D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

The game of D&D involves sitting around with friends, pretending some imaginary stuff is going on, and thinking up interesting, fun, effective, etc ways for your PC to engage with that stuff. In that sense, it's an intellectual pastime. (Contrast, say, running or cycling, which are also things that can be fun and interesting to do with friends, but are primarily physical pastimes.)

Telling a player that s/he can't engage with the intellectual elements of the game is tantamount to telling him/her that s/he can't play the game.

If a PC has a 5 STR, the player of that PC is in no way precluded from playing the game. S/he can still sit around with his/her friends and come up with the action declarations that s/he thinks make sense for his/her character, given the ingame situation, the goals of the character, the preferences of the player, etc.

But some posters in this thread are saying that, if a PC has 5 INT, then the player of that PC has to refrain from fully engaging with the game in this fashion: for instance, that s/he is not allowed to engage in solving puzzles. Think about classic modules like Tomb of Horrors, or Ghost Tower of Inverness, or Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, or the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Borderlands: these modules are almost entirely puzzle-solving, in the sense that playing these modules is all about reasoning through solutions to the various improbable but challenging situations they throw up in front of the PCs.

Or think about a more contemporary module, like the first Freeport module, or Speaker in Dreams, or Heathen, or Bastion of Broken Souls, or Demon Queen's Enclave (or even the Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, which is an old module that is rather contemporary in feel). These modules also have a very big puzzle-solving dimension, as the players have to identify various factions, work out who is related to whom in what sort of way (allied, opposed, potential friend, certain foe, etc) and then make choices about how to inject their own PCs in to the situation and push it to some sort of resolution.

One characteristic of real people who aren't all that clever is that they can't do this sort of stuff very well. They can't make effective tactical or logistical choices. They aren't all that good at working out the dynamics of complex political or social situations. They make poor choices, relative to their own interests, because they are incapable of identifying and then reasoning through the relevant (though perhaps not immediately salient) consequences.

To require a player of a low-INT PC to play his/her PC in such a way is, in effect, to require him/her to not fully engage with these aspects of RPGing, which to many RPGers are at the core of the activity.

To me, it's fairly clear that this is why Moldvay relates INT to linguistic ability: it gives INT a clear mechanical role, as STR has in relation to opening doors (but, in Moldvay Basic, not to encumbrance). But there is no suggestion that the player of the low-INT fighter isn't nevertheless fully able to engage in the play of the game.

In the context of 3E, 4e or 5e, a low INT penalises certain skills and limits access to certain feats. That's the "handicap" that is imposed. Especially in 5e, the GM is also free to frame ingame possibilities, including the need for a check to find out what happens, by reference to a PC's INT.

But none of that implies that the player him-/herself has to take responsibility for limiting his/her PC in certain ways, any more than if the PC had a 5 STR.

(If all fiendishly difficult puzzles are resolved by INT checks there might be other issues with the campaign, but the low INT PC will be suitably penalised, just as is the low STR PC when it comes to weightlifting competitions.)

Let's accept that the player has no responsibilities whatsoever to engage the social contract of a group RPG and try to play his character within the guidelines and expectations of the game. He is free to, and even expected to, attempt whatever his heart's desire, and it is fully the responsibility of the GM to determine if a roll is required, set the DC if so, and narrate the results. Good?

What's the difference between the DM telling the 5 STR character he has no chance of lifting a large boulder and telling the 5 INT character that they have no chance of solving the puzzle? In both cases, the DM has determined if a roll is required and decided that there's no chance of success given the low relevant ability scores. This seems an even more blatant denial of ability to engage in challenges than expecting a player to acknowledge and attempt to roleplay low ability scores.

Not being good at a challenge, or even intentionally downplaying your contribution in order to roleplay your character, isn't denial of participation, it's active participation just not solely directed at solving the challenge. I find your argument to be solely focused on the ability to be successful at overcoming a specific challenge, eg a riddle, but that fails to grasp the meta of the challenge. The challenge immediately before you is just one part of the challenge of the game, and the challenge of the game also include roleplaying a character not you. You say roleplaying a low INT would deny a player the ability to engage fully in a mental challenge, but you're missing that by roleplaying their low INT while engaging that mental challenge they ARE fully engaged in it, just with a different objective that 'be successful at solving mental challenges.' I would submit that if solving mental challenges is important to you, don't play a character with a 5 INT.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Right, a stupid PC can make choices for sure. However, if a good portion of those choices aren't stupid choices, that player is roleplaying his stupid PC very badly.

So if you play a Wizard with 20 intelligence and you make some bad choices, are you roleplaying very badly?

 

[Sadras]

I do not demand players refrain from particular action declarations because of a low score, nor play only with people who have would choose to do so on their own.

I do not either, hence my work around the INT ability to allay my own fears

 

[Guest 6801328]

Seems to me that this debate is really the same one that keeps recurring about trolls and werewolves and "metagaming" and "good" roleplaying. It all comes down to whether you think roleplaying and immersion mean "acting outwardly like your character would" versus "feeling inwardly what your character is feeling".

If you do stupid things because you think your character would, you're acting outwardly like your character would. If you fail an INT check and your DM doesn't give you information, you are feeling inwardly puzzled and confused like your character is.

Neither is right or wrong. It's a preference.

 

[iserith]

Let's accept that the player has no responsibilities whatsoever to engage the social contract of a group RPG and try to play his character within the guidelines and expectations of the game. He is free to, and even expected to, attempt whatever his heart's desire, and it is fully the responsibility of the GM to determine if a roll is required, set the DC if so, and narrate the results. Good?

What's the difference between the DM telling the 5 STR character he has no chance of lifting a large boulder and telling the 5 INT character that they have no chance of solving the puzzle? In both cases, the DM has determined if a roll is required and decided that there's no chance of success given the low relevant ability scores. This seems an even more blatant denial of ability to engage in challenges than expecting a player to acknowledge and attempt to roleplay low ability scores.

Player: I try to lift the large boulder with my bare hands.
DM: The boulder doesn't budge despite your efforts - it's too heavy.

or

Player: I try to lift the large boulder with my bare hands.
DM: It's really heavy and unwieldy - let's see a Strength check.

^ Both of these are fine, right?

Player: I try to solve the puzzle by working out its logic in my head.
DM: Try as you might, you can't solve the puzzle.

Player: I try to solve the puzzle by working out its logic in my head.
DM: It's pretty complex - let's see an Intelligence check.

^ Also good, yeah?

Player: The letters on the first six dials of the door are SMTWTF and we have to figure out what is next in the sequence?
DM: Yes.
Player: I turn the last dial to "S."
DM (knowing "S" is the correct answer): No, you can't do that. You're too stupid.

^ Is that okay by you?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Player: I try to lift the large boulder with my bare hands.
DM: The boulder doesn't budge despite your efforts - it's too heavy.

or

Player: I try to lift the large boulder with my bare hands.
DM: It's really heavy and unwieldy - let's see a Strength check.

^ Both of these are fine, right?

Player: I try to solve the puzzle by working out its logic in my head.
DM: Try as you might, you can't solve the puzzle.

Player: I try to solve the puzzle by working out its logic in my head.
DM: It's pretty complex - let's see an Intelligence check.

^ Also good, yeah?

Player: The letters on the first six dials of the door are SMTWTF and we have to figure out what is next in the sequence?
DM: Yes.
Player: I turn the last dial to "S."
DM (knowing "S" is the correct answer): No, you can't do that. You're too stupid.

^ Is that okay by you?

Nope, but depending on how that player's been doing things like that, I might randomly roll to see what letter they actually turned the dial to better represent their clear intent of having their character guess. I'm cool like that, and like to help out my players when they aren't clear about things like their character making a wild guess.

EDIT: with less snark, I wouldn't have to do anything. The other party members wouldn't let the gibbering moron anywhere near the dials of a puzzle. I have good players.

 

[iserith]

Nope, but depending on how that player's been doing things like that, I might randomly roll to see what letter they actually turned the dial to better represent their clear intent of having their character guess.

What about the example makes you think the player has that intent? It looks to me like the intent is to just turn the dial to solve the puzzle. If you're not sure, one would think you'd ask the player what his or her intent was rather than assume.

EDIT: with less snark, I wouldn't have to do anything. The other party members wouldn't let the gibbering moron anywhere near the dials of a puzzle. I have good players.

Oh, so other players can override or otherwise hinder my action declarations, too? Sounds awful.

Let's say nothing is preventing the character from turning the dial to the correct answer and the player's stated intent is to turn the dial to solve the puzzle. What do you do?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I have a puzzle example that came up in a game of mine a couple years back:

DM: "There is a flat surface with numerous round dips in it, all arrayed to form a kind of grid with 5 columns and 5 rows . At the top there is one long dip running the width of the grid. Next to this trench is a small round device that looks like a metal snail shell oriented with the opening sloping toward the trench. The device has a button on it. What do you do?
Player of Character With Riddling Skill because HackMaster: "I push the button."
DM: "Five equal-sized metal balls roll into the trench."
PCWRSHM: "I..."
Interrupting other Player:(excitedly) "Star! Ooh!..."
PCWRSHM: "What?"
IP: "Heh, sorry. Make a star?"
<The result of attempting this solution and the interrupting player's character stats are omitted intentionally>

Does this strike anyone as a situation where I should call into question whatever the interrupting player's character may have in Intelligence or the Riddling skill? How about outright forbidding the player from their character blurting out those statements on the grounds of Intelligence or Riddling Skill? Or is it just fine for the player to be playing their character in this way?

 

[Ovinomancer]

What about the example makes you think the player has that intent? It looks to me like the intent is to just turn the dial to solve the puzzle. If you're not sure, one would think you'd ask the player what his or her intent was rather than assume.

Sure, which is why I added the caveat of how the player had been playing for some time. I, unlike you, don't often game with complete strangers in non-face-to-face situations.

Oh, so other players can override or otherwise hinder my action declarations, too? Sounds awful.

What an interesting statement. Do you never have situations in which players make competing action declarations? Has it never happened in any of your games that one player (or players) declare that they are specifically preventing another character from performing an action or going somewhere? I suppose I can see that having never come up, but I don't know what's specifically awful about such situations.

Let's say nothing is preventing the character from turning the dial to the correct answer and the player's stated intent is to turn the dial to solve the puzzle. What do you do?

Let's futher assume this is a player that is a complete stranger to me that I've never played with before, and I'm running an online game full of such people that I will likely not have a long campaign with. Further, let's also assume that I have given no hints in game as to the solution to this puzzle, nor is there any knowledge in possession of the player as to the nature or solution of the puzzle that has been presenting in the course of the game. In that case, I let them, and then make sure I change future puzzles in that game to require checks for successful solving.

In my home game, without those assumptions, and dealing with my players, I already have multi-layered puzzles that aren't as transparently obvious because I like my puzzles to challenge both players and characters, and not be such simplistic, Myst-like interactions. My puzzles are steeped in game lore, accessible through checks, which put them nicely behind INT thresholds to begin with. I don't just require that my players play stupid when they're stupid, although I do expect them to play to their characters, I also build complex challenges that take advantage of the game assets offered. The puzzle you present isn't tied to the game world (or, it's tied only in the sense that the game world uses the same days of the week that our world does, and so it's special to that world) and is presented as a puzzle to the players. Sure, you could probably let someone make an INT check to discover the correct solution, but good grief, man, that's just a straight up boring puzzle.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd say this illustrates the problem of putting in puzzles that players are meant to solve IRL.

Here's how I'd prefer to do it:

DM: "You see a sequence of six runes, and a dial with 19 runes..." (gives players a handout)
Player1: "Hmmm...I see the six runes are among the 19 on the dial..."
Player2: "I make an Intelligence check..." (rolls a 12) "Um...minus 4 that makes 8."
DM: "You can't make head or tails of it."
Player1: "I'll try...any applicable skill?"
DM: "Yes, you can use Arcana with a DC of 20"
Player1: "22 total!"
DM: "You recognize these as an archaic form of rune used by an ancient cult, and the six runes are all symbols that appear on their coins. You also know that the back of their coins all had the same rune, #11 on the dial."
Player2: "OMG....'you can't make head or tails'..."

I realize that some people LOVE solving puzzles as part of their RPGs. I personally don't like it; it totally blows immersion* for me. It's just me solving a puzzle and I forget I'm playing D&D.

*Partly because I always wonder why creators of dungeons would put puzzles in. Are they expecting to forget the secrets of their own dungeons, or lose the keys, so they want something they can figure out if they have to, but they somehow expect nobody else will figure it out? It just doesn't make ANY sense at all.

EDIT: Also, if it's necessary for the players to solve the puzzle then the solution should be available elsewhere (e.g., the cliche of hidden in a desk drawer) so that the adventure isn't derailed because of a bad Arcana role.