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
I did not state such things. What I did say was that the existence of mechanical penalties or prohibitions resulting from a low stat does not "impl[y] 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."
A player whose PC has 5 STR has always been free to declare "I try and bend the bars". It is the GM's job to say whether or not this succeeds (or perhaps to set a required roll). S/he is not expected to police his/her own action declarations.
If the player of the weak PC doesn't want to make such action declarations of course that is his/her prerogative; mutatis mutandis for the player of the PC with 5 INT.
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?
If your PC's goal is X, and you declare an action that will thwart X, then that action is irrational. If you, as a player, choose to play that way then - subject to the usual caveats about social contract, table harmony etc - that is your prerogative. But I don't think the rules of the game
oblige or even
expect you to make such irrational action declarations.
it's the responsibility of the DM, not the player, to translate stats into gameplay by imposing appropriate mechanics.
That is my view - subject to usual caveats such as that the agreed ruleset may already establish many of the mechanical parameters (eg DCs for various tasks, encumbrance rules, etc).
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.
My reason for denying that any such implication exists is that I can't see it.
I can see it in 2nd ed AD&D, where there is a long discussion of the creation of the PC
Rath, and of how a player might play Rath. I think this is one of multiple signs of how AD&D 2nd ed turned the players from driving the game - as they do in Gygaxian D&D and in more contemporary indie-style RPGing - to being participants in a GM-driven game, in which the players' main job is to provide colour through characterisation of their PCs, rather than to drive play by establishing goals for their PCs and then making action declarations in pursuit of those goals.
Perhaps it exists in 3E - I don't know that PHB well enough.
It is not found in 4e, though, where the affects of a low INT are made pretty clear: a penalty on certain checks/skills, and a prohibition on taking certain feats.
It is not found in Moldvay Basic, where low INT is correlated to linguistic ability but not to action declaration more generally.
It is not found in 1st ed AD&D, for similar reasons.
It may be found in OD&D, depending on the meaning of the passage in Men & Magic that I quoted upthread but that no one other than [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION] has commented on.
I don't believe it is found in 5e. Yes, 5e states that low INT means poor reasoning etc. This is in that part of the rules called "Using Ability Scores" which goes on to explain their use in making checks. That does not imply any particular obligation on the player to police him-/herself in respect of action declarations; and the only express discussion of such matters puts that obligation on the GM, not the players.
As for the comparison to animals: it's enough to point out that language, in 5e, is not correlated to INT score (unlike some earlier editions); yet linguistic ability is
clearly an aspect of intelligence or cognitive ability in the ordinary sense of those terms; and hence INT score, in 5e, does not even approximate to a total description or characterisation of a creature's cognitive or intellectual ability.
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 don't really know what you mean by "responsibility to the game mechanics". But anyway, what do you think the mechanics are for? I think they're primarily for adjudicating action declarations - and INT figures into this by (i) affecting some die rolls, and (ii) potentially affecting the way the GM permits or frames an action declaration.
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."
Good post.
As I posted upthread, the answer in my game is "sometimes" - the player of the weak wizard will sometimes decide that some athletic feat is not feasible for his PC.
But in general I think it is the GM's job to frame the parameters and feasibility of action declaration, not for the player to police this on his/her own account. I'm not the biggest fan of the GM veto on grounds of the PC's low INT, but at least it makes more sense than the player being
obliged to do it him-/herself, or having the GM do it by distorting action declarations.
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.
This seems to me just to emphasise the point that the non-problematic ones trigger rules constraints that don't oblige the player to police him-/herself.
I find that you're willing to remove all agency from the players for their choices during character creation troubling. You've handwaved those away as utterly irrelevant to the play of the characters
I don't understand your grounds for saying this.
The player chooses to put a 5 into INT. As a result, INT checks, INT saves and the like will be penalised. Much as is the case with STR, DEX etc. That is not "handwaving" anything (a choice, or a stat) away as irrelevant. And the 5 INT will inform the play of the character much as a 5 DEX would: it will affect the player's choice of action declarations (because, everything else being equal, most players are cautions about declaring actions that involve reliance upon mechanically weak elements of the character) and will also affect the resolution of those action declarations (eg by imposing a die penalty, or perhaps influencing the GM's decision as to whether or not a roll is required at all).
it does tell us that the character is not as capable in the things that the PHB lists under Intelligence as someone with a higher score. It tells us that a 'normal' person has a score of 10, so that you should be less capable than a 'normal' person.
The difference is 'can a PC physically turn the dial to a random location?' vs. "can the PC figure out which spot on the dial will solve the puzzle?" The answer to the first question is, "clearly, in this case, yes." The answer to the second is, "maybe, needs a roll."
<snip>
The question has never been if the PC is physically capable, the question, for me, was is the PC mentally capable of identifying the answer.
As I've already posted, I personally have doubts that this sort of veto-ing of action declarations is good for the game. But to me it is at least much clearer what is going on then a rather nebulous insistence that the player be a "good roleplayer". And to that extent is therefore an approach that I find preferable to the insistence upon "good roleplaying".
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.'
I don't understand why you say that I'm unwilling. I have repeatedly flagged the possibility of the GM vetoing certain action declarations. (I have also explained why I, personally, have doubts that that is good for the game. But that's tangential to the main issue, I think, as it's a fact about my preferences but not a contribution to an understanding of what the game rules require or expect.)
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?
This is a bizarre contribution to the discussion which makes no sense to me. It seems a complete non-sequitur.
