aia_2
Custom title
Hi all, this could likely be another "already-discussed" topic: should it be the case, i'd kindly ask you to link here below the already discussed threads along with your feedback/comment.
The main question is related to the attribute of intelligence; almost all RPGs have this attribute to define a character and all of them could present the same situations:
a. the PC has a low score in INT whereas the player is a clever guy
b. the other way round
The question is related to any circumstance where the PC has to use the brain and, as a matter of fact the brain used is the one of the player... the typical case when there are some riddles, puzzles or similar events. According to the theory, the GM should not let the players cope with the challenge of the PCs and roll an INT check (or equivalent) to see whether or not this task has been completed with success... by doing this, the fun is totally wasted for the players...
The questions are basically two (but there could be other situations!):
a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?
b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?
What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?
Please note that i have chosen to keep the question "linear" as this topic affects nearly every aspect of the game, in particular the "off-line parts" when players argue among them what would be better to do (i.e. they use their brains regardeless of the INT of their PCs)...
The main question is related to the attribute of intelligence; almost all RPGs have this attribute to define a character and all of them could present the same situations:
a. the PC has a low score in INT whereas the player is a clever guy
b. the other way round
The question is related to any circumstance where the PC has to use the brain and, as a matter of fact the brain used is the one of the player... the typical case when there are some riddles, puzzles or similar events. According to the theory, the GM should not let the players cope with the challenge of the PCs and roll an INT check (or equivalent) to see whether or not this task has been completed with success... by doing this, the fun is totally wasted for the players...
The questions are basically two (but there could be other situations!):
a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?
b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?
What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?
Please note that i have chosen to keep the question "linear" as this topic affects nearly every aspect of the game, in particular the "off-line parts" when players argue among them what would be better to do (i.e. they use their brains regardeless of the INT of their PCs)...