|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
So I've seen a lot of threads suggesting that if you have a low stat then you should act a certain way, or that you are lacking in said stat in all ways without exception.
One example often cited is charisma. If you have a low charisma you are understandably not a people's person (even though you may be a people person), but does that mean you are ugly, unlikable, shy, off-putting, and a jerk all at the same time -- or could you not be one of those?
If you are lacking in wisdom could it be that you are simply unaware and not strong of will while still having a certain amount of 'folksy wisdom' to you that you simply learn from your grangran?
I would argue that by not allowing such expressions and by forcing people into a strict interpretation of what each stat means people are actually acting in a way that will lead to players being overly concerned with their stats and numbers and correspondingly less concerned with their overall character concept to the point of wanting new numbers for things (including substats) to help make the numbers match what they want their character to be more.
I would suggest that allowing the numbers to be more... fuzzy on what they represent without negating the mechanical penalties involved with them can help people look past the numbers and develop more in depth characters.
I would also suggest allowing characters to invest in improving the flaws with skills, traits and feats is a good thing that can help GMs show improvement is possible even if it comes at cost and helps bring a more realistic bent to the game as a whole.