Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3310825" data-attributes="member: 1656">You want all the characters to get into it, or you want all the players to get into it?It doesn't make sense for a group of adventurers to let their 5-Cha Barbarian talk to (or go anywhere near!) the easily-offended-but-high-paying nobleman.&nbsp; Regardless of how eloquent the player is.But that doesn't mean the player can't participate.An easier example to use for illustration is puzzles.&nbsp; The player of the trapmaster rogue and the Int-through-the-roof wizard hate puzzles.&nbsp; The player of the dumb-as-a-plank fighter eats Very Hard Sudoku and cryptic crosswords for breakfast.But when it comes to aligning the gears bearing the symbols of the planar duchies with the colour of the dragon that represents the alignment of the plane they reside on, it makes a lot more sense if it's the rogue and the wizard who solve the problem than the fighter.As a DM, I have no issue with the fighter's player coming up with the solution... but presenting it to the other players out-of-game, and having the answer provided in character by the wizard and the gears manipulated by the rogue.&nbsp; The question often comes up &quot;How is someone of average or above-average intelligence supposed to play a character with an Int of 22?&quot;&nbsp; My suggestion: let the character benefit from the gestalt mind of the players combined, not just the single player who can't possibly do his intellect justice.Similarly, while it's nice for all the players to participate in delicate negotiations, it makes no sense at all for some of the characters to be involved, 'cos they'll just screw it up...-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3310825, member: 1656"] You want all the characters to get into it, or you want all the players to get into it? It doesn't make sense for a group of adventurers to let their 5-Cha Barbarian talk to (or go anywhere near!) the easily-offended-but-high-paying nobleman. Regardless of how eloquent the player is. But that doesn't mean the player can't participate. An easier example to use for illustration is puzzles. The player of the trapmaster rogue and the Int-through-the-roof wizard hate puzzles. The player of the dumb-as-a-plank fighter eats Very Hard Sudoku and cryptic crosswords for breakfast. But when it comes to aligning the gears bearing the symbols of the planar duchies with the colour of the dragon that represents the alignment of the plane they reside on, it makes a lot more sense if it's the rogue and the wizard who solve the problem than the fighter. As a DM, I have no issue with the fighter's player coming up with the solution... but presenting it to the other players out-of-game, and having the answer provided in character by the wizard and the gears manipulated by the rogue. The question often comes up "How is someone of average or above-average intelligence supposed to play a character with an Int of 22?" My suggestion: let the character benefit from the gestalt mind of the players combined, not just the single player who can't possibly do his intellect justice. Similarly, while it's nice for all the players to participate in delicate negotiations, it makes no sense at all for some of the [i]characters[/i] to be involved, 'cos they'll just screw it up... -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification