D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

Differences in social contracts aside, this strikes me as a DM solving a problem they made for themselves. If you don't want your experienced players to recognize something (via metagame knowledge), describe it differently. Don't use standard descriptions from published sources. Maybe toss in a few modifications to the mechanics. That way, the players will be as puzzled as you want their characters to be.

"Wow, that totally didn't look like a troll."
"No it didn't, did it? Probably wasn't from around here." <smiles rat-bastard DM smile>

Totally agree, which is why I don't run a hot table nor and often switch up descriptions. Insisting that players don't use their knowledge is hard for them to do, as they can't just forget things on a whim, so I help by making things inobvious when that's appropriate.

Although, to be fair in that situation, no one else at the table would have recognized that description, and it was only fresh for me because of my habit of reading everything when it came out, so I did kinda spoil things. That DM was a hardass, for sure, but he was also excruciatingly fair, which is why I stayed in that game as long as I did.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rule at my table is that if you attempt to harm or hinder another player's character, the player of that character narrates the result. This both preserves the ability to freely make action declarations while ensuring that any conflict that arises is agreed upon by the players involved.

Even so, I honestly can't remember the last time this came into play. Players just don't try to prevent other players from taking action in my games. I work at creating an environment where players accept and build on each other's ideas rather than get into conflict. So if the party's dim-witted fighter reached for the dials on the door, we might see the party readying themselves for potential consequences of failure, but not trying to stop the fighter.

Well, that's interesting, especially that first part. To avoid a player losing their ability to freely make action declarations, you impair another player's ability to have an impartial resolution of their own freely made action declarations. Going first gives you primacy? Well, if it's set up in the pre-game expectations, that sounds grand.

As for the latter, I was going to ask how you work charmed or dominated characters, but then I recalled (vaguely? correctly?) that you avoid that as well. Again, cool if you set that up, but I'm pretty sure both of these aren't standard, and there's nothing in the rules that say that you can't interfere with another character's actions (the DM should set reasonable targets and ask for rolls if the result isn't obvious, of course), but I'm not sure I understand you acting shocked that I could possibly allow inter-player conflicts.

I run games where characters are allowed to have competing interests and goals. I encourage teamwork as part of my baseline expectations, and that's the normal, but occasionally personality or personal goals conflict, and when that happens, I let them conflict.

Doesn't requiring a check remove a measure of the player's decision making from the equation? You're basically saying "Solving this puzzle has an uncertain outcome no matter what." I suppose it addresses whatever issues you have with players making action declarations you think aren't in keeping with whatever you believe a low Intelligence means, but it creates other issues in my view.

Exactly as much as saying an action is impossible and not allowing a roll. If I determine that there's chance involved in an action, I ask for a roll. You really don't have a problem with this mechanic,you have a problem with it's application to this situation. Else, we need to talk about how you handle a player saying 'I hit and kill the dragon, yay!' and how doing any kind of asking for a roll means your removing the player's decisions making from the equation.

The player made a state that he wished to solve the puzzle. His character's ability to solve the puzzle is in doubt. I ask for a roll.

You can see the kinds of puzzles I present to my players in this short-form scenario I posted: The Snow Job. Check out The Lift and The Vault. There's three of them there all together. None of them require Intelligence checks. They may just arise, however, depending on what actions the players declare e.g. trying to recall what Lord Morrikan looks like or what the names of the four dwarven houses are.

That's fine, I wasn't questioning how you built puzzles, I was speaking specifically to the example you gave, and hoping that you did better than that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...a hot table...

That's twice I have seen you use this phrase. What on earth does it mean?

I tried to google it, but I don't believe that the results I found are what you were meaning by it, since I don't see how a panini restaurant has anything to do with gaming.

Insisting that players don't use their knowledge is hard for them to do, as they can't just forget things on a whim, so I help by making things inobvious when that's appropriate.

My solution to the perceived problem caused by players not being able to forget things they know on a whim is to tell the players: "Ignore that you know what you know and that is why you are having a character do some particular thing - just think if there is a reason that your character could possibly have for doing that thing. If yes, it is an entirely acceptable thing to do. If not, which will rarely happen, you have something that your character can't do."

...excruciatingly fair...

In what way can someone being fair be excruciating?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So...are you going to show us one of these amazing puzzles?

Wasn't aware I needed to. Are you questioning my ability to do what I said, or are you curious?

Oh, sure; that's fine, too. The point of my dialog wasn't dependent upon players declaring ability rolls.



I wasn't criticizing the puzzle in your example for it's complexity/design...I get that it was a simple example for illustration purposes. I was just saying that I'm not a fan of the type of puzzle that its a stand-in for.

The one in The Snow Job is well thought-out and integrated with the story, but still in the category that for me screams "mini-game", and I generally dislike leaving the game and playing mini-games.

Totally personal preference, and I recognize that I'm in a tiny minority.

The "puzzles" I like are the ones that depend on finding/solving another challenge, using regular game rules. You need to persuade the chamberlain to tell you the password. You have to convince the witch to make you a Shrinking potion and slide through the arrow slit. You need to find the false book with the key hidden inside. You need to loot the key from the whatever...etc.

The relevance to this thread is that if when the puzzles are overtly "puzzles" in the classic sense, then it's really the players solving them, not the characters. If you just don't have them, then you don't run into the problem of a player with a low-Int character solving them.

Pretty much this. Most of my 'puzzles' are extended challenges requiring interaction and skill rolls (as needed). A riddle or mystery is solved by going out and looking for clues. I almost never insert a contained puzzle in a game, such as a puzzle door lock, as I find those trite and, as you note, a player challenge, not a character challenge. The closest I usually come to that is a mechanism that may require doing multiple things at once to cause it to function as intended, requiring the party to be in different places (maybe in a room, maybe on a continent) to operate it. This, by itself, is still boring, so the challenge isn't to operate the device, it's to do so while under pressure, either from the environment or opponents or both.

But... occasionally I have something more puzzlelike. As recent example was a puzzle box, which was carved and spelled ironwood box about the size of a jewelry box that had cubes with different symbols on it in four slots on the top. An obvious puzzle, and usually one of the trite ones. This had a trick to it that made it unlikely to be solved by brute force applications (one of the cubes had to be removed while the others were in the correct slots when the catch was operated). The backstory was that this was an ornamental toy often used by the 1000 year dead Dwarven Empire, and was usually given with a present inside to a favored relative or friend. Part of the present was the effort to solve the box, so this was a puzzle for the sake of a puzzle, and always intended for such. In this case, a knowledge (history) would reveal this, and provide the clue that the solutions were generally related to a popular Dwarven fable or tale. Also, the solutions to well made boxes were impervious to just moving pieces around until it opened. A INT(investigate) check looking at the symbols would have allowed the recall of similar symbols in a previously explored ruined Dwarven Cathedral. A moment's thought (as in, no check needed) would recall to the characters that that Cathedral was centered around the Dwarven creation myth (and the mystery therein was tied to that same myth*). A quick search of their tomes would easily find a number of translations of the myth, all of which follow the same pattern. At that point, once the characters had figured out the likely myth of the box, they had a simple INT check to pass to determine which keyword, and therefore which symbols, needed to be in which order. The trick was a hard INT check to determine that the Void symbol on the first cube didn't align with many of the myths, which said that 'Nothing' came first. The key was removing the first cube, with the rest in order, to open the box, which held a nice treasure.

Now, this puzzle has many of the features that I've said I don't like. It does, but it's point wasn't actually the puzzle. The puzzle was there to hide my real intents, which were 1) to remind the players of the Dwarven creation myth again, as it has a big part to play in the upcoming arc, 2) further develop the ancient Dwarven civilization that they've been exploring. This is pure flavor, but it helps humanize (for lack of better term) the Dwarves who are mostly reviled in modern times and blamed for destroying the world (obviously, it wasn't really destroyed, just broke up real good). And 3) be a momentarily interesting way to give treasure, making the minor treasure inside have just a bit more personal value to the players. I wouldn't put this puzzle into my game just for the sake of the puzzle.


*The party's sage had identified the ruins as the location of something the party wanted (this would involve way too much backstory). They party knew that there was a hidden area in the Cathedral, and had a clue as to where to look for it. While there, they explored the Cathedral, took in the frescoes (the hint was about the carvings) and after finding no secret doors in the frescoes, actually took interest in what the frescoes were about, with was the Dwarven creation myth (DCM). Further exploration revealed that the Cathedral was used for services specifically related to the DCM, and they found both a preserved prayer book and scattered elements of the rituals. In the book, they deciphered a number of rituals, including one for the 'Secrets of Creation'. So they gathered the bits they needed, invoked the ritual, and were rewarded with access to the hidden area. Which was even more fun, as they rapidly came to realize that the hidden area was built like a prison for something nasty (wards, animated guardians, traps) and that they were having to disarm all of these security features to go deeper towards whatever the Dwarves felt they needed a hidden secret facility under consecrated ground with massive, obviously built to last defensive features. The conversation about halfway through about, 'guys, is this a good idea?' was the highlight of that adventure for me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's twice I have seen you use this phrase. What on earth does it mean?

I tried to google it, but I don't believe that the results I found are what you were meaning by it, since I don't see how a panini restaurant has anything to do with gaming.

My solution to the perceived problem caused by players not being able to forget things they know on a whim is to tell the players: "Ignore that you know what you know and that is why you are having a character do some particular thing - just think if there is a reason that your character could possibly have for doing that thing. If yes, it is an entirely acceptable thing to do. If not, which will rarely happen, you have something that your character can't do."

In what way can someone being fair be excruciating?

"Hot table" means everything said is in character and/or an intentional action declaration unless specifically called out beforehand as OOC. I've heard it used to describe this exact thing from different groups in different places, but I realize now that perhaps I was making an assumption about it's general use. Apologies.

As for fair being excruciating, surely you can imagine a situation in which the fair result is painful for you, personally? Fair doesn't necessarily mean just or pleasant. Getting caught in an infraction and having the full penalty assigned to you is fair, even if the charge isn't just. He always applied the rules, to you and to himself. This occasionally had unfortunate consequences (he always brought a protractor so as to properly align lightning bolt bounces, frex). 2e was a system full of stovepiped rules, and he used them all whether they made sense or not. Held himself to the same standard.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

"Hot table" means everything said is in character and/or an intentional action declaration unless specifically called out beforehand as OOC.

Ah... that makes sense, I supposed. Though now I feel it is important to clarify: My earlier comments would be more clear had I included that my table does not operate in this way.

If something is intended as out-of-character, it need only be clarified at all - not necessarily in advance of saying it.

As for fair being excruciating, surely you can imagine a situation in which the fair result is painful for you, personally?

No, I don't think that I can - especially not in the context of playing a game.

Fair doesn't necessarily mean just

That's not what any definition of the word "just" I've ever seen says, since they tend to use the word "fair" as part of the definition.

...or pleasant.

Fairness always seems pleasant to me.

Getting caught in an infraction and having the full penalty assigned to you is fair, even if the charge isn't just.

If you are "caught in an infraction" the the "charge" is just - unless you are talking about being caught in one infraction and being charged for a different infraction in its place, and were not clear in saying so.

He always applied the rules, to you and to himself.

That's how any group I've ever been in treated the rules they agreed to play by, so I really don't see how this is some strange thing.

This occasionally had unfortunate consequences (he always brought a protractor so as to properly align lightning bolt bounces, frex). 2e was a system full of stovepiped rules, and he used them all whether they made sense or not. Held himself to the same standard.

That makes it sound as though the complaint is not actually against the person's fairness (applying things to everyone fairly, himself included - which is a good thing), but against the person's refusal to do as the very rule-book says and tailor the game to his group, including changing any rules that don't make sense (which is a bad thing, since literally every rule in every game ever written "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense" not in an objective and universally applicable way, but a subject one).

 

[Ovinomancer]

So...are you going to show us one of these amazing puzzles?

Ah... that makes sense, I supposed. Though now I feel it is important to clarify: My earlier comments would be more clear had I included that my table does not operate in this way.

If something is intended as out-of-character, it need only be clarified at all - not necessarily in advance of saying it.

No, I don't think that I can - especially not in the context of playing a game.
That's not what any definition of the word "just" I've ever seen says, since they tend to use the word "fair" as part of the definition.

Fairness always seems pleasant to me.

If you are "caught in an infraction" the the "charge" is just - unless you are talking about being caught in one infraction and being charged for a different infraction in its place, and were not clear in saying so.

That's how any group I've ever been in treated the rules they agreed to play by, so I really don't see how this is some strange thing.

That makes it sound as though the complaint is not actually against the person's fairness (applying things to everyone fairly, himself included - which is a good thing), but against the person's refusal to do as the very rule-book says and tailor the game to his group, including changing any rules that don't make sense (which is a bad thing, since literally every rule in every game ever written "makes sense" or "doesn't make sense" not in an objective and universally applicable way, but a subject one).

It seems we're talking past each other over a colloquialism. I might offer that I also attach the phrase 'belligerent compliance' to this person as well, but explaining that one might take me far too long. Let's leave at saying that this person has a nature knack for making you occasionally regret things you'd normally consider positives. Not in a personal way, mind, he's a really good guy, he just doesn't do anything by halves and that can be overwhelming at times, even with concepts of fairness.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It seems we're talking past each other over a colloquialism.

Seems so.

At any rate, do you think you might clear up my questions to you from earlier? (post #712 in this thread)

 

[iserith]

Probably the biggest factor is that I have such a hard time believing (as I mentioned in a previous thread) that anybody would build this kind of puzzle into their lair/tomb/defenses/whatever. Can you imagine using a safe in your office that has a puzzle to solve, instead of a secret combination? So it feels to me like "something that is inserted into the narrative to test the meta-abilities of the players behind the marionettes".

So the lift in that scenario is quite literally a combination lock to the vault. It's not a puzzle for people who know the answer, such as those who use the vault on a regular basis. Is it the existence of clues that hint at the answer that throws you off e.g. the signatures on the paintings, etc.? If so, consider that when I do a typo on my computer password it gives me a hint before I try again. Would not the aforementioned clues be such a hint in another form?

Ooh...I like that much much more. There's still a puzzle to solve, but in the sense of putting together clues, not just wrestling with a contrived brain-teaser. AND...if you don't solve it you can still succeed at the encounter, it's just a lot harder.

Hmm. I see this one as pretty much no different than the one above except maybe more subtle, especially since a rogue can ignore the combination lock and rig the lift to work given some time.

It's useful to me to know where the line is on what is more acceptable to some players, so any additional information you can provide will be appreciated. I'm soon to release a pretty nice adventure to DM's Guild.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I had missed this, earlier.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying - there was no out-of-character table talk in my recounting of this scenario. Are you saying that the excited player's statement would be treated as out-of-character despite being an in-character statement, and that then the player of the character skilled with Riddling could choose to use it or not, and if did choose to use it we'd pretend the information came from an in-character source that wasn't the character of the player making the statement?

You have the gist of it.

What skill is sufficient to blurt out a random thought?

Given you were playing Hackmaster, I'd assume riddling would be the appropriate skill to blurt out riddle solutions.

Are you saying that you set up an expectation by which all in-character statements must first be vetted through out-of-character table-talk in order to determine who is allowed to say them? Because that is what I seem to be reading here - since any declaration of the player in my scenario being declared as inappropriate without saying all statements are inappropriate if made without approval, requires the assumption that 1) the character of the interrupting player doesn't have even more riddling skill than the other mentioned character, and 2) that the blurted out guess is actually the right solution.

No, I meant that I would do as I had described in my referenced answer to Iserth, hence my reference to that answer.

No one at my table has a 19 intelligence, but one of the characters does. His player isn't an 19 INT by any stretch. One of the ways we model his intelligence is to allow the group to discuss things with him when he's trying to do a smart thing. He ultimately controls his actions, but the discussion often means he does something much brighter than he'd have come up with in the same period of time. However, everyone at the table is aware that the group discussion is part of helping roleplay that high intelligence, and that the character will take the credit for the ideas developed in game. Similarly we do this for other high mental scores. Everyone plays to their strengths in character (with occasional slips, it happens) but the open table allows the smart players to help the smart characters without the smart players having to play the smart characters.