Should Wizardry Require Player Intelligence?

[Ruin Explorer]

IQ tests don't measure intelligence. They measure your ability to take IQ tests.

Exactly. If they measured intelligence, I'd be incredibly smart, like so smart. And I know I'm not, I'm genuinely kind of an idiot in most ways. But I sure as hell test like a genius (or to be specific, a few points below that). #humblebrag but genuinely never forget I'm mostly an idiot.

On topic, I had a player who, in 1992, suggested that we eliminate using mental stats in D&D, and that we base player characters INT stats on the first two digits of our IQ test results (as posh schoolkids going to a very science-y public school, which is like the posher version of a private school, we'd all taken such, and not to be confused with a state school, which the free kind of school in the UK), and everyone assesses everyone else's CHA and WIS and we vote on what numbers people should have. When we uniformly gave him 8 CHA (he thought 16 was more appropriate) he said this system required deeper consideration and would get back to us.

 

[Count_Zero]

That's kind of pessimistic. I'd say that the best outcome is that the wizard player feels more challenge, more involved, in the spell-creation process, and the other players feel some vicarious excitement while hoping the wizard creates something that will help all allies. And maybe not risk blowing someone up. Unfortunately, I haven't played Ars Magica (yet), so I don't know what those players experience, watching spells get whipped up at the table.

The thing is, what you want to have happen in play, in the situation where the player is casting the spell (for this example, in combat), is for the GM to come to the player, ask them what their action is, the player responds, and then we quickly resolve.

Even in Deadlands, with the Huckster's poker hand rules, at the start of combat in general, or the combat round in particular, the player can shuffle their deck of cards, and then when casting the spell deal the relevant number of cards and then use a poker hand progression cheat sheet to quickly put together either the best hand, or the hand for the spell effect the situation requires - which can be resolved in probably less than a minute.

On the other hand, if the GM slides a random Sudoku puzzle or tosses a Rubiks cube across the table, that could take significantly more time, at which time either the rest of the players are waiting (and getting bored), or the spellcaster's player is not only functionally out of combat - but by the time they've completed the puzzle, the situation has changed to such a degree that the declared action is no longer applicable, and potentially might even endanger party members. In either situation, you're punishing the group with boredom, or you're punishing a player with frustration, or both.

 

[GMMichael]

The thing is, what you want to have happen in play, in the situation where the player is casting the spell (for this example, in combat), is for the GM to come to the player, ask them what their action is, the player responds, and then we quickly resolve.

This isn't quick, but it's still awesome (magic starts halfway through):

On the other hand, if the GM slides a random Sudoku puzzle or tosses a Rubiks cube across the table, that could take significantly more time, at which time either the rest of the players are waiting (and getting bored), or the spellcaster's player is not only functionally out of combat - but by the time they've completed the puzzle, the situation has changed to such a degree that the declared action is no longer applicable, and potentially might even endanger party members. In either situation, you're punishing the group with boredom, or you're punishing a player with frustration, or both.

Rubik's would be pretty cool if it was, "get 5 yellows on one side. Go!" But anyway, I don't know what game you're playing that says, "no players may be entertained if it's not their turns" (although I have a guess), but the OP example gives a PC who starts acting on his/her turn and continues casting during other turns. So I don't see where the boredom is coming from.

 

[Gradine]

Honestly, at least with the earliest ones, a smart player is going to have more trouble than someone using a walkthrough. Hell, Wizardry IV makes it extremely difficult to leave the first room

 

[MNblockhead]

GM: Stephen, you're up.
SH: I c a s t m a g i c m i s s i l e .
GM: And?
SH: O h s o r r y . I d i d n ' t c a l c u l a t e t h e f l u x c a p a c i t a t i o n y e t .
GM: No problem. Everyone, Stephen's wizard starts casting a spell. Stephen, let me know when you're ready. Gronk, you're up next . . .

Is magic very magical when you order it from a picture menu like you're at McDonald's? What if you had to do some thinking while your character was weaving magical energies? I assume Ars Magica magic is like this. The whole book was too smart for me; I could only figure out about ten pages. Lots of other games have rules above and beyond "swing and damage" for spells, so there's a good bit of precedent for spells-as-player-challenges.

I realize that us nerds are up to the challenge. But is a magic puzzle a good way to make things feel magical? Should players of brainy characters be rewarded for doing something brainy, like seeing a magical effect happen after navigating a geometric puzzle? Would this just make barbarians more attractive for players like Gronk?

[Is reminded of attempt to run MAGE: The Ascension]
[Shudders]
[Wimpers]
Please. No.

 

[MNblockhead]

Honestly I think every role should have the potential for god-brain tactics and also beer-and-pretzel play. There should be room for spellcasters that just press the Eldritch Blast button over and over again, and spellcasters who have calculated how to cast three fireballs in the perfect geometric pattern to hit all the enemies and avoid all their allies.

But I think the same should apply to combat classes too. There's no reason an "intelligent player" can't play a Barbarian tactically.

Gronk: I RAGE!

DM: Ah, so you wish to rage—but tell me, why? What buried childhood trauma has shaped this volcanic fury within you? Is it the echoes of an absent father’s disapproval, the sting of childhood mockery, or the gnawing void of unmet affection? Your anger is not mere mechanics; it is the symptom of a deeper wound, a mask for pain unprocessed. So before you roll those dice, tell me—what truly fuels your barbarian’s wrath?

Player: ... uh ....

DM: No problem, take your time. Everyone, Gronk starts turning red in the face. Gronk, let me know when you're ready. Stephen, is your wizard ready to cast?

[Gronk pile drives the DM onto the snack table.]

DM (groaning from beneath a pile of crushed chips and spilled soda): "Right. Gronk rages. Roll your attacks."

 

[Count_Zero]

This isn't quick, but it's still awesome (magic starts halfway through):


Rubik's would be pretty cool if it was, "get 5 yellows on one side. Go!" But anyway, I don't know what game you're playing that says, "no players may be entertained if it's not their turns" (although I have a guess), but the OP example gives a PC who starts acting on his/her turn and continues casting during other turns. So I don't see where the boredom is coming from.

Oh, players can find ways to entertain themselves when it's not their turn. Normally they're paying attention to what the active player is doing and planning their next action. That's ideally what they should be doing - keeping the flow of the game going.

On the other side of things, they can have side conversations that are unrelated to the game (what shows they're watching, books they're reading, etc.). They can fiddle with their phones. They can stack dice. All of those things are taking them out of the game, and are breaking the rhythm of play. It's like taking the problem that so many cyberpunk tabletop games have of wanting to make Netrunning/Decking feel like Neuromancer, but in the process adding a bunch of systems that grinds play to a halt - except it's bring tacked on to a something that you'd previously resolve in 2 dice rolls.

 

[John Dallman]

Oh, players can find ways to entertain themselves when it's not their turn. Normally they're paying attention to what the active player is doing and planning their next action. That's ideally what they should be doing - keeping the flow of the game going.

That's why players of characters who tend to get solo scenes, such as stealthy infiltrators, really need to work at sharing the tension around. Stream-of-consciousness commentary works fairly well.

 

[Count_Zero]

That's why players of characters who tend to get solo scenes, such as stealthy infiltrators, really need to work at sharing the tension around. Stream-of-consciousness commentary works fairly well.

Agreed, at least with Netrunners/Deckers/Hackers, the GM can arrange things so the rest of the party is doing something while the Decker is also doing their thing. Decker has the objectives to put a loop on the security camera and get to the controls for the computerized lock for a door they need to get through - you deal with the loop part at the beginning, and then while the players are making their way through the facility, the Decker makes their way through the network, and maybe hoovers up some extra pay data along the way. Everyone has something to do.

That's very different from making the wizard do a sudoku to cast "Fireball".