Ok, during the last couple hours while doing other stuff I've been thinking about this topic, partly in the context of
@TwoSix's comment upthread about absurdity. The arguments I'm seeing appear so absurd to me that I
must not be understanding something. And, at the same time, I'm probably not properly conveying my own position.
So let's talk about some specifics
1. Solving Puzzles
To use an example I used upthread (or maybe in the other thread on this topic), let's say the PCs find a word written somewhere, and if they realize it's an anagram for another word they can advance in the plot. One of the players figures it out. Should the
character's Intelligence score play any role in this?
My take: not in terms of whether or not the player should provide the answer. If the player can think of a way to narrate providing the solution so that it's done in a way evocative for that character then I'm all for it, but that's not necessary.
The way I see it, if you want the players to have to use their ability scores, then make the puzzle abstract so that they HAVE to roll for it. An actual puzzle, with a real solution, is an invitation for the players to solve it with their own brains. To then ask them to solve that real puzzle using the attributes of their character would be like saying, "In order to break down the door in game, you are going to have to break down the actual door to my garage over there, which I locked.
But you have to use the Strength score of your character, not your own."
And even then the analogy breaks down, because the connection between "Intelligence" and solving problems like this is not as direct as "how much can you life with a given strength score". It may very well be that the player who is perceived as the least intelligent solves these things before the player who is, by traditional metrics, the most intelligent. Thus the same thing can be true for characters.
2. Known Monster Weaknesses
This one has been hashed over a million times, and whether it's trolls and fire or werewolves and silver, it's the same thing. The player knows something about the game. Can they use that knowledge?
My Take: As I've expressed before, my basic position is that if something is a truth in the game world, then it's
possible a character would know the answer, even a character with really low mental stats. In my mind it is better roleplaying...in the sense of building out your character...to justify why your character might know this fact, rather than to just say "I'm dumb, therefore I don't know."
Furthermore, where the DM feels it's important for the players to
not know things...just change them. This is like the Puzzle example in that the way to prevent players from acting in ways you don't want it's simple enough to change the information to something they
can't know. This applies to monster identification, too: if you don't want your players to know it's Entry XXX from the Monster Manual, just change the physical description. How hard is that? Why
wouldn't the DM do that, if secrets are so important?
And when you the DM does do this, this scenario becomes an....
4. Unknown Monster Weakness
In this case the players (not their characters) are genuinely uncertain about monster capabilities. That might be because it's a new monster they've never seen, or because they are sure they remember correctly what it is and what it's abilities are, or because they know you (you sneaky devil you) sometimes change things.
My Take: This is an excellent opportunity to use your attribute. Declare an action in which you attempt to "recall lore" or otherwise glean information about your enemy. The character with the higher attribute will succeed more often.
5. Portraying a Character
Let me add that of
course I roleplay a high Int, low Strength character differently then I roleplay a low Int, high Strength character. With the first character I will try solve problems through using Arcana or Investigation, or casting spells. With the latter character I will try to solve problems through Athletics, Intimidation (if the DM let's me roll that using Strength), or hitting it with a sharp object.
But that's different from how I portray them. Do I narrate them differently? I might, if "smart" or "dumb" (or "strong" or "weak") are important parts of the character's description. Let's say my concept is that my character wanted to be a Paladin, and really is a shining example of everything a (1e) paladin represents....brave, selfless, honest, etc....but he was never accepted to any of the good orders because (at least in his mind) of his facial deformities and speech impediments. So instead of a paladin he became a regular old fighter (maybe a Cavalier...that seems appropriate), and he's still bitter and angry about that.
So I'm going to put a lot of points into Str and Con because he's a fighter, and I'll probably not put a lot of points in Int. I might even leave that at 8. But no part of my character concept...the character
I want to play...says "Strong!" or "Dumb!" I'm just assigning attributes to build an effective character.
In actual play, I'm going to look for opportunities to roleplay this character's personality: his sense of right and wrong, and desire to help others, but also his insecurities about his appearance, and his deep anger at the kind of people who rejected him. While I'm playing him I will probably build his character out in other directions, as situations suggest fun new twists and turns to his personality.
But his Strength and his Intelligence? Neither of those are notable or unique. He has 16 Strength just like everybody else with 16 Strength, and he has 8 Int just like everybody else with 8 Int.
Genuinely interested in reactions.
