D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[AlViking]

Parity with other stats

I'm just saying, if a player can bench an impressive amount, that doesn't give them free strength checks for their wizard. "You gave a convincing out of character argument so we ignore what your character can do" is the same as "You beat me in arm wrestling so your weedy 5 strength wizard beats the 20 strength hill giant in arm wrestling"

Why should a character's charisma arguments be based on their out of character side? You're playing a character, not throwing your actual knowledge into things.

I pay attention to what they say not how. In some cases I'll even remind them (before the even speak if I think it's needed) of things they've done or know that might help. When it comes to complex negotiations there may be several checks - and include more than just one person. So there may be insight checks, history or any other skill that's appropriate.

 

[TwoSix]

Tell me, if you presented a puzzle to your players and the player playing the 6 Int barbarian solved it, would you not allow him to because his character isn't smart enough?

He's obviously a genius with 6 Int. We've had this discussion a bunch.

 

[AlViking]

Tell me, if you presented a puzzle to your players and the player playing the 6 Int barbarian solved it, would you not allow him to because his character isn't smart enough?

For me if it's a group challenge I don't care who solves it. The barbarian may not be as smart as the player but the guy playing the wizard likely doesn't have an 18 intelligence either.

 

[Remathilis]

Parity with other stats

I'm just saying, if a player can bench an impressive amount, that doesn't give them free strength checks for their wizard. "You gave a convincing out of character argument so we ignore what your character can do" is the same as "You beat me in arm wrestling so your weedy 5 strength wizard beats the 20 strength hill giant in arm wrestling"

Why should a character's charisma arguments be based on their out of character side? You're playing a character, not throwing your actual knowledge into things.

I'm going to assume then that the 6 Int isn't allowed to solve puzzles, or if the player figures out the King is a doppelganger, he can't say anything until he rolls well on insight check?

I mean, if we're going for parity of stats, intelligence and wisdom should limit what the player can think and deduce. "No solving the riddle unless you roll a DC 13 Intelligence check!"

 

[Mecheon]

I'm going to assume then that the 6 Int isn't allowed to solve puzzles, or if the player figures out the King is a doppelganger, he can't say anything until he rolls well on insight check?

I mean, yeah, that's the character you're playing. Got to play the character in question. Its a test of the characters, not the players. You can certainly talk about stuff OOCly, but the character's got to do what the characters got to reasonably do.

Otherwise, well, that's basically saying "Yeah you shot real good at this archery range, guess your wizard is actually a master bowman"

I mean, if we're going for parity of stats, intelligence and wisdom should limit what the player can think and deduce. "No solving the riddle unless you roll a DC 13 Intelligence check!"

Beats the alternative of 'figure out this puzzle and no progress until you do'. That's playing to the character you've rolled up, its absolutely a choice

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Parity with other stats

I'm just saying, if a player can bench an impressive amount, that doesn't give them free strength checks for their wizard. "You gave a convincing out of character argument so we ignore what your character can do" is the same as "You beat me in arm wrestling so your weedy 5 strength wizard beats the 20 strength hill giant in arm wrestling"

Why should a character's charisma arguments be based on their out of character side? You're playing a character, not throwing your actual knowledge into things.

While I definitely hear you, I also think there should be room for "that just works" in a variety of contexts, not just social ones.

Social and mental things have the difference that there are often multiple perfectly valid ways to change someone's mind or answer a question (being abstract, thoughts and feelings) while there is...really only one way to move something, exerting enough force to move it. However, I still think there can be situations where it makes sense that a roll wouldn't be required, if the action is clever enough, or exploits something wisely, etc.

So, for instance, perhaps the party has already noticed that one of the tables in the bar has a loose board--so they specifically describe how they manipulate the arm-wrestling match so that their opponent's elbow is on top of that loose board. I'm kind of making things up as I go here, but I hope you can see why a clever plan, leveraging known facts and targeting just the right thing, could be worthy of a no-roll solution, even for a physical challenge.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm going to assume then that the 6 Int isn't allowed to solve puzzles, or if the player figures out the King is a doppelganger, he can't say anything until he rolls well on insight check?

I mean, if we're going for parity of stats, intelligence and wisdom should limit what the player can think and deduce. "No solving the riddle unless you roll a DC 13 Intelligence check!"

Okay, but conversely (now arguing the opposite direction of my previous post!), we can easily come up with situations where allowing this 100% always no matter what is just as nonsensical as never allowing it anytime no matter what.

The most obvious example, of course, is the player who hard-dumps Int, Wis, and Cha, but portrays an incredibly intelligent, perceptive, charismatic figure--who simply always makes sure to hit the "oh well that's super smart/wise/charming, you can have that without a roll" triggers. That player is min-maxing out the wazoo and paying nothing for it, because they get functionally all the benefits of sky-high mental stats, with few of the drawbacks.

But there are more subtle ones. For example, while I can be quite gullible at times, if I spend time around a person, most of the time I become pretty good at reading their voice tone, diction, etc. (and visual tells like facial expression and body language, if I see them in person). As a result, I can often predict what a person is going to do, or say, or even think, well before the consequences land. If I'm playing an Int 8 Paladin, but I know my GM well and frequently predict what's going to happen next, is it actually realistic, sensible, justified, for that Int 8 Paladin to almost immediately know which path is correct, the solution to a riddle moments after it's been asked, etc.? This is something I intentionally restrain myself from, which is damned difficult sometimes because I so very much want to blurt out the thing I've figured out, but which my character certainly could not have. (Exactly this sort of issue--that you cannot choose to be significantly more or less intelligent than you actually are--is part of my concern with some claims made upthread.)

Point being, both things have clearly ungrounded, ridiculous results if applied without restraint. Expecting that stats should matter, that your character being mechanically foolhardy should matter for roleplay, isn't a bad thing. Expecting that a good argument, a good idea, even without mechanical justification, should make a big difference? That's not a bad thing either. But each becomes grotesque when inflated beyond reason.

And this? This thing right here? This is where GM adjudication is correctly applied. It isn't possible to write rules that can decide this--because the whole point is the tension between "just follow the rules" and "just ignore the rules" and the problems that each thing can have. That's where you need a human, who can apply common sense. Yes, this does mean that this is an area where GM skill matters, and thus a mediocre GM may fall short, and a bad GM will outright ruin things. But there genuinely is no other option, we cannot do better.

It's a massive error to generalize from this, and the handful of other similar cases where we either must, or should, depend on pure GM adjudication, to the idea that EVERYTHING should be GM adjudication. That, too, is taking a good idea ("There are places where GM adjudication is either necessary, or so overwhelmingly useful that no other alternative is even worth considering") and blowing it way out of proportion into something grotesque and harmful ("EVERYTHING should be GM adjudication ALL THE TIME because who needs the horrible awful nasty RULES???")

 

[tetrasodium]

He's obviously a genius with 6 Int. We've had this discussion a bunch.

Welllll..... That's actually an area that 5e chose to poison the well and design against the GM's ability to reasonably enforce that without the kinda "sit down and shut up Bob your barbarian is too dumb to participate" trope that dump int puzzle acenatalways comes up.

Currently due to the over-simplification and streamlining in 5es skill system there are five int based skills (arcana history nature investigation religion). Most of this are bottom shelf "D-" grade skills. One of those is often a duplicate of perception to such a degree that it's so normal for tables to use perception in place of what should be an investigation check that just a Google search for the 5e int based skills had multiple threads on reddit and various forums pleading with the community to use it for its checks.

That list used to consist of Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, all Knowledge (Arcana, Architecture & Engineering, Dungeoneering, Geography, History, Local, Nature, Nobility & Royalty, Religion, The Planes, & "other") Search, and Spellcraft. The craft skills were generally trained only but there were like 15 of those too & that could make int matter for laymen's knowledge about a craft type checks too.

Int has had its list of skills condensed been condensed to such an extreme degree that having a low int no longer has all that much actual impact in play & with the shift from int+[class skill point per level] to basically equal numbers of proficiency based skills from race class and background it doubles down on encouraging that "I'll decide what my PC knows because I control my PC" attitude while completely robbing int based characters of the system level benefits they should have and stripping the option to meaningfully rule on int based stuff at the PC level from the GM's toolbox

 

[CreamCloud0]

I do think this is an area where removing BITF was a mistake, for both PCs and NPCs, like Vulnerabilities that have been mentioned they’d be able to highlight where a character might be prone to being tempted or stand firm on certain subjects, players get to stake their claim on specific aspects of their character’s identity as important, so, if the character, to use a previous example, has the trait: vow of celibacy and seduction attempts aren’t going to go anywhere but that also means they’re going to struggle if they attempt to charm their way with someone else.

And with NPCs this gives them specific topics that they can be convinced just by a good argument without a check, or get to resist being vulnerable to a skill check to flip their worldview.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I do think this is an area where removing BITF was a mistake, for both PCs and NPCs, like Vulnerabilities that have been mentioned they’d be able to highlight where a character might be prone to being tempted or stand firm on certain subjects, players get to stake their claim on specific aspects of their character’s identity as important, so, if the character, to use a previous example, has the trait: vow of celibacy and seduction attempts aren’t going to go anywhere but that also means they’re going to struggle if they attempt to charm their way with someone else.

And with NPCs this gives them specific topics that they can be convinced just by a good argument without a check, or get to resist being vulnerable to a skill check to flip their worldview.

Great point.

If Bob the Cleric is absolutely inflexible about a religious vow, then that should be helping them against things that would ask them to break that vow--but it should hurt them in cases where bending, just a little, on that vow would be useful or even necessary.

I don't see many people ever talking about the latter, even though it should be a necessary accompaniment to the former. In fact, CreamCloud0 here is one of the only people I've ever seen bring this up.