D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Maxperson]

I think that what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] means is this:

IQ score is taken to be a marker of some property of a person - let's call that property intelligence. Having IQ 180, among real-life human beings on earth, means you're in the top X% (where X is less than 0.00000029). That X % of people have a certain degree of intelligence - let's call that amount of intelligence I.

Now, in the world of D&D, there are also people who have I amount of intelligence. But the number of such people is far greater than in the real world. Rather than being X%, it is nearly 0.5% (1 in 216).​

Correct.

Personally I think this conjecture is positing that the stat generation system has a degree of world-building robustness that I don't think was ever intended. In the case of AD&D, there is the additional complexity that for many NPCs stats are meant to be rolled using averaging dice (1 = 3, 6 = 4) which means that the max INT is 15, and that scores above 12 are less common than they would be on a 3d6 roll. (25 in 216 will be 13, 14 or 15 - that's a little more than 1 in 9, which actually isn't too out of whack with these figures, if we allow 121 to map to 13 rather than 12.)

It's not conjecture. It's based off of articles and official rules stating in multiple editions that IQ = int x 10.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Why would I accept that?

I was follow on with your statements that the character is not the character sheet, that the mechanics are not associated with the character concept, that it's the responsibility of the DM, not the player, to translate stats into gameplay by imposing appropriate mechanics. In order to make sure there was no lingering doubt as to who the responsible party for enforcing mechanics was, I created a thought problem that completely removed all responsibility from the player to even be aware of his stats so as to clearly outline the issues I have to the general concept.

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.

There are many things being discussed in this thread, and I allow that is one if them. I do believe such an expectation exists. It isn't explicit, and I've granted that freely from the beginning, but it is heavily implied in the descriptions of the stats, and in comparing similar stats to known behaviors and ability in other creatures. The counters to this, so far, seem to fall into the camp of, 'but it's not explicit, so it doesn't really exist' to the first one and 'animals only have stats for mechanical purposes, any comparison is bunk' for the second. I've clearly explained my problems with the first one, and my response that you're quoting is part of that oeuvre. If the players have no responsibility to reconcile their mechanical abilities with their character play, then were at a point that I have to concede that they have no responsibilities to the game mechanics at all. I, as the DM, inherit all responsibility for such things. I become in parentis loco, the only responsible person for the rules in the game. I reject this. I am the final arbiter of the rules, but all players have responsibility to them, and that includes the expectation of roleplaying with your mechanical abilities in mind.

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

Can players shoot laser beams out of their eyes? No version of D&D has said that they cannot. I suppose that since it's not explicit, they should be allowed to, yes?

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.)

How is it irrational to play a dumb character? You're classifying playing dumb as irrational when it's expected of a player with a low INT, but as rational and acceptable if they choose to do it themselves? I don't think we're using the word 'irrational' the same way. What does it mean to you?

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

This is picked up nicely in iserith's post:



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.

My response would be to ask how you would deal with a declaration of, "I lift the large boulder with my bare hands." At that point, the player has made a clear declaration of their action, exactly as when they declared they'd turn the dial to 'S'. So, as long as the player just declares and doesn't ask or state that their uncertain, it's good, no check?

Obviously, that's wrong, so the problem here is one of skipped steps. The player declaring he turns the dial to 'S' is a physical action absent a motivation. We're left would knowledge of how the player determined to perform that action. If we knew, then we'd probably understand that the player deciphered the puzzle and arrived at an answer he thought was correct, then made a declaration for his character with the puzzlinging as an unspoken fait accompli. Had he asked if his character could come to this conclusion, though, both you and Iserth have clearly said that a check would be called for, but because the player didn't ask that question, just skipped it and moved straight to the physical act of completing the puzzle, you're unwilling to consider that such an action took place in an area where you, as the DM, have any say. You've moved something that could be a game mechanic check, and would be if expressed, to the inviolable area of 'player agency.'

But, when I express that I might choose to acknowledge that skipped step, if I ask for a check to cover the solving, I have done something you disagree with. In reality, all I've done is acknowledge the intermediate step and brought it to the fore. The player is free to declare their attempting to solve the puzzle, but the character's ability is in question, so a check is called for. Encouraging players to move into positions where they can effect a fait accompli to bypass the chosen limitations of their players is a disservice to the player -- it says that his choices in where and how to allocate his character building choices are of little matter. It also does a disservice to other players, who may be attempting to honor their own prior choices, or who lack the real life mental acuity to pull such feats off. By encouraging players to avoid the consequences of their own choices by hiding steps and specifically wording actions so as to avoid those choices is encouraging a game I don't necessarily want to play. This isn't a matter of me thinking it's unfair, or that players are cheating and need to be stopped, it the fact that I think that, for a good game to exist, choices must have meaning. The argument here really boils down to different camps placing more or less meaning on some choices. Some feel that the choices made in character creation are as important as choices made in play, others feel that character creation choices are nearly inconsequential to choices made in play. I belong in between the two extremes, but have enough of a foot in 'both matter' to say that, occasionally, if I notice a trend in attempting to negate or lessen the impact of choices made earlier through specifically worded play declarations, I may take action to adjust and make those earlier choices more consequential.

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

Bragging rarely is. Won't stop me. I'm proud of my good players.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Does anybody expect the following behavior?

5 CON:
"Sorry guys, I can't climb up the stairs of this tower without a Short Rest."

5 DEX:
"I trip going back down the stairs. How much damage do I take?"

5 CHA:
"I spit on the NPC. Again." (I'm struggling to come up with examples for this one.)

5 WIS:
"Oh, that Lich seems friendly! I offer him a biscuit!" (Honestly it's tough to distinguish between low WIS and low INT for something like this)

5 STR:
"I can't pull myself onto my horse. You guys need to stay and help me face the oncoming Horde, or leave me here to die."

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not my point. My point is in reference to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s assertion that IQ=Int X 10. My point is this cannot be true assuming a 3d6 distribution of ability scores.

Your point is incorrect. You might as well say that Maxperson's assertion cannot be true assuming unicorns fart rainbows. The two things have exactly that much in common.

If we know that a certain IQ occurs with a certain probability because it is normally distributed, then it cannot correlate to an Intelligence score that occurs with a much higher probability. Make sense?

No, because IQs are not really normally distributed. They cannot be, because a normal distribution requires certain things be true of its data that are not true for the IQ data. Normal distributions require that the data have a mean and a standard deviation and ordinal data have no such values (and cannot). Yes, you can take all the numbers in an ordinal data set and do the math that you would to find a mean and standard deviation, and this math gives you answers, but those answers are flat out bullpoop. This is because, again, ordinal data does not have a defined distance between data points. The difference between 1 and 2 can be different than between 2 and 3, and 3 and 4, and 4 and ..... If the distance between data points is unknowable, then a mean of that data is meaningless (heh, see what I did there?). If the mean is meaningless, you have no anchor to find standard deviation (which is a measure of variance where is itself unknowable due to the unknown amount of variance between points, so a general statement of variance is impossible).

The ONLY use the stats of IQ has is to compare points within the set. IQ only makes sense in terms of discussing other IQ scores. It's normal distribution is a knowing falsehood that maintains some use so long as it's understood it's should be used only to loosely evaluate the IQ data itself -- it is not appropriate for comparison to any other data set or distribution, and fails to provide any useful conclusion when so compared. So if you compare IQ's distribution to 3d6's, then the result is as valid as comparing IQ to unicorn farts.

TL;DR: IQ's stats are improper, so it doesn't matter if you compare it to 3d6 or unicorn farts -- the outcome is the same.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good god has this thread become yet another shining example of "I'm not seeking insight, I'm just trying to prove that I'm smarter than other gamers."

There's a shocking absence of "You know, that's a really good point. I'll alter my previous claim to say instead that..."

That actually HAPPENS quite often, but it's never admitted. It's always, "No, you misunderstood me, what I really meant was..." (and then what follows is a slightly modified position, with contorted logic to demonstrate that it's the same position.)

 

[Ovinomancer]

Does anybody expect the following behavior?

5 CON:
"Sorry guys, I can't climb up the stairs of this tower without a Short Rest."

5 DEX:
"I trip going back down the stairs. How much damage do I take?"

5 CHA:
"I spit on the NPC. Again." (I'm struggling to come up with examples for this one.)

5 WIS:
"Oh, that Lich seems friendly! I offer him a biscuit!" (Honestly it's tough to distinguish between low WIS and low INT for something like this)

5 STR:
"I can't pull myself onto my horse. You guys need to stay and help me face the oncoming Horde, or leave me here to die."

Specifically? No, but generally, I don't have too many problems. A low CON person should act concerned about wading through the sewer because he catches sick easily. A low DEX person may ask for party members to tie a rope line to them before trying to descend stairs described as "deeply cut, irregular stairs that glisten in your torchlight with condensation and mold." A low CHA character may describe abusive behavior in a stressful environment. A low WIS character (I've actually got a soft spot for low WIS characters) may indeed offer a biscuit if they Lich appears charming, or may just charge recklessly into combat with the Lich without consideration of the consequences. The low STR character would probably ask for help to make his climb check onto his horse before deciding to demand the party stay and die with him. This really seems more of low INT/WIS problem to me.

 

[iserith]

Here's my takeaway from this. You're just fine in limiting player action declarations for things you don't like. In this case, you don't like inter-player conflict, so you've instituted a table rule that shorts out the normal game rules and declares that narrative power moves from the DM to one of the players involved (I'm unclear as to how you determine the "defending" player, is it just a matter of who declares first?). You do this because you wish to restrict a type of interaction that you find doesn't suit the type of game you wish to run. I hope I have that largely correct?

No, because the the player action declarations are not limited. A player is free to declare whatever he or she wishes. The player whose character is under threat of harm or hindrance narrates the result. In practice, this means that no conflict occurs (or is very short-lived) unless all parties agree to it.

Yet, you're arguing that others should not do a similar thing in cases where you don't think it's appropriate. The difference isn't that we disagree that you can't limit character action declarations or resolutions according to the personal tastes of the DM, but that you don't think doing so with stats is appropriate. I'm sure there's an argument to be made that a class of action declarations that relates to who it's targeted at is someone significantly different from a class of action declarations based on a stat, but that's special pleading.

Expecting or demanding a player restrict action declarations in accordance with whatever the DM thinks an Intelligence score means is self-evidently a restriction on action declaration. I make no such restrictions in my games.

I will endeavor to recall this. I'm sure you extend the same courtesy to people that tell you that your choices in running are awful?

I have no issue with folks thinking the way I do things sucks. It's when they claim their way is right and my way is wrong by some objective measure that I object, as I have done in this thread.

Sure, which is probably why you've decided to just close off the ability of your players to engage in that type of action.

Whoa, deja vu. I'm almost positive I've said almost that exact thing to you before. Have I?

Yes, you have made the same incorrect assertion before. They're not closed off from this type of action at all, as I have explained.

Anyway. I've also seen horror stories. That comes from no controls or a player that's not working out well with the group dynamic. However, it's also perfectly good to set expectations at the beginning of play and enforce them that can ensure that the abuses and horror stories are unlikely to occur (anything involving people is uncertain) but still allows for good inter-player conflict.

My method still allows for inter-character conflict, which is what I assume you really mean.

If push does come to shove, and they fall into fighting each other over what's the 'right' way to save the world, I wouldn't step in to prevent them from playing the characters they want.

Neither do I. In fact, I don't step in at all. The players will work it out on their own.

You're right, in that you're fishing for a hard, concrete answer when my answer all along has been, 'it's like porn, I know it when I see it.' The number of considerations that would go into that decision are myriad and defy easy quantification. I'm sure you don't run your game with a concrete list of 'when I see 'X' I will then do 'Y'' statements, so why are you requiring me to provide you with such a declaration, especially when I've clearly conceded that it's a matter of judgement in specific cases?

The example was pretty clear in my opinion. It just looks like you're being evasive here. It's a simple question: What about the established fictional situation is complicating the action of turning the dial to "S?" I could see illiteracy being a problem here, but a low Intelligence doesn't mean the character is illiterate. So what is it?

In my view, there's nothing complicating it. The player declared an action and I narrate the result "The dial turns to 'S' and the door unlocks." If, as you say, the DM denying the player the ability to make that declaration ("Nope, you're too stupid to do that...") is not acceptable, then what is?

 

[iserith]

Sure, but it's also the norm. I've met virtually nobody in the last 30+ years of gaming that wouldn't play a stupid PC as stupid and make stupid decisions for that character. If your table is abnormal and is okay with a stupid PC being roleplayed as average or smart, then have at it.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't establish an objective norm so far as I know. But I'm glad to see you backtrack on your stated position that there is a right or wrong way to roleplay according to the rules. That's progress and as a result I don't believe we have any further conflict.

 

[iserith]

It's not conjecture. It's based off of articles and official rules stating in multiple editions that IQ = int x 10.

Just not this edition.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good god has this thread become yet another shining example of "I'm not seeking insight, I'm just trying to prove that I'm smarter than other gamers."

There's a shocking absence of "You know, that's a really good point. I'll alter my previous claim to say instead that..."

That actually HAPPENS quite often, but it's never admitted. It's always, "No, you misunderstood me, what I really meant was..." (and then what follows is a slightly modified position, with contorted logic to demonstrate that it's the same position.)

I agree. I started out by trying to say that I think there's a reasonable expectation for players to model their characters with their mechanics in mind. This was a middle position, as I started with the clear admission that there was no explicit requirement that they do so. I expounded that this wasn't a hard and fast expectation, more of a general one, and that I would, in most cases, rule as those arguing against my statement would rule. I've held out that there are situations where I would rule differently, even if I can't provide a concrete set of entry requirements to those situations, and provided asked for examples of what I would do if I were in that situation. Of course, this devolves back into arguments that ignore the fact that I mostly DON'T make those rulings, and that I would engage my players OOC when dealing with such questions as part of my resolution. I'm as guilty as everyone else for that spiral. Sometimes, in the middle of a conversation, you tend to get bogged down in the immediate specifics, and lose the larger picture..

I'll also admit to having a particular weakness to responding to bad stats use and arguments of the form 'it doesn't explicitly say X'. In the first case, that's a particular bugaboo of mine. In the latter, there's lots of things it doesn't explicitly say that get done anyway. Make a case for why this one is special, don't just use the weak form of that argument.