"Grunk too dumb to know how to win"

[Li Shenron]

This is one of the oldest discussions we did among friends about roleplaying. I think it happened the first evening we ever played a RPG

Our conclusion: "Roleplaying a low-Int character is not about purposefully making bad tactical choices."

Some reasons to agree with this statement could be:

- low-Int creatures (think animals or vermins) are NOT suicidal: survival is always the most important instict

- low-Int players will never be able to roleplay a genius : you can't force someone to "simulate" being smarter, so why instead force them simulating being dumber?

- a low Intelligence results anyway in other in-game penalties, having to play dumb is not a penalty assumed by the design of the game

- dumb characters in novels and movies do something stupid now and then, but not all the time: they don't die because of a stupid act. If you think about it, characters rather die for unwise choices (including greed, recklessness, mean deception) but rarely die because they are dumb (although they do get into danger), because simply it's not a nice thing to read in novels that someone died because he wasn't intelligent enough

- if you really have a brilliant idea, but you think your PC could never be so smart, go around it: (1) have your PC says something which on the surface sounds stupid, but will suggest the hidden idea to the others; (2) be straight and suggest your idea OOC to the others

 

[Stormrunner]

A low-Int character doesn't necessarily do "stupid" things, especially in combat.
"Grunk tried that once. Hurt a lot."
If the character has survived long enough to acquire some fighting skills and/or levels, then presumably he's found a fighting style that works for him most of the time. Where he's likely to be lacking is in overall strategy (e.g., he may get so worked up about smashing gnolls that when they retreat he chases after them, forgetting that he's supposed to be defending a certain position) and in flexibility (e.g., fighting a foe whose unusual combat tactics make Grunk's "standard" style ineffective - "Stupid ninja! Stand still so Grunk can hit you!")

Real-life example - I was attacked on the bus home by a guy carrying a sack of groceries - he threw a box of macaroni at my head, then ran up and started repeatedly trying to whang me in the head with a can of tomato soup. The key word here is "repeatedly". He kept swinging at me over and over again in the exact same way. Every time he did so, I would high-block him. He just kept flailing away with the can and his other fist, and I kept going block-block-block, for several minutes. I was having to spend so much time and attention blocking that I wasn't able to launch an effective counter-attack. He never did score a solid hit with the can, though my arms were getting bruised from all the blocking. After about 40 or so failed attacks(!) he eventually realized that he wasn't having much effect, so he bashed his way out the door of the bus and took off (flinging the can of soup at the window but failing to break it). He left behind his sack of groceries. D'oh!
(And no, I didn't score the sack, ironic as it would have been. While I was busy answering questions from the police, somebody else made off with it.)

 

[Henrix]

PS: The explicit moral could be stated (in Socratic method):

Q: How does one play a stupid PC?
A: Humorously!

I was actually thinking more in lines of doing things the Groo way.

Groo often has outrageous plans but fails to carry them through - which often leads to better consequences (for him, not for the rest of the world).

He often has an elaborate reason for choosing to follow the right road, but gets confused and goes to the left.

In RPG terms this equates to differentiate between what the character wants and what the player wants.

If the player wants Grunk to follow up on leads on the thieves' guild, but Grunk wants carousing, then Grunk can go to a known thieves' guild hangout because he thinks it looks cozy, having lost his way to the usual place.


But humour certainly comes into it as well. Real stupid people are sad at best, but in fiction we can portray them in a funny way.

 

[Pbartender]

But what happens when you're the player at the table with the bright, game winning idea and are stuck playing "Grunk of the Dumb"?

Easy... As others have said, you give hints and tips to the guy playing "Destephano the Extraordinarily Intelligent".



Oh... and for pity's sake, don't talk like Tarzan or Tonto just because you have a low Intelligence score.

 

[Black_Swan]

Playing a low int/wis character doesn't mean you need to run into walls...

Things should be more black and white because you can't understand the complexities of society.

For example..

Be Loyal to a fault
Always trust your "Friends"
Trust anyone who helps you once

It's not about being an idiot. It's about not being able to understand concepts past their basic definitions.

For example...If a friend tells you to hit that guy you'll do it. Your friend wouldn't steer you wrong. You trust them.

In battle you won't act randomly...but you'll react emotionally to situations. Taunting you will cause you to charge even if you'll get hit by attacks of opportunity on the way. You'll abandon your post if you see a friend killed, and run to them.

If it's just low wisdom then use your emotions as a guide. Don't let logic get in the way of your emotions. Say what you want, when you want. Act before you think.

If it's just low intelligence then limit your creativity. You cant' think outside the box. The best way to do things is the most obvious way.

 

[Pbartender]

If it's just low intelligence then limit your creativity. You cant' think outside the box. The best way to do things is the most obvious way.

"When a hammer is the only tool you own, everything begins to look like a nail."

 

[DaveyJones]

Oh... and for pity's sake, don't talk like Tarzan or Tonto just because you have a low Intelligence score.

jeff spikoly. hear that mang. that's my skull.

Davey "playing a wis 6 sorc in howandwhy99's AoW campaign" Jones

 

[RFisher]

In wargaming, it was understood each player didn't need OOC help. It was a matter of pride not to ask for help and offering it unsolicited was a faux pas.

I've come to believe that this sort of metagaming is something RPGs are better without. Out of character discussion between the players should be encouraged. Silencing a player because his character isn't "present" is confusing the player with the character.

But I also tend to go farther & treat Int & Wis as merely game mechanics & not to take their names too seriously. The character's Int score determines his skill points. The player's intelligence determines the characters words & deeds.

 

[DaveyJones]

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/showthread.php?p=271121#post271121

the life and times of [-]Raven[/-] [-]Rejjy[/-] Szath

 

[Voadam]

I've come to believe that this sort of metagaming is something RPGs are better without. Out of character discussion between the players should be encouraged. Silencing a player because his character isn't "present" is confusing the player with the character.

But I also tend to go farther & treat Int & Wis as merely game mechanics & not to take their names too seriously. The character's Int score determines his skill points. The player's intelligence determines the characters words & deeds.

I hate one player telling another what his character should do out of character.

IME in character it works great and can lead to neat roleplay as characters advise each other and some can try to be leaders while others actually implement plans. But out of character can lead to one player who comes up with ideas telling other players what their characters should do and them not following, not understanding, or simply being meek and saying "I do what he said." and not really being part of the action except for having brought their character for others to use.

It leads to less immersive play and makes it more about pushing game pieces around to meet challenges.

I prefer for the play style to be that of identifying as individual heroes in situations, not of a wargamer in control of multiple forces.