D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

To pigeonhole this discussion this way, you have to ignore the times I've pointed out how Int 5 geniuses inhibit dramatic play as well. Be careful about jumping to conclusions, especially when the jump drops your thought into a well-worn groove. Hard to get out once you're in.

"Time is a flat circle." Plus, you forgot an important caveat about your examples: I don't believe them.

The operative feature of godmodding is not a particular stance of play (although it probably does lend itself more to director stance), but rather narrating your character's actions to cast them unfailingly in the best light in a way that is obnoxious to the other players. In other words, it's playing a Mary Sue.

There is also a sub-definition of the term that focuses on narrating the actions of other characters illicitly. We haven't really talked about that here, but I've seen it lurking in some of what you and Elfcrusher have said, and it may come up in the future.

Yea, feels pretty orthogonal to what we're talking about.

Yet another response to this objection that amounts solely to denigrating the players as munchkins. Do you not see any problem with that? It's hardly munchkinism to think, "X canonically works. Why don't we keep doing X?" If X canonically works, and the characters don't do X when it would be useful for them to do so, that's not players nobly refraining from nasty evil operational maximization -- that's a plot hole. Do you get annoyed when heroes in books and movies "forget" about some ability they have at an opportune moment? Or, even if you don't get annoyed, do you feel the need to look down your nose at other members of the audience who do? Because they're thinking the story through and want it to be logically consistent? Come on, man.

I don't feel the need to look down at plot-hole pokers, but I do hate discussing movies with them. And, not to pat myself on the back, but I've even brought up that plot hole point before!

Interesting. I wonder if that's illustrative. Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences. I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.

Do you guys just want to keep patting yourselves on the back? Should I leave you alone?

i was pretty sure I had already heard Semisonic playing in this thread, so I'm not saying you have to go home, but...

 

[Guest 6801328]

To pigeonhole this discussion this way, you have to ignore the times I've pointed out how Int 5 geniuses inhibit dramatic play as well.

Could you point those out, because I haven't picked that up from your arguments. Or do mean you're afraid they might inhibit play if you grant them latitude in the fiction?

The operative feature of godmodding is not a particular stance of play (although it probably does lend itself more to director stance), but rather narrating your character's actions to cast them unfailingly in the best light in a way that is obnoxious to the other players. In other words, it's playing a Mary Sue.

Is this equivalent to saying that players can't be trusted to use narrative latitude to contribute to the fiction?

There is also a sub-definition of the term that focuses on narrating the actions of other characters illicitly. We haven't really talked about that here, but I've seen it lurking in some of what you and Elfcrusher have said, and it may come up in the future.

Then I wish you'd expand on this, because that's one thing I'm adamantly and zealously opposed to, to the extent that I object to descriptions of the Warlord class that require me to be impressed by their leadership and inspiration.

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere you addressed the fact that per the zone of truth spell, the caster "know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw."

​

I addressed it. You're conflating the mechanical truth of the game with the "fictional truth" (doesn't that sound deliciously Orwellian?) There are two event paths: in the mechanical one Eloelle doesn't have the information, and she fails the saving throw, so she tells the truth that she doesn't know. In the narrative one she does have the information, and her Patron intercedes on her behalf (I like this better than just having her use her genius to make the save), and not only protects her from the spell but casts a kind of Suggestion on the caster so that he thinks his spell worked, all in order to protect his secret. In both cases the end result is the same: Eloelle says "I don't know" and the sorcerer believes her.

You may hate the narrative, but both paths of the story structure are consistent. And, seriously, how likely is this chain of events?

Yet another response to this objection that amounts solely to denigrating the players as munchkins. Do you not see any problem with that? It's hardly munchkinism to think, "X canonically works. Why don't we keep doing X?" If X canonically works, and the characters don't do X when it would be useful for them to do so, that's not players nobly refraining from nasty evil operational maximization -- that's a plot hole. Do you get annoyed when heroes in books and movies "forget" about some ability they have at an opportune moment? Or, even if you don't get annoyed, do you feel the need to look down your nose at other members of the audience who do? Because they're thinking the story through and want it to be logically consistent? Come on, man.

Absolutely, I totally agree with this. I think the onus is on the player who wants to do this to continue the fiction in a narratively rich way. To cite the example of the Sorcerer with the playing cards, if asked "Why don't you use more cards?" I would expect him to have a great answer. Now, there may be times when he stumbles and his answer is a little lame, but I'm ok with that if he's trying to tell a great story.

Do you guys just want to keep patting yourselves on the back? Should I leave you alone?

Actually, I think I sprained my arm with all that self-back-patting. Could I impose on you for some shiatsu?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The operative feature of godmodding is not a particular stance of play (although it probably does lend itself more to director stance), but rather narrating your character's actions to cast them unfailingly in the best light in a way that is obnoxious to the other players. In other words, it's playing a Mary Sue.

Is this equivalent to saying that players can't be trusted to use narrative latitude to contribute to the fiction?

Its equivalent to saying that the players' ability to use narrative latitude to contribute to the fiction can be abused.

There is also a sub-definition of the term that focuses on narrating the actions of other characters illicitly. We haven't really talked about that here, but I've seen it lurking in some of what you and Elfcrusher have said, and it may come up in the future.

Then I wish you'd expand on this, because that's one thing I'm adamantly and zealously opposed to, to the extent that I object to descriptions of the Warlord class that require me to be impressed by their leadership and inspiration.

Easiest example I can think of the potential for that path being taken is if its not the DM's cleric that Eloelle's player is claiming has his spell subverted and his mind altered but another player's:

I addressed it. You're conflating the mechanical truth of the game with the "fictional truth" (doesn't that sound deliciously Orwellian?) There are two event paths: in the mechanical one Eloelle doesn't have the information, and she fails the saving throw, so she tells the truth that she doesn't know. In the narrative one she does have the information, and her Patron intercedes on her behalf (I like this better than just having her use her genius to make the save), and not only protects her from the spell but casts a kind of Suggestion on the caster so that he thinks his spell worked, all in order to protect his secret. In both cases the end result is the same: Eloelle says "I don't know" and the sorcerer believes her.

You may hate the narrative, but both paths of the story structure are consistent.

The player of the cleric is likely to hate that narrative, even if both paths of the story structure are consistent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll mostly agree with all of that, although I don't think ad hoc rulings are ever required.

It might even be illustrative to step through some of these scenarios and see if anything bad happens, or if the DM ever needs to adjudicate. In the Eloelle example:

In Scene 1, Eloelle fails an Int test but declares, "I know the answer, but unfortunately I have been commanded to not share it with you."

Since nobody else passed the test, the heroes are unable to open the door / solve the riddle / whatever.

In Scene 2, Eloelle has been captured by an evil sorcerer (or, more likely, a good paladin...) who uses Zone of Truth and commands her to reveal the secret. She again fails the test. So she declares (to the table) "Ha! What pitiful magic. But I shall play along so that the Sorcerer will give up. I pretend to be affected by the spell and reply that I don't know."

Ok, we're still good. Mechanically she doesn't know the answer because she failed the Int test to know it, so now when she says "I don't know" she's being truthful. So far the narratives are consistent AND the underlying mechanics are consistent, even if they seem to be contradict each other.

So what happens next? What contrived scenario can we (meaning "you") come up with that might force us into a paradox, where eventually we prove that Eloelle is a moron, or the DM has to adjudicate, or we otherwise encounter something that makes either or both of these two parallel arcs, the narrative and the mechanics, inconsistent?

You describe the scene and the die roll, I'll narrate.

I'm confused. Where and to whom does LOL say, "Ha! What pitiful magic. But I shall play along so that the Sorcerer will give up. I pretend to be affected by the spell and reply that I don't know?" That's impossible to say for the character who's just failed her save against ZoT. A failed save against ZoT prevents falsehoods from being spoken. LOL is lying in that statement. Not the, "I don't know," part, that's the only truthful thing, but with the "I pretend to be affected," part. That's a lie, and impossible to state within the ZoT. Is this a fourth wall break, where the character of LOL speaks to the members of the audience (the other players, their characters, both?) while the action waits? I don't understand how LOL says this in any context that makes sense with the action described.

For reference:

Zone of Truth
2nd-level enchantment

Casting Time: 1 action; Range: 60 feet; Components: V, S; Duration: 10 minutes

You create a magical zone that guards against deception in a 15-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range. Until the spell ends, a creature that enters the spell’s area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Charisma saving throw. On a failed save, a creature can’t speak a deliberate lie while in the radius. You know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw.

An affected creature is aware of the spell and can thus avoid answering questions to which it would normally respond with a lie. Such a creature can be evasive in its answers as long as it remains within the boundaries of the truth.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"Time is a flat circle." Plus, you forgot an important caveat about your examples: I don't believe them.

Well, that's a spectacularly unhelpful attitude. If you're going to flatly deny what I've actually said in order to insist that this conversation is about something it isn't, I don't see any point in continuing with you.

Could you point those out, because I haven't picked that up from your arguments.

Here:

Consider how this character might play out in a book or movie, without being tied to a low Intelligence score mechanic. She identifies the cyanide, and then has to decide whether her commitment to her patron is worth risking death for. This could be a key dramatic moment. She might dramatically renounce her patron and pour out the drink, or she might dramatically down the poisoned wine. Either way, it's good fiction. But playing this character at the table as Int 5, you can't get either dramatic benefit. The character can't choose to pour out the drink, because then she would be benefiting from an Int score she doesn't have, and when she does drink, it's not a dramatic moment, because the DM hasn't even told her the wine is poisoned. It's just, after the fact, "You take 38 poison damage, because the wine was poisoned. You knew it, but you chose to drink anyway because of your patron."

Or do mean you're afraid they might inhibit play if you grant them latitude in the fiction?

It's frustrating trying to have a conversation with a person who keeps attributing my position to fear, doubt, or mistrust. I might just as easily ask you if you're afraid that using a commonsense definition of "intelligence" might be a surrender of your imaginative freedom.

Is this equivalent to saying that players can't be trusted to use narrative latitude to contribute to the fiction?

I don't know, is what you're arguing equivalent to saying that players can't be trusted to use the rules of the game to contribute to the fiction?

Then I wish you'd expand on this, because that's one thing I'm adamantly and zealously opposed to, to the extent that I object to descriptions of the Warlord class that require me to be impressed by their leadership and inspiration.

You've got a player dictating the actions of an immensely powerful extraplanar being working in her favor in order to explain how she gets past the zone of truth problem. And TwoSix and pemerton have got the other party members ignoring by fiat the zone of truth loophole they've discovered rather than using it to their advantage. "My explanation only works if your character doesn't pull on that thread" is treacherous territory.

I addressed it.

Fair enough.

You're conflating the mechanical truth of the game with the "fictional truth" (doesn't that sound deliciously Orwellian?)

Doesn't that comparison ring any alarm bells? The horror of 1984 is that the Party is twisting and obfuscating the truth with artificial semantics for sinister purposes, and the moral of the story is that you shouldn't let people do this.

Actually, I think I sprained my arm with all that self-back-patting. Could I impose on you for some shiatsu?

Sure. That's the thing with the knives, right?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Its equivalent to saying that the players' ability to use narrative latitude to contribute to the fiction can be abused.


Easiest example I can think of the potential for that path being taken is if its not the DM's cleric that Eloelle's player is claiming has his spell subverted and his mind altered but another player's:

The player of the cleric is likely to hate that narrative, even if both paths of the story structure are consistent.

Oh, whoah....you mean if a PC Cleric tried to cast Zone of Truth on the Warlock in order to get the information?

Yeah, if you allowed that sort of thing that could in fact be a problem. In fact, everything I've been espousing in this thread might start to break down if you allow players to affect other players that way.

So maybe this is where this all does start to depend on house rules: I ascribe to the notion that if a PC performs a hostile action on another player, the "victim" gets to narrate the result, without rolling dice.

Yeah, if you allow PvP then this whole model could break down. I'd have to think about that more.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm confused. Where and to whom does LOL say, "Ha! What pitiful magic. But I shall play along so that the Sorcerer will give up. I pretend to be affected by the spell and reply that I don't know?" That's impossible to say for the character who's just failed her save against ZoT. A failed save against ZoT prevents falsehoods from being spoken. LOL is lying in that statement.

To the other players. In the same way that a player might say, "Ha! I charge headlong into combat screaming the warcry of my people." That's not the character speaking out loud, it's the player describing actions in the "first person" of the character.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"Ha! I charge headlong into combat screaming the warcry of my people." That's not the character speaking out loud...

What if the warcry of his people is actually "WARCRY OF MY PEOPLE!"?

 

[Guest 6801328]

It's frustrating trying to have a conversation with a person who keeps attributing my position to fear, doubt, or mistrust. I might just as easily ask you if you're afraid that using a commonsense definition of "intelligence" might be a surrender of your imaginative freedom.

Well, actually, I'll readily admit that. I'm afraid that if I'm restricted to "commonsense" definitions (which is what Maxperson has doggedly insisted is the only possible truth) then that eliminates all sorts of interesting narrative possibilities. I'd be equally afraid of restricting game choices to commonsense physics and biology.

Ok, maybe I'm not *actually* afraid because I won't play with people who won't allow it. But you know what I mean.

I don't know, is what you're arguing equivalent to saying that players can't be trusted to use the rules of the game to contribute to the fiction?

Mmmm...the reversal doesn't really work here, because in that case we're restricting latitude, which is sort of the opposite of trusting. Sort of like if I asked, "Don't you trust other people enough to leave your door unlocked?" and you replied, "Well don't you trust them enough to lock it?" Whuuuh....?

You've got a player dictating the actions of an immensely powerful extraplanar being working in her favor in order to explain how she gets past the zone of truth problem. And TwoSix and pemerton have got the other party members ignoring by fiat the zone of truth loophole they've discovered rather than using it to their advantage. "My explanation only works if your character doesn't pull on that thread" is treacherous territory.

Only "treacherous" if you think the players might abuse it. And they might. At which point I wouldn't play with them anymore. It seems more and more like this debate is really about trusting players.

Doesn't that comparison ring any alarm bells? The horror of 1984 is that the Party is twisting and obfuscating the truth with artificial semantics for sinister purposes.

No, not even remotely, because the use is intentional and accurate, not a deliberate obfuscation. And I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize that's true.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To the other players. In the same way that a player might say, "Ha! I charge headlong into combat screaming the warcry of my people." That's not the character speaking out loud, it's the player describing actions in the "first person" of the character.

I see, so, in that example, LOL is lying inside the ZoT because she does know the answer? See, the construct here, as I follow it, is that LOL the character thinks she knows the answer, but can't reveal it. When questioned under the ZoT, she chooses to lie, in character again, and say she doesn't know. You say that this is fine because, mechanically, LOL doesn't know, and so when she says she doesn't know in the ZoT, that's not a lie mechanically. But ZoT doesn't check to see if what the character says is a lie mechanically, it checks to see if it's a lie within the fiction. Within the fiction, LOL is lying. Which she cannot do without someone circumventing the restrictions of the ZoT. You've offered a number of explanations where the ZoT is, indeed, circumvented, but all of those are additional ad hoc rulings, and you've said that it doesn't require additional ad hoc rulings.

I'm just confused at this point.

Further, you've said that you would allow LOL to narrate the results if another player character cast the ZoT. Because that cuts down on character conflicts, I assume. But, it seems to me that LOL is initating the conflict by lying to the other party members, so when does this restriction come into play? Only when a mechanical effect is activated? Otherwise, it seems that a player can manipulate that system. How would you deal with a player character taking a contract out on another player's character though an NPC? The turtles here run out.