|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Due to Min/Max-ing several players have made charaters with int/wis 7 so they could boost other scores, however the players themselves are some really smart folks.
These are the players that solve the mods. They figure out the traps, the puzzles and the clues. If a character barley knows how to tie their shoes, how much of the mod should the player solve for the group? Or it shouldn't matter?
Any Advice?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play my dumb character as dumb. Every once in a while if the entire group is stuck and I see a solution, I'll suggest it as "NOW ME JUST GENTLE GIANT BUT MAYBE WE TRY THIS," and then phrase whatever the idea is as stupidly as possible so it sounds like a terrible idea. It's kind of a fun game, although I admit it gets tiresome if I do too many games with him in a row.
If people are playing stupid characters, they shouldn't be solving all the problems. I've no objection to telling them so.
Puzzle solving uses a lot more Int than Wis. I know very intelligent people that actually lack common sense. And people with common sense and intuition that couldn't solve a puzzle to save their life.
If someone has an 18 Int PC (or proper skills) we give them a bonus to solve the puzzle with a hint. I think that's cool and a good way to do things.
However, at what point is the player allowed to solve puzzles? Is 10 Int good enough? 12? What's the cut off? Should your Int (compared to your PC) impact your effort? Hmmm... it's not clear right?
I admit, I've solved complex puzzles with 7 Int PCs before. I should have stopped myself but I love puzzles. At other times I solved the puzzle but said nothing. More often than not I'll sit back making witty (stupid) comments. /shrug
I think the only thing you can do is to leave it up to the player to stop themselves. The player can still solve the puzzle but should refrain from solving it (unless it's in a plausible way).
I'm interested in seeing what others think.
Conversely, what about a less intelligent player with an 18 intelligence wizard? Should the answer to a player puzzle be given freely if the player is not as smart as the character?
Well, yes, that is the problem, isn't it? You can be the very personification of the old "90 pound weakling" stereotype and start play with Str 20 if you want, but if you're just not that bright, an Int 20 isn't exactly playable.
There's no easy answer, other than "don't play characters smarter than you are," which I'm sure someone here will object to on a conceptual level any second now.
One way of working this is to let a high Int character make an Int check for a clue, or let a low Int character make an Int check to use their own idea. It's not ideal, but that's a limitation of the real life -> in game interaction.
|
If a GM tells me I can't solve the puzzle because my PC has 7 INT, then next week I'm going to bring my 14 INT character and just wait for the GM to give me the answers.
Bad, Jiggy, no! /newspapers
Seriously, when I GM I more often see the problem of people wanting to 'not RP' their dump stat when it's charisma. Some of them want the strengths of both the character and the player, and not the weaknesses. I find this aggravating. I like Patrick's suggestion.
Bad, Jiggy, no! /newspapers
Seriously, when I GM I more often see the problem of people wanting to 'not RP' their dump stat when it's charisma. Some of them want the strengths of both the character and the player, and not the weaknesses. I find this aggravating. I like Patrick's suggestion.
That makes me sad.
My dwarf 5 charisma druid (which I don't have many low charisma characters due to playing mostly spontaneous casters....actually just mostly oracles and bards) is one of my most fun characters to role play. He occasionally will speak up, and what he says is the most vile, insulting things to NPCs that I can think of. He also calls people idiots all the time (and at 13 Int, it's sometimes justified!), but of course I can also tone it down if players are having problems with him. He also constantly smells like sewage, as he actually grew up in the sewers of Absalom and continues to live there (it's an urban druid thing).
Maybe they're idiot savants?
There's already a mechanic in place for reflecting the effects of a character's intelligence in the amount of skill points they get.
I don't see a need to penalize them further, just as I don't penalize a low-charisma character beyond their reduced modifiers for social skills.
As for intentionally holding back, that's the player's choice, but if the group is struggling, they may want to at least drop some hints. Although I do like Patrick's method of contributing in character.
If a GM tells me I can't solve the puzzle because my PC has 7 INT, then next week I'm going to bring my 14 INT character and just wait for the GM to give me the answers.
@ 18 you can get the answer. At 14 you can get a hint.
|
|
This is an age-old argument almost as polarizing and divisive as the alignment discussion.
In a home game, you get to create a consistent social contract with your GM and the other players at the table, what type of game you are playing. In other words, what are the rules you are roleplaying by? Are you stuck always being dumb and never being able to solve a puzzle (even if you personally love puzzles) because your character is dumb? This is easy to answer in a home game.
Personally, I hate playing dumb characters ( I have once, and that particular GM made my 6 Int Cleric out to be like a 3 year old child-like personality—was funny, but got old after awhile.) So even on my front-line fighter types I usually try to do nothing less than 10, but usually go for a 12 or 14.
In PFS, there are really two issues to consider:
1) These scenarios are not built to accommodate all character types. They can’t. So if you have a group of all dummies, and you hold the players to the intelligence/wisdom of their character, then a scenario may end up being a failure. In many cases, puzzles are designed for the players to solve, not the characters and are given rolls that can be made to assist in solving the puzzles if the players are having a hard time.
2) There is no overriding social contract with the GM like in your home game. It is a different type of contract, where the GM is only beholden to help you have fun, follow the rules, and run as written. As such, a player may get away with things with 5 GM’s, and then the 6th at a convention doesn’t let him. So now his convention experience for that scenario is ruined because of a certain level of expectation he has.
So, in PFS, I would suggest not worrying about it too much. Just let the players have fun, and ensure a fun and challenging time for them if you can. Organized play really isn’t the place to strictly enforce roleplaying as you see it, period.
|
Intelligent Player/Dumb PC: Please keep in mind your character's drawback of an Int score of X. Roleplay it as you will, but roleplaying it as if you had a high intelligence just makes you a munchkin.
Less Intelligent Player/Intelligent PC: Would you like to make an intelligence check?
Intelligent Player/Intelligent PC: How do you want to handle this?
Less Intelligent Player/Dumb PC: Attack! Dice! 20! Yes! Have a cookie.
/jest
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM tells me I can't solve the puzzle because my PC has 7 INT, then next week I'm going to bring my 14 INT character and just wait for the GM to give me the answers.@ 18 you can get the answer. At 14 you can get a hint.
Nope. I don't care if the int is 7, 14, or 18. If the PCs are stuck in the adventure because they can't figure out a puzzle, they can roll an int check. I've used this mechanic before, and usually someone in the group succeeds at the check and keeps the adventure moving along.
As an example, from the last time I ran The Disappeared:
The group missed the "vent" hint in the note and room description, which brought the adventure to a screeching halt. I had them all roll int checks, and when someone rolled high, I pointed out the clues to them so they'd be more obvious. This was enough to get things back on track.
Intelligent Player/Dumb PC: Please keep in mind your character's drawback of an Int score of X. Roleplay it as you will, but roleplaying it as if you had a high intelligence just makes you a munchkin.
What if you roleplay him like Cliff from Cheers? He certainly acted like he was smart, even though he didn't really know anything.
...they can roll an int check...
Well, really, this is what the dice rolls have always been there for, anyway, right?
The dice rolls are meant as a way to let the dice moderate things that DMs and Players don't agree on, such as "my character is smart enough to know that", or "your character isn't strong enough to break the door down", or "did the robber escape the room before the cop tackled him to the floor?", or "Cowboy: 'bang, you're dead!', Proud Warrior Race Guy: 'no, I'm not! I dived behind the rock... and then shot you with a bow and arrow!'"
If a character barley knows how to tie their shoes, how much of the mod should the player solve for the group? Or it shouldn't matter?
Best let it slide. As jiggy said, the polar opposite ideal is to give someone like me who plays a 20+ intellect character the answer. What happens when someone with 26 shows up then eh?
I've also found it very annoying to judge people based on the numbers on their sheet. I cringe when I hear "7 charisma? You must be ugly!" It can create a not fun situation.
As a side note I've actually seen some fun ways to roleplay this. One guy I knew played a high charisma, low intellect orc barbarian. Anytime he spoke it was in a childish manner, and when he gave an answer it was direct or stupid but correct, if that makes sense. Usually it was followed by insane logic that somehow added up. The player was actually really smart, and he played his orc really stupid, but it was actually pretty awesome when he did speak. If there was a solution, it was simple but effective.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By the way, folks:
The village idiot has INT 4 (not INT 7) and is able to do odd jobs and hunt small game and otherwise generally take care of himself.
So we have to remember to treat 7 INT characters as being noticeably brighter than that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a character barley knows how to tie their shoes, how much of the mod should the player solve for the group? Or it shouldn't matter?I've also found it very annoying to judge people based on the numbers on their sheet. I cringe when I hear "7 charisma? You must be ugly!" It can create a not fun situation.
I never judge the player by the numbers on their sheet. I judge the character by them (afterall, there are there to serve as a quantitative measure of how strong, agile, smart, wise, hearty, and charismatic a character is, right?).
I judge the player on:
a.) his or her ability to RP to those stats in a believable and/or entertaining fashion
b.) ability to not be a self-absorbed tool
:-D
Nope. I don't care if the int is 7, 14, or 18. If the PCs are stuck in the adventure because they can't figure out a puzzle, they can roll an int check. I've used this mechanic before, and usually someone in the group succeeds at the check and keeps the adventure moving along.As an example, from the last time I ran The Disappeared:
** spoiler omitted **
That works too.
I never judge the player by the numbers on their sheet. I judge the character by them (afterall, there are there to serve as a quantitative measure of how strong, agile, smart, wise, hearty, and charismatic a character is, right?).If a character barley knows how to tie their shoes, how much of the mod should the player solve for the group? Or it shouldn't matter?I've also found it very annoying to judge people based on the numbers on their sheet. I cringe when I hear "7 charisma? You must be ugly!" It can create a not fun situation.
You know what I meant. No need to play with it. I will still not like it if someone peaks at my sheet and calls me gross or stupid or weak. Its also not always something visible, depending on the situation.
|
|
You know what I meant. No need to play with it. I will still not like it if someone peaks at my sheet and calls me gross or stupid or weak. Its also not always something visible, depending on the situation.I never judge the player by the numbers on their sheet. I judge the character by them (afterall, there are there to serve as a quantitative measure of how strong, agile, smart, wise, hearty, and charismatic a character is, right?).If a character barley knows how to tie their shoes, how much of the mod should the player solve for the group? Or it shouldn't matter?I've also found it very annoying to judge people based on the numbers on their sheet. I cringe when I hear "7 charisma? You must be ugly!" It can create a not fun situation.
Actually, maybe I'm not sure what you meant. Are you saying they look at your character sheet and make fun of YOU, the player for being 'ugly', 'stupid', and/or 'weak'?! If so, I guess I've been lucky enough not to encounter that level of rudeness.
You know what I meant. No need to play with it. I will still not like it if someone peaks at my sheet and calls me gross or stupid or weak. Its also not always something visible, depending on the situation.
You != Your Character.
The numbers reveal things about the characters. Low strength = weak. Low intelligence = stupid. Low charisma = unpleasant in some way. If you get offended by people understanding what your character's ability scores mean, you should either work on separating yourself from your character psychologically--that would be the best solution, I suspect--or, if that's not possible for whatever reasons, stop playing characters with dump stats.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
You know what I meant. No need to play with it. I will still not like it if someone peaks at my sheet and calls me gross or stupid or weak. Its also not always something visible, depending on the situation.You != Your Character.
The numbers reveal things about the characters. Low strength = weak. Low intelligence = stupid. Low charisma = unpleasant in some way. If you get offended by people understanding what your character's ability scores mean, you should either work on separating yourself from your character psychologically--that would be the best solution, I suspect--or, if that's not possible for whatever reasons, stop playing characters with dump stats.
The second half of the last statement should be emphasized. It's possible to build a fighter that does 2d6+8 damage per swing, with cleave, and not have any stat below 10. Casters rarely need those extremely high numbers - 16 is usually plenty, and a 16 is easily achievable on a 20 point buy.
stop playing characters with dump stats.
Is this something about optimizers? No need to punish them more than their stats already take, that's not very nice.
I am not my character. I am however the person who made and envisioned them, and I don't like when people give them traits they don't have. I don't let people see my character sheet without my permission. If you want to know something you can ask. So I get peeved when people peek at my sheet and make assumptions like low charisma instantly means ugly and low intelligence means I can't help solve puzzles. Its like telling someone they can't play the game if you just tell them they can't do it.
|
|
What if you roleplay him like Cliff from Cheers? He certainly acted like he was smart, even though he didn't really know anything.Intelligent Player/Dumb PC: Please keep in mind your character's drawback of an Int score of X. Roleplay it as you will, but roleplaying it as if you had a high intelligence just makes you a munchkin.
That I would be fine with, especially if you made subtle references to all the Pixar movies that guy has done voices in. :P
I am however the person who made and envisioned them, and I don't like when people give them traits they don't have. ... So I get peeved when people peek at my sheet and make assumptions like low charisma instantly means ugly and low intelligence means I can't help solve puzzles.
But that IS what they mean.
Well, the Charisma thing is flexible; maybe you're gorgeous except for the suppurating pustules on your forehead, or maybe you're just really offensive as soon as you open your mouth ... but there's still something about you that makes you unlikeable. And the Intelligence thing is pretty much spot on.
That's ... the whole point of having stats, dude.
I remember back in LG days, when putting a puzzle into a scenario, I was reviewing it with the Triad member before the first Play-Test game. She read the riddle, and popped out with the answer. Then stated something like - "well, it shouldn't be too hard if I can figure it out..." meaning that she felt she had a low puzzle solving ability. Then, during the play test, 6 people she considered very smart failed to work out the answer - even with hints. (shrugs) sometimes, even those of us of limited intellect can see what no one else does.
"Mongo just pawn is great game of live, but ...."
Well, clearly Mongo had a decent Wis score.
Okay, but seriously: I'm hip to the idea that there are different manifestations of low scores. But they have to have some meaning, or there's just no point in having them.
Okay, but seriously: I'm hip to the idea that there are different manifestations of low scores. But they have to have some meaning, or there's just no point in having them.
Right, and the player decides the manifesting traits. When you give them the traits yourself, your violating their character. Your going to run into many people with many interpretations. If officially 7 charisma gave you 13 acne dots, and someone had 12, then you can get onto them. Thankfully, it does not.
They do mean something of course no matter what. A character with 7 charisma takes a -2 to charisma based checks and one with 18 gets a +4. Its very possible the character has put many ranks into diplomacy to help with this. Same thing with knowledge and skills, thought that ones a bit harder to tie together. You can also have 7 wisdom and a +23 perception. I have a character with 7 charisma and has more than +20 diplomacy because he's an inquisitor with the right traits, class skills, and inquisition(also magic!). He may be aloof, but he's wise enough to find a way around it.
There was an experiment done to test certain traits in people. The testers took a checker board and placed a piece in the middle of the board. they took two test subjects and offered them a huge reward if they could at any point get the chess piece to their side of the board. The rules each player has a total of 5 moves and you cna move one square any direction. When bringing this test to the US's premeir colleges almost veryone failed. So our best and brightest aalmost all lost. Bringing this same test to the poorest and least educated in mexico and almost everyone testee won(the way to win is to cooperate so both people win).
Intelligence and upbringing can get in the way of the riddle/puzzle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you give them the traits yourself, your violating their character.
No ... no, I'm not. I'm really not. If you consider people making inaccurate--not inappropriate, mind you, just inaccurate--assumptions about a list of numbers on a page to be a violation of some mythical persona that exists only within your mind, you need to relax. Or get some perspective. Or both.
|
|
Is this a PFS or just a PF question.
In a plain home game, I'd punish them. You just solved what your 7 INT character couldn't. Congrats give yourself +1 to INT and -1 to your top score. (I guarantee they won't min/max their future PCs.) Or just drop their highest score by one and make them apply all those points to their INT or WIS as the situation demands. So, 16 STR 7 INT PC just solved a math problem for a college grad, guess what, he just went down to 15 STR and now he gets to apply his 3 points to make his INT 10. (This is assuming his base STR was 14 with a +2 race modifier.)
In PFS if they are being gamey, you say something simple like, what's your INT? If its 7 they don't get to help solve any more puzzles or contribute until the higher INT PCs have solved a lot more problems. And if they attempt to participate, you hit them with a -2/-2 to hit and damage for that session.
It will get the message across pretty quickly.
When you give them the traits yourself, your violating their character.No ... no, I'm not. I'm really not. If you consider people making inaccurate--not inappropriate, mind you, just inaccurate--assumptions about a list of numbers on a page to be a violation of some mythical persona that exists only within your mind, you need to relax. Or get some perspective. Or both.
Opinions may vary on the value, and as to whether its appropriate or accurate or what. People vary and so do their values, best to respect I think. How do you like the second paragraph from the post you quoted, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS if they are being gamey, you say something simple like, what's your INT? If its 7 they don't get to help solve any more puzzles or contribute until the higher INT PCs have solved a lot more problems. And if they attempt to participate, you hit them with a -2/-2 to hit and damage for that session.
I think that's the same as telling them "Don't play!" and that hitting them with that is absolutely unacceptable. I'm pretty sure you don't have the right to do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I solve it with a low int character, I just say someone else solved it, my low int character sparking their high int character to come up with it. 4-6 players around the table help to emulate that 26 int wizard working on it by himself.
And if it's 4-6 low int characters, we just happened to be the monkeys writing Shakespeare.
How do you like the second paragraph from the post you quoted, eh?
I didn't read it. The first paragraph made my brain hurt so much that I decided not to subject myself to more.
When I solve it with a low int character, I just say someone else solved it, my low int character sparking their high int character to come up with it. 4-6 players around the table help to emulate that 26 int wizard working on it by himself.
And if it's 4-6 low int characters, we just happened to be the monkeys writing Shakespeare.
Oh, yeah! Sometimes I as a player whisper my ideas to another player, if they're not appropriate for my character. I completely forgot about that.
|
|
Sometimes I think we forget the original term "player-character." Meaning that when you play, there is a melding of the player and the character, especially when it comes to the mental aspect of the game. A "smart" player with a "dumb" character being denied things based on a meta-game objection makes for BadWrongFun. A "dumb" player with a "smart" character denied a die roll to solve a challenge is likewise having BadWrongFun.
In a home-based game, you can have a much more lengthy and detail discussion regarding how the character relates to his environment and how his player affects that with a different set of ability scores. However, in organized play, we just don't have the time nor the circumstances to resolve deep characterizations. As GMs, we largely have to just let players play and occasionally provide tips/clues to keep the game progressing regardless of "smart/dumb" players or characters.
If this just boils down to an objection to extreme ability scores leading to some unwanted level of optimization, we could just make a hard-cap of 18 for any ability score at character creation (regardless of racial adjustments) and a hard-minimum of 10, or 9, or 8, or whatever. Alternately, we could reduce the point-buy from high fantasy (20) to standard fantasy (15). Either/both would reduce, but not eliminate, the occurrence of extreme ability scores. Personally, I like 15 point-buy, but most don't. I doubt either change would have any impact on the overall GoodRightFun of the community.