D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

Oh...sorry. I must have missed the part where Six said that. If he did say that then I retract my accusation.

I didn't actually say that, so I wouldn't worry about it. I simply pointed out that Eloelle or a concept like that probably wouldn't fly at Maxperson's table. I'm OK with that, personally, because I'm always willing to accommodate the preferences of a table I join.

 

[pemerton]

People in love are not besotted that badly 24/7.

Speak for yourself!

There will be moments, possibly permanent changes that will cause the full genius intelligence to shine.

In the typical D&D campaign, how much time actually passes "on stage", where checks are being made and actions declared to which a PC's stats will matter?

Your objection strikes me as similar to the objection against 4e encounter powers, that it makes no sense that a fighter can (say) disarm only a single enemy without a short rest.

Of course that would make no sense as a principle of causation, but that's not what it is. All the encounter power tells us is what happens in the N fights where we saw that fighter in-action, "on screen" as it were.

In those on-screen moments, the player (or the table) can always come up with a reason why the character's genius doesn't shine.

Has the sorcerer player actually made this claim explicitly with respect to his cards, or are you just putting these words in his mouth?

<snip>

If a hypothetical player made this claim, it would strain suspension of disbelief, because the obvious follow-up question to him not actually doing it is "Why not?"

Again, this is like the objection to encounter powers.

Why does the fighter not disarm everyone? The answer could range from "No opportunity arose" to "I saw this better move to perform" to "I tried but they were too good for me!"

Why does the sorcerer not throw more cards? "They're not worthy of my magic." "I had something better to do." "I was flipping through my deck looking for the perfect effect, and you stabbed them before I could get to it!"

It's fairly easy to find narrations that explain mechanical limits in terms other than a simple mapping of mechanics to in-fiction causation.

So you acknowledge that this concept can't survive an audience that thinks through the consequences?

What does that tell you?

In my case, it tells me that I'm glad I play with people who don't see every aspect of the game as simply an opportunity for operational maximisation.

5e's pretty good for that because it's system design silos design elements, so you don't have the change cascade that 3 and 4e had

What is the "change cascade" in 4e? I don't see how it's any different, in respect of this issue, from 5e.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] had a good example a few years back of a character in his game, who was religious, narrating a successful save against a polymorph effect as the character's goddess choosing to end the spell as a blessing to the character for his deep faith. That concept attracted a lot of controversy, for what I think are very similar reasons (a dislike of players inserting non-procedural narration into checks).

That brings back fond memories of the "dissociated mechanics" thread!

EDIT: And you ninja-ed me at post 136.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can agree with you in the context of this particular debate/topic. There are other hotly debated topics that do have the potential to impact us, though, in the sense that if ideas become official then those of us who play Adventurer's League may be stuck playing alongside them (or, conversely, we can't play the way we like in the absence of official rules). So we have an interest in evangelizing our positions in the hopes that more voices will influence the Powers that Be.

And then in other cases it's fun to argue in the same way that it was once fun to use a magnifying glass on ants.

Nothing I've ever said could or should be construed as attempting to chastise you for proselytizing your preferences here. I'm personally glad you do. My ability to do the same walks in lockstep with yours -- I'll not ever suggest you can't offer your opinions or that you shouldn't. I may disagree, and on occasionally, strongly so, but I'll never say you should be silenced or restricted. Barring rule breaking, of course.

Speak for yourself!

In the typical D&D campaign, how much time actually passes "on stage", where checks are being made and actions declared to which a PC's stats will matter?

Your objection strikes me as similar to the objection against 4e encounter powers, that it makes no sense that a fighter can (say) disarm only a single enemy without a short rest.

Of course that would make no sense as a principle of causation, but that's not what it is. All the encounter power tells us is what happens in the N fights where we saw that fighter in-action, "on screen" as it were.

In those on-screen moments, the player (or the table) can always come up with a reason why the character's genius doesn't shine.

Again, this is like the objection to encounter powers.

Why does the fighter not disarm everyone? The answer could range from "No opportunity arose" to "I saw this better move to perform" to "I tried but they were too good for me!"

Why does the sorcerer not throw more cards? "They're not worthy of my magic." "I had something better to do." "I was flipping through my deck looking for the perfect effect, and you stabbed them before I could get to it!"

It's fairly easy to find narrations that explain mechanical limits in terms other than a simple mapping of mechanics to in-fiction causation.

I came at this a different way. The player's free to describe his attacks however he wants within the boundaries of what his attacks do (frex, if the attack pushes but it's described as pulling the enemy closer). This means he can describe most attacks as an attempt to disarm where the disarm doesn't work but he does something else bad to the enemy. It only works when he both narrates the attempt and uses the power, for, at that point, his narration moves from just narrating his actions and instead grabs the world for a moment and forces it to align with his intent. For that use, the enemy obligingly fails to rebuff the disarm. The character isn't limited in how many times he can narrate the attempt, he's limited in how many times his narration affects anyone but him.

To point this to the LOL example, I'm fine with the example up to and until the narration begins affecting others, as in the ZoT example, where the previous narration now requires that it affect other mechanics in the game. Even if only to call in more ad hoc rulings to support the narration, that's one step too far for my preferred playstyle. I've played that way, and it can be great fun, but it really leads to a more gonzo feel where things are fast and loose and you define the world though your ability to come up with rationalizations rather than through a cooperative effort (in that playstyle, everyone else has to accept your rationalizations and narration, much like with improv).

What is the "change cascade" in 4e? I don't see how it's any different, in respect of this issue, from 5e.

In 3e and 4e, a rule change would quite often cascade into other rules, as everything was tightly stacked on common assumptions. Allow one thing here, and it crops up over an over. Changing things closer to the core had bigger ripples because of the interlocking nature of those rule sets. 4e was better, so long as you stuck to only changing individual power effects, as those were exception based, but the core ruleset was hard to alter without cascading fixes needing to be put into place. 3e, with its non-exception design, meant that many rules interacted in unforseen ways to a change.

5e, on the other hand, takes the exception based concepts of 4e, but also silos many of the game mechanics to that they don't interact as much. Change the rules for movement a bit, and that really only effects how you move and not anything else.

But, to your exact question, if you had copied out the rest of the sentence you quoted, you'd have noted that I did call out changing how ability scores are defined is something that has much larger impacts even in 5e. I find it a very frustrating habit of yours to selectively quote to frame a question while your selection deliberately edits out the part of the quote that goes directly to your framing. This isn't the first time you've done it. In the future, at least try to get the whole sentence in, yeah?

 

[pemerton]

It's much harder to justify Int 5 geniuses with debilitating circumstances if your focus is on "inhabiting" the character rather than generating dramatic play.

If I learned anything from the interminable 4e edition wars, it's that many gamers have a strong aversion to using your character, rather than trying to be IN your character.

And now I get to strike back at you for ninja-ing me with your dissociated-mechanics-fu!

I think that you are underselling what counts as "inhabiting" or being "in" your character.

Many times in the past I have insisted that the stances ("actor", "author", "director") are logical modes of play, not psychological states of the player.

So, I can play in actor stance but not actually inhabit or be in my character: for instance, I read the PC's backstory, think a bit about the current in-game situation, and then declare an appropriate action. I think this is more-or-less how [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] wants me to play 5 INT. It doesn't require any actual inhabitation at all.

I can play in author stance while inhabiting my character: caught up in the rush of the game, I declare "Yeah, I charge in too! Inspired by my allies courage, I throw caution to the wind!" I've first decided, as a player, that my PC joins the rest in the charge. Then I narrate an in-character reason for that. And in psychological terms I may never have breached the barrier between in-character and out-of-character. (I actually think this is a pretty common sort of occurence in RPGing. At least, I reckon that I've seen it a lot.)

And then I can play in director stance while inhabiting my character. That was the point of my paladin example, back in the day. The exchange went:

Paladin: I'll defeat you with the might of the Raven Queen.
NPC Hexer: I'm not afraid of you or your god - I turned you into a frog.
Paladin: And she turned me back.​

That's director stance - the player narrates the mechanic of the effect ending as an action of another character (his PC's god). (And it wasn't a successful save - which, since Gygax's DMG, has allowed for this sort of director stance narration - it was the ending of a "lasts til end of the Hexer's next turn" effect - even more guaranteed to drive the process-sim crowd bonkers!)

But it didn't disturb "inhabitation" one bit. It actually enhanced it, by affirming the devotion of the PC and the intimacy of connection to the god. (Compare to the player stopping to ask me "Does the ending of that effect correlate to my god freeing me?" You could then get actor stance play, but completely devoid of any inhabitation, in my view.)

The reason that I have often come back to this example is because I think the religious character is actually the clearest counter-example to the casual equation of actor stance and process-sim with immersion/inhabitation. The religious person knows that the world unfolds through divine providence. But the player knows that the game unfolds through the cruel whims of dice. If the player isn't allowed to play his/her PC in director stance, and if all that is permitted is actor stance arising out of process-sim interpretations of mechanics, then the religious character is rendered necessarily irrational, mistaking the cold and brutal randomness of life for the workings of providence. (Treating the dice in a process-sim way is therefore perhaps a good thing for a Conan-esque game, or even a Greek Gods game where the gods are cruel and arbitrary, but not a Tolkien-esque one, in which the classic cleric and paladin have their home.)

The same objections that have been stated above ("But what if the player . . .") arise here too: But what if the player narrates that his character's god frees him from prison? But what if there are two PCs in the party who worship different gods, and who are opposed to one another? All I can say is that, in actual play this is not a problem but rather the stuff that drives the game forward.

For instance, in my 4e game who has the benefit of providence - the characters who are for the Raven Queen, or the one or two who are against her? Well, so far the PCs have killed her number one enemy (Orcus), killed Torog so as to give her access to the Underdark souls that were previously denied her, brought the Winter Fey into her fold, and prevented her name from being revealed twice (once by defeating the Star Spawn who tried to reveal it after the PCs undermined her earlier pact with the stars to keep it secret, and more recently by making sure that they can protect her mortal body in her mausoleum from being taken by Vecna-ites).

So I think actual play is answering that question!, with no need for me, as GM, to unilaterally assert authority over the relevant backstory (and thereby forcing the players back into actor stance). To my mind, that's inhabitation.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To point this to the LOL example, I'm fine with the example up to and until the narration begins affecting others, as in the ZoT example, where the previous narration now requires that it affect other mechanics in the game. Even if only to call in more ad hoc rulings to support the narration, that's one step too far for my preferred playstyle. I've played that way, and it can be great fun, but it really leads to a more gonzo feel where things are fast and loose and you define the world though your ability to come up with rationalizations rather than through a cooperative effort (in that playstyle, everyone else has to accept your rationalizations and narration, much like with improv).

I'll mostly agree with all of that, although I don't think ad hoc rulings are ever required.

It might even be illustrative to step through some of these scenarios and see if anything bad happens, or if the DM ever needs to adjudicate. In the Eloelle example:

In Scene 1, Eloelle fails an Int test but declares, "I know the answer, but unfortunately I have been commanded to not share it with you."

Since nobody else passed the test, the heroes are unable to open the door / solve the riddle / whatever.

In Scene 2, Eloelle has been captured by an evil sorcerer (or, more likely, a good paladin...) who uses Zone of Truth and commands her to reveal the secret. She again fails the test. So she declares (to the table) "Ha! What pitiful magic. But I shall play along so that the Sorcerer will give up. I pretend to be affected by the spell and reply that I don't know."

Ok, we're still good. Mechanically she doesn't know the answer because she failed the Int test to know it, so now when she says "I don't know" she's being truthful. So far the narratives are consistent AND the underlying mechanics are consistent, even if they seem to be contradict each other.

So what happens next? What contrived scenario can we (meaning "you") come up with that might force us into a paradox, where eventually we prove that Eloelle is a moron, or the DM has to adjudicate, or we otherwise encounter something that makes either or both of these two parallel arcs, the narrative and the mechanics, inconsistent?

You describe the scene and the die roll, I'll narrate.

 

[TwoSix]

And now I get to strike back at you for ninja-ing me with your dissociated-mechanics-fu!

I think that you are underselling what counts as "inhabiting" or being "in" your character.

Many times in the past I have insisted that the stances ("actor", "author", "director") are logical modes of play, not psychological states of the player.

No, I tend to agree with you. (My own personal experience has found Actor Stance to be somewhat more amenable to "immersion", but certainly not impossible in any stance.) I think Ron Edwards' thoughts that immersion as most people describe it, as a kind of almost "possession" by the character's mindset, is incompatible with the decisions necessary for Author or Director stance, are pretty correct, though. I think there are more flavors of "immersion" than often discussed, though. I can feel an immersion in the game without feeling like I'm truly inhabiting the character (more of an immersion of solidarity with the character, really).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Paladin: I'll defeat you with the might of the Raven Queen.
NPC Hexer: I'm not afraid of you or your god - I turned you into a frog.
Paladin: And she turned me back.​

That's a great example. You're right, it might drive some of the people here crazy. "No, he turned back into a person because that's how long Hex lasts! If you let him get away with that you're giving him too much power! What happens when he gets hit with a permanent polymorph?!?! He'll just invoke his god!"

 

[TwoSix]

That's a great example. You're right, it might drive some of the people here crazy. "No, he turned back into a person because that's how long Hex lasts! If you let him get away with that you're giving him too much power! What happens when he gets hit with a permanent polymorph?!?! He'll just invoke his god!"

You hit the nail on the head, that's exactly what happened. I should dig up that thread, that was a good one.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You hit the nail on the head, that's exactly what happened. I should dig up that thread, that was a good one.

Maybe this all comes down to the difference between trusting your fellow players (including the DM) to contribute to the story for the benefit of all, and feeling that the risk of rogue players is so great that you need to enforce tight parameters to prevent such players from being disruptive.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Oh man, I'm an idiot. I didn't realize this was an author stance versus director stance discussion. It's the same concept that underlay the argument about 4e martial daily and encounter powers. It's much harder to justify Int 5 geniuses with debilitating circumstances if your focus is on "inhabiting" the character rather than generating dramatic play.

To pigeonhole this discussion this way, you have to ignore the times I've pointed out how Int 5 geniuses inhibit dramatic play as well. Be careful about jumping to conclusions, especially when the jump drops your thought into a well-worn groove. Hard to get out once you're in.

Not aesthetic opposition, but their insistence on meanings that to me are either open to interpretation or have the opposite meaning.

Such as...?

I'm not sure what "godmodding" is meant to mean, but from context, it seems somewhat synonymous with director stance play.

The operative feature of godmodding is not a particular stance of play (although it probably does lend itself more to director stance), but rather narrating your character's actions to cast them unfailingly in the best light in a way that is obnoxious to the other players. In other words, it's playing a Mary Sue.

There is also a sub-definition of the term that focuses on narrating the actions of other characters illicitly. We haven't really talked about that here, but I've seen it lurking in some of what you and Elfcrusher have said, and it may come up in the future.

No, it only effects the narration. On a failed saving throw she still tells the truth. Because the 'truth', mechanically, is that she doesn't have the information. THAT was a narrative not a mechanical change as well.

As long as you acknowledge that the narration in both cases is just fluff, and doesn't actually change the underlying facts of the game, everything stays consistent with RAW.

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anywhere you addressed the fact that per the zone of truth spell, the caster "know whether each creature succeeds or fails on its saving throw."

In my case, it tells me that I'm glad I play with people who don't see every aspect of the game as simply an opportunity for operational maximisation.

Yet another response to this objection that amounts solely to denigrating the players as munchkins. Do you not see any problem with that? It's hardly munchkinism to think, "X canonically works. Why don't we keep doing X?" If X canonically works, and the characters don't do X when it would be useful for them to do so, that's not players nobly refraining from nasty evil operational maximization -- that's a plot hole. Do you get annoyed when heroes in books and movies "forget" about some ability they have at an opportune moment? Or, even if you don't get annoyed, do you feel the need to look down your nose at other members of the audience who do? Because they're thinking the story through and want it to be logically consistent? Come on, man.

You hit the nail on the head, that's exactly what happened. I should dig up that thread, that was a good one.

Do you guys just want to keep patting yourselves on the back? Should I leave you alone?