Mysteries and low-int roleplaying.

[BRC]

I'm currently part of an RP-Heavy investigation based campaign were the party is a group of city guardsmen who go around solving crimes. I joined in at the second session, so rather than make my usual skillmonkey character (they already had some of those) I made an Orc. My character has few skills that are relevant to an investigation (Besides intimidate), and most of the city hates him on sight (There is an orcish population, but they mostly stick to their own, walled-off district). I'm also the only party member with a negative intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.

In-Character Urjok earns his keep by kicking down doors (who needs lockpicks when you have Orc), tackling suspects, and hitting the occasional thug or (at one point) owlbear until it falls down.

however, as I player I'm somthing of a mystery hound. I made my orc because the party was already full of brainy skillmonkeys. However, when we're putting our heads together and trying to puzzle out the mystery, I like to participate without neccessarily limiting myself to ideas that an int 9 Orc whose investigative talents consist of asking "did you do it?" with increasing volume would come up with.

So, in this situation, is it acceptable for me to fully participate in our group's mystery solving sessions, with ideas I have assumed to be coming from one of the more intelligent party members. Is this acceptable, or should I be limiting myself to purely in-character contributions.

This is less a question about my specific situation (I have more fun fully participating, and nobody in the group willl get upset about this), and more a general question. Should a player's contributions to the group always reflect contributions their character would make?

Obviously I'm not talking about metagaming, which is rightfully taboo. But if a player has a habit of coming up with good strategies for the group, must they be playing a character with good charisma and knowledge: Strategy and Tactics? Or should the DM say "No, your Wizard dosn't know the first thing about tactics", then turn to the Ranger and make him come up with a battle plan.

[Slipperychicken]

Depending on how stupid he's supposed to be, you could roll a die for each idea you come up with. Roll a d20, and if you roll equal to or under your Int score, it occurs to your character.

You could tell the smartypants-players OOC, then their characters come up with it IC because they're so smart.

[Bulhakov]

I think it's the responsibility of the player to roleplay the character correctly, and know his limits.

If your character has low str, no one expects you to say "I just bust down the door", either you would be obviously aware that it is impossible, or the GM would remind you that it's well beyond your character's capabilities.

However, good players are able to pull off channeling their own high intelligence through a low int or low wis character. You can ask deceptively simple or stupid questions, but get the answers you really want or aim the conversation in the direction you want it to go.

For the investigator-orc, I'm thinking "Columbo". He's a detective well known for appearing much dumber than he actually is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZiv8vkxMac

[BRC]

I think it's the responsibility of the player to roleplay the character correctly, and know his limits.

If your character has low str, no one expects you to say "I just bust down the door", either you would be obviously aware that it is impossible, or the GM would remind you that it's well beyond your character's capabilities.

However, good players are able to pull off channeling their own high intelligence through a low int or low wis character. You can ask deceptively simple or stupid questions, but get the answers you really want or aim the conversation in the direction you want it to go.

For the investigator-orc, I'm thinking "Columbo". He's a detective well known for appearing much dumber than he actually is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZiv8vkxMac

Kicking down a door and having an idea are not exactly comparable though. the rules very clearly define a process for kicking down a door, with a dice roll for if you can or cannot do it. Having an idea is first of all a far more complicated process. My low-int orc is unlikely to think that the suspect was unusually strong, and therefore we should question local alchemists who stock potions of Bull's Strength, but it's possible. Breaking down a door is a binary matter of force applied vs force needed, having an idea or drawing a conclusion from evidence is a process nobody fully understands.

[Lorsa]

This is obviously one of those things that depend on your group and yourself and what all of you get your fun from. In your situation I would probably roleplay the stupid orc and give some OOC tips to the players of the smarter characters in case they are stuck. If they are not stuck well then obviously you weren't needed. You can also, I assume, have quite fun coming up with the wrong solution but in a way that will lead to more interesting play. And even if a character has low int he can still have gut feeling and instinct. Maybe sometimes you just "know" or "feel" who is guilty and then you go off accusing them. Once in a while, if you've figured something out, you can let your orc actually be right too!

So basically, I would play the character as someone who is always quick at jumping to a conclusion or solving the crime, making hasty decisions based on very little evidence. Then you can let the other players debate and find evidence to support your "instincts".

[Bulhakov]

We might not fully understand it, but we still apply a number to it, otherwise we could do without mental stats for characters ;)

The numbers are there to signify a trade off - you put points in str to be able to hit people harder and kick down doors, you subtract points from int and you're no longer able to use some level of abstract thinking or eloquently express your ideas.

But like I said, think of it as a challenge - how to channel your own high int ideas, through a low int medium? What line of reasoning could make a stupid orc arrive at a similar conclusion as your own? And how to roleplay that line of reasoning well?

"Him too strong for puny human, I think he used magicks"
"What magicks makes man strong? Spell? Item? Potion?"
"He no wizard... too broke for magic item.... he could've used potion"
"I'll go yell at alchemists until one admits that he's guilty of 'conspiracy-to-commit-crime'!"

[BRC]

We might not fully understand it, but we still apply a number to it, otherwise we could do without mental stats for characters ;)

The issue is that if we limit a player's contributions by their character's mental stats, then we open the door for the other way around. If I cannot solve a puzzle because my character isn't smart enough, it stands to reason that a person playing an Int 22 Wizard can just roll an Int check to have their character solve the mystery without the player doing any real thinking, which takes away the fun of a mystery setting.

So far I've used a combination of participating in the OOC discussion about the clues, and putting my theories through the lense of a stupid orc (My character is actually above-average intelligence for an orc, but not by much). This thread is less me seeking advice, and more about curiosity. I'm not really looking to change my playstyle, I'm just curious how people feel about this question.

[some guy]

Solving mysteries is part of the game. The low str character get's to be a part of the combat, the low int get's to be part of the solving.
A player still can contribute to planning, while the character doesn't.

[Phantaskippy]

When I DM I tend to encourage player discussion that doesn't always fit their character. Obviously within limits, but I find that sometimes clever people want to play punching bags and the high int players aren't up to filling that void.

The characters in the group would normally talk together as a group and brainstorm, you can't make an average person suddenly think at a 22 int level, so I see no reason to make the more clever players dumb down to their character.

This said never when NPC's are around, you need to play your character then.

[NichG]

If you're playing a game in which the gameplay is about mysteries, then its only fair to let you actually engage fully with the game, even if your character wouldn't be that great at it. Few people insist that someone playing an Int 8 character should do tactically dumb things, because usually the tactics of combats is a big part of the 'game' - the stuff meant for the players - in an RPG.

However, if the numbers bother you or someone at the table, I'd suggest just asking permission to take a Knowledge or Profession(Detective) skill whose only function will be to justify your OOC aptitude. Skill ranks are dominant over mental stats for things that fall within the purview of skill checks, so mechanically one should not be surprised if the Wis 6 guy with 20 ranks of Profession(Detective) is a better detective than the Wis 20 cleric with no actual training in it.

[Bulhakov]

In my games, the 22 int wizard can roll an int check and be told a vital clue or logical leap that the player missed but his character should have been able to figure out.

Also, if the player of a high-int character makes a really stupid conclusion, I can make them roll int and point out a flaw in their reasoning if they succeed.

My style is always roleplay first, roll-play second, but stats are part of the roleplay. You're not going to argue like a dumb orc if you're playing a high int wizard, and the other way around.

[Jay R]

If you're going to do it, role-play the contrast.

"Look, I'm just a dumb orc here, but do you think this bit of mud means the killer came in through the rose garden?"

Played for laughs, it can become a fun character note - the dumb guy is paying more attention than the smart guys.

It is simply not true that the low-intelligence person never has good ideas. (Note that in The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow, who has no brain, comes up with every plan.

If it happens too often, then recommend your idea to the person playing the smart guy, just like he can recommend which door your character should kick in.

[erikun]

This depends on the group a bit. Some groups prefer to solve puzzles or mysteries out of character, working with each other to come up with a solution and then decide afterwards the IC details such as which character actually thought it up. Some groups prefer to keep thinks IC and only discussion solutions between characters.

Note that most characters can reasonably contribute regardless of their ability scores. Your big dumb fighter who realizes that someone strong broke down a door? "Looks like a real strong man did this. I wonder if he needed a spell talky man or magic drink to do it."

Remember that INT 9 isn't mentally impaired, and can pretty much participate in any discussion as a character with normal (INT 10) can just fine.

[Kid Jake]

A character with an Intelligence of 9 is just a little below average, not full on mentally retarded. I'm not sure how terrible your wisdom is, but you could always look to someone like Gomer Pyle for an example. Definitely slow; but stumbles over solutions from time to time especially in his niche.

"Wait, he said the sword is just for show? But...it's dented."

or

"Argh, you have the same stink on you as the body."


He doesn't have to be brilliant to contribute.

[TuggyNE]

Note that in The Wizard of Oz, the Scarecrow, who has no brain, comes up with every plan.

For what it's worth, that's because the theme of the first book is, essentially, "The magic was inside you all along" (or on your feet, as the case may be). The Scarecrow was plenty smart without a brain, the Tin Woodman cared just as much without a heart, and the Cowardly Lion didn't need a potion to be brave.

Still, a moderate contrast between "book-smartness" and common sense problem solving is perfectly plausible.

[jaybird]

Only problem is, Gump is the walking avatar of the low-Int high-Wis character. He's simple, but so are his solutions to problems.

[Drachasor]

There's always the comic relief option as well. Scaring little kids because they look suspicious, etc.

Of course, you, the player, can be very clever and occasionally point at an important clue for all the wrong reasons -- everyone else can point out how it really maters.

Also you can play the Watson to an extent. Though perhaps the Hastings is a better example (poor Hastings is always picked on). Ask simple questions about what is going on to the other players. Kind of like the Socratic Method really. This can actually be useful in a gaming group, because players are often horrible at mysteries and jump to silly conclusions.

That last bit reminds me of why I dislike the TV Show Bones. They make this big deal about being intuitive vs. rational, as if they are competing forces (in reality, a lot of science makes use of intuitive leaps, but you MUST check out the leap to make sure it can be backed up with evidence). The FBI guy (I forget his name) is all about being intuitive to solve crimes. Sadly, that's NOT how solving crimes works. Players can often try to emulate this, insisting that their insane notions have to be true. With some you can get them to back off insisting on some weird leap if you point out how unsupported it is.

Well, the groups I've been in have problems like that anyhow. From forums I gather it is not uncommon.

[Amridell]

It can be REALLY fun to roleplay stupid. As long as it doesn't screw everything up too badly, kick in doors when you hear the word "lockbreaking" or something like that. Take everything literally. When someone says "question him" do it batman style- fists first. Get physical in everything. Try to be the biggest jerk and build a reputation. Do things that the party laughs at. Have some fun, act like a moron.

[Drachasor]

It can be REALLY fun to roleplay stupid. As long as it doesn't screw everything up too badly, kick in doors when you hear the word "lockbreaking" or something like that. Take everything literally. When someone says "question him" do it batman style- fists first. Get physical in everything. Try to be the biggest jerk and build a reputation. Do things that the party laughs at. Have some fun, act like a moron.

I'd note that even if you are stupid and freakishly strong you don't have to be a brute. Take Fezzik from the Princess Bride as an example of another path. He's still pretty funny.

Heck, merely jumping to the wrong conclusions and questioning people about them can do a lot.

Hmm, another path is go with the take on Columbo that he's really not smart at all. He just slowly, slowly works through things bit by bit by bit and just constantly needs things straightened out. He's every bit as absent-minded as he appears. That takes still leads to a good detective and I think some fun roleplaying. (Not that it's my personal view of Columbo, but it is a view that it out there and one you can run with as a character concept).

[Driderman]

Kicking down a door and having an idea are not exactly comparable though. the rules very clearly define a process for kicking down a door, with a dice roll for if you can or cannot do it. Having an idea is first of all a far more complicated process. My low-int orc is unlikely to think that the suspect was unusually strong, and therefore we should question local alchemists who stock potions of Bull's Strength, but it's possible. Breaking down a door is a binary matter of force applied vs force needed, having an idea or drawing a conclusion from evidence is a process nobody fully understands.

Less than average intelligence doesnt necessarily equal massive stupidity. Also, you say int 9, I'm assuming that's D&D and that's just barely under the human average. As far as I'm concerned intelligence 9 is just a regular guy who doesn't think too much, not really dumb, just a bit daft/slow/simple-minded.

Also, remember than less than average intelligence doesn't necessarily equate a lack of cunning, either. You don't magically become a total incompetent as soon as you have a penalty in your Int ability modifier. Considering Urjok has, presumably, spent many years of his life kicking down doors and roughing up people, he may well have a surprising amount of knowledge and experience about matters like that, not to mention the street smarts needed to survive in a hostile environment such as a city that hates his guts.

Using your example, Urjok knows this particular kind of door is really hard to break down and can easily deduce that it must have been done by someone very strong. The real trick (and usually the most fun part about playing a stupid character in a group of braniacs) is figuring out how to present your deductions in a fittingly stupid manner: "Dis kind of door, very hard to smash. Broke me foot once on a door like dis. Guy must'a been real big. Like ogre- big."
Then one of the brainiacs would hopefully latch on to your deduction and then expand on the idea "maybe it was done by magic!".

Simple people can just as easily come up with brilliant solutions as smart people in my experience (though maybe not as often) because they rarely overthink the situation to the extent that some smart people do.

[NichG]

That last bit reminds me of why I dislike the TV Show Bones. They make this big deal about being intuitive vs. rational, as if they are competing forces (in reality, a lot of science makes use of intuitive leaps, but you MUST check out the leap to make sure it can be backed up with evidence). The FBI guy (I forget his name) is all about being intuitive to solve crimes. Sadly, that's NOT how solving crimes works. Players can often try to emulate this, insisting that their insane notions have to be true. With some you can get them to back off insisting on some weird leap if you point out how unsupported it is.

This can actually work very well in tabletop games in a way that it cannot in real life. That is to say, you can actually get to know your GM and the kinds of plots he likes to run, and come to a conclusion based on 'well, the universe just kind of works like this' rather than any direct evidence in front of you.

I had a player in a big club campaign thing (of-and-on base of ~30 players) who halfway through basically guessed one of the big punchlines of the campaign (namely that the town that the players were living in was itself sentient) because 'its a Nich-y plot'.

Personally, I think this is a great thing to use to play characters with superhuman Wisdom, which is often otherwise hard to express. I had a super-high Wis character (really high-powered game, we're talking triple digits here) who would brazenly stride forward and try to talk to monsters and the like because 'the story of the universe is richer for us learning the reason to fight rather than fighting blindly, and so I shall not be immediately attacked'.

Everyone else thought he was crazy when he e.g. went and talked to a corpse that was clearly in the process of rising as a zombie in a post-apocalyptic wasteland world, but it turned out that the zombies in this world actually were friendly and needed our help against a mutation that was spreading among their kind. There was no rational reason to expect that the zombie would be anything other than a usual zombie, but this GM in particular always liked doing twists on standard ideas and almost never ran 'see it, kill it' kinds of encounters.

[jedipotter]

So, in this situation, is it acceptable for me to fully participate in our group's mystery solving sessions, with ideas I have assumed to be coming from one of the more intelligent party members. Is this acceptable, or should I be limiting myself to purely in-character contributions.

This is less a question about my specific situation (I have more fun fully participating, and nobody in the group willl get upset about this), and more a general question. Should a player's contributions to the group always reflect contributions their character would make?

Well, the intresting thing is that almost all players, if stated out as characters, are only going to have 8-10 mental ability scores. So it is safe to say that if you the player can think of it, then your 9 INT orc is close to you.

[NichG]

Well, the intresting thing is that almost all players, if stated out as characters, are only going to have 8-10 mental ability scores. So it is safe to say that if you the player can think of it, then your 9 INT orc is close to you.

I'm not sure I see where this is coming from, since this estimate is lower than even the non-elite array would generate. Low level, sure, but is there anything really unrealistic that derives from having a 16 or even an 18 in a stat compared to having an 8 that drives this observation?

[jedipotter]

I'm not sure I see where this is coming from, since this estimate is lower than even the non-elite array would generate. Low level, sure, but is there anything really unrealistic that derives from having a 16 or even an 18 in a stat compared to having an 8 that drives this observation?

10 is average. Most people are average. Most people will fall between 8-12.

[tasw]

I'm currently part of an RP-Heavy investigation based campaign were the party is a group of city guardsmen who go around solving crimes. I joined in at the second session, so rather than make my usual skillmonkey character (they already had some of those) I made an Orc. My character has few skills that are relevant to an investigation (Besides intimidate), and most of the city hates him on sight (There is an orcish population, but they mostly stick to their own, walled-off district). I'm also the only party member with a negative intelligence, wisdom, and charisma.

In-Character Urjok earns his keep by kicking down doors (who needs lockpicks when you have Orc), tackling suspects, and hitting the occasional thug or (at one point) owlbear until it falls down.

however, as I player I'm somthing of a mystery hound. I made my orc because the party was already full of brainy skillmonkeys. However, when we're putting our heads together and trying to puzzle out the mystery, I like to participate without neccessarily limiting myself to ideas that an int 9 Orc whose investigative talents consist of asking "did you do it?" with increasing volume would come up with.

So, in this situation, is it acceptable for me to fully participate in our group's mystery solving sessions, with ideas I have assumed to be coming from one of the more intelligent party members. Is this acceptable, or should I be limiting myself to purely in-character contributions.

This is less a question about my specific situation (I have more fun fully participating, and nobody in the group willl get upset about this), and more a general question. Should a player's contributions to the group always reflect contributions their character would make?

Obviously I'm not talking about metagaming, which is rightfully taboo. But if a player has a habit of coming up with good strategies for the group, must they be playing a character with good charisma and knowledge: Strategy and Tactics? Or should the DM say "No, your Wizard dosn't know the first thing about tactics", then turn to the Ranger and make him come up with a battle plan.

I've been in this situation as a player a few times ( I like fighters). IMO for OOC feel free to fully participate. Orcs are from a culture not unlike most street gangs anyway. So for lots of types of crimes your character may have better knowledge or just instinctive intuition then his INT score, which is a broad spectrum of IQ / learned facts would lead you to think.

IC though I would keep him dumb, with the above caveat

[TuggyNE]

10 is average. Most people are average. Most people will fall between 8-12.

Many people will, yes; however, that's at odds with your previous statement that "almost all" players are on the low side of the range, and furthermore seems to ignore the possibility of selection bias, standard deviation, and so on. It's fairly likely that those with higher-than-normal mental abilities, even much higher, are disproportionately represented among a largely intellectual pursuit. Even without that, and assuming nothing more than a 3d6-in-order ability distribution, the odds of Joe Random Poster having a 13 or better in Int are fully 26%, and since observed intelligence seems to fit a bell curve fairly well, that does not seem unreasonable if you take 18 as "the most a normal person can have without being an absurd prodigy".

[Toy Killer]

May I suggest playing the Fool?

The fool is a common media trope. The guy that hangs around the party and as they get deeper and deeper into the think tank, he pulls them back into reality.

When the players start discussing things, just keep key facts that are known to be truths. when they start to get into deeper plans, bring them back to the basics.

[Krazzman]

Another thing I haven't read yet:

Education.

How much education has your Char seen?

I play a 14 Int, 14 Wis totemist. But due to never being educated properly and being illiterate I play him rather simple. Stuff like "On that paper you read from it said at dusk... there is always dusk somewhere." Sort of like going with stupid logic. He is moody in terms of Patience but can really show you around in the wild (despite not having Track).

So play him to the education he has seen. I've seen guys that had A-level degrees and they were like extra dumb. Like "But Germany has no shores because the Eastsea is a lake..." dumb.

[BayardSPSR]

There's always the option of having the character come up with brilliant ideas - and then immediately reject them, not believing they would actually work. On the other hand, you could play the common-sense character, and focus on practical ideas rather than mystery-solving association.

As has been said, 9 is average. It's possible this orc could throw out ideas all day - just they won't all be great. Or maybe when he does get the right ideas, he has a hard time expressing them. There are a lot of opportunities.

[supermonkeyjoe]

You could always contribute as a player, which seems like what you want to do but not necessarily as a character.

For example, you have a puzzle to be solved, all the players discuss it amongst themselves then everyone makes an intelligence check, or appropriate skill check to see which character actually came up with the solution.

[prufock]

In-Character Urjok earns his keep by kicking down doors (who needs lockpicks when you have Orc), tackling suspects, and hitting the occasional thug or (at one point) owlbear until it falls down.

however, as I player I'm somthing of a mystery hound. I made my orc because the party was already full of brainy skillmonkeys. However, when we're putting our heads together and trying to puzzle out the mystery, I like to participate without neccessarily limiting myself to ideas that an int 9 Orc whose investigative talents consist of asking "did you do it?" with increasing volume would come up with.

So, in this situation, is it acceptable for me to fully participate in our group's mystery solving sessions, with ideas I have assumed to be coming from one of the more intelligent party members. Is this acceptable, or should I be limiting myself to purely in-character contributions.

Unless you're making skill checks, your Int score doesn't actually limit your ability to contribute to problem solving in-game. The extent to which you wish to limit your character is a player decision. Even then, you can fluff it however you want in-character.

Maybe the orc, though not generally intelligent, has a knack for recognizing people's motivations or putting clues together. Maybe the orc, while the player is reasoning out a logical connection between data, simply has an insight. Maybe the orc, after the player has figured out who the culprit is, feels that he "smells guilty."

As an example from a different perspective, I once played an intelligent but insane assassin in a Star Wars campaign. As a player, I might be able to logically figure out the answer to a puzzle or mystery, or make a reasonable decision about what to do next. The character, however, would connect seemingly irrelevant information in an entirely illogical mishmash, but come to the same conclusions.

A 9 intelligence isn't that bad. It's on the low end of average. In the real world, Urjok would probably have a low-paying job, be mostly self-sufficient, but probably not doing his own taxes. None of that means that he can't figure out who the culprit is when he watches Columbo.

[Jaycemonde]

A 9 intelligence isn't that bad. It's on the low end of average. In the real world, Urjok would probably have a low-paying job, be mostly self-sufficient, but probably not doing his own taxes. None of that means that he can't figure out who the culprit is when he watches Columbo.

Beautifully summed up.

[Joe the Rat]

I was just rechecking the attribute descriptions. I can't see where "cleverness," "cunning," and "creativity" are located.

Because they aren't in the stats. They're the purview of the player.

Your character is not well-spoken, strong-minded, attentive, or good at giving sound explanations and predicting patterns (well, not much worse than the average citizen), but that doesn't mean you can't put a puzzle together. You just have to go about it in a (comparatively) simpler way.

[Kish]

This is less a question about my specific situation (I have more fun fully participating, and nobody in the group willl get upset about this), and more a general question. Should a player's contributions to the group always reflect contributions their character would make?
That depends on the individual group's preferences. The phrase "RP-Heavy Investigation Campaign" makes me think "yes," but you already said that your group doesn't mind you breaking character to think of OOC ideas, so.

[Black Jester]

First of all, telling other players your ideas ideas and insight out of character is one of the worst role-playing related ideas I have read in a while. Even with the best intentions, OOC talk is a nuisance the interrupts the game and spoils the mood of the game, and should be treated like someone having a conversation on the phone in the cinema .
In this special case of important conclusions, it's even worse than that. I have seen it and it has always, always felt horribly patronizing to me, constantly implying that whoever gets this great hint or advice couldn't figure it out on his own. I find that annoying when I just witness it, when someone "spoils" an idea like that to me, it effectively diminishes the game for me, as it robs me of the gratification for coming up with the very same idea. This is not the respectful and fun way I want players in my group interact and it is certainly not the way I want to interact with any of my fellow players.

When it comes to roleplaying a character's listed stats, yes, I think that is to be expected, and a player who constantly oversteps the established traits of his or her character due to his personal convenience is doing something wrong, the same way any player who ignores a disadvantage or trait is when it becomes inconvenient. If you created the character as it is and you picked its abilities and traits and as such, I think it is a bit odd and slightly immature to expect to only get the benefits without bearing the consequences.
(My solution by the way would just to increase the Orc's Intelligence score to a degree you are comfortable with and leave it at that. Being true to the chosen character while being able to play it true to the concept are certainly much more rewarding and important than an insincere and impossible declaration of intent like balancing).

[BRC]

First of all, telling other players your ideas ideas and insight out of character is one of the worst role-playing related ideas I have read in a while. Even with the best intentions, OOC talk is a nuisance the interrupts the game and spoils the mood of the game, and should be treated like someone having a conversation on the phone in the cinema .
In this special case of important conclusions, it's even worse than that. I have seen it and it has always, always felt horribly patronizing to me, constantly implying that whoever gets this great hint or advice couldn't figure it out on his own. I find that annoying when I just witness it, when someone "spoils" an idea like that to me, it effectively diminishes the game for me, as it robs me of the gratification for coming up with the very same idea. This is not the respectful and fun way I want players in my group interact and it is certainly not the way I want to interact with any of my fellow players.
Except that no individual player is the "Chosen Mystery Solver", we all sit down together as a group, compare the evidence, and seek to draw conclusions. I can accept the argument that all this mystery-solving should occur in-character, but you act like by helping my fellow players I am somehow ruining their experience and implying they could not figure it out on their own. They're not supposed to figure it out on their own, we as a group are supposed to figure it out together. I am part of that group, therefore solving the mystery is just as much my job as it is thiers, I have access to the same information they do, I'm just another brain working on the problem.
That's like saying "I hate it when we're fighting a dragon and another party member attacks it and deals damage. That diminishes the game for me, and robs me of the gratification for killing that very same dragon".
By your logic nobody should be able to talk to one another, since by collaborating at all each of us is insulting the others by saying that they couldn't figure it out by themselves and would therefore be "Spoiling" each other by helping.

And for the record, OOC communication happens all the time in this group, as well as in basically every group I've ever played in. We tell jokes, ask questions, get drinks from the fridge, ponder outloud, ect. The only real difference is that the rest of the party all has at least 12 int and speak in something approximating their normal voice and diction when talking in-character. I do my in-character dialouge in a deeper "Ork Voice" with intentionally simplified or misunderstood word choice. For example, my Orc brags about his skill at capturing suspects by proudly describing himself as "Apprehensive", which he is convinced means "Is good at apprehending people". The result is that it can be harder to tell when the rest of the party is speaking in-character vs Out of character, but with me it's always clear when I'm talking as BRC vs Urjock Stonechucker.


When it comes to roleplaying a character's listed stats, yes, I think that is to be expected, and a player who constantly oversteps the established traits of his or her character due to his personal convenience is doing something wrong, the same way any player who ignores a disadvantage or trait is when it becomes inconvenient. If you created the character as it is and you picked its abilities and traits and as such, I think it is a bit odd and slightly immature to expect to only get the benefits without bearing the consequences.
(My solution by the way would just to increase the Orc's Intelligence score to a degree you are comfortable with and leave it at that. Being true to the chosen character while being able to play it true to the concept are certainly much more rewarding and important than an insincere and impossible declaration of intent like balancing).
This is all fine and was never in question (Though we do have a 12 int paladin who roleplays like his character is an idiot, but he said have statted his character as lower-int if he didn't need the skill points). I do roleplay my character as slightly dim, and I am penalized for my low mental stats everytime my character might need to talk to somebody or make a skill check (low-int means few skills). When it's time to throw down with some thugs the party Bard and Wizard step back and let my character kick ass and take prisoners. When it's time to follow up a lead, the Bard does the talking, when its time to investigate what spell auras were found at the scene the Wizard makes the skill checks.

Also, when I said "RP heavy investigation capaign", I mean that most of the problem-solving is done through roleplay rather than dice-rolling. The DM's first rule is "Roleplay over Stats", so stuff like convincing somebody to help us is more about coming up with a good argument than rolling well on a diplomacy check. I wouldn't say the group takes Roleplay any more seriously than normal, they just do a lot more of it in this campaign.

[Black Jester]

You don't need a "chosen mystery solver" to have situation where a character and therefore by proxy one specific player - has to come up with a smart solution or conclusion on their own. I don't know how you guys handle things, but from time to time PCs are on their own, the groups split up and so on.
And these are just the most blatant examples where a player has to think on their own to make a relevant decision.
By acting as a prompter of ideas without letting your fellow player can come up with a solution themselves, you are taking this opportunity from them and since coming to logical conclusions from the hints at hands and solving riddles is actually the very key element of a mystery plot and a very gratifying experience in general (you know, this moment of minor enlightenment when the stuff starts to make sense), this is a violation of boundaries.
Aaaand since doing so basically implies that said fellow player couldn't solve the problem on their own, it is also a not so subtle insult of his or her perceived intelligence.

And, this is very much not like helping someone in a fight, because that fight is basically a series of more or less random numbers set into context. It is also much more an activity of a character (yes coordinated by the player) and not so much of the player themselves and while the player's thoughts and tactics et al. certainly play a role, the random element of the dice arbitrarily change the outcome anyway. The solving the riddle part on the other hand is specifically all the player's responsibility, all the way (except when you solve the cases by Intelligence tests, but if I understood you correctly you are explicitly against that solution).
If you want an analogy in a combat situation, imagine that you play a wizard and I constantly tell you which spells you should use.

[BRC]

You don't need a "chosen mystery solver" to have situation where a character and therefore by proxy one specific player - has to come up with a smart solution or conclusion on their own. I don't know how you guys handle things, but from time to time PCs are on their own, the groups split up and so on.
And these are just the most blatant examples where a player has to think on their own to make a relevant decision.
By acting as a prompter of ideas without letting your fellow player can come up with a solution themselves, you are taking this opportunity from them and since coming to logical conclusions from the hints at hands and solving riddles is actually the very key element of a mystery plot and a very gratifying experience in general (you know, this moment of minor enlightenment when the stuff starts to make sense), this is a violation of boundaries.
Aaaand since doing so basically implies that said fellow player couldn't solve the problem on their own, it is also a not so subtle insult of his or her perceived intelligence.
You seem to be be making an assumption here that when I'm talking about solving the mystery, I'm talking about a situation where a single character is the only one with all the relevant information, which is basically never the case. Even when our characters split up to follow various leads (we've stopped doing this because it dosn't actually save us any real-world time and means players spend time waiting for their turn, which is never fun), we would always regroup to put our heads together and examine the clues. In every DnD game I've played, Characters are almost never alone (Since splitting the party means the rest of the group is just waiting for their turn, which is not fun). So I'm not sure why you would assume that i'm talking about situations where one character/player is in charge of solving the mystery. Sure that happens sometimes, but its hardly a standard case, and my ability/right to contribute in those situations has nothing to do with my character's int score.

In the situations I am describing, the only thing that differentiates me from the rest of the players is that I am playing a low-int character. That may limit what tools I have available in order to help solve the mystery (I limit myself to simple conclusions, or conclusions somebody with my character's background would reach), but it dosn't make it any less my responsibility to help. The question at hand is should those limitations be in place? Should I be altering my contributions based on my character's Int score, or merely altering how I present them.

Unless you're saying I should arbitrarily sacrifice my own enjoyment by staying silent all the time in order to allow the other players the satisfaction of coming up with ideas I had. I'm okay with the idea of limiting my contributions to ideas my character would have, but you seem to be arguing that I should not contribute at all, because by doing so I am robbing my fellow players of an achievement that is somehow exclusively theirs.




And, this is very much not like helping someone in a fight, because that fight is basically a series of more or less random numbers set into context. It is also much more an activity of a character (yes coordinated by the player) and not so much of the player themselves and while the player's thoughts and tactics et al. certainly play a role, the random element of the dice arbitrarily change the outcome anyway. The solving the riddle part on the other hand is specifically all the player's responsibility, all the way (except when you solve the cases by Intelligence tests, but if I understood you correctly you are explicitly against that solution).
If you want an analogy in a combat situation, imagine that you play a wizard and I constantly tell you which spells you should use.

Except that analogy happens all the time, and is a regular part of gameplay in every group I've seen. It even gets roleplayed out, the Fighter shouts "Fireball the archers! I'll take the Ogre!", or the Ranger is told to send his animal companion to flank with the Rogue, the Cleric is told to focus on the Skeletons while the Axe-wielding Barbarian handles the Zombies.

It's called teamwork and strategy.

[Black Jester]

You seem to be be making an assumption here that when I'm talking about solving the mystery, I'm talking about a situation where a single character is the only one with all the relevant information, which is basically never the case. Even when our characters split up to follow various leads (we've stopped doing this because it dosn't actually save us any real-world time and means players spend time waiting for their turn, which is never fun), we would always regroup to put our heads together and examine the clues. In every DnD game I've played, Characters are almost never alone (Since splitting the party means the rest of the group is just waiting for their turn, which is not fun). So I'm not sure why you would assume that i'm talking about situations where one character/player is in charge of solving the mystery. Sure that happens sometimes, but its hardly a standard case, and my ability/right to contribute in those situations has nothing to do with my character's int score.

It is very likely that our play styles and our preferences differ, but I consider this "everybody is together all the time" remarkably silly and even counterproductive. If it's necessary to talk to a suspect, do you all talk at him simultaneously? If you have to interrogate someone, do you make it a group exercise With everyone talking over each other? If you need to go the library /archive/source of information, do you all read the same chronicle or research the same articles?
I consider sacrificing the setting verisimilitude to the impatience of any player a rather bad deal, especially when you have any ticking clock plot devices (which logically works only with intime time. That is maybe gimmicky, but worth it). The part about not dividing the group might work for a group of travelers in the wild (and even then only if you gloss over some preferably more private moments) but for an investigative game, the consequences of said behaviour only work if you never, ever spend a thought on how the actual scenes play out, meaning they are effectively antagonistic to establish a mind's eye scenery.
Besides, from time to time, solo scenes are important to allow everybody to have their moment of glory and a scene where they can shine individually. Like all tools it loses its effectiveness when overused, but as a pronounced rare incident, it is quite empowering for the player in question.
But yes, the pooling of information and the discussion - in character of course -is a staple of the genre and a necessary tool to share information and ideas and it certainly has its time and place, but that too loses its effectiveness and poignancy if it is reduced to constant background chatter.


In the situations I am describing, the only thing that differentiates me from the rest of the players is that I am playing a low-int character. That may limit what tools I have available in order to help solve the mystery (I limit myself to simple conclusions, or conclusions somebody with my character's background would reach), but it dosn't make it any less my responsibility to help. The question at hand is should those limitations be in place? Should I be altering my contributions based on my character's Int score, or merely altering how I present them.

See, this is an argumentation I can support. There is a difference between "helping to solve the riddle" and "solving the riddle for them" and perhaps because I didn't read your comments careful enough or perhaps it wasn't clear enough, I have assumed the latter, more competitive approach. If I missed your point significantly, I am sorry. Perhaps i am much too used to a certain (infuriating) type of know-it-all players who are both impatient and scorn their fellow players whenever not following their advice (or orders) does not lead to immediate success.

[BRC]

It is very likely that our play styles and our preferences differ, but I consider this "everybody is together all the time" remarkably silly and even counterproductive. If it's necessary to talk to a suspect, do you all talk at him simultaneously? If you have to interrogate someone, do you make it a group exercise With everyone talking over each other? If you need to go the library /archive/source of information, do you all read the same chronicle or research the same articles?
I consider sacrificing the setting verisimilitude to the impatience of any player a rather bad deal, especially when you have any ticking clock plot devices (which logically works only with intime time. That is maybe gimmicky, but worth it). The part about not dividing the group might work for a group of travelers in the wild (and even then only if you gloss over some preferably more private moments) but for an investigative game, the consequences of said behaviour only work if you never, ever spend a thought on how the actual scenes play out, meaning they are effectively antagonistic to establish a mind's eye scenery.
Besides, from time to time, solo scenes are important to allow everybody to have their moment of glory and a scene where they can shine individually. Like all tools it loses its effectiveness when overused, but as a pronounced rare incident, it is quite empowering for the player in question.
But yes, the pooling of information and the discussion - in character of course -is a staple of the genre and a necessary tool to share information and ideas and it certainly has its time and place, but that too loses its effectiveness and poignancy if it is reduced to constant background chatter.

For the first few sesions we split up quite a bit. The Bard and the Swashbuckler would go follow up one lead, Me and the Paladin would go look into another (usually the one that required less diplomacy), and the Wizard would stay at the precinct an run tests using his alchemy lab. While more realistic and fitting with the feeling we were trying to evoke, we found that this playstyle was less fun than having the entire team go around together. If we're talking to a suspect one or two of us may be conducting the interrogation, but generally speaking everybody else is standing outside the cell (a running theme is how underfunded the city guard is. Our precinct is just a few desks, a secured supply closet/evidence locker, and a single cell that doubles as an alchemy lab when we don't have anybody in it), so players have a good reason to be engaged with the scene. Before with our 2/2/1 split the majority of the players were not doing anything but waiting, which was not very fun. We don't do *Everything* together, but generally we're all in the same location working towards the same immediate goal. The idea is that at any point all the characters are, if not "On Camera", capable of joining the scene quickly.


This may sacrifice versimilitude, but it means we're having more fun, and that is a tradeoff my group is more than willing to make.