D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TheCosmicKid]

Oh oh oh oh oh....I see what you're saying. I'm not imagining that the Warlock is going to taunt her companions by telling them that she actually knows; "in-character" she would keep her knowledge a secret and say, "Sorry, I don't know." Her narration is at the player level, not at the character level.

But now that I understand what you're talking about I can see how, at some tables with some forms of roleplaying, those two things are not separate, and that if the warlock narrates it then it's fair game for the players to try to magically extract it from her. At such a table I would either not play this character, or be judicious about when and how I narrate my superpowers.

You're getting closer. But I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether or not trying to get the information is "fair game". This isn't an issue of table rules; it's a matter of plausibility of character actions. The characters don't know the table rules the players are playing by. Let's say that someone else at the table is playing a dark knight named Master Bruce. Master Bruce is very perceptive and pragmatic. So for starters, he's got a good chance of noticing when Eloelle lies to him; I hope you'd agree that it would be out of line for Eloelle's player to dictate that her Deception always beats his Insight, so already you've got a problem there. And if he does figure out that Eloelle is a font of information, it is not in his character to ignore this fact. So if Eloelle's player expects Bruce's player to have Bruce ignore this fact because Eloelle's combination of narrative and mechanics requires it, then you've got a problem again.

Now that's Orwellian. "Fewer character choices are actually more character choices."

These options don't preclude *any* existing options. A player could also create a more typical character. All The Typical Choices + A Bunch of New Choices = More Choices.

Now you're conflating mechanical "choices" with narrative "choices". You could choose mechanically to build Eloelle as an Int 5 character or an Int 15 character. But when we compare the two builds narratively, Int 5 Eloelle has fewer narrative choices than Int 15 Eloelle. You have made a mechanical choice that limits your future narrative choices. Like how shooting yourself in the foot is a personal choice that limits your future recreational choices to activities that don't require any walking or running.

On a side note, your posts seem to be getting angrier and angrier...or am I imagining that?

I dunno, I'm not turning green yet. Which is good, because my stretchy purple pants are in the washer. You really wouldn't like me when I'm angry on laundry day.

 

[BoldItalic]

I loved all these responses (and damn I wish the quotation nested one level deeper) and I think it may reveal another divide between the two camps:

One line of argument seems to be "that is highly improbable/it would never work that way/real such-and-suches don't have that behavior/that's not the definition of that word/etc." Proponents seem to be making an argument that is, "Fictional worlds should adhere to real-world analogues as closely as possible, and only stray when it is absolutely necessary." By this reasoning, Eloelle's existence results in more complexity than is actually needed, so therefore she is...undesirable. In a sense, members of this camp are trying to make the fictional world as "real" as possible.

The other camp is interested in telling a tale, and doesn't care if the details needed to support that tale are improbable. After all, some of the best moments in fiction come about because the events were improbable.

The thread above exemplifies this. Danny is right that in the real world it would be insanely hard for the Professor to get away with the story Bold is describing, to the point that the probability of sustaining the illusion is vanishingly small. But Bold doesn't care...he's showing how you can just throw in more fictional details to counter every criticism.

In another thread Maxperson and I got into it over the question of why Gandalf didn't ask the Lord of the Eagles to just fly to Mt. Doom with Frodo on his back. My explanation is just that it wouldn't have been a very good story, and I don't really need any more reason than that. If you think about it you can come up with plausible reasons, which for me is sufficient to maintain the fiction. But I don't really care which reason is the "real" one, nor do I believe there even is such a thing. The only real reason is that Tolkien wanted to tell a different story.

But Max kept insisting that the Eagles could not have made it to Mt. Doom because Sauron would have zapped them out of the air. In saying that's silly, I was taking the stance of "Well, if Tolkien had wanted to resolve the story that way there are a million plausible ways to get the Eagles there. It's ridiculous to say they couldn't have made it. After all, he found ways for two Hobbits to freakin' walk there, which is even more improbable."

Max responded quite vehemently insisting that the Hobbits-on-foot plan was actually a higher probability plan than the Eagles flying. A stance that I found utterly perplexing.

But, in the context of this debate, I think I finally get it: if the Eagles flying were in fact a better plan, then obviously Elrond and Gandalf would have known that (being Wise and all) and so they would at least have considered asking the Eagles to help. Since they didn't, it must be because it was a bad plan. In other words, for the fiction to remain "connected" to its mechanics and "not broken", you have to believe that Hobbits walking was the best plan.

Fascinating.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. In fiction, real-world probabilities don't apply because what happens isn't random; the author chooses what happens.

Not only that, but he doesn't choose on the basis of highest plausibility or likelihood; he chooses on the basis of highest interestingness. An unlikely chain of events leading to a surprising outcome is inherently more interesting than an ordinary, mundane sequence of events leading to a predictable outcome. Ergo, in fiction, the improbable is more likely to be narrated than the probable.

As the late Terry Pratchett wrote: million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten. And he knew a thing or two about writing fiction.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You're getting closer. But I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether or not trying to get the information is "fair game". This isn't an issue of table rules; it's a matter of plausibility of character actions. The characters don't know the table rules the players are playing by. Let's say that someone else at the table is playing a dark knight named Master Bruce. Master Bruce is very perceptive and pragmatic. So for starters, he's got a good chance of noticing when Eloelle lies to him; I hope you'd agree that it would be out of line for Eloelle's player to dictate that her Deception always beats his Insight, so already you've got a problem there. And if he does figure out that Eloelle is a font of information, it is not in his character to ignore this fact. So if Eloelle's player expects Bruce's player to have Bruce ignore this fact because Eloelle's combination of narrative and mechanics requires it, then you've got a problem again.

Got it. Let me noodle on that and I'll respond. I do agree wholeheartedly with the bold part, although on the other hand I'm very much opposed to players ever rolling, or needing to roll, social skills "against" one another. So this is a good puzzler you've given me.

Now you're conflating mechanical "choices" with narrative "choices". You could choose mechanically to build Eloelle as an Int 5 character or an Int 15 character. But when we compare the two builds narratively, Int 5 Eloelle has fewer narrative choices than Int 15 Eloelle. You have made a mechanical choice that limits your future narrative choices. Like how shooting yourself in the foot is a personal choice that limits your future recreational choices to activities that don't require any walking or running.

Oh, sure. But that's a voluntary limiting of future choices for that character. The same thing happens when you pick an alignment other than neutral (well, for those few of who think alignment still means anything.) Or when you pick a Paladin with an Oath instead of Fighter with no constraints.

For me by far the more important range of conceptual choices are those available to me when I'm creating a character. (I do NOT mean specific powers/stats/builds/iwinbuttons/etc.) I'm not sure I would choose any of the four concepts I outlined at the beginning of this thread, but I could see coming up with a concept based on a similar premise: "I'm not actually foolish/dumb/weak/sickly/clumsy/max...there's this other factor that results in my having penalties to using that stat." I think it sounds fun.

 

[TwoSix]

You're getting closer. But I wouldn't say it's a matter of whether or not trying to get the information is "fair game". This isn't an issue of table rules; it's a matter of plausibility of character actions. The characters don't know the table rules the players are playing by. Let's say that someone else at the table is playing a dark knight named Master Bruce. Master Bruce is very perceptive and pragmatic. So for starters, he's got a good chance of noticing when Eloelle lies to him; I hope you'd agree that it would be out of line for Eloelle's player to dictate that her Deception always beats his Insight, so already you've got a problem there. And if he does figure out that Eloelle is a font of information, it is not in his character to ignore this fact. So if Eloelle's player expects Bruce's player to have Bruce ignore this fact because Eloelle's combination of narrative and mechanics requires it, then you've got a problem again.

As players in a narrative game, Bruce and Eloelle's players should be focused on making sure their character choices mesh within the fiction. If one character concept is "genius who hides her knowledge by giving nonsense answers" and the second is "detective who can see through lies", they're deciding right upfront to either give each other a pass or to eventually make this a plot point in the fiction.

Side thought: The pushback against the Int 5 genius, as opposed to no real problem with the Str 7 burly hobgoblin, makes me think the problem isn't about the idea of representing a low stat as a competent character with a confounding circumstance, per se. I wonder if it's something more specific to Intelligence, and the weird role it plays in representing a character, in that a character's Intelligence can easily not seem representative of the player's skill in making decisions.

 

[Maxperson]

As players in a narrative game, Bruce and Eloelle's players should be focused on making sure their character choices mesh within the fiction. If one character concept is "genius who hides her knowledge by giving nonsense answers" and the second is "detective who can see through lies", they're deciding right upfront to either give each other a pass or to eventually make this a plot point in the fiction.

Side thought: The pushback against the Int 5 genius, as opposed to no real problem with the Str 7 burly hobgoblin, makes me think the problem isn't about the idea of representing a low stat as a competent character with a confounding circumstance, per se. I wonder if it's something more specific to Intelligence, and the weird role it plays in representing a character, in that a character's Intelligence can easily not seem representative of the player's skill in making decisions.

I didn't see the strength 7 burly goblin, but assuming burly means strong and not just fat and weak, I have the same issue. Stats and the corresponding numbers have defined meaning.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As players in a narrative game, Bruce and Eloelle's players should be focused on making sure their character choices mesh within the fiction. If one character concept is "genius who hides her knowledge by giving nonsense answers" and the second is "detective who can see through lies", they're deciding right upfront to either give each other a pass or to eventually make this a plot point in the fiction.

Or at some point the DM is going to have to step in when Eloelle narrates that her patron controls Bruce's mind and Bruce's player says "No".

Side thought: The pushback against the Int 5 genius, as opposed to no real problem with the Str 7 burly hobgoblin, makes me think the problem isn't about the idea of representing a low stat as a competent character with a confounding circumstance, per se. I wonder if it's something more specific to Intelligence, and the weird role it plays in representing a character, in that a character's Intelligence can easily not seem representative of the player's skill in making decisions.

I don't think that's too much of an issue: - its been discussed already. I posited that in the case of applying their intelligence in a non-mechanical situation (the example I used was coming up with a plan of attack) the characters would be coming up with plans commensurate with their actual intelligence scores, not their narrated "genius".

Of course if the player wouldn't have made an effort to roleplay their character's intelligence level anyway. (Such as in a purely player-skill situation,) its a moot point since the intelligence applied would be the player's level - not the narrated genius, and not the 5 of the actual character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Editing error

He only gives one class a week and his secretary is very efficient. He (the secretary is male) has plenty of time to attend to his other duties, such as finding pens and topping up inkwells. A clever student optimized the whole thing and explained it to him. Remember, telephones and email haven't been invented so there's nothing to tie a secretary to an office desk.

No, actually, that's pretty backwards. The advent of technology actually ALLOWED people to become untethered from desks. Secretaries of D&D type tech levels had manual scribework to do. That is incredibly time consuming. They would have to be present in their offices to set and manage their bosses' schedules; they receive visitors, known and unexpected.

Can't do all that AND be in-class transcriptionist.

He doesn't see it as deception, if it's he who is doing it. Rogues are masters at self-deception.

A history of cheating on tests not being deceptive? I'm calling shenanigans. You're drifting from self-deception to delusions & psychopathy.

Not when you own the university.

So, he owned ALL the schools and the university that he got his education from? His former teachers are his employees?

How Ouroboros-like.

Not when you own the university. You get awarded honorary doctorates by other universities.

You usually can't teach in a field with just an honorary doctorate. And those who do are not on permanent faculty or admins.

Not if you own the university where it's quite frequent for otherwise promising careers to be cut short. People who get deputed to collect half a gallon of fresh dragon blood from the Blue Mountains of The Auramands sometimes never seem to come back. Odd, that.

OK, definitely getting a strong psychopathic vibe now. This guy's a horrorshow villain sending others on suicide missions to maintain his academic position.

See above.

See above.

I said he was Professor of Logic. I didn't say he taught classes in logic. It's a purely honorary title bestowed ex officio on the owner of the university.

Okay. What does he teach where his Int5 won't have him at a minute by minute disadvantage in the classroom?

You haven't got it yet. He is the administration.

So, the school has an administration of 1? How many other teachers? How does he keep any of them on when word of his serial plagiarism reaches them? What happens when THEY reveal the emperor has no clothes?

You've never been to a social event for owners of universities, have you? They play different games there.

Yes I have: University of Dallas, Trinity University, Loyola and Tulane. Plus I've been a guest in the houses of those who make multimillion dollar donations to two of those universities...because I went to school with them.

By & large, they're not too tolerant of frauds, either.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Got an answer that amounts to more than, "Nuh uh!"?

Actually, I think that "Nuh uh!" IS the mechanic being used.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I didn't see the strength 7 burly goblin, but assuming burly means strong and not just fat and weak, I have the same issue. Stats and the corresponding numbers have defined meaning.

The Str 7 burly Hobgoblin had some form of injury I think. So he looked strong, but was unable to put force behind his blows, or carry a full backpack, or jump far or similar IIRC.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't see the strength 7 burly goblin, but assuming burly means strong and not just fat and weak, I have the same issue. Stats and the corresponding numbers have defined meaning.

Agreed.

The Str 7 burly Hobgoblin had some form of injury I think. So he looked strong, but was unable to put force behind his blows, or carry a full backpack, or jump far or similar IIRC.

So, at best, the Hobgoblin will look burly only for a short period of time before muscle atrophy sets in, and his former ripped physique begins to be replaced by a scrawny new reality.