D&D 5E Geniuses with 5 Int

[TwoSix]

Well, that's a spectacularly unhelpful attitude. If you're going to flatly deny what I've actually said in order to insist that this conversation is about something it isn't, I don't see any point in continuing with you.

Ah well. Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But ZoT doesn't check to see if what the character says is a lie mechanically, it checks to see if it's a lie within the fiction.

Ah....here is where we differ. And you should edit the above to say, "I would say that ZoT doesn't check..." because it's purely a matter of interpretation, not fact. (Go ahead and show me THAT rule...). Anyway, yeah, if you're going to start crossing the beams, as it were, and having the mechanical results of a spell interact with the fictional narrative when the two need to remain separate...well, let's just say that the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man should steer clear.

If you're going to say that the mechanics apply rigidly to the narrative, then Eloelle never would have solved the Riddle in the first place. It's inconsistent to allow them to be separate in one case but not in the other.

Further, you've said that you would allow LOL to narrate the results if another player character cast the ZoT. Because that cuts down on character conflicts, I assume. But, it seems to me that LOL is initating the conflict by lying to the other party members, so when does this restriction come into play? Only when a mechanical effect is activated? Otherwise, it seems that a player can manipulate that system. How would you deal with a player character taking a contract out on another player's character though an NPC? The turtles here run out.

Pretty much. I can be ok with a character lying to another character, or even a player lying to another player, as long as it's for the benefit of the story, and not to undermine each other. Again, for me it's about assuming that players want to tell a good story, and trusting them to do so, and then dealing with it out of game if the trust is misplaced.

Eloelle's player lying and one player another player in PvP are very different, but I'm sure if we nudge them toward each other eventually we'd find some kind of blurry grey area. And I don't (yet) have a strict definition that I think can distinguish one from the other, partly because I've never needed it and I'm sure it's going to take some thought. But, as I love to say, "the existence of dawn does not invalidate the difference between day and night."

If you're interested in such a definition I'll ponder it and see what I can come up with, but I hope you'd take it in the spirit of "this is an interesting question, let's mess around with it" and not say, "Ha! I found a flaw in your definition! Clearly you are wrong about everything!" (Which I don't think you'd do, but I would sadly expect it, given recent experience, of at least one other participant in this thread.)

As for a contract? No, I'd let the victim/target narrate that as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well, actually, I'll readily admit that. I'm afraid that if I'm restricted to "commonsense" definitions (which is what Maxperson has doggedly insisted is the only possible truth) then that eliminates all sorts of interesting narrative possibilities.

Such as...?

Mmmm...the reversal doesn't really work here, because in that case we're restricting latitude, which is sort of the opposite of trusting. Sort of like if I asked, "Don't you trust other people enough to leave your door unlocked?" and you replied, "Well don't you trust them enough to lock it?" Whuuuh....?

More like "Don't you trust the locksmith enough to expect the lock will function as intended?" with a follow-up of "If you don't, why do you even have a lock?" The rules are a tool. Their purpose is to allow players to build mechanical representations of their character concepts. But you're telling me you don't trust players to use this tool constructively, and instead expect them to force you to build a character concept you don't want. So you're trying to remove the power from the tool, by insisting that there shouldn't be a correspondence between character concept and mechanical representation, and proclaiming that when the tool is an inert deadweight you have greater freedom. But really you're just getting the worst of both worlds. You're not using the tool to build a good mechanical representation of your character concept, but the tool is still weighing you down by putting mechanical restrictions on your character. If you don't want to use the tool, just discard it, and go play a rulesless RP system.

Only "treacherous" if you think the players might abuse it. And they might. At which point I wouldn't play with them anymore. It seems more and more like this debate is really about trusting players.

You said you're adamantly against dictating the actions of other players' characters. Now you're saying that other players' characters have to act in a way dictated by your narrative or else you'll walk out. You're the one who keeps bringing up this trust issue. I'm beginning to think you're right that this is what the debate is really about -- but only on your end.

No, not even remotely, because the use is intentional and accurate, not a deliberate obfuscation. And I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize that's true.

Um... no?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Oh, whoah....you mean if a PC Cleric tried to cast Zone of Truth on the Warlock in order to get the information?

Yeah, if you allowed that sort of thing that could in fact be a problem. In fact, everything I've been espousing in this thread might start to break down if you allow players to affect other players that way.

So maybe this is where this all does start to depend on house rules: I ascribe to the notion that if a PC performs a hostile action on another player, the "victim" gets to narrate the result, without rolling dice.

Yeah, if you allow PvP then this whole model could break down. I'd have to think about that more.

It doesn't even have to be based around a hostile action. I just picked the ZoT situation as something that people were currently discussing that was easy to illustrate the point by changing just one of the parameters.

I'm just going to call the cleric's player "Bob" for the moment.

The issue is not that Bob's cleric used an offensive spell which would interact with your houserules in a way that a non-hostile act wouldn't. The point you were making about Eloelle's player's narrative latitude doesn't require a hostile act to be committed, nor to have those houserules.
The issue is that Eloelle's player narrates the fiction as Eloelle (or her patron) being able to subvert Bob's character's spells and control Bob's character. Even though the "mechanical fiction" is as if it was by the rules, Bob may not like that narrative.

 

[Satyrn]

It doesn't even have to be based around a hostile action. I just picked the ZoT situation as something that people were currently discussing that was easy to illustrate the point by changing just one of the parameters.

I'm just going to call the cleric's player "Bob" for the moment.

The issue is not that Bob's cleric used an offensive spell which would interact with your houserules in a way that a non-hostile act wouldn't. The point you were making about Eloelle's player's narrative latitude doesn't require a hostile act to be committed, nor to have those houserules.
The issue is that Eloelle's player narrates the fiction as Eloelle (or her patron) being able to subvert Bob's character's spells and control Bob's character. Even though the "mechanical fiction" is as if it was by the rules, Bob may not like that narrative.

When I play, there are no secret notes, no moments when the DM takes a player aside, or anything similar. All the players know what's going on with all the characters. So at my table, this scenario you present would go differently than you seem to expect in your game.

See, Bob would know exactly what Elfcrusher is doing with Eloelle, and by casting ZoT Bob is intentionally engaging in that narrative, and is thus probably going to like it.

It seems to me that Eloelle's concept requires buy-in from the other players, but once they do, the game would work just fine.

 

[TwoSix]

It seems to me that Eloelle's concept requires buy-in from the other players, but once they do, the game would work just fine.

In general, introducing more narrative concepts requires more buy-in from the players, because the players and DM are co-owners of the game. They don't work as well if the players aren't motivated, or if the playstyle is somewhat adversarial or competitive (either between players, or player and DM).

 

[Guest 6801328]

The rules are a tool. Their purpose is to allow players to build mechanical representations of their character concepts. But you're telling me you don't trust players to use this tool constructively, and instead expect them to force you to build a character concept you don't want. So you're trying to remove the power from the tool, by insisting that there shouldn't be a correspondence between character concept and mechanical representation, and proclaiming that when the tool is an inert deadweight you have greater freedom. But really you're just getting the worst of both worlds. You're not using the tool to build a good mechanical representation of your character concept, but the tool is still weighing you down by putting mechanical restrictions on your character. If you don't want to use the tool, just discard it, and go play a rulesless RP system.

I don't "trust players to use this tool constructively"? Where did THAT come from? I've been arguing this whole time for more flexibility, more freedom? Jeeeeez-us, talk about Orwellian use of language!

Sure, the various character concepts I proposed could easily be modeled using other ability scores and skills and what-not. Where did I ever say that couldn't be done? I'm just saying it doesn't *have* to be that way.

That entire chain of logic is predicated upon the assumption that I interpret the "meaning" of the ability scores the same way you apparently do. Since I don't, none of the above is true or applicable. I'm describing characters that have an inhibition on the results of their intellectual endeavors, and that inhibition does not happen to be overall intellectual capacity, but some other factor. And giving them a low Int score models that very well. Sure, it's not the obvious, "commonsense" definition of "intelligence", but so what? It works.

You said you're adamantly against dictating the actions of other players' characters. Now you're saying that other players' characters have to act in a way dictated by your narrative or else you'll walk out. You're the one who keeps bringing up this trust issue. I'm beginning to think you're right that this is what the debate is really about -- but only on your end.

So let me get this straight, because I said that I will choose to play with people who enjoy their RPGs in a way similar to how I do, you're equating that with me dictating that other players comply with my narrative or I'll walk out?

That's just silly, and such a gross distortion of what I've been saying that I can only conclude you are no longer discussing this in good faith, but are merely trying to belittle and disparage.

Good day, sir.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The issue is that Eloelle's player narrates the fiction as Eloelle (or her patron) being able to subvert Bob's character's spells and control Bob's character. Even though the "mechanical fiction" is as if it was by the rules, Bob may not like that narrative.

What Satyrn said.

And, also, I think we've run into the problem of separating the two events (the acquisition of the McGuffin, and the attempted extraction of it.)

If Eloelle's player was not allowed to roleplay this way then she never would have learned the McGuffin, therefore when Bob cast Zone of Truth she would honestly not know the answer. So if Bob is opposed to this whole narrative he can just tune it out, and the outcome is still the same. But if he's willing to participate in the fiction (by accepting it) in the first event, he should be willing to buy into the fiction in the second event.

The only imposition on Bob is that he has to sit at the table while Eloelle's player tells this story. The net effect on his character is zero: the two events cancel out.

So I suppose that's not an "also" to Satyrn's comment, rather an elaboration.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't "trust players to use this tool constructively"? Where did THAT come from? I've been arguing this whole time for more flexibility, more freedom? Jeeeeez-us, talk about Orwellian use of language!

We have always been at war with Int 5 geniuses.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That's just silly, and such a gross distortion of what I've been saying that I can only conclude you are no longer discussing this in good faith, but are merely trying to belittle and disparage.

Good day, sir.

So you get to repeatedly tell me that I'm afraid of other players, or that I don't trust them, when I haven't said a single thing to that effect. But when I start playing amateur psychologist on you all of a sudden it's belittling disparagement? Get that beam out of your eye.