D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

I have a puzzle example that came up in a game of mine a couple years back:

DM: "There is a flat surface with numerous round dips in it, all arrayed to form a kind of grid with 5 columns and 5 rows . At the top there is one long dip running the width of the grid. Next to this trench is a small round device that looks like a metal snail shell oriented with the opening sloping toward the trench. The device has a button on it. What do you do?
Player of Character With Riddling Skill because HackMaster: "I push the button."
DM: "Five equal-sized metal balls roll into the trench."
PCWRSHM: "I..."
Interrupting other Player:(excitedly) "Star! Ooh!..."
PCWRSHM: "What?"
IP: "Heh, sorry. Make a star?"
<The result of attempting this solution and the interrupting player's character stats are omitted intentionally>

Does this strike anyone as a situation where I should call into question whatever the interrupting player's character may have in Intelligence or the Riddling skill? How about outright forbidding the player from their character blurting out those statements on the grounds of Intelligence or Riddling Skill? Or is it just fine for the player to be playing their character in this way?

I allow table talk OOC about in game things. In this case, the table talk would be used by the riddler skill character if they wanted to. The interrupting player's character, however, would not be the one sharing the information.

I've played on hot tables in the past, though, that would have punished the interrupting player if they lacked the sufficient skill to make such a statement with whatever the current stakes were (usually XP loss). Of course, the set up for that game was for heavy roleplaying, and such expectations (along with the stakes for punishment) were clearly laid out so you couldn't complain you didn't know going in. Hit me, once, for muttering, "[expletive], beholders," before it was obvious because I recognized the description of the spell-jamming vessel in the encounter.

So, my answer is really: depends on how the expectations of the group are set up. As I just answered to Iserth, with his expectations and setup, I probably would rule exactly as he does and ignore such interruptions or solutions. I, however, set up a different expectation for games I run.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I allow table talk OOC about in game things. In this case, the table talk would be used by the riddler skill character if they wanted to. The interrupting player's character, however, would not be the one sharing the information.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying - there was no out-of-character table talk in my recounting of this scenario. Are you saying that the excited player's statement would be treated as out-of-character despite being an in-character statement, and that then the player of the character skilled with Riddling could choose to use it or not, and if did choose to use it we'd pretend the information came from an in-character source that wasn't the character of the player making the statement?

I've played on hot tables in the past, though, that would have punished the interrupting player if they lacked the sufficient skill to make such a statement

What skill is sufficient to blurt out a random thought?

So, my answer is really: depends on how the expectations of the group are set up. As I just answered to Iserth, with his expectations and setup, I probably would rule exactly as he does and ignore such interruptions or solutions. I, however, set up a different expectation for games I run.

Are you saying that you set up an expectation by which all in-character statements must first be vetted through out-of-character table-talk in order to determine who is allowed to say them? Because that is what I seem to be reading here - since any declaration of the player in my scenario being declared as inappropriate without saying all statements are inappropriate if made without approval, requires the assumption that 1) the character of the interrupting player doesn't have even more riddling skill than the other mentioned character, and 2) that the blurted out guess is actually the right solution.

 

[iserith]

Sure, which is why I added the caveat of how the player had been playing for some time. I, unlike you, don't often game with complete strangers in non-face-to-face situations.

I treat my regular players and new or one-off players the same in this regard. I endeavor not to assume as much as possible.

What an interesting statement. Do you never have situations in which players make competing action declarations? Has it never happened in any of your games that one player (or players) declare that they are specifically preventing another character from performing an action or going somewhere? I suppose I can see that having never come up, but I don't know what's specifically awful about such situations.

The rule at my table is that if you attempt to harm or hinder another player's character, the player of that character narrates the result. This both preserves the ability to freely make action declarations while ensuring that any conflict that arises is agreed upon by the players involved.

Even so, I honestly can't remember the last time this came into play. Players just don't try to prevent other players from taking action in my games. I work at creating an environment where players accept and build on each other's ideas rather than get into conflict. So if the party's dim-witted fighter reached for the dials on the door, we might see the party readying themselves for potential consequences of failure, but not trying to stop the fighter.

Let's futher assume this is a player that is a complete stranger to me that I've never played with before, and I'm running an online game full of such people that I will likely not have a long campaign with. Further, let's also assume that I have given no hints in game as to the solution to this puzzle, nor is there any knowledge in possession of the player as to the nature or solution of the puzzle that has been presenting in the course of the game. In that case, I let them, and then make sure I change future puzzles in that game to require checks for successful solving.

Doesn't requiring a check remove a measure of the player's decision making from the equation? You're basically saying "Solving this puzzle has an uncertain outcome no matter what." I suppose it addresses whatever issues you have with players making action declarations you think aren't in keeping with whatever you believe a low Intelligence means, but it creates other issues in my view.

In my home game, without those assumptions, and dealing with my players, I already have multi-layered puzzles that aren't as transparently obvious because I like my puzzles to challenge both players and characters, and not be such simplistic, Myst-like interactions. My puzzles are steeped in game lore, accessible through checks, which put them nicely behind INT thresholds to begin with. I don't just require that my players play stupid when they're stupid, although I do expect them to play to their characters, I also build complex challenges that take advantage of the game assets offered. The puzzle you present isn't tied to the game world (or, it's tied only in the sense that the game world uses the same days of the week that our world does, and so it's special to that world) and is presented as a puzzle to the players. Sure, you could probably let someone make an INT check to discover the correct solution, but good grief, man, that's just a straight up boring puzzle.

You can see the kinds of puzzles I present to my players in this short-form scenario I posted: The Snow Job. Check out The Lift and The Vault. There's three of them there all together. None of them require Intelligence checks. They may just arise, however, depending on what actions the players declare e.g. trying to recall what Lord Morrikan looks like or what the names of the four dwarven houses are.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In my home game, without those assumptions, and dealing with my players, I already have multi-layered puzzles that aren't as transparently obvious because I like my puzzles to challenge both players and characters, and not be such simplistic, Myst-like interactions. My puzzles are steeped in game lore, accessible through checks, which put them nicely behind INT thresholds to begin with. I don't just require that my players play stupid when they're stupid, although I do expect them to play to their characters, I also build complex challenges that take advantage of the game assets offered. The puzzle you present isn't tied to the game world (or, it's tied only in the sense that the game world uses the same days of the week that our world does, and so it's special to that world) and is presented as a puzzle to the players. Sure, you could probably let someone make an INT check to discover the correct solution, but good grief, man, that's just a straight up boring puzzle.

So...are you going to show us one of these amazing puzzles?

 

[iserith]

I'd say this illustrates the problem of putting in puzzles that players are meant to solve IRL.

Here's how I'd prefer to do it:

DM: "You see a sequence of six runes, and a dial with 19 runes..." (gives players a handout)
Player1: "Hmmm...I see the six runes are among the 19 on the dial..."
Player2: "I make an Intelligence check..." (rolls a 12) "Um...minus 4 that makes 8."
DM: "You can't make head or tails of it."
Player1: "I'll try...any applicable skill?"
DM: "Yes, you can use Arcana with a DC of 20"
Player1: "22 total!"
DM: "You recognize these as an archaic form of rune used by an ancient cult, and the six runes are all symbols that appear on their coins. You also know that the back of their coins all had the same rune, #11 on the dial."
Player2: "OMG....'you can't make head or tails'..."

I realize that some people LOVE solving puzzles as part of their RPGs. I personally don't like it; it totally blows immersion* for me. It's just me solving a puzzle and I forget I'm playing D&D.

*Partly because I always wonder why creators of dungeons would put puzzles in. Are they expecting to forget the secrets of their own dungeons, or lose the keys, so they want something they can figure out if they have to, but they somehow expect nobody else will figure it out? It just doesn't make ANY sense at all.

EDIT: Also, if it's necessary for the players to solve the puzzle then the solution should be available elsewhere (e.g., the cliche of hidden in a desk drawer) so that the adventure isn't derailed because of a bad Arcana role.

Players can't declare that they are making ability checks in my game. If they did, I would ask them what they are actually doing and that I would decide whether or not that called for a check.

I include puzzles in my game occasionally on par with what I linked above. They will always make sense in context.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Players can't declare that they are making ability checks in my game. If they did, I would ask them what they are actually doing and that I would decide whether or not that called for a check.

Oh, sure; that's fine, too. The point of my dialog wasn't dependent upon players declaring ability rolls.

I include puzzles in my game occasionally on par with what I linked above. They will always make sense in context.

I wasn't criticizing the puzzle in your example for it's complexity/design...I get that it was a simple example for illustration purposes. I was just saying that I'm not a fan of the type of puzzle that its a stand-in for.

The one in The Snow Job is well thought-out and integrated with the story, but still in the category that for me screams "mini-game", and I generally dislike leaving the game and playing mini-games.

Totally personal preference, and I recognize that I'm in a tiny minority.

The "puzzles" I like are the ones that depend on finding/solving another challenge, using regular game rules. You need to persuade the chamberlain to tell you the password. You have to convince the witch to make you a Shrinking potion and slide through the arrow slit. You need to find the false book with the key hidden inside. You need to loot the key from the whatever...etc.

The relevance to this thread is that if when the puzzles are overtly "puzzles" in the classic sense, then it's really the players solving them, not the characters. If you just don't have them, then you don't run into the problem of a player with a low-Int character solving them.

 

[iserith]

I wasn't criticizing the puzzle in your example for it's complexity/design...I get that it was a simple example for illustration purposes. I was just saying that I'm not a fan of the type of puzzle that its a stand-in for.

The one in The Snow Job is well thought-out and integrated with the story, but still in the category that for me screams "mini-game", and I generally dislike leaving the game and playing mini-games.

What about it makes it a "mini-game" to you? Can you be specific?

How does it compare to the puzzle presented in this scenario (see The Tomb)?

 

[Mallus]

I created the addition or reduction in proficiencies in an attempt to curb that min/maxing have you got any such limitations at your own table or perhaps you don't share my concerns of player abuse? I'm merely asking because you stated that it is perfectly reasonable to expect a PC's 5 INT to affect their characterization.

I don't share your concerns about player abuse/dump-statting/mix-maxing, etc., no. But that's probably because I've been pretty lucky, player-wise. Our group's general approach is: it's everyone's job to keep the campaign running smoothly. So I don't need to ban/limit/house-rule/meddle much at all, really. If a mechanics-related problem comes up, I know they'll help me solve it, rather than fight me tooth & nail. We used to call it "gaming in a high-trust" environment.

For instance, I managed to run a 3.0/3.5 campaign for several years for a table where every player had a higher degree of rules mastery than I did. Two of them, by a wide margin. This only worked because they all took responsibility for making it work. So no, I've been fortunate enough to have the players looking to abuse my (frequently generous and/or sort-of inept) adjudication of the rules.

Also, when I mentioned "expecting a PCs 5 INT to affect their characterization", I wasn't referring to mechanics. Could have been clearer about. I like to let the mechanics take care of themselves. I meant characterization in the fictional sense; "how does one portray a stupid person who, nevertheless, co-stars in a fantasy adventure story/game"? It's a tricky thing to reify (yes, spell-checker, that *is* a real word!). I accept that any portrayal of a really low INT PC is going to be an exercise in rationalization. The player is still going to problem-solve, because that's the nature of the game. Hopefully the player finds a way of doing this that's clever & not annoying --i.e. not just a collection of Rain Man-esque ticks or a 1-word vocabulary like Hodor.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What about it makes it a "mini-game" to you? Can you be specific?

Probably the biggest factor is that I have such a hard time believing (as I mentioned in a previous thread) that anybody would build this kind of puzzle into their lair/tomb/defenses/whatever. Can you imagine using a safe in your office that has a puzzle to solve, instead of a secret combination? So it feels to me like "something that is inserted into the narrative to test the meta-abilities of the players behind the marionettes".

How does it compare to the puzzle presented in this scenario (see The Tomb)?

Ooh...I like that much much more. There's still a puzzle to solve, but in the sense of putting together clues, not just wrestling with a contrived brain-teaser. AND...if you don't solve it you can still succeed at the encounter, it's just a lot harder.

 

[Mallus]

, beholders," before it was obvious because I recognized the description of the spell-jamming vessel in the encounter.

Differences in social contracts aside, this strikes me as a DM solving a problem they made for themselves. If you don't want your experienced players to recognize something (via metagame knowledge), describe it differently. Don't use standard descriptions from published sources. Maybe toss in a few modifications to the mechanics. That way, the players will be as puzzled as you want their characters to be.

"Wow, that totally didn't look like a troll."
"No it didn't, did it? Probably wasn't from around here." <smiles rat-bastard DM smile>