D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

Maxperson · Mar 18, 2016

BoldItalic said:
Bang! A fallacy of the first water. You are asserting a belief that if a thing is above average in one aspect, it cannot be below average in some other aspect.

Exercise for the reader: which class of fallacy has been exposed?

None. There is only one aspect being compared there. Intelligence. Genius is a measure of intelligence and by definition well above average. INT is also intelligence. You cannot be simultaneously well above average in intelligence and well below average in intelligence.

Maxperson · Mar 18, 2016

ChrisCarlson said:
This is a great point.

Player 1: My barbarian steps up, grabs the dial, and turns it to 'S'.
DM: Okay, you hear a click as the door's lock releases, you have solved the puzzle.
Player 2: "Wow! That was amazing, Grog. How did you know the answer was the last day of the week?"
Player 1: "Huh? What day? I thought 'S' stood fer 'smart'. Figured you gotta be smart to solve puzzles. So..." <shrug>

I would be okay with that. If a player has a good reason for a stupid PC to do something (i.e. it matches what a stupid PC might do), then I'm good. What I would not be good with is just turning it to S with no reason offered and ending it there.

ChrisCarlson · Mar 18, 2016

Maxperson said:
I would be okay with that. If a player has a good reason for a stupid PC to do something (i.e. it matches what a stupid PC might do), then I'm good. What I would not be good with is just turning it to S with no reason offered and ending it there.

Are you missing the fact that there was no explanation given before the DM adjudicated that the puzzle was solved? Only afterward was there a roleplaying reason given through PC-to-PC interaction. What if Player 2 (nor anyone else) hadn't mentioned anything and just moved on? No opportunity for Grog's player to deliver his explanatory line? Then what?

Or are you saying that you would have inserted a step, after Player 1 declared his action, where the DM paused play to demand an explanation for how his character came to decide to turn the dial to 'S'?

iserith · Mar 18, 2016

Maxperson said:
No, but by that argument a response of, "You're too dumb to succeed is." I don't want to have to police the roleplaying of the players, so people who aren't interested in roleplaying a stupid PC as stupid don't get invited to my group or stay very long if the manage to sneak in.

I address part of this this here.

As far as your preferences, they are unassailable. Play who you want to play with in the manner you wish to play. Just expect objections if you say that playing any other way than you is objectively bad or wrong.

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 18, 2016

Maxperson said:
I would be okay with that. If a player has a good reason for a stupid PC to do something (i.e. it matches what a stupid PC might do), then I'm good. What I would not be good with is just turning it to S with no reason offered and ending it there.

That's thought-policing.

Wouldn't it save you time at the table, and potential agitation on the part of your players, if you just thought up reasons why a "stupid" character might do what the character is doing and assumed one of those reasons to be the explanation why the character is doing what it is doing?

BoldItalic · Mar 18, 2016

AaronOfBarbaria said:
Wouldn't it save you time at the table, and potential agitation on the part of your players, if you just thought up reasons why a "stupid" character might do what the character is doing and assumed one of those reasons to be the explanation why the character is doing what it is doing?

+1. Post-hoc rationalization is all part of the fun (my idea of fun, anyway).

Maxperson · Mar 18, 2016

ChrisCarlson said:
Are you missing the fact that there was no explanation given before the DM adjudicated that the puzzle was solved? Only afterward was there a roleplaying reason given through PC-to-PC interaction. What if Player 2 (nor anyone else) hadn't mentioned anything and just moved on? No opportunity for Grog's player to deliver his explanatory line? Then what?

Or are you saying that you would have inserted a step, after Player 1 declared his action, where the DM paused play to demand an explanation for how his character came to decide to turn the dial to 'S'?

I would have asked for one, yes.

Maxperson · Mar 18, 2016

AaronOfBarbaria said:
That's thought-policing.

Wouldn't it save you time at the table, and potential agitation on the part of your players, if you just thought up reasons why a "stupid" character might do what the character is doing and assumed one of those reasons to be the explanation why the character is doing what it is doing?

It's not thought policing. Not having to thought police is why I play with people who understand that stupid = stupid and roleplay it themselves. I don't want to have to be the thought police.

AaronOfBarbaria · Mar 18, 2016

[MENTION=6789021]Yardiff[/MENTION], would you mind pointing out what you found funny about the last post of mine you laughed at?

I've been trying to use more effective humor, and that involves playing to my audience, so it would be great to see what tickles your funny bone.

ChrisCarlson · Mar 18, 2016

Maxperson said:
I would have asked for one, yes.

So why would you say you were okay with it? Clearly you are not.

Also, we call that 'gatekeeping'. IMX, it tends to happen more frequently when there is a lack of trust at the table.

D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

ChrisCarlson

First Post

iserith

Magic Wordsmith

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

BoldItalic

First Post

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

ChrisCarlson

First Post

Similar Threads