D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[TwoSix]

How did you determine the character lacks means to produce eye lasers? I doesn't say in the rules they can't.

Generally understood social contract as to the theme and setting of play; understanding of tropes applicable to the theme and setting, and whim, in general order of importance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This doesn't represent the argument of your opposition in this thread. The argument actually being made neither completely nor even partially discounts character generation as meaningful declaration by the player.

With respect to what you've written above, the argument being made states:

1) Ability score (modifier...which is what is relevant unless we're talking AD&D NWPs and rolling under score) is only one input to the player's process of determining action declarations at the table.

2) Ability score (modifier...which is what is relevant unless we're talking AD&D NWPs and rolling under score) is only one input to action resolution.

3) In systems that have a multitude of PC build components, PC flags, reward cycles (which may incentivize action declarations which end in complications or player intent unrealized...such as Inspiration for a Flaw in 5e or xp in Burning Wheel and Powered By the Apocalypse systems), specific play agendas (push play toward conflict, test your beliefs, play to find out what happens), and GMing techniques (such as Fail Forward), there will be several other inputs that can serve as the primary signal for how play outcomes are realized at the table (the totality of which generate archetype, genre coherence, and story).

4) The fickleness of Social Contract (not intra-table, but across the spectrum of TTRPG tables) is not insignificant. This is on display in every thread ever posted in the history of RPG forums.

I respectfully disagree. permerton is on record saying that character stats are completely divorced from action declarations. He's been consistent, as has Iserth, that the ability score is not an input at all to action declarations, nor is is an input to action resolution except in the case of a called for check, at which time it's only input is the ability modifier. 1) and 2) above are not indicated.

I actually like your construction above. It's pretty close to how I actually do things. I don't expect, for instance, a 5 INT character to always be slow, just that the representation is mostly true to whatever agreed upon limitation the player and GM work out for how that stat will affect play. I also like 4), as it's very true that the social contract is wildly varying across the whole of the hobby.

I've said it before, all of my posts have an implied IMO, and should be taken as statements of my preferences and not statements of dictation to others on how they play. I enjoy discussion and even argument about those preferences, as it's quite often helped shaped or changes those preferences and I believe a good bracing argument where you defend your position is a great way to test the underlying assumptions of that position and see if you still think that. However, this doesn't hold true for bad logic, and those comments are directly to correcting people who are wrong on the internet. As I've also said, it's a character flaw.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Generally understood social contract as to the theme and setting of play; understanding of tropes applicable to the theme and setting, and whim, in general order of importance.

And how it that different from an expectation that a low INT shouldn't be played as a genius?

 

[iserith]

So it's a matter of semantics? I could just say, 'You attempt the action, but your character's lack of wit means you turn the dial to something else," and this would be fine by you? I mean, you're fine narrating that a player can't shoot beams out of their eyes, but you won't stop them from trying. How is that functionally different from saying 'you try to turn the dial to 'S', but your slow wit means you forget your goal halfway through and you end up on 'T'.' Is this really just a semantics argument?

As I have asked you repeatedly: Is there something physically preventing the character from turning the dial to "S?" You're trying to insert some kind of intermediate step where you test if the character can think of the correct answer when the specific action declaration the player made has nothing to do with that. The player only said he or she wants to turn the dial to "S."

Now, if the player said, "I try to deduce whether 'S' is the correct answer before turning the dial..." (which is smart play by the way since it potentially mitigates consequences stemming from being wrong), then you might say the outcome of that action is uncertain and call for an Intelligence check where the -3 modifier will apply. If the player botches the roll, then he or she can still turn the dial, but may not be sure it's the right answer before doing so.

 

[iserith]

And how it that different from an expectation that a low INT shouldn't be played as a genius?

It isn't different. But the important thing to note here is that this preference exists at the level of the specific table's social contract and isn't part of the rules of the game as some are asserting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I have asked you repeatedly: Is there something physically preventing the character from turning the dial to "S?" You're trying to insert some kind of intermediate step where you test if the character can think of the correct answer when the specific action declaration the player made has nothing to do with that. The player only said he or she wants to turn the dial to "S."

Now, if the player said, "I try to deduce whether 'S' is the correct answer before turning the dial..." (which is smart play by the way since it potentially mitigates consequences stemming from being wrong), then you might say the outcome of that action is uncertain and call for an Intelligence check where the -3 modifier will apply. If the player botches the roll, then he or she can still turn the dial, but may not be sure it's the right answer before doing so.

So, it's only physical impediments that can be considered unless the player brings up a non-physical challenge? Only in cases where the player includes it in his action declaration can INT ever be tested?

Just guessing, but a player that has excellent people skills but assigns a 5 CHA to his character can avoid ever testing that CHA in game while engaging socially so long as he never makes a declaration that tests CHA? If he's charming in his declarations, he need not ever test his low CHA? Same for WIS, so long as the declaration never has any question of pertaining to WIS, it's never checked? Like tracking, which is WIS(survival), if the player is a skilled tracker and just describes the physical actions his player takes to find tracks, there would never be a WIS(survival) check?

 

[TwoSix]

And how it that different from an expectation that a low INT shouldn't be played as a genius?

It isn't. There's nothing wrong with deciding that a low Int character can't make certain action declarations. There's just nothing right about it, either. It's your personal aesthetic of play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It isn't different. But the important thing to note here is that this preference exists at the level of the specific table's social contract and isn't part of the rules of the game as some are asserting.

I've never asserted such. My call of a way to roleplay a 5 INT in an objectively bad way was also accompanied by a statement that, if your table enjoys it, it's not wrong. Bad acting can often be quite enjoyable.

 

[iserith]

So, it's only physical impediments that can be considered unless the player brings up a non-physical challenge?

Not necessarily.

Only in cases where the player includes it in his action declaration can INT ever be tested?

"An Intelligence check comes into play when you need to draw on logic, education, memory, or deductive reasoning." The character is just turning a dial. Literacy and a useful hand is all that is required. (And a PC is literate, so far as I know, regardless of Intelligence score.)

Just guessing, but a player that has excellent people skills but assigns a 5 CHA to his character can avoid ever testing that CHA in game while engaging socially so long as he never makes a declaration that tests CHA? If he's charming in his declarations, he need not ever test his low CHA? Same for WIS, so long as the declaration never has any question of pertaining to WIS, it's never checked? Like tracking, which is WIS(survival), if the player is a skilled tracker and just describes the physical actions his player takes to find tracks, there would never be a WIS(survival) check?

I fully expect for players to apply whatever skill they have to avoid making ability checks if they can regardless of how high or low their characters' ability scores are. Leaving your fate to a fickle d20 is not advisable if you can come up with an approach to a goal that removes the uncertainty of the outcome.

 

[iserith]

I've never asserted such. My call of a way to roleplay a 5 INT in an objectively bad way was also accompanied by a statement that, if your table enjoys it, it's not wrong. Bad acting can often be quite enjoyable.

I don't buy your argument that portraying Int 5 in any particular way is objectively good or bad. There is no argument you can make that will change my view on this.