Rule-Of-Three 2-7-12

[Halivar]

Generally speaking, no. It does happen sometimes, and I sometimes let it pass, because my players are likely to simply dismiss/ignore the out-of-character suggestion if they didn't come up with it themselves.

Hrmm. Well, it seems fair to me. But very much not fun. I think we're looking for very different games with respect to non-physical skill adjudication, and I therefore hope 5E can be flexible enough in this area to satisfy both of us.

 

[Rune]

With regard to the character/player intelligence disconnect, I prefer to think of it differently; a character's low intelligence does not require a player to play dumb--it gives the player a good excuse to. These are not the same thing.

Similarly, a character's high-intelligence does not entitle the player to automatically solve puzzles, but probably should grant them easier access to subtle clues. The legwork should still be the player's (and, frankly, I don't know why someone would want to play a high-intelligence character, but not be bothered to figure things out, anyway).

 

[Halivar]

With regard to the character/player intelligence disconnect, I prefer to think of it differently; a character's low intelligence does not require a player to play dumb--it gives the player a good excuse to.

Sadly, I was banned from playing monstrous characters with an Int of less than 6, ever since The Mighty Grishnak, a troll barbarian who only said one word: "GRISHHHNAAAAAK!"

(and, frankly, I don't know why someone would want to play a high-intelligence character, but not be bothered to figure things out, anyway).

In my group, unfortunately, it's sometimes purely for mechanical reasons. Best to-hit/DC/etc...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Am I, as a player (assuming we are at your table), allowed to say, "Hey, your character would totally think of this."

That's the way we've played it since Basic days, in our games. If your Int or Wis or Cha is way up there, then you can get help, solicited or not, from anyone at the table. Your character is just that smart. OTOH, if your character is significantly deficient in one of these areas, that means that your character goes with the worst option blurted out at the table. When in doubt, we vote on it.

We give some of the more shy players more slack, but if you are a rogue running around with a 6 Wis, eventually your character is gonna do some foolish stuff--you can make it up yourself or let the table handle it.

The only thing tougher than playing low mental stats with a rat bastard DM is playing the same character at a table of rat bastard players with narration rights, all of whom you have gleefully messed up in the last few session because you are a rat bastard yourself. The best part is when someone blurts out a terrible plan, throws a hand over their mouth, and mumbles, "I didn't say that."

 

[Halivar]

OTOH, if your character is significantly deficient in one of these areas, that means that your character goes with the worst option blurted out at the table. When in doubt, we vote on it.

Ok, I have to admit, this sounds like some rat-bastardy fun.

 

[Rune]

That's the way we've played it since Basic days, in our games. If your Int or Wis or Cha is way up there, then you can get help, solicited or not, from anyone at the table. Your character is just that smart. OTOH, if your character is significantly deficient in one of these areas, that means that your character goes with the worst option blurted out at the table. When in doubt, we vote on it.

We give some of the more shy players more slack, but if you are a rogue running around with a 6 Wis, eventually your character is gonna do some foolish stuff--you can make it up yourself or let the table handle it.

The only thing tougher than playing low mental stats with a rat bastard DM is playing the same character at a table of rat bastard players with narration rights, all of whom you have gleefully messed up in the last few session because you are a rat bastard yourself. The best part is when someone blurts out a terrible plan, throws a hand over their mouth, and mumbles, "I didn't say that."

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Crazy Jerome again."

That said, YOINK!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Anyone else here been in one of these situations over the years?

a. My genius-level wizard is confronted with a simple logic puzzle, but I (the player) can't figure it out.

b. I am playing a dumb-as-rocks warrior who can solve the logic puzzle because I (the player) am good at that sort of puzzle.

c. I have a smooth-talking bard or thief who needs to get information from the local barman, but I (the player) can't quite think of the right words to say.

There's not just one right answer to these kinds of situations. Lots of approaches work and which one is right is very much dependent on what's fun for the folks at your particular table.

For puzzles, if the players enjoy puzzles, then the players solve them. If they hate them then we do a Int or skill check. Fun trumps aesthetic concerns regarding system and concerns about "why is my barbarian good at logic?"

For RP, speaking in first person is one of the parts of the game I most enjoy, and making what I say irrelevant to resolution sucks the fun right out for me. I'd never ever use a dice roll to resolve social interaction. An approach that I can deal with is for the DM to evaluate how persuasive the player is (1-20) then add skill as a kind of virtual skill check. The solution I actually use is to just roleplay it out and the DM decides what the NPC does. The usual argument of "what about people who are bad at social interaction" doesn't matter to me because I don't play social interaction games with people who can't do social interaction.

With regard to the OP, I find the article very encouraging and hope 5E strongly reflect the thoughts therein.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I have to second the point made upthread, that if we disregard character stats for problem solving & rely on the player instead, then why do combat stats not get the same treatment?

<snip>

At our table?

Everyone agrees that combat is a character challenge rather than a player challenge and that the game will be more fun if we roll dice rather than just make it up as we go.

On the other hand, everyone also agrees that puzzles are player challenges rather than character challenges and the game will be more fun if we make it up as we go rather than rolling dice.

Again, this is our table. From the sound of things, people at your table feel differently and that's fine too. Long as everyone has fun!

Hope that answers your question.

 

[Number48]

When I run that puzzle-room mentioned earlier, the goal is to get everyone at the table excited and working together. As long as there is tense action, it will be fun. And, seriously, the riddle portion of the puzzle is so simple I think everyone at the table will get the answers, not to mention that if you were unsure you can look at the 2 possible solutions...the pillar only has 2 possible end places. Here's one, "7 Men with 7 Axes take 7 Days to chop 7 Trees. How long for 1 Man with 1 Axe to chop 1 Tree?" The only skill part I'm going to actually enforce to a character is language. You have to have the right person with the right language translate the pillar. This is going to drive the half-orc fighter nuts. The player is smart and loves these kind of puzzles. The character is dumb and will be most effective fighting the monsters.

Should I hand the translation only to the actual translator and make them waste time if they want to share the question with everybody? I'm leaning on letting people who aren't in combat talk and listen freely.

The real bastardly question. Should I put in a pillar they cannot translate? Then they would have to guess it's final location, which would be will all the other final ones or by itself in the 3rd track. I'm leaning on doing this, getting them to argue over how it makes sense for A, but then it might be B just to screw with them. Of course, the DM that I am, whichever they choose in that situation will happen to be the right answer.

 

[Rune]

The real bastardly question. Should I put in a pillar they cannot translate?

Yes.