D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's not thought policing.

It is. Any time which an action declared is "unacceptable" if done for one reason, but is "acceptable" if done for another reason, it is the reason - the thought behind the action - not the action itself which you are policing.

Not having to thought police is why I play with people who understand that stupid = stupid and roleplay it themselves. I don't want to have to be the thought police.

You say you don't have to thought police, but we have just established that there is a reason for a stupid character, being stupid in that moment, to do a particular action - and you've stated that you'd only allow that action upon proof of acceptable reason.

I ask again, would it not save you time to simply assume that the reason is one of an acceptable nature whenever such a reason exists, rather than asking your player to take the time explaining?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

It's not thought policing. Not having to thought police is why I play with people who understand that stupid = stupid and roleplay it themselves. I don't want to have to be the thought police.

If you trust your players to "play stupid" as appropriate, but then you stop play to demand justifications for some actions, that's a paradox. Which is it? Are you confident the barbarian's player has a "validly dumb reason" to turn the dial, or not? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Maxperson]

It is. Any time which an action declared is "unacceptable" if done for one reason, but is "acceptable" if done for another reason, it is the reason - the thought behind the action - not the action itself which you are policing.

I don't do that. I don't have to since I have good players who play stupid as stupid and ROLEPLAY.

I ask again, would it not save you time to simply assume that the reason is one of an acceptable nature whenever such a reason exists, rather than asking your player to take the time explaining?

I don't assume. The assumption could be wrong. Also, the player isn't "explaining", he's roleplaying.

 

[Maxperson]

If you trust your players to "play stupid" as appropriate, but then you stop play to demand justifications for some actions, that's a paradox. Which is it?

Neither. I said I WOULD HAVE ASKED in your example, not that I do ask. Your example is not the way my players play the game. I don't have to ask players who roleplay stupid as stupid, and my players do.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Then you have me at a bit of a loss. To help me see what you mean, would you mind presenting the same brief interaction in a format more fitting to the style you and your table play?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Satyrn]

So, if a 5 int character is prevented from turning the dial to S, is a 17 Int character prevented from turning the dial to T?

 

[Maxperson]

Then you have me at a bit of a loss. To help me see what you mean, would you mind presenting the same brief interaction in a format more fitting to the style you and your table play?

Thanks in advance.

Take your example, but the player actually roleplays turning it to S for smart instead of having to be asked.

 

[Maxperson]

So, if a 5 int character is prevented from turning the dial to S, is a 17 Int character prevented from turning the dial to T?

That failed argument again? For at least the third time, there is a big difference between being unable to play a PC as smart as the sheet says because you are simply unable to, and intentionally playing a PC as being smarter than he is. The latter is the equivalent of cheating.

 

[iserith]

That failed argument again? For at least the third time, there is a big difference between being unable to play a PC as smart as the sheet says because you are simply unable to, and intentionally playing a PC as being smarter than he is. The latter is the equivalent of cheating.

So is turning the dial to "T" an invalid action declaration for a character of Int 17?

What about Int 8?

 

[Satyrn]

Not an argument. I'm curious about how DMs who run this way handle this. I mean this. I'm curious if I can adapt what I learn from you (and everyone else here) to the way I do things.

If you're helping one player properly roleplay his dumb character, how do you help another player properly roleplay his genius character?