RPG Theory - Intelligence and meta-intelligence

[aia_2]

Hi all, this could likely be another "already-discussed" topic: should it be the case, i'd kindly ask you to link here below the already discussed threads along with your feedback/comment.

The main question is related to the attribute of intelligence; almost all RPGs have this attribute to define a character and all of them could present the same situations:

a. the PC has a low score in INT whereas the player is a clever guy

b. the other way round

The question is related to any circumstance where the PC has to use the brain and, as a matter of fact the brain used is the one of the player... the typical case when there are some riddles, puzzles or similar events. According to the theory, the GM should not let the players cope with the challenge of the PCs and roll an INT check (or equivalent) to see whether or not this task has been completed with success... by doing this, the fun is totally wasted for the players...

The questions are basically two (but there could be other situations!):

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

Please note that i have chosen to keep the question "linear" as this topic affects nearly every aspect of the game, in particular the "off-line parts" when players argue among them what would be better to do (i.e. they use their brains regardeless of the INT of their PCs)...

 

[payn]

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall.

When I did do puzzles, I wouldn't go so far as saying the fighter is too dumb to know. A lot of this is that the puzzles and riddles are a group exercise and the clever player was likely the only one in the group to care and know how to solve it. As much fun as it seemed in GM prep, the table hated it as it slowed the game to a crawl. Making the clever player sit back and watch the struggle was certainly a recipe for a crappy session.

Also, not being smart doesn't mean you cant solve puzzles. Each one is unique, and if you had experience with it in the past, you likely will have an easier time solving it in the future. This seems more wisdom based to me than intelligence. It makes things complicated so simply saying you lack the intelligence (or have an abundance) so you can/cant solve this isn't something I'm going to rule as a GM.

What do I gate with intelligence in games? Things that seem to make sense. Like deciphering a language or operating/hacking a computer. Everybody gets a chance, but its going to be higher successes for the intelligence guy. The players are usually good about not stepping on each others toes in the instance of playing the "smart guy" or the "strong man" etc...

 

[Umbran]

What is prevailing: the intelligence of the PCs or the meta-intelligence of the players?

For me, this will depend on the type of game we are playing at the time.

But, more often than not, I work with the character's intelligence prevailing.

This turns out to be mostly a non-problem, in that my players are the sort to play to what's on the sheet. If the character is of low intelligence, they don't try to slip by on their own merits, and so on.

 

[aia_2]

Well, as long as we are talking of a specific event where smtg has to be worked out, i understand your points and i would like to have players who stick to this approach (but you know, if you play on friday and it is midnight past, it is difficult even for a player to be enough concentrated to keep this subtle distinction always working).
When the game is not specific enough (i.e there is not a riddle to solve), the character should anyway keep this approach... If a player is playing with a dumb fighter for instance, every single action taken should be with a dumb approach (i do not argue whether it is INT or WIS here): from the choice of the road on a crossroad to the conversation with the civic militian at the gate of a town... It is really difficult from my point of view! (And i will not discuss the opposite case!) Do you reward consistently this huge effort?
I was thinking smtg like a fixed bonus for such a case...

 

[aia_2]

...or as an alternative: is there any way to set up an RPG which has no need of INT? This way the problem would be removed from the starting point...

 

[GMMichael]

a. as a GM do you let your clever player to work out a mental challenge his PC would likely fail since he is a dumb fighter (for instance)?

b. as a GM do you let your not-so-clever (a friend in any case!) player to strive with a mental challenge while his PC would have worked it out in nearly 2 minutes (say that he is a wizard)?

Whose "theory" are we discussing, out of curiosity?

A) Yes, and it gets chalked up to dumb luck if possible, or another in-game explanation must be proffered (because we're telling a story, after all).

B) There's any number of reasons that the wizard would have trouble with the puzzle - over-thinking it probably being foremost.

I have moved beyond using actual puzzles in game, and its likely for this exact reason. I want the players to be immersed in playing the characters and exploring the story. Using actual riddles and puzzles to solve breaks down that wall.

Sad face for your players

...or as an alternative: is there any way to set up an RPG which has no need of INT? This way the problem would be removed from the starting point...

Modos RPG has only a "mental" score, which is only considered intelligence if the player wants to call it that. The score is used to determine the quality of outcome of mental-related tasks, not the type of outcome.

So in A) the player can solve the puzzle. If the score is needed (the GM wants a roll), the roll determines if the outcome of solving the puzzle is good or bad, not whether the puzzle was solved.

In B) the not-so-clever player who rolls high could get a clue or could solve the puzzle or get some other benefit. Rolling low could still indicate that the wizard solved the puzzle, but it was somehow detrimental. (no pun intended)

 

[payn]

Sad face for your players

Actually, they dont miss them. Found them frustrating with little reward to playing.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Basically I 'resolve' the seeming conflict-- partially by taking for granted that the game's intelligence stat has more to do with knowledge than problem solving-- which is generally true, you don't roll to find out how good your combat tactics are after all and there is no puzzles skill; and partially by designing proactively in my adjudication, I have a mandate to make sure there's engaging game play to be had. I'm not going to let you roll an intelligence check to solve the puzzle because that isn't what the puzzle is there for and its easy enough to justify in the fiction, either by your character being the mouthpiece for the solution other characters in the party arrive at, or you overthinking it or not picking up on the lateral dimension of it, or whatever.

I want to have nice things like puzzles in my game, and short of an entire party that hates them, I'm going to put puzzles in my game. Generally substituting the intelligence stat for meta-problem-solving is more about someone not respecting that other people at the table like puzzles, than it is about any real immersion concern, in my hard won experience.

That said, there's a subtler variant of this, where players want to describe how they search the environment, but the game (PF2e in my case) has a search activity, but that's generally finessed at the table-- the party's standard operating procedure is governed by a roll, but a player may notice something in the description and focus in on it, probably making it easier to find. Which creates engaging game play without making the players think they'll find everything by just aggressively poking at everything. Though I do still have one player who is really aggressive about demanding to outline exactly what they do with their character's hands at every moment.

 

[bloodtide]

I do player intelligence, always. I make the game for the players. They need to use their own skills and abilities in the game. Not "the characters".

For the "average" player that wants to play a "genius" character, I will just tell them that is impossible. A player can't "really in the game" fake being smarter then they are in real life. The player can "act smart", sure, but they can't "be smart".

Even the Best Case here is horrible. This is where the player has their character act like their normal "average" self and once in a while will roll an intelligence check to ask the DM "so what would my smart character do". If the player makes the roll, the DM then effectively takes control of the character and even worse railroads the character. Sure, in theory, the player can choose not to take the "advise of their smart character"....but they they are not playing a smart character then, so why even roll?

Worse is all the "average" players choices will often get themselves into lots of trouble. Trouble that could have been avoided if the player had been playing the DM railroaded smart character.

It's the same with the "below average" player. The only way for them to "play smart" is to do the DM railroaded smart character.

I would note you can have a "Quantum Railroad" game where whatever the smart person says alters game reality. The writers on shows like Sherlock and Doctor Who do this a lot. The aliens are about to invade, and the Doctor pulls out of no where a stick of butter and idiotically says "the aliens are afraid of butter". Then the aliens go "Aiiiie! Butter!" and flee Earth.

I'm always ready to help a player with things to read or watch to help them have more knowledge about a topic. So they can really have the knowledge and use it in the game. I can even work with an interested player outside the game.

For the "average" player acting out a dumb character.....I just leave it alone. The normal actions of the player work out fine for "low intelligence characters".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Even the Best Case here is horrible. This is where the player has their character act like their normal "average" self and once in a while will roll an intelligence check to ask the DM "so what would my smart character do". If the player makes the roll, the DM then effectively takes control of the character and even worse railroads the character. Sure, in theory, the player can choose not to take the "advise of their smart character"....but they they are not playing a smart character then, so why even roll?

There’s no need any of this would have to work as you’ve described.

Ultimately, in the kind of game you’re talking about, anything that a character can know or do has to come from the GM. A player could be an actual genius in real life, and still be very limited by the GM’s ability to convey useful and relevant information to the player.

So maybe instead of a player asking “what would my smart character do” and then have the GM effectively take control of the character as you’ve described… which I would agree is very flawed and which I expect is why I cannot think of a game that actually works this way…. instead the GM can award additional information to the smart character, very often contingent upon a roll of some sort.

This has the effect of allowing for player skill AND honoring the fiction.

There are also other ways to handle this, but I think what I’ve described remains firmly in the Traditional approach to play and probably sounds familiar to many more gamers than the rather absurd description you’ve offered.

 

[bloodtide]

So maybe instead of a player asking “what would my smart character do” and then have the GM effectively take control of the character as you’ve described… which I would agree is very flawed and which I expect is why I cannot think of a game that actually works this way…. instead the GM can award additional information to the smart character, very often contingent upon a roll of some sort.

Like I said, this does not work. When you tell the average player additional information......they will act like a average player. They can't "really" act smarter then they are: they can only be who they are. You can give a player piles of information, but it is what they DO with the information that is important.

Example: the group wants to slay a green dragon, but finds the lair well protected. The average player sits in a slump and rolls and asks the DM "can my smart character think of something". So the DM reminds the player about the bit of lore learned in the last game: "this dragon likes good music and has been know to attend private music shows in deep wooded glades to listen to music." The average player just ignores this lore, yet again "darn, my super smart character can't think of anything". So the DM could take the second step of telling the average player that their smart character thinks setting up a music glade ambush is a great idea. The average player might agree, but if they do, this is now the DMs railroad: The players are just doing what the DM told them to do. Worse the average player will stumble and bumble around all average like in setting up the ambush in the most obvious and clumsiness way possible....and it won't work. The ONLY way it could work is if the DM had the smart character tell the player HOW to set up the ambush step by step and tell them what to do and what not to do. Setting up an ambush for a dragon is hard work, and you need to know what your doing.....and few average players are up to that. And, as the music ambush is not the players idea, you will likely get backlash as they don't want to do it as it's too hard and makes them think about things too much and it needs too much detail and so on. If your lucky, in a fun twist the players will complain about agency of the railroad they agreed to do.

There are also other ways to handle this, but I think what I’ve described remains firmly in the Traditional approach to play and probably sounds familiar to many more gamers than the rather absurd description you’ve offered.

I wonder what the other ways are?

 

[RuinousPowers]

I'm not a big fan of riddles and puzzles in game. I find that if they aren't solved within a few minutes most players tune out and the game slows to a crawl.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like I said, this does not work. When you tell the average player additional information......they will act like a average player. They can't "really" act smarter then they are: they can only be who they are. You can give a player piles of information, but it is what they DO with the information that is important.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. The average player is one I assume you mean to be of average intelligence and/or capability, is that right? And you’re saying they can’t act like anything other than an average player?

I assume you mean that they can’t actually be smarter than they are, which may or may not be true based on how we define smarter. Certainly if I reward the player of the high intelligence character with more information, then they are now more informed… and so on. So using the kind of method I described, the player of the smarter PC will have more information at his disposal than another player. Is it possible they may not use this additional information well? Sure. Is it the certainty you present it as? Clearly not.

But even setting that aside, players absolutely can act as characters who are smarter than they are. I mean… it’s acting.

Example: the group wants to slay a green dragon, but finds the lair well protected. The average player sits in a slump and rolls and asks the DM "can my smart character think of something". So the DM reminds the player about the bit of lore learned in the last game: "this dragon likes good music and has been know to attend private music shows in deep wooded glades to listen to music." The average player just ignores this lore, yet again "darn, my super smart character can't think of anything".

I don’t think I’d agree with your categorization at all.

But I also don’t see how what you’ve described is less true of games that don’t allow for character capability, games that only test player capability. Surely those players in that game would also just slump and say I don’t know what to do.

How do you deal with this in your game?

So the DM could take the second step of telling the average player that their smart character thinks setting up a music glade ambush is a great idea. The average player might agree, but if they do, this is now the DMs railroad: The players are just doing what the DM told them to do.

Telling people what to do with information is different than simply giving them information.

Worse the average player will stumble and bumble around all average like in setting up the ambush in the most obvious and clumsiness way possible....and it won't work. The ONLY way it could work is if the DM had the smart character tell the player HOW to set up the ambush step by step and tell them what to do and what not to do. Setting up an ambush for a dragon is hard work, and you need to know what your doing.....and few average players are up to that.

Why do you say this? It’s all make believe. There isn't a person alive who’s up for dragon ambushes, no matter how smart they are.

And who decides what works? The DM? Which implies that the DM is smart enough to understand such things. Which means that I can’t see this as much more than “the DM’s smart and players are dumb”.

And, as the music ambush is not the players idea, you will likely get backlash as they don't want to do it as it's too hard and makes them think about things too much and it needs too much detail and so on. If your lucky, in a fun twist the players will complain about agency of the railroad they agreed to do.

At my most traditional GM-led play, I never had these problems. I would say that if this is how your games tend to go, you should try some different ways to try things out. See if that changes the results.

I wonder what the other ways are?

I just finished up a campaign of a game called Spire: The City Must Fall. That game has characters who are incredibly smart and capable. The way the game portrays this is through class abilities. Each class has abilities that allow them to declare things that are true about the world. The scope of these things depends on the class and ability in question, but I can offer a couple examples. The Knight Class has the ability “Pubcrawler” which allows the player once per session to declare that there is a pub nearby and his character knows the owner. The Vermissian Sage Class has an ability that once per session allows the player to select two NPCs and declare that they’re connected in some way.

That’s one way to do it. I’m currently a player in a game of Stonetop, and I’m playing the Judge character, who is a kind of lore keeper/ arbiter. He knows a lot of things and can apply that knowledge in different ways through his playbook abilities. One ability allows him to always know what nearby is tainted by chaos, even when he fails a “Know Things” roll.

Many games have elements designed to allow players to portray characters more capable than they are. Fate, Gumshoe, Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark… many more.

 

[bloodtide]

But even setting that aside, players absolutely can act as characters who are smarter than they are. I mean… it’s acting.

Like I said, I player can act smart, but they can't pretend to be "really" smart. They can just put on the act.

I don’t think I’d agree with your categorization at all.

But I also don’t see how what you’ve described is less true of games that don’t allow for character capability, games that only test player capability. Surely those players in that game would also just slump and say I don’t know what to do.

How do you deal with this in your game?

Well, if possible I do craft everything to the players limits. Otherwise they don't do the action, or try to think of something else. By default I play most of the game world "less then player" average. So when they ask random NPC townsfolk what to do, they will get silly suggestions like "how about tie some cows up outside the lair and then pounce on the dragon when it comes out to eat them". Should the players put in the time and effort in the game, they can find intelligent NPCs to help with suggestions and information. By giving out such information in role play, the NPC can make the information understandable to the players.

Or...well, if I want the acting done....I will railroad them along.

Telling people what to do with information is different than simply giving them information.

Right, as I said. All the Rolls for Free Information don't help a player that can't use all that information.

Why do you say this? It’s all make believe. There isn't a person alive who’s up for dragon ambushes, no matter how smart they are.

And who decides what works? The DM? Which implies that the DM is smart enough to understand such things. Which means that I can’t see this as much more than “the DM’s smart and players are dumb”.

Well, it's structured make believe. There are whole books on the make believe dragons, even game rule books. And with experience you can make things up to fit the fantasy.

It IS true you need to be a well read, experienced, intelligent DM with system master, skill mastery, rule mastery, common sense, an understanding of basic 'fantasy' physics, science, nature and psychology. This is one of the big things that separates DMs from players.

I just finished up a campaign of a game called Spire: The City Must Fall.

Except just having players make up stuff and then altering the game reality has nothing to do with intelligence.

Many games have elements designed to allow players to portray characters more capable than they are. Fate, Gumshoe, Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark… many more.

And they all fail as that is impossible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like I said, I player can act smart, but they can't pretend to be "really" smart. They can just put on the act.

I don’t see any distinction here. I have an idea what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think what you typed actually says that.

Well, if possible I do craft everything to the players limits. Otherwise they don't do the action, or try to think of something else. By default I play most of the game world "less then player" average. So when they ask random NPC townsfolk what to do, they will get silly suggestions like "how about tie some cows up outside the lair and then pounce on the dragon when it comes out to eat them". Should the players put in the time and effort in the game, they can find intelligent NPCs to help with suggestions and information. By giving out such information in role play, the NPC can make the information understandable to the players.

So you said you build the game for the players… that you want to test the player skill.

Is it just the skill of which NPC to speak to?

Or...well, if I want the acting done....I will railroad them along.

Right, as I said. All the Rolls for Free Information don't help a player that can't use all that information.

So how does the information from the smart NPCs help?

Well, it's structured make believe. There are whole books on the make believe dragons, even game rule books. And with experience you can make things up to fit the fantasy.

It IS true you need to be a well read, experienced, intelligent DM with system master, skill mastery, rule mastery, common sense, an understanding of basic 'fantasy' physics, science, nature and psychology. This is one of the big things that separates DMs from players.

What about players who are also GMs?

Except just having players make up stuff and then altering the game reality has nothing to do with intelligence.

Having such abilities in the game may portray the kind of intelligence or competence that we’re talking about.

It’s no more about making the player smarter than Weapon Specialization is about making a player a highly trained combatant. These are game rules designed to portray skill or competency.

And they all fail as that is impossible.

I think it’d be more accurate to say that you don’t see how it’s possible.

 

[Blue]

The question is related to any circumstance where the PC has to use the brain and, as a matter of fact the brain used is the one of the player... the typical case when there are some riddles, puzzles or similar events. According to the theory, the GM should not let the players cope with the challenge of the PCs and roll an INT check (or equivalent) to see whether or not this task has been completed with success... by doing this, the fun is totally wasted for the players...

I don't agree with this interpretation. Let me reframe your statement as combat.

"The character should roll an check to see how well they do. Tactics, positioning, use of terrain or hazards should never come in except based on character checks."

But this has never been how we do it. It's a combonation of character abilities and player abilities. Puzzles and riddles should be the same - hints based on character skills, spell usage, etc.

The intelligence of the players is always allowed to direct the PCs in all pillars of play, and the character adds in with their own abilities.

 

[Blue]

I do player intelligence, always. I make the game for the players. They need to use their own skills and abilities in the game. Not "the characters".

For the "average" player that wants to play a "genius" character, I will just tell them that is impossible. A player can't "really in the game" fake being smarter then they are in real life. The player can "act smart", sure, but they can't "be smart".

It's a fantastic game. A player can easily play characters who can't do things you can't do. Fly, jump down 40 feet and keep fighting, recite epic poems that grant to allies bonuses, whatever.

For intelligent characters it takes a DM who can feed hints to the player, remind them of things that occured before that are related, point out patterns, and the like. The DM is the window into the world - and that includes the character. It does not require the DM to take control of the charater. But things like "remember the snake mosiac from earlier" or "the creatures seem to be focusing attacks on anyone who cast a spell" so that the player has the inforamtion at their fingertips and can make the most of it.

The DM has an omniscient view into the information and plot, if they can't give information the character could figure out to the player then they are simply failing as a DM.

 

[Blue]

Like I said, this does not work. When you tell the average player additional information......they will act like a average player. They can't "really" act smarter then they are: they can only be who they are. You can give a player piles of information, but it is what they DO with the information that is important.

Counterpoint: Acting without sufficient information can make you act dumb, so acting with the proper information (and just the proper information) can make you look smart comparatively.

I was runnign a high INT bladesinger in a campaign. It was an online game, and I took copious notes - I'm a really fast typist. Guess what - everytime something came up, I would do a quick search and pull out relevant information as if my character knew it. "Him? We heard that he was a necromancer from the lizardfolk, and there was also the threatening letter he sent to the monastery" or "Last time we fought these your fire did not damage, try something else".

 

[bloodtide]

I don’t see any distinction here. I have an idea what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think what you typed actually says that.

A player can act what they think a smart person might act like, but they can't do it for "real" in the game. For example they could role play and say their character looks over the data and forms a plan. But the player can't have the character do that.

So you said you build the game for the players… that you want to test the player skill.

Is it just the skill of which NPC to speak to?

No, your combing things. The players with skill and intelligence don't need to talk to NPCs to get help. Often players with skill and intelligence don't need help from the DM at all.

So how does the information from the smart NPCs help?

Rolled information is just words. Words and things the average player might not understand. A NPC can "talk to the level" of the players, explain things to them and otherwise guide them.

What about players who are also GMs?

When they are a player, they are a player. Some players that also DM have a bit more mental abilities, but it's not always true.

Having such abilities in the game may portray the kind of intelligence or competence that we’re talking about.

It’s no more about making the player smarter than Weapon Specialization is about making a player a highly trained combatant. These are game rules designed to portray skill or competency.

Except you can't portray mental things in games without taking control of the character. For the fighter, it is knowing even even basic street sense, common sense, and fighting sense. It's not the part about using the weapon...it's how, and when to use the weapon. Few 'fighter types' would get into a cool bar fight for fun....but that is a common thing for cool players to do(even cooler is when they murder and slaughter townsfolk and they get surprised when they get arrested).

I think it’d be more accurate to say that you don’t see how it’s possible.

Ok, sure, it's not possible

For intelligent characters it takes a DM who can feed hints to the player, remind them of things that occured before that are related, point out patterns, and the like. The DM is the window into the world - and that includes the character. It does not require the DM to take control of the charater. But things like "remember the snake mosiac from earlier" or "the creatures seem to be focusing attacks on anyone who cast a spell" so that the player has the inforamtion at their fingertips and can make the most of it.

The DM has an omniscient view into the information and plot, if they can't give information the character could figure out to the player then they are simply failing as a DM.

But again, the DM can "remind" the average intelligence player about things every couple of minutes. But that does not mean the average intelligence player will be able to use the information. The average intelligence player might well just say "ok, snake mosiac, and snakes on the doors and snakes on the walls. Whatever. Is there a snake monster to fight yet?" The average intelligence player will never "get things" like the intelligent player, no matter the information they have.

Counterpoint: Acting without sufficient information can make you act dumb, so acting with the proper information (and just the proper information) can make you look smart comparatively.

I was runnign a high INT bladesinger in a campaign. It was an online game, and I took copious notes - I'm a really fast typist. Guess what - everytime something came up, I would do a quick search and pull out relevant information as if my character knew it. "Him? We heard that he was a necromancer from the lizardfolk, and there was also the threatening letter he sent to the monastery" or "Last time we fought these your fire did not damage, try something else".

True. That is why most intelligent players are cautious and don't overly jump into the unknown with little or no information.

Ok, that was a fine way to simulate a character having a good memory, if the player has a poor memory. Though "memory" itself is not really "intelligence". The notes might help the character remember the name of something, but won't help the character at all when they have to make a decision or think up of an idea.

 

[aia_2]

Modos RPG has only a "mental" score, which is only considered intelligence if the player wants to call it that. The score is used to determine the quality of outcome of mental-related tasks, not the type of outcome.

So in A) the player can solve the puzzle. If the score is needed (the GM wants a roll), the roll determines if the outcome of solving the puzzle is good or bad, not whether the puzzle was solved.

In B) the not-so-clever player who rolls high could get a clue or could solve the puzzle or get some other benefit. Rolling low could still indicate that the wizard solved the puzzle, but it was somehow detrimental. (no pun intended)

That is interesting! I look for a copy of this game then!
In any case, could you pls explain better this concept? Maybe with an example so that i get it... (apologies it is not fully clear to my eyes!)