RPG Theory - Intelligence and meta-intelligence

[aia_2]

Hi all, this could likely be another "already-discussed" topic: should it be the case, i'd kindly ask you to link here below the already discussed threads along with your feedback/comment.

The main question is related to the attribute of intelligence; almost all RPGs have this attribute to define a character and all of them could present the same situations:

a. the PC has a low score in INT whereas the player is a clever guy

b. the other way round

The question is related to any circumstance where the PC has to use the brain and, as a matter of fact the brain used is the one of the player... the typical case when there are some riddles, puzzles or similar events. According to the theory, the GM should not let the players cope with the challenge of the PCs and roll an INT check (or equivalent) to see whether or not this task has been completed with success... by doing this, the fun is totally wasted for the players...

The questions are basically two (but there could be other situations!):

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

Please note that i have chosen to keep the question "linear" as this topic affects nearly every aspect of the game, in particular the "off-line parts" when players argue among them what would be better to do (i.e. they use their brains regardeless of the INT of their PCs)...

 

[payn]

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall.

When I did do puzzles, I wouldn't go so far as saying the fighter is too dumb to know. A lot of this is that the puzzles and riddles are a group exercise and the clever player was likely the only one in the group to care and know how to solve it. As much fun as it seemed in GM prep, the table hated it as it slowed the game to a crawl. Making the clever player sit back and watch the struggle was certainly a recipe for a crappy session.

Also, not being smart doesn't mean you cant solve puzzles. Each one is unique, and if you had experience with it in the past, you likely will have an easier time solving it in the future. This seems more wisdom based to me than intelligence. It makes things complicated so simply saying you lack the intelligence (or have an abundance) so you can/cant solve this isn't something I'm going to rule as a GM.

What do I gate with intelligence in games? Things that seem to make sense. Like deciphering a language or operating/hacking a computer. Everybody gets a chance, but its going to be higher successes for the intelligence guy. The players are usually good about not stepping on each others toes in the instance of playing the "smart guy" or the "strong man" etc...

 

[Umbran]

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

For me, this will depend on the type of game we are playing at the time.

But, more often than not, I work with the character's intelligence prevailing.

This turns out to be mostly a non-problem, in that my players are the sort to play to what's on the sheet. If the character is of low intelligence, they don't try to slip by on their own merits, and so on.

 

[aia_2]

Well, as long as we are talking of a specific event where smtg has to be worked out, i understand your points and i would like to have players who stick to this approach (but you know, if you play on friday and it is midnight past, it is difficult even for a player to be enough concentrated to keep this subtle distinction always working).
When the game is not specific enough (i.e there is not a riddle to solve), the character should anyway keep this approach... If a player is playing with a dumb fighter for instance, every single action taken should be with a dumb approach (i do not argue whether it is INT or WIS here): from the choice of the road on a crossroad to the conversation with the civic militian at the gate of a town... It is really difficult from my point of view! (And i will not discuss the opposite case!) Do you reward consistently this huge effort?
I was thinking smtg like a fixed bonus for such a case...

 

[aia_2]

...or as an alternative: is there any way to set up an RPG which has no need of INT? This way the problem would be removed from the starting point...

 

[GMMichael]

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

Whose "theory" are we discussing, out of curiosity?

A) Yes, and it gets chalked up to dumb luck if possible, or another in-game explanation must be proffered (because we're telling a story, after all).

B) There's any number of reasons that the wizard would have trouble with the puzzle - over-thinking it probably being foremost.

I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall.

Sad face for your players

...or as an alternative: is there any way to set up an RPG which has no need of INT? This way the problem would be removed from the starting point...

Modos RPG has only a "mental" score, which is only considered intelligence if the player wants to call it that. The score is used to determine the quality of outcome of mental-related tasks, not the type of outcome.

So in A) the player can solve the puzzle. If the score is needed (the GM wants a roll), the roll determines if the outcome of solving the puzzle is good or bad, not whether the puzzle was solved.

In B) the not-so-clever player who rolls high could get a clue or could solve the puzzle or get some other benefit. Rolling low could still indicate that the wizard solved the puzzle, but it was somehow detrimental. (no pun intended)

 

[payn]

Sad face for your players

Actually, they dont miss them. Found them frustrating with little reward to playing.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Basically I 'resolve' the seeming conflict-- partially by taking for granted that the game's intelligence stat has more to do with knowledge than problem solving-- which is generally true, you don't roll to find out how good your combat tactics are after all and there is no puzzles skill; and partially by designing proactively in my adjudication, I have a mandate to make sure there's engaging game play to be had. I'm not going to let you roll an intelligence check to solve the puzzle because that isn't what the puzzle is there for and its easy enough to justify in the fiction, either by your character being the mouthpiece for the solution other characters in the party arrive at, or you overthinking it or not picking up on the lateral dimension of it, or whatever.

I want to have nice things like puzzles in my game, and short of an entire party that hates them, I'm going to put puzzles in my game. Generally substituting the intelligence stat for meta-problem-solving is more about someone not respecting that other people at the table like puzzles, than it is about any real immersion concern, in my hard won experience.

That said, there's a subtler variant of this, where players want to describe how they search the environment, but the game (PF2e in my case) has a search activity, but that's generally finessed at the table-- the party's standard operating procedure is governed by a roll, but a player may notice something in the description and focus in on it, probably making it easier to find. Which creates engaging game play without making the players think they'll find everything by just aggressively poking at everything. Though I do still have one player who is really aggressive about demanding to outline exactly what they do with their character's hands at every moment.

 

[bloodtide]

I do player intelligence, always. I make the game for the players. They need to use their own skills and abilities in the game. Not "the characters".

For the "average" player that wants to play a "genius" character, I will just tell them that is impossible. A player can't "really in the game" fake being smarter then they are in real life. The player can "act smart", sure, but they can't "be smart".

Even the Best Case here is horrible. This is where the player has their character act like their normal "average" self and once in a while will roll an intelligence check to ask the DM "so what would my smart character do". If the player makes the roll, the DM then effectively takes control of the character and even worse railroads the character. Sure, in theory, the player can choose not to take the "advise of their smart character"....but they they are not playing a smart character then, so why even roll?

Worse is all the "average" players choices will often get themselves into lots of trouble. Trouble that could have been avoided if the player had been playing the DM railroaded smart character.

It's the same with the "below average" player. The only way for them to "play smart" is to do the DM railroaded smart character.

I would note you can have a "Quantum Railroad" game where whatever the smart person says alters game reality. The writers on shows like Sherlock and Doctor Who do this a lot. The aliens are about to invade, and the Doctor pulls out of no where a stick of butter and idiotically says "the aliens are afraid of butter". Then the aliens go "Aiiiie! Butter!" and flee Earth.

I'm always ready to help a player with things to read or watch to help them have more knowledge about a topic. So they can really have the knowledge and use it in the game. I can even work with an interested player outside the game.

For the "average" player acting out a dumb character.....I just leave it alone. The normal actions of the player work out fine for "low intelligence characters".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Even the Best Case here is horrible. This is where the player has their character act like their normal "average" self and once in a while will roll an intelligence check to ask the DM "so what would my smart character do". If the player makes the roll, the DM then effectively takes control of the character and even worse railroads the character. Sure, in theory, the player can choose not to take the "advise of their smart character"....but they they are not playing a smart character then, so why even roll?

There’s no need any of this would have to work as you’ve described.

Ultimately, in the kind of game you’re talking about, anything that a character can know or do has to come from the GM. A player could be an actual genius in real life, and still be very limited by the GM’s ability to convey useful and relevant information to the player.

So maybe instead of a player asking “what would my smart character do” and then have the GM effectively take control of the character as you’ve described… which I would agree is very flawed and which I expect is why I cannot think of a game that actually works this way…. instead the GM can award additional information to the smart character, very often contingent upon a roll of some sort.

This has the effect of allowing for player skill AND honoring the fiction.

There are also other ways to handle this, but I think what I’ve described remains firmly in the Traditional approach to play and probably sounds familiar to many more gamers than the rather absurd description you’ve offered.