Should Wizardry Require Player Intelligence?

[John Dallman]

No, it shouldn't require lots of player intelligence. Having mechanics that allow it to be more fun for intelligent players is fine.

The best example of this which I've played is GURPS Thaumatology: Ritual Path Magic. Designing spells for this on the fly requires (a) thinking of concepts quickly (b) some table lookups and (c) some addition and multiplication to get the cost. Optimising for low cost is very important, but can be done in the concept and lookup stages.

I found that with some practice and a crib-sheet that put all the tables on one page, I could design the perfect low-powered spell for a situation in a few seconds, which made the PC's lives easier and gave the GM more margin for error in encounter design.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Ah, faith. It's for a different thread, but I've always thought that cleric PCs should have faith in the GM and their own actions when trusting that their deity of choice will deem them worthy of magical effects.

I don’t even know what you’re saying here. Do you really run a game in which you give the wizard player, and apparently ONLY the wizard player, real-world intelligence tests to be allowed to play the game?

That’s a choice, I guess.

I was pointing out other tests you could give to other players. I think it would actually be really funny to bring in a doctor of divinity to test the cleric player’s faith and ability to explain complex theological topics, before we allow the cleric CHARACTER to cast augury.

 

[aco175]

I was pointing out other tests you could give to other players. I think it would actually be really funny to bring in a doctor of divinity to test the cleric player’s faith and ability to explain complex theological topics, before we allow the cleric CHARACTER to cast augury.

This will do the trick.

 

[payn]

I don’t even know what you’re saying here. Do you really run a game in which you give the wizard player, and apparently ONLY the wizard player, real-world intelligence tests to be allowed to play the game?

That’s a choice, I guess.

I was pointing out other tests you could give to other players. I think it would actually be really funny to bring in a doctor of divinity to test the cleric player’s faith and ability to explain complex theological topics, before we allow the cleric CHARACTER to cast augury.

Push ups challenge thread for fighter in coming.

 

[GMMichael]

I don’t even know what you’re saying here. Do you really run a game in which you give the wizard player, and apparently ONLY the wizard player, real-world intelligence tests to be allowed to play the game?

You might want to re-read the original post.

This will do the trick.

That would be kind of awesome. But terribly slow for combat magic. Digression: should wizards even use combat magic? It might be best left to the battle mages . . .

Resource-management-heavy and variably-configurable classes like wizards are already harder to play. Adding some kind of meta-game mental-overhead tax to that is both unfair and unfun.

That's hard to address without a specific game reference, but if wizards require heavy resource management and variable configurations, doesn't that mean that intelligence is already required to play wizards?

 

[Oryzarius]

If wizards require heavy resource management and variable configurations, doesn't that mean that intelligence is already required to play wizards?

Yes; which is why additional mechanics are unnecessary, and why organizational or procedural support might be beneficial for players who are not naturally gifted with those particular neurological traits.

 

[sevenbastard]

Push ups challenge thread for fighter in coming.

Burpies. If we are going to do it let's do it right.

 

[delericho]

Ideally, I'd prefer to see all options: a 'simple' wizard for people who just want to play, a 'complex' wizard for those for whom the challenge is part of the point (and 'simple' and 'complex' fighters, rogues, etc).

That is, I'd rather player intelligence not be required to play a wizard (or any other character type), but I'd also like it to be supported.

(Back in 3e I had a player whose character was an artificer and who spent hours on a spreadsheet working out magic item crafting. For that player, the complexity was part of the point. And, as I've mentioned before on another thread, another guy of my acquaintance bounced off 5e hard because it just couldn't hit his required level of complexity.)

 

[Count_Zero]

Is it, though? Alien: Isolation makes the video game player solve a shape-matching puzzle to unlock doors. It tells the player, "you can't just press a key to solve this." There's a (small) feeling of earning it. Can you see that working in a Discursive RPG?

Alien Isolation is a video game you're playing by yourself, a single player, not a game you're playing collaboratively around a table with other people. If you require a player whose character is casting a spell to have to solve a puzzle during a journaling game, that's one thing, but a group TTRPG, whether it's D&D or Mage: The Awakening or Ars Magica, at best it slows down play. At worst, it undercuts the game's mechanics - which it would do in a Powered by Apocalypse/Forged in the Dark game.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, so wizardry should require player wisdom instead?

If yes, I'm doomed.