Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[LostSoul]

So an orb surrounded by a riddled puzzle should be rolled away?.

I wouldn't say should not, not unless we're talking about me in particular. If I was in your game, yes, let's roll it away (or watch me open a book or examine my character sheet).

With someone else in another game? Who knows?

Why not have one roll for combat with monsters having dc and the roll called combat? If a dc disable device check is good enough to tell a rogue how to figure out the puzzle, shouldn't a combat roll be good enough to tell a fighter exactly how to hit and how to kill a monster?

Because that's the kind of puzzle I want.

That's kind of a stretch on the word; let's say challenge instead. I can't go down to the corner store and pick up a book of D&D for 3 bucks and fuddle around with AoOs and Save or Die spells and trying to outsmart the DM and all the particular things common to D&D.

I can do that with word puzzles, riddles, math puzzles, and crosswords.

The one thing I find wrong with d and d is that too much depends on luck, similiar to a lot of traditional american games. Having an adequate puzzle seems to take away from the luck and not emphaise on how well you shoot craps.

A lot of it depends on luck, that's true. But that's only in the moment. A party who has prepared for the upcoming fight, via divinations, then buffing spells, and then stealth for surprise, is going to have a lot less to worry about when the d20s come out. And you've also got all the builds of feats, levels, skills, spells, magic items, etc. to put together before you actually pick up the dice.

 

[Thaniel]

I'll just throw in my $0.02 saying that I love puzzles in d&d games. They are not all (as LostSoul seems to be implying) without in-game reasons. I was playing in a campaign that had a big story arc about tracking down a sort of riddler-guy. It was a great arc and would have been very stupid-feeling if we had all just rolled Int checks to solve the puzzles.

Not to mention puzzles in dungeons that are meant to keep unwanted peoples out. I hate disable device checks for things like that. Disable device should be left to poison needles in door locks and not to grandiose puzzles.

 

[DonTadow]

It seems odd to suggest that someone would put a calculas problem or a jigsaw of a transformer lunch pale in the middle of a d and d game.

It seems that my basic understanding is that dungeons and dragons should focus on combat skills and not the mental skills of a dungeon. It seems that way, most sessons would be npc interaction, clue clue, big monster battle end session? I've heard this argument before, my follow up question would be how many have games/sessions that have little combat?

 

[Umbran]

I told them that some players I think make the misconception that a characters intelligence should equal how smart the character is, when, definitionally, smart is different than intelligence. Whereas intelligence is how much information you retain, smart is how fast you process that information.

I feel your basic premise is flawed. The PHB says, "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." That should cover both how much information they retain (learning) and speed of processing (reasoning).

I don't believe in restricting the character to the player's abilities. One of the joys of gaming is being able to play something you aren't in real life - just as I don't require players to work out to play a strong fighter, I don't think the player needs to be a mental giant to play a wizard.

Which doesn't mean that I never use puzzles that the players need to solve. I merely make sure that the puzzles are such that I can give the more brainy characters hints. I won't use a straight jigsaw puzzle, for example, because it is very difficult to give the smart characters a boost up on them if the player has difficulty.

 

[LostSoul]

They are not all (as LostSoul seems to be implying) without in-game reasons.

I'm not implying that (at least not consciously ). All I'm trying to say is that, when I play D&D, I like my challenges to be of a certain sort. Bilbo's contest with Gollum (or the riddle on the door to Moria) are both types of puzzles that I'm just not interested in, regardless of how well they fit into the game world.

A "whodunit" mystery is an example of an in-game puzzle that I do enjoy. Then I get to Speak with Dead on this guy, Scry on that guy, Locate this Object, Divination about that, Detect some Thoughts along the way, etc.

I guess that, maybe, it comes down to using the D&D mechanics to solve problems. If I'm not using the D&D mechanics, what am I doing there, when I came to the table hoping to play D&D?

 

[DonTadow]

I feel your basic premise is flawed. The PHB says, "Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons." That should cover both how much information they retain (learning) and speed of processing (reasoning).

I don't believe in restricting the character to the player's abilities. One of the joys of gaming is being able to play something you aren't in real life - just as I don't require players to work out to play a strong fighter, I don't think the player needs to be a mental giant to play a wizard.

Which doesn't mean that I never use puzzles that the players need to solve. I merely make sure that the puzzles are such that I can give the more brainy characters hints. I won't use a straight jigsaw puzzle, for example, because it is very difficult to give the smart characters a boost up on them if the player has difficulty.

Actually, reasoning is (according to webster) the ability to come to a logical conclusion. It has little to do with speed of processing. A person may reason well, but may be a slow thinkier. He may be intelligent and a good reasoning person, but does not have the speed of thought to do it, which is being smart. So there is no skill according to the phb that covers being smart. A character can be smart, or quick at figuring things out but not that intelligent. My conclusion is coming also from studies in which some kids do well on standardized tests but horrible in school. A student may not be intelligent at retaining knowledge but may be good as reasoning.

With no skill associated to being smart it has to be assumed that being smart is up to the character. Especially since smart has nothing to do with intelligent. A smart fighter knows the right tactics, a smart wizard knows the right spells, a smart cleric knows the right prayer. These are all decisions made by the player, thus the player's smarts is the characters.

I find it odd that people hate puzzles because they figure that their intelligent wizard should automatially be able to figure them out when having a great understanding of magic has little to do with figuring out a riddle. It would be the equivelent of saying, my character is intelligent he should automatically know how the weak spot of a Bodak.

 

[LostSoul]

In my case, a Bodak is an element of D&D with hit points and saves and all that.

Other puzzles that aren't D&D aren't interesting to me. When I'm playing D&D.

 

[interwyrm]

I'm with you on the puzzles. I like them. I was considering putting a modified sudoku in my campaign, and having wrong guesses have a painful magical effect associated with them. I think just as long as the puzzle doesn't dominate the session, then it's fine.

 

[EdL]

That's all very well, but what about the Player who's lousy at solving puzzles and such? Then, too, there are those times when everyone at the table has a brain fart. At one time, with a group of intelligent/smart players, we spent hours trying to work out a puzzle that we knew we had all the clues to figure out (including a few extra hints that the GM threw in after the first hour), but we finally all gave up in utter frustration. It nearly ended the campain. (Especially after the GM told us what the answer was and we all slapped our heads and chorused "Of course!")

 

[Oryan77]

I don't like "out of game" puzzles present in my D&D games. Only because I go to a D&D session hoping to work out things like "If I cast this spell, then this spell, those guys will be screwed" and "He's a large monster so he'll make Fort saves, but I bet I can get him to fail a Will save" and stuff like that.

If I wanted to have a puzzle night I'd buy a jumbo book of puzzles and puzzle, puzzle away. I want my D&D to be D&D!

I like being able to solve puzzles without just rolling a skill check to do it. If I wanted to just play a tactical combat game I'd play chess. I guess it goes both ways.

I've never liked the argument "I'm not my character, so therefore I should roll for everything". One reason is because people try to simplify intelligence by claiming that an 18 Int Wizard could solve a puzzle when the Highschool dropout player never could. Just because you are booksmart, or a genius in your field, doesn't make you a natural problem solver. Children solve puzzles faster than adults a lot of the time because we tend to over analyze simple things. I also work at Stanford University, and I can tell you that even the best mathemeticians and english majors usually have the common sense of a peanut.

It all just boils down to play styles. Some people don't like puzzles the same way that some people don't like roleplaying. But I prefer for the players to play first and use the mechanics only as a tool for when they are stuck. If their lie blows, they can back it up with a bluff check. If they just can't figure out a riddle themselves, they can back it up with an Int check. I'd rather give them breaks to move forward in the game than sit there for hours while they try to solve things.