D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

Which PCs would you ask for an explanation?

That's pretty self-evident from this entire thread and my initial response to that thread tangent. Thankfully, I'll probably never have to ask anyone, since I choose players based on compatibility of play views.

 

[Hriston]

Right, when he's talking about competitive play.

No, he says quite clearly that this applies to all roleplaying games.

That also doesn't negate any of the quotes from Gygax that I listed.

I haven't tried to "negate" any quotes. In fact, I directly addressed your interpretation of the passage you quoted and showed why it actually supports my position.

You can have a goal, be steadfast, and still play your character appropriately.

Appropriately according to whom? I don't think your personal opinion can have anything to do with it unless we're talking about the way you personally enjoy playing the game. The relevance of your opinion of what's appropriate or inappropriate ends there.

 

[Hriston]

That's not true if you are stepping into the character and playing it the way Gygax indicated in the article. The PC is the one worrying about the problem, but if he's too dumb to solve it...

You're reading an inconsistency into the article that isn't there. Gygax is saying that the challenge of the game is not in deciding whether your character is smart enough to solve a problem or not. The challenge of the game lies simply in solving the problem.

 

[pemerton]

So what did you get from this part?

'And ‘note that problem solving, in this context, has to do with a problem to be solved by the character, not a problem (such as How do I role-play this situation?) to be solved by the player.'

My reading of this is the same as [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s - the player is expected to insert him-/herself into the ingame situation, and then engage that situation. So the player does not confront a problem of "how do I roleplay" - because that has already been answered by inserting him-/herself into the situation. But the situation is a problem that has to be solved.

What I would add to Gygax, in explicating my preferred RPGing approach, is that if you want the personality/character of the PC to emerge in play, then the resources available to the player, and the permissible moves for the player, should be designed so as to help bring this about.

One of the clearest and simplest examples I know of this, from 4e: paladins have an at-will ability called Valiant Strike, which grants a bonus to hit equal to the number of adjacent enemies. So when the player of the paladin inserts him-/herself into a fictional situation where enemies are present, s/he has a good reason to want to be in the thick of things (surrounded by enemies, and therefore getting a bonus to hit) rather than skirmishing on the edges. And this, in turn, will make the PC be valiant - because in the thick of things rather than a skulking skirmisher.

There are some hints of this sort of mechanical/resource approach to establishing characterisation in classic D&D: for instance, fighters get an XP bonus from high STR, so the player of a fighter has an incentive to make STR high, and this in turn makes melee an attractive problem-solving option, which in turn makes it more likely than for other PC types that the player of the fighter will find him-/herself engaging in melee rather than being a skulking skirmisher.

But some more contemporary games (including 4e, in the D&D stable of game) take this sort of idea further.

Needless to say, I think that 2nd ed AD&D is the furthest from this sort of approach to the relationship between desire for characterisation and suites of mechanical options that are available to the player who has inserted him-/herself into the ingame situation.

 

[Maxperson]

No, he says quite clearly that this applies to all roleplaying games.

No he doesn't. He says that about the part I quoted. Later on he says it again with regard to a single point that is not the one you quoted. He does not say it with regard to the portion about having a goal. Read it again.

 

[Hriston]

No he doesn't. He says that about the part I quoted. Later on he says it again with regard to a single point that is not the one you quoted. He does not say it with regard to the portion about having a goal. Read it again.

The only explanation for your response that I can think of is that you are reading the word "completion" as the word "competition". Is that true?

Here's the quote again (emphasis added for clarity): "Having a goal, understanding it, and remaining steadfast in its completion are likewise necessary to role -playing games. This questing, if you will, again has little or nothing to do with role playing in the acting sense. It is closer to role assumption and is a measure of gaming ability and skill."

Notice he is here referring to role-playing games in general and says nothing about tournament play.

 

[Maxperson]

The only explanation for your response that I can think of is that you are reading the word "completion" as the word "competition". Is that true?

Here's the quote again (emphasis added for clarity): "Having a goal, understanding it, and remaining steadfast in its completion are likewise necessary to role -playing games. This questing, if you will, again has little or nothing to do with role playing in the acting sense. It is closer to role assumption and is a measure of gaming ability and skill."

Acting is not taking on the personification of your PC. Acting is portraying a pre-set script. Acting has little to do with an RPG. Role assumption is different and includes playing your PC as he is, including stupid.

 

[Hriston]

Acting is not taking on the personification of your PC. Acting is portraying a pre-set script. Acting has little to do with an RPG. Role assumption is different and includes playing your PC as he is, including stupid.

In this you disagree with Gygax. He points out a contrast between what he calls "Personification and acting" and "role assumption" throughout the article.

In my view, as I pointed out up-thread, there is little difference between "portraying a pre-set script" and "playing your PC as he is".

Also, you didn't answer my question.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Acting is not taking on the personification of your PC. Acting is portraying a pre-set script. Acting has little to do with an RPG. Role assumption is different and includes playing your PC as he is, including stupid.

That is not what he means by acting or role assumption. When he says "acting", he is talking about playing as a specific character (James Bond) and when he says "role assumption" he is talking about taking on a general responsibility or job (spy). That is why he says that questing is "closer to role assumption and is a measure of gaming ability and skill." Since he earlier explained that gaming is different from role-playing, and role-playing is different from role assumption, he is specifically ruling out deliberately making dumb choices because your character is stupid since that would go against the game element of RPGs. He is saying that when confronted with a choice, you need to approach it with the game in mind rather than with role-playing in mind.

So if you are playing Karl the Sea Captain, Gygax says you can start out emphasising the "Karl" part of your character (by talking like a crusty old sailor and having weird superstitions) but over the course of the campaign you need to focus on the "Sea Captain" part and thus do what any Sea Captain would be expected to do rather than constantly talking and doing things like Karl would talk and do things. In short, focus on WHAT you need to do rather than HOW your specific PC "should" do it.

 

[Maxperson]

That is not what he means by acting or role assumption. When he says "acting", he is talking about playing as a specific character (James Bond) and when he says "role assumption" he is talking about taking on a general responsibility or job (spy).

False. He uses that as one example, but clearly says, "In place of this, players should try to become that person they are imagining during the course of the game, and conduct the actions of their characters accordingly." That clearly says that if you are playing a stupid PC, you should try to become that person and play the actions accordingly. i.e. stupid.

Anything further that he says does no override that. Everything that comes later must take that statement into consideration. When figuring out puzzles as a PC, you do so according to the person you imagined and solve the puzzle accordingly. When he talks about gaming, he is not talking about gaming in a way that supercedes anything he has already said. In fact, he explicitly says otherwise, "Role playing can be the major thrust, or action and combat, or any of the other elements. Similarly, the underlying game might offer one or another while its accessories and scenarios develop some different aspects. Most games and support material are general and offer a reasonably well-balanced mix.

Then he goes on to talk about competitions and tournaments.
[MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] No I didn't confuse words. The paragraph you quote does not override any of the other ones, so any gaming and goals have to be undertaken with the understanding that it is in the context of playing your person as he is in the game and acting accordingly, including being stupid if the PC is stupid.

In any case, the entire article is an opinion piece with no more weight than any other opinion on these forums.