D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest 6801328
  • Start date Start date
I don't understand what you have in mind.

In [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]'s Eloelle narrative, Eloelle knows the truth - her patron has revealed it to her, and/or she has worked it out in virtue of her genius - but she feigns ignorance and/or error, also at the behest of her patron.
If his concept is for his PC to be omniscient and know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, then he needs DM buy-in to alter mechanics to fit the concept. Without those alterations, the concept will fail and/or be a huge disruption to the game as the player tries to do things that run contrary to the game mechanics as the Zone of Truth issue shows.

Essentially, the DM will have to give Eloelle the real answer so she can meet the Zone of Truth requirements, or else he will have to allow her concept to supersede mechanics via house rule.

There is no mistake that she can sincerely reveal. If, in the fiction, she is affected by ZoT then she has to reveal the truth - which would break (or, at least, disrupt) gameplay for two reasons: first, her player doesn't actually know what that truth is, and so the GM would have to play Eloelle and speak for her; second, it would make her secret knowledge a relevant consideration in the game, which - given she has 5 INT - it shouldn't be.

That's what happens when you make a concept that requires house rules to implement properly. It's a disruptive concept, unless the entity lies to her and the lies represent the failed int checks.

Hence the notion of preserving the gameplay status quo by having the player sincerely reveal all the information s/he has access to (namely, the ignorance/error) while narrating, in the fiction, that Eloelle's patron has interceded to protect her from the burden of truthfulness.

Yes. I get that a house rule is necessary. She has to be able to succeed at failed saves and lie.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If his concept is for his PC to be omniscient and know the answers to life, the universe, and everything, then he needs DM buy-in to alter mechanics to fit the concept. Without those alterations, the concept will fail and/or be a huge disruption to the game as the player tries to do things that run contrary to the game mechanics as the Zone of Truth issue shows.

<snip>

That's what happens when you make a concept that requires house rules to implement properly. It's a disruptive concept, unless the entity lies to her and the lies represent the failed int checks.
I feel that this has things backward.

Here is the original post:

Eloelle the Mistaken is a tiefling warlock, and she too is a genius. But her Patron is paranoid, and frequently when Eloelle is about to solve a puzzle or discover a clue, her Patron will suddenly whisper in her mind, "Fool! Don't share that knowledge with those worms you call your companions! You'll spoil my whole scheme!" So Eloelle intentionally gives her companions the wrong information. Sometimes they figure it out anyway, and they have concluded that she's just an idiot, a deception which suits her master's plans perfectly.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this concept in the context of a fantasy RPG.

In D&D, how would one represent it? Giving the PC a 5 INT is Elfcrusher's suggestion: this ensures that the PC (and the player) will never enjoy the fruits of her genius, which is core to the concept.

The idea that the concept has to yield to the existence of spells like ZoT, Detect Lie, ESP etc seems to me to get things backwards. Especially when there is a very easy workaround, which [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] and I have already articulated.
 

I feel that this has things backward.

Here is the original post:

I was going off of your post about her, as I didn't go back and look at the original.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this concept in the context of a fantasy RPG.

No there isn't, but now we're back to where we were before.

when Eloelle is about to solve a puzzle or discover a clue, her Patron will suddenly whisper in her mind, "Fool! Don't share that knowledge with those worms you call your companions! You'll spoil my whole scheme!" So Eloelle intentionally gives her companions the wrong information.

The patron has no ability to have her override mechanics, so she is only able keep it secret if she has a choice. Zone of Truth removes that choice from her so she answers anyway. Character concepts don't get to supersede game mechanics. If she fails her Zone of Truth save, baring a house rule, she will be forced to share the knowledge with that worm who cast the spell.

In D&D, how would one represent it? Giving the PC a 5 INT is Elfcrusher's suggestion: this ensures that the PC (and the player) will never enjoy the fruits of her genius, which is core to the concept.

Which is fine for the voluntary situations, which will be the vast majority of occasions. Zone of Truth isn't going to happen that often, and she will save a portion of the times it does. Her concept isn't broken by it, either. A violation does not a broken concept make.

The idea that the concept has to yield to the existence of spells like ZoT, Detect Lie, ESP etc seems to me to get things backwards.

Eh, no. Playing by the rules of the game is not backwards. Expecting the rules of the game to bend and buckle beneath your concept is what is backwards.

Especially when there is a very easy workaround, which [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] and I have already articulated.

Yes. House rules do work around the rules.
 

What is the answer to the Eloelle conundrum?

BI: I can't tell you.

Do you mean, you don't actually know the answer or that you do know the answer but are refusing to reveal it?

BI: I can't tell you.

Why can't you tell us?

BI: I can't tell you.

We demand that you tell us the truth!

BI: I am telling the truth.
 
Last edited:

Then you've slightly misunderstood the argument. It isn't that I think that LOL evaded mechanics when, it's that if you allow her to narrate as if she evaded mechanics in the first place, you've set this situation up and the latter case definitely requires that you evade mechanics.

Therein lies the contradiction. She narrates as if she evades the mechanics but without actually doing so, and thus there are no mechanics to evade the second time. The reason for the narration the second time is not to evade mechanics, it's to sustain a consistent fiction.

When ZoT gets cast she could just as easily as have said, "Ehh...I was just telling that story earlier to hide the fact that I'm thick as two planks. I don't know the answer to the Riddle."

Or: "I don't know. I forgot. I'm a genius with a really poor memory (look it up in the PHB! That's one of the things that Int measures!)"

There. Fiction sustained, mechanics upheld. Not nearly as colorful/interesting in my opinion, but maybe you'd be happier with that.

But regardless of which tale Eloelle chooses, the mechanics are unaffected.

It's only if you believe that mechanics were actually altered in the first scene that this doesn't work.


I don't have a problem with LOL's player writing fiction in their off time. Why would I?

But I do have issue with it at the table. And the difference is that she's not writing a story, now, she's entering information into the shared fiction. That narration impacts the other players and the DM because it informs them about how LOL is as a character, and modifies how the will interact with her and engage her. The fiction shared at the table is fundamentally different from writing a story in your room because it is shared fiction. Everyone at the table buys in and will use that narration to inform future actions. The DM should be listening to player narrations for story hooks and to understand better what the player wants out of that character. Insisting that the narration is totally divorced from the game a la independant fiction writing is a total non sequitur. It literally doesn't follow from the basic premise of a roleplaying game.

Now, some systems exist that do totally separate narrative from mechanics, and they're fine games. But D&D, and 5e in particular, weaves far too much of the fiction into it's mechanics. Charm person, dominate, ZoT, and other spells all interact at the fiction level to a greater or lesser degree. In D&D as written, you just can't separate the two completely without modifications. Which has been my singular point all along -- you can do it, and I'm sure you have a blast playing, but you're changing some rules to do it.

I'm distinguishing between action narration and, for lack of a better term, state-of-mind narration. I think you are treating those two things as categorically the same.

If you read the "rules" that were quoted earlier in this thread, the DM describes the scene, the players narrate what they want to do, and the DM narrates the outcome. I'm not trying to change any of that. Eloelle tries to solve the riddle, the DM asks her to roll dice, she does and the DM tells her she doesn't solve it.

Then Eloelle adds an extra narration that doesn't have her "doing" anything. Not performing an action, not interacting with other PCs or NPCs, not even looking at an object. Nothing. She (or her player) is just telling a story for the purpose of entertaining (see below) the other players.

So here's a thought experiment. (Max, are you paying attention?) Imagine that, every time Eloelle is about to enter her state-of-mind narration, she gives the table a warning, and you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala" so you don't have to hear it. So you never hear any of the Patron stuff.

You will find that you can detect no impact on the game. Nothing in the game 'state' has changed. When she says "I don't know" to ZoT you'll think, "Yeah, she failed that Int test a while ago." And I will further posit that if you *do* detect a change in game state, if there's some mechanical detail that doesn't add up, it means that Eloelle's player is failing at her responsibility to separate narration from mechanics.

Now, if you are listening to her narrations you may not actually find it entertaining. That's a legitimate gripe. I'm playing AL CoD at the moment and we've managed to make children (or the ghosts of children) cry, kill the priest, burn the church, get kicked out of the store for shoplifting, etc. etc. etc. I really don't enjoy playing RPGs this way, and I'm not really enjoying how a couple of the other players choose to play their characters, but that's how the game goes sometimes when you play with other people. Those players "entered something into the shared fiction" that I'd rather not have in there.

But also notice that their storytelling is actually impacting my game, because they are taking actions not just narrating state-of-mind. The game state has changed: the priest is dead, the church is burnt, we've made enemies in town. Eloelle, on the other hand, has not actually altered your game. She's just telling a story. So what is there to complain about? Only that you don't like the story. That happens sometimes.

True, but a concept that hinges on gainsaying mechanical outcomes is one that needs a lot to make not annoying.

Valid, but a matter of personal preference. See above. If I ever find myself at a table with you I won't play Eloelle, but I will do so out of courtesy not because it requires a house-rule.
 

What is the answer to the Eloelle conundrum?

BI: I can't tell you.

Do you mean, you don't actually know the answer or that you do know the answer but are refusing to reveal it?

BI: I can't tell you.

Why can't you tell us?

BI: I can't tell you.

We demand that you tell us the truth!

BI: I am telling the truth.

Except that is a lie. Being told not to tell and still being able to is not the same can't tell. She is not unable to speak the truth that she knows.
 

Therein lies the contradiction. She narrates as if she evades the mechanics but without actually doing so, and thus there are no mechanics to evade the second time. The reason for the narration the second time is not to evade mechanics, it's to sustain a consistent fiction.

The narration runs contrary to the mechanics, and the narration is her lying under the effects of a Zone of Truth.

When ZoT gets cast she could just as easily as have said, "Ehh...I was just telling that story earlier to hide the fact that I'm thick as two planks. I don't know the answer to the Riddle."

Or: "I don't know. I forgot. I'm a genius with a really poor memory (look it up in the PHB! That's one of the things that Int measures!)"

No. She could not say either one of those things as both are lies. The only thing she can say is the truth. The truth is that she knows the answer. Even though she is wrong, she must say the answer that she knows.

There. Fiction sustained, mechanics upheld. Not nearly as colorful/interesting in my opinion, but maybe you'd be happier with that.

Why would we be happy with her telling yet more lies?

But regardless of which tale Eloelle chooses, the mechanics are unaffected.

This is true. The mechanics don't change if she lies. They consistently require her to tell the truth that she is not telling, despite being forced to by the mechanics. The player is cheating if she does that.

It's only if you believe that mechanics were actually altered in the first scene that this doesn't work.

100% wrong. During this entire debate, my position regarding the mechanics of the int check have not changed. They simply are irrelevant to whether or not Eloelle gives an answer.

I'm distinguishing between action narration and, for lack of a better term, state-of-mind narration. I think you are treating those two things as categorically the same.

No. I'm saying that your action narration violates the mechanics that require her to tell the truth. Her state of mind only matters in that it determined that she knows the truth (though it is incorrect). That state of mind subjects her to the mechanics of the spell and doesn't allow her the narrated response that you are trying to use.

If you read the "rules" that were quoted earlier in this thread, the DM describes the scene, the players narrate what they want to do, and the DM narrates the outcome. I'm not trying to change any of that. Eloelle tries to solve the riddle, the DM asks her to roll dice, she does and the DM tells her she doesn't solve it.

You are misstating the rule. The players do not narrate what they want to do. The players describe what they want to do. There's a huge difference. The rule is saying to the DM what you would like to happen. The DM then narrates what really happens.

Then Eloelle adds an extra narration that doesn't have her "doing" anything. Not performing an action, not interacting with other PCs or NPCs, not even looking at an object. Nothing. She (or her player) is just telling a story for the purpose of entertaining (see below) the other players.

And then the DM says that the mechanics don't allow you to do that and narrates that she answers the question with the incorrect truth that she knows.

So here's a thought experiment. (Max, are you paying attention?) Imagine that, every time Eloelle is about to enter her state-of-mind narration, she gives the table a warning, and you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala" so you don't have to hear it. So you never hear any of the Patron stuff.

You will find that you can detect no impact on the game. Nothing in the game 'state' has changed. When she says "I don't know" to ZoT you'll think, "Yeah, she failed that Int test a while ago." And I will further posit that if you *do* detect a change in game state, if there's some mechanical detail that doesn't add up, it means that Eloelle's player is failing at her responsibility to separate narration from mechanics.

First, it doesn't matter what I detect. It matters what the mechanics say and detect, and they detect her lie. So you are cheating. Second, the game changes drastically based on the changed reaction of the NPC to her lie, rather than the reaction that should have been given had she told the truth. Even if I can't detect that, it's wrong for you to force the game down different paths in order to not break a concept that has no right not to be broken.

Concepts are not inviolate. If they were, charm person, dominate and other spells that force PCs to do actions that they would not do would not exist. Each and every time a PC is forced to do something they would not do, their concept has been broken. Eloelle is no exception.

Now, if you are listening to her narrations you may not actually find it entertaining. That's a legitimate gripe. I'm playing AL CoD at the moment and we've managed to make children (or the ghosts of children) cry, kill the priest, burn the church, get kicked out of the store for shoplifting, etc. etc. etc. I really don't enjoy playing RPGs this way, and I'm not really enjoying how a couple of the other players choose to play their characters, but that's how the game goes sometimes when you play with other people. Those players "entered something into the shared fiction" that I'd rather not have in there.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I enjoy your character. I like the concept. It's just that your concept doesn't get to trump the rules when it runs headfirst into one that temporarily overrides it. You set your concept up such that your PC will ALWAYS have a truthful answer to Zone of Truth. A failed int check results in a truth that is incorrect, and a successful int check results in a truth that is correct. In all cases you have a truth to answer and without a house rule to allow her to lie, you the player are cheating with the answer you are giving here.

But also notice that their storytelling is actually impacting my game, because they are taking actions not just narrating state-of-mind. The game state has changed: the priest is dead, the church is burnt, we've made enemies in town. Eloelle, on the other hand, has not actually altered your game. She's just telling a story. So what is there to complain about? Only that you don't like the story. That happens sometimes.

I'm curious. How do you rationalize away that a different response from the evil bad guy doesn't alter the game? The NPC would not react the same way to an I won't tell you as he would to being told the wrong, but truthful answer. The entire campaign can swing in a radically different direction based on her lie.
 


Therein lies the contradiction. She narrates as if she evades the mechanics but without actually doing so, and thus there are no mechanics to evade the second time. The reason for the narration the second time is not to evade mechanics, it's to sustain a consistent fiction.

When ZoT gets cast she could just as easily as have said, "Ehh...I was just telling that story earlier to hide the fact that I'm thick as two planks. I don't know the answer to the Riddle."

Or: "I don't know. I forgot. I'm a genius with a really poor memory (look it up in the PHB! That's one of the things that Int measures!)"

There. Fiction sustained, mechanics upheld. Not nearly as colorful/interesting in my opinion, but maybe you'd be happier with that.

But regardless of which tale Eloelle chooses, the mechanics are unaffected.

It's only if you believe that mechanics were actually altered in the first scene that this doesn't work.




I'm distinguishing between action narration and, for lack of a better term, state-of-mind narration. I think you are treating those two things as categorically the same.

If you read the "rules" that were quoted earlier in this thread, the DM describes the scene, the players narrate what they want to do, and the DM narrates the outcome. I'm not trying to change any of that. Eloelle tries to solve the riddle, the DM asks her to roll dice, she does and the DM tells her she doesn't solve it.

Then Eloelle adds an extra narration that doesn't have her "doing" anything. Not performing an action, not interacting with other PCs or NPCs, not even looking at an object. Nothing. She (or her player) is just telling a story for the purpose of entertaining (see below) the other players.

So here's a thought experiment. (Max, are you paying attention?) Imagine that, every time Eloelle is about to enter her state-of-mind narration, she gives the table a warning, and you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala" so you don't have to hear it. So you never hear any of the Patron stuff.

You will find that you can detect no impact on the game. Nothing in the game 'state' has changed. When she says "I don't know" to ZoT you'll think, "Yeah, she failed that Int test a while ago." And I will further posit that if you *do* detect a change in game state, if there's some mechanical detail that doesn't add up, it means that Eloelle's player is failing at her responsibility to separate narration from mechanics.

Now, if you are listening to her narrations you may not actually find it entertaining. That's a legitimate gripe. I'm playing AL CoD at the moment and we've managed to make children (or the ghosts of children) cry, kill the priest, burn the church, get kicked out of the store for shoplifting, etc. etc. etc. I really don't enjoy playing RPGs this way, and I'm not really enjoying how a couple of the other players choose to play their characters, but that's how the game goes sometimes when you play with other people. Those players "entered something into the shared fiction" that I'd rather not have in there.

But also notice that their storytelling is actually impacting my game, because they are taking actions not just narrating state-of-mind. The game state has changed: the priest is dead, the church is burnt, we've made enemies in town. Eloelle, on the other hand, has not actually altered your game. She's just telling a story. So what is there to complain about? Only that you don't like the story. That happens sometimes.



Valid, but a matter of personal preference. See above. If I ever find myself at a table with you I won't play Eloelle, but I will do so out of courtesy not because it requires a house-rule.
Okay, so the way I parse this is that the narration that LOL does is entirely divorced from the game -- she's just telling a story for the entertainment of the other players. Fine, then, can't disagree with you anymore, but that means you have two separate things going on: the playing of the game and the telling if a different story. This means LOL's narration isn't at all part of the game -- her story isn't part of the role playing game going on, it's just a exercise to amuse the player. If your example is really meant to be something other than participating in the shared fiction of the game, I don't understand the exercise.
 

Okay, so the way I parse this is that the narration that LOL does is entirely divorced from the game -- she's just telling a story for the entertainment of the other players. Fine, then, can't disagree with you anymore, but that means you have two separate things going on: the playing of the game and the telling if a different story. This means LOL's narration isn't at all part of the game -- her story isn't part of the role playing game going on, it's just a exercise to amuse the player. If your example is really meant to be something other than participating in the shared fiction of the game, I don't understand the exercise.

Right. The only way that works is if the Eloelle in the game has no patron and thinks none of the stuff that [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is saying. That makes the whole narration of his a disruption and distraction, as it has nothing to do with game play.
 

Remove ads

Top