You're simplifying and making assumptions. I'm saying the dichotomy doesn't need to be there at all. I and everyone here have the self-control to choose between roleplaying and metagaming. What I think we're arguing is that the dichotomy doesn't need to be there in the first place, and only functions to draw a rift between two play styles that can coexist harmoniously.
Actually I expanded the topic of conversation to delve into the motivations of the players making these selfish requests; I didn't simplify it one bit. You want to eliminate an option that adds textured detail to the personalities of the characters. If anything you're fabricating that rift because you won't set aside your mindset: You want to have your cake and eat it too. There doesn't need to be a rift if you simply make a choice to not be concerned about the numerical effects your roleplay has. You simply have to treat it as natural aptitudes your character has that are untrained. There's no dichotomy unless you are convinced that every numerical bonus your character has must be hand selected by you and must be specifically tailored to the strengths/weaknesses you decide for your character. What is more rigid than believing things must be removed because they don't fit your plan?
This isn't an either/or situation. The world isn't divided into people who commit to roleplaying or people who commit to metagaming. There are degrees, and for some people (including, seemingly, half the people who have commented on this thread) somewhat arbitrary stat bonuses have the potential of restricting roleplaying freedom. Expecting people to commit to one or the other is silly/
Roleplaying is really a 100% committment. You pick a character and you try to act as if that character would. If you are sophisticated enough of a thinker to believe that you can metagame without sacrificing your roleplaying committment than the presence of a minor temptation shouldn't be able to sway your judgement; it's simply white noise in the overall character build.
This is also where you have an enormous logical fallacy in your statements. "have the potential of restricting roleplaying freedom." There is no such thing. It's a choice you make to FEEL restricted based on the -existence- of those stat bonuses. It doesn't actually restrict your roleplay because you are not actually penalized for roleplaying the way you want to. It's simply that individuals of specific temperment/personality have different aptitudes. A pragmatic person is more logically inclined while a romantic operates according to the whims of chance. You have complete roleplaying freedom. It's only your mindset that is restricting you: a mental stubbornness to accept that your character you chose might not be as perfect as you wanted. Logically what you really want is for the developer to remove temptation. The only fundamental difference between having the trait bonuses and not is that without them you wouldn't have to think about them? If you were truly interested in roleplay you would enjoy the fact that personalities had hidden later affects on how your character developed; these are called hobbies and talents. If anything they should be more random and everyone should have two different abilities/attributes associated with each personality type chosen from a list of possibilities when each is unlocked. More abstraction is better than less.
All your statements tell me is that you and others cannot resist temptation to follow the way you want to play. It tells me you'll likely reload a result to get a more desired outcome given something unanticipated that doesn't provide you with the outcome you wanted.. You want everything to be exactly as you want it and anything that provides a 'nagging worry of imperfection' you want gone so you don't have to think about it. You are outcome oriented and not process oriented in thinking...which is inherently not what roleplay is about.
You could just make the conscious decision to -not worry about it-.
I speak from experience as someone that has played many of these games in the fashion you're trying to...and learned it's far better to just construct a character -idea- and let the game inform his development.
That remains to be seen, doesn't it? Only a small section of the game is currently available, so I'd argue it's not outside the possibility that these stat bonuses can amount to a huge advantage late game. If they ultimately are inconsequential then I suspect most players won't mind one way or another.
No they are definitively inconsequential because they are far outstripped by the bonuses that can be acquired on gear or even just eating a high level food + diner talent. If the difference between survival and defeat in a given encounter is affected by 1% overall power differential in your character then as I stated before: You have a flawed tactical understanding of the game.
Your argument is based on a possibility you want to exist so you don't have to worry about it. Anyone with any level of theorycrafting experience in games (You know...the people that actually min-max the shit out of things...like me?) would not be claiming these tiny bonuses are going to make or break a fight. This is how I know you're just having trouble resisting temptation; your arguments are not logically sound and informed from a selfish place.
Temptation is there for a reason. It gives you two options to play. You can sacrifice your interest in roleplay to try and min-max that extra %...or you can play the way you want to and enjoy potential minor benefits that help to further define and contextualize the way that specific character fits within the world. It's a way to add the reality of random unplanned potential into an abstracted RPG experience and I hope there are more unplanned permanent bonuses in the game for specific decisions. That's the true joy of roleplaying: Unexpected strengths/weaknesses as you have new experiences.
