D&D 5E Don't play "stupid" characters. It is ableist.

[DND_Reborn]

Thank you for the refreshingly honest answer - particularly the bolded bit which some are unwilling/unable to acknowledge and instead use... interesting interpretations to defend it as 5e RAW.

You're quite welcome. I've stated over the last few years (since I picked up 5E) there are many things about the game I like, but coming from the box-sets and 1E/2E, there is a lot I am not on board with (I am looking at you STR 20 halfling lifting 600 lbs! ).

As I'm sure you are aware, if a player states an approach to solving a problem that just works, a DM can grant auto-success for the PC without a roll in 5e. I say move along to the next challenge rather than getting too caught up in the "mechanics won't allow such a thing" consternation. YMMV.

While I appreciate your point, I simply don't want a player who chooses to have a weaker ability use their own higher ability to compensate for it. Yes, the penalty does come up in rolls, but IMO it should also be there in "roles" as well.

I'm glad you have fun with it at your table!

Thanks! I hope your games go well, too, and thanks for the pleasant discussion. Cheers!

 

[Charlaquin]

Why, I do, of course!

Seriously, though, this is based on prior versions of D&D where an INT 18 is already established as a genius-level intelligence.

Ok, but what does “genius-level intelligence” mean? This doesn’t actually tell me any more about what kind of roleplaying is expected of the character than the number 18 does. I still, as a player, have to guess at what you think is appropriate roleplaying for my intelligence score and hope you don’t decide I’m acting “too smart.”

True, 5E doesn't make this distinction, but for myself I like keeping it. But this can also work in the player's favor. Some of the people I've played with were not terribly bright, but their PCs had INT 16 or better. In such cases, if the player can't think of something or figure it out, I allow them to roll because I see their PC as being "smarter" due to the high INT score.

Ok, so this is actually another double-standard. If you think my character is “smarter” than I am based on their intelligence score, I’m allowed to rely on the results of dice rolls to express the difference. But if you think I’m “smarter” than my character is based on their intelligence score, I have to play “guess how the DM wants you to act” or be labeled a dirty power gamer.

As far as "role-playing" goes, perhaps that was a poor choice of words on my part. I don't necessarily mean personality or such, even an average intelligence person can seem smarter if they want. It is more about the results of the non-mechanics, such as the aforementioned puzzles, where the players get the challenge instead of a roll. But sometimes it does screw with the mechanics as well. For example, I might call for a DC 20 Intelligence (Investigation) check. One PC has INT 8, no proficiency in Investigation, but the player "figures it out" in a scenario where the PC cannot do it, even if the roll was a 20. In such instances I have to reign the player in a bit because they are "over playing" what should be a "weaker" score.

This, in my view, is one of the problems caused by assigning DCs to tasks independently of an actual attempt to perform them. You’ve decided that this puzzle requires a DC [X] intelligence (Investigation) check to solve, and so a character whose bonus to Intelligence (Investigation) is less than [X-20] objectively can’t solve it if a roll is called for, which makes it feel like cheating if you allow them to solve it without a roll, based on their stated goal and approach. On the other hand, if you only assign DCs to active attempts to complete tasks after they have been announced and you have determined based on the stated goal and approach that a roll should be used to resolve them, this problem no longer exists. There are no tasks that a character can’t succeed at with a roll because you don’t call for rolls if the character can’t succeed.

Honestly, I've never had any issues with playing this way (or at least no one has ever spoken out against it) because the way I use INT and other ability scores makes sense to the groups I've been in. shrug

Which is all well and good. If it works for you and the folks you play with, by all means, do whatever is fun for you. I’m just explaining the issues I personally take with this style and why I prefer to run things differently.

 

[Charlaquin]

The inherency of intelligence in an individual seems to be a completely separate issue from ableism.

I disagree, but we’ve been told not to have that discussion in this thread. I’ll just say this is not an un uncontroversial opinion and leave it at that.

 

[Charlaquin]

All I can say is that I disagree. In the real world we may not measure intelligence accurately, we don't understand it fully, but it is as real as anything. It's not harmful to acknowledge reality nor is anyone more or less worthy because of their intelligence.

Whether int matters in game is a choice that should be left up to the group. Don't ridicule people? Cool. Pretend that people aren't different with different strengths and weaknesses? You lost me.

There’s a difference between saying that intelligence isn’t an inherently property of the brain that can be quantified and saying that people aren’t different with different strengths and weaknesses. The latter is self-evident. The former is debatable, but not here as per moderator instructions.

 

[Oofta]

There’s a difference between saying that intelligence isn’t an inherently property of the brain that can be quantified and saying that people aren’t different with different strengths and weaknesses. The latter is self-evident. The former is debatable, but not here as per moderator instructions.

I may be misunderstanding, but you're right. Not the right forum to continue discussion.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, but what does “genius-level intelligence” mean? This doesn’t actually tell me any more about what kind of roleplaying is expected of the character than the number 18 does. I still, as a player, have to guess at what you think is appropriate roleplaying for my intelligence score and hope you don’t decide I’m acting “too smart.”

Ok, so this is actually another double-standard. If you think my character is “smarter” than I am based on their intelligence score, I’m allowed to rely on the results of dice rolls to express the difference. But if you think I’m “smarter” than my character is based on their intelligence score, I have to play “guess how the DM wants you to act” or be labeled a dirty power gamer.

This, in my view, is one of the problems caused by assigning DCs to tasks independently of an actual attempt to perform them. You’ve decided that this puzzle requires a DC [X] intelligence (Investigation) check to solve, and so a character whose bonus to Intelligence (Investigation) is less than [X-20] objectively can’t solve it if a roll is called for, which makes it feel like cheating if you allow them to solve it without a roll, based on their stated goal and approach. On the other hand, if you only assign DCs to active attempts to complete tasks after they have been announced and you have determined based on the stated goal and approach that a roll should be used to resolve them, this problem no longer exists. There are no tasks that a character can’t succeed at with a roll because you don’t call for rolls if the character can’t succeed.

Which is all well and good. If it works for you and the folks you play with, by all means, do whatever is fun for you. I’m just explaining the issues I personally take with this style and why I prefer to run things differently.

Let's say you're a clever player in my game. You come up with good ideas/plans, remember details, connect the dots in plots, etc. I have no way of knowing just how smart you are, but the way you play works well for a PC with above average INT. If you, as a player, fail to think of something, but your INT 18 PC probably would, I'll let you roll and either give you a hint or just have your PC "think of whatever".

But, let's say you're playing an INT 8 PC. Now, because of how smart you are you routinely take charge, plan assaults/tactics, etc., things that repeatedly would be difficult for someone of average intelligence, let alone lower intelligence. What you are doing is giving yourself a dump stat where (due to other choices you make) really has no significant negative impact on your PC. Because you play your PC smarter than they really are, role-playing-wise you have all the benefits of a high INT PC without the high INT.

I have seen this sort of thing often enough after playing for over 40 years. Fighters with INT 6-8 come up with brilliant tactics, solve complex puzzles, etc. because the players are brilliant. Then, to offset the INT penalty (in 5E), they rely on other PCs to make the Intelligence checks with their bonuses and even take Resilience for INT saves, or choose classes (like Rogue) with INT saves...

This is when I, as DM, step in. Your INT 8 (or lower) PC probably won't think of the things you, as a smart player, would. I might require you to make a check and if you succeed I'll allow the PC the "moment of brilliance" the thought represents. If you fail the check, you can't have your PC use the idea or whatever.

The reverse is also true. I've played with many players of average (or slightly below) intelligence. They then play wizards or whatever with INT 18. Often enough, such a player might ask me "I can't figure this out, can I roll for my PC?" because we all understand the INT 18 PC is smarter than the player who is playing them. So, I allow them to make the roll and if they succeed, give them a hint or have the PC come up with the idea for them.

For example, I have a player who is very introverted and has a hard time speaking out, lacking confidence, etc. but he LOVES playing Bards and Paladins, both typically high CHA classes. He understands such characters are capable of doing things he likely wouldn't be able to, so he has the benefit of getting to roll for his PC to do things (such as convincing guards to let them pass), which he messes up when trying to role-play it.

Anyway, we use physical abilities to represent our PCs because we aren't actually in the game to do physical tasks ourselves. But even though it is a role-playing game, I don't feel players should be able to use their own intelligence, speaking skills, etc. to overcome PCs with low INT, CHA, etc. If we allow the PCs physical abilities to define them (in whatever way the game dictates), we should do the same with the mental abilities IMO.

If you prefer to run your games differently, no issues obviously, but hopefully that explains why I run my games the way I do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's say you're a clever player in my game. You come up with good ideas/plans, remember details, connect the dots in plots, etc. I have no way of knowing just how smart you are, but the way you play works well for a PC with above average INT.

So, first of all, I believe the association between ability to come up with certain ideas and level of intelligence is precisely the problematic element @ad_hoc sees in the very idea of the intelligence score. Setting aside the many criticisms of IQ as a measure of intellectual capability, who’s to say whether or not a person who has a given IQ could come up with any given idea, and if they could, who’s to say whether or not they would do so in any given moment? Ultimately it comes down to personal bias.

If you, as a player, fail to think of something, but your INT 18 PC probably would, I'll let you roll and either give you a hint or just have your PC "think of whatever".


But, let's say you're playing an INT 8 PC. Now, because of how smart you are you routinely take charge, plan assaults/tactics, etc., things that repeatedly would be difficult for someone of average intelligence, let alone lower intelligence. What you are doing is giving yourself a dump stat where (due to other choices you make) really has no significant negative impact on your PC. Because you play your PC smarter than they really are, role-playing-wise you have all the benefits of a high INT PC without the high INT.

Setting aside the potential problematic elements of judging what a character of a given intelligence score could or couldn’t come up with (or if you like, would or wouldn’t come up with in a given situation), are you not calling for me to make Intelligence checks when I describe courses of action you think might succeed or might fail and have meaningful stakes? If so, I don’t see my clever plans being a particular issue. If not, I would say this is on you for not calling for checks when they ought to be called for.

I have seen this sort of thing often enough after playing for over 40 years. Fighters with INT 6-8 come up with brilliant tactics, solve complex puzzles, etc. because the players are brilliant.
Then, to offset the INT penalty (in 5E), they rely on other PCs to make the Intelligence checks with their bonuses and even take Resilience for INT saves, or choose classes (like Rogue) with INT saves...

How are the players able to both consistently come up with tactics that are automatically successful and consistently be able to rely on other players to make intelligence checks? This, to me, speaks of a flaw in the DM’s standards for what does and doesn’t require an Intelligence check to accomplish.

This is when I, as DM, step in. Your INT 8 (or lower) PC probably won't think of the things you, as a smart player, would. I might require you to make a check and if you succeed I'll allow the PC the "moment of brilliance" the thought represents. If you fail the check, you can't have your PC use the idea or whatever.

In my view, if a player comes up with an idea, the character can come up with the idea, since the premise of D&D is that the group is making believe that the player is the character. It is in the implementation of the idea that the character may succeed or fail based on the capabilities imbued to the avatar by their abilities. A brilliant strategy is still reliant on the ability of the people attempting to execute it to be successful. Just as a player who thinks up the idea to stab the goblin must rely on their character’s Strength to execute the idea successfully, a player who thinks up the idea to consult their character’s prior knowledge of a given subject must rely on their character’s Intelligence to execute that idea successfully.

The reverse is also true. I've played with many players of average (or slightly below) intelligence. They then play wizards or whatever with INT 18. Often enough, such a player might ask me "I can't figure this out, can I roll for my PC?" because we all understand the INT 18 PC is smarter than the player who is playing them. So, I allow them to make the roll and if they succeed, give them a hint or have the PC come up with the idea for them.

Right, the “get a hint roll.” Personally, I’m not a fan of this, but I can see why it appeals to many. In my view, this speaks to a flaw in the adventure design. If your players lack the information they need to solve the puzzle without a “get a hint roll,” my opinion is that the puzzle is ill-suited to the players. But, I can certainly understand why DMs, especially DMs who are not intimately familiar with their group’s puzzle-solving skills, might want to allow such rolls. In that case though, I am of the opinion that the ability to make such rolls and the ability to bypass them should be equal-opportunity. If a player you think is less smart than their character can make a “get a hint roll,” so should a player you think is smarter than their character be able to do. Likewise, if a player you think is not as smart as their character can solve the puzzle without needing to succeed on a “get a hint roll,” so should a player you think is smarter than their character be able to do. And if a roll is required for the player you think is less smart than their character to succeed, so should a roll be required for a character who you think is smarter than their character to succeed. Though, I think enforcing the lattermost case is a recipe for stalling forward progress due to the inherent unreliability of the d20.

For example, I have a player who is very introverted and has a hard time speaking out, lacking confidence, etc. but he LOVES playing Bards and Paladins, both typically high CHA classes. He understands such characters are capable of doing things he likely wouldn't be able to, so he has the benefit of getting to roll for his PC to do things (such as convincing guards to let them pass), which he messes up when trying to role-play it.

Yeah, I get this impulse. Of my regular players, one is a professional actor, one is a professional educator (so both are quite comfortable with public speaking), and three have major social anxiety and various neurodivergences that make social interaction difficult for them. My policy is to NEVER require a player to act out what their character says or does specifically if they aren’t comfortable doing so, but to allow it if they want to. This, among other reasons, is why I listen for what the player wants to achieve and what the character does to try and achieve it rather than the precise details of the player’s performance. The socially adept characters still have to make a roll if their approach could fail at their goal, and the socially awkward players still get to make a roll of their approach could succeed at their goal. Likewise, the socially adept players and the socially awkward players both fail without a roll if their approach could not succeed at achieving their goal, and both the socially adept players and the socially awkward players succeed without a roll if their approach could not fail to achieve their goal or does not have meaningful stakes. I believe this to be the most equitable way to resolve actions, and it has the added benefit that I don’t have to judge whether or not a player’s performance is “appropriate” to their character’s ability scores.

Anyway, we use physical abilities to represent our PCs because we aren't actually in the game to do physical tasks ourselves. But even though it is a role-playing game, I don't feel players should be able to use their own intelligence, speaking skills, etc. to overcome PCs with low INT, CHA, etc. If we allow the PCs physical abilities to define them (in whatever way the game dictates), we should do the same with the mental abilities IMO.

I don’t disagree. I just also happen to believe that with an appropriate set of standards for when to call for a roll and when not to, it is not possible for a player to rely on their own intelligence, speaking skills, etc. to overcome their PC’s low INT, CHA, etc.

If you prefer to run your games differently, no issues obviously, but hopefully that explains why I run my games the way I do.

Agreed! Do what you and your players find fun and works for you as a group!

 

[ad_hoc]

The inherency of intelligence in an individual seems to be a completely separate issue from ableism.

Respectfully I suggest that you look into what ableism is. I think this topic is done in this thread so I will leave it there.

All I can say is that I disagree. In the real world we may not measure intelligence accurately, we don't understand it fully, but it is as real as anything. It's not harmful to acknowledge reality nor is anyone more or less worthy because of their intelligence.

Whether int matters in game is a choice that should be left up to the group. Don't ridicule people? Cool. Pretend that people aren't different with different strengths and weaknesses? You lost me.

People are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. If we were to try to capture that with scores in the game each character would need 10 000 different ability scores to scratch the surface.

1 score to represent "all of intelligence" is non-sensical.

You said it yourself, people have different strengths and weaknesses. In one regard a person may look highly intelligent but with a different task or through a different lens and they would be judged as stupid.

Our 'intelligence' is also highly malleable and is largely a matter of training and practice. Not something captured by a stat that tends to remain static over the entire course of the game unless the character is a Wizard.

 

[Lanefan]

With an Int=6, Ug is capable of casting wizards spells.

Which is an excellent argument for classes having minimum stat requirements!

 

[Lanefan]

So, again, it seems you’re treating physical stats and mental/social stats differently, with physical being almost totally abstracted with narration added for flavor, and mental/social being mainly LARPed with some abstraction where necessary. So, in my view, it’s to be expected that players would trend towards putting higher scores in the physical stats to shore up their chances of success on abstract rolls that involve them, and lower scores in the mental/social stats and rely on LARPing their way through mental/social challenges.

Exactly, except when LARPing their way through the mental/social challenges they're expected to honour the stats on their sheets. I'm having a hard time believing that this can be controversial.

I think, rather than policing roleplaying, a better solution to this problem would be to treat the stats more equitably. For all tasks, mental, physical, and social, create an expectation that goal and approach be described with reasonable specificity. Use the stated goal and approach to evaluate if there is a reasonable possibility of success and failure and meaningful stakes. Then resolve the action without a roll if possible and with one if necessary, based on that evaluation.

And bang goes interactive in-character roleplaying (defined here as the actual playing of a role, similar to a stage actor), except that which happens between PCs and other PCs.

No thanks.