@ Karl - I'm sorry but finding flimsy pretexts for the DM to ignore problems he sets out for the team isn't how I define roleplaying.
I'm not sure I see how this has anything to do what what I posted. Did you take anytime at all to actually read my post.
"You're doing it wrong. Maybe you should look into a game which completely ignores dice rolls and statistics and a DM arbitrarily decides on what is and isn't possible, perhaps a forum RP or write a book."
I feel that statistics are very important to playing a roleplaying game. There were several places in my example where the players rolled dice. I don't feel like any of the choice the GM made were arbitrary.
Basically nothing about your quote here is relevant to my post. And you certainly weren't using my words.
It is important to note that I qualified my statement.
If you wish to remove every aspect of roleplaying from your game I will not stand by and say it's fine for you to do so.
|
Can you point to where in the rules it says wisdom or intelligence are used for puzzles & riddles?
Nowhere at all except that all the appropriate skills for solving riddles or puzzles are int or wis based like knowledge(int) craft(int) survival(wis) and iirc isn't linguistics based on int? But I wasn't trying to say that those are the only applicable skills I'd assume the DM chooses.
Calling those skills is a judgement call. Knowledge skills could just as easily be called rote memorization of learned knowledge. Craft...I don't even see how that relates. Survival--navigation in wilderness as a puzzle? Not a strong link.
There should be a mechanism in the game for that and as I stated before I use Linguistics in my game for that purpose. As it is the game does not have a specific rule in it but DMs who desire to allow rolls for puzzles can do so if they wish.
I'm with the "player/PC mix" school.
PC with low Int? The player has to role it as much as he/she roles alignment or Cha. If the answer to a riddle is clearly outside the PC's reach, the player must choose not to answer it. If there is a chance that the PC knows, make an Int roll, and if you beat the DC you can give that answer. If the player of such PC can't grasp the answer himself, less problems.
PC with high Int? The player can make checks to receive hints from the GM and/or from other players (included the player of the dumb PC mentioned above). If the player of such PC can reach the answer himself, less problems.
Easy and fair (yes, it is).
Easy and fair (yes, it is).
Why isn't fair for any player who figures out the answer to have their character roleplay answering the question?
Why is it Easyer if you have to add rules to make it so?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why isn't fair for any player who figures out the answer to have their character roleplay answering the question?
Because he's playing the role of his character, not of himself. A character whose accomplishments are limited to what can be made of the numbers in his sheet, for everyone's good.
Taking it to the extreme situation, just for exampling purpose, take an Int 3 Barbarian. He barely can count from one to three, putting "potatoes" between them. Would you let him answer a mathematical riddle just because his player is a normal person who can do that? Is that fair? In which world?He chose to play a dumb character. Be it that he plays it right.
In different measures, with different stats, and depending on the situation, that obviously changes to various degrees.
This doesn't mean that a smart player, such as one who could answer the riddle off-game but not in-game, cannot or shouldn't be rewarded. Only that his character cannot do the action of saying the answer in game; it is out of the abilities of the character, as much as swimming in stone.
Why is it Easyer if you have to add rules to make it so?
I didn't say that it is easier, I said it is easy. And surely it doesn't require a tiring effort or difficult elucubration to simply roll a die.
What's next? Real life knowledge of mechanics and locksmithy required to reflect the wide array of disabling techniques under disable device?
GM: The door in front of you is locked.
Player: I roll disable device and get a 35 to unlock it.
GM: Okay, but how do you unlock it?
Player: With lockpicks?
GM: No, I mean how do you use them to pick the lock?
Player: Uh, I put the picks in the lock and move them around until I hear the right click or something.
GM: That's too vague. You fail to unlock the door.
Because he's playing the role of his character, not of himself. A character whose accomplishments are limited to what can be made of the numbers in his sheet, for everyone's good.
I certainly believe that players should play their character with regards to there stats. I never said otherwise.
But this doesn't answer the question. I'll rephrase. Why is it unfair for a player who figures out the answer to have their character roleplay answering the question?
However the player chooses to roleplay their character answering the challenge is up to them. How that answer actually materializes is also up to them. It is not the GM responsibility to put restriction on how players play their characters.
Taking it to the extreme situation, just for exampling purpose, take an Int 3 Barbarian. He barely can count from one to three, putting "potatoes" between them. Would you let him answer a mathematical riddle just because his player is a normal person who can do that? Is that fair? In which world?
As GM it's not up to me to tell players how to play their characters. I might suggest to the player that they should have a little fun with answering the riddle. Playing a stupid character that miraculously gives an answer to a challenging riddle can be a very memorable moment in a game. The player could also decide not to directly answer the riddle but to have there character give accidental hints that allow a smarter character to answer the riddle. Either way it up to them not me.
Incidentally if you ban stupid characters for answering riddles you remove the possibility for fun roleplaying moments like this form happening.
Only that his character cannot do the action of saying the answer in game; it is out of the abilities of the character, as much as swimming in stone.
This isn't your decision to make. It isn't the same thing as a skill check.
What's next? Real life knowledge of mechanics and locksmithy required to reflect the wide array of disabling techniques under disable device?
Of course not that's ridiculous.
To those wanting to ignore low mental stats how would you feel if a GM ran NPC with low mental stats, but had them using very complex tactics?
This. The very concept of role-playing implies that you are pretending to be another person, complete with their own sets of strengths and weaknesses. If you ignore those strengths and weaknesses, you've weakened the entire experience.
Absolutely!
I would never suggest ignore your characters strengths and weaknesses.
You have already done so by stating that characters with low <stat> should be able to do whatever they want with regard to that stat as long as there's no hard rule about it.
This is actually just how you interpreted what I said. I never suggested ignoring your characters strengths and weaknesses.
If you would like to give we an example of where I said what your saying I said then I would be glade to critique it. I may have in a blunder misstated my beliefs.
You have already done so by stating that characters with low <stat> should be able to do whatever they want with regard to that stat as long as there's no hard rule about it.This is actually just how you interpreted what I said. I never suggested ignoring your characters strengths and weaknesses.
If you would like to give we an example of where I said what your saying I said then I would be glade to critique it. I may have in a blunder misstated my beliefs.
The only way the player can do this in this post is to ignore the character's stats.
The only way the player can do this in this post is to ignore the character's stats.
I don't follow. At no point in that post did I suggest that you should ignore stats. I suggest that you play your character.
I might suggest to the player that they should have a little fun with answering the riddle.
I say that: As GM it's not up to me to tell players how to play their characters.
I have faith that my players will find reasons within their stats for the actions they take.
We are all telling the story.
If one of your players is playing a stupid character but he figured out the answer to the riddle would you deny him the option of answering?
"No, your character is too stupid to answer the riddle sorry."
As a DM no I would not but as a player I've been known to keep my mouth shut when I have the answer but I judge that my character would never have been able to come up with it.
Torger
My proposition : ask for a riddle but give a time limit and grant different amount of "subjective time" according to the character intelligence.
Fighter, you get 2 minutes to find the awnser. Mage, you get 10.
You can also do dexterity, or strength games this way, just indexing the time for the characteristic.
Fighter hold that weight for 20 seconds. Mage, you need 80.
Rogue, you've got 5 minutes to get as far as possible on this game, cleric, you've got one.
You can also gives a different amount of essays. (Mage, you can try to awnser this riddle three times. Fighter, the first awnser is definitive, so be carefull.)
You explicitly stated that the character's Charisma didn't matter,Even if your character doesn't have a good charisma you can use your intelligence to think of the best thing to say so that you can get the highest modifier.
You can always use your intelligence to help your character fight with the best strategy in combat.
I explicitly stated nothing of the sort.
I was giving an example of how the rule are.
If you look at the description for both Bluff and Diplomacy you will see different lists of modifiers that would effect the chance of the skills success.
As GM you should never say "I'm sorry your to stupid to be that charismatic."
you can just use your own intelligence to give your character the best possible chance to succeed using Charisma.
Yes according to the rules written in the CRB.
You explicitly stated that the character's intelligence didn't matter,
I explicitly stated nothing of the sort.
go ahead and use the best strategies in combat regardless of the fact that the character wouldn't think of them.
Your not suggesting that players with characters with low intelligence should fight with poor strategies on purpose?
That wouldn't be believable at all.
Do you think a pack of wolves wouldn't try to flank their advisories and try to trip every time they bite? They have an int of 2.
The CRs for Monsters doesn't take into account the monsters being too stupid to use good strategy, and the idea that they should is absurd.
My argument has never been that you should ignore your stats.
My argument has been that you shouldn't ignore your actual intelligence.
My argument is also that you already use your actual intelligence during the game.
I feel it is silly to try to arbitrarily choose certain moments of the game where your not allowed to use your actual intelligence when your fine with it being use at other times.
The same goes for both your actual charisma and wisdom.
I would never suggest that you ignore your stats.
That is entirely outside what is being discussed. Your claim is that the character's Charisma shouldn't limit what the player can do with the character. That, as long as the player can think of the right thing to say, the character should be able to solve any Charisma-based challenge. Or, at least, that's certainly how it's been presented.
No, all I said was that if your character doesn't have a good charisma you can use your intelligence to think of the best thing to say so that you can get the highest modifier.
Getting the highest modifer does not equate to being able to solve any charisma based challenge. The nighest modifier could be a negative number.
Poor strategies and the best strategies are two different things.
I believe that players should fight with the best strategies that they can. Players shouldn't meta-game meaning that they shouldn't fight with strategies involving information that they couldn't possibly know.
And, yes, I am saying that the Int 3, Wis 3 barbarian should not be able to come up with the best strategy for every given fight just because he's played by an IQ 180 player. That isn't the same as saying he should use a poor one--gang up on the guy everyone else is attacking is usually at least a workable strategy, and it's one that's obvious to even a drooling moron like our theoretical barbarian.
I do not think that this is believable. If a player was unlucky enough to get two 3 ability scores expecting him to be worse at fighting is unfair. Considering that fighting is probably the only thing he is good at. The whole idea is ridiculous.
"Flank and bite" isn't a complicated strategy and isn't remotely close to the best strategy. A better strategy, for example, would be to never attack humans with weapons and glowing staves at all--but they're too stupid to realize that.
Your mistaking intelligence for knowledge. Wolves know how to attack. Most pack animals do. Wolves don't necessarily know what a man made weapons are. A wolves that have lots of interaction with man might get and idea of what man made weapons are and might only attack men who didn't look like they were carrying weapons.
Wolves as evil slavering monsters comes as a result of centuries of propaganda by ranchers and farmers
Agree!
No, it isn't absurd that skeletons shouldn't use masterful tactics, or that wolves shouldn't single out the hale and hearty cleric regardless of the fact that the cleric is keeping the rest of the party alive, or that the giant flytrap shouldn't ignore the rogue in favor of the fighter because the rogue can't hurt it as much.
That's actually exactly what should happen. Uncontrolled skeletons should attack the first living creature they see. Wolves should target the weakest and most infirm looking character, even if that's not the smart choice. Man-eating plants should try to eat whatever comes within range, with no preference other than availability.
Certainly the strategy that a creature should use should be based upon how much that character knows about it's adversary but certainly a creature would learn that certain strategics that it is attempting to use aren't working (I am assuming that a creature would know when his attack roll was high and he missed.)
And it's the DM's job in the game to make the world convincing for the players
Okay.
this includes keeping them in character
How they play there character IS there character meaning that the GM doesn't really have any say in the matter.
either through benefits such as bonus xp for staying in character
This is more of a house rule isn't it?
or penalties like changed alignments
It is the GM responsibility to change alignment but unless your specifically playing an alignment restrictive class this isn't a penalty
and just outright rejection for trying to do something blatantly out of character.
Certainly the GM has the right to reject characters using knowledge they wouldn't otherwise know. I'm not sure if Pathfinder specifically mentions Meta-gaming but it shouldn't be allowed.
It is the players, not the GM, that decide what's in character for their characters.
The players should play their character with regards to there stats, but how their choices play out is up to them.
The players should play their character with regards to there statsThis is completely opposite to what you have said previously in the thread, and is exactly what everyone else has been telling you should happen.
If you look at almost every post I have made on this thread I have said something similar to this from the beginning.
My argument has never been that you should ignore your stats.
My argument has been that you shouldn't ignore your actual intelligence.My argument is also that you already use your actual intelligence during the game.
Your actual intelligence has no bearing on your characters' stats and shouldn't be used to subvert or alter the effects of your characters' stats. That is, in fact, not playing with regards to your stats.
When your character gains a new feat who makes that decision you or your character?
Karlgamer,
You are correct in that the player's intelligence will always have a bearing on real life. We play the game during the course of real life, so their knowledge and skill with the game will impact that. This is similar to pointing out that your ability to see will have an impact on your ability to drive a car IMO.
Here's a scenario:
I'm GM'ing for my nephew, it's a solo campaign.
He's 10 years old and of average intelligence (goes to a normal school, not in any special classes)
He's playing a wizard with a 30 Intelligence who is 50 years old.
Which of the following is the most prudent course of action:
-pretend that the intelligence of an average 10 year old is the near pinnacle of intelligence of mortals in my campaign world
-treat the wizard as if he made all the mistakes a normal 10 year old would make
-give my nephew information I might not to another player in the same situation to help simulate his high intelligence
Your actual intelligence has no bearing on your characters' stats and shouldn't be used to subvert or alter the effects of your characters' stats. That is, in fact, not playing with regards to your stats.When your character gains a new feat who makes that decision you or your character?
You are correct. An 3 year old will probably not pick feats as well as someone with their B.S. who has been playing for 15 years.
That has absolutely no relevance Karl.
No relevance I don't buy that.
Noone is saying that you don't use your brain during character creation
The decisions I make about my character are the decisions my character makes. With the exception of race and abilities.
My character might have a different reason for choosing said feat, skill, or class. But he did make that decision.
Although I will admit that this isn't often roleplayed out.
but during the actual play you're supposed to use your brain to do what the character would think of sometimes this includes fleeing even though you think you can win the fight based on ooc knowledge
You should never use out of character knowledge.
and this includes not surpassing the level of intelligence that the character is capable of.
Well, other then specific rules, we have no guide of what certain levels of intelligence allows us to do.
Also we might not actually be able to accurately be a character with an extremely high intelligence.
Given, however only a modest amount of actual charisma we can pretend to be extremely intelligence.
In either case whether we are pretending to be stupider then we are or pretending to be smarter then we are. We are pretending.
I can pretend to be a stupid character who accidentally gives the correct answer to a riddle. (A situation not unknown in fantasy fiction)
I can also pretend to be an extremely smart character who keeps guessing incorrectly, or wisely lets the rest of the party guess until its clear that they won't stumble upon it.
I actually see great roleplaying potential in a smart character not being able to figure out a riddle but pretending that it's easy and prodding the other characters(especially the stupid ones who might not guess the most logical.)
There is this riddle that is solved faster by children then college graduates.
What is greater than God,
More evil than the Devil,
The poor have it,
The rich need it,
If you eat it, you will die?
I could easily see a stupid character getting thing before a smart one.
|
The more of this thread I read, the more I wonder how much out of character planning is done by groups. If time isn't an issue, then the group can take some time to discuss a riddle or puzzle out of character. They suggest the answer which may just be correct. Back in character, it's actually the wizard who give the answer, even though it's the barbarian's player who thought of the answer.
I guess you do have to be careful of metagaming in this situation, but for most puzzles and traps, I don't really see much metagaming going on. That's more of a monster weakness and battle planning thing.
That riddle is solved faster by children because it's technically false the rich need lots of things for example health care.
Well, This isn't actually my favorite version of the riddle.
The line should be "Rich people want it." This is a play on the phrase "to want nothing" meaning to be rich.
Despite this inconsistency why would children be better at getting a riddle that was wrong?
A stupid character stumbling on an answer is supposed to be a rare occurrence even in stories this is fine when you occasionally have to bail out your friends but you shouldn't use this as an excuse to do whatever the hell you please.
Riddles themselves are rare occurrences.
Also as I stated earlier there are rules governing how intelligence applies to puzzles and we have a way to evaluate the intelligence of our characters we have modifiers aka someone with 20 int is the pinnacle of human intelligence this is the kind of person you see once in a generation at best, an Einstein or Hawking or something like that. A 10 is your average guy anything below a 10 is someone who is abnormally dumb, a 12 is a step up lets say a highschool grad of average ability, a 14 is another step maybe someone with a bachelors degree, a 16 is somebody with a Masters, and an 18 is a PHD or somesuch.
I'm sorry but there are no rules that you are speaking of.(28 would be the pinnacle actually. Average would be 10.5)
The point is that none of the information you have given me(which is mostly your opinion) tells use what level of intelligence solves which riddle. If there is a chart somewhere that shows this even for a few famous riddles. I've in fact written some riddles I would love to know what level of intelligence is required to solve them.
Also just because you roll to determine your success doesn't mean you can't RP in the process.
If you say roleplay has no effect on the outcome why would I want to roleplay?
Roleplaying is suppose to be fun.
It's not suppose to be something that your GM makes you do like some power hungry maniac.
Why even ask me a riddle if solving it was a matter of a die role?
I personally don't see how it's fun to have your character pat himself on the back for answering a riddle which was less of an encounter then team lifting a portcullis.
At least when you are in combat you can say: "The turning point in the battle was when I realized that I should use that silver dagger the old lady gave me."
Of course in combat you're allowed to use your brain.
But, then again, you might think you're not even allowed to use it there.
Incidentally if you ban stupid characters for answering riddles you remove the possibility for fun roleplaying moments like this form happening.
That's why I suggested to roll for it. The Int 3 character in a mathematical riddle was, as I said, the extreme. If you see a chance, even the slightest, that the character could really answer, let the player roll for giving the answer. If he fails let him suggest the answer to someone with higher Int or who just made a better roll, as if the smart player was "part" of the brain of the other player's smart character.
A PC with higher than normal Int is obviously difficult for most people to role (in certain regards), since the average player of the genius PC has average intellect. Help that with a measure of table talk (or spend months testing your players' intellect in a laboratory to know the gap between their Int and their PCs', but... oh, well). And at the same, limit smart players to do things that are reasonable for their dumb PCs. It's not an unfair limitation, it's simple logic. As much as you agree that your Dwarf won't ever say no to a beer because he's a Dwarf, you must also agree that he won't troublessly solve any riddle he encounters using the player's mind, since he also has a different mind that has low Int.
|
If you ban less intelligence characters from even attempting a riddle, and made it fully a DC check, then I don't see much point in actually providing the actual riddle. Might as well just put "Riddle: DC 25" instead of asking "At night they come without being fetched. By day they are lost without being stolen. What are they?". Much like how traps have been reduced to a minimal description and a DC.
I personally prefer the actual riddle, Grimtooth's Traps, and admitting that sometimes playing out of character is just more fun. Hell, once you solve the riddle, you COULD rule that one of the smarter characters was the one to finally figure it out.
A PC with higher than normal Int is obviously difficult for most people to role (in certain regards), since the average player of the genius PC has average intellect. Help that with a measure of table talk (or spend months testing your players' intellect in a laboratory to know the gap between their Int and their PCs', but... oh, well). And at the same, limit smart players to do things that are reasonable for their dumb PCs. It's not an unfair limitation, it's simple logic. As much as you agree that your Dwarf won't ever say no to a beer because he's a Dwarf, you must also agree that he won't troublessly solve any riddle he encounters using the player's mind, since he also has a different mind that has low Int.
Roleplay isn't being. Roleplay is pretending. To roleplay a character with a high intellect you only have to have a modest charisma.
I admit it's easyer for me because I'm a stage actor, but pretending is something that someone can do at any age.
Roleplay is the part which isn't constantly subject to die rolls. Not to say it can't be.
Trying to stop a player for using his actual intellect by making new rules and declarations is like trying to plug holes in a Swiss cheese boat.
Trust your players enough to let them figure out how to play their own characters.
Having a low int already handicaps them enough according to the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you ban
Do I need to reword the above?
Roleplay isn't being. Roleplay is pretending.
Exactly. You're pretending to be a dumb (or not) person, so do pretend it and don't be yourself, smarter (or not) than the character you're pretending to be.
Roll to see if that person you're pretending to be has the actual capability to do the thing in question. The numbers are there exactly to measure what a character can or cannot do. Add to that the use of your own intellect in a reasonable amount: low if it has to be low; high (and/or helped on it) if it has to be high.Simple enough.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh delightful low int handicaps them according to the rules huh?
Yes, with a low enough intelligence you may only get one skill point a level. With a low intelligence you won't be able to play a wizard or any other class which depends on intelligence. You will never be very good at any skill that involves intelligence.
You know it seems a little patronizing for me to point out in the CRB(a book which I assume you must have) why a characters intelligence score is important. You can search the PRD and find all of the reasons.
Well lets see how that works eh? He suffers because he gets a negative on skill checks ... oh wait because the player uses his own intelligence to get the easy DC on everything he has at least a 3-5 lower necessary DC which is the equivalent of a 6 to 10 point difference in ability scores so he really has a pretty easy time on any int checks.
Every character in the party can maximize their potential success. The dumb character isn't getting any benefit that the other characters and NPCs don't have. I'm surprise you didn't pick up on that.
The smart player will get a benefit for being smart, but this benefit isn't unfair.
Roleplaying isn't designed to level the playing field. The players aren't playing against each other. Roleplaying is meant to be fun.
I guess maybe you really love having more skill points alternatively you're a wizard and you have no choice but to have high int and then somebody comes along and gives everyone an arbitrary bonus to your primary skill making you worthless at everything because the braindead barbarian is just as good at doing your extra skills as you are.
Just as good at what again?
The braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to cast wizard spells.
The braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to identify monsters weaknesses.
The braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to craft items.
The braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to speak a bunch of languages.
The Braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to appraise items.
The braindead barbarian wouldn't be able to identify spells.
All of the players actual intelligences apples to all aspects of the game not just those aspect that involve there individual characters intelligence. I have already given examples of this.
Mind you if the riddle is written in another language or has strange characters in it the braindead barbarian wouldn't even be able to read the riddle.
If the riddle involves something that the braindead barbarian wouldn't know(such as a legendary sword) he wouldn't be able to solve it.
With a few spells the wizard might decide to bypass the riddle all together.
I don't follow. At no point in that post did I suggest that you should ignore stats. I suggest that you play your character.
Here is what I was talking about.
Why is it unfair for a player who figures out the answer to have their character roleplay answering the question?
If the character is too dumb to have realistically come up with an answer then he(the player) is ignoring the stats.
If the character is too dumb to have realistically come up with an answer then he(the player) is ignoring the stats.
Answering a question isn't the same as figuring out the answer to a question. There are many ways in which a stupid character could believably answer a riddle. That's roleplaying! It's fun!
I asked:
Why is it unfair
I was responding to how fair it was.
The players have the responsibility to play there characters.
This responsibly is not on the GMs.
If the character is too dumb to have realistically come up with an answer then he(the player) is ignoring the stats.Answering a question isn't the same as figuring out the answer to a question. There are many ways in which a stupid character could believably answer a riddle. That's roleplaying! It's fun!
I asked:
Why is it unfairI was responding to how fair it was.
The players have the responsibility to play there characters.
This responsibly is not on the GMs.
The topic was you being accused of saying the player should ignore the stats. You denied that so I posted the above.
So I ask again should characters ignore mental stats?
PS:Of course answering a question is not the same as figuring out the answer. Anyone can answer a question, but figuring it out means you used your abilities to get the correct answer. To be clear when people say answer they question we are assuming the correct answer is being given, not just any answer.
|
This argument reminds me of Gandalf in that riddle, he tired every freaking word (because he is smart) yet could not figure out the correct one. Because he was smart he was thinking in a grand scale, yet Frodo kind of got the riddle right (I'm not sure if Frodo was supposed to be smart anyways). Kind of ironic now that you think about it XD.Nope. They all just sat around until Gandalf remembered to simply say mellon.
Double nope. Gandalf was too smart to interpret it literally. All of his intelligence and wisdom were actually a hindrance in this case. It wasn't until Frodo interepreted the riddle literally; and asked Gandalf what the translation was, that the riddle was solved.
Hence the riddle wasnt solved by the semi-devine ancient genius of Gandalf, he only contributed what he could to the group as a whole. This is actually a perfect almost made-to-order example of exactly what is being discussed.