Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8469950" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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 [USER=6748898]@ad_hoc[/USER] 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.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.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.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.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.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.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.Agreed! Do what you and your players find fun and works for you as a group! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😁" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f601.png" title="Beaming face with smiling eyes    :grin:" data-shortname=":grin:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification