D&D 5E (2014) Geniuses with 5 Int

[Yardiff]

So what was the over-all point of this thread?

 

[TwoSix]

So what was the over-all point of this thread?

Is this supposed to be funny?

 

[Yardiff]

Is this supposed to be funny?

Nope.

 

[Yardiff]

What definition of 'genius' is being used?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Hmm. Ok, I'll take some responsibility for that.

While I wasn't intentionally being disingenuous or making claims I didn't believe, I maybe reflexively threw some snark in there at the same time. So let me try this again, without using the words "afraid" or "trust":

It seems to me that among those opposed to this mode of roleplaying the underlying concern is that it could be abused by uncooperative players. And I agree that for a certain sort of disruptive player* this might be a Pandora's box, and for those players you're better off more strictly defining the interpretation of some mechanics.

But I encounter such players rarely, and really would rather not play at all than play with unpleasant people. So given that A) The sort of character development I'm describing (if not these particular four examples) appeals to me quite a bit, and B) I don't participate in games where PvP or really any non-consensual inter-PC conflict is allowed, and C) I don't share a concern about where this might go with disruptive players, for me the risk:reward looks appealing.

However, I can see that for those who A) feel this form of roleplaying philosophically conflicts with their interpretation of roleplaying, and/or B) may like a bit of PvP or other PC vs PC conflict, and/or C) place importance on keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of childish players, it might indeed be seen as a Bad Idea to allow it.

What I don't concede is that I'm changing a "rule" about what the Intelligence score is, or that there's a logical paradox in the Eloelle example, or that I want to dictate what other people's characters do or believe, or that this leads inevitably to nuclear weapons in Faerun.

How's that?

*Actually, I can think of several flavors of disruptive player for whom this might be a problem.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What definition of 'genius' is being used?

Bingo. It no more has a precise definition than does "intelligence".

EDIT: And to answer your question, the original intent was to demonstrate that it's possible to roleplay a brilliant character with low Int. However, examples that I thought were rather obvious turned out not to be such for other participants, and in the ensuing spirited debate I actually ended up achieving some small measure of enlightenment as to how other people perceive the shared hallucination we call D&D.

 

[Yardiff]

Bingo. It no more has a precise definition than does "intelligence".

EDIT: And to answer your question, the original intent was to demonstrate that it's possible to roleplay a brilliant character with low Int. However, examples that I thought were rather obvious turned out not to be such for other participants, and in the ensuing spirited debate I actually ended up achieving some small measure of enlightenment as to how other people perceive the shared hallucination we call D&D.

Actually when applied to intelligence/intellect genius has one definition.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It seems to me that among those opposed to this mode of roleplaying the underlying concern is that it could be abused by uncooperative players.

Not for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Actually when applied to intelligence/intellect genius has one definition.

Actually, no. But whatever.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Hmm. Ok, I'll take some responsibility for that.

Thank you.

It seems to me that among those opposed to this mode of roleplaying the underlying concern is that it could be abused by uncooperative players.

You may be avoiding using certain words, but you're still persisting in reading a motive that is not in evidence. Your camp is the one calling players "abusive", "uncooperative", "disruptive", "unpleasant", "childish", whereas I have argued point blank that "[t]hey're not being bad players by thinking this way". They're willing to engage with the fiction and devote thought to its internal logic -- that's the furthest thing from uncooperative. And if you are at a table with such players, and you insist on playing an Int 5 genius anyway, then they're probably going to see you as the player who is being disruptive, abusive, unpleasant, and maybe even childish. (Let's face it, "My character sheet says Int 5 but I'm actually a supergenius!" is not stereotypically the declaration of a mature roleplayer.)

So no, I do not have these concerns. Do not attribute them to me. Address the concerns I have actually expressed, not the ones you hypothesize. And address them with substance, not with aspersions.

What I don't concede is that I'm changing a "rule" about what the Intelligence score is...

You are definitely changing a statement in the core rulebook about what the Intelligence score is. You can claim it's not a "rule", but...

...or that there's a logical paradox in the Eloelle example...

When you've got two competing brands of "truth", that's always a paradox risk factor.

...or that I want to dictate what other people's characters do or believe...

I believe that you believe that, but I also ask that take a step back and consider seriously the implications of what you've been saying re: players who tug on the dangling plot threads of your narrative being "uncooperative".

...or that this leads inevitably to nuclear weapons in Faerun.

I'm sure Elminster already has them stashed away somewhere.