"Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma" and Roleplaying...

[Zovc]

I don't like (going with D&D 3.5 terms, but other games have synonyms) Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as stats for player characters.

How would you feel if you, a Barbarian (with a modest int of 8, we'll say) were screwed--the evil wizard is holed in his castle, and you must get in there to save your wife. However, the Wizard has many, many traps and tricks to keep you from entering said castle.

You spend a lot of time deciding what to do next and you finally find a hole in the defenses! You go to execute your plan and the DM informs you, "I must say, I didn't think of that approach, Co'na'an! However, your character isn't smart enough to think of that--instead he is convinced the one plausible method of entry is swimming through the acid moat."

Or, you deliver the most eloquent speech to ever grace human ears, there's no way any being capable of emotion could resist you, "Pfft! You expect a Dwarf with a Charisma of 10 and 0 ranks in Diplomacy or Perform (Poetry) to say that?!"

I am, however for "Knowledge skills." I like the idea of being able to ask the DM "what do I know about [subject]?"

What do you think?

[Dracons]

Yeah. Its a bumrap aint it? But that's the joy of, you know, roleplaying. If your character has a intelligence of say, 7, he sure couldn't figure out that one tiny hole in the prismatic wall of darkness and evil can be counter if he used a rod fo antimagical orb to shot through it, hitting the donimos stacks to knock out the guard, thus opening the gate.

Or someone with 10 charisma, and 0 ranks in diplomacy is just that, he couldn't do a speech on par with say, Hitler, or Queen Elizabeth.


Now, however, everyone can get lucky once in a while, so its fair to allow it at times.

But if your doing actions based on your own intelligence and speech skills, then your roleplaying yourself, not a character.

[Yukitsu]

Those RP decisions generally should give a small mechanical bump to your check, but frankly, if you compose a love sonnet that makes even your straight DM swoon, and you're playing a charisma 3 gnoll with a level in "unhygenic" then frankly, you're playing something rather different from what you have written on your sheet. If you wanted to have a character who plans well, don't play a low intelligence/wisdom. If you want a talker, play a high charisma.

[deuxhero]

The Barb's DM gets hammerguned because that falls under wisdom.

[Green Bean]

That's part of the tradeoff between roleplaying a character. Sure, you get to things you can't do in real life, but in exchange, there has to be separation between in and out of character knowledge. A CHA 10 dwarf with no points in Diplomacy isn't going to make an amazing speech just because his player made one any more than a Commoner could automatically hit him just because he described his attack roll really well.

[taltamir]

I don't like (going with D&D 3.5 terms, but other games have synonyms) Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as stats for player characters.

How would you feel if you, a Barbarian (with a modest int of 8, we'll say) were screwed--the evil wizard is holed in his castle, and you must get in there to save your wife. However, the Wizard has many, many traps and tricks to keep you from entering said castle.

You spend a lot of time deciding what to do next and you finally find a hole in the defenses! You go to execute your plan and the DM informs you, "I must say, I didn't think of that approach, Co'na'an! However, your character isn't smart enough to think of that--instead he is convinced the one plausible method of entry is swimming through the acid moat."

Or, you deliver the most eloquent speech to ever grace human ears, there's no way any being capable of emotion could resist you, "Pfft! You expect a Dwarf with a Charisma of 10 and 0 ranks in Diplomacy or Perform (Poetry) to say that?!"

I am, however for "Knowledge skills." I like the idea of being able to ask the DM "what do I know about [subject]?"

What do you think?

see, your DM is having it BOTH WAYS...
1. He is requiring you to make the speech plan YOURSELF!
2. He is requiring the character to make the checks...

It should be EITHER OR. You are either smarter or dumber than your character, always. You are either more charismatic or less than your character, always.

I have specific gripes with the prime stats and how they are handled, but that isn't what you described...

That being said, he is mainly penalizing you for trying to cheat. You are supposed to play a ROLE.
You decide you want to mix max for a few more points of damage, so you min max your barbarian to be BORDERLINE RETARDED (IQ80) and give him ZERO public speaking experience. Then you "roleplay" him being a great orator?

Rule of thumb, if your character has under an int 10 he speak like this:
RAAAH, UG ANGRY, SMASH!

If he has under a 5 he has the intelligence of a well trained monkey.
if he has under a 3, than, by the rules as written, he is not even SENTIENT and is instead considered be an animal like intelligence.

It sounds like you should be playing a rogue or beguiler or something, not as high damage potential, but you will have killer social skills.

[Zovc]

Both of you are addressing lesser values (although I suppose I didn't address higher values, either).

How do I roleplay a character whose intelligence is astronomically higher than mine? (18-22?) What about Wisdom or Charisma?

[Yukitsu]

The Barb's DM gets hammerguned because that falls under wisdom.

Depends on the plan. Not swimming through acid is wisdom. Thinking to construct a clever series of lifts and pullies that positions itself around based on the mass of an iron wall that is changing in size due to the acid (and thus is sweeping around to the porch) would be intelligence.

Just using a fly spell would be either.

[Temet Nosce]

If you don't want your character to act like that, then you should have invested in those stats. As for your question? Were I playing that Barbarian, I wouldn't try to sneak up to the gates. A Barbarian with 8 Int? More like try to go crashing straight in the front gate bellowing.

You're playing your character, not yourself.

[Temet Nosce]

Both of you are addressing lesser values (although I suppose I didn't address higher values, either).

How do I roleplay a character whose intelligence is astronomically higher than mine? (18-22?) What about Wisdom or Charisma?

Cheat. That's really the whole of it, you don't actually have to be able to picture the thought process of someone so intelligent that they rate off the human scale, all you have to do is make your character give the impression of that.

[taltamir]

Both of you are addressing lesser values (although I suppose I didn't address higher values, either).

How do I roleplay a character whose intelligence is astronomically higher than mine? (18-22?) What about Wisdom or Charisma?

as i said, your DM is having it both ways; but only because you are making him do so... because at that point you should really be rolling for success...

However just doing MATH is not fun. There is a social aspect... so you make a speech, the DM, based on its quality assigns a modifier, and then you make a persuade roll... You might have given a crappy speech, but your character's godlike persuasiveness made people actually buy it... or vice versa.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Rule of thumb, if your character has under an int 10 he speak like this:
RAAAH, UG ANGRY, SMASH!That's Int 5. Int 10 is the 'average'. Less than that just means you're a little slower than the rest of the party, not that you're an idiot.
If he has under a 5 he has the intelligence of a well trained monkey.That's Int 2, Int 5 means that he's not going to be thinking much(or at all) and will just do the obvious.
if he has under a 3, than, by the rules as written, he is not even SENTIENT and is instead considered be an animal like intelligence.Sapient, first off, and yes. Though D&D rules underestimate animals.

[Yukitsu]

Both of you are addressing lesser values (although I suppose I didn't address higher values, either).

How do I roleplay a character whose intelligence is astronomically higher than mine? (18-22?) What about Wisdom or Charisma?

I wouldn't necessarily peg an 18 as astronomically higher than what you or I would have, but at any rate, I generally just spend a few hours OOC for a plan that would take a few minutes IC. I am fairly smart OOC so I can usually preemptively write a long, detailed plan of action before I know whether or not a precise scenario will happen. If it's high charisma, I just point out "My character is far more confident than I am." but in general, I don't really blow those either.

High stats require more work. Low stats require more will power to not act as though you had a higher stat.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I wouldn't necessarily peg an 18 as astronomically higher than what you or I would have.1 person out of every 216 has that. At best. It's the upper limit of what the system measures. That's Einstein just as much as it's the Valedictorian of your school. RPing that is hard, though extensive planning and metagaming helps.

[Zovc]

So, I take it the majority of you are convinced that these attributes should manifest in game systems in one way or another?

The reason I'm asking is because I was thinking of working on a system that did not have "mental stats." I am considering Willpower, although I feel like that has a very small impact on roleplaying in most cases.

While the system I was thinking of wouldn't inherently be built around magic, I would probably incorporate "Spirit" or something similar to represent magical aptitude and maybe use a "knowledge skill" for training.

(18 is the highest a human can "possibly" start out with, I suppose you're right that it isn't "astronomically higher" than our intellects, but it likely is higher.)

[Kylarra]

Eh, I usually let them plot and plan whatever (since very rarely do my players dare let so-called mental stats go below 8) so it's feasible they can come up with a decent plan every so often.

It can net them a +/-2 modifier to their roll (hidden of course), but they still need to roll it.

[AgentPaper]

Int scores:

0 - A rock.
1 - An insect.
2 - A normal animal.
3 - A smart animal.
4 - An unusually smart animal.
5 - Retarded.
6 - Borderline retarded.
7 - That slow kid in class.
8 - Has trouble passing in school.
10 - Has to study and work at it, but can do well in school.
12 - Doing well in school is hard, but can excel if they work at it.
14 - Probably top of the class, they can do well in school even without studying.
16 - Top of the class in a good college.
18 - Genius, pure and simple.

Of course, no two people are ever exactly alike, so it's entirely possible you could have an int of 18 and still be terrible in school for whatever reason, whether you act up like Einstein, or just can't keep your mind on one task. Or you could have an int of 8 and still get top grades just because you spend that much time and effort trying to learn.

[Temet Nosce]

So, I take it the majority of you are convinced that these attributes should manifest in game systems in one way or another?

No. It's not necessary but in games where such stats do show up, I find it absurd to keep using them then act like they don't exist. I've used plenty of other systems that don't make use of them (or attributes at all in some cases).


The reason I'm asking is because I was thinking of working on a system that did not have "mental stats." I am considering Willpower, although I feel like that has a very small impact on roleplaying in most cases.

While the system I was thinking of wouldn't inherently be built around magic, I would probably incorporate "Spirit" or something similar to represent magical aptitude and maybe use a "knowledge skill" for training.

(18 is the highest a human can "possibly" start out with, I suppose you're right that it isn't "astronomically higher" than our intellects, but it likely is higher.)

*shrugs*

I'll wish you good luck with it. Although to be honest it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

As for the meaning of a score in D&D, I tend to add a zero to the int score and equate it with an IQ on the Cattell equivalent to that. It's once you get up into the range above 18 that I start considering cheating the only way of properly RPing it.

[deuxhero]

Int scores:
Or you could have an int of 8 and still get top grades just because you spend that much time and effort trying to learn.

Or you could memorize the text books via auto-hynosis.

[DragoonWraith]

Though D&D rules underestimate animals.
While in some cases true, not in many. More accurately, most human beings greatly overestimate animals. The issue of intelligence is (massively) murky, so I won't try to tell you as an unequivocal fact that D&D's modeling of animal intelligence is accurate, or even that an especially accurate model is even possible with current knowledge, but nonetheless the overwhelming majority of evidence suggests that the vast majority of life-forms on this planet lack anything even remotely approaching human intelligence. Some primates, I'd be hesitant to make judgments about. You might convince me on dolphins; elephants, maybe. But even the relatively intelligent pack animals (wolves, lions, etc) almost certainly (by which I mean, we cannot test this directly and we certainly do not understand everything going on in the brain, but what we do know strongly suggests that) do not have what a human being would recognize as sentience; they lack the ability to think about thinking in a way that recognizes self versus others, planning, consequence, and certainly nothing so complicated as dreams and desires. These are all facts of certain peculiarities of the primate, and especially the human, brain, which are not found in any other animal.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Int scores:

0 - A rock.
1 - An insect.
2 - A normal animal.
3 - A smart animal.
4 - An unusually smart animal.
5 - Retarded.
6 - Borderline retarded.
7 - That slow kid in class.
8 - Has trouble passing in school.
10 - Has to study and work at it, but can do well in school.
12 - Doing well in school is hard, but can excel if they work at it.
14 - Probably top of the class, they can do well in school even without studying.
16 - Top of the class in a good college.
18 - Genius, pure and simple.

Of course, no two people are ever exactly alike, so it's entirely possible you could have an int of 18 and still be terrible in school for whatever reason, whether you act up like Einstein, or just can't keep your mind on one task. Or you could have an int of 8 and still get top grades just because you spend that much time and effort trying to learn.Do people not read the PHB? 0 - A rock.
1 - A rodent
2 - A smart animal.
3 - Retarded.
4 - Borderline retarded.
6 - That slow kid in class.
7 - Has trouble passing in school.
10 - Has to study and work at it, but can do well in school.
12 - Doing well in school is hard, but can excel if they work at it.
16 - Probably top of the class, they can do well in school even without studying.
18 - Top of the class in a good college.
18 - Genius, pure and simple.

Edit:Primates are primarily what I object to(though Pachyderms and Dolphins are questionable as well). It's just that all animals are Int 1-2, when there's a lot of variance between an Ape and a bird.

[ghost_warlock]

Generally, I consider the option of having "mental" stats that are different between myself and my character as a boon to a system, not a disadvantage.

[taltamir]

1 person out of every 216 has that. At best. It's the upper limit of what the system measures. That's Einstein just as much as it's the Valedictorian of your school. RPing that is hard, though extensive planning and metagaming helps.

take 170 IQ... astronimically high, right?... 1 in 3 million odds supposedly... divide out 6 billion by 3 million and you find there are 2000 people of that level.


No. It's not necessary but in games where such stats do show up, I find it absurd to keep using them then act like they don't exist. I've used plenty of other systems that don't make use of them (or attributes at all in some cases).
That there is where our communication fails. I do NOT think it is necessary, not do I think it is wise... but you have DECIDED and AGREED TO be a borderline retard to boost up your strength to olympic level. Compared to other party members who have more balanced stats. If you want to be a barbarian savant, excellent. Sounds like a cool character... take a few points out of his str, con, and dex and put it in his mental stats. Otherwise you are min maxing yourself to be better than the other players, who are honest about it.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

take 170 IQ... astronimically high, right?... 1 in 3 million odds supposedly... divide out 6 billion by 3 million and you find there are 2000 people of that level.But even if you are one of those 2000, you can't really RP someone with 20+Int, which is better than any human is capable of IRL.

[Kylarra]

That there is where our communication fails. I do NOT think it is necessary, not do I think it is wise... but you have DECIDED and AGREED TO be a borderline retard to boost up your strength to olympic level. Compared to other party members who have more balanced stats. If you want to be a barbarian savant, excellent. Sounds like a cool character... take a few points out of his str, con, and dex and put it in his mental stats. Otherwise you are min maxing yourself to be better than the other players, who are honest about it.For better or worse, D&D is a game that rewards specialization. Try to be average at everything, you'll end up with a character that doesn't participate a lot (generally). Better [generally] to have your niche.

[Sinfire Titan]

Int scores:

0 - A rock.
1 - An insect.
2 - A normal animal.
3 - A smart animal.
4 - An unusually smart animal.
5 - Retarded.
6 - Borderline retarded.
7 - That slow kid in class.
8 - Has trouble passing in school.
10 - Has to study and work at it, but can do well in school.
12 - Doing well in school is hard, but can excel if they work at it.
14 - Probably top of the class, they can do well in school even without studying.
16 - Top of the class in a good college.
18 - Genius, pure and simple.

Of course, no two people are ever exactly alike, so it's entirely possible you could have an int of 18 and still be terrible in school for whatever reason, whether you act up like Einstein, or just can't keep your mind on one task. Or you could have an int of 8 and still get top grades just because you spend that much time and effort trying to learn.

30 - Brainiac. Or Knowledge Sphere. One of the two. We just know they are supposed to be that smart.

[taltamir]

But even if you are one of those 2000, you can't really RP someone with 20+Int, which is better than any human is capable of IRL.

well... if 18 int is one out of 216... and int 4 means you are borderline retarded (IQ 75)... than IQ 170 should be quite a bit more than int 18.

Also modern IQ tests are the fifth remake of the original. The various creators of the six versions have all stated profusely that IQ is NOT a measure of intelligence. It is a measure your current academic progress meant to diagnose learning disabilities and ONLY learning disabilities. It is completely inaccurate in higher numbers.
It is achieved by taking your current academic learning capability progress, converting it to an estimate in "years of development" / years of your chronological age, all times 100. So 100 means you are at 100% of normal academic development for your age. 70 means you are at 70% of the academic learning capability of someone your age, thus "retarded" (retard means held back, prevent, under developed).

Regardless though. I never tried to suggest that a player COULD accurately play a character of godly intellect.

[Sliver]

If the player playing a char with low charisma and failing his check, would describe a great speech before the roll and still failing after I give him a bonus I will just tell something like "Well, that is how it sounded in your head, but you fail to maintain your cool, some words that should have not been spoken slip, ect ect"
But most PCs won't have such low CHA for it to matter, if they are playing a gnoll then it might, but I personaly don't enforce my idea of how it should be RPed for anything with 8 or higher in that stat.. If a PC has 6 CHA he should not talk to the king, doing so will not have a good result.

[icefractal]

You spend a lot of time deciding what to do next and you finally find a hole in the defenses! You go to execute your plan and the DM informs you, "I must say, I didn't think of that approach, Co'na'an! However, your character isn't smart enough to think of that--instead he is convinced the one plausible method of entry is swimming through the acid moat."
Yeah. Its a bumrap aint it? But that's the joy of, you know, roleplaying.For a lot of people, thinking up clever plans is a major component in the joy of roleplaying. Personally, if I heard "don't bother making a plan, just roll to see if you survive the acid moat", I'd go play a computer game - same amount of interactivity, much better graphics. While deciding to swim the moat might be consistent with the character, the character is honestly not a real person anyway, and actually having fun is more important than simulating their though processes.

For that reason, I think specific abilities might be a better way to go than mental stats. Things like Perfect Recall and Retroactive Planning (retroactively declare a preparation for something you theoretically could have forseen) don't replace actual involvement, and would actually help with playing super-genius characters, something the current rules don't really do. In the other direction, flaws like Illiterate and Garbled Speech are quantifiable and don't require you to stop thinking or talking to people.

[Ormur]

Roleplaying high int is simple, you just metagame. :smallbiggrin:

[taltamir]

For a lot of people, thinking up clever plans is a major component in the joy of roleplaying. Personally, if I heard "don't bother making a plan, just roll to see if you survive the acid moat", I'd go play a computer game - same amount of interactivity, much better graphics. While deciding to swim the moat might be consistent with the character, the character is honestly not a real person anyway, and actually having fun is more important than simulating their though processes.

another thing i don't get... could another party member have suggested not swimming the moat?

If you are playing one on one, then "party balance" doesn't matter, you can mix max as much as you want... the purpose of not "cheating" as it where and playing your int, is to maintain a balance with the other players. Although, yea, this is really going too far. It is as computer RPG level of allotted decision making, and they DO have better graphic (also, you have to s pend less time filling up charts and sheets).

Fun is important, it is not fun if someone min maxed with critical flaws they then ignore via metagame capabilities, thus overshadowing the other members of the party. But if its just one on one? that doesn't make as much sense.

[Khanderas]

Well you could meta-DM this.

High Int. = your plans have a higher chance to succeed
Low int = Small details you "overlooked" has a risk to mess up the plan.

Example, breaking into a castle. a smart guy and a notso smart guy plan to enter the castle sneakylike, by scaling the wall at night with a grappling hook.
Smart guy, by virtue of being smart, will have noticed the guard rotation and will problebly sneak over the edge at a time when the guards are the least alert (between shifts or whatever works), and the not so smart guy just tries it when the guards are not seen.

High charisma, people like you more, listen to you more. You bring out a big smile and gain friends instantly.
Low charisma, people dont instantly like you. You can still be useful to others but as often as not, you annoy them somehow, being too "clingy" or "aloof" or something else minor.

Rousing speech done by a high charisma sways a large part of the crowd, bloodlust in the air, or serenety depending on the speech.
Low charisma guy does the same speech to a different mob, and it was an intresting point you made, to the few in front who heard you. And you problebly stumbled over a few words too.

[ZeroNumerous]

Stuff about IQ 170 being higher than 18

Simply put: No.

Longer answer: An 18 INT is the highest of human capability. It can go no higher without abstraction. If a human got 170, 180 or even 210 on an IQ test then it's equal or less than an 18 in INT. Regardless of how you measure that person's intelligence, if they are human then their absolute maximum is 18 without exception.

Now if a Black Ethergaunt were to take this test, he'd be unmeasurable. It'd be impossible to quantify his intelligence via a human-based test, because their massive intelligence scores(30, off the top of my head) could not be comprehended by even the most intelligent of humans. To put it simply: A Black Ethergaunt may as well be omniscient as far as we are concerned, because it's sufficiently advanced intelligence would appear to us as deific omniscience.

[Shademan]

let me raise another issue.
What about those of us that want to play a genius wizard but really isnt that smart ourselves? or a wise messhiah-prophet-druid but is quite lacking in the wisdom department?
also, those of us that have someRL levels in unhygenic and usually hangs out with pus-ridden rodent man-mutants don't usually have the highest charisma...



Personally I'd like to say that INT was my dump stat in life, thus I find it hard to play a character that is REALLY smart. I can make him SOUND smart by doing technobabble/arcanebabble but if actually confronted on any of it my charade drops.

[olentu]

Simply put: No.

Longer answer: An 18 INT is the highest of human capability. It can go no higher without abstraction. If a human got 170, 180 or even 210 on an IQ test then it's equal or less than an 18 in INT. Regardless of how you measure that person's intelligence, if they are human then their absolute maximum is 18 without exception.

Now if a Black Ethergaunt were to take this test, he'd be unmeasurable. It'd be impossible to quantify his intelligence via a human-based test, because their massive intelligence scores(30, off the top of my head) could not be comprehended by even the most intelligent of humans. To put it simply: A Black Ethergaunt may as well be omniscient as far as we are concerned, because it's sufficiently advanced intelligence would appear to us as deific omniscience.

21 not counting bonuses from level I think, since people get smarter as they get older.

[Milskidasith]

18 int, by D&D, is a one in 216 chance (on 3d6, in order). It's also, by D&D, well above genius level.

It's not really that hard to fix that. If you just abstract it to be "Int = 50+5X int modifier" then it even makes sense being "one in 216."

[Project_Mayhem]

While deciding to swim the moat might be consistent with the character, the character is honestly not a real person anyway, and actually having fun is more important than simulating their though processes.

A lot of people would take umbrage with this. My group tend towards hardcore roleplaying, and most of them would probably argue that they find the challenge of coming up with plans and such in character to be a significant part of the fun.

I can see where you're coming from of course, but y'know - subjectiveness and all

[Zen Master]

1 person out of every 216 has that. At best. It's the upper limit of what the system measures. That's Einstein just as much as it's the Valedictorian of your school. RPing that is hard, though extensive planning and metagaming helps.

I know two guys who scored max - as in pretty much broke the test - on their mensa admission.

Both are at best moderately clever ... unless you give them an IQ test. They really, REALLY shine at those.

But honestly? I'm far cleverer than both, even if my 'official IQ score' is something like 40 points lower.

IQ tests are so horribly bogus, it defies reason.

On topic btw, I think it's the GM's job to make the int 22 character seem clever. When the uber intelligent wizard claims that 'well, obviously our enemy has a great fear of spiders, and wears a blue hat' - the GM will make it so, thus enabling the genius of the character.

[Killer Angel]

You should roleplay your character. If it's dumb, don't play him smart. If is a jerk, don't play him a diplomat.
That said, there are positions in the middle.

Unless your barbarian has a Wis 4, he will not charge blindly toward the portcullis. He will always try to sneak past the defences of the castle... but his "cunning" plans, 90% will not take into account spells that can be cast from his teammates.

If your 7 cha PC (without rank in diplomacy) do a great speech, he will roll the dice. If the DM feels generous, he will have only a -1, instead of a -2.
Good luck with the task having a difficulty of 20.

[Deme]

I'd like to make a little argument about something I noticed in the OP that no one's addressed. And that's that if your DM just tells you "ah-hah-ha... No, get in the acid moat," well, that's bad -- that is bad DMing, regardless of a character's intelligence. Because the DM isn't even letting you make whatever sub-optimal plan your character would be able to think of. A DM should be able to say "Are you sure your 8 Int Barbarian is capable of thinking of that?" Or even "Make an Int check to see if your Barbarian can think of that, and if he gets (blank) regardless of his penalty, he thinks of it. If not, come up with something less intricate." But no DM should ever straight-out say "GET IN THE ACID!"

Which, besides, strikes me as a wisdom thing: I mean, this is fantasy-world acid. No being with any sort of self-preservation instinct and without immunity should willingly walk into the likely bright green moat of fantasy acid.

[RagnaroksChosen]

On topic btw, I think it's the GM's job to make the int 22 character seem clever. When the uber intelligent wizard claims that 'well, obviously our enemy has a great fear of spiders, and wears a blue hat' - the GM will make it so, thus enabling the genius of the character.

I disagree i think it lies on the player.
I tell my players if you don't think you can RP it don't play it. if it is some thing you realy realy want to play then i ususaly work with them on it before the game ever even starts.

[Killer Angel]

On topic btw, I think it's the GM's job to make the int 22 character seem clever. When the uber intelligent wizard claims that 'well, obviously our enemy has a great fear of spiders, and wears a blue hat' - the GM will make it so, thus enabling the genius of the character.

Au contraire, it should be the exact opposite.
The DM should say: "your character is sufficiently intelligent to know that this affermation has no solid claim".

Altering "reality" in such a way, would be bad as the DM who said: your barbarian jump into the acid moat.

[ZeroNumerous]

21 not counting bonuses from level I think, since people get smarter as they get older.


Well, 18, + 3 for old age, + 5 from getting 20 levels of 'scholar' or some such, which would give you up to 26 intelligence. (Though for the sake of argument, lets say 18 is the upper limit of human ability, ie 18 strength = olympic bodybuilder, 18 intelligence = steve hawkins, etc)

Both of which are abstractions of the gaming system.

[Zovc]

I'd like to make a little argument about something I noticed in the OP that no one's addressed. And that's that if your DM just tells you "ah-hah-ha... No, get in the acid moat," well, that's bad -- that is bad DMing, regardless of a character's intelligence. Because the DM isn't even letting you make whatever sub-optimal plan your character would be able to think of. A DM should be able to say "Are you sure your 8 Int Barbarian is capable of thinking of that?" Or even "Make an Int check to see if your Barbarian can think of that, and if he gets (blank) regardless of his penalty, he thinks of it. If not, come up with something less intricate." But no DM should ever straight-out say "GET IN THE ACID!"

Which, besides, strikes me as a wisdom thing: I mean, this is fantasy-world acid. No being with any sort of self-preservation instinct and without immunity should willingly walk into the likely bright green moat of fantasy acid.

The message wasn't supposed to be (Schwarzenegger voice) "GET IN THE ACID!" It was more supposed to be, "You can't do that, you're not smart enough." It's something most people are addressing.

I don't think this has ever happened, and I doubt an 8 in Intelligence or Wisdom would convince a character to swim in acid. This was just an exaggerated example of, "What your character 'should' be doing based on who he is."

[Thane of Fife]

If you don't like how the stats are portrayed as is, you can change them without too much trouble. For example, Intelligence doesn't have to include one's ability to reason - it could just represent a character's ability to learn and retain information. Common sense can be removed from Wisdom to leave it as willpower and mental fortitude. Charisma could be reduced to self-confidence.

Doing so gives you more control over how your character acts, and allows for the players to enjoy the inclusion of puzzles, tactical situations, and social scenes without too much emphasis on playing their characters correctly.

[GallóglachMaxim]

Both are at best moderately clever ... unless you give them an IQ test. They really, REALLY shine at those.

That's because IQ tests don't measure intelligence as much as they do 'the aspects of intelligence that are measured by IQ tests' (reasoning skills and ability to handle various bits of information at once, among others). I tend to drop a lot of points in IQ tests because numbers don't stay in my head easily, no matter how well completed everything else is.

On the subject of RPing high-int characters, I played an int 20 wizard and spent most of my time planning ahead for things that might happen so that when they did I already had a response ready. Or when I got caught off guard, I resorted to his charisma penalty (crotchety old bastard) and tendency to ignore details in a crisis. The end result was a reasonably-developed character who at least some of the time managed to seem immensely smarter than I am. So, my advice? It's better not to try to improvise these things if you can help it.

[Zovc]

Doing so gives you more control over how your character acts, and allows for the players to enjoy the inclusion of puzzles, tactical situations, and social scenes without too much emphasis on playing their characters correctly.

That is what I want for the system floating around in my head, I guess that's why I am currently favoring not having mental scores.

With that said, I have considered Intellect for skill aptitude and Willpower for torture/mind game resistance, but I feel like intellect in particular has to have roleplaying consequences if it is quantified. Is there a "politically" correct way to say "skill aptitude" as a characteristic without having to imply intelligence?

[Umael]

Someone alluded to this earlier...

When playing with a group, it is often the case that someone is playing a character who is smarter (or wiser, or more charismatic) than the player is. Also, as is often the case, someone else is playing a character who is dumber (etc., etc.) than the player is.

One of the best suggestions is for the smarter player to say, "My character probably wouldn't think of [clever solution], but your (much smarter) character probably would." Then all the other player has to do is ape the suggestion, maybe put a spin on it, and the game goes on.

[kamikasei]

One of the best suggestions is for the smarter player to say, "My character probably wouldn't think of [clever solution], but your (much smarter) character probably would." Then all the other player has to do is ape the suggestion, maybe put a spin on it, and the game goes on.

This always risks having it come off as "hey idiot, here's what your character should be saying, because both he and I are smarter than you". Which isn't likely to be appreciated.

A better solution might be to allow the whole group to confer OOC, and whatever they agree is the best idea will in-game be attributed to the smartest character.

[SaiphSDC]

I like the mental stats because it allows players to shift out of their typical roles. It allows, or challenges, smart players to be dumb or unobservant, and gives the socially awkward a chance to shine.


If in a solo situation, I'm pretty lenient as a GM, though I might talk to the player to shift their plan, or sometimes just justify it differently. How a low wisdom vs low intelligence character sees a problem can vary greatly...even if the end plan is the same.


In group situations, or a solo situation where the rest of the RP group is present, I allow communal aid to help even things out. The player of the dumb, dirty, rash barb might come up with a rousing speech, a very insightful plan, or know the answer to a riddle. They just pass the nugget on to the appropriate character.


I also try to help people as GM portray those mythic scores. I'll give the intelligent players lots more information, or hints for the riddle. I'll give the wise characters more clues as to how things will play out (if you give a rousing speech to the crowd, it could backfire into a riot... for example). And with the charismatics, I give them a lot of leads and hints, and give them plenty of chances to work it out.

Dump characters will get the riddle...thats it...maybe even a garbled version. Unwise characters won't get any 'i wouldn't do that, or that may work' hints. Uncharismatic characters don't get any 'redos' if they put their foot in their mouth. For these cases though I make sure the players understand what I'm doing, so they dont' think I'm just a complete jerk

[Douglas]

Both of which are abstractions of the gaming system.
So is rolling 3d6 (or 4d6b3) for stats. It is a simplistic attempt to imitate a realistic distribution, and the limits of the imitation are far short of the limits of the reality. If you want to equate D&D intelligence to real world smarts, you have to accept that either the real distribution keeps going beyond the ends of the D&D distribution or that 18 represents the entire range of the top half a percent or so of the population. Stating 19 int as an arbitrary cutoff that automatically lifts someone into the realm of "smarter than the smartest human in all of history" strikes me as an absurd copout, especially when means exist in game for a human to go quite a bit further up than 19.

A mere 140 IQ is high enough to be at about the bottom edge of that top .5% of the IQ distribution. 170 IQ is quite a bit beyond that, and should be represented by a correspondingly higher equivalent intelligence score.

[Telonius]

Here's how I handle charisma skill items.

1. Player RPs it out.
2. I judge how effective the player's contribution was, and secretly assign a situational modifier. In the case of Bluff, I judge how big of a whopper it is.
3. Player rolls and adds the ranks and ability modifiers.
4. I add the modifier and tell the player the result.

[Lapak]

Well you could meta-DM this.

High Int. = your plans have a higher chance to succeed
Low int = Small details you "overlooked" has a risk to mess up the plan.

Example, breaking into a castle. a smart guy and a notso smart guy plan to enter the castle sneakylike, by scaling the wall at night with a grappling hook.
Smart guy, by virtue of being smart, will have noticed the guard rotation and will problebly sneak over the edge at a time when the guards are the least alert (between shifts or whatever works), and the not so smart guy just tries it when the guards are not seen.

High charisma, people like you more, listen to you more. You bring out a big smile and gain friends instantly.
Low charisma, people dont instantly like you. You can still be useful to others but as often as not, you annoy them somehow, being too "clingy" or "aloof" or something else minor.

Rousing speech done by a high charisma sways a large part of the crowd, bloodlust in the air, or serenety depending on the speech.
Low charisma guy does the same speech to a different mob, and it was an intresting point you made, to the few in front who heard you. And you problebly stumbled over a few words too.This is pretty much how I tend to handle it. The player is responsible for coming up with the plan, or the angle their speech will take, or the observation - their stat indicates how successful they are in the details of the execution.

[meet shield]

(sorry for my bad english, it's not my first languadge)

Well, I would pretty much agree on the majority and say "yes, you have to run with your mental stats, becouse you decided to play a dumb character, or a jerk. So, why now are you bothering?" Really, I would if it was the case. But in D&D it is not.

If you play 3.5 edition, you will have to roll dice to detrmine your scores. If you play 4th edition, you will have to buy your stats with points. Both way, you have to chose between mental stats or physical stats.

so, what if I want to run a fighter, and i want him to be smart and toughtfull?
If I chose to give him an high intelligence stat, I will end with low strenght and constitution bonus, and I will be useless to the party. I could roleplay him, but I would must look at bob, the powerplayer, from the ground where I lay while he is slaying the great dragon. And, you, know, I don't think that's is right or, more important, funny.

The point is, obviously you shall not have all stats at 18 becouse it fits your character, but you should neither be obligated to choose between effectiveness and roleplaying your idea of character.

My solution is simple: why don't you create your character explaining the master your idea, than you do the sheet and use them for whatever needs (I mean, seriously need) rules, like fight, in wich your will be remain low. And instead, when your character are around the table descussing about the plan, you simply roleplay the character you wrote a background about?

I do not think that to be charismatic and effective you should always play sorcerers, or wizards if you want to be smart and usefull.

[Keshay]

I disagree i think it lies on the player.
I tell my players if you don't think you can RP it don't play it. if it is some thing you realy realy want to play then i ususaly work with them on it before the game ever even starts.

The problem here is that people tend to vastly overestimate thier own intelligence, wisdom and charisma IRL. Everyone likes to think of themselves as above average, even with nothing to support that belief. Take a look around; on boards, in those "What D&D character are you" quiz results, just about anywhere. You will find a vast overabundance of people who are genius or "smarter than average", or highly charismatic. Its in the same vein of everyone thinking they are a good driver, even if they've had two accidents in the past year.

Its a sad side efect of not being that smart or wise or charismatic that you can not accurately rate your own levels of the corresponding characteristic.

So, sure. You may have a player who wants to play the 18+ Int Wizard. They can not do it realistically through role playing alone. Neither you nor I have met anyone that Intelligent. We have no way of roleplaying the thought processes of a highly intelligent individual. (Consider: if you think you have met an 18+ Int person, are you certain your own Int is actually high enough to accurately make that determination? If you think so, congratulations you're far more arrogant than I.)

Fortunately for DMs this problem is alleviated by providing most (if not all) of the super-intelligent adversaries crippling flaws that offset any potential advantge the intelilgence may provide. Great Wyrm Red Dragon? Super Intelligent, sure but fortuantely that intelligence is offset by greed, arrogance and oftentimes ambivilance. Same goes for other genres too. Dr. Doom, Lex Luthor, Bond Villians. They all are described as being way smarter than the average bear, but with character flaws that leave their plans susceptable to being foiled by "lesser beings" who can not fathom thier genius!

Sadly this is rarely an option for PCs, they want their characters to be perfect, untarnished paragons of (insert preferred alignment here). This leaves only dice rolls to attempt to simulate mental tasks. Sadly that also is utterly flawed since even an untrained child has a chance of figuring out a riddle before the lvl 20 archmage is the kid rolls high and the mage rolls a 1.

So to sum up, no really good solution but trusting players to actually play the stats they roll is sure to disappoint.

[Tiki Snakes]

As long as you are making a legitimate attempt to roleplay the character, I don't see anything wrong with coming up with good ideas without an int bonus. Likewise Charisma, and Wisdom based things.

A High Int-score could provide ooc hints from the DM, whereas a low int character is more likely to be limited to what the player can reason out in their head. I do prefer to see int as much more about the academic side of things. It governs your knowledge based checks, cheifly, after all.

Wisdom, to me, is about your understanding of the world around you. A low wisdom character might be naive, they may be innatentive. It doesn't necessarily make them close-minded or lazy.

Charisma could be able how outgoing you are, but doesn't have to be. It does seem to govern getting other people to react to you most of all, and personally, seems rather more about strength of will than anything.

The biggest point is, I really, really see these three as being INCREDIBLY inter connected. So I'd only really be inclined to play a full on moron if he'd ended up with at least a -1 in all three stats. (Or at least, no bonus to either three and a -1 to at least one, in the case of 4e). Because simply, there are too many ways to model and represent 'intelligence' that I really don't connect it with any of the three mental stats alone.

It should flavour the roleplaying, but doesn't necessarily have to apply a stranglehold to it. Mechanical drawbacks will come aplenty when mechanical interactions are made, be they skill checks or defenses.

[GoufCustom]

Personally, I love playing low WIS characters. It's my dump stat of choice.

[Jergmo]

I agree with the folks saying that you should be playing your character, and if the stats don't match up, well, that's your character. But a character like that doesn't have to be stupid, yeah.

A while back, I was playing an Ogre barbarian with 8 Int and 14 Wis (it was a rather interesting experience, as I usually make rogues or sorcerers). There was a blizzard and he couldn't see very well, and we were being shot at (we being a human fighter and the ogre's companion, a marksman). The other fighter just wandered around getting shot at, and the ogre became very frustrated because he couldn't make with the carnage and was getting pinpricks from crossbows. He finally just shouted to his marksman companion, who he knew to have very good eyesight, asking him where their enemies were. Much carnage ensued.

He was slow mentally, but he had good common sense.

[Jergmo]

Personally, I love playing low WIS characters. It's my dump stat of choice.

@ your sig: They didn't try to sexually assault him? :smalltongue:

[Zeful]

Regarding charisma...its primary purpose seems to be to replace RP, thus even a 'crippling' penalty or godlike bonus to it confers no real disadvantage or advantage, beyond some lame "Oh, 4 charisma means my character doesn't bathe" bit...

DM's don't force the fighter's player to show him how they chopped a dozen baddies to bits in a single round, or have the wizard's player demonstrate just how he manipulated reality like that...but if you try to tell a little white lie, or manipulate NPCs without beating them to death first, you as a player had better be able to back those social skills up. Alternately, if you have horrible modifiers in all your social skills, but are a silver tounged player, you'll probably get a free pass on everything anyways.

*sigh* there was a rather nice thread on this a few years back, but I believe it's since been purged.

I do. I don't care who the player is or what there abilities are, if a character with 4 Charisma was played by Martin Luther King, Hitler or any great speaker, I'd be deliberately editing what their saying to fit with their characters stats, pointing out that their character wouldn't say that, and continuing as normal. Likewise if a shy wallflower were playing a character with 18 charisma and maximum ranks in diplomacy, then I'm editing upward, filling in the gaps of what their not saying based on what they mean.

[meet shield]

yeah, Zeful, but if you do so, that's not roleplay anymore.
If the master will simply fill the gaps in my speech with everything my stats deserve to say, why do I need to speak in the first place? Why sould I try to do a great speech, if nothing at alla would matter, nevermind how much long and great it is?

Then, wouldn't I prefer to just cook up some ogres with my charisma based sorcerer instead of aguing with the noble?
Cause arguing with the noble will be like a video in a videogame: you arrive somewhere, the video start, the video speak, the video end, you fight.

If that's how you want your story to go, man, you don't like it very much, do you?
It must be like kick-doors style, I assume.

I played a warmage ambassador some time ago, my favourite character. We were in a civil war.
he was a tactical genious and I break the world. How? not blasting. Not only.

Mostly, I used his intelligence and charisma to create imprevedible battle plans and conquer alliance. the, of course, I made good use of spells to assure a good executions.

But my master would never let me make a ****ty speech and then assume I did great, o accept something like "I can think of an idea to assoult the city, but my character would. Find one.".
He made me use my own brain and vocabulary to find one, and you know what? I'm happy he did. A perfect plan only becouse I rolled high wouldn't had given me any satisfacion.

[Kylarra]

I do. I don't care who the player is or what there abilities are, if a character with 4 Charisma was played by Martin Luther King, Hitler or any great speaker, I'd be deliberately editing what their saying to fit with their characters stats, pointing out that their character wouldn't say that, and continuing as normal. Likewise if a shy wallflower were playing a character with 18 charisma and maximum ranks in diplomacy, then I'm editing upward, filling in the gaps of what their not saying based on what they mean.
So basically there's no point in "physically" roleplaying it. They should just say "my character is trying to convince them of <stuff>" and then make their roll.

[Yukitsu]

There is a point to adhering to the character. It adds to the character, makes them more interesting, and it makes the characters more unique. Idiosyncratic quirks that come from stats even more so. Playing an int 4 barbarian as Da Vinci is not really playing a character, and is in my opinion, not really all that fun to listen to. Playing a barbarian int 4 wisdom 14 as a dim, but reflective and perceptive kind of guy on the other hand is far more interesting.

In other words, there's no point to roleplaying if you won't play the role.

[Talya]

It's just that all animals are Int 1-2, when there's a lot of variance between an Ape and a bird.

Or between a bird and a bird. Most species of parrots are among the smarter animals on the planet.

[Zeful]

So basically there's no point in "physically" roleplaying it. They should just say "my character is trying to convince them of <stuff>" and then make their roll.

Where are you getting that from? All I do is enforce the stats the players choose. If all I'm getting is "my character is trying to convince them of <stuff>" I'm going to say that's not enough, simply because I can think of 4-8 different ways to try, and 2 of which mean either hefty penalties or outright failure.

I might allow it for someone's first game and has never heard of a roleplaying game before, but everyone else has to at least try, otherwise I'm not going to bother.

Also this is something I do behind the scenes, most people won't know it's happening, unless there's someone really socially awkward at the table playing out of type.

[meet shield]

yukitsu, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
my point was: what if i want to play a wis 14 barbarian that is dumb but reflexive, and i roll 18 16 8 9 5 10?
I will surely put 18 in strenght and 16 in con in order to play a barbarian, right? in order of describe his fortitude and mighty strenght, But then? i will end up with ****ty psychic stats, and a grat by to my reflexive barbarian.
But i want to role a reflexive barbarian, not a complete idiot that will be manipulate by anyone. Are you saying that I deserved to see my concept ruined 'cause i rolled low?

[Umael]

There is a point to adhering to the character. It adds to the character, makes them more interesting, and it makes the characters more unique.

I like to take this to the logical extreme and argue that playing a "winning strategy" (i.e., maximum optimizing your character) all the time makes for the character being uninteresting. Gimping yourself, be it through roleplaying or through metagame choices, can set up some of the most memorable experiences.

There was a Dragon magazine article years and years ago about how one guy's favorite characters had a COMBINED Intelligence score of 13. But they were both holy characters (a paladin with Int 6, a cleric with Int 7), so the player had to justify how they would come up with their answers. The paladin would spend time talking to his horse, the cleric would pray and then turn to his teammates and say, "Okay, the Big Guy says..."

Story comes about from conflict, and conflict comes about from having an obstacle that challenges the character. In the case of the two characters I mentioned earlier, the obstacle is that they had low intelligence scores - but with high wisdom scores, they should have some good common sense about what would be the right course of action. If you have someone who just doesn't have the smarts (say a barbarian with Int 4), storming the castle by attacking the front gates might not be the smartest or the wisest choice of action, but it can certainly be a memorable one.

In the Vampire: The Dark Ages book, they were discussing how frenzy works and that when your vampire goes into a frenzy, you shouldn't be thinking "kill the guy on the horse, he's the dangerous one," but kill the nearest thing, which happens to BE the horse. Tactically, not the best, but if the guy on the horse who really, really, REALLY needs to die gets away because your vampire went punk-ugly-angry and tore out the throat of the white charger instead of the white charger's rider, it makes for a great story.

On the flip side, having an enemy react in a tactically unsound but scary manner makes a good story too. Imagine if your fighter (stupidly) challenged the vampire lord to single combat, but only survived because the vampire lost his cool and decapitated your horse out from under you using just his teeth.

Someone told a magnificently beautiful story about a kender who accidentally killed himself because he couldn't resist touching the shining column of electricity. They mentioned the visible pain on the player's face as he dictated his characters action. Horrible move on the kender's part, terrible way to die (so ignorably), but it made for a great story.

Character flaws and shortcomings, like a low Intelligence, are not the enemy - they are the best friends of a good gaming experience.

[Weimann]

So basically there's no point in "physically" roleplaying it. They should just say "my character is trying to convince them of <stuff>" and then make their roll.Basically, yes. It is totally acceptable for someone to take an action with that declaration.

That doesn't mean that they should, and it certainly doesn't further the game in any way. A game merely consisting of such declarations will be of little value, and I personally wouldn't want to play in it for long. The DM might also say "screw this" and give them a rock shower and a stern talking to about the need for immersion.

But, by RAW, such a declaration is entirely permissible.

The way I see it, a stat sheet is a way to quantify your qualities. By roleplaying closely to your sheet, you are doing it right. If you roleplay differently than your sheet states, it's probably not a character for you.

[chiasaur11]

Someone told a magnificently beautiful story about a kender who accidentally killed himself because he couldn't resist touching the shining column of electricity. They mentioned the visible pain on the player's face as he dictated his characters action. Horrible move on the kender's part, terrible way to die (so ignorably), but it made for a great story.


To paraphrase Dug, from Up:

Ha! It is funny because the Kender gets dead.

[valadil]

Here's how I handle charisma skill items.

1. Player RPs it out.
2. I judge how effective the player's contribution was, and secretly assign a situational modifier. In the case of Bluff, I judge how big of a whopper it is.
3. Player rolls and adds the ranks and ability modifiers.
4. I add the modifier and tell the player the result.

Yup. This is what I see most groups do. If you can't come up with a lie to tell, you don't get to roll bluff.

I've also seen the exact opposite. Player rolls, sees the result, and roleplays that. I think this is more faithful to the character, but more challenging to play.

But I don't think this translates so well for cognitive skills. The best option I can see for the castle scenario outlined by the OP isn't to deny the player the ability to do something he's thought of. Instead it's to limit the information given to the player. Say that 8 int is enough to get 4 good clues and 2 false ones about the castles defenses. The player is allowed to put that information together however he likes, but he's limited by the information available. A smarter character might have twice as many clues to work with, so he'd be in a better position to come up with a solution.

The problem of course is that it's very difficult to write puzzles or scenarios that can be solved with a variable number of clues. But I'm okay with putting this burden on the GM instead of having to tell a player his character is dumb.

[Kylarra]

Basically, yes. It is totally acceptable for someone to take an action with that declaration.

That doesn't mean that they should, and it certainly doesn't further the game in any way. A game merely consisting of such declarations will be of little value, and I personally wouldn't want to play in it for long. The DM might also say "screw this" and give them a rock shower and a stern talking to about the need for immersion.

But, by RAW, such a declaration is entirely permissible.

The way I see it, a stat sheet is a way to quantify your qualities. By roleplaying closely to your sheet, you are doing it right. If you roleplay differently than your sheet states, it's probably not a character for you.Well my particular choice of action is a bit flawed. I meant in more in the sense of describing how you're doing something.

"I weave a dazzling tale of swords and sorcery" for my perform check, rather than <actually coming up with said tale>. Granted that mainly works for int/charisma checks, rather than wis, but eh, we don't force people to act out their physical stats and then rate them on how well they fare.

Although admittedly, my playstyle doesn't allow for characters with <8 stats (bar racials), so within the range of 8-12, anyone can have a bright moment and thus there are no significant "oh you're too stupid/ugly/etc to do that" type moments.

If Zap McWizard can hit the best armored fighter with his nonproficient weapon of choice 5% of the time, it stands to reason that Thog the Barbarian can occasionally come up with a good plan without being shafted automatically by his ability scores. Maybe he just has a head for tactics but is totally useless in every other aspect of INT based "skills".

[DragoonWraith]

Or between a bird and a bird. Most species of parrots are among the smarter animals on the planet.
Birds are actually a very interesting case. Science has certainly vastly underestimated them until very recently. Crows (IIRC) can pass the False-Belief Test, which very few animals can pass. Even human beings have trouble with that until ~3 years of age (generally taken as roughly equivalent to a chimpanzee; no idea how accurate that is, though). And while most parrots are merely mimicking sounds, there has been very surprising evidence that certain individual parrots were actually having a conversation of sorts. Language processing is an unbelievably "high level" cognitive ability (and by rights likely a pre-requisite for intelligence or sentience as a human being understands them), so if these appearances were accurate, that is incredible.

Of course, this all runs afoul of the usual problem with animal intelligence: the human brain as been molded over millions of years to essentially do one thing, and one thing only: find, analyze, understand, and utilize patterns. Tracking animals was the original use; now we use the ability for all manner of things. Unfortunately, it also gives us a tendency to see patterns that do not exist, impress some part of ourselves on other things. Anthropomorphizing the animal kingdom is extremely easy to do. We want to believe that the parrot is actually making conversation, so it's very difficult to trust our own brains on this.

[Killer Angel]

yeah, Zeful, but if you do so, that's not roleplay anymore.
If the master will simply fill the gaps in my speech with everything my stats deserve to say, why do I need to speak in the first place? Why sould I try to do a great speech, if nothing at alla would matter, nevermind how much long and great it is?

(snip)

But my master would never let me make a ****ty speech and then assume I did great, o accept something like "I can think of an idea to assoult the city, but my character would. Find one.".



mmm... yes and no.
Yes, you should roleplay your character, and certainly gives more satisfaction if you "do a great speech", resolving a difficult solution.
But if I'm shy, this means I cannot play a bard? or a diplomat? even once in my life, just to try new character mechanics?
I can simply describe what I want to say, and then roll the dice. I have the right to do it, even if I'm not able to handle properly a "social" PC.
Otherwise, I will pretend from every fighter, a description of his manoveurs, and from every ranger I will pretend to know what he's looking for, when he rolls for survival.


PS: location: Pordenone? wow... :smallsmile:

[Rixx]

"Alistar, the dungeon's negative aura chills you to the bone. You are shaken!"

"I'm going to tell Alistar a story to help calm his nerves." *grasps d20*

"Oh? Let's hear it, then!"

"....ffffff give me a second"


It ended up being a story about how one of my characters' mentors had to examine a tomb that once housed a powerful lich - but it turned out to be an evil hobo making scary noises.

[shadow_archmagi]

My group solves INT and WIS like this:

Ok Dum As Rok, Barbarian (my character): Dem humies got the shiny stone! How we gunna get it back?

Shadow_Archmagi: Personally I think a frontal assault would be suicide. . Suggest getting a gyrphon and then featherfalling straight into the top floor.

Josh: What about the moat?
Reginald: I seriously doubt Acidtario the Acidic is going to have a water moat.
Josh: Good point. We'll use the first plan.

Magewald Wizlington, (Josh's character): My dear fellow, I have just the idea. Come, it is a long way to Stormpeak Aerie.

[Talya]

Birds are actually a very interesting case. Science has certainly vastly underestimated them until very recently. Crows (IIRC) can pass the False-Belief Test, which very few animals can pass. Even human beings have trouble with that until ~3 years of age (generally taken as roughly equivalent to a chimpanzee; no idea how accurate that is, though). And while most parrots are merely mimicking sounds, there has been very surprising evidence that certain individual parrots were actually having a conversation of sorts. Language processing is an unbelievably "high level" cognitive ability (and by rights likely a pre-requisite for intelligence or sentience as a human being understands them), so if these appearances were accurate, that is incredible.

Of course, this all runs afoul of the usual problem with animal intelligence: the human brain as been molded over millions of years to essentially do one thing, and one thing only: find, analyze, understand, and utilize patterns. Tracking animals was the original use; now we use the ability for all manner of things. Unfortunately, it also gives us a tendency to see patterns that do not exist, impress some part of ourselves on other things. Anthropomorphizing the animal kingdom is extremely easy to do. We want to believe that the parrot is actually making conversation, so it's very difficult to trust our own brains on this.



I like you.

[shadow_archmagi]

I like you.

Ravens are neat

http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Raven-Investigations-Adventures-Wolf-Birds/dp/product-description/0060930632

[Yukitsu]

yukitsu, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
my point was: what if i want to play a wis 14 barbarian that is dumb but reflexive, and i roll 18 16 8 9 5 10?
I will surely put 18 in strenght and 16 in con in order to play a barbarian, right? in order of describe his fortitude and mighty strenght, But then? i will end up with ****ty psychic stats, and a grat by to my reflexive barbarian.
But i want to role a reflexive barbarian, not a complete idiot that will be manipulate by anyone. Are you saying that I deserved to see my concept ruined 'cause i rolled low?

Play point buy?

Alternatively, play a dwarf with like, 1 charisma, and a 12 con. 16 wisdom, 8 intelligence and whatever. If you want to play a concept, you'll have to be willing to make some sacrafices towards that, much like I tend to play people with high intelligence and charisma, but low wisdom, and lose out on my physical stats as punishment.

For example, my paladin put RP before optimization, taking his stats as Charisma, dex, intelligence, wisdom, constitution, strength. Charming, witty noble sort, but not too hot with a sword, unless he's fighting evil.

[Riffington]

I do. I don't care who the player is or what there abilities are, if a character with 4 Charisma was played by Martin Luther King, Hitler or any great speaker, I'd be deliberately editing what their saying to fit with their characters stats, pointing out that their character wouldn't say that, and continuing as normal. Likewise if a shy wallflower were playing a character with 18 charisma and maximum ranks in diplomacy, then I'm editing upward, filling in the gaps of what their not saying based on what they mean.

I agree with this. The fact is, the things you say/do are not *precisely* what your character would say/do. I am sometimes picking tactics for characters who know far more about those tactics than I do. I am sometimes giving speeches for characters far more eloquent than I. I am often speaking in a language different than any my character has learned, and using idioms that would be foreign to him, despite my best efforts.

That's all fine: it means that I'm giving an analogy for my character. When I choose words for my character, they are not the precise ones he uses. They are analogous to the ones he uses. There is some combination of his actual stats and how compelling my speech is that gives the correct answer. Yes, this gives smarter and more eloquent players an advantage that stronger players just don't have. After all, my group doesn't currently have a "bend bars/lift gates" mechanic that incorporates a player's attempts to bench press a heavy weight and then adjusts up/down for the player's strength. But it's still fun. A lot more fun than just rolling.

[Tiki Snakes]

The animal int score thing always cracked me up, btw. Given that Dolphins have been proven to be good at all manner of crazy stuff, and the whole crow family is ludicrously smart (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8181233.stm), often in ways that basically defy the int scale....
Oh, and various other primates are arguably capable of language. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29)

It kind of means to me that, what DnD is saying on the matter is that Gorillas, Crows, Dolphins, Elephants, certain types of dog perhaps, etc, are all actually Magical Animals. >_>

Which is awesome.

[Artanis]

After all, my group doesn't currently have a "bend bars/lift gates" mechanic that incorporates a player's attempts to bench press a heavy weight and then adjusts up/down for the player's strength.

This.

I never understood why people ignored mental stats and replaced them with the players' RP but did NOT ignore physical stats and replace them with push-ups and backflips.

[Fiery Diamond]

This is generally what I do as a DM.

1. Player rolls for stats.
2. I check to make sure there at 2+ scores above 14 and 2- scores below 10. I also make sure there are no scores below 8. If this is not the case, I fool around with the dice and allow rerolls until it is.
3. Mental stat usage= let player RP what he/she thinks his/her character would do...
--- I let more intelligent players with less intelligent characters tell the players or the more intelligent characters their ideas for tactics, etc.
--- I give bonuses/penalties for charisma things based on what the player actually says in addition to the stats. If I (or another player) think that a RL-low charisma person playing a high charisma person is doing a bad job, I may advise them to reconsider and/or offer assistance.
--- Wisdom...well, high wisdom players are very rare, so that's not really an issue on that side. I give advice/suggestions to low wisdom players playing high wisdom characters.

IRL, I think I have <7 Str, <8 Dex, <8 Con, ~14 Int, ~11 Wis, ~10 Cha.

[woodenbandman]

My take: Your Int, Wis, and Cha don't have any effect on what comes out of your character's mouth. A really smart, convincing character who understands everything can still stay some stupid things.

Now, out of character, the DM should probably feed you some stuff. If you're extremely charismatic, the DM should say to you "well, you know that it would be polite to say X" or if you're smart "Well, you heard XYZ, and from that you concluded A'" or if you're really wise "Well, you notice that person Q is acting in X way." On the other hand if you're particularly stupid as a character or whatever, the DM should feel free to say "Make a skill check" and if you fail, it falls flat because some flaw in your character.

You should definitely get circumstance modifiers for roleplaying, regardless of if you're roleplaying a smart character or a stupid character. The social interaction rules are pretty crippled as-is. The way I'd handle it: some RP exchange (doesn't matter how good it is), and if you're playing your character well, you get a bonus. Of course, if you're suggesting stupid things, you also get a penalty, but the bonus helps cancel some of it. If you want to montage through it, you get a big penalty. You can't just say "I convince him."

[tyckspoon]

This is generally what I do as a DM.

1. Player rolls for stats.
2. I check to make sure there at 2+ scores above 14 and 2- scores below 10. I also make sure there are no scores below 8. If this is not the case, I fool around with the dice and allow rerolls until it is.


You'd probably save a lot of rolling at this point if you just said "Your two lowest scores are now 8s." Much quicker than making people reroll until they get exactly 2 scores of 8 or 9.

[Umael]

This is generally what I do as a DM.

2. I check to make sure there at 2+ scores above 14 and 2- scores below 10. I also make sure there are no scores below 8. If this is not the case, I fool around with the dice and allow rerolls until it is.

I don't think I would like this.

No, I am sure - I would not like this.

Having two scores that must be an 8 or a 9 bothers me. For a character or two, sure. But every character in one of your games??

Having the occasional "5" or "no stat lower than a 12" character is fun and gives the characters more variety and puts the others in a kind of context.

[DragoonWraith]

I think he meant, after rolling 6 x 4d6b3, the two lowest numbers are raised to 8 if less than 8.

[Douglas]

Note the minus sign after the 2 there. That means 2 or fewer scores below 10, not exactly 2 scores below 10.

[Samurai Jill]

I don't like (going with D&D 3.5 terms, but other games have synonyms) Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as stats for player characters...

I am, however for "Knowledge skills." I like the idea of being able to ask the DM "what do I know about [subject]?"
Interestingly, there's a trend in various RPGs toward modelling mental stats as something a little more indirect or abstract- e.g, Perception, or Will, that don't reflect directly on mental capacity- precisely in order to avoid that particular trap.
Also, depending on the system, you can use knowledge skills to tell the GM facts about the world. Player empowerment, bitches.

[taltamir]

I know two guys who scored max - as in pretty much broke the test - on their mensa admission.

Both are at best moderately clever ... unless you give them an IQ test. They really, REALLY shine at those.

But honestly? I'm far cleverer than both, even if my 'official IQ score' is something like 40 points lower.

IQ tests are so horribly bogus, it defies reason.

On topic btw, I think it's the GM's job to make the int 22 character seem clever. When the uber intelligent wizard claims that 'well, obviously our enemy has a great fear of spiders, and wears a blue hat' - the GM will make it so, thus enabling the genius of the character.

as I mentioned, the guys who designed them say they are ONLY designed to be accurate on BELOW 100 points, and only for determining learning disabilities. (not necessarily STUPIDITY, but also dyslexia, etc)

There are many tests that are far more accurate in measure mental capacities,but for some reason people are stuck on IQ as a measurement of capability.

[Cespenar]

This also has a great deal to do with the mode of playing. If, for example, the game has a high focus on exploration, not roleplaying your exact mental stats would be more forgivable. But in story-driven or sandbox games, roleplaying your character concept is, naturally, of prime importance.

[Saph]

I generally let players play their characters however they want to. If they have a high Int they're supposed to act smart, if they have a high Cha they're supposed to act charismatic, but I leave it up to them how to roleplay that; there's a lot of room for interpretation in how you read the ability scores.

I also don't take characters' mental scores into account when they're making plans and deciding what to do. Mostly because, once you start doing that, where do you stop? I'm a big believer that the whole point of RPGs is for the player, not the DM, to make choices. If they specifically ask, "Okay, based on my character's IC knowledge, do I think that this would be a good idea?" I'll tell them, but I'm not going to butt in unless they ask for it.

[meet shield]

woodenbandman: I totally agree with you.

Point is, what if I use to decide my character BEFORE roll the dice?
Wouldn't be simple to use the stats for fights and spells and savinghtrows , as they are supposed to, to keep the game balanced, and when you just speak role the character you have tought of?

WHITHOUT looking at your sheet to check if your charisma is high enough to say a pun, if your character would, or your wisdom to high to be impulsive when your character is, or your intelligence too low to learn the explanation of events that a PNG wizard is giving you, even if your character wasn't dumb from your backgrounds and you tried very hard to remember it, while kack, that is playing a wizard, sleep on his chair and when he needs some information just ask the master to explain it again.

That's not funny.
D&D allows you to play the character you would, it's not supposed to make you open a pack and find a sheet in. In my opinion, that's what dices do

[Cespenar]

I generally let players play their characters however they want to. If they have a high Int they're supposed to act smart, if they have a high Cha they're supposed to act charismatic, but I leave it up to them how to roleplay that; there's a lot of room for interpretation in how you read the ability scores.

Emphasis mine, and this is probably the most important part. That's why IMHO roleplaying the "character concept" is a better idea.

[meet shield]

Saph QFT.
Couldn't say any better.

[Tiki Snakes]

Also, depending on the system, you can use knowledge skills to tell the GM facts about the world. Player empowerment, bitches.

That seems like an inherantly odd/dangerous way of doing things. I suppose it makes more sense within the context of the games in question, but suffice to say I shaln't be adopting it as a house-rule! ;)

[Riffington]

That seems like an inherantly odd/dangerous way of doing things. I suppose it makes more sense within the context of the games in question, but suffice to say I shaln't be adopting it as a house-rule! ;)

It's a *wonderful* way of doing things :)

[WalkingTarget]

That seems like an inherantly odd/dangerous way of doing things. I suppose it makes more sense within the context of the games in question, but suffice to say I shaln't be adopting it as a house-rule! ;)

These are generally games which take player input like this as a given. I've enjoyed games of InSpectres which uses mechanics like this.

For games like D&D where the DM is generally assumed to be in charge of the rules/setting, maybe not so much.

[Keshay]

Point is, what if I use to decide my character BEFORE roll the dice?

If you want to tailor the character befroe you know the stats, then use point buy, or stat arrays. Randomly rolling dice to determine the stats for a pre-conceived character is a foolish proposition. Don't do it is the simple answer, there are plenty of other options. If you're dead set on rolling dice, roll three sets of stats, use the "best"


Wouldn't be simple to use the stats for fights and spells and savinghtrows , as they are supposed to, to keep the game balanced, and when you just speak role the character you have tought of?

Ok, so you want to have your cake and eat it too. This tells me you're not really interested in roleplaying in the strictest sense, but instead want to play a storytelling game with as few restrictions based on game mechanics as possible.

You say you want to play a charismatic, dextrous barbarian, but then you put your first points into Str and Con because those are the stats that provide the greatest mechanical advantage to a Barb... Well obviously you value those things more than the charisma. Crazy thought, if you want a charismatic character, put the points into charisma. Otherwise, you'r enot really playing the game. If you can find a DM and group to go along with throwing the mental stats out the window, fine, have fun however you like. But you'll miss out on many of the challenges that make roleplaying games interesting.

You might as well Take an alignment for its mechanical benefits, but then have your character behave however they want. Go ahead and have your paladin eat babies and punch old ladies in the face. Same difference as the 3 Charisma Barbarian successfully delivering a moving speech that rouses a sleepy town to act againt the evil overlord's tyrrany.

[Pazzo]

I always beg and plead with my players to have at least an 8 in any mental score, and it allows for them to have the rare "Breakthrough" without being too odd.

It is more frustrating when the clever charcters seem like the dimmest bulbs on the tree. :smallsigh:

[Carisbourg]

What I like doing for a low INT character is coming up with bad ideas (sometimes really bad) and then checking them with the other characters to see if they're OK. The high INT characters will suggest something else. This low INT character didn't just *pop*, they've grown up knowing they're not so bright, so if they have an average WIS they'll check with the people around them to see if the idea is OK. When things are critical I'll use the good ideas I have. After all, everyone comes up with a good idea now and then. Then in non-dice-roll situations I'll come up with stupid ideas again to reinforce the stupid thing.

This can be extended to other mental challenges as well. Low WIS high INT means you come up with intricate, complex plans with large holes. My low CHA, low WIS characters say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Low CHA, high <anything> are snotty, stuck up jerks that focus on their strengths.

If there's a game mechanic that allows raising INT or WIS I'll disagree with the player whose character stats are high in that area. Then I'll be proved wrong and my character will see the need for "growth" in that area, letting me raise to average or marginally sub-par mental stats. The role-playing is already in place to justify the raise. My character will also read a lot in his spare time to help role-play the INT raise. From then on, any good ideas I get that are smarter than the character are something I "got from a book."

[Tyndmyr]

Or, you deliver the most eloquent speech to ever grace human ears, there's no way any being capable of emotion could resist you, "Pfft! You expect a Dwarf with a Charisma of 10 and 0 ranks in Diplomacy or Perform (Poetry) to say that?!"

Considering an average dwarf has a charisma of 8-9, per the PHB, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable, especially as a one off event. Of course, the audience also matters. It may be easier to impress your fellow dwarves than say, high elves.

[SaiphSDC]

Saph, I agree, though I probably take a more active role. I tend to remind my players of the roles they wanted to play, as it tends to slip my friends minds a bit. Especially when they play atypical roles from themselves, or their normal fare. The editing the players do to their own actions when reminded have produced some truly entertaining results.

As far as group planning, again, I don't really worry about who's coming up with what, as it's usually OoC at my table. I only worry when it actually matters, in game, who says what. Even then I don't mind if the party decides the rather simple barbarian comes up with the brilliant plan from time to time.



Also, I really liked the idea mentioned before where you roll the check FIRST then roleplay the results. I don't know why that never crossed my mind before. I think I might try that, especially for the characters w/ stats on the extremes.

Problem is my group grew from tabletop gamers (Mechwarrior, Warhammer, Mageknights etc)..so we tend to get into the nitty gritty combat. Which is fine and good, and fun. But we also enjoy the RP (thus why we started RPG's)...but lose sight of it. So I like little things that encourage and reward RP. For instance I implement an Exalted style 'stunt' system, even in my d20 games to encourage my players to do more than say, "I attack the orc again".

[Aotrs Commander]

I expect - and do myself when playing - my players to play to their mental stats. Within the (as Saph said) very broad spectrum of those stats. I don't worry too much about smart characters acting dumb; I treat the stats as the mechanical maximum. Just 'cos you've got brains, doesn't mean you always use them...! (Example; Dave Lister...)

I also agree with Saph in the fact I don't worry too much about stymying player ideas based on their characters; indeed, if the stupid character comes up with the plan, it merely makes it funny. In fact, when I use puzzles, for example, I use them to test the players, not the characters so much. (With helpful DM hinst being given by (say) Int checks if they happen to get totally stuck!)

As far as social skills and such go, things with mechanics involved, the method is roleplaying first, followed by the relevant check. Which will ultimately decide how things go. Sometimes Mr. Super charisma fluffs it; sometimes your stoic psychic warrior rolls a natural 20 and manages to intimidate the monster, to everyone's utter surprise and hilarity.

However, while the dice roll is considered to be of high importance, "I roll Diplomacy" results in "congratulations. Moving on..." I don't care how crap you are at roleplaying, you are expected to at least make the attempt. And advised - nay even encouraged - to ask other players for OOC advice and such, if required. In general, you're not going to be on a time limit, so if you need to say "hang on a mo chaps, I need to think carefully how my character would say/plan/do this", you are entirely welcome (since a very good way of emulating superior anything is by having the time to plan.) 'Cos if you're crap, and won't even try, how will you learn to be not crap?

Obviously, people who really struggle with roleplaying will have that factored in. As long as you show you're willing to try and to learn, I'm good.

(The same with optimisation, actually - if you don't know how, listen t'advice of them as does. Of course, if you then ignore that advice, you then forfit the right to complain you suck later...)

I figure encouraging everyone to make a bigger pie (by making them learn how to do things) is far more preferrable to just giving up, since it raises everyone's bar.

[meet shield]

Keshay, I suppose you play in a group different from mine. And I immage that to you my arguments shall apear foolish.
neverthless, I will try to explain you our situation.

We use to play 4E, an ediction in wich, if your character do not hit, is destinated to suck. In order to hit, you must have a decent score in your primary stat. and, choose a race that give a bonus to said stat.

In my actual setting, a player that we'll call Bob wants to describe a very particular concept.
Bob taked a race useless for him, spent his points to buy stats he didn't need (such as charisma to bluff), and spent feats to take Jack of all trades and skill focus.
he did it. But, his character sucks. he really sucks.
He's absolutly useless in combat, and this game, despite all the investigative part (in wich a ritualist is still very a lot more effective than he is) is decided by fights.
And Bob is not happy, and is not having funny. becouse avery session he has to look while the other kills the dragon, and then discover while he attacked them without any relevant help from his character.
I can't say that's right. I told them to rewrite his sheet, and that I will simply assume that he CAN play a liute without a class feature, and switch intelligence (his key ability) to cha when it comes to teh skills (giving him good bluff and diplomacy and low knowledge skills)
I found it a good solution in order to not penalize more character that wants to play something particular than the ones who wants the Thog-smashed-brain style.

[Douglas]

What, exactly, is this "very particular concept" that had no class that could possibly suit the concept while also depending on the correct ability scores?

[Erts]

The thing which bugs me is when somethings just don't make sense...

Example:
A dwarf fighter with a charisma of 8 gives a perfectly logical plan of action, while a elf sorceror with 18 gives a one which he prefers. Which one do you think happens?

Reminds me of situations like this:
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850

[ericgrau]

I'll go with what Saph said, and add one thing: 10 is average. 8 and 12 are close to average. I'm against letting such a stat limit your options too much. Maybe if it's a 6 or lower you should limit yourself, or if it's a 14 or higher you should ask your DM for tips. Assuming, like most people, IRL you aren't a 14+. Otherwise IMO just roleplay it and stick with the results. Ask for basic character knowledge (regardless of int), and likewise keep modern discoveries away from your PC, but otherwise just play your PC with your own thoughts.

[Artanis]

Keshay, I suppose you play in a group different from mine. And I immage that to you my arguments shall apear foolish.
neverthless, I will try to explain you our situation.

We use to play 4E, an ediction in wich, if your character do not hit, is destinated to suck. In order to hit, you must have a decent score in your primary stat. and, choose a race that give a bonus to said stat.

In my actual setting, a player that we'll call Bob wants to describe a very particular concept.
Bob taked a race useless for him, spent his points to buy stats he didn't need (such as charisma to bluff), and spent feats to take Jack of all trades and skill focus.
he did it. But, his character sucks. he really sucks.
He's absolutly useless in combat, and this game, despite all the investigative part (in wich a ritualist is still very a lot more effective than he is) is decided by fights.
And Bob is not happy, and is not having funny. becouse avery session he has to look while the other kills the dragon, and then discover while he attacked them without any relevant help from his character.
I can't say that's right. I told them to rewrite his sheet, and that I will simply assume that he CAN play a liute without a class feature, and switch intelligence (his key ability) to cha when it comes to teh skills (giving him good bluff and diplomacy and low knowledge skills)
I found it a good solution in order to not penalize more character that wants to play something particular than the ones who wants the Thog-smashed-brain style.

That sort of situation doesn't bother me in the least because it makes even less sense for a character that weak to decide to be an adventurer in the first place.