D&D 5E (2014) So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Guest 6801328]

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'.

Back when I used to play a lot of high-level WoW, we would get a lot of guild applications who in response to the question "What's your greatest weakness" would write "I don't have much patience for bad players."

We never admitted them.

 

[iserith]

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.

I don't think the players do have any "responsibilities to the game mechanics." Their role in the basic conversation of the game is to describe what they want to do. Whether and how to apply the rules falls on the DM.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.



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 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.



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.



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



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

You're arguing a distinction without a difference. It's your rule that does the work. It's your rule that ensures that the player with the most to gain/lose has the only say in the matter. I assume that since the thwartee is granted the narrative power there's not restriction that he use it in any way? He can, without discussion, just declare that the thwarter fails in his attempt and the thwartee completes his action as desired? If so, that's because of your ruling, even if you've delegated power, and it's still your responsibility. And it clearly disincentivizes and potentially negates an entire class of action declarations (thwarting ones). Hiding behind the player that your ruling puts the onus on to claim that you don't do this seems... I don't know, because I don't understand why someone would make that kind of an argument. Perhaps we just really do think very differently on these things, but, for me, even if I put a decision into another player's hands (which I do do, on occasion), I still maintain the final authority which means I still maintain the final responsibility, even if I never use it. I could not ever argue that I wasn't responsible for denying another player a fair resolution of an action declaration just because I told another player to make the call.

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?

Look, I answered it in two ways -- the first as if I decided that it didn't rise to the level of something I thought needed to be dealt with and the second if I did. I even stated that the high probability would be that I would rule the first way in any given situation. But I said that, if I thought it warranted based on a host of other things, including past interactions, that I may choose the second path. But here we are again with you posing the same question I answered but demanding that I must pick one of the two ways as my final answer. I'm not allowed to have a nuanced position, I must declare a side (sides you picked, not me). I tell you that I cannot with the information presented because, as I've already explained, I would base my choice on additional information not provided by your very abbreviated example. You say that I'm being evasive because I haven't answered only a or b, only this or that, when my answers have been clear and consistent that I will not due to lack of information.

So, you're posed with a choice. You either take me at my word or you decided that I, for some strange and nefarious reason, are being intentionally dishonest by providing a nuanced answer instead of the false dichotomy you present. My answer, either way, is as complete as I can make it given the information you've provided.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Back when I used to play a lot of high-level WoW, we would get a lot of guild applications who in response to the question "What's your greatest weakness" would write "I don't have much patience for bad players."

We never admitted them.

Fascinating. What am I supposed to glean from this? I can't tell if I'm supposed to take it as an amusing anecdote, or if it's intended as a snide comment on my character, or maybe something else? Just a fun non-sequitur?

 

[iserith]

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.

I think an apples-to-apples comparison would be along the lines of "I try to lift the boulder with my bare hands..." and "I try to turn the dial to 'S'..." What fictional circumstance is complicating either action such that a check is required? The weight of the boulder seems easy to see in the former, but the latter not so much. How does the character's assumed stupidity interfere with turning a dial?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think the players do have any "responsibilities to the game mechanics." Their role in the basic conversation of the game is to describe what they want to do. Whether and how to apply the rules falls on the DM.

We have a fundamental disagreement, then. It's a small one, but it seems on cause a number of our arguments. Since the game of D&D is a social game, it's part of the social contract of the game that all of the players do their best to engage in the game honestly. I believe that the players do have a responsibility to engage honestly with the game, which includes acknowledgement of their character creation choices. They made those choices, they have a responsibility for those choices. If that choice is to play an imbecile, then I do believe that the player who made that choice has a responsibility to honor that choice and do his/her best to play an imbecile. I will recommend against that choice, but it's ultimately theirs to make. Given my expectation of honest engagement, if they do insist on that choice, I will expect them to honor it in play. I will do my part to honor their choice by making appropriate rulings and calling for appropriate checks, but the sole responsibility for honoring the player's choice does not rest solely with me as GM.

 

[Guest 6801328]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]: sorry I didn't give you more feedback. Overall I really love those both of those mini-modules. Do you have more?

I must have not read the first one carefully enough because it felt like an example of I'm-not-playing-D&D-I'm-solving-a-brain-teaser-from-the-puzzle-page-of-the-Times. And maybe that's a Pavlovian* reaction to too many of those puzzles over the years.

Again, though, I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this one.

*I'm just begging for a pedantic correction on my undoubtedly incorrect invocation of Pavlov, aren't I?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think an apples-to-apples comparison would be along the lines of "I try to lift the boulder with my bare hands..." and "I try to turn the dial to 'S'..." What fictional circumstance is complicating either action such that a check is required? The weight of the boulder seems easy to see in the former, but the latter not so much. How does the character's assumed stupidity interfere with turning a dial?

It interferes in the overlooked step of what to turn the dial to. I was pretty clear in that post that this is where I saw a problem, spent two long paragraphs in the text you quoted going discussing it. Did you stop reading after the first paragraph?

 

[iserith]

You're arguing a distinction without a difference. It's your rule that does the work. It's your rule that ensures that the player with the most to gain/lose has the only say in the matter. I assume that since the thwartee is granted the narrative power there's not restriction that he use it in any way? He can, without discussion, just declare that the thwarter fails in his attempt and the thwartee completes his action as desired? If so, that's because of your ruling, even if you've delegated power, and it's still your responsibility. And it clearly disincentivizes and potentially negates an entire class of action declarations (thwarting ones). Hiding behind the player that your ruling puts the onus on to claim that you don't do this seems... I don't know, because I don't understand why someone would make that kind of an argument. Perhaps we just really do think very differently on these things, but, for me, even if I put a decision into another player's hands (which I do do, on occasion), I still maintain the final authority which means I still maintain the final responsibility, even if I never use it. I could not ever argue that I wasn't responsible for denying another player a fair resolution of an action declaration just because I told another player to make the call.

The rule is very simple and applies to all parties involved in the interaction: If you try to harm or hinder another player character, the target of the harm or hindrance decides the outcome. It does NOT prevent players from making action declarations. It's exactly the same as any other action declaration with the exception of who narrates the outcome. If the players are acting in good faith, then the conflict will unfold in the manner the players mutually desire. In my experience, intra-party conflict is pretty rare, but there are additional contributing factors to this in my view: (1) My campaign does not lack for conflict outside the bounds of the party - there are plenty of monsters and NPCs to beat up and rob, so turning on other PCs seems pointless; (2) We establish relationships between the characters on par with Dungeon World's bonds prior to play (even in one-shots); (3) I foster an atmosphere where players add onto ideas they hear to make them better rather than shoot them down outright.

Look, I answered it in two ways -- the first as if I decided that it didn't rise to the level of something I thought needed to be dealt with and the second if I did. I even stated that the high probability would be that I would rule the first way in any given situation. But I said that, if I thought it warranted based on a host of other things, including past interactions, that I may choose the second path. But here we are again with you posing the same question I answered but demanding that I must pick one of the two ways as my final answer. I'm not allowed to have a nuanced position, I must declare a side (sides you picked, not me). I tell you that I cannot with the information presented because, as I've already explained, I would base my choice on additional information not provided by your very abbreviated example. You say that I'm being evasive because I haven't answered only a or b, only this or that, when my answers have been clear and consistent that I will not due to lack of information.

It's not clear to me what context is missing for you to answer concretely. An Int-5 character wants to turn a dial on a door to the "S" position. As for the "missing step," why should there be a test to see if the character can have this desire in the first place? If a player said something like, "I try to deduce whether 'S' is the right answer before turning the dial..." then what we have, potentially, is a player trying to verify his or her assumptions prior to taking action. If 'S' is wrong, then there might be consequences, after all, and this is an example of smart play that might very well call for an ability check. The player choosing to just turn the dial to "S" without verifying his or her assumption is taking a chance (albeit probably not a big one in this particular example as the puzzle is pretty easy).

 

[iserith]

We have a fundamental disagreement, then. It's a small one, but it seems on cause a number of our arguments. Since the game of D&D is a social game, it's part of the social contract of the game that all of the players do their best to engage in the game honestly. I believe that the players do have a responsibility to engage honestly with the game, which includes acknowledgement of their character creation choices. They made those choices, they have a responsibility for those choices. If that choice is to play an imbecile, then I do believe that the player who made that choice has a responsibility to honor that choice and do his/her best to play an imbecile. I will recommend against that choice, but it's ultimately theirs to make. Given my expectation of honest engagement, if they do insist on that choice, I will expect them to honor it in play. I will do my part to honor their choice by making appropriate rulings and calling for appropriate checks, but the sole responsibility for honoring the player's choice does not rest solely with me as GM.

In my view, whether or not the character is or acts like an imbecile is something you put in for the character's personality trait or flaw. If you play to that, you earn Inspiration. This is a built-in incentive for encouraging players to play as you would like them to. It has the added benefit of being unambiguous whereas "Int 5" doesn't tell us much at all. Each person reads into it in their own way.