Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[DonTadow]

If we were debating the nature of Intelligence this would be a useful starting point, but we are playing a game and in that game Intelligence has a specific definition that overrides the dictionary definition. Specifically:
Notice that is says nothing about speed of reasoning, only how WELL. A high int character can logically deduce (i.e. reason) better than a low int character. An Int 18 Wizard may be book-smarter than the rest of the party, he may not be. But when solving a logic puzzle, there are puzzles the Int 6 fighter will NEVER solve, that the Int 18 wizard will solve with a little effort. Logic puzzles that are not at some level based on Int checks defy the "rules" of the game. I'm not saying you just say "You enter a room give me an Int check. Okay, Bill got a 25 so you defeat the puzzle." But the players of high Int characters should be given hints or skill checks that will help them play their role correctly.

Personally, I find this debate interesting when cross-compared to the "help in combat" debate: do you allow other players to give advice the currently active player in combat? If mister knowledge (warfare) is making a blunder of Napoleanic proportion, do you let the character playing the wizard point out his error and allow the fighter to change his course of action? If you don't think player Intelligence should influence in game actions then the wizard's player becomes a line of reasoning in the fighter's head that comes to him at the last second before he commits a tactical blunder.

On the third hand, both of these concepts play upon the meta-concept of the social contract that brings the players and DM to the table. And no one answer will satisfy all.

The naysayers whom hate puzzles seem to prove my point about their being a difference between intelligence and the ability to solve puzzles. A lot of people have said they are not good at puzzles and yet count themselves was intelligent people. Why is intelligence the only ability that sums up three or four completely different skills. Speed of thought is different reasoning whic his different from capcity of knowledge.. All of the intelligenent responses of people whom are not good at puzzles prooves the diference. Thus is is very much possible for a character to have a high intelligence in a fantasy game and not be any good at puzzle solving without breaking away from the mythos that you are in character . The point my first ttatment is arguying is not whether puzzlees are good or ba. That is a subjective quewstion, but rather it is possible to still be in character and solve a puzzle in teh game. . I still fail to sumize how a puzzle stops role playing?

 

[fusangite]

I still fail to sumize how a puzzle stops role playing?

You just haven't had the right bad puzzle experience yet. There are puzzles that directly attack suspension of disbelief, like warmed-over word jumbles or crossword puzzles in worlds where it has already been established that the language the characters are speaking is nothing like English. Or puzzles that require you to read a 600-page book written by a 19th century Prussian in order to figure out what a set of animal totem symbols mean in a puzzle.

Nevertheless, I agree with you generally Don. Nobody in favour of unfettered Int rolls to figure out everything difficult would go so far as to say that such a roll would entitle the player to have the DM suggest the most effective action in combat. In your campaign, puzzles cannot be handwaived; but I wouldn't have any big difficulty with a campaign that had a different policy.

The last time there was a puzzle in the campaign I'm in, three of the five players walked out. But this doesn't illustrate that puzzles are bad, just that it's tough to find a group who is into the same puzzles as the GM wants to set.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Or puzzles that require you to read a 600-page book written by a 19th century Prussian in order to figure out what a set of animal totem symbols mean in a puzzle.

Oh, Myst!

-Hyp.

 

[ThirdWizard]

A lot of people have said they are not good at puzzles and yet count themselves was intelligent people.

As for myself, I'm not bad at puzzles, I just hate them. Well, I'm bad at writing them, too, but that's neither here nor there. It's like if I found myself in a hack and slash adventure. Boring. Just be aware that some Players really dislike puzzles.

As for puzzles and roleplaying. Puzzles are the antithesis of roleplaying. You stop thinking "what would my character do" as you would in NPC interactions or in combat, and you think "what is the answer to this riddle?" You cease thinking in terms of D&D, moving away from your character, to a more abstract, real world, "what do I think about this?"

Fusangite wins worst puzzle DM ever, though.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Wow, I'm kind of surprised, really. I would've thought that more people enjoy puzzles in their game. It took me a really long time to figure out how to design and execute successful puzzles, but I've discovered some basic truths.

1. Keep it simple. Really, really, really, really simple.
2. GIve the PCs skill checks to give them hints or tools that make the puzzle easier.
3. Not all puzzles have to be !@#$ing riddles! Things like putting on a play, designing a simple machine, etc. all make great puzzles.

I've never had any complaints.

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[The Sigil]

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. Considering there is no stat for a characters (smartness) characters use their players smarts (knowing when to make a search check, figuring out that bullrushing the direboar into the pit is the best method to use,). My argument was, if smart equals intelligence in dungeons and dragons, their would be no use for tactics, in game traps or mazes in the game. I think players have and always will use their own smarts when playing their character.

Disagree. A *player* with, say, a 15 Intelligence should not play his 3 Intelligence barbarian CHARACTER as a master tactician. Conversely, a player with a 3 Intelligence playing an 18-Intelligence wizard should not make repeated uninformed decisions.

Intelligence in D&D is defined as (a) raw knowledge of facts and (b) knowledge of theory. Wisdom is defined more as (a) resisting influence of outside world and (b) applying theory to practical real-world use.

So "smarts" as you put it lies somewhere between Intelligence and theory. IMO, Intelligence would give the player a knowledge of a ton of different tactics. Wisdom would give the character the ability to select the "correct" tactic from the list his Intelligence provided.

There needs to be some sort of interact between a player's smarts and a character's smarts, but if you let the players' Intelligence substitute for the characters' Intelligence, Int becomes a "dump stat by and large. Someone mentioned this in a paladin thread, but as a DM, you need to marry the character's attributes to the right answer. This is the classic example of ability score checks.

If the player is a brilliant tactician, but the character is dumb as a box of rocks, the player should have to have the character succeed an Intelligence/Wisdom check (possibly both) before he is allowed to present the tactics. Similarly, when the player is playing a high-Int/Wis character but can't come up with the solution, you as the DM need to ALREADY KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER and if he can come up with an Int/Wis ability check, YOU SHOULD GIVE HIM THE ANSWER.

Some players enjoy using their own minds. If they do, use your method.

If they don't, or if they can't stomach the fact that their 22-Int, 22-Wis guy can't figure out a simple riddle just because they can't (which DOES strain suspension of disbelief), you really need to start going the ability check route and preparing yourself to give them the answers. D&D isn't "stump the players" - it's "have fun."

The players also complained that the lack of combat or any adventuring took away from the role playing of the game. My theory is that role playing is what you make it.

Here, I agree with you, but again, even before Rule 0, the #negative one rule of D&D make sure you're all having fun (maybe not every second - e.g., character death is rarely fun, but on aggregate, are your players and you having fun and a sense of accomplishment? If not, you're gonna be looking for new players soon...)

 

[The Sigil]

All of the intelligenent responses of people whom are not good at puzzles prooves the diference. Thus is is very much possible for a character to have a high intelligence in a fantasy game and not be any good at puzzle solving without breaking away from the mythos that you are in character.

Again, require two checks. The first check is the Int check (or Knowledge check) to see if the character knows the trivia or can recognize the pattern inherent in the puzzle; i.e., to see if his mind holds the key at all. The second check is the Wis check, which allows him to realize he HAS the key and then apply it to the puzzle (thereby solving it).

Again, D&D is NOT "stump the players." The players should be expected to make a reasonable attempt at the puzzle. If they make an attempt, but play bogs down, and they're all sitting there frustrated, you need to start throwing Int/Wis checks to move the game along.

And if puzzles just "aren't what they want" then you need to have a talk about what you - and they - want out of the campaign to make sure you're on the same page.

Keep in mind that a puzzle can look like this to the players:
"I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"Five."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"Sixty-Nine, dude!"
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"42."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"Seventeen."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
*sigh* "e to the i pi"
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
*screams*

At this point, you need to roll the dice and say, "The number I'm thinking of has to do with the sentence I am giving you. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
(players take 30 seconds to count words in sentence) "Sixteen."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
(players take 2 minutes to count letters in sentence) "Sixty Five."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
*SCREAM*

(Roll, roll). "Try performing arithmetic operations on vowels and consonants. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Put yourself in their shoes.

Or better yet, it could look like:
"I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"I want to kill some orcs."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."
"Dude, I had a long day at work, and right now I want some mindless violence. Let's kill some orcs."
"Wrong. I'm thinking of a number, and you can't go any further until you've figured it out."

This is really a social question (your group vs your dynamics and expectations), not a gameplay style question.

--The Sigil

 

[fusangite]

Disagree. A *player* with, say, a 15 Intelligence should not play his 3 Intelligence barbarian CHARACTER as a master tactician.

But if the Barbarian intuitively does this stuff without comprehending it on an intellecutal level, why can't Dexterity or Wisdom fill in here? The idea of the "seven intelligences" is not totally stupid here. There are lots of ways of knowing the same thing; only some are intellectual. Some people "know" a language without being able to tell you any of the rules of its grammar and structure (even though they apply them perfectly) while others can only learn a language by intellectually comprehending these rules. To me, this is why D&D has between 2 and 4 primary attributes representing kinds of intelligence.

Conversely, a player with a 3 Intelligence playing an 18-Intelligence wizard should not make repeated uninformed decisions.

But they can still be wrong easily. Speaking as a guy with a pretty high D&D-type intelligence, in most situations it's not much of a decision-making aid.

Intelligence in D&D is defined as (a) raw knowledge of facts and (b) knowledge of theory.

I can't actually tell from the rules whether Int is what you know or the capacity to learn or some combination of the two. Knowledge and intelligence are pretty different things; and D&D Int seems to be some uncomfortable hybrid of the two.

Wisdom is defined more as (a) resisting influence of outside world and (b) applying theory to practical real-world use.

Don't forget spatial relations, which it shares with Dex and intuition (which can be interpreted either as a kind of link to the collective unconscious or simply a link to one's own unconscious knowledge depending on one's theory of the universe).

So "smarts" as you put it lies somewhere between Intelligence and theory.

Before you limit it to that, look at Dex and Cha. Also, whether there are 2 or 4 "intelligences" in D&D, does this mean all character intelligence is represented here or is some, indeed, received unmediated from the player or subject to DM fiat?

IMO, Intelligence would give the player a knowledge of a ton of different tactics. Wisdom would give the character the ability to select the "correct" tactic from the list his Intelligence provided.

Or maybe Int is the neocortex and Wis is the limbic system. (This is my personal favourite.) But I really don't buy that a 1st level human rogue with an 18 Int who has 36 skill points has the same amount of knowledge as the same rogue at 3rd level with 54 skill points. It seems to me that skill points more closely approximate raw knowledge than Int points.

However, as to your general point, I agree that which intellectual tasks can be substituted with Skill/Ability checks is a pretty clear case of Rule 0.

 

[swrushing]

Why is intelligence the only ability that sums up three or four completely different skills.

uhhh...

dexterity... agility, hand-eye-coordination, quicknessm, balance etc...
wisdom... awareness, empathy, strength of mind or resistance, etc...
constitution... pain threshold, endurance, resistance to disease etc...

int is not the only of six attribute that wears many hats.

thats the nature of an abstract system that uses only six traits to describe "natural aptitude" of a creature... each will cover multiple things.

this is in part why i wouldn't even begin to try and make "knowledge" and "smarts" separate game elements and to parse the intelligence attribute that finely.

Now iirc other games have increase the attributes, splitting intelligence into specific subcategories like education, memory, wits (speed of thought/perception) and so forth. Looking into how those worked might be a good start.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So the player picks the right armor, figures out the right spells and selects when to bullrush, but we "pretend" its the character despite the fact that no roll nor skill attribute to these tactics. However, whenever someone mentions some type of puzzle people scream its the players doing it. Despite the fact that the puzzle is a legit puzzle conserning the dungeon. Despite the fact that the characters receive clues on the puzzles previously. Despite the fact that the characters are in the room with the puzzle, riddle or clue and theres no realistic stat to equivilate a character realy solving the puzzle. Again, tis the same of settling killing a monster to one roll. Dungeons= puzzles/ Dragons= monsters

There can be a roll. Heck, if someone playing a vetran fighter decides on a poor tactic, I might just outright tell them: "Your knowledge and experience fighting orcs lets you know that sending in the halfling wizard to arm wrestle them might not be the best idea." An Intelligence check gives tactical information...Knowledge checks, for instance Knowlede (tactics), Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (military history)....allowing such characters to make checks is entirely in the realm of possibility.

Similarly, if somone played a dimwitted barbarian pawn, I'd be remiss if I didn't say "Hey, analysis of the strength of the beams supporting the floor probably is beyond your limited genius, Ug. Try again."

Because the enjoyment of the game, for my players, depends on playing a role, being a character, and interacting with a world. Not on trying to figure out what's going on in my head.

Kamikaze. You claim my thesis has no merit, and is not based on the context of teh game. But the game relys on literal meanings of all words it does not define within its context. There is no context for being smart. It can be derived from the use of devising tactics that the character's smarts is the players smarts. There are alraedy instances in the game where you use your smarts because you could not possibly use a characters.

Your statement is kind of silly. I presented a fact from a non-fictinonal reference material used to determine the meaning of words and you equivilated it to an assumption based on a series of fictional horror movies.

I'm not sure where I referenced fictional horror movies, buuuuuuuuut....

Your reference material is irrelevant. If I make the players figure out a puzzle, I may as well make them run a race to determine initiative, or actually fight each other to determine the outcome of a fight. Abstraction enables imagination, which is where the playing of D&D as a game lies -- it is a game of chance and imagination, primarily not a game of puzzles. You can introduce puzzles if you'd like, just like you can make you players actually pick a lock to pick a lock. Or actually crawl through your house and fight your dog to raid the dungeon. But it's hardly revolutionary to ask that their fictional characters interact with the fictional world in an abstracted sense.