Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Agreed on the int to initiative, but the rest is completely unacceptable to me at least. If I outlined a plan for the party and the DM said “no, your character isn’t smart enough to come up with that” I’d leave the table.
Umm, since I only suggested INT to Initiative I'll assume you were refering to some other poster about the rest. But I will answer it.
I agree that I wouldn't let a DM tell me how to play my character. But I wouldn't be annoyed if when playing a dump-INT character if my "brilliant plan" turned out to be anything but even if it was an actual brilliant plan.
Bob wants to play a charismatic character but isn't a good speaker himself. He's got a high CHR and is trained in persuade, so even though he's only mildly persuasive a good roll and he can convince folks. My 8 CHR half-orc without a social skill to his name, might find the opposite - even if I'm persuasive the NPCs might not react well to what I am saying if I flub my rolls. In both cases I would expect bonuses or penalties to the rolls based on how good the actual talking was, but I also understand that it's the character in the world, not me, and they are also represented by mechanics.
By the same deal, if I was roleplaying a character with INT as my dump stat and I came up with a brilliant plan - great tactics, playing on a gnoll tribe's cultural fears, and utilizing the terrain, and then flubbed the INT roll, I wouldn't mind the DM reacting in kind - hey, these are a different gnoll clan that don't share the culture, part of the terrain we couldn't see doesn't work out to help my plan and the like - regardless if that was "true" before. Because my character can and would mess up the details, and the failed roll showed that I did.
So while I agree that I wouldn't accept a DM telling me I'm playing my character wrong, I would accept my character BEING wrong because I built him stupid.