Roleplaying question. Do characters in game know their "character sheet?"

[Mirage Wolf]

Good night, everyone.(it's 3 a.m here)

Recently, I was imagining an old cliche about modern humans get thrown into a fantasy world and wondered how would they survive with lower than commoner physical stats (my personal assumption) & restricted, low magic / high fantasy setting (so they wouldn't all go casty) & starting class as commoners.

Then, this notion brought up the question. If I roleplay as one of the modern humans in a fantasy world, how do I find my "character sheet with stats?" Do I go through some kind of physical tests & mental exams to gain the knowledge of my character stats?

Within a story, do characters know their stats and choose the most suited profession/class? If they have no knowledge of their character sheet, wouldn't there be int/wis/cha lower than 9 characters who wanted the power of magic and spent time training in caster classes despite their inability to cast from their chosen classes?

Not sure if this had been asked before, I've searched around internet but haven't found anything similar.

[Stereofm]

Most modern humans would be experts and definitely not commoners by medieval standards :)

I would say know : NO-ONE would really know their stats, though they would be able to guesstimate.

"Gee, Harvey, You're really not very good at log-throwing, you can't even lift it." :)

[Irontruth]

I say yes.

Because it's simple, instead of trying to create extremely artificial walls between character and player knowledge. It's only a game, not a scientific simulation, don't make it harder than it needs to be.

That said, it is possible to have a fun game where players start off not knowing anything about their characters, but it can be a lot of work and eventually the players are going to have a pretty good estimation of their stats and abilities anyways.

[Orthos]

I would say they know them in the same way you know your capabilities.

You wouldn't say "I have X STR", but you might be able to confidently say "I can bench-press Y pounds consistently for a while". A character could say "I'm intelligent and learned, skillful in a few subjects, but not personable", which in the end is essentially the same as saying "I'm high-INT, low-CHA, and have a decent number of skill points to spend in several skills".

[Zerombr]

all I have to say is that as long as the players aren't playing themselves, it could be fun. You do NOT want to argue stats with someone.

[Corathon]

I agree that many would be experts, not commoners.

As for knowing your stats, do you suppose that you know your own? Of course you wouldn't know exactly but you'd have an idea. Some people would over- or underestimate their stats.

[Delvarian]

Also take into account that a lvl 1 fighter didnt just pick up a sword yesterday, they have been trained with that sword for some time. The same goes for a mage, they have spent years in study before being classified as a lvl 1 character. This is why their stats are what they are, they have changed due to training (at least as I see it). So a mage has been taught to use his mind (int) and a fighter has been taught to use his sword arm (Str). Just as going to school helps people become smarter and joining the army helps one become more fit.
As far as people knowing their own stats, this is very doubtful, though they should know what they are good at, and their skillset. (Though not exact numbers)

[Atarlost]

Strength is quantifiable. You know how much you can comfortably carry.
Dexterity is less so, but you probably have a pretty good idea.
Con may be quantifiable, but determining it experimentally involves bleeding to death. You can probably guess if you do lots of fighting though. Favored class and toughness are going to put some pretty big error bars on it.
Int is also quantifiable. You know how many languages you speak. Unless you're an American. Americans don't get bonus languages from intelligence because we have the xenophobic language option.
Wis is not really quantifiable. The less wise you are the more likely you are to overestimate your wisdom.
Cha is also not really quantifiable.

Except if you're a caster your casting stat is quantifiable. You know how many spells you can memorize or how many spell slots you have. That may only put a floor on the ability, but as you level up you get a better estimate.

Paladins and Clerics also know how many channels or lay on hands they have per day so can quantify their charisma independently of measuring spell slots.

[bodhranist]

There are other ways to get info to guess about Con score. Fort saves versus fatigue from forced marches and/or inclement weather is one that a lot of people would know about themselves, affected by class, but you'd know if you were the kind of person who'd spent a lot of time outdoors or holding vigils (fighter & cleric types) and were therefore better at endurance than those spending lots of time indoors / in urban environments (rogue and mage types).

[Harrison]

Mirage Wolf wrote:

Do I go through some kind of physical tests & mental exams to gain the knowledge of my character stats?

I don't think Golarion is progressed enough to have exams that would accurately put physical and metal capabilities into a measurable, numerical format. On top of that, Wisdom and Charisma are subjective at best; you can accurately put numbers to how smart someone is, as that's what an IQ test is, but how to you accurately quantify how wise someone is or how charismatic they are?

I would probably vote "No" to knowing what's on your character sheet (at least if you're trying to make this a serious, believable campaign; if you're being silly and tongue-in-cheek, by all means go for it), as far as actual numbers go, but you'd be completely free to make estimations like, "Conrad is built like an ox, but he's not the sharpest dagger" (High STR and CON, low INT) or "Diana is smart and strong and seems to be friends with everyone she meets" (Decently high INT, STR, and CHA). See what I mean?

[Rezelbethef]

Most modern people would be far from "experts" at anything during the middle ages. Most folks can't grow their own food, raise animals for food-let alone butcher one, sew, live off the land, chop wood, work with metal or wood, weave a basket, ride a horse, ect. Heck, most modern people are over weight, can't stand to be outside and are in horrible shape to do any physical labor. If anything, a modern person in the middle ages would die an unceremonious death in the gutter of whatever village he found himself.

[Orthos]

He meant the class Expert. As opposed to the class Commoner.

[Mirage Wolf]

Thanks for the comments. :)

Agree with the inability/difficulty to calculate wisdom and charisma from the characters' shoes. There don't seem to be a standard and seem abstract if being measured.

In real life, there are things that we invest time learning and sometimes there are little to no results(for example, I've trouble remembering Japanese alphabet after months of practicing, while my sister simply spent a few weeks and had them memorized). Therefore, I assumed in a fictional world, if characters have no knowledge of their (exact) mental stats, they might be in the same shoes, so would the modern human party members.

I was thinking in the way of a session being told as a story like a RPG novel with only me roleplaying each character rather than a session with friends, so there wouldn't be the players complaining over complex issue. (sorry if I don't explain it well, cannot seem to find the right words to phrase this)

[TriOmegaZero]

Characters know each others qualities without knowing the quantities thereof.

Joe the Farmer knows that to be a mighty wizard, a man must have 'book-learning'. He knows that most warriors he meets have mighty thews. He knows that the druid back in the woods is wise in the ways of the world. When he meets a paladin, he can feel the presence of good. And he can tell the difference between a stout fellow that can take a punch and one with a glass jaw.