In real life, there are people whose words would be considered offensive if spoken by anyone else.....
off-topic: My brother is one of these people. Family members are immune to it, but it works on everyone else.
Oh I do not mean it would be a requirement or a reflection. I'm just thinking more of like tools to help a player represent their character better with the assumption that the 'stats' represent more than what they do for an usual group. A group choice. Which basically you seem to agree with, with the int check exemple, which can be a tool among others suggested.
This would include helping the problematic player who's playing wizard for the first time, etc. All of this assuming some coaching is not childish favoritism but a cohesive effort to make the characters feel more real and dissociate them from the players according the group's point of view.
The problem doesn't arise with strength as there's a lot less RP that could be inheret to the stat. You can say 'Bob is strong, so he lifts the big boulder' and make it happen.
But for a mental stat, if the group is OK with it, there could be more RP to be taken out of it than from a physical stat: you can't go 'Alundrus is a genius, so he thinks of an amazing plan to solve the whole situation'. As you pointed out earlier, in this case there's a lot of interpretation to what intelligence means. Some explanations to what was my "a low int character can't plan" claim could be, among others pointed out: good tactical knowledge in the case of a fighter, a lot of experience... or in the opposite case, Alundrus spent his whole life in a library so he has no idea how to apply all his knowledge in the real world, etc.
It's with this context and considerations in mind that I asked the first question. I feel my intentions have not been clear for some.
And relating to charisma, it seems quite clear to me that part of adressing the "issue" is to put pink coloured glasses when players say something, without necessary changing the words. I.e A friend of mine can go say some cheesy line at a woman in a bar and get slapped, while another can say the exact same thing word per word and get giggles.
Then it's a question of encouraging more roleplay without beign patronizing. It's a question of group confort and preferences. The player can at least pretend that he's a charismatic leader instead of saying IC things in an OOC way then add "my diplomacy is high so he has to buy it".
I love puzzles. Not solving them, mind you - BREAKING them. I've never once been in a group that solved a puzzle in an easy, straightforward fashion.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=680
There are two other points I should have made: One of the things I don't like so much about the d20 system is that it's... well, d20. I always felt that certain checks ought to use a lower die. A character with a high Int and one with a low Int will have a slight modifier of a difference, but when rolling a die with as wide a range as the d20, that modifier is very small compared to the variance of the die. So the high-Int character and the low-Int one aren't really all that different, in practical terms.
That brings me to my other point. Let's say everyone in the party gets a Perception check to notice something. With a party of 4-6 characters, chances are, SOMEBODY will roll high, and that character will immediately point it out to the rest of the party. You might as well skip the rolling and assume that the party notices it. That's why, for years, I've had the policy of taking 10 all around for Listen / Spot / Perception checks (although I've recently come to reconsider this policy.)
So again, a character with a high Int needn't necessarily be craftier than one with a low Int.
That said, if I WERE to advocate high-Int characters acting smarter, I would have an answer to this point...
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.
I remember an article from the WotC website (back in the days when I used to look at that site.) It asked the question "How does a DM, with moderate intelligence, play NPCs with a high Intelligence?" The article came up with an interesting answer: Let the NPC "figure out" the PCs' weaknesses, which the DM would know just from glancing at the players' character sheet.
Of course, that's not my playing style. But it would be good advice for those who DO play that way.
This is a role playing game. This is something done for relaxation. This is not a...
Don't know why you quoted me, since your answer seems to be the same as mine?? Yeah, your character's INT stat has nothing to do with the players stat, its just a game - that's what I said.
My point about not knowing how to play a wizard simply means, if the player doesn't know to cast any spells or tries to act like a fighter - maybe he needs to become more familiar with the game, that being what's problematic.
However, besides that, no reason to get all wrapped up about a low intelligence player playing a high inteligence character. Its just a game afterall. I think we agree.
GP
This is a role playing game. This is something done for relaxation. This is not a competition. A player shouldn't have to be "good at" DnD. That doesn't even make sense.
In my view, a good D&D player is one who makes the game fun for the other players, or helps to do so. If you think that there's no such thing as a bad player, I could tell a story that just might change your mind...
Now I would say, that many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK. So someone playing the wizard, but not doing so effectively is a strategy issue and not using strategy means the whole party could be killed because of that - this can be a problem. No one has to be a strategic master to play D&D, depends on whose the GM and how they are playing of course, but there are some basic strategic operations to be successful as a wizard in helping the party.
Wizard - shoot off your explosions, buff the party, debuff the opponent. But don't try to be a frontline fighter and charging the dragon with your dagger. Stay out of the way, and let the tanks take the brunt of physical attacks. That's pretty minimum and obvious strategy for a wizard to take.
If the player of the wizard is not doing that - it could mean TPK, then its an issue. But the ability to figure out obscure puzzles, is not a wizard thing, its a poor choice by the GM or the adventure writer. YMMV.
GP
PS: our party has had some FUN adventures that ended in TPK, and every one enjoyed it, it happens.
Now I would say, that many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK.Then these modules are poorly written and the fault lies there.
Maybe? But many believe Paizo makes the best published adventures on the market, so to each their own. Many would say, you'd have to GIMP your adventure to allow such a party to survive - I think there's truth in that. Perhaps not for your group, but its a general consesus from the majority PF gamers. Your Mileage Probably does Vary, from this and nothing wrong with that. I think Paizo makes great adventures, however.
Now I would say, that many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK.
Are you talking the AP's or the modules? We have done most of LoF without a wizard (the closest thing is a sorcerer/druid/MT) and the vast majority of Second Darkness without a wizard (on the last book the druid died and the player decided to play a wizard at that point instead).
I would dare say kingmaker doesn't require a wizard (or sorcerer) in the least from my read over of it.
Paizo is a great company. Many people around here think that Paizo walks on water and routinely turns water into wine. That's taking things too far.
I agree. Several times, I've read a Paizo book that makes me say "Why the heck are people raving about this?!?"
That said, the love pouring out from Paizo fans is what got me to start buying Paizo products in the first place, and is what continues to motivate me to get them. (Of course, most of the Paizo stuff I get IS good, or else the fanbase wouldn't be enough to keep me as a customer. But even there, there's always room for improvement.)
On to the main point...
Modules should have multiple ways to get things accomplished and I've seen many modules which do (have multiple ways to get things accomplished). Regardless of who has written the module, if the module's success depends on the players making a critical decision at some particular point (including choosing the character classes), it's a bad module.
Well... that's a tad harsh. I would consider that a bad POINT of the module. A good GM should change that point. Like I mentioned yesterday in this thread, The Rose of Jumlat was a very good adventure - if it weren't, I wouldn't keep bringing up that old story - but that one point that requires a specific spell is a mark against it, and needs to be changed.
But then again, a GM OUGHT to change a module to suit the party anyway. There was a time when I pretended every module I ran was a sacred text, and kept the changes to an absolute minimum, for a couple of reasons. I'm sure many people on these boards would have hooted at my unimaginative style at that time.
Also... this may be a tad irrelevant, since you're talking about prewritten modules, not adventures written by the GM with the party in mind, but the most successful adventure I ever ran hinged upon a PC using a certain newly acquired spell. It worked beautifully. Of course, that's an unfair comparison, since the GM KNOWS the party and the players, but I'm just sayin'.
Creative Director
|
The best way to handle a high INT character is already built into the game; a high INT gives you more skill points. I would recommend to the player to put lots of skill points into his Knowledge skills, and then during the course of play he'll be answering a LOT of questions.
As for the bit about modules... we generally DO try to allow for multiple solutions to modules, but I suspect that the majority of "This adventure sucked because the module made it suck" is, unfortunately, more often due to the GM not playing the game flexibly enough to accommodate his players. The responsibility of letting the PCs have choice is almost entirely in the GM's hands; that's not something that is really fair to blame a module for unless it goes out and specifically says "The PCs can't do this." As far as I know... Paizo's adventures never do that, and if they do it IS an error, but one that, again, the GM should fix and the PCs should never be aware of anyway.
You're in there with us, GMs, in other words, sharing the responsibility for giving the players a fun time!
And I wouldn't say that our adventures require a wizard at all. They're built assuming a fair mix of classes, combat class, arcanist, divine caster, skill class; the classic combo being fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue. But this also works with, say, ranger, sorcerer, druid, bard. Arcane spellcasters certainly help, but again, if a group wants to play a barbarian, ranger, monk, rogue party, it's the GM's responsibility to adjust the adventure as necessary, not the adventure writer's responsibility.
The best way to handle a high INT character is already built into the game; a high INT gives you more skill points. I would recommend to the player to put lots of skill points into his Knowledge skills, and then during the course of play he'll be answering a LOT of questions.
Heh. I'm just getting this image of a character with lots of ranks in, say, Knowledge(Geography), and the dialogue such a character would have with other party members.
"Are you SURE you know this part of the forest?"
"Sure I'm sure! I read a book all about it!"
I don't use modules, so I was taking gamer-printer at his word when he said "many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK". I'm hardly in a position to know whether that's true or not.
Good point. The one example I keep citing was published long before Paizo existed. I can't think of any examples in Paizo modules, but then, I only got one or two dozen of them, which is a small minority. gamer-printer, could you give examples of a Paizo adventure requiring a particular class? (Spoilerize it, of course.)
I meant a spellcaster, I was generalizing with a Wizard specifically. Truth tell, no one in my party has played a wizard in years, almost always a sorcerer and usually a sorcerer mixed class with something else.
What I meant (since you're going by my "exact" words) is that party needs to be balanced with the right combo of classes. Unless you tweak your module to work without one.
My group definitely roleplays, but if an adventure isn't a challenge, if there's no chance of TPK, then I'd be kicked off GM's chair, because we don't want cakewalk. That's no fun.
There are those where roleplaying is everything, and rolling a dice to determine your success is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that kind of game, but I don't know anyone (personally) who'd desire that. It needs a mix of roles, RP opportunities and a chance to get killed if we don't face a challenge properly.
Agreeing with James, its a GM issue, not a mod issue.
If a player can't be effective in his role, he needs to change, or the party will be catering to just his needs and not the whole group. I don't want a GM to gimp an adventure, just so we all live through it, that's a waste of time. Again, YMMV.
GP
PS: the original post was discussing wizards, so I was just trying to keep the discussion in context, I wasn't trying to only regard wizards.
Heh. The REAL original point was how to roleplay characters with high Intelligence, and how to GM with such player characters. I was just saying to myself "How the heck did we drift so far off topic?" I think it goes back to this...
If the player of the wizard is not doing that - it could mean TPK, then its an issue.
...but that was a minor point, only meant to lead into the REAL point:
But the ability to figure out obscure puzzles, is not a wizard thing, its a poor choice by the GM or the adventure writer. YMMV.
I think THAT'S what started this threadjack.
Obviously, I've been enjoying this discussion, or I wouldn't keep posting. But maybe it should get its own thread...
|
Creative Director
|
I don't use modules, so I was taking gamer-printer at his word when he said "many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK". I'm hardly in a position to know whether that's true or not. My point was that modules which are so designed are flawed - regardless of who authored them. It seems to me that we are all in agreement on that point.
I agree completely. The art of writing a module or adventure for publication is a really tricky one, and it's not one that a lot of people really get. A LOT of authors confuse the skills of writing a module with writing a story or novel, and a lot of others tend to write adventures with their own gaming group in mind and thus make a lot of unnecessary assumptions.
That's all why it's not really the author's job to handle that part of the design; making sure that a module doesn't make poor choices like making it require a specific single solution is actually the developer's job, not the author's job. If the author DOES this job, that's fine—that just makes the developer's job all the easier. But having developed adventures as a developer for close to 7 years now... it's not something that a lot of authors are good at. Those who are tend to get published more often, though! :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Ah... yeah. The inclusion of puzzles and riddles in modules, actually, is an ENORMOUS pet peeve of mine. While I do like the fact that puzzles and riddles can be part of an adventure, I think that the way a lot of modules handle them is irresponsible.
After all, an adventure doesn't expect your players to be able to shoulder-bash open a 200 pound door, right? You handle that with a Strength check. When a module puts a puzzle in as a similar barrier to progress and says the only way to proceed is if the PLAYERS solve the puzzle, it stops being an RPG. You're no longer roleplaying. It's not your character that's being challenged by the puzzle, but ONLY the player. And if that puzzle happens to rely on certain terms of language, regional lore, movie knowledge, history knowledge, or something else that isn't just common sense, chances are great that a LOT of groups' players are simply going to be stumped by the puzzle.
I still remember a game I was in where the GM gave us a twisted bit of metal, like a bar puzzle, and told us that the artifact had to be activated by figuring out how to undo this metal puzzle. The game ground to a halt for hours because none of us... THE GM INCLUDED... could solve the puzzle and the GM simply wouldn't let our characters, some of whom had Dexterity or Intelligence scores in he high 20s and probably would have breezed through a challenge like this, make ability score checks or skill checks to solve the puzzle.
Which is why we try to include alternate ways around puzzles and riddles whenever we use them. Authors rarely work those alternate ways in, so it usually falls to the developer to figure out what skill checks might help with a riddle or how a group might bypass a puzzle. An excellent example from a recent adventure would be Pathfinder AP #27's...
I meant a spellcaster, I was generalizing with a Wizard specifically. Truth tell, no one in my party has played a wizard in years, almost always a sorcerer and usually a sorcerer mixed class with something else.
What I meant (since you're going by my "exact" words) is that party needs to be balanced with the right combo of classes. Unless you tweak your module to work without one.
My group definitely roleplays, but if an adventure isn't a challenge, if there's no chance of TPK, then I'd be kicked off GM's chair, because we don't want cakewalk. That's no fun.
There are those where roleplaying is everything, and rolling a dice to determine your success is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with that kind of game, but I don't know anyone (personally) who'd desire that. It needs a mix of roles, RP opportunities and a chance to get killed if we don't face a challenge properly.
Agreeing with James, its a GM issue, not a mod issue.
If a player can't be effective in his role, he needs to change, or the party will be catering to just his needs and not the whole group. I don't want a GM to gimp an adventure, just so we all live through it, that's a waste of time. Again, YMMV.
GP
PS: the original post was discussing wizards, so I was just trying to keep the discussion in context, I wasn't trying to only regard wizards.
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble figuring out what your point is. It seems a bit scattered and disorganized.
The original point was that someone shouldn't have to be "good at" DnD.
You reply that some modules will result in a TPK if there isn't a spell caster in the party*?
You add that the GM should modify these modules if there isn't a spell caster.
I'm sorry, it seems like a non sequitor. What does this have to do with the original point?*by spell caster, you include wizards and sorcerers. Do you include clerics, druids, and characters with UMD?
How about any non-martial class, is that better for you to understand?
My point was you shouldn't have to be good at D&D. You shouldn't have to be a strategist.
However, since the OP has not given specific details on what their problem is, the rare corner case, that the player is inept at communication or not familiar how to operate a spellcaster, when he's trying to play one, that could be a problem.
You seem to be suggesting the latter is my only point, and its not the point at all.
GP
|
Ah... yeah. The inclusion of puzzles and riddles in modules, actually, is an ENORMOUS pet peeve of mine. While I do like the fact that puzzles and riddles can be part of an adventure, I think that the way a lot of modules handle them is irresponsible.
One GM in our group loves that sort of thing, and comes up with, essentially, mini-games within the game to solve puzzles. He tailors it based on us, 'though, so it's movie trivia or math cyphers or other things that at least two of the four players are awesome at.
In less tailored circumstances, such shenanigans would annoy the heck out of me...
My pet peeve is, as mentioned above, is when you need skill X or spell Y or a specific magic item (that you were supposed to get earlier, but missed, lost, had stolen, had disintegrated, etc.) to deal with a situation.
The last adventure of the Second Darkness AP
Heh. Set, the description of that adventure in your spoiler reminds me of another adventure. In Dragon magazine #274, there was an article on playing Robin Hood adventures, which included stats for many of the Merry Men. That same month saw the release of Dungeon magazine #82, with a Robin Hood adventure called Dark Times in Sherwood. It assumes that at least one character has...
So that's another example.
|
Creative Director
|
Heh. Set, the description of that adventure in your spoiler reminds me of another adventure. In Dragon magazine #274, there was an article on playing Robin Hood adventures, which included stats for many of the Merry Men. That same month saw the release of Dungeon magazine #82, with a Robin Hood adventure called Dark Times in Sherwood. It assumes that at least one character has...
** spoiler omitted **
So that's another example.
Dungeon #82 was before I was involved in development and edit, so I can't take the blame for that one, which is indeed bad design.
|
Creative Director
|
The last adventure of the Second Darkness AP...
Well.. the unfortunate truth of Second Darkness's sample characters is that they were dictated not by the adventure's needs but by the fact that we had 4 more iconics to stat up, and those classes were pretty locked in.
But the point is valid.
Then again, it's never a good idea to underestimate the power a high level party wields. In this case, while you could certainly have a party that lacks the right skills to research the problem themselves, or even lacks some of the alternate spells and powers to fix them. But again, high level characters have a lot of options. They can charm/dominate/mind control bad guys and get help that way. They can summon creatures to do things they normally can't do. They can even start throwing around things like wish spells and the like if they're desperate. And at the end of all that, they CAN just muscle their way through things; it'll certainly hurt more and it'll certainly be more dangerous, but again, high level characters should expect high-level problems.
And in a case where the GM has a group that he knows won't be able to handle the adventure as written... we come right back to the point about the GM needing to adjust the adventure as necessary so it'll work for him.
|
|
That same month saw the release of Dungeon magazine #82, with a Robin Hood adventure called Dark Times in Sherwood.
Although, to be fair to the author, one would expect that an adventure called 'Dark Times in Sherwood' might involve some woodsy environments. It pretty much screams 'play a Ranger!' (or at least a wood-wise Rogue, or a chubby rosy-cheeked quarterstaff-wielding cleric with a love of the bottle...)
I wouldn't begrudge someone entitling an adventure 'Into the Deep Blue Sea' or 'Pirate Attack!' for assuming that people starting out with that adventure would at least glance at the Swim skill. :)
Other adventures, IMO, go a bit too far in the other direction, and beat the party over the heads with the clue-stick. It's a fine line, obviously, and not a science.
I had an entire session derail because I mentioned the word 'turnips' in a cargo manifest, leading to a red herring goose-chase, because some other suspicious character had been seen eating turnips recently, so, yeah, there's just no way to prepare for that sort of thing.
Where I find that the character vs. player thing breaks down most spectacularly isn't so much intelligence, as when a high-charisma character is handicapped by a timid player, or, vice-versa, somebody playing an 8 Cha half-orc with no ranks in Diplomacy or Perform (oratory) gives a speech that would convince Gandhi to go on a mad cannibalistic killing spree. I give a circumstance bonus to a roll if a player gives an inspiring speech, but don't penalize a player who isn't exactly a speech-writer if he/she just wants to roll dice and let the character's +8 Diplomacy skill cover it.
Roll-playing is all well and good, but when the player is simply unable to emulate the charm, poise, erudition, social etiquette or whatever of the character they are playing, roll dice.
We have played a fair amount of modern day, futuristic or super-hero games, and, since I game with an IT manager and a software engineer, at minimum, we don't even bother with descriptions of computer stuff, as half of the group are beyond experts and the other half are a step above the Geico caveman. Roll dice!
|
Now I would say, that many of Paizo's Adventures actually require a wizard in the PC party to avoid TPK. So someone playing the wizard, but not doing so effectively is a strategy issue and not using strategy means the whole party could be killed because of that - this can be a problem. No one has to be a strategic master to play D&D, depends on whose the GM and how they are playing of course, but there are some basic strategic operations to be successful as a wizard in helping the party.
A published adventure is only valid until the dice hit the table. A GM is more or less required to constantly tweak a published adventure to suit the needs of his party. Unless you have the most generic party ever there are going to be issues. Too few players, too many players, no wizard, all wizards... whatever, the less generic your party is the more changes you have to make. That's part of the challenge of being a GM.
It's also a fun challenge as a player to be in the situation where a problem obviously requires a specific class but you have to work around that.
|
|
That same month saw the release of Dungeon magazine #82, with a Robin Hood adventure called Dark Times in Sherwood.Although, to be fair to the author, one would expect that an adventure called 'Dark Times in Sherwood' might involve some woodsy environments. It pretty much screams 'play a Ranger!' (or at least a wood-wise Rogue, or a chubby rosy-cheeked quarterstaff-wielding cleric with a love of the bottle...)
I wouldn't begrudge someone entitling an adventure 'Into the Deep Blue Sea' or 'Pirate Attack!' for assuming that people starting out with that adventure would at least glance at the Swim skill. :)
Other adventures, IMO, go a bit too far in the other direction, and beat the party over the heads with the clue-stick. It's a fine line, obviously, and not a science.
I usually clue my players in a bit as to what the dangers ahead are likely to be. Not beating them with a clue stick but players have a lot more fun when they can shine a bit. Letting them know it's going to be an urban campaign or an underdark campaign is usually enough.
Just having them all in the dark can be fun sometimes as well.
Dungeon #82 was before I was involved in development and edit, so I can't take the blame for that one...
Sorry, I never meant to imply that you should.
Although, to be fair to the author, one would expect that an adventure called 'Dark Times in Sherwood' might involve some woodsy environments. It pretty much screams 'play a Ranger!'
True, but like I said, only one of the many sample PCs was a ranger. There's a chance that all players might want to play...
...a wood-wise Rogue, or a chubby rosy-cheeked quarterstaff-wielding cleric with a love of the bottle...
...and with the great number of feats available in 3rd edition, I think it unlikely that someone will choose Tracking in a 3rd-level campaign, even if it is obviously woodsy.
Of course, there's a good CHANCE someone will play a ranger, and even if no one has tracking, I'm sure a good DM can change the adventure accordingly (for example, by throwing in an appropriately statted NPC helper,) but I still consider that a strike against the adventure.
Oh my lovely little thread derailed with wild discussiosn about adventure design!!! The outrage!!
Finally someone came nack to save it from a certain doom! And with a good summary of the initial problem at that.
Yeah, I've got to rescue 50 threads to make up for my threadjacking ways in the Rules forum. :)
Golden Pony, I can only say what I do in my group, so YMMV big time. My players hardly EVER resent me tossing in some ideas for the Smart Character who's played by the Not Especially Smart Player. Remember to keep that going for Wise Character too. In the past I myself have ignored the importance of wisdom to the sorts of dilemma the characters in my game face. Do we go left up into the Goblin stronghold now that we've escaped the slave cells? We're standing here in loincloths... Or do we go right, into darkness sloping down and away from the Goblin Stronghold? Into the unknown?
The GM probably knows or has a pretty good idea of which choice would be the more prudent one. If a guess has to be made then the guy with a 18 Wisdom will PROBABLY make a good one.
Lots of things like that come up in my games because we do so much city adventuring, investigative sorts of stuff. No straight linear dungeon crawls, or at least not very often. So the Strong Character has chances to show of his strength and the Wise Character has chances to show off how wise he is. Give everyone their moment in the sun, just do it in such a way to not make Not Especially Smart Player feel dumb. THAT'S the challenge. :)
I giggle. In a good way.
Oh my lovely little thread derailed with wild discussiosn about adventure design!!! The outrage!!
Yeah, sorry about that. I DID suggest giving the other subject its own thread...