D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[iserith]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to primacy or impartial resolution. The DM is expected to be impartial when applying the rules, but since the DM decides when the rules are applied, this isn't really an issue as no player is being "impaired" as you suggest - the rules aren't in play.

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.

I realize that how I do things in this regard isn't the standard and I'm not shocked when I see others behaving otherwise. I still think it's awful though. I used to play that way and I won't go back.

For the record, players are welcome to have their characters have competing goals and conflicts. The way we do things ensures that the conflicts which arise during play are of mutual interest to the players involved.

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.

Let me clarify what I meant: If you decide ahead of time that a given obstacle requires a check to get past (e.g. this puzzle requires a DC 15 Intelligence check to solve), that's done without reference to the decisions the players make to overcome said obstacle.

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.

In the example under discussion, the player described his or her character as turning a dial to "S." What is in doubt about turning the dial that calls for an Intelligence check in your view?

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.

Well, did I?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You have the gist of it.

Really? That's... very strange to not let a player say what they want their character to say without some kind of approval first.

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

Who said "make a star" was a riddle solution? I certainly didn't. I only said it is what one player had his character say, and the time at which that happened in our game play.

Are you saying that if I know what a character has been made to say on a whim is actually correct and the player knows it, I should behave differently as a DM than I would if I believed the player in that situation had no clue that what they had said was even relevant, let alone correct?

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...

I am seeing a double-standard here; The player of the high INT character you describe above "ultimately controls his actions", but you have stated that the player of the interrupting character I described in my scenario is not afforded that same control of his characters actions.

Why have you made that the case? Have you made an assumption of what the character in my scenario has for an INT score? If yes, can you say exactly what you assume the score to be, and what score it would have to be the for the player to ultimately control his character's actions?

Also, I now feel that you really haven't actually addressed the questions asked in my posted scenario - we've just started a side discussion about other things. I'd like it if you could pop back to post #708 and give a response to the questions asked there.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to primacy or impartial resolution. The DM is expected to be impartial when applying the rules, but since the DM decides when the rules are applied, this isn't really an issue as no player is being "impaired" as you suggest - the rules aren't in play.

I'm confused. You just said that your rule is that, in the case of conflicting character declarations, you let the affected players narrate the outcome, did you not? How is this not you applying a rule? You cannot have the cake (I have a rule for how conflicting character declarations are resolved) and eat it, too (the rules aren't in play for conflicting character declaration resolutions, I have nothing to do with it).

I realize that how I do things in this regard isn't the standard and I'm not shocked when I see others behaving otherwise. I still think it's awful though. I used to play that way and I won't go back.

Okay, I get that you're probably just not considering your words well, but can you see that this statement is essentially you saying that other people who do it differently from you are playing awfully in your estimation? And that this is the same as you saying that they are playing in a poor manner compared to your preferences? And that someone not working hard at giving you the benefit of the doubt can read this as an accusation of badwrongfun?

For the record, players are welcome to have their characters have competing goals and conflicts. The way we do things ensures that the conflicts which arise during play are of mutual interest to the players involved.

I've never had a player conflict not be of mutual interest to the players involved.

Let me clarify what I meant: If you decide ahead of time that a given obstacle requires a check to get past (e.g. this puzzle requires a DC 15 Intelligence check to solve), that's done without reference to the decisions the players make to overcome said obstacle.

Okay, but how does that relate to me hearing the player's declaration and deciding then that it's uncertain and requires a roll. Recall we aren't talking about a preset and inviolate DC, so I don't see how this clarifies anything.

In the example under discussion, the player described his or her character as turning a dial to "S." What is in doubt about turning the dial that calls for an Intelligence check in your view?

I believe I've covered that. I've given the conditions in which I would allow the declaration unimpeded, and I've given conditions where I would ask for a check. I don't see the utility in repeating my clear statements again. If you have a question about those statements, I'd be happy to clarify, but just asking the same question again won't change my answers.

Well, did I?

I didn't do the homework, I just took your word for it. Good enough for me, and I didn't care to follow the link at the time. Perhaps I'll circle back later and read it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Really? That's... very strange to not let a player say what they want their character to say without some kind of approval first.

Well, I looked back, and it turns out that, yes, I really said that. I know, surprised me, too.

Who said "make a star" was a riddle solution? I certainly didn't. I only said it is what one player had his character say, and the time at which that happened in our game play.

Are you saying that if I know what a character has been made to say on a whim is actually correct and the player knows it, I should behave differently as a DM than I would if I believed the player in that situation had no clue that what they had said was even relevant, let alone correct?

I am seeing a double-standard here; The player of the high INT character you describe above "ultimately controls his actions", but you have stated that the player of the interrupting character I described in my scenario is not afforded that same control of his characters actions.

Why have you made that the case? Have you made an assumption of what the character in my scenario has for an INT score? If yes, can you say exactly what you assume the score to be, and what score it would have to be the for the player to ultimately control his character's actions?[/quote]


And, as it turns out, you're intentionally withholding information, which never leads to constructive discussions on how things would occur. That's really just a method of laying traps.

Additional information is good. If they've always played a strange person that blurts out artistic things, I wouldn't think about it -- it's a character choice of behavior and even if it works correctly this time, I'd let it go as established. If, on the other hand, the player blurted out the correct answer and has a habit of doing such things, yeah, I'd take their statement as OOC and let it work within the established table mechanic of discussion I've outlined above.

Also, I now feel that you really haven't actually addressed the questions asked in my posted scenario - we've just started a side discussion about other things. I'd like it if you could pop back to post #708 and give a response to the questions asked there.

I responded to that in #711.

 

[iserith]

I'm confused. You just said that your rule is that, in the case of conflicting character declarations, you let the affected players narrate the outcome, did you not? How is this not you applying a rule? You cannot have the cake (I have a rule for how conflicting character declarations are resolved) and eat it, too (the rules aren't in play for conflicting character declaration resolutions, I have nothing to do with it).

I was referring to the rules of D&D, not the table rule of how we handle PCs harming or hindering each other. The rules of D&D are adjudicated impartially, when the DM decides they come into play.

Okay, I get that you're probably just not considering your words well, but can you see that this statement is essentially you saying that other people who do it differently from you are playing awfully in your estimation? And that this is the same as you saying that they are playing in a poor manner compared to your preferences? And that someone not working hard at giving you the benefit of the doubt can read this as an accusation of badwrongfun?

That I find a particular play experience awful doesn't mean anything other than I find it awful. For me. It's not a claim that it is objectively awful.

I've never had a player conflict not be of mutual interest to the players involved.

I've seen and experienced plenty of conflicts that were not well-received. Plenty of horror stories about this sort of thing on the forums throughout the years as well.

Okay, but how does that relate to me hearing the player's declaration and deciding then that it's uncertain and requires a roll. Recall we aren't talking about a preset and inviolate DC, so I don't see how this clarifies anything.

At the time, I understood you to say that in order to solve the "problem" of players acting smarter than you believe their character's Intelligence would allow (players you didn't know well because the one you do wouldn't do that, natch), you would call for an ability check. I took that to mean that playing at a table with such players would mean you would use that solution unilaterally going forward. If so, I think that solution produces other problems. If that's not a solution you would apply unilaterally, then disregard.

I believe I've covered that. I've given the conditions in which I would allow the declaration unimpeded, and I've given conditions where I would ask for a check. I don't see the utility in repeating my clear statements again. If you have a question about those statements, I'd be happy to clarify, but just asking the same question again won't change my answers.

I don't think you have answered the question as to what fictional circumstance is making turning the dial to "S" uncertain enough to warrant an ability check.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

And, as it turns out, you're intentionally withholding information, which never leads to constructive discussions on how things would occur. That's really just a method of laying traps.

Which cannot be said in this case on account of the fact that I was upfront and honest about what information I was withholding, and was withholding that information specifically because it was necessary to withhold in order to ask the questions that I asked.

If they've always played a strange person that blurts out artistic things, I wouldn't think about it -- it's a character choice of behavior and even if it works correctly this time, I'd let it go as established.

...so if the character has been blurting things out a lot, or if the player said "the character will very rarely, maybe only once in the entire campaign, blurt out a thought" it would be okay. That makes sense.

If, on the other hand, the player blurted out the correct answer and has a habit of doing such things, yeah, I'd take their statement as OOC and let it work within the established table mechanic of discussion I've outlined above.

Sure... but where's the middle ground between those two extremes? What about this player that is not established as having a habit of blurting out the right answer, has not established that his character does or does blurt things out or with what frequency, and might not have any idea whether the answer being blurted this time is actually correct or not?

I responded to that in #711.

I don't think you did. You haven't said whether you would ask this player what their Int score and riddling skill are because of their action. Nor whether you limit the blurting specifically because of those score, though you have implied you would - I just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You also haven't said whether a player portraying their character this way is "fine" or not.

 

[iserith]

I watched a youtube video of monkeys doing stuff and used it to put together a list of permissible action declarations for characters with equivalent Intelligence scores.

• Tear underwear off a fat old man.
• Puzzle over your own image in a mirror
• Chase bikini-clad women into the ocean.
• Use a vending machine.
• Steal some food from picnickers.
• Press your buttocks against a pane of glass.
• Walk in unison with a friend while carrying something.
• Feed a dog.
• Grab someone's shopping bag and run off into a temple.
• Snatch an old lady's wig off.
• Play fight with a black cat.
• Rifle through someone's pockets as a distraction before stealing his or her hat.
• Grapple a man through the bars of a cage and tear his shirt off then wear it on your head.
• Chew on a glass bottle in a vain attempt at getting at what's inside.
• Play with a kitten.
• Swing on a rope and smack into a glass window.
• Drink from a faucet.
• Look for fleas and ticks in a cat's fur.
• Get brain freeze from drinking cold juice too fast.
• Ride on the back of the dog.
• Eat whipped cream from a spray can.

But try to offer a solution to a puzzle? Get out of here.

 

[dennis_johnjoe]

Anyone can try and pick a lock in D&D but it's likely that the rogue will have the best chance to beat it. Most parties will have their most charismatic character do the talking to the important NPC.

But there's a difference between the two examples. The player of the rogue doesn't have to know the first thing about lock picking. The player with the 18 charisma bard may well put his foot in it with the barbarian chief or mumble haplessly. I've seen the charisma dump stat character step in to rescue the situation before. Is this wrong?

Should the DM intervene? 'I don't think you should take this line with this guy - just a suggestion'.

I guess it depends on how you roleplay it. Some people speak their characters as an acted part. Others would just say 'look, I'm just going to sweet talk this guy, ok? and I'm pretty convincing according to my character sheet.'

So, intelligence. I think in individual 'puzzle' situations that need an analytical mind, this should be a chance for the high int character to shine, just like the rogue with her thieves tools. It's how the DM presents it that's important. I'm not one for inserting 'real world' puzzles into my games (I'm no good at them anyway!) but if a set of runes unlocked some sort of door I'd keep the details as clear or murky as the roll required:

Fred the fighter examines the door and rolls predictably badly - "various runes are scratched into the dials, you have no idea what any of them mean."

Warren the wizard examines the door and does better-
"It looks like an ancient form of elvish writing that corresponds to day, month and year in the old eleven calendar on each dial."

Warren, "OK guys, how about we start by putting in that date we found in the old journal?"

In my experience, every group I've ever role played with has put forward the character most likely to succeed to achieve a specific task. The ranger guides, the rogue picks locks/finds traps, the fighters hit bad guys, the clerics heal - that's D&D! The Int 5 guy won't get put forward to do this stuff - someone else will almost certainly be better at it, and it's their time to shine.

But I do think that overall discussion that occurs regarding the plot and what's happening is something for everyone to get involved with and anyone can have an opinion. If I was the int 5 character and thought 'hey, this all points to old man Withers up at the farm!' I wouldn't just sit on it.

One last thing, the door into Moria was puzzled over by Gandalf for ages before Frodo worked it out. [emoji6]

 

[pemerton]

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.

Why would I accept that?

What's being discussed in this thread is whether the D&D game includes an expectation that players of PCs with low INT will self-police their action declarations by making sure that their PCs don't do things that are, relative to the ingame situation and the interests of those PCs, clever things.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, the only version of D&D to assert this is 2nd ed AD&D.

You say roleplaying a low INT would deny a player the ability to engage fully in a mental challenge

No. I am saying that the whole game is a mental challenge. That is inherent in it being the sort of activity that it is. Playing the game means thinking about who is a friend and who an enemy; whether to move left or right in combat; how to allocate various resources (eg X/rest abilities); whether to rest or move on; etc.

Participating in the game means thinking about these matters, and making sensible choices - or in a party-based game like D&D, helping the group as a whole arrive at a sensible choice. Expecting or demanding that the player of the 5 INT character to argue for irrational choices in these respects is, in my view, unreasonable. (If the player wants to play that way on his/her own motion, that's his/her prerogative.)

I do think that overall discussion that occurs regarding the plot and what's happening is something for everyone to get involved with and anyone can have an opinion. If I was the int 5 character and thought 'hey, this all points to old man Withers up at the farm!' I wouldn't just sit on it.

Agreed. But I think some posters are saying that you should.

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?

This is picked up nicely in iserith's post:

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.

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.

My response to iserith's examples are that I'm good with the STR ones, and the INT check ones. The GMing deciding that a task which is described in abstract terms as an application of the intellect is too hard for the low INT PC is fine (provided it accords with whatever the general rules are for "saying no" in the game in question).

I'm not all that keen on the final one, though. When the player declares an action such as I turn the dial to S, for the GM to veto that is a rather different thing. That said, I would prefer the GM to outright veto the action declaration than to secretly thwart it in the way Ovinomancer describes.

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.

I agree. That's why, upthread, I posted that "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."

I have good players.

So do I. I'm not sure how that's really relevant, though.

 

[pemerton]

is it because I feel Intelligence is not equal (enough) to some other ability scores and therefore players may abuse the point buy to play a smart INT 5 character and max out their STR and DEX for combat.
On reflection, for myself, I'm beginning to think it is the latter.

<snip>

I believe this issue of roleplaying a character with INT 5 to max out physical stats (as well as the Alignment issue) stems from a Fear of Player Abuse.

I don't believe I've ever encountered the abuse in question.

My general experience with fantasy RPGs is that players who are playing wizard/scholar types will aim for a failry high INT (or equivalent stat) while those playing fighter/athlete types will tend to use it as a dump-ish stat. (What "dumping" means here depends a bit on the precise stat generation system in use.)

The benefit to those with high INT is in skills, spells known (for AD&D), languages, etc.

The "penalty" for those with low INT is that they don't have as many of those skills and languages, and they don't have access to the relevant spells or similar magical abilities that the wizard/scholar has.

I allow table talk OOC about in game things. In this case, the table talk would be used by the riddler skill character if they wanted to. The interrupting player's character, however, would not be the one sharing the information.

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?

<snip>

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

I posted a similar response to Ovinomancer upthread, but I think got no reply.

As my group approaches the game, most of the time no sufficiently strong distinction between in-character and out-of-character contributions is being drawn for the sort of approach Ovinomancer seems to be describing to be applied. (There may be special cases, like riddling competitions for prestige at court, but they don't come up all that often.)