Comprehension problems

[Jon_Dahl]

A GM begins his/her speech, quickly explaining what is where and how it is and what it looks like, where does it go and how all this affects everything around you.

Then everyone reacts and does something. However, I'm quiet. What was it? What is the distance? Is it possible to go and search X or is it behind something impassable? What did you just say anyway?

Usually I feel that if someone is lost, it's always me. In our previous game we had investigative stuff which happened in docks. GM explained about ships A, B and C and perhaps D, E and F and what was going on. I felt that there was massive amount of stuff happening all around me and I didn't get it at all. I completely lost interest.

However when I'm the GM I feel that players usually get what I'm saying, but not always. But I know how it feels so I really pause and take a moment to make myself crystal clear.

Anyone else who feels in the same way? That some games seem more like IQ speed-tests than immersive stories?

(Just as a sidenote, I have fairly low IQ. According to tests it's somewhere around 101 and 111. What is more pathetic than a dumb nerd?)

 

[S'mon]

IQ 105 is not dumb! But yes it's probably lower than that of the average D&D player these days, which to me is more a criticism of how overly complex the games are.

GMing or playing at the London D&D Meetup it's often crowded and noisy, which can make it hard to follow what's going on. My hearing is not brilliant (AIR when the Territorial Army tested it back in '98 it was only just good enough for the military, and probably worse now), so as a player I try to sit close to the GM. Luckily the GMs I've had have tended to speak clearly; my current GM is a primary school teacher and she's really good, especially at responding to player queries.
When GMing myself I try to speak slowly & clearly (being a lecturer helps) to explain things effectively. But the biggest aid is the use of miniatures and battlemap, which gives everyone a non-aural focus and I think makes comprehension of the situation much easier. It can be limiting, but in the Meetup environment I think it's a vital aid.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't think this is about IQ at all. People process information in different ways, and some are better at certain ways than others. Besides, don't worry so much about IQ. Common consensus today is that it's not as good an indicator of Intelligence as we once thought. IQ tests tend to be weighted towards mathematics and vocabular skills, with reaction time also a consideration. We now understand that there are far more divisions of Intelligence, and a true analysis needs to take those other aspects into account. For instance, on most standard IQ tests, I score in the high 130's to low 140's. Yet there are just some things I am completely stupid about. The theory of multiple intelligences seems to be more complete than just standard IQ.

Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theory of multiple intelligences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, it's likely that you just aren't wired toward auditory data processing and retention, but are likely much better at other forms. Specifically, there are three different forms of aquiring information, including the aforementioned auditory:

Auditory - Can hear spoken information or instructions and process it. All they need is to hear a description and they have it.

Visual - Can see information or instruction and process it. Once they see a picture of an object, place, or situation, they've got it.

Tactile - Can aquire information or instruction through touch. Once they get their hands on it or take something apart themself, they understand how to put it back together or use it.

Usually this more applies to "learning", but it can be applicable in this situation also.

People tend to have a predominant type, though they can use a combination of all three.

For instance, I'm predominantly visual and tactile (very good at both), but only okay at audible. It has nothing to do with IQ. It's just how my brain is hardwired.

It may be that you're just not very good at audible instruction either, but if it was written down (which can help trigger visualization better) or shown as an illustration, it would make more sense.

There are tests all over the internet to find out what your predominant type is. It's used quite commonly in education settings, and also has found use in managerial situations (I learned about it through the Air Force NCO Academy - the Air Force"s mid to upper Management School).

Talk to your DM and give it a shot.


Here are some links that might help.

http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/vak_learning_styles_questionnaire.pdf

Learning Styles - Understanding and Using Learning Styles

Free VAK visual auditory kinesthetic learning styles test questionnaire

multiple intelligences - howard gardners multiple intelligences theory - visual auditory kinesthetic learnings styles VAK model

Learning Styles -- Visual, Auditory, and Tactile Learning

Learning Style Quiz - My Learning Style - Your Best Learning Style

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Anyone else who feels in the same way? That some games seem more like IQ speed-tests than immersive stories?

Oh jeez, yes! And it's why I'm a big fan of battle maps for combat, and sketch pads for out-of-combat. And asking lots and lots of questions, when necessary.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know very much about IQ scores, but my understanding is 100 is perfectly average. So I don't think there is much cause for worry on that front.

 

[Oryan77]

IQ and IQ scores don't always mean a whole lot. I work at Stanford University and am surrounded by "smart" people. I've even gamed with a few.

One of the smartest guys I worked with gamed with me early on when 3.5 came out. Sure, he was very book smart, but he lacked a lot of common sense and people skills (both of which I consider to be a quality of whether or not a person is smart).

He was new to D&D and could not grasp the concept of roleplaying a character. No matter how I tried to explain it and teach him, his mind could not get past the difference between a video game and a Pen & Paper RPG game. He just did not understand what it meant to roleplay a character and interact in the game world as if it was a real place. It was odd that I couldn't get him to understand when in general, he was a bright guy.

I've seen complete morons play D&D and roleplay just fine. Everyone is different and we just excel and struggle with different things. I consider some of my less book smart friends to be a lot smarter than a lot of the people I work with at Stanford. Common sense can often be more important to have than book smarts.

 

[Janx]

I don't know very much about IQ scores, but my understanding is 100 is perfectly average. So I don't think there is much cause for worry on that front.

I'm going to apologize up front to [MENTION=89822]Jon_Dahl[/MENTION] if anything I say here is insulting. Not my intent, but we're talking about IQ and he ponied up a score. My conclusion at the end wraps up in a postive point, in fact. i.e. read and comprehed before posting that I'm a big meanie.

While great points have been raised about how crappy the IQ system is, it still renders results that indicate dumb people are dumb, smart people are smart.

It is possible that a person could score poorly on it, and still be a rocket scientist. And there are rocket scientists who score high on it, yet in the game of life (or RPGs by one example), they are freaking morons when it comes to common sense decision making.

Those are the outliers. Generally, somebody who scores poorly on the IQ test is markedly different than somebody who scored above the average range (say 120-130 range)

As I understand it, 100 IQ may be designated as average, but that's still not a good score. 80 is mentally retarded, for instance.

Now the OP says he's in the 101 to 111 range. S'mon flagged it as 105 for conversation's sake. The test measures comprehension and math. Those are 2 things D&D make some use of. So if Jon says he scored low on the test AND that he has problems keeping track of stuff in the game, that makes sense to based on what the test measures and what the game involves.

Does it mean the number is an accurate total definition of Jon? No. The number isn't as important as the fact that it is low and it's lowness corresponds to his gaming difficulty.

Generally, stupid people have no interest in smart things. The fact that Jon Dahl likes D&D (which is a smart thing) says he is probably a smart person. The test merely identified an area he has a problem in.

Some of that stuff [MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION] posted might have some alternative tests to try out. That may verify a weakness in one area, strength in another.

For full disclosure (since the OP took a social risk), I've never taken a real IQ test. I did take one online because I was curious. It scored me as 126, which assuming it is moderately accurate, is above average, but not in the rocket scientist range. Normal people may think I am really smart and I can see that I am smarter than most people, but there are smarter people out there. Forums like this (D&D is a smart person's game) tend to attract smart people, so odds are good, I am in the dumb minority as contrasted to real life.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Janx, my understanding is that 100 is average and most people tend to cluster around it (I seem to recall a chart somewhere showing the percentages). So 100, if my facts here are right, is not a low or bad score. It is just average. Being of average intelligence is nothing to lament.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm going to range (say 120-130 range)

As I understand it, 100 IQ may be designated as average, but that's still not a good score. 80 is mentally retarded, for instance.


For full

See my above post, but 99-109 basically means normal intelligence. It is not a poor score at all. Pretty sure 80 is a cut off and not indicattive of mental retardation (though I could be wrong)....i believe 79 or lower is where it is regarded as a real deficiency. And I am pretty sure 65-79 is considered mild retardation.

 

[coyote6]

Being of average intelligence is nothing to lament.

Unless you're trying to qualify to take Combat Expertise or learn wizard spells, of course.

I think I'm bad at this, unfortunately (conveying info, not taking IQ tests). I have to figure out how to get better at it.




Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk