Hey,
At our table one of our players who is at odds with brainy stuff wants to play this time as the Int 18 Wiz.
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
P.S: A similar scenario would be for the reckless, charging player who plays a wise character full of common sense.
I generally fill the role of GM at my games. I personally feel it is up to the GM/DM of the game to help a player in such situations so they can have the most fun with the character. I'll catch the player's eye and ask "are you sure?" or repeat info over and otherwise encourage them to think over things. If they seem to give to give it some thought I'll allow INT checks so the character can do what they should be able to. I help things along by pointing out bits of info or include pieces of a puzzle and let the player put those pieces together in character.
Verbal hints from the DM or "lead ins" are part of the job. :)
|
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
The way I handle that situation (I may have read this in a Dragon article) is to allow "table-talk". Essentially you allow all of the players at the table to give their thoughts and this makes up for the disparity between a single player and his character's intelligence score (so in effect the half-orc fighter's player may have a great idea and you just credit the wizard in game for coming up with it).
This method is really good for two reasons. Number one, it makes it seem as though you respect the person playing the wizard character's RL intelligence. Number two, it doesn't make the other players at the table feel that you're being more favorable to a single player.
It seems to me that intelligence and wisdom are complex things. Someone who seems incredibly stupid in one respect can be incredibly smart in another. Some people can memorize huge amounts of information without understanding it, for example. Some people know or understand one subject but not another. People can sometimes make brilliant deductions, and at other times be unable to see what's plain in front of their faces. These things can't always be well expressed with a few numbers.
So I would have no problem with allowing a high Int or high Wis character do foolish things. When I DO give hints, (generally in the form of NPCs making comments,) it's because I think the campaign may depend upon it (e.g. preventing a TPK.) It has nothing to do with the PCs' Int or Wis.
I remember a discussion about the module The Speaker in Dreams. Someone made a comment along these lines: The main boss is incredibly stupid, in the sense that his plan, if the PCs fail, makes no sense. But I wouldn't dispute his high Int score - he's from a different environment, full of monsters with alien mindsets, so his way of thinking may be brilliant for where he comes from. He just doesn't understand HUMANS.
If you try, you can justify just about any behavior from a character of any INT or WIS.
|
When a player has a 7 int I don't tell him to "play more stupid". And let's be honest, not many gamers would have positive charismas. You just need to be descriptive with things, give any knowledge checks he makes as "general info" (so the rest of the party can hint to him). But puzzles and figuring things put is effectively OOC; I personally wouldn't drop "special hints" for the player.
The way I handle that situation (I may have read this in a Dragon article) is to allow "table-talk". Essentially you allow all of the players at the table to give their thoughts and this makes up for the disparity between a single player and his character's intelligence score (so in effect the half-orc fighter's player may have a great idea and you just credit the wizard in game for coming up with it).
This is generally how we do it as well. Sometimes you do need hints and asides from the GM as well, depending.
Playing characters with mental stats vastly different from your own can be tough. CHA is another one which can be tough. A lot of times I put on rose-colored glasses when other players say things. I know their characters have a much higher charisma, so take when the player come off sounding like a tool, I filter it a little bit. And many of my statements to the GM are punctuated with "... but much more suave then that, I've got max ranks in bluff and diplomacy"
I do like some of the ideas here. This "play more stupid" point has come up when the incredibly dumb barbarian came up with an elaborate, complex plan that noone at the table thought about. It seemed strange IC.
I guess the "table talk" advice from Demoyn is a solution for that.
|
|
Hey,
At our table one of our players who is at odds with brainy stuff wants to play this time as the Int 18 Wiz.
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
My GM does that for me. I'll be like "Huh, I didn't think of that" and he'll say "Yeah, but your character did." I appreciate the help.
I do like some of the ideas here. This "play more stupid" point has come up when the incredibly dumb barbarian came up with an elaborate, complex plan that noone at the table thought about. It seemed strange IC.
I guess the "table talk" advice from Demoyn is a solution for that.
Incredibly dumb meaning poor INT and WIS? Perhaps he is an Idiot Savant! :)
The game tries to overly simplify how our brain works by breaking mental attributes into different stats. Experience from many battles or "wisdom" might lead to a overly complex plan... but the character could just be building on what they have seen work.
A highly Intelligent wizard may have memorized a library full of books but have little real world skill and pulling off those things they have read about.
One can "over think" things when a simple solution may be best.
An example...
On a Christmas past (many years ago) my father was trying to figure out a safe way to put several electric candle sticks in the windows without having the venetian blinds hang against the bulbs and create a fire hazard. (He wished to have the candles in front of the blinds so they could be seen but keep the blinds down so we maintained our privacy.) My father is a fairly smart man (was a teacher before going into the navy and becoming a anti-submarine helicopter pilot) and was attempting to jury rig some foam blocks to keep the blinds away from the windows and thus allow some space for the electric candles. However, he was not liking the effect of having those foam blocks in the window and was at an impasse of what to do. Now, I do not claim to be all that smart myself but am fairly good at thinking "outside the box". I walked by at this point in time and said "Why not simply let the blinds hang past the window sill?" At which my father looked at me... looked at the window... looked at me and blinked and said "Duh".
Who is smarter? Who is wiser? Hard to say right?
If a player want to see if his character can figure something out that he cant, I might have them make an intelligence check, but the truth is I am not concerned with playing smarter or dumber then the player themselves.
You can be smart or wise about some things and not about others. A neuroscientist is likely fairly intelligent, but that doesnt mean he is good at memorizing baseball statistics. A veteran fighter may not be very wise but he may have seen strategies and tactics so many times he knows what a good plan is from experience. I dont think there is a reason to force a level of intelligence or wisdom into a character that the player doesnt have, unless they are asking for assistance.
As the DM, you will be for the most part, the most informed to make "intelligent" decisions, because you know the entire story line. Therefore, as the DM, you have to place yourself in the characters shoes, and based on their "intelligence" provide access to the appropriate information or hints. You may have to make decisions for them (direction of the story may change), based on what they learn, to buffer against someone that may not want to take the lead, or do what is best for the group. Which is an entirely different subject.
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
If you think that would work for your particular group and players, it shouldn't be a problem. It might work out really well.
(Aside: We wouldn't, but that's just us. My buddies and I are a pretty harsh and unsympathetic group of people - the expectation is to 'play what you're acceptably good at'. Kind of like when we head out and play a game of football - if you're shitty at quarterback, don't play quarterback. The same goes for our gaming. If you're shitty at talking, don't play a bard. If you're dumber than a sack of rocks, don't play a high-Int character. [To be fair and complete, it's really: "If you're lousy at x, don't play it and expect a lot of really positive results."] That's not to say that players in our game don't play things they're not really great at - they do, but they don't have any unrealistic expectations, nor expect anyone to hold their cute little hands... they flounder a bit, and move on. But like I said - that's just us, and probably won't work for a lot of groups.)
So, you're saying if you can't turn bat guano into a fireball with a few words and a flick of the wrist, don't play a wizard. If you can't shatter boulders with your bare hands, don't play a monk. If you don't know how to infiltrate Fort Knox using only a screwdriver and spoon, don't play a thief.
No, I'm exactly not saying that. My post was clear. How did you manage to botch that up?
|
|
Hey,
At our table one of our players who is at odds with brainy stuff wants to play this time as the Int 18 Wiz.
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
P.S: A similar scenario would be for the reckless, charging player who plays a wise character full of common sense.
I'm fine with it unless that player has shown to be a problem with D&D logic, or will abuse his INT and expect the DM to think of him using rolls, checks, and unlikely character knowledge.
Deliberately in order to point out how little sense your point makes.
Easy does it, sparky. I wasn't making a "point". I simply stated (in an aside, no less) what my particular group prefers and has fun with (which, incidentally, is not up for debate, especially by faceless internet denizens who don't know my group). In fact, I even said that if the OP's idea worked for their group, it could be a very good thing for them.
As to the rest of your nonsense - my fellow players and I are smart enough to make competent decisions for our characters in the game that we play.
Either players react and make decisions for themselves, or they don't. For our group, we neither need - nor want - to be hand-held. But that's just us - others may play for different reasons, and I (unlike you, apparently) am not one to judge nor pretend to know exactly why "many" players play. I'll leave that up to them, thankyouverymuch.
Of course, our group very much makes a distinction between physical abilities and mental/social abilities within the game. For those who are incapable of making such a distinction - well, in that case a conversation with me is a non-starter.
So... yeah. What my group finds fun isn't up for debate, here.
Characters have seets, not players. You don't know who is smart and who isn't. An intelligence of 18 comes with a host of advantages for and spellcaster. Besides that, there are skill and ability checks. Who are you to assume that you would really be capable of playing a maximum score intelligence? Sure elves and such are smarter, blah blah blah. What would you think of a very smart (genuinely) player using a very low intelligence character for all sorts of super brain maneuvers? That was such bull, he would stand up and make eloquent speeches and whenever there was trouble he had the highest combat bonus. (He met with unfortunate circumstances -- Hehehehe).
What your group finds fun isn't up for debate, agreed. The fact that what your group finds fun doesn't make any sense isn't up for debate either. I never said your group had to make sense in order to have fun.
Who in the heck cares whether what his group finds fun makes sense to you? Your dialogue in this thread is extremely pretentious. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
For the record (although nobody cares), what he's saying makes perfect sense to me. If you can't think like a thief, don't play a Rogue and expect stellar results. Rocket science, this is not.
|
|
One thing that I'm really big on is having the players be able to alter the flow of the plot. Many GMs don't like this (though I don't know why), but I'd encourage him to come up with arcane explanations on the fly and then I'd work them into the campaign so that they are real.
For example, you come across a group of barbarians. The party is finding that they aren't having a lot of luck trying to talk their way through the encounter. The player with the smart character says (off the top of his head), "these look like some of the Chazit barbarians, I wonder why they are so far south, but among their people, women do the negotiations - maybe if we show difference to (name female PC) and let her take the lead in talking to them, we might have better luck" then he makes the appropriate die roll (I might add a modifier depending on how sensible his new fact is) and that now becomes a fact of the game - these are Chazit barbarians and Chazit barbarians are matriarchal and why are they so far south? Or, he might say "these ruins date from the age of King Elderson about 300 years ago, back then it was common for such places to have escape routes which sometimes extended a mile or more away from the castle". I'd have him make the appropriate die roll and, if he made it, there may be a second way into the ruins which they could find, though that second way may have had a cave in or may be full of monsters or whatever.
Have you ever played using the FATE system? Starblazer Adventures uses it, and they have actions like this build into the rules. It's one of the ideas I'll be lifting and adapting to Pathfinder if I ever get around to running a homebrew campaign.
EDIT: In reply to the OP, I have a rule for each mental stat. I suggest intelligence and skill rolls to high Intelligence characters to recall vital information. I gently remind high Wisdom characters about the possible repercussions of their actions, and pass notes for things they notice that others don't. NPC reactions to a PC with a given Charisma score is filtered, for better or worse.
|
|
Big problem is too much hinting makes it feel like the GM is either railroading or playing the character. When I have a non-social player playing a high-CHA person, I simply make the NPCs translate his words better. High int characters have knowledge rolls they can make, and if they succeed they get vital info on a situation. But never, ever pass notes or try to run them; just Assume the wizard is booksmart but bad at applied knowledge. At the end you have to let your little birdies fly.
Thalin, I agree with your main point - let your little birdies fly - but I would quibble with the idea that too much hinting makes it feel like the GM is railroading or playing the character. I'll never forget the time I spelled out for a player that the party was heading for a deadly trap, and the player defied me and went right on heading for it. Fortunately, against all odds, every member of the party happened to survive that time. But had the dice fallen differently...
I digress. The point is that no matter how much coaxing the GM does, in the end, it's the players who make the choices.
Instead of just GIVING notes, ask for knowledge or straight INT checks and give those who succeed at them the hints. That way you reward high INT without showing favortism, and you don't force him to play a certain way.
So the moral of the story is paying attention to your character sheet and play appropriately, and if you are not sure how to roleplay or have questions, state in general what you want to do and let the dice come into play (when applicable). We all deal with the general idea of ability scores differently, but take it as a key opportunity to roleplay and explore a facet of yourself that isn't frequently visited. It is usually the odd moments everyone remembers.
As to the amount of hints provided, that is up to the DM or player discretion, but I have been in campaigns where I honestly tried to roleplay a character with the appropriate skills in mind and the DM offered nothing in return. If the purpose is to use real life skills and knowledge, then why roleplay? There has to be a transition point in regards to how this is played as long as everyone agrees.
I like the idea, where there is a general statment in regards to what the ability scores cover, much like skill descriptions, so there is some basis to make decisions.
|
I have the same issue with my Rise of the Runelords character, Pocco.
As a Summoner with a bangin' 20+ Cha, he should be able to charm just the town of Sandpoint. Instead, he (I) just can't ever come up with the right thing to say.
Of course, sometimes I just have to have him say the stupider things, like "Hey, baby, you wanna see my Eidolon? ;)".
I have the same issue with my Rise of the Runelords character, Pocco.
As a Summoner with a bangin' 20+ Cha, he should be able to charm just the town of Sandpoint. Instead, he (I) just can't ever come up with the right thing to say.
Of course, sometimes I just have to have him say the stupider things, like "Hey, baby, you wanna see my Eidolon? ;)".
And in my opinion, the GM should roll in accordance with your PC's stats, even if your words lack eloquence. If your words are really THAT bad, maybe I'd give you a -2 penalty, but that's about it.
In real life, there are people whose words would be considered offensive if spoken by anyone else. But somehow - maybe due to some combination of voice inflection, facial expression, and I don't know what else - they can charm you. These people can tell you to go Hell and give you the impression that you'll enjoy the trip.
|
It seems to me that this is what Skill Checks and INT checks are for. If a character should know something he should have K(whatever) skill ranks for it.
You can prompt the player to make Knowledge checks when appropriate. Maybe for a less bright player you'll prompt him a little more frequently.
Without some more specific details about how not-so-bright your players are it's hard to have any useful suggestions. My own problem with not-so-bright players was because they had trouble figuring out the mechanics of the game. More rolling and INT checks would have just thrown them off even more. The solution in that case for me turned out to be to not play with that person any more but that isn't a solution so much as it's a way of avoiding the problem.
When a player has a 7 int I don't tell him to "play more stupid". And let's be honest, not many gamers would have positive charismas. You just need to be descriptive with things, give any knowledge checks he makes as "general info" (so the rest of the party can hint to him). But puzzles and figuring things put is effectively OOC; I personally wouldn't drop "special hints" for the player.
That's personally one of my pet peeves... GMs who put riddles and puzzles into their games and expect the -players- to solve them. Some people love riddles and puzzles... personally, I'm very bad at them. My character however may excel at them. Not only does forcing the players to solve such things themselves have absolutely nothing to do with their characters, but it's more than a bit unfair at the same time. Would you expect me to know how to craft a bow and arrows in real life before you allowed my Ranger who has the appropriate skills to do so in game?
|
|
When a player has a 7 int I don't tell him to "play more stupid". And let's be honest, not many gamers would have positive charismas. You just need to be descriptive with things, give any knowledge checks he makes as "general info" (so the rest of the party can hint to him). But puzzles and figuring things put is effectively OOC; I personally wouldn't drop "special hints" for the player.That's personally one of my pet peeves... GMs who put riddles and puzzles into their games and expect the -players- to solve them. Some people love riddles and puzzles... personally, I'm very bad at them. My character however may excel at them. Not only does forcing the players to solve such things themselves have absolutely nothing to do with their characters, but it's more than a bit unfair at the same time. Would you expect me to know how to craft a bow and arrows in real life before you allowed my Ranger who has the appropriate skills to do so in game?
I've had way too many games which ground to a halt while the players were completely stumped by puzzles that seem easy enough when you read them but aren't nearly as obvious when you are in the players seat. Puzzles and riddles are largely dependent on the experiences and education of the individual. IMO if puzzles are an integral part of an adventure there needs to be some alternate way for the players to bypass it. Either a related skill check or a straight INT check, or just brute force.
I've had way too many games which ground to a halt while the players were completely stumped by puzzles that seem easy enough when you read them but aren't nearly as obvious when you are in the players seat. Puzzles and riddles are largely dependent on the experiences and education of the individual.
I agree a thousand percent.
Have you ever seen the adventure "The Rose of Jumlat" from Dungeon magazine? It was great except for one particular obstacle, which could only be crossed with the use of one particular spell. Even assuming that the party has access to that spell, how are the players supposed to think of it?!? A passage like that in an adventure just screams to the DM: "Change me!"
Mind you, there are times when the players don't think of THE solution, but of A solution. It's usually a good idea to let the players' idea work, unless there's some compelling reason not to.
Would you guys see any problem with the GM passing him notes and hints with plans and ideas to help him play out a high int character when IRL all of this is not his thing?
I would DEFINITELY have a problem with that. The GM who does that is taking control of my character away from me, in a way.
I like the "allowed table talk" idea shown above.
When DMing, i broach this issue with a simple Int check. Depending on difficulty between DC 10-20. That way you're still involving the player in the process, and i'm able to give them the info necessary to keep the game moving.
Having said that, it's pretty rare that it's necessary, and i think it's counter-productive to 'hold their hand'. A clue here and there, and you'll find that the player will soon get into character and start thinking.
When DMing, i broach this issue with a simple Int check. Depending on difficulty between DC 10-20. That way you're still involving the player in the process, and i'm able to give them the info necessary to keep the game moving.
Having said that, it's pretty rare that it's necessary, and i think it's counter-productive to 'hold their hand'. A clue here and there, and you'll find that the player will soon get into character and start thinking.
I've played under GMs who did things like that (one even invented a new "intuition" skill which gave you pseudo-metagame information on a successful check). Everyone hated it as it completely destroyed immersion and gave the GM cart blanch to say "make an Intuition check" whenever he got frustrated with whatever it was the PCs were up to.
If nothing else, I would ask: What do you do when the player fails the Intelligence check and the game grinds to a halt?
I can't help but think there are better ways of handling a situation.
If nothing else, I would ask: What do you do when the player fails the Intelligence check and the game grinds to a halt?
I must stress that i only rarely did this, and in the rare instances where i called for an int check and the high int wiz failed then yeh, they had to work it out for themselves. It's only meant as a bonus get out of dungeon free card, not a catch-all for any situation that they couldn't think their way out of.
I cannot think of a better way to take the thunder out of the PCs' sails for having successfully escaped a dungeon.
Player 1: Yay! We made it out of the Dungeon of Doom alive! No adventurer has ever accompl--
Player 2: Yeah, but only cause the GM went easy on us.
Player 1: Oh...yeah...
Part of running a game is being able to find solutions when the 30 INT misses 2+2=4.
If your players are missing the solution.. maybe you haven't given enough information. Maybe you're being to vague. Maybe... you should take the next solution they do come up with if it helps the game progress.
Actually, on the rare occasion i did do this, the players were relieved. That's really the bottom line. Get a feel for your group and do what works.
You want to make the player feel glad that he chose a character with high int and can decipher ancient runes and puzzles to overcome challenges. Not make the player feel bad that they're dumber than their character.
btw Ravingdork, how would you address this situation?
*edit* I could never be accused of 'going easy' on my players, btw.
Generally I don't try to solve the puzzles I put in front of my players. I give them the situation and wait until they give me an answer. That way I don't fixate on what I think the solution is and if they come up with something I didn't think of I don't feel jipped that they didn't use the solution I wanted them to.
Generally, i agree, and often improvise the plot depending on the party's direction.
I was simply providing a solution, that when used appropriately, keeps the game moving.
Not to threadjack, but how often is OOC/metagame "table-talk" disallowed in games?
For me, certain circumstances warrant mandatory IC roleplaying for a reasonable period of time, but at every table I've ever played at OOC banter is inevitable. In copious amounts. As a DM I may ask my players to tone down their metagaming from time to time, but it's generally like herding cats.
Zo
|
Not to threadjack, but how often is OOC/metagame "table-talk" disallowed in games?
For me, certain circumstances warrant mandatory IC roleplaying for a reasonable period of time, but at every table I've ever played at OOC banter is inevitable. In copious amounts. As a DM I may ask my players to tone down their metagaming from time to time, but it's generally like herding cats.
Zo
Basically I award fate points (optional rule) to my players for sound role playing, They don't get them for anything else,and I award them sparingly as it is. Meta game chatter makes them less likely to get fate points, and they know it. It works for my group.
I find if you keep it to the point of "You say it it's in character" helps with that a lot as well as addressing everyone by their character's name. Those two things really help with the mood and keeps everyone a bit more focused. Also if they start bantering give them a 5 minute break to reset into character -- about once every 1 1/2 to 2 hours generally works at our tables.
Thanks for the input. I do not have time to review and respond to each suggestion but I saw them al land found some very nice insights.
As a sidenote, I'd just like to clarify that the idea is not to hold the babies' hands when they are trying to use their brains to solve some cute little problem :p. Nor to railroad when they are thinking outside the box or doing things not in my 'plans'.
It's more like an exceptionnal case to give a direct OOC suggestion, hint or piece of knowledge to be applied IC by the character who would be the most likely to come with it when the party is about to do something with really really really really bad results to their survival chances or when the game has come to a halt in front of a problem.
All of this assuming the players are actively trying to think, roleplay or in some cases smash their way out of problems constantly. An effort made by the GM proportionate to the effort made by the players.
I think "high intelligence" on a character sheet is just metagame information for resolving intelligence checks - and in no way reflects the intelligence of the player - or expecting highly intelligent conversation from somebody playing a wizard.
Back in 2e days, certain godlike, demon-type beings had "supra intelligence", so how does one portray that and not be a mental giant themselves, because a DM/players intelligence is not in question.
Intelligence is a stat, used to affect certain skill checks, and spell access for wizards - its got nothing to do with the actual intelligence of a given player. No need for "out of game" conversations to reflect how the player plays the game.
Use your own intelligence, and when your intelligent stat comes up in game, roll your dice adjusted by your intelligence stat.
I don't see the OP's problem at all. There is no problem.
I personally can't stand "puzzles" in the game, (none of our group uses them in our adventures, as GMs) sometimes they work, but usually the GM works a puzzle so you've got to come up with the same epiphany that the GM did in thinking it up. As in "there is only one way to work out the puzzle to get it right." Those kinds of puzzles are unnecessary for a fun game, it most cases just brings "unfun" to the game. Puzzles should be fairly easy, just perhaps not obvious. They are supposed to be an obstacle, not an unassailing barrier - which is what a tough puzzle often ends up being, and that's not fun in RPGs.
GP
I think "high intelligence" on a character sheet is just metagame information for resolving intelligence checks - and in no way reflects the intelligence of the player - or expecting highly intelligent conversation from somebody playing a wizard.
I don't see the OP's problem at all. There is no problem.
The OP's problem starts to arise when the group think of the 'intelligence', etc stats as way more than a simple metagame information.
I see your point, but IMO your players seem to be taking intelligence beyond what it is intended in the game. Trying to bring RL into the game, is not the core method of playing.
Do they have a problem with high strength characters, played by guys who could'nt lift a book? I'm sure they don't. Does this mean that the person playing a wizard, must be a player with high intelligence to play? That kind of thinking seems a bit silly.
Its just a stat.
So you set up a scenario, that certain rare knowledge is required to overcome some obstacle, the GM has setup. The player with a high INT stat character rolls an intelligence check, or appropriate knowledge check and if he/she succeeds you, the GM tells OK, this is what your character knows and now you can solve the problem. The player doesn't have to figure out the problem himself, his character did with his roll.
Let me clarify, by saying if the player does not know how to play a wizard that's a player issue, and not an INT stat issue. He would be a problematic player, and perhaps should learn the game some more to be more effective. However, conversely, if you were all brand new to the game, would it matter who played the high intelligence character? Would it require the smartest among the group, who is going to determine that?
Point is, its a game. Intelligence is just a mechanic, like strength, its not a reflection of the person doing the roleplaying, and shouldn't be a requirement. Besides the whole group is facing the same problem, just because the guy who figures it out might be the 10 Intelligence Fighter and not the 18 intelligence wizard, has no bearing whatsoever, and the expectation that the wizard guy should have figured that out, is just silly.
I don't play with your group, so I don't know how they think, or how you could fix your "issue". It just seems they are making an issue where one does not exist.
GP