Owner - Sugar & Dice
|
All opinion here: I think most good players will use them as guidelines to inform role play. I've often encountered players who will break into charming and convincing speeches despite their 5 Charisma though. In that case I'll ask them to roll the appropriate skill (Diplomacy, bluff, etc) and let the attribute regulate for me.
Just because a person is ugly as sin doesn't mean they can't be convincing, it just means people may not be predisposed to listen them and that's what the dice roll/penalties signify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of the mind that roleplaying means everything not an express part of the rules.
The effects of having a low Wisdom score are rules, whether or not your character can take a hint in conversation, or is constantly forgetting minor details, is roleplaying.
The effects of having a low Strength score are rules, the crippling injury that your character had as a child that led to his low Strength and fear of metalworking equipment are roleplaying.
They're intended as roleplaying guidelines and as mechanical rules.
However, the former is problematic. A lot of people, I have noticed, don't even read their write-ups; I've seen examples of it even on this site. So you get insane things like fighters not being able to make tactical decisions because of low intelligence scores.
|
They're intended as roleplaying guidelines and as mechanical rules.
However, the former is problematic. A lot of people, I have noticed, don't even read their write-ups; I've seen examples of it even on this site. So you get insane things like fighters not being able to make tactical decisions because of low intelligence scores.
Elaborate please.
Just go here, scroll down to the part where it talks about what each ability is, and read the first sentence for each ability.
|
|
Just go here, scroll down to the part where it talks about what each ability is, and read the first sentence for each ability.
Yes. I'm aware of what the ability score discriptions say. What I dont understand is what point your trying to make.
Let me tell you how I understand/interpret the discriptions.
Physical ability scores are 98% game mechanic with 2% roleplay, maybe used for character discriptions.
Mental ability score on the hand had are 50/50 game mechanics and roleplay component.
Lets use Int as an example sinces it only has 2 discriptive components.
Learning is pure game mechanic, skill points, skills, and languages.
Reasoning is pure roleplay.
But I believe your actual ability score should be used when roleplaying your character.
I do understand that its really hard to roleplay high ability scores, thats where the GM and other players come in and help.
Low ability scores are easier to portray.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jacob, your interpretation is pretty much what I was trying to say, for the most part. That they have roleplay mechanics and should dictate roleplay, but are mostly mechanical.
The problematic part is because of the fact the roleplaying aspect is often a sentence or less, vague, and people often have their own ideas of what such scores mean instead of looking at the game definition.
|
|
Jacob, your interpretation is pretty much what I was trying to say, for the most part. That they have roleplay mechanics and should dictate roleplay, but are mostly mechanical.
The problematic part is because of the fact the roleplaying aspect is often a sentence or less, vague, and people often have their own ideas of what such scores mean instead of looking at the game definition.
I agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I got sick of the other thread and lost interest in discussing the issue. I felt that the "pro role playing" side, who may or may not have been composed of the same members as the "7 int is evil dirty meta gaming" side, were not receiving a fair hearing. I was actually shocked at how vicious some of the posters got, and it's made me reconsider my opinion of general message board behavior.
Anyway, I find myself reluctant to stick my hand down the same hole after seeing a couple folks withdraw bleeding stumps.
EDIT: FWIW, I agree with you, Jacob.
|
|
I got sick of the other thread and lost interest in discussing the issue. I felt that the "pro role playing" side, who may or may not have been composed of the same members as the "7 int is evil dirty meta gaming" side, were not receiving a fair hearing. I was actually shocked at how vicious some of the posters got, and it's made me reconsider my opinion of general message board behavior.
Anyway, I find myself reluctant to stick my hand down the same hole after seeing a couple folks withdraw bleeding stumps.
EDIT: FWIW, I agree with you, Jacob.
I understand your postion and thanks for the post.
In RPG games what are Ability Scores (attirbutes, stats, etc) used for in the game system. Do they onlt game mechanic function or are they supposed to be used for rolepkaying as well?
They're supposed to be used for RP as well. A GM should always strive to not have to reject a player's character concept, but if it involves "intelligent" characters with a 5 Intelligence score, they must reject it otherwise the scores become meaningless RP wise.
I think those that disagree, that think that the stats only affect mechanics and otherwise the player is free to RP their character regardless of their stats are missing an important aspect of what role-playing is. It basically becomes an attempt to nullify a poor stat. I mean, how often does a player want to play a really unintelligent character when they have an 18 Intelligence?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been enjoying quite a bit my transformation from consummate wizard to evolutionist summoner. I'm no longer the smart guy with all the knowledge skills. I'm the 'fun' guy or the 'likable guy' or whatever...
I started out really frustrated because the gestalt alchemist/thief was burying me in every skillcheck under the sun... then it dawned on me... he's a skillmonkey... thats his role... I'm not a wizard anymore... I've got an int of 10... I'm not the 'go-to-guy' to ask about what a monster's abilities and weaknesses are anymore...
I've started delighting in being sort of the David Tennant Doctor Who all of a sudden. I'm likeable, whimsical and when you ask me a question I can wildly grinningly madly look back at you and say "I have no idea!"
Allons-y!
GM should just be glad I dont make my eidolon look like a tardis.
|
The real friction is not between those who don't RP their low ability scores and those who think they should.
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
Well, are there any guidelines on what is appropriate or not appropriate for role-playing stats? Generally, this is going to be a group decision. In my group, you can't RP a 5 Strength bodybuilder, or a 5 Intelligence genius, or a 5 Charisma Adonis. If you tried to do so then you would be in fact playing those scores wrong.
|
|
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!Well, are there any guidelines on what is appropriate or not appropriate for role-playing stats? Generally, this is going to be a group decision. In my group, you can't RP a 5 Strength bodybuilder, or a 5 Intelligence genius, or a 5 Charisma Adonis. If you tried to do so then you would be in fact playing those scores wrong.
There are ways to play the scores wrong, agreed.
But there are many ways to play them right. The friction comes when two people both think of a 'right' way, but because those two ways differ then each think the other is playing it 'wrong'.
Int 7, Wis 7, Cha 20. What would this person be like?
I could set this question to 20 different people. Each person a committed role-player with a strong belief in the importance of playing ability scores correctly. Each would be told the characters traits, feats, skills, class, nationality, etc.
Would we get the same answer 20 times? Of course not! There would be 20 different answers; 20 different personalities.
So take any one of these 'right' answers and get that person to play that character. This answer was along the lines of a good-hearted, 'dumb-blonde', mercurial type. Wouldn't know that France is a country and thinks that custard is made from banana skins, but heads turn when she walks by. Her face is so expressive that not only do observers know what mood she's in but they also start to feel the same way she feels, just by being around her.
Then the DM says that, no, you can't have a normal conversation because you are the most stupid person who ever lived because the minimum NPC stat in the array is an 8.
Or he says that you have to make a DC 10 Int check to drink a potion, a rule he made up just for you.
Or he says that, no, Int 7 Wis 7 Cha 20 people aren't like that, they are like this (pulls out his own version) and says that you are playing your character wrong, that you are a filthy min-maxer, and that he'll make you regret taking those low scores.
And then the next night takes his own version to a different game and wonders why his perfectly imagined character is being picked on.
Then the DM says that, no, you can't have a normal conversation because you are the most stupid person who ever lived because the minimum NPC stat in the array is an 8.
Or he says that you have to make a DC 10 Int check to drink a potion, a rule he made up just for you.
I think we basically agree here. The above are great examples of poor GMing.
It all depends on what side of the table you're more often on as to what you're more often going to notice. Being the GM virtually all of the time for my group, I far more often see players trying to minimize their negative stats rather than an overbearing GM trying to enforce rigid role-playing.
As the GM I try never to tell a player "your character wouldn't do that." At the same time, if a character with a 5 Intelligence is coming up with great combat strategies and solving difficult puzzles, then I would remind them that their character is far less intelligent than they are in real life.
|
|
"Your character wouldn't do that." is, from a players point of view, one of the worst things a DM can ever say to you. Your character is the only thing you have as a player, and having your control usurped defeats the whole point of why you play.
The only possible exception is as part of teaching a new player the game.
When I was 14 I DMed my brother and a couple of his 12 year old mates in their first ever role-playing (AD&D 1st ed). One of the players wanted to play a paladin, so I explained about paladins and what they do and don't do.
When he announced that he'd kill the helpless prisoner after it had been given assurances by the paladin that it wouldn't be killed, I reminded him of our conversation re: paladins.
"Okay, I accidentally fall on 'im wi' me axe."
As the GM I try never to tell a player "your character wouldn't do that." At the same time, if a character with a 5 Intelligence is coming up with great combat strategies and solving difficult puzzles, then I would remind them that their character is far less intelligent than they are in real life.
When I feel that a player is exceeding what their character is capable of (be it skillwise, attribute or whatever) I usually open with "Let me see your sheet for a second." Almost always they retract what they were doing or change their mind.
It's hard for many players to remember who they are playing and what their capabilities are, especially if you play in many games. You forget that you are playing Bobo the Barbarian who has trouble with strategy beyond "Hit it until it dies" and not Sir Allyn the knight who has studied battle tactics of every great war since time began.
That isn't to say an Intelligence 5 guy cannot have a stroke of genius or a Strength 4 guy cannot have a miraculous surge of strength and lift the cart. But it shouldn't be an all the time thing.
|
|
On this point I have a question to pose. I had a hard with int of 20 and my go gave a riddle. I'm smart but not 20 int smart. He insisted that I the player had to figure it out with no help.
Thoughts?
VERY few players are as smart as characters can get. What others have said and what my group does is use all the players to represent a very high int character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
VERY few players are as smart as characters can get. What others have said and what my group does is use all the players to represent a very high int character.On this point I have a question to pose. I had a hard with int of 20 and my go gave a riddle. I'm smart but not 20 int smart. He insisted that I the player had to figure it out with no help.
Thoughts?
Indeed. Crowdsourcing the answer is popular, as well as giving the player some reference point or clues that the character might know that the player wouldn't. Expecting you to do particle physics because your character is super smart is on par with requiring you to pick up a car because your character is very strong.
When I feel that a player is exceeding what their character is capable of (be it skillwise, attribute or whatever) I usually open with "Let me see your sheet for a second." Almost always they retract what they were doing or change their mind.
I find a raised eyebrow has close to the same affect.
On this point I have a question to pose. I had a hard with int of 20 and my go gave a riddle. I'm smart but not 20 int smart. He insisted that I the player had to figure it out with no help.
"Hey Mr. GM, my character is really smart, would he get any clues to this puzzle?"
As a GM, I like players to try to solve puzzles themselves before I start dropping clues, but if they are unable to, I give intelligence checks for clues. Smart character of course get a bonus to that.
|
|
As a GM, I like players to try to solve puzzles themselves before I start dropping clues, but if they are unable to, I give intelligence checks for clues. Smart character of course get a bonus to that.
What bonus? Their Int bonus?
By definition, an Int check is a d20 modified by Int modifier. This means that smart creatures get a bonus and thick creature get a penalty. That's the whole point. Is this what you mean by 'smart characters get a bonus to Int checks'?
Or is there an extra bonus from somewhere for smart characters? Where does this bonus come from?
What bonus? Their Int bonus?
Yes. Poorly worded - I should have said Intelligent characters will be more likely to get clues due to their higher Intelligence modifier.
|
|
Fair enough. : )
They say it's hard to play a higher Int (or Wis or Cha) than your own, but easy to dumb down for lower scores.
Weirdly, I'm playing a very charismatic hero in the Marvel Heroic RP game, and I actually find myself being more charismatic when I play him. It's a blast!
I've actually started 'channelling' him in real life. It works too!
On this point I have a question to pose. I had a hard with int of 20 and my go gave a riddle. I'm smart but not 20 int smart. He insisted that I the player had to figure it out with no help.
Thoughts?
Personally what I tend to do here is give the players the riddle to solve, and then make some int rolls to see if I give out any hints, or to partially complete visual puzzles for them.
|
|
On this point I have a question to pose. I had a hard with int of 20 and my go gave a riddle. I'm smart but not 20 int smart. He insisted that I the player had to figure it out with no help.
Thoughts?
Personally I've never encountered a GM like this. I'm sorry you've had to deal with one. Are you still part of the group this guy GMs for?
It's sort of easy to roll play a dumb character. But man...high charisma? I am a introvert in nature and if I was statted in real life I would not have that value very high. I would much rather roll a check than be made to actually plan and give a inspirational speech on the fly, even to my friends. Cause it's definitely not going to come out as anything but awkward.
|
|
It's sort of easy to roll play a dumb character. But man...high charisma? I am a introvert in nature and if I was statted in real life I would not have that value very high. I would much rather roll a check than be made to actually plan and give a inspirational speech on the fly, even to my friends. Cause it's definitely not going to come out as anything but awkward.
I hear ya on that. I'm more a shy quiet type myself when I have to interact socially, especially with girls of the female persuasion.
|
|
The real friction is not between those who don't RP their low ability scores and those who think they should.
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
Can you give a couple examples of a player RPing their characters low ability score and someone saying thats the wrong way to play it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sort of easy to roll play a dumb character. But man...high charisma? I am a introvert in nature and if I was statted in real life I would not have that value very high. I would much rather roll a check than be made to actually plan and give a inspirational speech on the fly, even to my friends. Cause it's definitely not going to come out as anything but awkward.
Yeah, for things like this I tend to go for a "player picks the approach, mechanics decide the content" approach.
For things that are more of a negotiation-type thing, like putting together a treaty between nations, I'll want the players to say what they're putting on the table in the treaty. "We want a treaty" isn't enough, they need to go into some of the specifics, but they don't need to do the entire negotiation with fine details (although I'm perfectly happy doing that if they are, of course), just "we're looking to trade grain for weapons" or something.
Persuading the King to release their friend... that one's more of a RP discussion. No straight negotiation rolling here, they have to say *why* their friend should go free (or what they're offering in exchange), but the dice can still decide how well their offer is taken (unless I already have it in mind whether the King is likely to accept that offer without needing to bring dice and rules into it, of course)
For that inspirational speech, I'd want to know how it's being phrased, but I wouldn't require a player to give the actual speech itself unless they were comfortable with it. So I'd want to hear something like "I'm giving a speech reminding them that they're fighting this war to keep their families safe", not just "they're giving a motivational speech", as the overall tone/content matters to me in deciding things such as difficulty modifiers.
|
|
Can you give a couple examples of a player RPing their characters low ability score and someone saying thats the wrong way to play it?The real friction is not between those who don't RP their low ability scores and those who think they should.
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
Okay.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
So what Cha score would you give a really good-looking person who has a rotten personality, zero personal magnetism and couldn't lead anyone out of a paper bag? Say...seven?
So I have a hero with a seven Cha, and describe him as above. Then at a crucial moment (after playing this character for six levels) the DM says that I get randomly attacked because I am so ugly. When I point out that I'm actually good looking and my Cha is low because of these other weaknesses he says that, no, with a Cha of 7 I must be ugly so that's that.
Right now I'm playing an Int5 paladin with Fey Heritage. My story is that he sometimes sees things in the fey realm while on the prime material, and he can't always tell what is real and what isn't, leading him to ignore some real things while staring at something that isn't there. He lacks the concentration he needs to learn 'book learning', and even wears cold iron spiked gauntlets because the pain keeps him focussed.
My DM is on board with all this. But another DM could easily ignore all that and say my paladin is too stupid to flank and must make an Int check to know what a dog is or how to drink a potion.
|
|
Can you give a couple examples of a player RPing their characters low ability score and someone saying thats the wrong way to play it?The real friction is not between those who don't RP their low ability scores and those who think they should.
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
Okay.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.So what Cha score would you give a really good-looking person who has a rotten personality, zero personal magnetism and couldn't lead anyone out of a paper bag? Say...seven?
So I have a hero with a seven Cha, and describe him as above. Then at a crucial moment (after playing this character for six levels) the DM says that I get randomly attacked because I am so ugly. When I point out that I'm actually good looking and my Cha is low because of these other weaknesses he says that, no, with a Cha of 7 I must be ugly so that's that.
Right now I'm playing an Int5 paladin with Fey Heritage. My story is that he sometimes sees things in the fey realm while on the prime material, and he can't always tell what is real and what isn't, leading him to ignore some real things while staring at something that isn't there. He lacks the concentration he needs to learn 'book learning', and even wears cold iron spiked gauntlets because the pain keeps him focussed.
My DM is on board with all this. But another DM could easily ignore all that and say my paladin is too stupid to flank and must make an Int check to know what a dog is or how to drink a potion.
Very few people, and no one so far on this threa, has said that a 7 int couldnt use common tactic or know how to use a potion though it probably will take him a min to remember what is IN the potion vial.
I think both of the ways you've play your low ability characters were well thought out and I would have no problem with them because you took the time and effert to explain and roleplay your low score.
I have a problem with players who just say that my character pre-plans elaborate battle tactics and can direct armies because he's an 'instinctual general' so he ignores his 7 int. To me this is ignoring a low ability score not RPing it.
I have a problem with players who just say that my character pre-plans elaborate battle tactics and can direct armies because he's an 'instinctual general' so he ignores his 7 int. To me this is ignoring a low ability score not RPing it.
General Custer was actually a highly intelligent person who used an intelligence-based series of tactics based on the best information he had.
For those with low intelligence? The Mongols are probably a pretty good example of how low intelligence can combine with high wisdom to produce an unstoppable army. It's really hard to narrow it down to any specific leader; it seems they pretty much has this as their hat for a few centuries.
The real friction is not between those who don't RP their low ability scores and those who think they should.
It is between those who have decided to play their low scores a certain way and those who think that, because they would have played those scores a different way, conclude that the other people are playing those scores wrong!
As far as I can tell, this is simply not true. Unless you consider 'not to play a low score at all' to be just another, different, way of playing it
"Your character wouldn't do that." is, from a players point of view, one of the worst things a DM can ever say to you. Your character is the only thing you have as a player, and having your control usurped defeats the whole point of why you play.
The only possible exception is as part of teaching a new player the game.
When I was 14 I DMed my brother and a couple of his 12 year old mates in their first ever role-playing (AD&D 1st ed). One of the players wanted to play a paladin, so I explained about paladins and what they do and don't do.
When he announced that he'd kill the helpless prisoner after it had been given assurances by the paladin that it wouldn't be killed, I reminded him of our conversation re: paladins.
"Okay, I accidentally fall on 'im wi' me axe."
The problem is that I have this conversation on a regular basis with a gamer of something like fifteen years experience.
At what point does that person stop being "a new player"?
|
What about the over correcting role play individual? You know the type that really wants to min/max but knows dumping is frowned upon at their table. It will be ok though, because they will make up for it by role playing the low score. So then they take every single opportunity to point out how clumsy/dumb/annoying their character is because of a low score. I mean every single opportunity possible. Eventually, the other players and GM avoid situations in game to get a moment of peace from the over correcting role player.
To be honest I have never seen the player who wants to be a 4 star general with a 7 INT. I have seen over and over the guy with a 7 making it painfully obvious he has a 7 in a particular stat that the 4 star pretender would be a breath of fresh air.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the over correcting role play individual?
I've never seen this type in play, but I can't imagine that it would be handled any differently than the player who wants to role-play something that the other players find objectionable. The fake accent that's amusing for the first ten minutes of the session and then annoying as all get out, for example.
I suspect that a word to the wise is sufficient to this type. "Hey, you can tone down the mannerisms...."
|
|
"Your character wouldn't do that." is, from a players point of view, one of the worst things a DM can ever say to you. Your character is the only thing you have as a player, and having your control usurped defeats the whole point of why you play.
The only possible exception is as part of teaching a new player the game.
When I was 14 I DMed my brother and a couple of his 12 year old mates in their first ever role-playing (AD&D 1st ed). One of the players wanted to play a paladin, so I explained about paladins and what they do and don't do.
When he announced that he'd kill the helpless prisoner after it had been given assurances by the paladin that it wouldn't be killed, I reminded him of our conversation re: paladins.
"Okay, I accidentally fall on 'im wi' me axe."
The problem is that I have this conversation on a regular basis with a gamer of something like fifteen years experience.
At what point does that person stop being "a new player"?
It's a judgement call....but fifteen years?
If they know-or should know-the score, then let the chips fall where they may. In the above example, I'd not intervene; let the paladin commit murder...and look forward to seeing the player's face the next time he tries to use paladin powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those with low intelligence? The Mongols are probably a pretty good example of how low intelligence can combine with high wisdom to produce an unstoppable army. It's really hard to narrow it down to any specific leader; it seems they pretty much has this as their hat for a few centuries.
The fact is that if you look for any possible example of an impressive person overcoming limitations and use that as justification for a PC, then you end up with special snowflake syndrome.
I'm not suggesting that a 5 Intelligence must be a person that drools and can't understand how to pick up a weapon, etc. But if you somehow spin a 5 Intelligence into an average stat, or even worse, a positive, then that's special snowflake syndrome and incredibly lame.
Its like when during a job interview the recruiter asks you what your weakness is, and you respond "I care too much." Blech. Give me a break.
For those with low intelligence? The Mongols are probably a pretty good example of how low intelligence can combine with high wisdom to produce an unstoppable army. It's really hard to narrow it down to any specific leader; it seems they pretty much has this as their hat for a few centuries.The fact is that if you look for any possible example of an impressive person overcoming limitations and use that as justification for a PC, then you end up with special snowflake syndrome.
I'm not suggesting that a 5 Intelligence must be a person that drools and can't understand how to pick up a weapon, etc. But if you somehow spin a 5 Intelligence into an average stat, or even worse, a positive, then that's special snowflake syndrome and incredibly lame.
Its like when during a job interview the recruiter asks you what your weakness is, and you respond "I care too much." Blech. Give me a break.
Eh. I'm not saying that people should find ways around a low intelligence being a bad stat. In fact, I am currently playing a character with a low charisma skill. She comes across as being insane. Very intelligent, pretty good wisdom, nuttier than a squirrel's buffet table. How much of that is her acting insane and how much of it is her actually being insane is something even I don't know.
I'm just saying that you have to be careful of what you define each attribute as applying to. And showing that tactics might not have anything to do with intelligence. Just ask Custer how using Intelligence for your tactics works out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stats are just that... game modifiers.
If you want to play the charming hero but didn't put points into Cha, then who cares? In the end you will probably fail more frequently than you succeed because your modifier is lower than it should be, but isn't that part of the fun? And to be honest the d20 toss has a FAR greater impact on your success in charming others than the handful fewer bonus points you have vs the person with a good score.
Also I do not see GMs forcing their players to act charming when they have a high stat, so isn't it hypocrisy to demand the low Cha person be anti-social? When a GM forces this they anger the role players (who already have an interesting concept in mind) and the optimizers (who would rather not role play much anyway let alone be told they have to act stupidly). And by driving BOTH the role players AND optimizers away from your game soon you won't have a game anyone but the desperate are willing to play.
And my last point, real humans don't have stats like these. And since role play comes from real people why force people to play a certain way?
By all means I would encourage a player to look at their stats and derive inspiration on a personality from them but by no means does that make it ok for a GM to use this as a excuse to use stats as a straight jacket on role playing.
Some of the funnest role play has come from people who ignore their stats and embrace their concept first. Look at Caramon (who had an ok Int but was played pretty dense) and Raistlin (who had an ok Con but had great mileage from playing up the whole sickly mage thing. Or to use my own table Mr Tactical who made a silver tongued devil character with a low Cha... sure he struck out a LOT and it was funny when he did, but sometimes he won the heart of the damsel anyway. The game would be worse off without any of these great role players.
|
|
Stats are just that... game modifiers.
Also I do not see GMs forcing their players to act charming when they have a high stat, so isn't it hypocrisy to demand the low Cha person be anti-social? When a GM forces this they anger the role players (who already have an interesting concept in mind) and the optimizers (who would rather not role play much anyway let alone be told they have to act stupidly). And by driving BOTH the role players AND optimizers away from your game soon you won't have a game anyone but the desperate are willing to play
By all means I would encourage a player to look at their stats and derive inspiration on a personality from them but by no means does that make it ok for a GM to use this as a excuse to use stats as a straight jacket on role playing.
The way this reads to me is that your stating a fact, when really its just your opinion.