characters with stats above their real life capabilities, and some will be playing characters with abilities below their own, it balances out to some extent. As a DM, I don't mind if the player with the dumbest PC figures everything out. If the party, as a whole, is debating some riddle, and the dunce figures it out, no problem, it's just the 'party' solving the problem. I do enjoy it though when a player role plays his PC based on his stats. If a player is speaking in character with a PC that has a low Wis, and he acts like it, it doesn't really affect the outcome of the adventure, it just adds flavor to the game.
The method I use to generate stats in my campaign ensures that no PC will start with a stat below 8 though, so the big handicaps aren't usually an issue.
Scott

[foster1941]

Scott said:

I do enjoy it though when a player role plays his PC based on his stats. If a player is speaking in character with a PC that has a low Wis, and he acts like it, it doesn't really affect the outcome of the adventure, it just adds flavor to the game.

I'm not anywhere near as hardline in real life as I am in my 'essay-style' messageboard posts, and of course I totally agree with this -- in 'incidental' roleplay situations of course characters should act in a manner appropriate to their stats (and race and class and alignment), but I also consider that sort of activity (hanging around town bartering with merchants, chatting up folks at the tavern, etc.) a sideshow/distraction to the real meat of the game, which is the life & death struggles (combat, problem-solving, high-stakes negotiation) that occur in the dungeon, and that's where I think players' abilities shouldn't be shackled to their characters' stats. I was really responding to Casey's planned actions described above, which sounds to me like he wants to deliberately "throw" the adventure for the sake of character verisimilitude -- I wouldn't find this fun if I were playing this character, and I really wouldn't find it fun if I were another player in the same party with someone who was doing this.

The way I see it, there is (or at least should be) a big difference between the way PCs are played and the way NPCs are played. PCs are extensions of the players and their actions are dictated by the player, whereas NPCs are extensions of the setting and their actions are dicatetd by the 'story' and the character description -- the DM doesn't identify with NPCs in the same way that players do with PCs. IMO too many players (especially post-Dragonlance, though I'm sure that was just the culmination of an already-existing trend) tend to play their PCs as if they were NPCs -- "interpreting" a pre-existing persona rather than creating and becoming a character that is, in some sense, an extension of yourself. This lack of personal identification between players and their characters changes the dynamic of the game -- the stakes are lowered, and it becomes less about overcoming challenges and more about playacting or storytelling, which, for me at least, isn't nearly as fun or appealing.

EDITED TO ADD: Can you tell that it's a really slow day at work and I've got way too much free time on my hands?

[Casey]

I definitely enjoy a certain amount of shitty amateur theatrics ;D, but I also love the strategic problem solving aspects of the game. It is at least as important to me as character development.

In the interest of the other players' enjoyment, I believe I'll tuck it in a bit. Like you and Scotty suggest, I'll let Gabriel's utter foolishness come across in incidental situations where the success of the metagame won't be compromised by purposful stupiditity.

For me, extensive (or even minimal) character development doesn't lower the stakes. I've always felt that the stakes went up when I have been able to develop a pc with some depth. The more real my character becomes, the more frightening it is to face death as that character. On the other hand, when I have a pc who only seems like a sheet of stats and an equimpment list, death loses some of its sting.

Casey

[foster1941]

I think you've hit on a good balance -- develop the character in as much depth as you can, and play the role to the hilt, but try to do so in ways the won't negatively impact the 'metagame' -- when the chips are down the character's personality and behavior shouldn't prevent him from also being a fully competent and productive member of the party. Personality quirks and tics that give the character more depth and individual identity are great. Personality quirks and tics that interfere with the 'metagame' (things like deciding it'll be fun to individualize your character by making him severely claustrophobic, or giving him Tourette's syndrome, or something) are not great, unless everybody's on the same page and you've agreed beforehand that the tone of the game is going to favor 'character development' over overcoming challenges and other traditionally 'gamist' goals.