Stupid Dwarf

[Hand of Evil]

See the following thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=37408&highlight=inteligence

 

[billd91]

Maybe this is because I'm a dad and have read it a lot, but Winnie the Pooh comes to mind. He's a bear of little brain, he doesn't understand clever things. And yet, according to Piglet, he does silly things and they all work out anyway. According to someone like Benjamin Hoff, who wrote The Tao of Pooh[\i], this is because Pooh follows the Tao. He has a simple intelligence, yet is wise in that he follows the way of the world and that leads to happiness.
And clearly, that bear has charisma.

 

[fuindordm]

Low Int, high Cha? Think of our beloved president.

I know, I know, no politics. But you can have some fun role-playing similar public speaking difficulties... substituting similar but not-quite-right words or constructing non-words to fit the bill when you're trying to talk about something you don't quite have a handle on.

Actually this dwarf is well-positioned to become the party 'face' in many situations, so long as his 'cabinet' is there to tell him the party line.

I agree, it's a very interesting character, one that I'd love to role-play myself. Although long-term it might be tough to be constantly squelching your brilliant ideas because the dwarf couldn't have thought of them.

Ben

 

[Dog Moon]

Wow, thanks a lot. The examples really help a lot, even though I have to admit I do not recognize them all. Still, I recognize enough of them. It's better than what I was thinking I was supposed to be doing: grunting for everything.

In the beginning, I wasn't really looking forward to playing an stupid character, since I'm so used to playing Intelligent ones, but I think I'm beginning to now. I just need to find the perfect mixture of Forrest Gump, Whinnie the Pooh, and Bull. I think I'll leave Paris Hilton for someone else to copy. I just can't quite picture her as a Hairy male Dwarf, nor would I really want to. Oh, and thanks for the link, Hand of Evil.

Unfortunately, another problem has come up. Of the other two people, one of them has an Intelligence of 10. We don't play where everyone starts with Common cause there isn't a Common language. There are languages by region. So, we are born in different regions and cannot speak the other's languages. Perhaps one of them would have a similar alphabet so we could write things, except the other person is a Neanderthal from Frostburn and they apparently can't read or write.

The question is: how exactly do we communicate?

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

The question is: how exactly do we communicate?

If somebody in your group knows a foreign language, have them use it.

Exclusively.

You're from Minnesota. Somebody in your group might know French (Quebecquas), also, Deep Southern is suffiecent to count as a seperate language.

Use charades.

WHATEVER you do, do't speak to each other unless you have a language in common. After you've spent 8 hours trying to get the whole party to agree to when & where they want to camp for the night, maybe the DM will drop that nonsense.

There is a very good game reason why 'Common' exists. Read the Tower of Babel story for an example. If a DM wants to make a more 'realistic' world, that's fine. But either make sure the PC's all have a language in common or are at least able to communicate through other party members (i.e. if you look at the party, everybody has at least one language in common with another party member).

I've played in those "Common isn't realistic, so I'm using all these languages" games. They suck. Some are OK for a session or two, but they really suck for a campaign. When the elven bard has to devote 75% of his skill points to Speak Language just so the party has a pretty good chance of ordering rooms for the night, the game quickly bogs down. Even at moderate to high level casting Tongues or Comprehend Languages every 15 minutes gets really boring.

Unless you like roleplaying linguists, I'd ask the DM to drop it or give everyone in the party a language in common. (Again, for short 1-2 shot sessions, it can be fun & an interesting change, it just grows old quick).

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Low Int, high Cha? Think of our beloved president.

Ben

Not to get political, but....

George Bush is actually pretty smart (as was Bubba & Georgie Sr.) Look at their educational backgrounds. Bubba was even a very distinguished scholar. To get really high in politics you have to have some brains about you.

Which brings me to my point.

Trying to boil real-world personalities into the Int-Wis-Cha debate (while fun), just eventually shows the weakness of using 3 numbers to illistrate a person's persona.

Look at Bill Clinton (usually regarded as having high Int-Rhodes Scholar; high Cha- look at what he talked his way out of; low Wis; look at what he got himself into, Cigar anyone?)

Whereas Kerry, Gore & George Jr seem to have a high Int & Wis, but low Charisma (jut not very good at appealing to the masses).

Reagan: (High, very high, personal Cha, but seemed to never really be aware of whats going on-of course I only remember him at the end of his terms, when Alzihmer's was probably just beginning to surface).

You can look back at previous (exaggerated) presidents (both US & foreign) and find easy examples of High/Low scores, but those in the middle are pretty hard to figure out), Such as Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Nixon, Napoleon.

Form a D&D standpoint. Unless your using a variant of the Divine Right of Kings, low mental abilities will never rule a nation. And if an Int 6 person sits on the throne, you can bet there's a Vizar with high stats somewhere in the background.

In my games, when a leader does something stupid, it's not because he has a low ability score, it's usually due to a failure to comprehend all the ramifications of his desicion, or due to following his own moral code (alignment).

Not trying to be poltical, trying to be historical,

 

[billd91]

Not to get political, but....

George Bush is actually pretty smart (as was Bubba & Georgie Sr.) Look at their educational backgrounds. Bubba was even a very distinguished scholar. To get really high in politics you have to have some brains about you.

<snip>

Form a D&D standpoint. Unless your using a variant of the Divine Right of Kings, low mental abilities will never rule a nation. And if an Int 6 person sits on the throne, you can bet there's a Vizar with high stats somewhere in the background.

In my games, when a leader does something stupid, it's not because he has a low ability score, it's usually due to a failure to comprehend all the ramifications of his desicion, or due to following his own moral code (alignment).

Not trying to be poltical, trying to be historical,

Bush pretty smart?

I think your example of low mental stats ruling a nation might come up more often than you think. There are a good many who think we do have smarter viziers running the show (Rove, Cheney) here in the US. The main qualifications for leadership is largely the ambition to try to get the job and the connections to succeed and that's why I'd say that even low mental stats can rule the day, for good or ill, even without hereditary leadership.

Now, your use of their educational backgrounds as evidence of intelligence might suggest that intelligence isn't telling the full story. I suspect that's why I can think of at least two games that had an Education stat as well as intelligence (Traveller and Call of Cthulhu). In both cases, you could have someone who wasn't that smart being pretty knowledgeable based on their educational/real life experience.
D&D currently has no real equivalent of that stat. Rather, D&D education tends to be reflected in skill purchases over successive levels, a major difference between games being Traveller and CoC aren't level-based while D&D is. D&D does, I think, reflect an interesting synergy between intelligence and education in the way it makes it harder for a dumb character to get a particularly broad education.

As far as playing a dwarf who's not very bright, I think the Bull/Forrest Gump/Pooh mix could be pretty interesting. Just try to also keep him perceptive and confident as well to cover the high wisdom and charisma. That's going to be the challenge, though I have to say that Gump did have a tendency to be pretty affable, even magnetic, so it might not be that much of a stretch.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Maybe this is because I'm a dad and have read it a lot, but Winnie the Pooh comes to mind. He's a bear of little brain, he doesn't understand clever things. And yet, according to Piglet, he does silly things and they all work out anyway...

That's the ticket, right there. You have a high wisdom, so you notice and build associations just fine, even better than most. However, you have a poor vocabulary. This is a key thing: Most of what people label as intelligence is entirely confounded with linguistic capacity. You can see a situation, determine what to do, and act on it. However, when asked to explain what to do in a situation, or why you did something, you cannot do it in a reasonable way. You would probably get things right, but give a completely illogical explanation of why you did it, if you could verbalize it at all.

It's sort of like preoperational or concrete operational kids. They can give you an answer to a question, often the correct one, but they can't tell you how they know or walk you through the process that got them there.

 

[Gruns]

Low Int, High Wis, High Cha

With the low Int, high Wis, high Cha scores, the first thing that came to mind was Forrest Gump.

"Sometimes there just aren't enough rocks." - Horrus Grump

Later!
Gruns

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

I'm running a campaign with a stupid (Int 6) monk in it. She has a very high wisdom, is supposedly lawful neutral and acts like a child. I have no idea whether the player is roleplaying the character correctly, but it's very amusing sometimes....

Cheers


Richard