Does forcing players to 'roleplay your stats' bring more emphasis on said stats?

[DM Under The Bridge]

Rule 1 of posting on your dming.

Someone will always say you are doing it wrong and are a horrible person/dm.

Really guys, do we have to kick someone else's dming style? Do we have to raise ourselves up as better when we have not played in their games? C'mon Spalding, chill.

[Irontruth]

Tormsskull wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Instead of pre-determining my answer ("No") I let the die rolls play out. After a good roll (or multiple if this is really important), there might indeed be one that I, as the GM, was unaware of prior to the start of the session. As the GM, I let the players and their ideas help lead me as I present the world to them. Good rolls have good outcomes. Bad rolls have bad ones.

There's a line between playing make believe and playing a table top RPG. This method would seem to make that line very thin.

Are the players aware that the world alters based on their rolls?

Yes. We've talked about a similar thing, I already give my players fairly wide latitude in altering the world anyways, often without dice rolls.

Eventually as a GM, you will always have to do this anyways. I'd find it hard to believe if any GM claimed that they never had to come up with something on the spot. We've all had players go "off the rails" at one point or another in a direction you completely did not anticipate.

In my time as GM, that happened quite regularly and often almost immediately. My solution was to stop trying to anticipate and just react. Build a loose framework, invent everything else as needed.

Personally I have had a lot of bad experiences as a player with GM's who manipulated the game and players to suit their whims, so I understand where that sentiment comes from and many of my players were my fellow players under those GM's, so they know those woes as well. So I understand where Spalding might be coming from. Which is why I don't arbitrarily decide these things, but rather use the dice to inform the decisions. I also regularly give players the opportunity to back out of a situation they don't like.

The game world is already a piece of imagination. Using a time stamp on when those imaginings happened to determine the validity or quality seems strangely arbitrary to me.

[PathlessBeth]

Tormsskull wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

How do you enforce the 'correct' playing of Int 27?

Pretty easily. Your character is incredibly smart. Your character is going to know a lot of stuff about a lot of things. If you try to RP your character as a simpleton that cannot read or write, I'm going to question how that makes any sense.

Its not Int 5 = you must RP like this.
Int 27 = you must RP like this.

It's Int 5 you cannot RP like Int 18, and
Int 27 you cannot RP like Int 5.

But how do you get someone to roleplay a 27 INT when the actual player doesn't have 27 INT? How do you get your players to do something no real person is physically capable of doing, due to nobody having a 27 intelligence?

The players are never going to come up with ideas appropriate to a 27 INT character, because no real person is intelligent enough to do it. Ever.
Sorry, but I fail to see how you can "pretty easily" enforce a requirement for the player to do something no one is capable of doing.

[Jaelithe]

As the DM, you provide them insight and knowledge gratis to simulate their superior intellect. It's not a perfect solution, but many would feel it superior to an Intelligence 5 character consistently offering solutions that would require a genius-level IQ to conceive.

[Jacob Saltband]

Jaelithe wrote:

As the DM, you provide them insight and knowledge gratis to simulate their superior intellect. It's not a perfect solution, but many would feel it superior to an Intelligence 5 character consistently offering solutions that would require a genius-level IQ to conceive.

Pretty much this ^, plus the rest of the players can give ideas as well. This combination I believe is the best way to potray a very high int.

Nobody is saying that a low mental ability score character cant come up with good idea now and then. But when an intelligent player playing a low int character constantly answers the tough questions IC before the other players with high int characters get a chance to, it makes you wonder if the intelligent player is even trying to play within his/her characters ability scores.

[Kirth Gersen]

Say we have a 25-Int character ("Ace the Archimage") played by Allen, and a 5-Int character ("Bubba the Barbarian") played by Brian.

If Allen doesn't think of something, and Brian does, then Brian tells Allen, and you all pretend Ace thought of it. That way, in-game, Ace consistently comes up with better plans than Allen alone can, and Bubba (the dumb character) doesn't come up with any plans at all, and we're all happy, right?

But that's not what people are arguing; they're saying Brian, the player, has to shut up and not talk. In other words, the mechanical penalty for playing a low-Int character is that you can only roll dice and throw Cheetos; you're not really allowed to participate in the game in real life outside of those things.

Somehow, enforcing "proper" roleplaying, to me, isn't worth pointedly telling people that I invited to the table that they're not really allowed to participate.

[Jaelithe]

As opposed to the higher intelligence player who chooses to play a low intelligence character having his cake and eating it, too, gaining all the advantages of his own intellect by simply overriding his character's when possible and convenient? Some players and DMs find that such breaks verisimilitude.

But no, I'm not saying that. Brian, the player, could absolutely drop Allen a note (if Allen's guy is of at least fairly high Intelligence). He could take him aside and say, "Dude, your guy might think of this," and pass the knowledge on that way.

It's not that "they're not really allowed to participate." It's that they consciously chose a role with certain obvious constraints, and are attempting to do an end around and avoid them. And a DM, who wishes all to enjoy his or her game, finds him or herself saying, "I'm going to look the other way on this."

The solution is simple; actually, it's common sense: Don't play a very low Intelligence character if you want your own intelligence to factor in significantly.

Another possibility: Decide on a minimum Intelligence for all PCs—one that allows them to employ their native smarts without it seeming preposterous, as it often can when Gronk the Intelligence 6 Barbarian masterminds the meticulous coordinated assault on a virtually impregnable keep.

There's always what you said, too, Kirth: "It ain't that important, and I ain't lookin' to pee in anyone's Corn Flakes, so I ignore it."

Of course, this is also something that should be discussed before characters are created. After all, it seems like a widespread problem ... or, as some might prefer, an oft-but-not-always accepted convention of the genre.

[Irontruth]

Jaelithe wrote:

The solution is simple; actually, it's common sense: Don't play a very low Intelligence character if you want your own intelligence to factor in significantly.

Or, just require a roll to actually implement the plan. Then the character's ability to properly explain, examine details and execute the plan are brought into play.

The brilliant player who dumps Int and doesn't spend skill points on relevant skills will rarely roll well enough to actually execute the plan. In effect, his ideas sound great, but the never work.

[Jaelithe]

Irontruth wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

The solution is simple; actually, it's common sense: Don't play a very low Intelligence character if you want your own intelligence to factor in significantly.

Or, just require a roll to actually implement the plan. Then the character's ability to properly explain, examine details and execute the plan are brought into play.

The brilliant player who dumps Int and doesn't spend skill points on relevant skills will rarely roll well enough to actually execute the plan. In effect, his ideas sound great, but the[y] never work.

That's a possibility. It would bother me because it might require a plan that should work not to.

I guess, to me, this is a problem that isn't one. It's eliminated by not rolling and/or dumping to low Int and then playing them as high Int.

[Irontruth]

You've never had a plan, that should have worked, completely fail? (IRL)

The reason my method is actually simpler, it doesn't rely on subjective analysis of player intelligence, or attempting to quantify what a character of 12 Int is specifically capable of that a character of 8 Int is not capable of.

Plus we have to quantitatively analyze what my intelligence is as a player. If I have a 10 Int, does that mean it's okay my 8 Int PC has every idea I have? How do we differentiate my intelligence from your intelligence at the table? Do you really want to have the conversation:

"Hey man, we all discussed it Tim, you're too smart to play an 8 Int."
"Uh... what about me guys?"
"Oh, it's cool Larry, you're still allowed to."

[Jaelithe]

Perhaps I've misstated what I mean. You'd be declaring, via roll, that a plan doesn't work rather than letting it play out in game, which would be more arbitrary DM fiat than many DMs wish to employ.

"Subjective analysis of player intelligence" would be unnecessary ... and an analysis of character intelligence is well within the province of DM and players acting in concert ... or the DM alone, if the player's clearly trying to pull a fast one. Like I said, an arched brow and cock-eyed look from the DM and/or other players when the Intelligence 6 Fighter acts the Rhodes scholar is in my experience more than enough to have the culprit player grin and say, "Yeah ... he wouldn't come up with that, would he?" Maybe I've been fortunate with my players. They don't often try that.

And, actually, I've yet to play D&D with someone possessing below average intelligence, so I've been more than willing to take the risk of telling someone they're playing a character too smart (and have done so without lingering or even immediate rancor), and banking on the fact that I'd never have to say, "Oh, you're definitely dumb enough to play that character while exercising your intellect to the fullest." I agree with you; I ain't goin' there. :)

[Abraham spalding]

Irontruth wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

OOOH Gotcha games! I love gotcha games!

Know what I learned about Gotcha games like this, tic-tac-toe and thermonuclear warfare?

The only way to win is to not play.

Because I finally learned after way too many bad GMs that at the end of the day I am the ultimate ball -- and I can always take myself and go home.

No seriously though -- one of the worse ideas I have ever heard of. Altering things for the better or worse just because someone speaks up is simply asking for bad juju. In my book of tips and rules for myself as a GM that's up there in the top five of things not to do. Right after screw you gifts, but before GMPCs.

Are you under the assumption that I'm doing so purely at my whim? If so, you would be mistaken.

Oh?

Quote:

Let's say I've designed a castle, but I didn't design a secret entrance to it. When the player asks "Hey, is there a secret entrance?" I have them figure out a way to answer that question... finding an NPC, rolling knowledge checks, perception, the what is determined by the method they describe.

Instead of pre-determining my answer ("No") I let the die rolls play out. After a good roll (or multiple if this is really important), there might indeed be one that I, as the GM, was unaware of prior to the start of the session. As the GM, I let the players and their ideas help lead me as I present the world to them. Good rolls have good outcomes. Bad rolls have bad ones.

Yup -- it's not predetermined... it's at a whim.

So... yeah I am saying you are making decisions on a whim and then pretending you aren't by blaming the dice.

And yes you are blaming the dice -- it's entirely up to the roll.

Of course slippery slope says, "Abraham you are claiming that we shouldn't let dice rolls tell us how things come out in a dice rolling game!"

My reply to slippery slope, "There is a difference between allowing dice to help adjudicate how a situation turns out, and morphing reality of the situation on the whim of a dice and what you decide after the die is rolled.

With all that said -- back to my number 1 rule of what you should always do as a GM (which it appears you also do): Communicate with the players about house rules and make sure everyone is on board before the game starts.

I don't like the rule (obviously) but I have a lot more room to deal with it if I know before hand than if I find out in the middle of play.

[pres man]

My next fighter is going to be named Harrison Bergeron. I'll just play with phone the entire game and not pay attention until it is my turn to roll. Evidently that is what is know as good "role-playing", who knew.

So all you GMs that don't like people using things that are distracting at the game table, what a horrible job you are doing to encourage proper role-playing from some of your players. Shame on you.

[Matt Thomason]

I feel a character roleplaying their stats (as in, showing some kind of in-character explanation for the stat values - not binding themselves to the number in every possible way) is a nice thing to have in a game.

As a GM, I don't feel I should be forcing them to do it, though, any more than I should be telling the experienced wizard which spell he ought to be casting.

If I was still using XP, and was handing out XP for roleplaying in-character, I might consider a bonus to someone whose RP felt closer to their stats in some way. That's about the limit of my interference, though.

[Irontruth]

Jaelithe wrote:

Perhaps I've misstated what I mean. You'd be declaring, via roll, that a plan doesn't work rather than letting it play out in game, which would be more arbitrary DM fiat than many DMs wish to employ.

I would let it play out, but the plan wouldn't be as foolproof as it first appeared (assuming a poor roll). There would be difficulties that had to be overcome or unanticipated complications.

One of the assumptions I have in regards to gaming is that when you make your character, you are determining how that character is going to solve problems. If you create a weakness in one aspect, when you try to use it, that weakness will show. The easiest way to get that weakness to show is to engage that aspect as written on the sheet using the game's mechanics.

A player can come up with a plan all they like, but they have to use their character sheet to effect change in the game world. The game's mechanics and character stats are the abstractions we use to measure how things influence one another. To me this seems the simplest solution, since it only require you to play the game, something I thought would be a given in these situations.

To be honest, I don't have an issue with smart players having ideas when they play dumb characters. The character is a vehicle for the player to enjoy the game, not a straight jacket. Part of the inherent fun of a game is having those "a ha!" moments, so I think putting restrictions or conditions on that is limiting to the game.

I also think the limits on low Intelligence that is allowed are arbitrary and silly. Why is a 10 Int Fighter acceptable, but a 9 Int Fighter not acceptable? If we accept that a Wizard with a 17 Int vs 18 Int are fundamentally very similar, than a 9 and 10 Int Fighter are similarly so. Talking only about the extremes ignores the fact that those extremes are being used to justify minute distinctions, except I don't think anyone could actually justify those distinctions without using the extremes, making those minor ones relatively meaningless.

[Irontruth]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

OOOH Gotcha games! I love gotcha games!

Know what I learned about Gotcha games like this, tic-tac-toe and thermonuclear warfare?

The only way to win is to not play.

Because I finally learned after way too many bad GMs that at the end of the day I am the ultimate ball -- and I can always take myself and go home.

No seriously though -- one of the worse ideas I have ever heard of. Altering things for the better or worse just because someone speaks up is simply asking for bad juju. In my book of tips and rules for myself as a GM that's up there in the top five of things not to do. Right after screw you gifts, but before GMPCs.

Are you under the assumption that I'm doing so purely at my whim? If so, you would be mistaken.

Oh?

Quote:

Let's say I've designed a castle, but I didn't design a secret entrance to it. When the player asks "Hey, is there a secret entrance?" I have them figure out a way to answer that question... finding an NPC, rolling knowledge checks, perception, the what is determined by the method they describe.

Instead of pre-determining my answer ("No") I let the die rolls play out. After a good roll (or multiple if this is really important), there might indeed be one that I, as the GM, was unaware of prior to the start of the session. As the GM, I let the players and their ideas help lead me as I present the world to them. Good rolls have good outcomes. Bad rolls have bad ones.

Yup -- it's not predetermined... it's at a whim.

So... yeah I am saying you are making decisions on a whim and then pretending you aren't by blaming the dice.

And yes you are blaming the dice -- it's entirely up to the roll.

Of course slippery slope says, "Abraham you are claiming that we shouldn't let dice rolls tell us how things come out in a dice rolling game!"

My reply to slippery slope, "There is a difference between allowing dice to help adjudicate how a situation turns...

Let's say I predetermined the answer before the session. How is that not "at my whim"?

Why does the time stamp on the idea make it better/worse?

[Abraham spalding]

Here -- this would be my ultimate point on it.

It's one thing to have creatures act as creatures do -- it's another thing entirely to screw with the setting and 'static' pieces simply because you don't like a player or how he's playing.

In this case because you aren't just screwing the player... you are screwing the entire table. Just because someone you perceive as having a low intelligence spoke up before someone you perceive has having not a low intelligence. You change the entire situation and screw the other players.

Also in my opinion it creates a huge issue with the other players as well -- what if I'm the rogue and I want to search for hidden/secret doors with an intelligence of 5~7? Is it going to exist or not simply because I searched for it? What if the fighter with int 5~7 shouts "look for a hidden/secret door" before my rogue with int 14~16 can say he was going to do just that?

And how do you quantify a 'good idea outside of his intelligence range' or not?

The entire thing is one subjective judgement on top of another and then you try and justify it as not just being your arbitrary judgement on the spur of the moment.

Spur of the moment decisions have their place and are a very important part of being a GM -- but that doesn't mean they should decide everything with random dice rolls in the middle of everything.

I mean yeah I kind of get your point -- when I set up my 'dungeons' I have them fully designed with whatever traps or creatures, as well as a few ideas on how things could or couldn't be handled... but I don't pretend at one solution either... if the players come up with something that is plausible I'm good with it.

Beyond that however it's just bad juju in my book... I've never seen it come out well.

[Jaelithe]

Irontruth wrote:

To be honest, I don't have an issue with smart players having ideas when they play dumb characters. The character is a vehicle for the player to enjoy the game, not a straight jacket. Part of the inherent fun of a game is having those "a ha!" moments, so I think putting restrictions or conditions on that is limiting to the game.

Well, obviously we differ on that, to an extent. In my opinion, the fact that you have the right to customize your clothing before play begins means you don't later have the right to say, "These clothes are a straitjacket!" Again, then don't play Intelligence 6.

And, again, I've never said, "No 'a-ha' moments!" I am saying if the character doesn't have the intellect, then such moments should be few and far between—the lower the Intelligence rating, the fewer and farther between, clearly. That just feels right to me: Logical, common sensical, and entirely fair. YMMV.

You use Intelligence to justify distinctions, now, Irontruth. Saying, "a low Intelligence character can't do that" isn't minute. It's just as major as saying, "Your low stat dude can't cast spells," which the game does as a matter of course.

Maybe we're arguing about nothing. I just don't want it happening all the time, because too much of it sets off my BS detector (and I understand that others who've been doing this a long time might not be bothered by it at all, which is cool). I certainly wouldn't say it could never happen; to me, that would be unreasonable. It's something I think the DM and players have to do by feel, rather than some cut-and-dried axiom.

[Abraham spalding]

With the above said:

I generally assume that if the team has time then it isn't the player coming up with the idea: It's the smarter character more so. The player discussion is simply helping the guy make up the plan.

[Lamontius]

Dialog between my character and my wife's character in PFS:

Me: "Uhhhhh Brother Fijit?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl, Brother Holgan."
Me: "What?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl."
Me: "Uh yeah I know, Brother Fijit, but remember that thing?"
My Wife: "What thing? And it's just Fijit."
Me: "That thing we saw, after I put the 24" pythons on that purple thing?"
My Wife: "What are you talking about, Brother Holgan?"
Me: "Is it just Holgan?"
My Wife: "No, Brother Holgan is fine for you."
Me: "Huh?"
My Wife: *mutters something under her breath*
Me: "Anyway, I just meant that thing we saw after I grappled that bad Brother and put him down for the count..."
My Wife: "Wait, the statue? Ahhhh! Brother Holgan, you're a genius, I forgot about the inscription on the statue!"
Me: "Thanks Brother Fijit!"
My Wife: *eyetwitch*

I think what Jaelithe means is it is okay to have ideas if you are at least respecting the spirit of the stat you have

[Matt Thomason]

Lamontius wrote:

Dialog between my character and my wife's character in PFS:

Me: "Uhhhhh Brother Fijit?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl, Brother Holgan."
Me: "What?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl."
Me: "Uh yeah I know, Brother Fijit, but remember that thing?"
My Wife: "What thing? And it's just Fijit."
Me: "That thing we saw, after I put the 24" pythons on that purple thing?"
My Wife: "What are you talking about, Brother Holgan?"
Me: "Is it just Holgan?"
My Wife: "No, Brother Holgan is fine for you."
Me: "Huh?"
My Wife: *mutters something under her breath*
Me: "Anyway, I just meant that thing we saw after I grappled that bad Brother and put him down for the count..."
My Wife: "Wait, the statue? Ahhhh! Brother Holgan, you're a genius, I forgot about the inscription on the statue!"
Me: "Thanks Brother Fijit!"
My Wife: *eyetwitch*

I think what Jaelithe means is it is okay to have ideas if you are at least respecting the spirit of the stat you have

Oh, 1000x this.

Low intelligence can mean sounding a bit dim-witted, or it could mean not being able to multiply 7 by 8, or it could mean having lots of comically bad ideas between the good ones, or it could mean you have issues putting names to faces and get people mixed up sometimes. It doesn't have to mean you can't make a good plan. It doesn't *have* to mean anything, but it's nice when you do put some kind of justification to the number.

[Irontruth]

Abraham spalding wrote:

Here -- this would be my ultimate point on it.

It's one thing to have creatures act as creatures do -- it's another thing entirely to screw with the setting and 'static' pieces simply because you don't like a player or how he's playing.

In this case because you aren't just screwing the player... you are screwing the entire table. Just because someone you perceive as having a low intelligence spoke up before someone you perceive has having not a low intelligence. You change the entire situation and screw the other players.

Also in my opinion it creates a huge issue with the other players as well -- what if I'm the rogue and I want to search for hidden/secret doors with an intelligence of 5~7? Is it going to exist or not simply because I searched for it? What if the fighter with int 5~7 shouts "look for a hidden/secret door" before my rogue with int 14~16 can say he was going to do just that?

And how do you quantify a 'good idea outside of his intelligence range' or not?

The entire thing is one subjective judgement on top of another and then you try and justify it as not just being your arbitrary judgement on the spur of the moment.

Spur of the moment decisions have their place and are a very important part of being a GM -- but that doesn't mean they should decide everything with random dice rolls in the middle of everything.

I mean yeah I kind of get your point -- when I set up my 'dungeons' I have them fully designed with whatever traps or creatures, as well as a few ideas on how things could or couldn't be handled... but I don't pretend at one solution either... if the players come up with something that is plausible I'm good with it.

Beyond that however it's just bad juju in my book... I've never seen it come out well.

First off, people are focusing too much on the existence/non-existence aspect. It's something that sometimes comes up, not always. I much prefer modifying things.

Also, I like how you're completely ignoring large aspects of what I'm talking about, while attributing things I haven't described at all to how I play. It really makes me feel like people are paying attention and really reading what I have to say.

I'm also not your old GM who used to screw you, so I'm not interested in carrying the baggage related to him.

If there's something you'd like me to clarify about my suggestion/methods, I'm more than willing to do that, but that means actually engaging with me, and not whatever concept you decide to build in your head.

[Irontruth]

Matt Thomason wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

Dialog between my character and my wife's character in PFS:

Me: "Uhhhhh Brother Fijit?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl, Brother Holgan."
Me: "What?"
My Wife: "I'm a girl."
Me: "Uh yeah I know, Brother Fijit, but remember that thing?"
My Wife: "What thing? And it's just Fijit."
Me: "That thing we saw, after I put the 24" pythons on that purple thing?"
My Wife: "What are you talking about, Brother Holgan?"
Me: "Is it just Holgan?"
My Wife: "No, Brother Holgan is fine for you."
Me: "Huh?"
My Wife: *mutters something under her breath*
Me: "Anyway, I just meant that thing we saw after I grappled that bad Brother and put him down for the count..."
My Wife: "Wait, the statue? Ahhhh! Brother Holgan, you're a genius, I forgot about the inscription on the statue!"
Me: "Thanks Brother Fijit!"
My Wife: *eyetwitch*

I think what Jaelithe means is it is okay to have ideas if you are at least respecting the spirit of the stat you have

Oh, 1000x this.

Low intelligence can mean sounding a bit dim-witted, or it could mean not being able to multiply 7 by 8, or it could mean having lots of comically bad ideas between the good ones, or it could mean you have issues putting names to faces and get people mixed up sometimes. It doesn't have to mean you can't make a good plan. It doesn't *have* to mean anything, but it's nice when you do put some kind of justification to the number.

I agree with this general concept. I think we get these threads though because people are having difficulty arriving at similar conclusions as to what the spirit of an ability score is.

[Jaelithe]

Lamontius wrote:

I think what Jaelithe means is it is okay to have ideas if you are at least respecting the spirit of the stat you have

Thank you for saying it in one line, Lamontius.

You're hired! :)

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Jaelithe wrote:

As the DM, you provide them insight and knowledge gratis to simulate their superior intellect. It's not a perfect solution, but many would feel it superior to an Intelligence 5 character consistently offering solutions that would require a genius-level IQ to conceive.

The Int score of the characters either defines how good their plans can be, or it doesn't.

If it does, then this is equally true of Int 5 and Int 25.

If you forbid low Int from having good plans, and give clues to players of high Int, then the strength of clue will be proportional to the score: Int 25 will get stronger clues than Int 18, and Int 36 will get even stronger clues.

Since your whole motive for this is the idea that a character's Int must determine how good their plans/solutions are, there must come a point where the PC's Int is so high that the clue is so strong it might as well be the answer.

If this were the accepted rule at the table, the players would simply ensure that at least one PC had max Int (Int 20 is trivial at level 1), and every time a situation came up the players would simply wait until the DM ran out of breath when describing the situation, and just say "My Int 27 wizard solves it. Lets move on to something interesting".

This rule stops players of low Int PCs from contributing, AND stops players of high Int PCs from contributing (since the answer is handed to them on a plate). I'm not sure that I'd be satisfied with this game.

There is a solution: simply enforce each player to play characters whose Int matches their own, whatever you as DM say the players' Int scores are. Can't see any problem there.

Oh, wait, yes I can!

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The Int score of the characters either defines how good their plans can be, or it doesn't.

Or it does sometimes, and doesn't sometimes, depending on the situation and the absurdities that arise when players decide Intelligence 6 should function as Intelligence 17 whenever they feel like it. Nipping that in the bud is called "running a game."

Quote:

If it does, then this is equally true of Int 5 and Int 25.

But of course. It just doesn't come up as often because players are usually much closer to Intelligence 17 than Intelligence 5.

Quote:

If you forbid low Int from having good plans, and give clues to players of high Int, then the strength of clue will be proportional to the score: Int 25 will get stronger clues than Int 18, and Int 36 will get even stronger clues.

No problem with any of that, though I'd not forbid low Int from having good plans on occasion (as I've already said more than once), just from constantly ignoring their low intelligence and making the stat functionally meaningless, which is what an Intelligence 6 professional strategist does.

So far, you haven't said anything that hasn't already been stated in one form or another.

Quote:

Since your whole motive for this is the idea that a character's Int must determine how good their plans/solutions are, there must come a point where the PC's Int is so high that the clue is so strong it might as well be the answer.

I've actually done that very thing in my games, so ... I'm not having an issue with your chain of reasoning.

Yes, in certain instances, the Intelligence 22 wizard will glean the answer immediately, while the Intelligence 6 barbarian, Intelligence 8 fighter, Intelligence 11 sorcerer and Intelligence 12 paladin are saying, "Wait! What?" Happens like that all the time in both fantasy and reality.

Meanwhile, the barbarian's player, Amy, a gal who graduated magna cum laude in her field, has the answer, while everyone else, including the Intelligence 22 wizard, who's run by a great guy, Ben, much more interested in blasting things with fireballs than solving the word problem before him, and is of slightly above average intelligence at best, to boot, hasn't a clue.

Quote:

If this were the accepted rule at the table, the players would simply ensure that at least one PC had max Int (Int 20 is trivial at level 1), and every time a situation came up the players would simply wait until the DM ran out of breath when describing the situation, and just say "My Int 27 wizard solves it. Let[']s move on to something interesting".

If the goal of the players is to do an end around the situation described, because it's not "interesting" enough, that's their problem. I've rarely if ever had that issue, so ...

Now that's not to say players don't have every right to try and circumvent trouble or obstacles. Hell, that's absolutely part of the fun.

Since the sophistication of a dilemma is in the hands of the DM, he or she can easily create conundrums for characters of varying intelligence, and since he also controls the transparency of the clues provided, he can select the curve at which higher intelligence garners easier to glean information.

Quote:

This rule stops players of low Int PCs from contributing, AND stops players of high Int PCs from contributing (since the answer is handed to them on a plate). I'm not sure that I'd be satisfied with this game.

As opposed to the answer being handed to them on a plate simply because they make a die roll?

Once again, it curtails the abuses committed by high intelligence players with low intelligence characters and does nothing of the sort for vice versa, who can say, "My dude is smarter than me. How about some help, here!" That doesn't mean they have to do that; just that they have the option to do so.

In short: There's nothing wrong with the whole group contributing ideas to simulate the Intelligence 24 wizards's mental acuity. There's nothing wrong with the player who has an Intelligence 24 saying, "Hey, we haven't got any idea what's going on, DM. Would my guy know something I don't?" There's nothing wrong with the player of an Intelligence 7 barbarian saying, "Oh, man! I got it!" turning to the player of the Intelligence 24 wizard and saying it, and having the wizard say, "I've had an epiphany! We do this!" (Someone earlier mentioned that some groups have discussions and then just assume that the smartest guy came up with the idea. That's cool. This is a social experience, after all.) There's nothing wrong with the Intelligence 7 barbarian saying, once in a while, "My guy's been giving this some serious thought, and ... " then announcing a pretty good plan that reminds his friends that he may not be the brightest blade in the arsenal, but he ain't no dummy, either.

But, like it or not, admit it or not, there is something wrong with someone playing an Intelligence 6 fighter who consistently comes up with plans that have nothing to do with anything involving his expertise. Like I've said, it just sets off my bull$hit detector.

In my opinion, you come up with something—something mentioned above, or ... I don't know ... a magic sword that's a lot smarter than she is, etc. But for me, it has to make sense in context or it bothers me. And you don't want things bothering the DM, because it makes for a less immersive game.

Quote:

There is a solution: simply enforce each player to play characters whose Int matches their own, whatever you as DM say the players' Int scores are. Can't see any problem there.

Oh, wait, yes I can!

Me, too. But it's a problem that's not a problem unless you're picking nits, in my opinion.

We all live in the real world. It's fine to say, "Hey, man ... your character's pretty slow. He wouldn't get that." I don't ever plan on saying to someone, "Well, your wizard has a 19 Intelligence, and you ain't that bright." That will get you hurt feelings, empty chairs and/or a fat lip.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Or, since even a group of players won't simulate an Int of 30, nor will the DM have that much Int...

...and since players want to exercise their minds as well as their dice...

...and since one of the very worst things a DM can say to a player is, 'No, your character wouldn't say that!'...

...then simply stop trying to tell other people how to play their own character, let them play however they want (encourage, but not enforce) and let the dice fall where they may.

Telling others how they should be playing their own character really is saying they they're having BadWrongFun. You don't think they're having fun right.

In no other way are players judged on how good their acting is. If my Lear isn't as good as Olivier's, then the theatre critics can have a field day, but this character is one I made up! There is no critic in the world with the authority to say that I'm wrong.

You can lead by example, encourage the idea that the stats should inform the role-play, even hand out bonus XPs to those who role-play well while the guy who refuses to take his stats into account misses out on that bonus. But the DM controls the whole world and every single NPC in it. The only thing the player has is his own PC, and if you take the players agency away the player might as well not be there and you can read the adventure notes to yourself.

Can you imagine Kasparov saying, 'Queen to bishop three? Your queen wouldn't do that!'

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The only thing the player has is his own PC, and if you take the player[']s agency away the player might as well not be there and you can read the adventure notes to yourself.

Ah, but I haven't taken away the player's agency. I'm requiring him to play according to the limitation that he himself put in place during character creation. One last time: If you don't want to play a character who doesn't have great ideas left and right, don't play a low intelligence character. Part of playing a character exceedingly well is defining your own constraints, as you do with creation of background and statistics, then allowing them to guide your play. In short: Don't put limitations on your play, and then attempt to violate them when it's convenient. It can't be made any plainer than that.

Quote:

Can you imagine Kasparov saying, 'Queen to bishop three? Your queen wouldn't do that!'

Actually, I'm sure Kasparov is arrogant enough to say anything he likes.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

The point-buy system is easy for wizards. Get yourself 20 Int at level one, dump any stat you like, have a better Int than the DM so he has to give you clues, without detracting from optimisation at all.

For a martial, optimising the MAD stats that they need is already harder than for the SAD wizard, yet when they dump Int you say that they aren't allowed to play, because you are the one who will tell them what ideas that they are allowed to have and what ideas they cannot have because you think they are too stupid.

Also, if they have a well thought out characterisation which includes explaining why their Int is only 7 is because, although their reasoning is okay, their learning is very poor (which shows in their choice of skills), then you say that they are lying and just want to 'get around a low Int' in a way which you don't like.

The rules are the rules. Enforce them. But there are no rules which define which ideas can be thought of by which Int score. 'You must be this smart to think of flanking, you must be this smart to think of disguising yourself as a deliveryman'.

Meanwhile, everyone with Int 16 or more knows the answer to this puzzle and no-one with an Int of 15 or less is smart enough. Any attempt to do so is blatant cheating and not playing your character right.

It's a good job no-one told that bumbling hobbit that he wasn't allowed to know the answer, or Gandalf of the Many IQ would still be stuck outside that door.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

And Kasparov can say anything he likes, but he doesn't get to choose his opponents moves for him.

And the DM doesn't get to choose the PC's characterisation, the player does.

[phantom1592]

Jaelithe wrote:

But of course. It just doesn't come up as often because players are usually much closer to Intelligence 17 than Intelligence 5.

....

....

Yeah, that may be a bit of a disconnect there. I think a lot of people overestimate their own intelligence. I believe I have only played with one person I would honestly rank that high, and he was a scientist who once we started talking encumberance went about finding the atomic weight of gold and writing long equations...

The rest of us are 'normal joes.' We're good at our jobs, we all have our specialties... but if 10 is normal... we're not THAT far above it.

The way I look at Int would be something like this...

5 Idiot. I think we're pretty agreed on that...although actually, 3 is literate... so I may reevalutate that.

7 Unlearned.

10 Average person.

14 Sherlock holmes.

17 Stephen hawkings

19 Einstein....

Or round abouts. Some may be shifted around, But once your able to cast the 'BIG SPELLS' and rework the fabric of the universe with some twine and bat guano... You are in genius catagories.

Honestly, I am NOT a Genius. I work HARD for my grades, and even those aren't always great.

It's a LOT easier to accept a 7 INT character coming up with a plan that a 10 INT player actually DID come up with. Exactly HOW complicated are these plans... that a 'slower than normal' person COULDN'T have come up with?

Usually, if it's something 'basic' like shapes or common things, then any of my characters chip in and help. If it's going to require a spell and my characters don't CAST spells... then I usually back off.

or actually ASK the caster of the group. "Hey... is there someway to magically make something super small and shove it through the keyhole?? You can do awesome stuff like that right??"

I will go on record as saying that if there is a riddle or trap that needs to be overcome... and the DM gives you the answer, then what was the point of the riddle.

Frankly I think riddles and such are a horrible thing for JUST this problem... we're now either using 'our' brain and not the Characters... or the DM is solving it for us... There's no real middle ground.

[Jacob Saltband]

So @Malachi Silverclaw,

This Lord of the Rings scene...is it from the book or the movie? I've never read that book but the scene from the movie only showed that the hobbit was short enough to see the needed rune which the 7 foot wizard hadnt located it yet. Nothing to do with the high int wizard failing to sovle the puzzle just the hobbit being able to see the rune sooner being it was at face level to him and knee level to the wizard.

At least this is how I remember it.

[Abraham spalding]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

So @Malachi Silverclaw,

This Lord of the Rings scene...is it from the book or the movie? I've never read that book but the scene from the movie only showed that the hobbit was short enough to see the needed rune which the 7 foot wizard hadnt located it yet. Nothing to do with the high int wizard failing to sovle the puzzle just the hobbit being able to see the rune sooner being it was at face level to him and knee level to the wizard.

At least this is how I remember it.

In the book Gandalf reads the entire riddle, speaks several several words in all sorts of languages and then the Frodo asks what the elven word for friend is.

As a riddle goes Frodo solved it -- to have the answer though he needed Gandalf to translate. However this was after Gandalf told him about how the elves and dwarves use to be friends and this sort of thing was fairly common.

[Jacob Saltband]

3 int is literate because the game assume if you know a language your literate in that language.

Int 2 animal no language
Int 3 literate.

[phantom1592]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

3 int is literate because the game assume if you know a language your literate in that language.

Int 2 animal no language
Int 3 literate.

Yep, which is different from 2E, when you had to pay proficiencies for every language you wanted to speak... and another one for each you wanted to 'read/write'.

Which sucked, and we eventually houseruled it anyway.

However, 3 is still considered literate, and with all the ability drain monsters and spells, it's a very realistic number to hit.

I spent way too long with a strength of 1 after a shadow screwed over my sorcerer...

Ability drain SUCKS in this game ;)

My point has always been 7 and 8 are still 4-5 points over literate and 2-3 points under 'average base'

[phantom1592]

Abraham spalding wrote:

In the book Gandalf reads the entire riddle, speaks several several words in all sorts of languages and then the Frodo asks what the elven word for friend is.

As a riddle goes Frodo solved it -- to have the answer though he needed Gandalf to translate. However this was after Gandalf told him about how the elves and dwarves use to be friends and this sort of thing was fairly common.

Yep. Frodo didn't know anything about magic. Nothing about Dwarves. Nothing about Moria....

But hobbits have a reputation for knowing how 'riddles' work.

[Jacob Saltband]

When 3.x made literacy universal was when I had an issue. Literacy was never very wide spread until fairly recently, at least in our history.

[phantom1592]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

When 3.x made literacy universal was when I had an issue. Literacy was never very wide spread until fairly recently, at least in our history.

Yep.

This is one of the differences between the 'real world' and a 'fantasy world'.

In the real world everyone worked on the farm and couldn't afford the schooling.

In 'fantasy'... everyone can read the 'wanted signs' and knows exactly how much the reward for Zorro is.

Pretty much that way in most movies and TV too... It's 'different' but really doesn't bother me too much. If I WANT to play an illiterate character, That is an RP decision that I can (and HAVE) made...

Honestly I prefer the more cinematic fantasy settings to the more 'realistic' ones.

[Abraham spalding]

It's come and gone -- the romans and greeks were pretty big on universal literacy, the holy roman empire was trying to spread it again too.

Not saying it always got very far but the idea isn't new.

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The point-buy system is easy for wizards. Get yourself 20 Int at level one, dump any stat you like, have a better Int than the DM so he has to give you clues, without detracting from optimi[z]ation at all.

For a martial, optimi[z]ing the MAD stats that they need is already harder than for the SAD wizard, yet when they dump Int you say that they aren't allowed to play, because you are the one who will tell them what ideas that they are allowed to have and what ideas they cannot have because you think they are too stupid.

Aww, the POOR martials. (Cue world's smallest violin.)

I'm not responsible for balance issues, just enforcing players playing the characters they've created, without looking for ad hoc, impromptu workarounds that are for all intents and purposes cheating.

Quote:

Also, if they have a well thought out characteri[z]ation which includes explaining why their Int is only 7 is because, although their reasoning is okay, their learning is very poor (which shows in their choice of skills), then you say that they are lying and just want to 'get around a low Int' in a way which you don't like.

You have a really appalling tendency to speak for other people—to tell them what they'd say. Stop doing it.

And no, I wouldn't. To me, that would represent a player putting some thought into their character. (I'd have no real problem with someone saying, "Oh, my Int's a 7; the learning aspect is more like a 4, but my problem-solving's an 11.") But then they'd better not later try and tell me about having all this learning-related capability.

So yeah, if you, Malachi, were playing a fighter with a Int 6 in my game and explained your ability to brainstorm with something like that, I'd say, "OK. Sounds good. Let's roll with it." Why should I give a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut—so long as you're playing your character the way you've designed him or her? (Hell, I used to have, in one of my games, a female elven fighter with Charisma 8 who had a reasonably attractive face and was built like a brick sh!thouse, but was so viciously sarcastic that "b!tch" would have been a subtle compliment. Same principle.)

Quote:

The rules are the rules. Enforce them. But there are no rules which define which ideas can be thought of by which Int score. 'You must be this smart to think of flanking, you must be this smart to think of disguising yourself as a deliveryman'.

Nobody is saying that. Stop putting words in others' mouths. Man, it's irritating.

And if there are no rules, the DM decides. It's his campaign, after all. And Intelligence 5 with consistent brilliant ideas IS asinine—enormously so. I wouldn't allow it.

Quote:

Meanwhile, everyone with Int 16 or more knows the answer to this puzzle and no-one with an Int of 15 or less is smart enough. Any attempt to do so is blatant cheating and not playing your character right.

Where are you coming up with this all-or-nothing, straw man stuff?

An Intelligence 15 person might well know a great deal that an Intelligence 16 person doesn't (in that not everyone is educated in the same fashion, or processes information in the same way). Hell, an Intelligence 11 person might, as well. But the lower you go, the less likely it is. Once you're around 6 or 7 ... as Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man." And I'd still allow it occasionally. It just shouldn't be happening consistently.

Quote:

It's a good job no-one told that bumbling hobbit that he wasn't allowed to know the answer, or Gandalf of the Many IQ would still be stuck outside that door.

Actually, in the real, better story, Frodo didn't do a damned thing. Gandalf recalled the answer.

So much for that climactic point, eh?

[Jaelithe]

Abraham spalding wrote:

In the book Gandalf reads the entire riddle, speaks several several words in all sorts of languages and then the Frodo asks what the elven word for friend is.

As a riddle goes Frodo solved it -- to have the answer though he needed Gandalf to translate. However this was after Gandalf told him about how the elves and dwarves use to be friends and this sort of thing was fairly common.

No, that's not what happens.

Frodo has nothing to do with solving the riddle, not even tangentially.

Spoiler:

Gandalf suddenly realizes that what he'd read as, "Speak, friend, and enter," is meant to be translated as, "Say 'friend' and enter."

[Jaelithe]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

And the DM doesn't get to choose the PC's characteri[z]ation, the player does.

You're absolutely right. The DM just gets to enforce the player's previously chosen representations when and if the player suddenly tries to weasel out of them.

We're clearly not going to agree, so ... have a good evening.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Jaelithe wrote:

Actually, in the real, better story, Frodo didn't do a damned thing. Gandalf recalled the answer.

So much for that climactic point, eh?

WTF????

You've just finished telling me how awful it is to put words into people's mouths, and here you go telling prof. Tolkien that he wrote his story wrong. This is after (incorrectly) 'correcting' my spelling.

You don't get to tell other people that their characterisation (note that it's 'S' not 'Z'') for their character is wrong, just because you would've come up with a different characterisation for those stats. If you gave 100 people a set of stats and told them to come up with a characterisation (just for fun I typed that one with a 'Z' and it was auto-corrected) then you'd get 100 different answers. You don't get to tell other people which ones they are allowed to role-play. You can like the way they play or not, but the choice belongs to them, not you.

You did put in an apostrophe I missed, so thanks for that. : )

[TheNine]

AS a dm i have the right,almost the responsibility to ensure that your fun as you call isnt gamebreaking or silly. Unless I am running you through a solo adventure. And no, im not saying its wrong bad fun to play your charector how you want. But if you think your int 6 fighter can consistantly come up with amazing great well executed thought out plans, Player B who has a paladin can decide to murder you... cause thats how he wants to play his paladin. As a holy murder hobo and you didnt tithe enough so are evil in his mind or something.
If a player doesnt like that i explain to him their int 6 guy is playing too smart I can. Its what the dm is there for.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

TheNine wrote:

AS a dm i have the right,almost the responsibility to ensure that your fun as you call isnt gamebreaking or silly. Unless I am running you through a solo adventure. And no, im not saying its wrong bad fun to play your charector how you want. But if you think your int 6 fighter can consistantly come up with amazing great well executed thought out plans, Player B who has a paladin can decide to murder you... cause thats how he wants to play his paladin. As a holy murder hobo and you didnt tithe enough so are evil in his mind or something.

If a player doesnt like that i explain to him their int 6 guy is playing too smart I can. Its what the dm is there for.

It's the other way round.

You don't tell me how to role-play my PC's Int score, you simply apply the correct Int modifier when it comes up in the game.

You don't tell the paladin who he's allowed to attack, he can attack who he likes. But if that attack is an evil act, then he falls.

You don't tell any player what decisions they must or cannot take. They make their own decisions, and the DM adjudicates the result.

[TheNine]

You are correct on that account, I mispoke on my intent. However, in the light of being there as the judge, (on of the Bolded rolls of the game-master in the rulebook) I would rule that indeed you can do that if you wish, and here is what happens. Which no doubt would anger you, but if you consistantly played the brilliant hero with the low int would annoy the tables i normally run anyhow...so theres the door.
I could take the time to write out the whole paragraph, but internet arguements are what they are and i dont care to waste my time doing so. But its on Page 396. 4th paragraph down.

And no im not trying to be antagonistic at all. If you wish to roleplay your 6 int as razor sharp and super intelligent thats fine. It wont fly in a game I run, nor would i gather to guess a lot of other games either.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

p.396, 4th paragraph down wrote:

Judge: The gamemaster must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonise the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favour them and coddle them. He should be impatial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules.

The DM adjudicates the rules of the game. How stats are role-played are not rules.

Various excerpts from chapter one, 'Getting Started':-

...the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.

If you are a player, you make all of the decisions for your character....Playing a character, however, is more than just following the rules in this book. You also decide your character's personality....The choice is up to you.

...If you are the Game Master....you control all of the characters that are not being controlled by the players.

Playing the Game:While playing the Pathfinder RPG, the Game Master describes the events that occur in the game world, and the players take turns describing what their characters do in response to those events.

Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM.

Player Character (Character, PC): These are the characters portrayed by the players.

[TheNine]

Well then i suppose all the npcs are super geniuses who will constantly out think you, cause well that is how the gm chooses them to be played? I mean you cant complain right, its in his realm to decide to do that. Then again, I dont think the actors make the scripts and direct the film. Pretty sure that is the director's job.

Personality - per·son·al·i·ty
ˌpərsəˈnalitē/Submit
noun
1.the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character.
I'll save you some response time, Yes intellect is indeed an immeasurable thing, but anything with numbers is subjective. Pathfinder assigned numbers to the system. Low is bad high is good. Logic dictates that your 6 int is not as good as the 25 int. Since there is no hard rule to define what it means, the gm can arbitrate what it means. He is supposed to. So yes he can rule that your play of the int is not fair to the rules of the game. But i digress cause we wont agree.

Lets look at it this way. You are clearly in the camp of "Anything i can think of my charector can do." Would you be okay then with the abjucation of "anything the gm can abjucate he can do. Sorry you dont speak russian, here is the puzzle in russian, figure it out."
"I have a 24 int on my sheet i will role knowlege: Mucguffin skill I got a 27.
"Oh, here the answer is 'russian russian russian more russian russian.'"

"Oh you dont speak russian, oh well thats my knowledge coming out in game not yours Oh well so now what do you do?"

Although really this is summed up as an arguement over opinions, and no one will ever win those. Thank you by the way of taking the time to pull up the

[phantom1592]

I've seen some people arguing here a bit more like.

DM: Here's a riddle in Russian...

Player: Here's the answer.

DM: Sorry your too dumb to have the answer, You don't understand Russian.

Player: Actually I have a linguistic skill with a point in Russian...

DM: ..... Fine, your dumb in two languages... You still fail.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

The Nine wrote:

You are clearly in the camp of "Anything i can think of my charector can do." Would you be okay then with the abjucation of "anything the gm can abjucate he can do?

The DM already can do that. What the player cannot do is tell the DM he's playing the NPCs wrong and enforce that.

Yeah the DM can play badly, and we'd rather the DM played well. The player can play badly, and we'd rather he play well. But whatever our opinions on how each other role-plays, the DM chooses what the NPCs do and the player chooses what his PC does.

We both know that either can refuse to play. The DM can show the player the door if he thinks that the player isn't role-playing to his high standard, and/or the player can walk out if he feels that it's pointless him being there if the DM is making the decisions for the PC. But in a situation where both actually play, the player is the final word on what decisions his PC makes.

I would much rather players use their scores as a basis of their characterisation, but if a player isn't interested in that then it's a shame but it's his choice.

I would much rather DMs play a fair game, but I can't force them to be fair. They can role-play the NPCs as poorly as they want, but the player cannot say, 'That NPC wouldn't do that!' and force the DM to make a different decision.

How does this super smart game play manifest itself anyway? Most players and DMs like to imagine themselves as 'above average', but even if they're correct neither players nor DM have Int 25. What does a player have his Int 7 fighter do that makes you say 'Your PC isn't smart enough to think of that'?