Should PCs be forced to act a certain way because of their stats?

[Janx]

Here's a question which has been on my mind since these threads have cropped up...


Should a smart GM have an advantage?

Would players object to monsters with low mental stats being played with a high level of tactical awareness? For sake of example, let's say the PCs are fighting a group of mindless zombies, and the zombies start to use advanced flanking maneuvers, react to contact with the PCs by adjusting their tactics in response to what the PCs use, and etc.

Another excellent point, that both PCs and NPCs are constraiined/advantaged by the people behind them, not their stats.

if the NPCs are "dumb" then what rules should the GM be following to constrain their tactics and actions.

Just as Hussar would consider it poor play for my 3 INT barbarian to be a tactical genius, that same standard must apply to his monsters.

By what metric might we all follow?

 

[The Shaman]

That sounds like a brilliant mechanic. How does Bravery change over time, if at all?

Experience is measured in gunfights, so each gunfight you survive adds one to your Experience total. Speed and Bravery increase from one-half to three points, up to a maximum of 96 (d% system) after each gunfight. The amount of points received is based on your existing attribute score; frex, if your current score is between 51 and 70, you gain two points, but if its between 71 and 90 you only add one point.

Speed obviously affects speed; Experience increases accuracy; and Bravery increases both speed and accuracy.

 

[LostSoul]

Experience is measured in gunfights, so each gunfight you survive adds one to your Experience total. Speed and Bravery increase from one-half to three points, up to a maximum of 96 (d% system) after each gunfight. The amount of points received is based on your existing attribute score; frex, if your current score is between 51 and 70, you gain two points, but if its between 71 and 90 you only add one point.

Speed obviously affects speed; Experience increases accuracy; and Bravery increases both speed and accuracy.

So you get XP from gunfights, which increases your ability to win gunfights, but when you start out you're not that great because of your bravery, so you don't really want to get into gunfights.

That seems supported by this entry from wikipedia:

Combat could be short and deadly, with death often coming from a single gunshot. Boot Hill had no character levels per se, but attributes could be raised over time, and in no game of Boot Hill do player characters truly have an advantage over non-player characters in strict observation of the rules.​

I can see why it's absolutely essential that a low Bravery score shouldn't limit a player's decisions. The system seems set up to test a player's willingness to accept risk. That could be called... bravery.

 

[Voadam]

Another excellent point, that both PCs and NPCs are constraiined/advantaged by the people behind them, not their stats.

if the NPCs are "dumb" then what rules should the GM be following to constrain their tactics and actions.

Just as Hussar would consider it poor play for my 3 INT barbarian to be a tactical genius, that same standard must apply to his monsters.

By what metric might we all follow?

In 3e D&D?

We know a bit about wolf tactics. Wolves have an intelligence score of 2. Use that as your benchmark. So think of a bunch of standard 8 int orcs' tactics being far superior to the circling, flanking, and hit and run strategies of a wolf pack and you are doing it right RAW.

Your 3 Int PC should be as good as the pack at combat tactics too.

 

[Elf Witch]

Here's a question which has been on my mind since these threads have cropped up...


Should a smart GM have an advantage?

Would players object to monsters with low mental stats being played with a high level of tactical awareness? For sake of example, let's say the PCs are fighting a group of mindless zombies, and the zombies start to use advanced flanking maneuvers, react to contact with the PCs by adjusting their tactics in response to what the PCs use, and etc.

I used to have a DM who is just fantastic when it comes to tactics and strategy. He once told me that he had to really watch himself not to use them when it would not be appropriate like dealing with a bunch of dire rats.

So he was aware that it could be an issue.

I do think that A DM needs to be aware of this and try not to do it. If we noticed it happening we would joke wow has some wizard been doing experiments to make rats smarter. Or something along those lines and he would laugh and stop.

I am okay not great with tactics so I know I don't play my really intelligent NPCs as well as I should but I do make an effort to try and play my NPCs to their stats. Which Is why my intelligent NPCs usually won't fight to the death and my low intelligent NPCs won't be making elaborate traps. I don't usually have zombies hiding and waiting to pounce they sense life and come shambling out with no regard for the consequences.

 

[Dausuul]

In 3e D&D?

We know a bit about wolf tactics. Wolves have an intelligence score of 2. Use that as your benchmark. So think of a bunch of standard 8 int orcs' tactics being far superior to the circling, flanking, and hit and run strategies of a wolf pack and you are doing it right RAW.

Your 3 Int PC should be as good as the pack at combat tactics too.

Except that you can't take an Int 10 human brain, cut away all the "smarter than a wolf" bits, and end up with an Int 2 wolf brain. Brains don't work like that. An Int 2 wolf is a healthy, fully functioning member of the species, but an Int 3 human is suffering from a severe brain trauma or disorder of some kind.

 

[Janx]

Except that you can't take an Int 10 human brain, cut away all the "smarter than a wolf" bits, and end up with an Int 2 wolf brain. Brains don't work like that. An Int 2 wolf is a healthy, fully functioning member of the species, but an Int 3 human is suffering from a severe brain trauma or disorder of some kind.

which might be further evidence that INT isn't measuring what we traditionally equate to IQ.

If all INT represents is really learning, it works fine for wolves vs. 3 INT humans and 10 INT humans.

Once INT models something more complex, you get the problems of defining how INT 3 on a human is a highly malfunctioning entity, whereas its just hunky dory for a dog.

 

[Argyle King]

I'll add to the animal discussion that D&D tends to use Wisdom for animals; apparently Wis is (as far as D&D is concerned with animals) the ability to take in data input and evaluate it. Wolves are also -in the fluff- said to have a pack mentality. So, while one lone wolf may not be as intelligent (per D&D) as one lone PC; the collective group of wolves is able to function together at a level which mimics a higher degree of Int.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I'll add to the animal discussion that D&D tends to use Wisdom for animals; apparently Wis is (as far as D&D is concerned with animals) the ability to take in data input and evaluate it. Wolves are also -in the fluff- said to have a pack mentality. So, while one lone wolf may not be as intelligent (per D&D) as one lone PC; the collective group of wolves is able to function together at a level which mimics a higher degree of Int.

Man too is a social animal.

 

[Argyle King]

Man too is a social animal.

...and I would have no problem with a pack of neanderthals being able to collectively progress to a higher mental stat for the purposes of problem solving.