D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Guest 6801328]

At least now we know what Charisma 5 looks like.

/thread

 

[Maxperson]

At least now we know what Charisma 5 looks like.

If we base that comment on your views on intelligence, it means Fred Astaire or Cary Grant, so thank you very much!

 

[pemerton]

An Appeal to Authority fails on its face. What you do is irrelevant.

That's not actually true. In some threads on fighting, for instance, the views of active or former soldiers, or martial arts practitioners, are appropriately accorded greater weight than (say) my views - given that I have never been a soldier, nor practised any form of martial arts.

The point of mentioning my occupation is that, probably more than anyone else still posting in this thread, I think and talk about the relationship between action and reasons for action as an ordinary part of my job. And, as I said, I wouldn't look askance at someone who described as irrational behaviour that was not akratic, but was nevertheless goal-thwarting.

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense

<snip>

The stupid PC has exercised reason and possibly sound judgment and good sense (we don't know because there are no specifics). You can choose an action that runs contrary to your goals and still have it based on good judgment or good sense, but it just didn't work out as planned. The stupid person can easily be rational with his actions by this definition.

I think commenting on this will be enough.

Almost by definition, a person who acts stupidly has failed to exercise reason, sound judgement or good sense. That's what it means to act stupidly.

Way back at post 739 I said 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.)​

At post 803 I elaborated, in response to a question about "playing a dumb character", that

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.​

In other words, I was saying that a stupid character is characterised by making irrational decisions - ie ones that are contrary to the decisions that character has reason to make; or, to use the language of dictionary.com, decisions that are lacking in reason, sound judgement, or good sense. And I was denying, and continue to deny, that the rules of the game oblige or event expect players of low INT PCs to make action declarations that are irrational in this sense.

I think that claim is perfectly clear (whether or not one agrees with it). I think my use of the word "irrational" is also quite clear. That you prefer to use the word differently is a fact about you, but not one that I am going to be moved by. (That's another reason for mentioning my occupation - I take the views of academic lawyers and philosophers, who have made a career of studying the nature of reasons and reasoning, as my chief guide on usage of the word "irrational".)

Instead of a pointless detour down a dead-end semantic pathway, it might be more profitable for this thread if you were to engage my claim about what the game rules expect or demand of players.

In that spirit, I ask: how do you think it improves the game to have a PC whose player is obliged to declare, as actions for his/her PC, actions that will thwart or at least impede the PC and the party in the attainment of their goals? If this is what you mean by good roleplaying, what is it that makes it good?

 

[Maxperson]

Almost by definition, a person who acts stupidly has failed to exercise reason, sound judgement or good sense. That's what it means to act stupidly.

It seems like you are saying that Reason = being correct, and that if you are incorrect in your decision, you cannot have used reason.

That's wrong. You can use reason and come up with the wrong decision. Stupid people do it all the time. Smart people do it all the time. As long as your decision is not arbitrary/random and you have a reason for what you do, the you have exercised reason.

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.)​

The game is also about roleplaying your character. If you are playing a stupid PC, then making stupid decisions is the sensible choice and very reasonable.

At post 803 I elaborated, in response to a question about "playing a dumb character", that

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.​

If the rules of the game didn't want you to roleplay your characters or engage in such activities, they wouldn't make it possible to have a stupid PC and call itself a roleplaying game.

In other words, I was saying that a stupid character is characterised by making irrational decisions - ie ones that are contrary to the decisions that character has reason to make; or, to use the language of dictionary.com, decisions that are lacking in reason, sound judgement, or good sense. And I was denying, and continue to deny, that the rules of the game oblige or event expect players of low INT PCs to make action declarations that are irrational in this sense.

I understand your argument. I just think you are wrong on this.

Instead of a pointless detour down a dead-end semantic pathway, it might be more profitable for this thread if you were to engage my claim about what the game rules expect or demand of players.

The rules involve roleplaying and the ability to have a stupid character. They don't exempt you from having to roleplaying out stupid. If the rules didn't expect you to roleplay a stupid PC as stupid, it either wouldn't be possible to have a stupid PC or the rules would have said something about not having to roleplay your character.

In that spirit, I ask: how do you think it improves the game to have a PC whose player is obliged to declare, as actions for his/her PC, actions that will thwart or at least impede the PC and the party in the attainment of their goals? If this is what you mean by good roleplaying, what is it that makes it good?

Whenever you roleplay your character appropriately, it adds to the game, even if it makes the goal more difficult. Good roleplay makes the game more enjoyable if roleplaying is your thing. If you are a gamist and you don't care about roleplay, then making the right decision is all that matters and roleplaying a stupid PC as stupid is probably going to be a bad thing. I'd walk out of a game like that. I play roleplaying games to roleplay. I'd also walk out of a game where a 5 int PC is being roleplayed like Einstein or a 5 charisma PC is being roleplayed like James Bond.

 

[BoldItalic]

In that spirit, I ask: how do you think it improves the game to have a PC whose player is obliged to declare, as actions for his/her PC, actions that will thwart or at least impede the PC and the party in the attainment of their goals? If this is what you mean by good roleplaying, what is it that makes it good?

A player who role-plays to his flaw may take actions that are less than optimal for himself or the party (and possibly even be rewarded with Inspiration for doing so) but even so, the rules don't force him to do that. If he does it occasionally to make the game more entertaining for the others, then that could be classed as "good". If he does it perversely, however, if he chooses a flaw that, in effect, says "I invariably make stupid decisions", to justify in his own mind actions that make the game less entertaining for the others (the "it's what my character would do" defence) then he's just being a jerk.

I would suggest that sub-optimal play is "good" if there is some legitimate rationale behind it, and it makes the game more fun for the other players.

 

[iserith]

There is also a potential upside to playing to a flaw as established by the character's background: Earning Inspiration. Rolling 2d20 and taking the better result is nice so this is a good incentive. But again, it's not required of the player. Unless the DM is handing out Inspiration for playing to what he or she thinks ability scores mean, there is no similar upside.

 

[Sadras]

I suspect I'm the only published academic philosopher and lawyer still posting in this thread. I'm not that interested in a debate over the usage of the term "irrational", but I'm quite comfortable - especially in the context of a relatively informal and methodologically relaxed discussion - in describing as irrational the actions of a person who thwarts his/her own goals and interests because of his/her ignorance and cognitive inadequacies. The person has a reason - in virtue of those goals/interests - to refrain from Xing, but due to the aforementioned ignorance and cognitive inadequacies nevertheless Xes. Hence s/he acts in a way that does not accord with the reasons that are applicable to her. (And it's just a bad pun to say that because her behaviour is nevertheless capable of explanation, by reference to her stupidty, and therefore can be said to have a reason that underlies it, that therefore there is a reason to act that way.)

Akratic behaviour - ie believing that it would be sensible to do X but not doing X anyway - is one species of irrational behaviour, but not the only one.

Out of interest, what about being lazy? Would you consider that person as being irrational as that action (inaction) has the potential to thwart his/her own goals or interests?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Hmmm. So how "should" one play a low intelligence/high wisdom PC? Dumb but insightful? Uneducated but sharp? Say, an outlander barbarian. Lets give him that 5 Intelligence to signify raised by wolves. Never read a learnin' book. The usual stereotype. But what if he has a 16 Wisdom? Keen instincts. Quick witted.

Can he turn that puzzle dial to S?

 

[Satyrn]

Hmmm. So how "should" one play a low intelligence/high wisdom PC? Dumb but insightful? Uneducated but sharp? Say, an outlander barbarian. Lets give him that 5 Intelligence to signify raised by wolves. Never read a learnin' book. The usual stereotype. But what if he has a 16 Wisdom? Keen instincts. Quick witted.

Can he turn that puzzle dial to S?

I dunno. What's his Strength score?

 

[BookBarbarian]

Hmmm. So how "should" one play a low intelligence/high wisdom PC? Dumb but insightful? Uneducated but sharp? Say, an outlander barbarian. Lets give him that 5 Intelligence to signify raised by wolves. Never read a learnin' book. The usual stereotype. But what if he has a 16 Wisdom? Keen instincts. Quick witted.

Can he turn that puzzle dial to S?

I haven't played with these exact scores, But I do have an 8 INT 12 WIS Outlander Barbarian that, according to the language rules, Speaks Reads and writes in 3 languages. How dumb is he?