PDA

View Full Version : Too smart for your character?



Zadus
2010-06-30, 02:16 PM
Have you ever come up with an ingenious solution to a problem only to have it shot down by the DM because your character doesn't have a high enough int score.

For instance we were playing a game in Cauldron which is a city located inside a volcano. It was starting to rain really hard and flooding was on the way. The lake in the center was going to rise up cause problems.

We got sent on a mission to recover 6 wands of control water ( or something) which would be used to lower the water as needed.

Now previously we had encountered a bath house which actually brought in water from the lake. Essentially drained small quantities. This was located underground and the bath house actually had an underground path leading outside of the city.

I proposed we widen that conduit from the lake to the bath house basement and then just let the water flow out of there, under the city and then out of town. Then with a simple valve, we could essential flush cauldron when needed and control the water level without bringing in 6 wands ever year.

This would have been much more feasible and wouldn't require a bunch of people going after an evil and dangerous organization to get a couple stolen wands back.

After suggesting such a plan, I was told that my character couldn't think of that because she only had 12 int. I had to defer to our higher int character.

This has happened to me before in other games too. 12 int isn't bad either - it's above average. I guess I'm just some sort of genius or something.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-30, 02:30 PM
That's half the reason I play characters with high int anyway. Playing Dumb irks me.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-30, 02:33 PM
That's half the reason I play characters with high int anyway. Playing Dumb irks me.

I get this a lot.

"Why does your barbarian have an Int bonus?"

"You remember that halfling barbarian our friend played? The one that wrestled his own dog for food, bit a rhino's ankle, and thought he could fly because the evil rogue drew wings on his back?"

"Yes?"

"THAT'S why."

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 02:33 PM
Why 12 int can't think a good plan? That doesn't make sense. If your int is 5 it will be a different story.

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 02:33 PM
I'd have let you get away with it... actual effectiveness, however, would depend on a Knowledge (architecture and engineering) check.

ninjaneer003
2010-06-30, 02:35 PM
12 is above average so being told that your character is too stupid to think of something is very irritating. I really should be YOUR call whether YOUR character can come up with an idea or not. Otherwise it's just the DM controlling your character. Saying that the DM could point out and ask if you think your character is smart enough to do such an action but really the decision should comes down to you

mucat
2010-06-30, 02:38 PM
Wait a minute...OK, on one hand, I agree that it's obnoxious when metagaming players try to do things their characters would have no way of knowing how to do -- whether because of low mental scores, lck of pertinent information, or any other reason.

But in this case?

With a 12 intelligence, your character is brighter than average (and its not like even an "average" human is dumb -- we're some pretty damned clever monkeys, even if we don't always act like it). And she proposed a simple, straightforward, creative but not brilliantly creative, solution to a problem. I don't see any metagaming here.

It sounds to me like the DM's ego was hurt a little by the fact that he had missed this obvious solution, so in his own mind he classified it as a remarkably brilliant plan that only a genius (and an even greater genius than himself, at that! :smallwink:) would think of..

Optimystik
2010-06-30, 02:38 PM
The few times I play dumb, I like to work around this. For example, I had a half-orc Monk who solved a puzzle but had serious communication issues (bare minimum Int and Cha) to communicate it to the others. So I simply had him stumble over to the right lever we needed to pull and lean on it, allowing us to progress. While the party crowed and clapped him on the back, he shyly drug a toe through the dirt on the dungeon floor.

Snake-Aes
2010-06-30, 02:38 PM
12 is above average so being told that your character is too stupid to think of something is very irritating. I really should be YOUR call whether YOUR character can come up with an idea or not. Otherwise it's just the DM controlling your character. Saying that the DM could point out and ask if you think your character is smart enough to do such an action but really the decision should comes down to you

Coming up with that decision was more of a matter of seeing the obvious: THE DRAIN IS ALREADY THERE OMG. I guess everyone in the city had wis 8.

Merk
2010-06-30, 02:39 PM
I have the opposite problem, actually. I prefer playing high-int masterminds like beguilers and factotums (usually in the vein of 18+ int), but can't actually act smarter than I am, since IRL I only have 10-11 int.

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 02:39 PM
12 is above average so being told that your character is too stupid to think of something is very irritating. I really should be YOUR call whether YOUR character can come up with an idea or not. Otherwise it's just the DM controlling your character. Saying that the DM could point out and ask if you think your character is smart enough to do such an action but really the decision should comes down to you

+1

Even if your int is 5, a DM should be able to better than calling the PC as too stupid. Even a person with low int can come up with ingenious solution sometimes.


Coming up with that decision was more of a matter of seeing the obvious: THE DRAIN IS ALREADY THERE OMG. I guess everyone in the city had wis 8.

More like wis 6. And no architect either.

Another_Poet
2010-06-30, 02:52 PM
Have you ever come up with an ingenious solution to a problem only to have it shot down by the DM because your character doesn't have a high enough int score.

Not really. If I did that anmd it really seemed too genius for my character, my GM would have me roll an Int check. If I fail, well, I've already said the idea out loud OOC so one of the high-Int character might just come up with the idea instead!

Seriously, this is why there is a whole team. IC we all have to play our stats. OOC we are telling a collaborative story where our group is supposed to be triumphant. Your wizard friend should take the ball and run with it, suggesting it as if it's his own idea, since you're character could never come up with it in the first place.

edit: 12 int is not low, it's above-average. Your DM railroaded you so you would go on the quest. It has nothing to do with your Int score :(

Comet
2010-06-30, 02:54 PM
Seriously, this is why there is a whole team. IC we all have to play our stats. OOC we are telling a collaborative story where our group is supposed to be triumphant. Your wizard friend should take the ball and run with it, suggesting it as if it's his own idea, since you're character could never come up with it in the first place.

+1. I was just about to post the same thing myself. Nothing to add, really.

Dairun Cates
2010-06-30, 02:55 PM
Psh. Are you kidding? I play idiots and geniuses all the time and never feel truly restricted in how I get ideas across. It's all about flavoring.

Smart Character: Well, statistically speaking, this dungeon was made by an experienced trap maker, but considering our capabilities, I'm confident that we'd be able to handle it should it turn out to be a trap. Besides, this route is really our only option at the moment. Let's proceed with caution unless someone can think of a potential alternate option we missed.

Stupid Character: I PUSH THE RED BUTTON!

Honestly, you can explain away quite a few things as dumb luck if you're willing to work with them. I, as a player, know that my best option is to push the red button, but my character pushes it because it's shiny. I as a character know the NPC is probably lying because of his suspicious attitude, but my character doesn't like him because he's a cat person.

EDIT: ... And then there's the time that my character with literally no common sense managed to solve an entire session because his care giver told him to stay home and do ABSOLUTELY nothing, and he meditated until he had achieved pure nothingness of the mind. It was kinda weird and involved him dressing up like Ryu from Street Fighter and making psychotically high tracking checks.

Lin Bayaseda
2010-06-30, 03:02 PM
Step 1: Get a pet hamster.
Step 2: Whenever you need to make a smart observation, have it originate from the hamster. As in, "This maze confuses me, but Furrycuddle's nose is pointing to the right, so that's where we should go."

Worked for Minsc.

Emmerask
2010-06-30, 03:04 PM
Why 12 int can't think a good plan? That doesn't make sense. If your int is 5 it will be a different story.

I completely agree even in 8 would be enough to come up with such a plan, flood? lets build a means to control the water level, no rocket science complex mathematical theories involved especially if the characters have already seen something that does exactly that if on a smaller scale (the bath house).

Yes the actual implementation will require some people with engineering and mathematic skills (where int helps) but even there a int 10 commoner if high enough level can achieve this (especially if aided by other people who have trained those skills).

Absolutely wrong move on your dms part, but I´m guessing he was only pissed that this would completely derail the adventure and to stop that he just rambled something about the character being too stupid :smallwink:

Lord Vampyre
2010-06-30, 03:10 PM
That's half the reason I play characters with high int anyway. Playing Dumb irks me.

I agree. Even when I play a stupid fighter, I generally give him a well above average intelligence score.

IRL I have a fairly high IQ, depending on how I'm feeling and which test I'm basing the score off of. Since Int in D&D in only a tenth of supposedly RL IQ scores, a 12 Intelligence is pretty high.

My problem was always the fact that my character should know things that I've never studied in RL. This meant I generally had to convince the GM or DM to let me roll to see if he could figure it out, especially since my wizards always had every knowledge skill in the game plus some.

Zadus
2010-06-30, 03:13 PM
Step 1: Get a pet hamster.
Step 2: Whenever you need to make a smart observation, have it originate from the hamster. As in, "This maze confuses me, but Furrycuddle's nose is pointing to the right, so that's where we should go."

Worked for Minsc.

What works for Minsc works for me!


on another note

Thanks guys, I'm just glad I'm not the only one this happens too.

In the end the DM was just trying to get us out on the quest, so I can't really blame him for that.

But yes, I play typically Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins etc, and they can be smart too!

In this particular instance I was playing a paladin. I guess people want them to smite evil instead of come up in innovative solutions where nobody get's hurt.

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 03:17 PM
What works for Minsc works for me!


on another note

Thanks guys, I'm just glad I'm not the only one this happens too.

In the end the DM was just trying to get us out on the quest, so I can't really blame him for that.

But yes, I play typically Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins etc, and they can be smart too!

In this particular instance I was playing a paladin. I guess people want them to smite evil instead of come up in innovative solutions where nobody get's hurt.

Well, maybe your DM just running out of good idea to say. I would expect a true paladin to do the latter actually.

Emmerask
2010-06-30, 03:19 PM
In the end the DM was just trying to get us out on the quest, so I can't really blame him for that.

Sure, but what he should have done is something along the lines of

City council: "that is a great plan, we will put our best people to that task and look if it´s doable during the remaining time, in the meantime though we would like you to look for those 6 artifacts as a backup plan"

Or maybe one of the council (duno how the city is ruled) actually wants the city to be destroyed so argues against that plan.

Well basically anything but your character is too stupid would have been a good thing ^^

Zadus
2010-06-30, 03:23 PM
Yes, in the end our wizard drafted up the plan, presented it and the powers that be said no.

Then we went and got our wands.

Mr.Moron
2010-06-30, 03:24 PM
I personally think the ruling was unreasonable in the extreme. 12 INT is above average and probably smarter than you and everyone at the table.

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 03:27 PM
Sure, but what he should have done is something along the lines of

City council: "that is a great plan, we will put our best people to that task and look if it´s doable during the remaining time, in the meantime though we would like you to look for those 6 artifacts as a backup plan"

Or maybe one of the council (duno how the city is ruled) actually wants the city to be destroyed so argues against that plan.

Well basically anything but your character is too stupid would have been a good thing ^^

Or saying that the wands are more than just 'wands' they have some historical value or something so the city want it for more than just controlling water. The current issue is just a good reason to finally initiate a recovery.

Hzurr
2010-06-30, 03:32 PM
I try to stick to the extremes of the mental stats, because I can either play my character according to my intelligence (which I feel is fairly high, although given how our last Shadowrun game went, the other players might respectfully disagree), or play a very stupid/simple character, simply because being "average" puts me into situations like these, where I'm unsure about what my character would know.

That being said, I disagree with your DM's choice. Your character isn't a moron, and while you aren't going to be doing any advanced calculus, there's no reason you can't go: Hey, water levels!

(Case in point: People of average intelligence were able to beat the water temple in Legend of Zelda: OoT; and that was nothing but water levels.)

Zadus
2010-06-30, 03:34 PM
(Case in point: People of average intelligence were able to beat the water temple in Legend of Zelda: OoT; and that was nothing but water levels.)

That dungeon still scares me a little...

Working with the extremes not a bad idea, but having a very high int on a lot of character is a tiny bit hard to do.

CubeB
2010-06-30, 03:39 PM
Definite railroading there.

Your DM just wanted you to get the wands.

In any case. 12 Int ain't dumb. I've got my Mutants and Masterminds Benchmark sheet right here.

12 int is a +1 Modifier. That's about the intelligence level of a college graduate in a professional field.

A college graduate could easily think up that solution.

I'd give your DM an Conductors hat. :) Not to be malicious. Just because it would be funny.

Darklord Xavez
2010-06-30, 03:43 PM
I always play characters with an int bonus, that way, the DM will accept any scheme I come up with. I have above average intelligence, after all!:smallbiggrin:
-Xavez

chiasaur11
2010-06-30, 03:48 PM
I personally think the ruling was unreasonable in the extreme. 12 INT is above average and probably smarter than you and everyone at the table.

Wouldn't go that far. Even the most extreme guess for mapping it is 120 IQ, top ten percent, sure, but everyone's probably met people within that range frequently. And most guesses place it lower than that, as in high average.

But really, "you're not smart enough" is the worst DM argument ever. You get one thing in the whole game you control, and it can be taken away arbitrarily?

Sounds like not fun times.

Zadus
2010-06-30, 03:57 PM
Actually its been a really great game and the DM is pretty good.

This is more of an interesting observations than a heavy complaint. Most other stuff has been adjudicated fairly.

mucat
2010-06-30, 04:27 PM
But really, "you're not smart enough" is the worst DM argument ever. You get one thing in the whole game you control, and it can be taken away arbitrarily?.

In this case, yeah, it's a lousy argument. A 12-Int character could absolutely think of the drain idea. Hell, so could a 6-int character, though I would expect the character to play it appropriately.

:thog:: Thog glad talky man is here. Talky man so smart, he know we have to go get wands instead of draining lake through this pipe.

:roy:: :smalleek:


But there are also times when a player isn't even trying to play their character realistically, but just as a vessel to channel the actions needed to "win". In these cases, the DM ought to call a stop to it.


My favorite example, just because it was so damned flagrant, was the 8-int ranger whose player started giving weird instructions, over the course of several game-weeks, about arranging a compost pile of manure and wood ash and straw behind his lodge. At first, I thought it was a weird religious ritual, and was glad to see the player finally roleplaying...until he started getting really specific about the ingredient ratios, and I finally caught on.


Me: "You're trying to make Potassium Nitrate, aren't you?"

Him: "Well, yeah. You can't say it doesn't work; I'm doing everything right."

Me: "And then you're going to make gunpowder, right?" (Note: The player had also been stockpiling sulfur from another source.) "Gunpowder hasn't even been discovered on this world."

Him: "Great! I'll be the only one who has it!"

Me: "But if you're the first one to make it, where did your character learn all these detailed procedures? He hasn't even got any ranks in Alchemy! His intelligence is 8! And you have never before played him as a guy who has any interest at all in science!"

Him: "But I can still do it, right?"

Me: "Of course not; it's ridiculous!"

Him: "Man, it sucks when you won't even let me control my own character."



I think what annoyed me most about that guy and this wasn't his only such shenanigan) was the way he tried to sneak them by stealthily. He knew that if he said "Can my character invent gunpowder?" I'd probably say no. (Or, gods forbid, "sure, if you roleplay the kind of person who might invent things.") So instead he would try to carry out the whole procedure without me catching on to what he was doing, apparently planning to spring the result on me at the end, in the belief that I would have to let him have modern artillery if I haven't vetoes any of the steps leading to it.

TroubleBrewing
2010-06-30, 05:07 PM
My favorite example, just because it was so damned flagrant, was the 8-int ranger whose player started giving weird instructions, over the course of several game-weeks, about arranging a compost pile of manure and wood ash and straw behind his lodge. At first, I thought it was a weird religious ritual, and was glad to see the player finally roleplaying...until he started getting really specific about the ingredient ratios, and I finally caught on...

... I think what annoyed me most about that guy and this wasn't his only such shenanigan) was the way he tried to sneak them by stealthily. He knew that if he said "Can my character invent gunpowder?" I'd probably say no. (Or, gods forbid, "sure, if you roleplay the kind of person who might invent things.") So instead he would try to carry out the whole procedure without me catching on to what he was doing, apparently planning to spring the result on me at the end, in the belief that I would have to let him have modern artillery if I haven't vetoes any of the steps leading to it.

This happens annoyingly frequently when I DM with players I don't know. When it does, I let it happen, let them think they've snuck a fast one by me, and then when they reveal their Guy Fawkes-esque scheme to me, I pull out my ace in the hole: Rule Zero.

"The gunpowder fizzles."

erikun
2010-06-30, 05:10 PM
I proposed we widen that conduit from the lake to the bath house basement and then just let the water flow out of there, under the city and then out of town. Then with a simple valve, we could essential flush cauldron when needed and control the water level without bringing in 6 wands ever year.

After suggesting such a plan, I was told that my character couldn't think of that because she only had 12 int. I had to defer to our higher int character.
No offense to your DM, but this plan basically sounds something like this.

"The lake drains into the bathhouse, right? So if we just overflow the bathhouse, then the lake won't flood the city."

It does not take 12 Intelligence to come up with a plan. If anything, it take a decent perception and a flash of brilliance to recognize that it could work. While the mechanics of designing a valve system to flush the lake would require a decent Intelligence/Knowledge skill to design, there is no reason for a "less intelligent" character to still have good ideas.

If you were playing someone with 7 INT or less, there might be a reason to question it - that's under the assumption that you were playing a character with that low intelligence for RP reasons, which goes counter to coming up with good ideas. However, 12 Intelligence is pretty good. Heck, given the typical NPC stat spreads, that's practically the head of your class in high school.


I think what annoyed me most about that guy and this wasn't his only such shenanigan) was the way he tried to sneak them by stealthily. He knew that if he said "Can my character invent gunpowder?" I'd probably say no. (Or, gods forbid, "sure, if you roleplay the kind of person who might invent things.") So instead he would try to carry out the whole procedure without me catching on to what he was doing, apparently planning to spring the result on me at the end, in the belief that I would have to let him have modern artillery if I haven't vetoes any of the steps leading to it.
One easy way to get around this is that D&D, or any fantasy world, does not need to run on the same rules as the real world. Perhaps gunpowder hasn't been invented because that particular chemical combination does not work properly? I mean, who is to say that your 8 INT character can correctly identify sizable quantities of sulfur and potassium, much less purify them and mix them together in the correct quantities, without any training! The people who first discovered saltpeter no doubt took a long time doing so, not to mention years of experiementing to determine what ratio of quantities works best.

Mastikator
2010-06-30, 05:21 PM
I've never really played a stupid character, only mediocre and up. But I usually don't come up with ingenious plans, I prefer to come up with crazy awesome plans, plans that if they win I should get some kind of reward just because how epic it was. Stuff like throwing a javelin at a hippogriff flying over our ship, with the javelin tied to a rope I'm holding, in hopes of the javelin holding and I getting to climb up on the hippogriff.
Or jumping up on a giant troll to kill the tiny troll standing on its head giving orders.

Both plans failed, but the second one with good results.

Actually, I probably should play a slightly stupid character.

BobVosh
2010-06-30, 05:31 PM
My favorite example, just because it was so damned flagrant, was the 8-int ranger whose player started giving weird instructions, over the course of several game-weeks, about arranging a compost pile of manure and wood ash and straw behind his lodge. At first, I thought it was a weird religious ritual, and was glad to see the player finally roleplaying...until he started getting really specific about the ingredient ratios, and I finally caught on.

I really want to make a character who does this once a season to welcome the new season with a boom. Never do anything but create the gun powder to blow it up every once in a while.

dps
2010-06-30, 05:50 PM
I think it's appropriate in some situations for a DM to say, "no, I'm not going to allow that" when a player who controls a character with low INT and WIS comes up with a plan that's just too clever. But it should be a rare thing, and the situation in the OP just doesn't come anywhere near to what I think would be a situation in which it would be the right move.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 06:11 PM
I get this sort of thing all the time, even though I rarely make D&D characters that start with an INT under 14. But then, I also find it amusing to get an IQ test book with answers and mark it up with the necessary corrections. :smallsmile:

Here's one case that came up. Portland cement is hydraulic; that is, adding water to it produces hydrates that are then not water-soluble. In a crossover Mage-Vampire game I was told that my Entropy Mage had diddly that would affect a vampire, but by detecting chaos I was able to find its lair. So I made soilcrete using Portland cement, the special earth the vampire slept in, and holy water. The holy water, bound to the cement and earth, never goes away, and in fact encapsulated water continues to be bound over time as the soilcrete cures. The Storyteller thought that was pushing the envelope for my college student character because he was an Aero/Astro major (as I was IRL) and concrete just isn't used for aircraft.

Zaakar
2010-06-30, 06:31 PM
I have the opposite problem, actually...
Seconded, only in Exalted.

About your DM: Petty he's not the kind to accept his plot has holes :smallannoyed:
Actually its been a really great game and the DM is pretty good.
*thumbs up*

Kaun
2010-06-30, 06:55 PM
I hate to play the devils advocate here but its probably worth mentioning a couple of points




For instance we were playing a game in Cauldron which is a city located inside a volcano. It was starting to rain really hard and flooding was on the way. The lake in the center was going to rise up cause problems.

We got sent on a mission to recover 6 wands of control water ( or something) which would be used to lower the water as needed.

Now previously we had encountered a bath house which actually brought in water from the lake. Essentially drained small quantities. This was located underground and the bath house actually had an underground path leading outside of the city.

I proposed we widen that conduit from the lake to the bath house basement and then just let the water flow out of there, under the city and then out of town. Then with a simple valve, we could essential flush cauldron when needed and control the water level without bringing in 6 wands ever year.

This would have been much more feasible and wouldn't require a bunch of people going after an evil and dangerous organization to get a couple stolen wands back.

After suggesting such a plan, I was told that my character couldn't think of that because she only had 12 int. I had to defer to our higher int character.

This has happened to me before in other games too. 12 int isn't bad either - it's above average. I guess I'm just some sort of genius or something.

Yes this does seem fairly stright forward in our modern times but is your game in a fantsy setting bassed on medieval times?.

If so is this kind of engineering a common everyday thing that most people are taught in some sort of schooling or apprentaship?

Would your character really have knowledge in this field to come up with the idea?

12 int i above average but you are far from being brilliant.

I just see this kind of thing done a bit, players useing int or chr as dump stats then trying to rp' their way around it.

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 06:58 PM
If so is this kind of engineering a common everyday thing that most people are taught in some sort of schooling or apprentaship?

Would your character really have knowledge in this field to come up with the idea?

Is knowledge in the field really necessary to think "oh, there's a drain for the lake already. Maybe we should make that bigger?"

Admittedly, the ability to make it effective would probably depend on knowledge in the field (or a good roll on a d20), but it's not exactly that much of a leap in logic.

Kaun
2010-06-30, 07:09 PM
yeah but it is underground so i am guessing (correct me if im wrong) the players wouldnt even be able to see it.

So they would have to get there head around the idea that its there, how it works and how to utilize it.

I mean if the character had any relivant skill like trap makeing or.. a trade skill in the right ball park i would have probably let it swing, it all so comes down to what kind of world/setting they are playing in.

It's hard to really tell from the OP.

It probably was just the DM doing a little rail roading so the game he put a chunk of work into dosent go unused but its hard to tell for sure.

okpokalypse
2010-06-30, 07:09 PM
I have the opposite problem, actually. I prefer playing high-int masterminds like beguilers and factotums (usually in the vein of 18+ int), but can't actually act smarter than I am, since IRL I only have 10-11 int.

I once played a Conjurer that I knew would eventually have a SICK Int. So I pleaded with the DM at character creation if I could have a custom Knowledge Skill... Knowledge: Problem Solving

Essentially, I wanted to have a quantifiable roll that would allow me to get hints on puzzles and riddles as our DM at that time LOVED to craft obscure (and often unsolvable - because his logic was off) puzzles that would literally bring the game to a halt for hours.

Well, by L12 when I had a 32 Int and +31 Check for Problem Solving it made our campaign much more fun for the players - though he (the DM) was quite put out at having all his kooky riddles and such bypassed.

Kaun
2010-06-30, 07:13 PM
i should all so point out that widening an underground conduit in flood/torrential rain situation is probably not that safe either.

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 07:15 PM
yeah but it is underground so i am guessing (correct me if im wrong) the players wouldnt even be able to see it.

So they would have to get there head around the idea that its there, how it works and how to utilize it.

I mean if the character had any relivant skill like trap makeing or.. a trade skill in the right ball park i would have probably let it swing, it all so comes down to what kind of world/setting they are playing in.

It's hard to really tell from the OP.

It probably was just the DM doing a little rail roading so the game he put a chunk of work into dosent go unused but its hard to tell for sure.

From the OP's wording it seems the PCs (not just the player)are already told about the bath and the underground connection.

Yes, it may be unsafe/uneffective, which will be a better reason to dismiss the idea rather than saying "your PC is too stupid".

Kaun
2010-06-30, 07:39 PM
From the OP's wording it seems the PCs (not just the player)are already told about the bath and the underground connection.

Fair point, i guess i was looking at it from a view point of something that may be the equivalant to us in todays world.

The internet was one example i came to quickly (and no doubt people will pick holes in this metaphore very quickly but) everybody knows its there and generaly know what does and what can be done with it. How many tho understand it to the point where they could double the speed at which it operates?

I dont like that metaphore at all now i re read it but hopefully sombody gets my point and can word it beter for me.


Yes, it may be unsafe/uneffective, which will be a better reason to dismiss the idea rather than saying "your PC is too stupid". Yeah this is spot on.

The OP's idea probably would have failed in so many ways its not funny but telling the player "your character is too stupid to think of that" was definatly a poor choice of ways to navigate the situation.

Then again letting the PC's try the idea and having it fail would probably not be fun either. Ehhh its a tough one.

snoopy13a
2010-06-30, 08:02 PM
The OP's idea probably would have failed in so many ways its not funny but telling the player "your character is too stupid to think of that" was definatly a poor choice of ways to navigate the situation.



Perhaps.

Of course, there's another problem with a DM ruling that a player is metagaming by coming up with a solution that his/her character could not. Essentially, if a player has a character with 18 Int then he or she can simply say: "You know, I have no idea how to get out of this mess. But my character is a genius so he/she could easily think of a solution."

Thus, a DM couldn't impose any puzzles because the party wizard (or any other high Int character) is likely smarter than the DM and would almost certainly solve the puzzle easily.

Kaun
2010-06-30, 08:11 PM
Perhaps.

Of course, there's another problem with a DM ruling that a player is metagaming by coming up with a solution that his/her character could not. Essentially, if a player has a character with 18 Int then he or she can simply say: "You know, I have no idea how to get out of this mess. But my character is a genius so he/she could easily think of a solution."

Thus, a DM couldn't impose any puzzles because the party wizard (or any other high Int character) is likely smarter than the DM and would almost certainly solve the puzzle easily.

Easy enough, Set a TN make an inteligence roll, give them them some help depending on the roll.

I would much perfer to do that then, "well i just wikied up how to make some C4 i think my rogue should be able to do it!!!"

balistafreak
2010-06-30, 08:12 PM
I've always wanted to play a D&D Modern game, and use Autohypnosis to memorize the contents of Wikipedia. :smallcool:

Salbazier
2010-06-30, 08:16 PM
I've always wanted to play a D&D Modern game, and use Autohypnosis to memorize the contents of Wikipedia. :smallcool:

You can do that with it? (little knowledge of Psionic and even less of D20M)

Mr.Moron
2010-06-30, 08:20 PM
Perhaps.

Of course, there's another problem with a DM ruling that a player is metagaming by coming up with a solution that his/her character could not. Essentially, if a player has a character with 18 Int then he or she can simply say: "You know, I have no idea how to get out of this mess. But my character is a genius so he/she could easily think of a solution."

Thus, a DM couldn't impose any puzzles because the party wizard (or any other high Int character) is likely smarter than the DM and would almost certainly solve the puzzle easily.

Part of why I think puzzles are just about the worst things ever. My strong character can move a boulder out of the way with STR check. It doesn't matter that I have no upper body strength, the character has a trait and it can be used to overcome obstacles.

Why is a character with an INT score so high they make the average person look like a lobotomized monkey standing around for 15 minutes, trying to figure out how to move some stupid crystal balls around?

PersonMan
2010-06-30, 08:28 PM
You can do that with it? (little knowledge of Psionic and even less of D20M)

You can autohypnosis a DC (15 or so?) check to memorize something-so at high enough level you could just memorize Wikipedia. If you can, you could just take 20...

Then again, you could just make a feat for it, something like...
Internet Denizen
You spend way too much time on the computer, on the internet. But this can help you in some situations.
Benefit: In a situation, you may substitute any Knowledge check with an Intelligence check, to which you gain a bonus of half your level.

Caphi
2010-06-30, 10:19 PM
Most players are equivalent to about 10 or 11 int. If you can think of it, a 12 int character could think of it.

The caveat, of course, is if the character has all the information that would be needed to make the plan. Given that, honestly, why not?

amuletts
2010-06-30, 10:23 PM
My DM is pretty good, he *knows* which characters are smart and will give them an INT check on a puzzle even if they don't request it. They can keep making INT checks until they fail, and for every one they make they get a clue to the puzzle's solution. So genius characters can figure out most things unless they tank their roll!

I can think of frequent occassions where people rping dumb characters have come up with smart suggestions. They just say they are RPing the magic-user's INT at that point! I remember a puzzle where we were supposed to translate an ancient language (it was basically English written with foreign characters). The Mage went through it getting die rolls to figure out words, and when not rolls, individual letters, but we ended up with a pretty patchy translation. So onto manually figuring out the rest from what we knew so far. The problem was the person playing our genius just could not do this at all! And I was playing a character that could not read! But obviously I ended up doing translating and we just pretended that his character had done it.

2xMachina
2010-06-30, 11:10 PM
In D&D everyone is dependent on magic!

If it has a magic solution, there is no point going for a mundane solution, even if it's simpler and cheaper.

MAGIC!!!

Safety Sword
2010-06-30, 11:42 PM
50% of all people are below average intelligence. :smallbiggrin:

Thajocoth
2010-07-01, 12:10 AM
Sounds to me like the DM had an adventure planned and your idea was not to play that adventure, so he made up an excuse why you couldn't suggest that. I'd've said "Roll a dungeoneering check." On a bad roll: You're not sure if it could be done well or not. You'd need to find out where the bathhouse is in relation to the cauldron. (Player might then abandon the idea or go find someone to survey the site for him or whatever else.) On a good roll: "You definitely see how it could be done. It'd take a few weeks of mining. (This city's got a union.) But your idea can definitely help the city out in future years. Who do you suggest the idea to?" That leads to a Diplomacy check, most likely... Essentially, I'd turn it into a skill challenge. Give them XP, knowledge that they helped the city in future years, some payment for the idea, and then send them to get the wands anyway to cover this year's issue, as the mining would take too long.

Kaun
2010-07-01, 12:18 AM
If the bath house was connected to the lake wouldnt the bath house be flooded anyway?

I mean they were probably using a gravity feed or a manual pump to get the water between the two and i doubt the would have a valve strong enough to hold back the water preasure if multiple magic wands are required to save the city.

Popertop
2010-07-01, 12:26 AM
Sure, but what he should have done is something along the lines of

City council: "that is a great plan, we will put our best people to that task and look if it´s doable during the remaining time, in the meantime though we would like you to look for those 6 artifacts as a backup plan"

Or maybe one of the council (duno how the city is ruled) actually wants the city to be destroyed so argues against that plan.

Well basically anything but your character is too stupid would have been a good thing ^^

This is good, but I would have gone with

Okay, you implement the plan, but the resulting lack of structural integrity poses a greater threat to the city, and you now have to go find 6 wands of move earth(or whatever I don't know if there's a spell for that) which are incidentally, located where the 6 wands of control water are.

Smeggedoff
2010-07-01, 12:35 AM
Sounds to me like the DM had an adventure planned and your idea was not to play that adventure, so he made up an excuse why you couldn't suggest that.

This is basically the reason. The adventure in question (Shackled City) is one I'm running at the moment. It's a full 1-20 progression.
The proposed method (apart from being slightly off as written in the book, the bathhouse was actually filled daily using a Decanter of Endless Water, though I'm not sure where it drained to) would have bypassed an entire chapter of the overarching adventure and all the plot hooks within.

Now the method of "Hey I'm playing an Artificer can I just make more wands?" Is a much better way of pointing out the idiocy of this particular chapter.

*Shrug*

senrath
2010-07-01, 12:40 AM
I'm trying to figure out why you would need six of the darn things. Why wouldn't one be enough? I mean, how much water is there that you would need 300 charges of Control Water to manage?

Faceist
2010-07-01, 12:46 AM
"You remember that halfling barbarian our friend played? The one that wrestled his own dog for food, bit a rhino's ankle, and thought he could fly because the evil rogue drew wings on his back?"
Hell, isn't that half the fun of playing a character with low int? If anything I find it harder and more rewarding coming up with psychotic diversions for my dumbass PCs than I do playing a character of equivalent intellect to me. The latter variety has the added downside that when things go wrong, I feel guilty. :smallsigh:

Eronai_Jantig
2010-07-01, 01:23 AM
I'm trying to figure out why you would need six of the darn things. Why wouldn't one be enough? I mean, how much water is there that you would need 300 charges of Control Water to manage?

I just finished playing this game (The whole 1-20 module), and yeah, I felt the same way, like really, there aren't at least a couple hundred clerics able to cast this thing within easy reach?

On the topic however, missing this chapter could've caused some serious issues, I can't think of what would happen off-hand but it's tough as I was only a player and not a DM.

Zadus
2010-07-01, 01:43 AM
Interesting to note, the reason way we found out they were connected was that there was a pool of really nasty sewage water in the basement. This water was coming from cauldron's nasty nasty lake.

Maybe this was off book, because the DM had kind of forgotten about it by the time we'd got around to the stop the flooding quest. It was just kind of there and I connected the dots later on.

Also such an task would involve pretty standard medieval technology. Basically your just using the same things you'd use to tap a keg on a much larger scale.

Kaun
2010-07-01, 02:08 AM
Also such an task would involve pretty standard medieval technology. Basically your just using the same things you'd use to tap a keg on a much larger scale.

Yes only with like a few million times the kpa on the valve.

out of interest what where you planing to do with the water once you got it to the bath house?

was it going to the bath house?

im really confused...

lol

sombody draw me a mud map. :smalltongue:

Escheton
2010-07-01, 02:20 AM
When playing dumb chars we just channel our intelligence through whoever is playing the smart guy.
Figuring 4 guys with 13 to 15 int would get a little close to the mind of one of 18+.

Ashram
2010-07-01, 02:21 AM
Had this happen to me while I was playing an 8 (So, average) Intelligence fighter. One of the DM's DMPCs had died in a previous fight that was relatively tough, and one of the PCs had ran off to get help, namely the DMPC's father, a ridiculously powerful wizard. Well, my fighter and the rogue of the group figured "Crap, the wizard is gonna come over here and completely revenge-wreck this guy's body that we just spent a lot of time and resources killing, and blow up our loot" so we quickly stuffed the body into a Bag of Holding and lied through our teeth about killing the guy, so the wizard tasks us with finding the "missing" killer.

After a little while, we went to an inn and pulled the body out. My fighter figures bringing the dead body back with more blood on it (To make it look more fresh) would be a good idea, so since he's still bleeding a bit, he goes to drip some blood on the body. It's at this point that the DM tells me no, that's too ingenious a plan for your fighter to come up with on your own.

Escheton
2010-07-01, 02:30 AM
yeah...It's really not. It doesnt take int to come up with that one. It takes cunning and an affinity for blood and corpses. As a fighter you got it covered.

Kaun
2010-07-01, 02:44 AM
Had this happen to me while I was playing an 8 (So, average) Intelligence fighter. One of the DM's DMPCs had died in a previous fight that was relatively tough, and one of the PCs had ran off to get help, namely the DMPC's father, a ridiculously powerful wizard. Well, my fighter and the rogue of the group figured "Crap, the wizard is gonna come over here and completely revenge-wreck this guy's body that we just spent a lot of time and resources killing, and blow up our loot" so we quickly stuffed the body into a Bag of Holding and lied through our teeth about killing the guy, so the wizard tasks us with finding the "missing" killer.

After a little while, we went to an inn and pulled the body out. Figuring bringing the dead body back with more blood on it (To make it look more fresh) would be a good idea, so since he's still bleeding a bit, he goes to drip some blood on the body. It's at this point that the DM tells me no, that's too ingenious a plan for your fighter to come up with on your own.

Yeah i would have kicked my dm in the nuts for that one.

2xMachina
2010-07-01, 02:45 AM
Hell, isn't that half the fun of playing a character with low int? If anything I find it harder and more rewarding coming up with psychotic diversions for my dumbass PCs than I do playing a character of equivalent intellect to me. The latter variety has the added downside that when things go wrong, I feel guilty. :smallsigh:

That isn't low Int. That's low Wis.

Int is book smarts.

Being an idiot is something someone who dumps Wis do. (Thinking drawn wings give flight? Common sense shouts NO!)

Kurald Galain
2010-07-01, 03:25 AM
One more vote for me that a DM shouldn't be vetoing ideas from a player on grounds that his character isn't smart enough.

However, I find doing it the other way around is fun: if a player asks me (as the DM) if his character has an idea, then I will take intelligence into account. For instance, if the player asks "do I see a way to open this door?" and his character is smart, I'll suggest that he takes it off its hinges; whereas if his character is not smart, I'll suggest that he punches it really hard.

And yeah, potassium guy does deserve a veto, or at least an answer of "it doesn't work, and your character has no idea why it doesn't work. What did your character think would happen, anyway, and why?"

Earthwalker
2010-07-01, 04:48 AM
I think most people have suggested that what the GM did was not the best way to handle the situation. If your player wants to try something you are always better off saying yes and then working out the rules then just saying no.

As people have pointed out saying yes then its up to the players to work out how they are going to carry out their plan. Something like.

Player - “We have a new plan, we can just empty the water in to the bath house from there it will flow off the mountain via the outside entrance.”

Mayor Quimby– “That’s erm a brilliant plan” turns to his advisors “Why didn’t any of you idiots think of that”

High Mage “Erm, sir we did, remember we detailed a bath house plan but the work required would take too long, also we had the confusion with the guilds over who should be doing the work. The head of the masons guild wanted full credit for saving the town” whispers “Elections in three months”

Mayor Quimby “Oh yes, the bath house is a good plan and we should keep working on it, I still think we should get the wands” Looks to player characters “Are you willing to help ?”

On a different note I do believe that people should play their mental stats. If you use Cha as a dump stat don’t try to play your character as the man with a strong personality who is a natural born leader and womanizer that no one can resist. Play the stats you have. Same goes for int and wis.

It should work both ways, if you have high int then the GM should help you. The best example I can think of is my shadowrun char with 9 int (this is a system where 6 is human max for int) twice when I was about to do something stupid and suicidal the GM just stopped and asked if I was sure that I wanted to do my next move. Both times giving me time to think out my actions.

Morph Bark
2010-07-01, 04:51 AM
In our ever so two-player games, I have mainly DM'd but otherwise not played really dumb characters. My 10 Int Half-Ogre Barbarian/Warblade had some good ideas from time to time, but they were all shot down by the DM due to circumstances rather than the character´s intelligence.

Delta
2010-07-01, 05:10 AM
One of my more-often played con characters for DSA (german fantasy game) is a mercenary with a low Int score (equivalent to a D&D score of 8), actually it's a lot of fun playing her, due to being an abandoned orphan from a barbarian tribe she's about 7 foot tall at 15 years old, not the brightest head but it's a lot of fun playing stupid once in a while, although it's even more fun, when I got an idea, trying to play it out in a way that it might actually have occured to her, but when I can't think of such a way, I either keep quiet or give the player of the more intelligent character some small hint when I feel he's stuck, even though his character might think of something.

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 05:55 AM
I think your DM's understanding of what the numbers mean is somewhat off.
12 is smart enough.

Having said that, characters should not be allowed to do things their Int can't support.

If you play a pixie with Str 2, you don't use the player's STR as a substitute when they need to move a boulder.
Yet if you play an Orc with Int 2, all of a sudden we use the player's INT when they encounter a puzzle? and the DM has to compensate by explaining how he figured it out?

Especially saying as really, in roleplaying games, success shouldn't always matter. My character accidentally burned down an entire village due to low int. *I* could have argued against it, and I think I would have convinced the DM not to let it happen, but I didn't.

What followed was a complete change in the politics of the world. That was the only village supplying arms to our allies, we needed to bring balance back to the war, we went on 3 other adventures as a result.

You don't really "lose" DND. So go with it.

Basically:
Int 1, Wis 1, Cha 1, Str 20, Dex 20, Con 20 becomes every character build.
"I don't need to roll bluff, I'm roleplaying"
"I don't need Know(architecture), I'm roleplaying"
etc.

It's also why I hated playing my high Cha character in a certain campaign.

The entire town saw a man kill a priest.
The town all believed me.
They appointed me as prosecutor.

I made a 5 minute speech, then asked the DM if I could roll vs my Charisma to see if it worked. "No, just roleplay it".

Ok... I just made a 5 minute speech, but I'll keep going. I'll talk about his past crimes, and point out that he was the only one who could have done it. I'll point out he was there for hours. I'll point out the disgustingness of how the priest was killed.

The defendant says "So you say".

That was it. That was his argument. I gave 10 minutes of evidence (Papers, witnesses, timings, wounds, everything).

The crowd then, in unison, turned a complete 180 and started jeering for my death.

If I rolled my charisma, I had a chance.
Ignoring that stat meant that the DM just decided (horrendously poorly) who had the better argument. He chose his three word comeback. I lost.

All the evidence, the dead body, the hundreds of witnesses, the town starting on my side, the fact that I was a representative of the King and the law, I was charismatic.

I lost. To "So you say".
"Can I roll instead then?" "No, it's about roleplaying, not just rolling".

CHA 2 next time then, bump up STR instead.

Basically, the numbers should matter.
If you think they shouldn't, those numbers shouldn't be on your sheet.
Otherwise you're being penalized for putting points in them when you could have spent them elsewhere.

(This is also why I'd definitely let my players roll for it rather than say "No, you're too dumb".
Thog could figure it out, sure, but I'm not going to have him figure it out every session.
Similarly, if the 22 Int wizard *doesn't* figure something out, or does something particularly stupid, I'll remind him he can roll).

2xMachina
2010-07-01, 06:03 AM
Ah, Dm's promoting min-maxing by dumping Cha.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 06:06 AM
DA RANT
This is important: Roleplaying doesn't mean you have to act everything, otherwise a player with "irl low cha" will never be able to properly use his bard.
If there are social skills in the character sheet, then they are to be used. "I'm roleplaying" is what you do, but not how well you do it.
Or can someone "roleplay" lifting a boulder?

What I've seen that worked best was simply not to charge the player to come up with something worthy of his modifiers, but just to act accordingly.
If he says "I'll bluff to convince him that these gems are not stolen", and his bluff mod is +12, he should have a better success rate than the guy who said "I'll tell him that these gems are a heritage from my family back in the village that burned when an evil swamp dragon attacked and nearly killed everyone" but has a bluff mod of +3.
That is actually a big deal and is also a sign of bad DMing to be inconsistent on the use of the system. If the group doesn't agree on all the rules, then change the rules before someone else is screwed over by it.

Draconi Redfir
2010-07-01, 06:10 AM
i hate when you make a charicter that is smarter then you are. i have a guy who'se nickname is "the wise" but im never able to distribue any wisely advice because im so knew to the game XD

Incorrect
2010-07-01, 06:20 AM
When I play the "dumb fighter" and come up with a clever solution, I usually whisper or write a note to the wizard. Everyone can guess that it was my idea, but the high Int character gets to have the ingame idea and present it.
That way I can help the Int 11 player, play a (more) realistic Int 18 character, and offgame I get the credit. Everyone is happy :smallsmile:

Merk
2010-07-01, 06:21 AM
I once played a Conjurer that I knew would eventually have a SICK Int. So I pleaded with the DM at character creation if I could have a custom Knowledge Skill... Knowledge: Problem Solving

Essentially, I wanted to have a quantifiable roll that would allow me to get hints on puzzles and riddles as our DM at that time LOVED to craft obscure (and often unsolvable - because his logic was off) puzzles that would literally bring the game to a halt for hours.

Well, by L12 when I had a 32 Int and +31 Check for Problem Solving it made our campaign much more fun for the players - though he (the DM) was quite put out at having all his kooky riddles and such bypassed.

That's a really cool solution, actually. I might try that the next time I get to play a smart character.

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 07:22 AM
Reply rant

Just so we're clear, I agree with all that. I wasn't advocating:
Not roleplaying.
Dumping Cha.
etc.

I was just pointing out the problems of being inconsistent with the rules. I like playing characters.

Some are suave geniuses (Int and Cha 22), some are dumb brutes (Int 4, Str 28).

I don't need to prove *I* can lift a boulder so my dumb brute can.
Why prove *I* can solve a puzzle so my wizard can?

I don't have to armwrestle the DM when my pixie fails a Str check.
Why should my Orc be able to do something *I* can think of?

I think all that DND is, and the reason we spent money on these books instead of just acting, is consistency.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 07:25 AM
Just so we're clear, I agree with all that. I wasn't advocating:
Not roleplaying.
Dumping Cha.
etc.

I was just pointing out the problems of being inconsistent with the rules. I like playing characters.

Some are suave geniuses (Int and Cha 22), some are dumb brutes (Int 4, Str 28).

I don't need to prove *I* can lift a boulder so my dumb brute can.
Why prove *I* can solve a puzzle so my wizard can?

I don't have to armwrestle the DM when my pixie fails a Str check.
Why should my Orc be able to do something *I* can think of?

I think all that DND is, and the reason we spent money on these books instead of just acting, is consistency.I wasn't disagreeing :D

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 07:36 AM
Ok, cool. :)

Sorry, I was just worried I wasn't clear in my first post. :)

Kaun
2010-07-01, 07:41 AM
awwww group hug!

Saph
2010-07-01, 07:42 AM
The way I handle this sort of thing as a DM is to say that you're supposed to roleplay your stats . . . but there's a lot of variation in how a stat can be interpreted, and that interpretation is something I leave up to the players. I don't really think it's the DM's business to tell the players how to roleplay their characters - it's too personal. I'd rather let the players work it out on their own.

This goes both ways, though. The "I have a high intelligence, I should be able to come up with good plans" argument cuts no ice with me whatsoever. :smalltongue: As a DM, I can come up with a good plan and tell it to you - in fact, since I have access to all the information you don't, I can come up with the best possible plan and solve the entire adventure for you. But where's the fun in that? I don't want to come up with a plan for you, I want to see what kind of stupid, brilliant, or crazy plans you come up with, because that's where the fun comes from. If I want to know what a hypothetical high-Int character would do, I'll write a book. If I'm sitting at a table DMing, it's because I want input from people.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 07:49 AM
The way I handle this sort of thing as a DM is to say that you're supposed to roleplay your stats . . . but there's a lot of variation in how a stat can be interpreted, and that interpretation is something I leave up to the players. I don't really think it's the DM's business to tell the players how to roleplay their characters - it's too personal. I'd rather let the players work it out on their own.

This goes both ways, though. The "I have a high intelligence, I should be able to come up with good plans" argument cuts no ice with me whatsoever. :smalltongue: As a DM, I can come up with a good plan and tell it to you - in fact, since I have access to all the information you don't, I can come up with the best possible plan and solve the entire adventure for you. But where's the fun in that? I don't want to come up with a plan for you, I want to see what kind of stupid, brilliant, or crazy plans you come up with, because that's where the fun comes from. If I want to know what a hypothetical high-Int character would do, I'll write a book. If I'm sitting at a table DMing, it's because I want input from people.

That's actually part of the complication about emulating an intelligence higher than your own. You do have to let the numbers decide for themselves as long as the player is putting an effort into being reasonable. If he sees a puzzle to open the gates, then he should be allowed an int check to solve it.
And on the dm side, using your foreknowledge judiciously is good to represent it:
"How did you know the hobgoblins were there?"
"Goblinoids are such primeval creatures, they don't know how to plan!"

If you let a player that can barely hold a 20kg backpack punch someone with his 18str character, then you can't stop the wiz with int 20 from coming up with a plan worthy of int 20 just because the player himself can't.

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 07:52 AM
I can agree with that to an extent, but an obstacle is not the same as a storyline.

It's not "My int is 300, what do I do?"

It's "My int is 300, I must be able to build something that will get us over the mountain".
And he probably could (Seriously, 300 is godly), so let him.
He could have tried to find a path, found a way around, tried to build a tunneling device, lured nearby dragons into acting as mounts, but he chose his characters actions, if somewhat plainly (or PLANEly hahaha... sorry).

"My Charisma is 300, I say the perfect thing". No.
"My Charisma is 300, I say the perfect thing to make the Queen's daughter fall in love with me". Yes.

Again, he could have convinced the queen directly, convinced the king that he would be best for his daughter, convinced the guards to start a revolution then whisked the daughter away to safety, etc.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 07:57 AM
A good example of letting a high int play itself would be more or less like this

Master: You're trapped in the chamber, the walls are closing in, what do you do?
Smart Character's Player: I look around to see if there's any flaw or way out
DM:<perception check succeeds> You notice the walls don't close at the same pace.
SCP: Can I do anything with that?
DM:<int check succeeds> You can probably force one of the walls or delay their advancement
SCP: Ok, I'll cast Forceful Hand and send it to hammer at the seam

Saph
2010-07-01, 07:57 AM
If you let a player that can barely hold a 20kg backpack punch someone with his 18str character, then you can't stop the wiz with int 20 from coming up with a plan worthy of int 20 just because the player himself can't.

Yes I can, and I do. Plans are a major part of how your roleplay your character. The sort of plans you come up with and how you execute them show me what kind of character you're playing. If it's a heavy combat adventure, plans and tactics are one of the most important ways you can demonstrate your character's attitude and personality.

Consider this: if you think your character's plans should be dictated by his Int score, why do I even need you at the table to play at all? Plans are related to intelligence. The spells you prepare at the beginning of the day are related to intelligence. So are the tactics you use in a battle, and the actions you take each combat round . . . I can play your character more effectively than you can. So why don't I just play him for you?

Answer: because I don't want to. I don't want to know what Mr. Intelligence 20 would do in this situation, I want to know what you would do in this situation, because it's fun. Coming up with a problem and then coming up with my own solution to it isn't.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 08:01 AM
Now you're just exaggerating. If the character has an int above its player, and you don't allow him to use the numbers in his favor, you're just being unfair to him.
I'm not saying the character will play by itself. I'm saying that when it comes to USING that stat, the number should have some relevance. If the player came up with a plan, use the int to describe how well he designed it, or his attention to its minutiae, or even if he is even able to pull it off. If the character is stuck with a puzzle, and the player can't solve it but the int indicates that he should, drop hints.


Now, if you're just hellbent on not letting the player use his mental stats..well, we don't have any common ground to discuss.

Saph
2010-07-01, 08:02 AM
"My Charisma is 300, I say the perfect thing". No.
"My Charisma is 300, I say the perfect thing to make the Queen's daughter fall in love with me". Yes.

Again, he could have convinced the queen directly, convinced the king that he would be best for his daughter, convinced the guards to start a revolution then whisked the daughter away to safety, etc.

No thanks. I don't care what your mental stats are, you still have to RP your character. I take into account both your stats and how you RP it. Typically, for a brilliant success at my table, you need to do at least a decent performance on both.

For instance, in your above courtroom case, if you really did an amazing job on prosecution, I'd probably weigh it up as being mostly RP and partly the roll. I.e. since you did so well on the RP aspect, you'd only need a mediocre Charisma result to succeed.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 08:04 AM
No thanks. I don't care what your mental stats are, you still have to RP your character. I take into account both your stats and how you RP it. Typically, for a brilliant success at my table, you need to do at least a decent performance on both.

For instance, in your above courtroom case, if you really did an amazing job on prosecution, I'd probably weigh it up as being mostly RP and partly the roll. I.e. since you did so well on the RP aspect, you'd only need a mediocre Charisma result to succeed.

That's not consistent with how the physical stats are used.

Saph
2010-07-01, 08:08 AM
Now, if you're just hellbent on not letting the player use his mental stats..well, we don't have any common ground to discuss.

But you do get to use your mental stats.

If you're playing a Wizard, say, your high Intelligence gives you the following:

• More skill points.
• A higher bonus on your skill checks.
• More starting spells.
• More bonus spells.
• Higher save DCs on your spells.
• Various other benefits depending on what feats/class features you've taken.

Now if you can relate what you want to do to one of those stats somehow, sure. For instance, your above example of finding a structural flaw? Maybe there might be a skill relating to that? Why, yes, there is. Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering). Roll it.

But you seem to be saying that you should be able to get all that and should also get some kind of extra advantage on "plans" . . . which can mean basically any decision the player takes, ever.

This gives a massive advantage to mental-stat-based classes. Now all of a sudden all the Wizard player has to do is say "I think of a plan to do X" and according to you, he should succeed. Whereas the Fighter or Barbarian with high Str/Con and low Int/Wis gets nothing.

And you think I'm the one being unfair? Sorry, I don't buy it.

onthetown
2010-07-01, 08:14 AM
I played a stupid fighter for a few years; both his Int and Wis were abysmal. He was mostly comic relief and we played him a bit like Thog. The times I only used him and none of my other characters were rare. I like having characters that are capable of coherent thought.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 08:16 AM
All stats are independent concepts. intelligence is not only a sum of skill points and how many spells you can cast. More intelligence implies a better memory, a better capability of interpreting abstract concepts.

Basically you're punishing players who buy high int but aren't as smart as their characters, and I'm trying to keep the system consistent.

Please read again what I posted previously. The player still has to come up with solutions, but if you just decide to blatantly ignore his mental stats when he tries to do something in-game, you might as well drop the stat completely.

"I think of a solution" is, as you said, just stupid. But what if he says "I set up a trap to pin the incoming hostiles between a wall and two fronts of our party"? Will you force him to set up every little detail? If so, you can represent INT as giving the player the time to set it up(say you have 5 rounds to do it, but the guy's a damn genius so you give the player an hour to make the plan). Otherwise, you can drop small hints, like the previous example.

And the same goes for bad stats. The brute with int6 just wouldn't come up with a solution to the puzzle door within 2 or 3 rounds like the int18 guy would.

Ankhman
2010-07-01, 08:18 AM
well ... besides the discussion about dumb characters and smart players ... your DM is right, that this plan wouldn't have worked.

you're playing the shackled city adventure path, right?
first .. the source of water for this particular bathhouse is NOT the lake (i will not spoil the real source)
second .. orak's bathhouse is located on the third ring of buildings in the city .. about 1/3 of the way up from the lake to the rim of the volcano. in order to use the existing way from the bathhouse through the craterwall out of the crater, you'd have to submerge the whole lower part of the city ... namely the orphanage, the warehouses with the city's food, some taverns and nearly every housing, where the poor live.

PERHAPS your DM hasn't been able to make that clear ... but this isn't going to work.
PS:there are 8 wands of control water ... perhaps you should pay a bit more attention on the details, so some other details might not slip past ...

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 08:21 AM
Let me put it another way.

I once played a very intelligent rogue.
There was a very intelligent cleric in the party.

We were polar opposites.
He was the lawful good seeker of knowledge.
I was the smartass streetwise chaotic neutral character.

"I don't want to know what Mr 20 Intelligence thinks" makes no more sense than "I don't want to know what Mr 20 Strength lifts". The stat is not the character.

"My character does 1000 pushups to impress the General" says the fighter with the high Str/Con. Does he roll, or do you make your player do the 1000 pushups?

"Oooh" says the Bard, "I sing a song for the Queen to impress her". Does he roll, or do you actually make him sing a song?

"Oooh" says the high int Mage being played by a 10 year old, "I say something mathsy to the Wizard". Does he roll, or does he actually have to know enough math to impress the Grand Wizard of the Council of Architects?

You've not addressed why I shouldn't just dump Cha, dump Int, dump Wis, and then effectively powergame them with roleplaying.

Iceforge
2010-07-01, 08:28 AM
What the DM should have done in my perspective, was to have the idea evaluated by a local architect, which would say that while the plan was brilliant, the tunnel/pipe system that was leading the water down into the underground house with the path flowed in a straight path over the underground villages, and if the flow as increased too much, it would lead to it bursting and flooding that village instead.

But increasing the flow slightly and turning it on would surely delay the flooding, easily granting the heroes (PCs) 2-3 additional days to retreive the wands and save the city


Yes, railroaded back onto the tracks, but the idea not made hopelessly ineffective, it actually had a positive effect for the village and the party still and the DM wouldn't have had all his planned encounters and challenges ruined

Lord Loss
2010-07-01, 08:31 AM
Let me put it another way.

I once played a very intelligent rogue.
There was a very intelligent cleric in the party.

We were polar opposites.
He was the lawful good seeker of knowledge.
I was the smartass streetwise chaotic neutral character.

"I don't want to know what Mr 20 Intelligence thinks" makes no more sense than "I don't want to know what Mr 20 Strength lifts". The stat is not the character.

"My character does 1000 pushups to impress the General" says the fighter with the high Str/Con. Does he roll, or do you make your player do the 1000 pushups?

"Oooh" says the Bard, "I sing a song for the Queen to impress her". Does he roll, or do you actually make him sing a song?

"Oooh" says the high int Mage being played by a 10 year old, "I say something mathsy to the Wizard". Does he roll, or does he actually have to know enough math to impress the Grand Wizard of the Council of Architects?

You've not addressed why I shouldn't just dump Cha, dump Int, dump Wis, and then effectively powergame them with roleplaying.

Personally, I find that in-game mental stats are used for things like bonuses to speech, spells skill points, etc. I use them for speech encounters, but, should a player come up with a particularly ingenious plan, I allow him to carry it out regardless of his stats (as long as he roleplays it as his character would.) Why?

Because fun beats rules anytime. Besides, even unintelligent people have the occaisional great idea.

Merk
2010-07-01, 08:39 AM
Now if you can relate what you want to do to one of those stats somehow, sure. For instance, your above example of finding a structural flaw? Maybe there might be a skill relating to that? Why, yes, there is. Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering). Roll it.

The issue I have with that is that the 10-11 int player might not even think to look for a structural weakness, but it would be almost obvious to the 18+ int character.

Earthwalker
2010-07-01, 08:44 AM
No thanks. I don't care what your mental stats are, you still have to RP your character. I take into account both your stats and how you RP it. Typically, for a brilliant success at my table, you need to do at least a decent performance on both.

For instance, in your above courtroom case, if you really did an amazing job on prosecution, I'd probably weigh it up as being mostly RP and partly the roll. I.e. since you did so well on the RP aspect, you'd only need a mediocre Charisma result to succeed.

In the court room eample you have a chaacter thats Haveago the half ork barbarian with a cha of 7 and no social skills whats so ever. Now if the player for Haveago was himself very charismatic and spent 15 mins of game time talking, pursauding and going over evidence in a logical and controlled maner having all people eating out of his hand, should he succeed becuase of good roleplaying?

Personally I would say no, as I wouldn't call what happens good role playing at all.

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 08:47 AM
The issue I have with that is that the 10-11 int player might not even think to look for a structural weakness, but it would be almost obvious to the 18+ int character.

My problem was more:

Do you make the fighter player demonstrate his strength, then alter his roll based on how well he did in real life?

Do you make the Wizard player demonstrate his intelligence, then alter his roll based on how well he did in real life?

I don't even want to know about how the bard demonstrates his sexual prowess.

Merk
2010-07-01, 08:53 AM
My problem was more:

Do you make the fighter player demonstrate his strength, then alter his roll based on how well he did in real life?

Do you make the Wizard player demonstrate his intelligence, then alter his roll based on how well he did in real life?

I don't even want to know about how the bard demonstrates his sexual prowess.

Yeah, that strikes me as somewhat unreasonable. Characters aren't meant to be player avatars.

Choco
2010-07-01, 08:53 AM
The problem is that puzzles and the like test PLAYER knowledge/ingenuity, not character knowledge/ingenuity. Because of this, it should be perfectly reasonable for the int 6 barbarian to solve a puzzle the int 22 wizard could not. There is really no point in having puzzles or anything similar to them in the game if all you do is roll an int check to figure it out.

Now, a way to get around this is to design puzzle-like encounters where various skill checks (like the previously mentioned architecture/engineering) would come into play and provide vital clues to those that pass the check, but those don't seem to be too common I noticed.

Saph
2010-07-01, 08:55 AM
Basically you're punishing players who buy high int but aren't as smart as their characters, and I'm trying to keep the system consistent.

:smallsigh: Right. I'm "punishing" players by not giving them further bonuses beyond which their stats are giving them already. If you want me to take you seriously, drop the hyperbole.


"I think of a solution" is, as you said, just stupid. But what if he says "I set up a trap to pin the incoming hostiles between a wall and two fronts of our party"? Will you force him to set up every little detail? If so, you can represent INT as giving the player the time to set it up(say you have 5 rounds to do it, but the guy's a damn genius so you give the player an hour to make the plan). Otherwise, you can drop small hints, like the previous example.

Now that's getting a bit more plausible. But in an actual game, what would happen would be that the rest of the players at my table would start chipping in with suggestions, and everyone would come up with their own ideas. The end result would be a combined plan different from what either I or the original player would have come up with.

The point is that the plans, tactics, decisions, and roleplay that you come up with as a person are the only thing that the players contribute to the character. The more you subtract from that, the less necessary it becomes to have the player sitting at the table.


You've not addressed why I shouldn't just dump Cha, dump Int, dump Wis, and then effectively powergame them with roleplaying.

. . . Are you serious? First, I already did address that. Second, the problems with that approach ought to be obvious enough that they don't need explaining.

Merk
2010-07-01, 09:00 AM
The problem is that puzzles and the like test PLAYER knowledge/ingenuity, not character knowledge/ingenuity. Because of this, it should be perfectly reasonable for the int 6 barbarian to solve a puzzle the int 22 wizard could not. There is really no point in having puzzles or anything similar to them in the game if all you do is roll an int check to figure it out.

Now, a way to get around this is to design puzzle-like encounters where various skill checks (like the previously mentioned architecture/engineering) would come into play and provide vital clues to those that pass the check, but those don't seem to be too common I noticed.

I don't see puzzles as really a characteristic part of RPGs. Rather, I think things that rely on knowledge checks and the like fit the game better, because they put to use things that the players actually invested in the characters.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 09:01 AM
Now that's getting a bit more plausible. But in an actual game, what would happen would be that the rest of the players at my table would start chipping in with suggestions, and everyone would come up with their own ideas. The end result would be a combined plan different from what either I or the original player would have come up with.
That's definitely a way. when the players go meta, a consistent reasoning is to put much of that process on the smartest characters.

The point is that the plans, tactics, decisions, and roleplay that you come up with as a person are the only thing that the players contribute to the character. The more you subtract from that, the less necessary it becomes to have the player sitting at the table.
It's not as much detracting as keeping things consistent. I believe enforcing a character to act out only part of his character's stats to be flawed, and reduces the limits of what a player can do. By your way a player must be silvertongued if he wants a good bluff check, which is not fair given the brute can be feeble irl and still punch for +5 damage. Either all stats have a direct influence on your effectiveness, or neither of them should.


. . . Are you serious? First, I already did address that. Second, the problems with that approach ought to be obvious enough that they don't need explaining.

Do indulge him. We are all different people and as such what is obvious to one isn't to another.

Saph
2010-07-01, 09:02 AM
In the court room eample you have a chaacter thats Haveago the half ork barbarian with a cha of 7 and no social skills whats so ever. Now if the player for Haveago was himself very charismatic and spent 15 mins of game time talking, pursauding and going over evidence in a logical and controlled maner having all people eating out of his hand, should he succeed becuase of good roleplaying?

Like I said, for social encounters I take into account both the way you roleplay it and your character's social skills and stats. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

In this case, if Haveago's player did an excellent job, then I'd say he succeeded despite his low Charisma. The alternative would be to say that no character with a low Charisma score is allowed to accomplish anything in a social encounter, no matter how much effort they put in, and I don't really have to explain why that's a bad idea, do I?

okpokalypse
2010-07-01, 09:03 AM
But you do get to use your mental stats.

If you're playing a Wizard, say, your high Intelligence gives you the following:

• More skill points.
• A higher bonus on your skill checks.
• More starting spells.
• More bonus spells.
• Higher save DCs on your spells.
• Various other benefits depending on what feats/class features you've taken.

Now if you can relate what you want to do to one of those stats somehow, sure. For instance, your above example of finding a structural flaw? Maybe there might be a skill relating to that? Why, yes, there is. Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering). Roll it.

But you seem to be saying that you should be able to get all that and should also get some kind of extra advantage on "plans" . . . which can mean basically any decision the player takes, ever.

This gives a massive advantage to mental-stat-based classes. Now all of a sudden all the Wizard player has to do is say "I think of a plan to do X" and according to you, he should succeed. Whereas the Fighter or Barbarian with high Str/Con and low Int/Wis gets nothing.

And you think I'm the one being unfair? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Show me the Skill that allows the DM to reveal the best, most intelligent tactical strategy to a player based on his high Intelligence and I'd agree with you. There isn't one. I can force a DM to reveal entire stat blocks and creature entries with high Knowledge Checks, but there's no mechanic in place to aid such a PC with some puzzle or riddle - which is silly.

I've played a seer once that would use his divinations to destroy the plot. Talk about a plot reveal button - little comes close to a L15 Seer.

RP is NOT meant to reduce a PC's ability to reason to the level of its player any more than Melee should reduce a Fighter's Strength to the equivalent 8 Strength of the person playing the Character. Period.

In the case of a riddle or puzzle, you should be slipping clues to the player with the PC with exceptionally high Int. That's YOUR job as DM to gives them a significant advantage in figuring it out - just like the 30 Str Fighter has a mechanical advantage in hitting and wounding the enemy.

I could drop a few easy math problems as riddles into a campaign that would bring it to an absolute halt. How's this:

You have the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Arrange them so that, from left to right, the value of each number is evenly divisible by the number of digits within it. For Example:

1234567890; 1/1 = true; 12/2 = true; 123/3 = false; Not the Answer.

There's only 1 answer. Some people like myself (Math Geek) could solve this in a few minutes. Others it would take a lifetime. For any riddle like this you should reveal more info based on intellect... Like this:

Int 14+: The last # must be 0 to be Divided by 10 evenly.
Int 16+: The 5th Number must be 5 to be Divided by 5 evenly with 0 Used.
Int 18+: The 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th Element must be even numbers.
Int 20+: The 1st Number is 3.
Int 24+: The 2nd Number is 8.
Int 30+: The 3rd Number is 1.
etc...

If you actually had a player with a (theoretical) 100 INT, he SHOULD just know it. Sorry it spoils your need for DM'ination - but it's just plain true.

Choco
2010-07-01, 09:04 AM
I don't see puzzles as really a characteristic part of RPGs. Rather, I think things that rely on knowledge checks and the like fit the game better, because they put to use things that the players actually invested in the characters.

I agree 100%, which is why I never use puzzles myself. Though it seems a good chunk of other DM's and even WotC themselves see puzzles as an RPG staple.

Baalthazaq
2010-07-01, 09:16 AM
Saph, you're saying several things that just aren't true.


The alternative would be to say that no character with a low Charisma score is allowed to accomplish anything in a social encounter.

That is in no way the alternative.

The alternative would be to let the Orc, roll as an Orc, using the penalties he is given as a modifier on the ranks he has in the skill. The same way you do everything for physical stats.

When discussing mental stats, you're using argument A. (Both the player and the stats must contribute to the score).
When discussing physical stats, you're using argument B. (Stats alone are sufficient).

I'm asking you to pick, one or the other. You already use both arguments. You have no problem with either one.

Can I increase my skill check on lifting the boulder by lifting your sofa?
No? Ok, players have NO bonuses for IRL conduct, fine.

Can I increase my skill check on talking to the princess by talking to you? Yes! Ok, players HAVE bonuses for IRL conduct, fine.

The bard gets bonuses and the orc doesn't? Not fair.
The orc gets bonuses and the bard doesn't? Not fair.

There's no point in jumping up and down about how absolutely right you are, when no matter which of the arguments you pick, you're in opposition to your other absolutely flawless argument.

Saph
2010-07-01, 09:18 AM
Show me the Skill that allows the DM to reveal the best, most intelligent tactical strategy to a player based on his high Intelligence and I'd agree with you. There isn't one. I can force a DM to reveal entire stat blocks and creature entries with high Knowledge Checks, but there's no mechanic in place to aid such a PC with some puzzle or riddle - which is silly.

Yes, it's almost as though they're expecting you to think for yourself.


In the case of a riddle or puzzle, you should be slipping clues to the player with the PC with exceptionally high Int. That's YOUR job as DM to gives them a significant advantage in figuring it out - just like the 30 Str Fighter has a mechanical advantage in hitting and wounding the enemy.

Well, that's interesting.

Because, you see, I've got a puzzle- and riddle-based adventure that I've run several times for differing groups of players. The adventure has a few combats, but mostly it's just a pure adventure game - solving problems. I never take into account the characters' Intelligence scores, I don't give out hints, and I don't give any players an advantage.

Now, according to you and Snake, this should make me a horrible DM, and the adventure should be incredibly boring and unfun. Yet it's actually the most popular one-off I've run. The players usually talk for ages about the puzzles they did or didn't solve, and several times they've asked if they can go back there for another try. In every case the players enjoyed it far more than adventures which came down to "I use my ability score of 30 to solve X problem by doing Y."

So no, I don't think it's my job to DM games in the way you describe.

Killer Angel
2010-07-01, 09:19 AM
"I don't want to know what Mr 20 Intelligence thinks" makes no more sense than "I don't want to know what Mr 20 Strength lifts". The stat is not the character.

"My character does 1000 pushups to impress the General" says the fighter with the high Str/Con. Does he roll, or do you make your player do the 1000 pushups?

"Oooh" says the Bard, "I sing a song for the Queen to impress her". Does he roll, or do you actually make him sing a song?

"Oooh" says the high int Mage being played by a 10 year old, "I say something mathsy to the Wizard". Does he roll, or does he actually have to know enough math to impress the Grand Wizard of the Council of Architects?


You had to roll in all the 3 cases. Let's say it's a good roll.
"Your performance is really impressive. You get a +2 bonus on your next charisma check: what are you going to do, now?"

The dices are simply a device to help you in doing things. But what things to do, are up to you.

Saph
2010-07-01, 09:23 AM
That is in no way the alternative.

The alternative would be to let the Orc, roll as an Orc, using the penalties he is given as a modifier on the ranks he has in the skill. The same way you do everything for physical stats.

. . . which would be pretty much an automatic fail. Effectively you're saying that if you have no social skills, you can't contribute in social encounters. Which is kind of legitimate, I guess, but then you really can't complain when everyone who started with a low Charisma switches off in the social scenes.


When discussing mental stats, you're using argument A. (Both the player and the stats must contribute to the score).
When discussing physical stats, you're using argument B. (Stats alone are sufficient).

Correct. I run mental and physical stats differently.

So what?


I'm asking you to pick, one or the other.

What are you going to do if I don't? :smalltongue:

Fouredged Sword
2010-07-01, 09:31 AM
Personaly I find that both of the side have a point. Skill checks need to be given meaning and inportance. Also player skill and roleplaying. There needs to be both in any setting. I for one have my own way of providing what I find to be a good balance most of the time. i use difrent styles depending on the system. I use d20 in various 3.5ish forms (modern + dnd) and the nWoD system

In Dnd
Knowledge checks auto fail past DC 10 when you have no skill points. This is something that always seemed to be a very short cutoff. An average int can know the most he can 50% of the time. I like to move it more to 20. That way you can gain basic knowledge even if you have no training, but you literaly can not go past what the average joe on the street could know on a good roll. That is the cuttoff I use for DC's as well. Any check over a DC 20 should require knowledge in the field.

Example - I want to cause a house to fall over. It is supported by four walls and a beam in the center of the room. DC 5 knowledge arc and eng check - I need to knock some of the support out. DC 10 - the builder likely made the middle support for a reason. DC 15 - The walls are thick and probobly hold most of the weight. DC 20 - the middle beam is just supporting the floor of the upper story. Knocking it out will likely not cause the building to fall.

All of these are things you could look at and, without training, figgure out. A high int makes these more likely to figgure out, but the above the instant win check of a player with high int. Even the +5 int mod of a wizard at decent levels is as likely as not going to go for the beam in the middle of the room.

further past the DC limit I would place a DC 21 - Knock out the beam and one wall, or one corner, then the building has no suport in one direction, get the 20 str fighter to push.

Leave everything else to the players.

Puzzles are tricky with this. I encourage players to use character knowledge, but skill checks are there for a reason. No puzzle should be unsolvable is a player fails a skill check, but the skill checks should change it from a dificult puzzle to an easy one. Also I detest solve this or TPK puzzles. There is no good way to balance that dificulty for tension without risking a pointless party kill.

Most of the gripes from players seems to be from a bad DM handleing of a railroad. Point in case, the likely DM didn't care about the 15 min RP sesion at the trial above. He will win the case with those three words period. He knew he was going to before you spoke. He just didn't want to argue with you about a skill check and the crazy deplomacy skill. He ran into another problem with forcing a failure, but he wanted to avoid the stigma of a DM fait. The problem is railroading in this case.

nWoD is a more social game, and I use skillchecks a lot in the conversations from players and NPCs. I allow characters the ability to ether make an intent check (i try to woo the barmaid), or roleplay checks (Hay baby, wana ride with me today? You got my motor running, eh?) I allow the player who roleplays to add modifiers to his role based on how well, or how bad, his line was. This workes for all skills, (I jump across the gap useing the wall on the side to bounce off of), (I use the ledge of the wall to brace my rifle). Though I don't allow huge modifiers on combat rolls. nWoD really benifits from the players telling more of the story than the ST.

The thing I find is that you need to, as the ST, use the skills for two reasons. One to determine the succes of an action, and two to determine character knowledge of a situation. I normaly allow a character to catch him or herself once each sesion per point of the relevent skill. If they suggest an action that I think thier character would know better or would rack up a negative modifier to a check I let them know before the act, allowing them to rethink. This encourages players act out even if they aren't that great so long as thier characters are. After a few sesions you really start to see the game go from (I try to make him like me) to (Hey, man, we are comrads here. We got to stick together youknow.)

This allows a low skilled player to try to say the golden words to change the encounter, but he also has the most risk of a serious miss step, and little or no safety net. This allows for characters to use metacharacter skills, but makes it always a risky buisness. That adds to the fun.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 09:41 AM
Now, according to you and Snake, this should make me a horrible DM, and the adventure should be incredibly boring and unfun. Yet it's actually the most popular one-off I've run. The players usually talk for ages about the puzzles they did or didn't solve, and several times they've asked if they can go back there for another try. In every case the players enjoyed it far more than adventures which came down to "I use my ability score of 30 to solve X problem by doing Y."

So no, I don't think it's my job to DM games in the way you describe.

What is the wording again? Ah, yes, drop the hyperbole.

Sadly, the discussion is over. I never said you are a bad DM, just that you are being inconsistent and that I find your method unfair. if you and your players like it, then they like it. Congratulations, really!

Earthwalker
2010-07-01, 09:41 AM
Like I said, for social encounters I take into account both the way you roleplay it and your character's social skills and stats. It doesn't have to be one or the other.


The point I was trying to get across was this is not excelent roleplaying. The role that Haveagos player is trying to play is that of a unsocial uncharismatic primitive, as such he should not be trying to be social and influential. He should be solving problems in a way that stays in character.


In this case, if Haveago's player did an excellent job, then I'd say he succeeded despite his low Charisma. The alternative would be to say that no character with a low Charisma score is allowed to accomplish anything in a social encounter, no matter how much effort they put in, and I don't really have to explain why that's a bad idea, do I?

I do need it explaining to me. Someone who plays a character with no cha should not expect to perform any better in social situations then someone with low strength expects to perform in arm wrestling.

Killer Angel
2010-07-01, 09:57 AM
Every stat is a number, that gives you specific advantages.
Str? hitting, lifting, damaging, ecc.
Int? spells, DC on save, skills point, ecc.
Wis? spells, DC on save, ST, ecc.
and so on
Int gives you a lot of practical advantages, including the skill points to resolve things (or to have useful hints).
You cannot sit down and pretending to have the solution to puzzles, only 'cause you have a good int.
You must think by yourself, and you must plan by yourself. It's the essence of the game.
At most, with good Wis or Int scores, the DM can say "...mmm, you're not convinced is a good idea", or "...mmm, you've the sensation that something is missing in your analysis".

okpokalypse
2010-07-01, 09:58 AM
Yes, it's almost as though they're expecting you to think for yourself.

So, should player start swinging broad-swords in your living room next time you host because that's what's going on in game. There's a huge difference between ROLE-PLAYING a PC's personality and SOLVING PROBLEMS - and you can't seem to get past that. DM's who utilize puzzles and riddles as pure intellectual challenges create an aspect of the game that is neither Mechanical NOR Role-Play. You're basically throwing in IQ tests, but not giving an advantage to your High-Int PCs in solving it and calling it Role-Play.



Because, you see, I've got a puzzle- and riddle-based adventure that I've run several times for differing groups of players. The adventure has a few combats, but mostly it's just a pure adventure game - solving problems. I never take into account the characters' Intelligence scores, I don't give out hints, and I don't give any players an advantage.

And that's often fine if you play with a bunch of people in their late-20s who've got high IQs and College degrees. But when happens when the 30 Int Wizard can't solve your problem because he's real-life dyslexic or has reasoning issues and then he gets frustrated because it's the 6 Int Barbarian who keeps solving them because irl he's got a PhD in Mathematics? Again, you're not offering role-play, you're offering something more akin to IQ tests.


Now, according to you and Snake, this should make me a horrible DM, and the adventure should be incredibly boring and unfun. Yet it's actually the most popular one-off I've run. The players usually talk for ages about the puzzles they did or didn't solve, and several times they've asked if they can go back there for another try. In every case the players enjoyed it far more than adventures which came down to "I use my ability score of 30 to solve X problem by doing Y."

Blah Blah Blah... I'm a great DM. I have been talked about for eons as the most magnificent DM ever. Do you ever throw out your arm patting yourself on the back?


So no, I don't think it's my job to DM games in the way you describe.

Well, let me amend one thing. Your first and foremost job as DM is to keep the game-world running and the players entertained. If you're doing that, you're a success. By your accounts you've got a Godly DM score :).

However, I still maintain that you are confusing RP with Test-Taking. If a Riddle involved gathering information, finding locations and party interaction - sure, you RP that stuff out. If it's a math problem or logic problem and you're making players RP through it without any aid to those who's characters are built to handle such situations in a superior way, then you're doing such players a disservice.

As I posted earlier in this thread, I begged for a new knowledge category from a former DM many years ago. It was Knowledge: Problem Solving. Byt L12 I had a +31 Check on it and I was able to use my high Int and Skill Ranks to get extra clues - which was actually quite necessary because our DM often messed up his own puzzles and riddles making them unsolvable by expected means.

Half his encounters were riddles and puzzles. It was tiring and frustrating. You know the puzzle with the 5 different people, houses, cars, pets, etc... There are some clues given to figure it out and it's just a logical deduction to get there. He made one of those and fudged it so bad that when we drew out the graph for him the same guy belonged to 3 houses and two guys belonged to none - all because his clues were bad.

How do you get around that? Well, I used my custom check to get answers and show him how he screwed up. Without something like that, you stop playing with that DM.

okpokalypse
2010-07-01, 10:05 AM
. . . which would be pretty much an automatic fail. Effectively you're saying that if you have no social skills, you can't contribute in social encounters. Which is kind of legitimate, I guess, but then you really can't complain when everyone who started with a low Charisma switches off in the social scenes.

That's exactly what role-play is! If I'm playing a low-charisma and intelligence warrior, I do my best work in combat. Maybe if I rounded out my skills well I'm also a weaponsmith and when I get near towns I look for a smithy to interact in and might stumble upon some lucky info because I have something to actually talk about.

Through my build choice I do NOT interact as the party spokeman. I do not talk over the party spokesman. I KNOW that I'm as likely to make an NPC turn away from us as the group spokesman is to win him over.

In real life, if you're a gas-station attendant and you're at a conference with your spouse who happens to be an aerospace engineer - you don't go up to the podioum and start talking to the crowd :).

Saph
2010-07-01, 10:08 AM
What is the wording again? Ah, yes, drop the hyperbole.

Sadly, the discussion is over. I never said you are a bad DM, just that you are being inconsistent and that I find your method unfair. if you and your players like it, then they like it. Congratulations, really!

Heh. Fair enough on the hyperbole point. I got the impression from your talk about "punishing" and "unfairness" that you seemed to think this was really bad DMing. Apologies if I was mistaken.


I do need it explaining to me. Someone who plays a character with no cha should not expect to perform any better in social situations then someone with low strength expects to perform in arm wrestling.

OK, here's the explanation.

In most non-grindfest D&D games, social encounters are quite common. Probably they don't take quite as much time as combat, but I usually find that an awful lot of time in the average D&D game is spent on interacting with NPCs.

It's also a fact in most D&D games that Charisma is the most common dumpstat out there. Wizards may dump Strength, and Barbarians may dump Int, but Charisma is more common than either. Most of the base classes in D&D also have either a deficit of skill points, a poor set of social class skills, or both. Hence it's not uncommon to have more than half a party with poor-to-mediocre social skill modifiers, while only a couple of party members are "faces".

Conclusion: you are very often going to have social encounters where half the party or more have bad social skills.

Now, DMing involves both knowledge of game rules, but also people management. One of the basic rules of management is that if you provide positive consequences for behaviour, you encourage it. If you provide negative consequences for behaviour, you discourage it. If you run social encounters purely by the social skill rules in the book and pay no attention to roleplaying, a bad social skill check will often not only not help, but will actually make things worse. This means that the message you're communicating to the players with low-Cha characters is "Don't try to participate, you'll just make things worse, even if you roleplay well."

So you end up with a couple of players participating, and three or four sitting back on their chairs with nothing to do. From a DM's point of view, this is bad. You have the majority of the party unable to interact with the events of the game. Either you have to come up with something else for the rest of the party to do while the two talky characters do their thing (which splits the party), or you have to cut short the social encounter so the rest of the party can participate, or you risk the rest of the group becoming bored and disconnected from what's happening in the game. Neither choice is ideal. It's much better if everyone can feel like they're participating in the encounter, in the same way that everyone ideally participates in a combat.

So this is why I prefer to not run social encounters based entirely on stats. If it's RP-based, the non-face characters can still contribute, even if they're going to be less effective than the face characters. This makes them more likely to be involved and interested in the game. Make sense?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-01, 10:16 AM
That does vary wildly. My group thoroughly enjoy roleplaying, which means when they make a dumb character, they mostly won't come up with smart ideas. Generally they pass these over to the smarter character's players.

It's actually why, as said in the first page, I don't make dumb characters at all. I like to come up with my own solutions and act them out. Might as well have my character sheet agree with that.

okpokalypse
2010-07-01, 10:17 AM
Personaly I find that both of the side have a point. Skill checks need to be given meaning and inportance. Also player skill and roleplaying. There needs to be both in any setting. I for one have my own way of providing what I find to be a good balance most of the time. i use difrent styles depending on the system. I use d20 in various 3.5ish forms (modern + dnd) and the nWoD system

In Dnd
Knowledge checks auto fail past DC 10 when you have no skill points. This is something that always seemed to be a very short cutoff. An average int can know the most he can 50% of the time. I like to move it more to 20. That way you can gain basic knowledge even if you have no training, but you literaly can not go past what the average joe on the street could know on a good roll. That is the cuttoff I use for DC's as well. Any check over a DC 20 should require knowledge in the field.

Example - I want to cause a house to fall over. It is supported by four walls and a beam in the center of the room. DC 5 knowledge arc and eng check - I need to knock some of the support out. DC 10 - the builder likely made the middle support for a reason. DC 15 - The walls are thick and probobly hold most of the weight. DC 20 - the middle beam is just supporting the floor of the upper story. Knocking it out will likely not cause the building to fall.

You're falling into one of the traps of playing D&D. You're assuming that because you can figure it out in the 21st century, a middle-ages untrained commoner could as well :).

The reason the Limit is 10 is because that's the common knowledge tier. Anything beyond a DC 10 where knowledge is concerned needs to have been taught - which requires some instruction.

I think it's actually pretty generous that 10 INT PC knows 50% of all common knowledge at any given time without any real education. We often forget that we all attend school for 12+ years (some of us for 19 - gah) and then expect a middle-ages person to just know what we consider "the basics."

The Basics for them is simple math, reading & writing, their local laws, who's governing them and maybe a few other minor things. Everything else falls into a Profession, Craft or Skill. These are not people who learn Algebra. These are not people who read recreationally. These are not people who can google an answer to a question :). Becoming learned in a medevil environment is difficult and often requires admission to an order or being part of a certain class. Why do you think so few classes have more than one (or any) knowledge skills?

Saph
2010-07-01, 10:17 AM
Blah Blah Blah... I'm a great DM. I have been talked about for eons as the most magnificent DM ever. Do you ever throw out your arm patting yourself on the back?

Heh. No, but I am a pretty good DM, and I have a reasonable amount of experience. You were telling me that it was my job to run games in a different way than I do. I'm trying - politely - to tell you that I have my own idea of what my job is.


Well, let me amend one thing. Your first and foremost job as DM is to keep the game-world running and the players entertained. If you're doing that, you're a success. By your accounts you've got a Godly DM score :).

However, I still maintain that you are confusing RP with Test-Taking. If a Riddle involved gathering information, finding locations and party interaction - sure, you RP that stuff out. If it's a math problem or logic problem and you're making players RP through it without any aid to those who's characters are built to handle such situations in a superior way, then you're doing such players a disservice.

But most RPGs are 'tests' from a certain point of view. Pretty much everything involving combat, plans, or tactics is a 'test' of tactical skill, for instance.

And if they're done well, tests can be fun. If you make the setup interesting, make the test involving, and set the difficulty within the group's ability range, then when the group succeeds it can be very satisfying. Overcoming a challenge is much more fun when you feel you've actually contributed something to it.

Merk
2010-07-01, 10:32 AM
It's also a fact in most D&D games that Charisma is the most common dumpstat out there. Wizards may dump Strength, and Barbarians may dump Int, but Charisma is more common than either. Most of the base classes in D&D also have either a deficit of skill points, a poor set of social class skills, or both. Hence it's not uncommon to have more than half a party with poor-to-mediocre social skill modifiers, while only a couple of party members are "faces".

Conclusion: you are very often going to have social encounters where half the party or more have bad social skills.

This is true. However, to me the real culprit here is class design and balance, like the fighter who has 2 base skill points and a poor skill list.

Rothen
2010-07-01, 10:35 AM
Blah Blah Blah... I'm a great DM. I have been talked about for eons as the most magnificent DM ever. Do you ever throw out your arm patting yourself on the back?

That sounded harsh. :smallfrown:


For what it's worth, Saph, I usually do things your way, but slightly differently.

Good roleplaying - read: The player thinks of a great plan or managed to present an offer in a great way - is rewarded with bonuses to the character's check.
So a character with a low Int that thinks of a good plan can execute it succesfully if he doesn't mess up the roll.

A character with a high Int would probably pass the Int check for a good plan anyway, while there's a chance that he'll spot flaws in a bad plan.

Player: "I'll try to pick the lock to the guard captain's office."
DM: "...Roll an Int check."
Player: "7 plus my Int modifier is 10."
DM: "You realise that it's noon, and that there's a big chance that there's someone in there."

Not the best example, but you catch my drift.

Saph
2010-07-01, 10:40 AM
This is true. However, to me the real culprit here is class design and balance, like the fighter who has 2 base skill points and a poor skill list.

Arguably true, but when you're DMing you have to deal with the situation as-is. It's not just D&D, either - the combat character with poor social skills is a pretty common archetype in many RPGs.

Now, I don't have any problem with penalising such a character in social situations (and I do), but I won't go to the extent of making him completely unable to contribute. It's a matter of what you want to encourage, and I want to encourage players to roleplay and participate. At the end of the day, I care more about keeping the players engaged than I care about following the social skill rules.

Earthwalker
2010-07-01, 10:46 AM
[snip a long and well thought out explanation]

So this is why I prefer to not run social encounters based entirely on stats. If it's RP-based, the non-face characters can still contribute, even if they're going to be less effective than the face characters. This makes them more likely to be involved and interested in the game. Make sense?


I do take your point. Part of my reasoning may be based on situations in other games. I don't think GMing I would ever be happy with the situation I described where a no cha, no skill character got by having a player with good charisma but I can see why it makes sense within the rules.

Personally as a player if I wanted to play a fighter that would also be able to talk and be comfortable in social situations I would still spend the stat and skill points to make this possible. Different people, different play styles.

On the orginal topic I still feel the answer was railroading by the GM. Any more discussion on how "mental" stats should effect play might be better on a new thread.

Saph
2010-07-01, 10:47 AM
For what it's worth, Saph, I usually do things your way, but slightly differently.

Good roleplaying - read: The player thinks of a great plan or managed to present an offer in a great way - is rewarded with bonuses to the character's check.
So a character with a low Int that thinks of a good plan can execute it succesfully if he doesn't mess up the roll.

A character with a high Int would probably pass the Int check for a good plan anyway, while there's a chance that he'll spot flaws in a bad plan.

Player: "I'll try to pick the lock to the guard captain's office."
DM: "...Roll an Int check."
Player: "7 plus my Int modifier is 10."
DM: "You realise that it's noon, and that there's a big chance that there's someone in there."

Not the best example, but you catch my drift.

Yeah, I find that works, too. Usually I only call for Wis/Int checks when there's something really obvious I want to point out, but I'll use it occasionally. (In practice the high degree of variance on a d20 roll means that you frequently do have low-stat characters beating high-stat ones.)

Umael
2010-07-01, 11:11 AM
I could drop a few easy math problems as riddles into a campaign that would bring it to an absolute halt. How's this:

You have the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Arrange them so that, from left to right, the value of each number is evenly divisible by the number of digits within it. For Example:

1234567890; 1/1 = true; 12/2 = true; 123/3 = false; Not the Answer.

Eh, what, huh?? :smallconfused::smallconfused:

123 IS evenly divisible by 3, 41 times.

1234 is NOT evenly divisible by 4 though...

(Not arguing your point or anything, just... either I mistook how your example worked or you make a mistake in explaining your example.)


Int 14+: The last # must be 0 to be Divided by 10 evenly.
Int 16+: The 5th Number must be 5 to be Divided by 5 evenly with 0 Used.
Int 18+: The 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th Element must be even numbers.
Int 20+: The 1st Number is 3.
Int 24+: The 2nd Number is 8.
Int 30+: The 3rd Number is 1.
etc...

If you actually had a player with a (theoretical) 100 INT, he SHOULD just know it. Sorry it spoils your need for DM'ination - but it's just plain true.

Umm... I think I'm intelligent, but WHY would I be at least Int 18 for knowing that the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th element must be even numbers? That seems a LOT simpler than that...

(Also, taking the extreme 100 Int is interesting, but then at the other extreme, animal intelligence is 2, and between the two, which is more likely to be encountered? Using an extreme example that is rather rare says that it also theoretically spoils the need for DMing. *shrug*)

Matthew
2010-07-01, 11:16 AM
The line between "character ability" and "player ability" can certainly be a fine one, and the "player-character" is a combination of both. In the end, the influence that either has on play has to be negotiated between game master and group with regard for their preferences. How much of the game will be abstracted with numbers and probability rolls and how much will be "thought" or "played" out is strongly preferential. Asking a player to roll an intelligence check to figure out that "4 + 3 = 7" seems unreasonable to me, as does requiring a player who has a character with a good piloting skill to explain the operation of a fighter jet before he can use one in the game.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2010-07-01, 11:29 AM
Really sounds to me like the OP's DM wanted them to go through the adventure instead of solving the problem more ingeniously, and is railroading the characters into collecting the wands. That being said, as has been said a lot, 12 should a sufficient intelligence to come up with a plan like that. I don't think they even need a knowledge construction/stone work or whatever you think it might be as there's very likely somebody in that town they can get to do the work for them who would have that knowledge.

senrath
2010-07-01, 12:15 PM
All I know is that I still haven't gotten an answer for why you would need so many wands of Control Water. Can someone who has actually run whatever this adventure is answer that? I can't come up with a situation that would require 400 charges of Control Water.

okpokalypse
2010-07-01, 12:27 PM
But most RPGs are 'tests' from a certain point of view. Pretty much everything involving combat, plans, or tactics is a 'test' of tactical skill, for instance.

And if they're done well, tests can be fun. If you make the setup interesting, make the test involving, and set the difficulty within the group's ability range, then when the group succeeds it can be very satisfying. Overcoming a challenge is much more fun when you feel you've actually contributed something to it.

Are they tests in a loose sense? Yes. Are they tests in the idea that there's only one was to win a combat? No. One can emerge as the victor in a combat through a variety of methods - all which are Greatly influenced by one's character abilities and statistics. However, riddles and puzzles are often a single-answer to solve and gain (in your world) no benefit from a character's design. These are two Very different types of 'tests.'

It's akin to the difference between passing a road test (where one mistake means you pass - and there's a bit of leeway in the judgement of actions) and solving the logical proof for 1+1=2. The point is that any idiot can drive a car. Less than 1% of the populace can show the proof for 1+1=2 logically.

Saph
2010-07-01, 12:40 PM
Are they tests in a loose sense? Yes. Are they tests in the idea that there's only one was to win a combat? No. One can emerge as the victor in a combat through a variety of methods - all which are Greatly influenced by one's character abilities and statistics. However, riddles and puzzles are often a single-answer to solve and gain (in your world) no benefit from a character's design. These are two Very different types of 'tests.'

Sure. What's the problem? There's no rule saying that everything in D&D has to be determined by your stats, and there's no rule saying that the difficulty of every challenge has to be determined by your character's design. I usually mix up both in my games.

Je dit Viola
2010-07-01, 01:10 PM
I can think of several puzzles which could occur in a D&D situation that don't have only one exact solution, but require player input.

Theres "How to cross the chasm with the raging river below" - Teleport might work, but say you don't have the resources to teleport everything you nee over, then what? Do you build a glider then climb the rest of the way up? Do you use ropes an a single 'fly' spell on the rogue (who knows knots the best) so he can start building a makeshift bridge so you can get the 200 lb antimagic artifact that you have to deliver to the neighboring city?

And then, other puzzles, the players can work the solutions out OoC, and have fun doing so. Nobody ever said only the person playing the high-INT wizard is allowed to work out the puzzle using the clues.

Knaight
2010-07-01, 02:14 PM
...aaaand this discussion marks reason #467 I don't use mental stats. It lets the player play the character as they see fit, they have so many advantages (immunity to character stress, ability to confer with other players at the table, time scale, etc.) that they should be able to play someone significantly above their own ability.

Dr.Epic
2010-07-01, 02:53 PM
I once played a barbarian who helped solve riddle by noticing one of the words in the sentence had quotes around it implying something else (this was LARPing though and there were no rules about character literacy).

potatocubed
2010-07-01, 05:57 PM
Any time the GM says "your character is too stupid to come up with that plan", that's the cue for the player with the most intelligent character to say "I know! Let's..." and then repeat the plan verbatim.

Kaun
2010-07-01, 06:16 PM
Really sounds to me like the OP's DM wanted them to go through the adventure instead of solving the problem more ingeniously, and is railroading the characters into collecting the wands. That being said, as has been said a lot, 12 should a sufficient intelligence to come up with a plan like that. I don't think they even need a knowledge construction/stone work or whatever you think it might be as there's very likely somebody in that town they can get to do the work for them who would have that knowledge.

I think its actualy been pointed out through the thread that the idea wouldnt have worked, nor would it have been an easier or safer option.

Sombody made mention that for this idea to go through putting all the possible civil egineering problems aside it still would have required the beter part of the residential section of town to be completely flooded.

Iceforge
2010-07-01, 08:23 PM
I don't get why people get so focused on the mechanics part of the issue (the whole Saph, Baalthazaq and okpokalypse thing)

I think the purpose of the varies challenges should be taken into account prior to debating the mechanics possible influence on the challenges and I have to wholeheartedly agree with everything Saph has said.

People enjoy different things around the table while doing roleplaying; Most players enjoy most aspects of roleplaying, but almost everybody have their prefered element.

Some really love rolling the dice - This can be for various reasons, the high of rolling a natural 20 when it happens, the excitement of adding up all those dice to calculate that massive hit/spell/whatchamacallit.

Some love solving puzzles -Again, various reasons.

Lets call them playertype A and B, and this is just a few basic ones, there are plenty more types of players and many other elements to have as your favourit one in a roleplaying game (there is no limit to the ways you can do roleplaying and absolutely no wrong way to like doing roleplaying, whatever works for you)

If the DM designs a puzzle for an adventure, it is clearly catering to the desires of playertype B, and reducing the challenge to a simple roll of a dice is doing a huge disfavour and ruining the game for those of playertype B, just because someone another playertype (doesn't have to be playertype A) wants to mvoe the plot along to his own favourit element.

Now, if the entire group does not include anyone who really likes puzzles and it is frustrating all the players, then maybe letting the dice solving the challenge can be a solution, but letting it be anywhere near the initial stage of solving the puzzle would, while staying true to the mechanics, be against the spirit of having a game thats fun for everybody.

Some people keep claiming that rule 0 is that whatever the DM says goes.

Not true, the true rule 0 is that everybody having fun should be more important than mechanics at any time

Eronai_Jantig
2010-07-03, 01:14 AM
All I know is that I still haven't gotten an answer for why you would need so many wands of Control Water. Can someone who has actually run whatever this adventure is answer that? I can't come up with a situation that would require 400 charges of Control Water.

I'm just doing the math here, although I didn't look up the formula for figuring out the total cubic feet (10x10x2 right?) I think it's somewhere round abouts 560,000 Cubic Feet of water. Sorry if someone who is less tired than me is either a math major, someone who knows/or looks up the formula, or something else where I'm horrifically wrong.

I don't have the specifics for the Caldron lake, as I'm trying to acquire the separate Dungeon games instead of the book for the time being for preliminary work at incorporating some ideas into a future campaign after thoroughly enjoying it as a player. But from what I recall, it's pretty damn big, and if you consider a fairly terrible rain season, coupled with an even larger expanse for water to be able to congregate from to the lake, than the 560,000 cubic feet of water (4,144,000 gallons of water btw.) the wands can take care of starts to seem reasonable.

Math_Mage
2010-07-03, 02:04 AM
Show me the Skill that allows the DM to reveal the best, most intelligent tactical strategy to a player based on his high Intelligence and I'd agree with you. There isn't one. I can force a DM to reveal entire stat blocks and creature entries with high Knowledge Checks, but there's no mechanic in place to aid such a PC with some puzzle or riddle - which is silly.

Knowledge (Tactics)? Well, I suppose that's not 3.5 standard...


I could drop a few easy math problems as riddles into a campaign that would bring it to an absolute halt. How's this:

You have the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Arrange them so that, from left to right, the value of each number is evenly divisible by the number of digits within it. For Example:

1234567890; 1/1 = true; 12/2 = true; 123/3 = false; Not the Answer.

There's only 1 answer. Some people like myself (Math Geek) could solve this in a few minutes. Others it would take a lifetime. For any riddle like this you should reveal more info based on intellect... Like this:

Int 14+: The last # must be 0 to be Divided by 10 evenly.
Int 16+: The 5th Number must be 5 to be Divided by 5 evenly with 0 Used.
Int 18+: The 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th Element must be even numbers.
Int 20+: The 1st Number is 3.
Int 24+: The 2nd Number is 8.
Int 30+: The 3rd Number is 1.
etc...

Really, if divisibility by 7 weren't such a pain, this would be a...well, 30-minute problem even without a calculator. :smalltongue: But then, I just brute-forced it at some point. So I respect your math geekery, anyway.
381654729. It was annoying trying to steer away from your "the Xth number is" clues because that's sort of counterproductive to brute-forcing it.
Are they tests in a loose sense? Yes. Are they tests in the idea that there's only one was to win a combat? No. One can emerge as the victor in a combat through a variety of methods - all which are Greatly influenced by one's character abilities and statistics. However, riddles and puzzles are often a single-answer to solve and gain (in your world) no benefit from a character's design. These are two Very different types of 'tests.'

This argument requires that there be no way to bypass the test, which I would not assume when player ingenuity enters the equation. Considering Saph's Disintegrate-tunneling from the Seven Kingdoms journal, I'd assume such 'cut the Gordian knot' solutions would be allowed. In that case, there's basically no downside to offering a puzzle. If the players like puzzles, they'll sit down and figure it out; otherwise, they'll puzzle out a way around the puzzle. So, what was the problem again?


It's akin to the difference between passing a road test (where one mistake means you pass - and there's a bit of leeway in the judgement of actions) and solving the logical proof for 1+1=2. The point is that any idiot can drive a car. Less than 1% of the populace can show the proof for 1+1=2 logically.

The proof? Sorry, what set of axioms were you using? How have you defined the (+) operation in your formal system? :smalltongue:

But the problem with your analogy is that you're placing the logical proof in a vacuum. This is not the case in a campaign, which allows for the finagling explained above.