Another thread on players and PC stats

[pemerton]

In the latest Rule-of-Three, Rich Baker makes the following comment:

James Wyatt ran City of the Spider Queen for our Thursday night group while he was designing and I was developing the adventure. I made a point of playing a dumb character so that I could ignore all knowledge I had of the adventure as we played.​

Does "dumb" here mean "low INT"? Thoughts?

 

[LurkAway]

That sentence also popped out at me (I wonder if it popped out at me because of the 'player advantage' threads, or if Baker made a passing reference to the 'player advantage' threads?)

I'd think that 'dumb' in this context would mean low Wisdom? Because if you've read the module and you know that pushing the off-color stone there will swing open the wall, then you can suppress metagaming by roleplaying a PC that lacks perception, insight, intuition, etc.

 

[Gilladian]

IMO, there's not enough info to define whether he was referring to INT, WIS, or both. I would expect INT, but it could be argued either way or both, so I think this is a moot question.

However, a better question might be - SHOULD a player have to play a "dumb" character just to avoid metagame knowledge? Are there better ways of doing it?

My brother and I are soon going to be running a game (not DnD) in which we will alternate DMing duties. It is such a rules-lite game that we won't have stats, just descriptors (We're using a set of rules named PACE) with a numeric "win" number. We've made no adjustments for player knowledge, even though obviously the non-dm in a given session will have a lot of insight into the campaign generally that the other players will lack (unless they go read the wiki!)...

I expect he will be good enough not to "cheat" with his knowledge, and I will do the same, simply by looking at the world through the eyes of my character rather than as a DM. We'll see how it works out.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly Gilladian, a "gentleman's agreement" not to use your out of game knowledge works almost all the time.

Funny how people do equate stats with how the character ought to be played though. I've just gotten through being told repeatedly that it shouldn't matter. That his character could have any stats at all and still be played in an identical manner.

Nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking that that's a load of hooey.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In the latest Rule-of-Three, Rich Baker makes the following comment:

James Wyatt ran City of the Spider Queen for our Thursday night group while he was designing and I was developing the adventure. I made a point of playing a dumb character so that I could ignore all knowledge I had of the adventure as we played.​

Does "dumb" here mean "low INT"? Thoughts?

Could mean anythin. My guess is both Int and Wis (as well as a lack of knowledge skills). Since the player knows the adventure this is a good solution (by no means the only solution but it is something we've done in playtests).

 

[LurkAway]

However, a better question might be - SHOULD a player have to play a "dumb" character just to avoid metagame knowledge? Are there better ways of doing it?

Players have been separating player from PC knowledge for years via social contract.

I'm sure Wyatt chose to play a 'dumb' character because it was an easy or "lazy" way (I don't mean that pejoratively) to avoid metagaming.

 

[Umbran]

Well, this is an extreme case. It isn't a small thing of knowing just some stats of a monster and having to ignore that. It sounds like a more broad case of knowing most of the adventure, which won't be a concern at most tables.

It puts him in a sticky place - a smart character can figure out some stuff, but won't know everything. He'd have to pick and choose use some of that knowledge, but not all. If he plays dumb, he doesn't have to find the balance line.

And, in terms of playtest, having him come up with anything isn't really a fair test of the adventure. He can be there to fill out the tactical situations, but shouldn't be part of the party's reasoning process. So, he can play a character with a high intelligence/wisdom who refuses to engage his brain in a life-or-death situation, but that's not very plausible, is it?

 

[pemerton]

Funny how people do equate stats with how the character ought to be played though. I've just gotten through being told repeatedly that it shouldn't matter. That his character could have any stats at all and still be played in an identical manner.

Nice to know that I'm not alone in thinking that that's a load of hooey.

I thought you might find some vindication in what Rich Baker said!