Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

< snip >

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.

In my experience, aligning a character's actions with his Int & Wis is very difficult to do well. Figuring something out and not being able to do it because your Int is too low is very frustrating. It may make for high fidelity roleplaying, but it's not much fun.

Having the DM give you the answers can be just as bad. If the DM is telling you that as an experienced tactician you think you should do thus-and-so, then he's playing your character for you. Evaluating the situation and your options and choosing an action is the only thing a player gets to do. If you tell him what his actions should be you're taking that away from him. "Do this." "Okay" "Do that." "Okay" The DM might as well just resolve the combat himself and tell the players how it turned out. Sure you can choose to ignore the DM, but who would do that when it will surely lead to failure?

Giving skilled characters additional informaiton is an acceptable alternative. "From their formation, it looks like the group of orcs is getting ready to attack to the left." or "The look in their eye tells you that they'll break and run if they're attacked again" work. In these cases you're giving the player more information to make the decision, but you're not telling him the answer.

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

We all enjoy using our own minds to some extent. The key to tackling this issue well is to know what your characters like to do and structure the game accordingly. Set things up so that the players make the decisions they want to make and gloss over the rest with dice-rolling and narrative.

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 smart character is stumped" isn't a problem with me. I've known plenty of really smart guys who aren't particularly good at riddles. I don't think the stats model this well. A riddle skill would be much better.

 

[swrushing]

Having the DM give you the answers can be just as bad. If the DM is telling you that as an experienced tactician you think you should do thus-and-so, then he's playing your character for you. Evaluating the situation and your options and choosing an action is the only thing a player gets to do. If you tell him what his actions should be you're taking that away from him. "Do this." "Okay" "Do that." "Okay" The DM might as well just resolve the combat himself and tell the players how it turned out. Sure you can choose to ignore the DM, but who would do that when it will surely lead to failure?

Actually, i disagree.

the key is the Gm doesn't have to tell the player what his character WILL DO, just tell him what his character knows.

if a veteran fighter experienced at fighting orcs is run by an inexperienced player, then telling him things like "well, your character knows the orcs have darkvision and actually have trouble in bright light" after he suggests a nighttime raid is not "running his character" but providing the player with the info his character would have, so he can make in character decisions.

this is much the same as making suggestions about spells, monster stats and such for characters who have that knowledge. is it me running the character if i tell the player running the ranger with favored enemy trolls that "trolls don't regenerate against fire and acid" when he sets forth a plan that fatally ignores this?

Again, NOT TELLING HIM "your characters uses fire and acid" but telling him "your character knows that fire and acid do this and that..."

Whwther its experience at religious canon and approiate behavior, social cusoms and ettiquette, esoteric knowledge or what, i find it not at all infrequent that I as a GM point out "your character would know..." kind of stuff to the players as or after a plan is set. There is a simple reason for this... the player unlike the character, didn't grow up in the environment, didn't spend years training to fight orcs and didn't spend years learning religios dogma and so on and so on.

sure, this happens more for the rookies than the more experienced players, but regardless, it isn't telling them what their character does or taking away their control. Its providing the player with the tools his character has.

IMO

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Actually, i disagree.

the key is the Gm doesn't have to tell the player what his character WILL DO, just tell him what his character knows.

if a veteran fighter experienced at fighting orcs is run by an inexperienced player, then telling him things like "well, your character knows the orcs have darkvision and actually have trouble in bright light" after he suggests a nighttime raid is not "running his character" but providing the player with the info his character would have, so he can make in character decisions.

this is much the same as making suggestions about spells, monster stats and such for characters who have that knowledge. is it me running the character if i tell the player running the ranger with favored enemy trolls that "trolls don't regenerate against fire and acid" when he sets forth a plan that fatally ignores this?

Again, NOT TELLING HIM "your characters uses fire and acid" but telling him "your character knows that fire and acid do this and that..."

Whwther its experience at religious canon and approiate behavior, social cusoms and ettiquette, esoteric knowledge or what, i find it not at all infrequent that I as a GM point out "your character would know..." kind of stuff to the players as or after a plan is set. There is a simple reason for this... the player unlike the character, didn't grow up in the environment, didn't spend years training to fight orcs and didn't spend years learning religios dogma and so on and so on.

sure, this happens more for the rookies than the more experienced players, but regardless, it isn't telling them what their character does or taking away their control. Its providing the player with the tools his character has.

IMO

That's actually kind of what I said.

Giving skilled characters additional informaiton is an acceptable alternative. "From their formation, it looks like the group of orcs is getting ready to attack to the left." or "The look in their eye tells you that they'll break and run if they're attacked again" work. In these cases you're giving the player more information to make the decision, but you're not telling him the answer.

I draw a distinction between providing information and recommending courses of action.

I would tell a player

"your character knows that fire and acid do this and that..."

I wouldn't tell a player

"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."

I think it's important to provide the information before the player makes a decision, so he doesn't metagame "The DM gave me additional info so there must be something wrong with what I want to do"

I think the best approach is to set up decisions so that they don't involve esoteric information that the character would have but not the player. Playing the game is done by players making decisions. Making a decision based on a player's complex knowledge is more challenging (and fun) that stringing together the six facts the DM had time to tell you to come to the relatively obvious solution.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

With Dex and Wisdom, they have created associated skills to further define what you listed. By definition Constitution means pain threshold, endurance and resistance. There is , however, no, solve puzzle skill nor tactical skill check associated with intelligence, thus my original question still stands, if the creators wanted puzzles to be solved with intelligence checks why not make a separate skill for it.

As for Kamikaze. Again Why? I won't list my examples again, but there are many reasons in which the players make decisions for the characters, why not puzzles? There is certainly nothing stoping a player from working ona puzzle as his characters would. And for clarification purposes again I use puzzles as "riddles, puzzles, riddle rooms and mysteries". Why are you saying that puzzles are a role playing wall? which in actually they can spurn more roleplaying than basic combat would, which takes a 2 minute fight and breaks it out to 30 minutes to an hour real time.

I assume in your campaigns the sessions are straight forward as an intelligence check is rolled to figure out the plot?

Reading Further along-- The problem becomes is the player playing dungeons and dragons or is the character playing it. Limiting players options and stopping players from making bad decisions (because his character wouldn't do that) limits the free will of the player to do his character as he wishes. Giving a player information about whath e notices on the battlefield is one thing but I would never suggest tactical maneuvers or suggest his spell list.

 

[swrushing]

Reading Further along-- The problem becomes is the player playing dungeons and dragons or is the character playing it. Limiting players options and stopping players from making bad decisions (because his character wouldn't do that) limits the free will of the player to do his character as he wishes. Giving a player information about whath e notices on the battlefield is one thing but I would never suggest tactical maneuvers or suggest his spell list.

The player is playing DnD, not the character.
The character is making decisions in a fantasy world while the player has only partial knowledge of both the sum of the character's experiences and thw world around him.But the huge disconnect i see in your statement is the apparent lack of a wide chasm between "limiting players options and stopping players from making bad decisions" and your examples of "suggest tactical maneuvers or suggest his spell list".

See, "limit" and "stop" are not "suggest" and not even close to the same thing.

if PCs knew they were going up against incorporeal creatures, and the character had the right knowledge skills and spellcraft, I might very well SUGGEST when he told me his spell list he consider magic missile or other force spells, or at least point out the force spell vs incorporeal advantage. Neither is limiting his choices or stopping him from proceeding without them, merely bringing to the player's mind an important fact the character would know.

Similarly, i might suggest or at least remind the player of the benefits of flanking, especially if he has sneak attack.

usually, things like this are more frequently going to come about when a novice is playing, as veterans more readily know these things, but thats how a novice can learn.

the veteran is more likely to need these for setting info, perhaps even cases where "the way we used to do it" in his other games differs from yours. maybe in his other game, followers of cuthbert were more rabidly anti-evil than in my game and he is making incorrect assumptions about them due to faulty player knowledge.

 

[Henry]

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.
[SNIP]
I've never had any complaints.

NCSUCodeMonkey

That's because you figured those SWEET FANTASTIC KICK-BUTT rules to puzzles out. Your puzzles are fun - I've seen 'em!

DonTadow, I'm all for putting a puzzle or three in-game, but I'm also for making sure that players get a small moment to shine whenever possible in any game. If the situation is exactly how you describe it (only one real complaint, and another upset because the husband was upset), then that's not bad at all; someone's going to not get their "fix" occasionally, and as long as he gets his chance to shine later, then that's cool.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

And this is why we have more than one mental ability score. Int is book learnin', which could include chess mastery or logic puzzles, but not necessarily. Wis is insight, perception, and common sense, and probably includes a healthy dose of "thinking outside the box," where the box consists of the various Int-based tasks.

 

[DonTadow]

That's because you figured those SWEET FANTASTIC KICK-BUTT rules to puzzles out. Your puzzles are fun - I've seen 'em!

DonTadow, I'm all for putting a puzzle or three in-game, but I'm also for making sure that players get a small moment to shine whenever possible in any game. If the situation is exactly how you describe it (only one real complaint, and another upset because the husband was upset), then that's not bad at all; someone's going to not get their "fix" occasionally, and as long as he gets his chance to shine later, then that's cool.

In all honesty, it could have been 4 negative complaints compared to the last email I just received in which a player of 14 years called it their best dungeons and dragons session ever. That really made me feel great as a dm considering i took a big risk. I was sort of regretting not breaking out the fight with the beholder but feel more assured that it was a good decision. The email broke down the monsters in my last 3 sessions (before this one) . 20 duergars, 10 clockwork constructs, 2 iron golems, "chaotic mass", rogue warforged, super iron golem with time bomb, party member warforged, 7 drow in 2 in game days. The player noted that he was combatted out and was relieved to have a twisted town to interact with without having to fight anyone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, you're obviously doing what's right for your group as a whole. So don't let us abstractionists stop ya.

But:

As for Kamikaze. Again Why? I won't list my examples again, but there are many reasons in which the players make decisions for the characters, why not puzzles? There is certainly nothing stoping a player from working ona puzzle as his characters would. And for clarification purposes again I use puzzles as "riddles, puzzles, riddle rooms and mysteries". Why are you saying that puzzles are a role playing wall? which in actually they can spurn more roleplaying than basic combat would, which takes a 2 minute fight and breaks it out to 30 minutes to an hour real time.

What, exactly, are you defining roleplaying as? Because I'm defining it as acting out a fictional character. You know, playing a role. In that case, combat enables them to play a role, to be a character who beats up bad guys and saves the day and makes evil cower, to be a star in their own way. Whether it's by blasting fireballs or by single duelist combat, it enables the playing of a role.

Puzzles don't. Not when they're not testing the *role's* knowledge, but the player's. What the player knows about the situation doesn't matter. The player isn't in a fantasy world. The player can't fight orcs in real life. The player doesn't have to save princesses from dragons -- he has to act out a role that would. The player's ability to solve puzzles doesn't matter any more than the player's ability to run a race, bench press 150, or fight your dog. His character should still be able to run fast, be strong, beat up wolves, and solve puzzles.

If you make the player figure out a puzzle, he's not playing a role anymore. He's not playing a role-playing game, just a mindgame, just a trick. Just like if you make a player run a race to win initiative, he's no longer playing a role, he's running a race. Those can be fun in their own way, but they have nothing to do with being a sword-swinging dragon slayer in a fantasy world. They remove the level of abstraction -- suddenly, your character's genius in puzzles and mindgames is dependant on your own. And it never should be, in my view. I mean, it's obviously working for you, so good, but the opposite opinion shouldn't shock you. People don't want their role's abilities to depend on their own. Just because *I* can't fly doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to play a flying monkey.

Rolls, advice, in-character analysis....these things keep the barrier between character and player, and so don't wind up making the bard actually sing a song to help his party.Because it doesn't matter how well Ed sings, and it doesn't matter what kind of smarts Julie has. It matters how well Ed's half-elf bard sings, and it matters what kind of smarts Julie's puzzle-loving halfling has. And that demands abstraction -- challenging the characters (and through the characters, the players who make choices for them), not just challenging the players while ignoring the characters.

Making them solve a puzzle is like making them run a race -- it challenges the players, but it means they're no longer playing a role. Thus, it hurts role playing.

 

[Voadam]

What, exactly, are you defining roleplaying as? Because I'm defining it as acting out a fictional character. You know, playing a role.

I'm with you here.

In that case, combat enables them to play a role, to be a character who beats up bad guys and saves the day and makes evil cower, to be a star in their own way. Whether it's by blasting fireballs or by single duelist combat, it enables the playing of a role.

Here we diverge. Combat and spellcasting mechanics are task resolutions in an RPG for things that cannot be roleplayed in a tabletop game.

While rolling initiative and attacks and saves, it is more like a war game where your army is one person. When you shout out exclamations or make sample gestures in the combat, perosnally acting out the role, you are roleplaying during the combat.

Using mechanics is not roleplaying. Playing the role is. Playing the character as a video game icon to be directed is a step removed from actually roleplaying the character.