Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DonTadow" data-source="post: 2690525" data-attributes="member: 22622">Last night I had one of several combatless sessions I've had in my two year campaign.  However, this one was different.  I borrowed a large town from the Cloud Kingdom's riddle book.  The town was set up so that every npc gave yo ua clue and had chores they needed done based on the clues.  All of the npcs were fleshed out so that there were plenty of role playing opportunities.  However, after the session two players (the same two whom claimed I baited them) told me that they felt that the lack of combat and the emphasis on puzzles made the game more about the players than the characters. HOwever, other players in the game saw great role playing moments after interacting with the npcs and not just treating them as pieces of a puzzle.  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.  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.  What do you think about this as well as smarts vs. intelligence.?</blockquote>

Verification