Should INT affect roleplaying?

[hennasmith]

I'm running a few modules to give our regular DM a chance to play. He's playing a fighter (he wanted to get "back to basics"). His scores aren't bad, but his INT is a 9, and his CHA is 8. We generally play, when rolling stats, you can roll 4d6, drop the lowest, and choose where each number goes, or place 18, 15, 15 wherever you need your best stats, then roll 3d6 straight down, no choice where those numbers go. That's the method he chose, and a couple of his scores really show it. He has the lowest INT and CHA in the group.

My conundrum stems from his rollplaying. He's playing a leader and solving problems, directing strategy, etc. Should I say anything? I don't want to screw up group dynamics, and IRL he's a natural leader, plus our usual DM so he's used to the strategy. And I can understand that it's a hard habit to break, but I kind of feel like he should be playing what he rolled. So, how would you handle this?

[Honest Tiefling]

Depends. How is everyone else dealing with it? If he's say, not allowing a person to play the diplomancer when they invested the skills for it, that's probably not good. If everyone is having a good time...Well. Of course, that also depends on if YOU are having a good time.

Also, how heavy RP are the games you normally play with him?

[JaronK]

For me at least, stats should be role played. When I play high Int low Wis characters, I'm constantly coming up with complex plans that require a lot of game knowledge to put together, but not self editing for common sense at all (in true murderhobo style!). When playing high Wis low Int characters, I'm the voice of reason for the party but I seldom make my own ideas. And when I'm low Int low Wis, I tend to come up with pretty much the same plan every time (for example, my Mineral Warrior character always had a plan A of "Charge the enemy and hit them" and a plan B of "Dig underneath, pop up, and hit them!"

JaronK

[ArcturusV]

It depends on what you mean by "Leader". It doesn't take high intelligence, wisdom, or charisma, to be a leader. Just look at human history for lots of examples. What it does mean is knowing what people are good at, and letting them do it, or reining them in as needed.

Also keep in mind that 9 int isn't quite the drooling, barely able to wipe his own ass, moron that people often make it out to be. 9 Int is average. 9 Int is the C average student. He's not hopeless at all. And since he is trained as a Fighter it might make sense that his "C average" student intellect/history reflects someone who might be a good NCO type (Knows how to get things done and lead people in small groups/combat) but isn't exactly trained in other areas, and will sit back to let the "Eggheads" do their thing there.

[Slipperychicken]

I see these threads a lot; you want him to roleplay Int 9, so you dumb him down to approximate the character better. What would you do if his character's Int was 38?


his INT is a 9, and his CHA is 8.

That's only slightly below average.

If you really want to enforce it; when he tries to do something smart, just make him roll Knowledge for it. Or if he tries to convince someone to do something, make him roll Charisma. But also do that for all the other characters (including NPCs), because it's only fair that they would also be constrained by the same game-mechanical framework.

[Firechanter]

My conundrum stems from his rollplaying. He's playing a leader and solving problems, directing strategy, etc. [...] I kind of feel like he should be playing what he rolled. So, how would you handle this?

...which just goes to show that rolling stats is a bad idea, when it bars people from playing the character they want to play.

Sorry, I really don't mean to troll, but your problem is entirely homemade.

[ArcturusV]

Well, I wouldn't say it's a Stat Rolling problem. If he did a point buy? He'd probably STILL have 18 Str, 15 Con, etc, and only a 9/8 in Int and Cha. So I feel like that's kinda immaterial.

Maybe if he ended up with a 4 Int or something, then you could say it's all the evils of random generation. But at 9 Int it's more the Evils of people thinking 16 in "Average" and 9 means you're mentally deficient.

[aeauseth]

I'd prefer players roleplay their characters, but it doens't always happen. At 8 I generally don't penalize the player, but anything lower I do.

For example I might have then roll an INT check (roll their INT or lower) before they can proceed with an intellegent idea they have.

I have the same problem with players who metagame and use player knowledge of creatures that their character doesn't know about. When I catch them at it I change the creature to have different (better) abilities. I remember a player got exactly 35ft from an UmberHulk, stating to the party that their special ability only went 30ft. Yet his character had never seen an umberhulk, and had no Knowledge abilities. I was very dissapointed at this metagame foul, so I gave the umberhulk a 40ft ability. :smallcool:

[Pseudo_Nym]

The game's about fun, and limitations on what you can and cannot do aren't. Encourage him to roleplay, but don't enforce it. 8-12 is all close enough to average to be hardly noticeable, anyway.

[JellyPooga]

Mental stats, both high and low, should be roleplayed appropriately and to the best of your ability. This swings both ways; someone trying to bat above their weight, so to speak, by playing a character much more intelligent or charismatic than they are should be given out-of-character assistance. Similarly, playing a character of lower mental faculty than yourself, you should rein back on whichever aspect you, personally, excel at when your character does not.

As a GM, this can be hard to judge. Bashing someone constantly for "not roleplaying their character properly" by coming up with brilliant plans with a thick-as-a-brick character is clearly going to impinge on their fun, whilst constantly giving advice/suggestions could seem insulting to the player in question.

The best approach, I've found, is to periodically (every couple of sessions or so) ask how each players' roleplaying is representing their characters' stats or for them to write/tell some heretofore unknown information about their character (whether that be a personality trait, bit of background, goals and desires, etc.). This forces the players to constantly assess the way they're roleplaying. It's easy to lose track of the ideas you had at character creation in the face of an epic adventure, for example, so being reminded to "touch base" every now and then gives players a reminder not to get too carried away with their own (player) ideas and to get "back into character" if they were drifting.

As others have said Int 9, Cha 8 is hardly a drooling moron. He's moderately unlikable or uninspiring (for some reason) and could easily be merely staid and/or unimaginative rather than truly dim in the smarts department. He's not going to be the first pick at the dance and won't be winning any chess tournaments, but that doesn't mean he can't come up with a good tactical plan if that's where the focus of his training lies (and as a Fighter, it does!).

[hennasmith]

[...]I was very dissapointed at this metagame foul, so I gave the umberhulk a 40ft ability. :smallcool:

This made me LOL. :smallbiggrin:

Thanks for all the insight! I'll probably just let it be, unless he's planning something brilliant/convoluted, then maybe roll some kind of check on it.

[Firechanter]

Well, I wouldn't say it's a Stat Rolling problem. If he did a point buy? He'd probably STILL have 18 Str, 15 Con, etc, and only a 9/8 in Int and Cha. So I feel like that's kinda immaterial.

Well, in _that_ case I'd say it _is_ the player's own fault. That would be at least a 32 point buy, which totally puts you in the position to have decent to high stats everywhere -- for example, 16/14/14/14/10/10. If you consciously decide to minmax to the red, you should indeed accept the "min" if you want to enjoy the "max".

[kaminiwa]

If someone has an INT of 26, do you roleplay this by simply giving them the answer to riddles and puzzles? If someone has a CHA of 26, do random strangers just fawn over them and help them out?

If you're not rewarding high attributes, it seems unfair to punish mildly below average attributes.

Besides, mechanically, D&D really punishes certain classes for emphasizing intelligence. I don't mind Paladins routinely having 2 skill points per level, but I'd find it frustrating if they weren't ever allowed to have good ideas. Equally, it's nice to have the brilliant wizard who couldn't tactic his way out of a wet paper bag. It gives more variety to roleplaying.

---

That said, I have occasionally rewarded high-INT characters with extra time and the ability to consult the group OOC. High WIS characters get rewarded with the ability to "retcon" in any common sense preparations. And High CHA characters are often likable even if they say utterly stupid things - "I want to wear your skin" must just be some sort of foreign compliment, not at all a threat :D

I generally invoke this for characters who have a 24+ stat, though; it's a way of capturing what a truly super-human mind can do, and "24" is the first truly super-human point (A 20th level human w/ a natural 18 can get a 23 from level bumps :))

The key emphasis there, however, is on rewarding people. It's not fun to be forced to play a stupid, tactically inept barbarian just because you rolled poorly. I have most certainly had fun playing them voluntarily, though :smallbiggrin:

[Abaddona]

Actually being competent leader or tactician in micro scale in my opinion doesn''t require high mental stats. Even more complicated plans relying on game mechanics like using forged documents to enter guarded areas are ok - after all character should know basic rules of his world (or would you rather rule that to know your own name you must succed on DC11 knowledge local check). Only accurate execution (coming from plan to poison BBEG is simple, the trick lies in doing so succesfully) of such plans and knowing ways in which rules interact with each other (specifically: spells) should require higher stats.
You must remember that mental stats aren't also some sort of average - person with high charisma can be ugly but her personality is so strong that she is liked by everyone, someone with average intelligence and wisdom can have problems with academic knowledge and be easily swayed by others but at the same time he can have really great combat intuition allowing him to choose the most optimal strategy.
Just make sure he will stick to his choices rather than changing his character concept freely depending on what is more favorable for him.
And there is also one thing with metagaming - sometimes player playing party face or skillmonkey simply isn't creative enough to be efficient - and watching as your efforts are wasted cause other player didn't notice something can be frustrating - but sometimes even highly inteligent person can be too absorbed by her thoughts so she didn't notice something really obvious.

[NichG]

IMO no, it shouldn't, especially in a system like 3.5 that makes you choose so often and so sharply between 'what actually works' and 'what is cool/fun'.

I'll add to that that having a player with the OOC ability to lead is a marvelous thing, and that particular resource is one the DM should encourage as much as possible rather than try to prevent in the name of 'stat accuracy'. I've been in games where no one wanted to take charge that just drag on and on and basically the DM is forced to throw ambushes and stuff to make something happen. Having a proactive, intelligent player who is willing to take charge means you can actually have a party that actively seeks solutions to problems around them, which saves the DM a ton of work and in general makes the game flow better.

[Slipperychicken]

limitations on what you can and cannot do aren't [fun].

Though it might seem like that at times, it isn't always so; it can be quite entertaining to have limits to joke about them and/or roleplay them.


Most RPGs' rules do provide limits, after all, and I bet most people on this forum would say they often enhance the experience.

[Chronos]

You really should try to roleplay the limits of your abilities. A character with 8 or 9 Int is less smart than average, and so probably won't be coming up with most of the party's plans (unless they're not very good plans). That's not enough below average, though, that you can't ever come up with good plans.

On the high end of the scale, you should also try to accurately role-play someone who's smarter (or wiser or more charismatic) than you. There are obviously limits on the extent to which this is possible, but it's reasonable for the DM to give you some amount of extra information, or more time to think, or to interpret your actions in a better light.

Either of these is of course a skill, and some people are better at it than others (the wisest person I know has done a great job playing low-wis characters, for instance). But then, some people are better at optimizing character builds than others, too, and nobody thinks that's a problem. There are player skills involved in every aspect of the game.

[ryu]

Though it might seem like that at times, it isn't always so; it can be quite entertaining to have limits to joke about them and/or roleplay them.


Most RPGs' rules do provide limits, after all, and I bet most people on this forum would say they often enhance the experience.

Limitations on actual abilities directly relevant to gameplay that get rolled back as you level are delightful. Arbitrary, silly limitations based on predetermined number points can die in a fire. Looking at YOU pokemon series with your allowing me to put an entire bicycle, three fishing rods, two fossils, and several thousands more pounds of various foods and beverages in my backpack while not allowing me to carry any more repels!

[denthor]

Short answer yes it should affect the roleplay.


Now he is party leader. he is solving complicated problems? Or is the answer up the middle?

What is his Wisdom if it higher than aveage then he can plan and execute but not make quick or decisive adjustment in the heat of battle. This does not mean there are glaring flaws in his plans. He is unable to change with out time to plan again.

The Charasima thing is a little more complex. He may not be able to articulate his words with matching body language. People hear the short curt wording and he does not project confidence in his plan. He could have a habit of scatching his head so people thing he has fleas? Bad foot odor(Al Bundy).

He can have other annoying habits. I one time ran a hobbit with a 6 Cha. She had a habit of approaching someone giving a suggestion. If the person gave any hesitation to following up she turned on heel and left the area.

Example above She approached an Elf about meeting a human wizard. Humans were not particularlly liked in the game world. When the Elven Wizard aristcrat said Human? and started to contiplate I turned away from the DM. The DM imeadately asked what my Characters Cha was?

I said 6.

His reply you just proved it.

[Abaddona]

Yeah, roleplaying limitations can be great fun - but it highly depends on your DM and type of game. Simply - rules aren't very forgiving and unless your DM won't specifically alter quest to accomodate your character behaviour then making sub-optimal choices may result in failed quest or even TPK (for example rash and simple minded half-orc barbarian trying to intimidate the king - it's great roleplaying but it will almost certainly result in prison or even meeting with the executioner).

[Juntao112]

I'm running a few modules to give our regular DM a chance to play. He's playing a fighter (he wanted to get "back to basics"). His scores aren't bad, but his INT is a 9, and his CHA is 8. We generally play, when rolling stats, you can roll 4d6, drop the lowest, and choose where each number goes, or place 18, 15, 15 wherever you need your best stats, then roll 3d6 straight down, no choice where those numbers go. That's the method he chose, and a couple of his scores really show it. He has the lowest INT and CHA in the group.

My conundrum stems from his rollplaying. He's playing a leader and solving problems, directing strategy, etc. Should I say anything? I don't want to screw up group dynamics, and IRL he's a natural leader, plus our usual DM so he's used to the strategy. And I can understand that it's a hard habit to break, but I kind of feel like he should be playing what he rolled. So, how would you handle this?

Int 9, Cha 8? Simple. He's slightly less intelligent than average, and not naturally gifted as a speaker. But its not impossible for him to lead; Cha 8 is common among dwarves and they evidently manage to lead themselves.

[Thanatosia]

As a poster above indicated, a 9 is not 'bad'. It's below average - barely. If he had a 4 or 5 then yeah, maybe you should ask him to reign it in, but statistically speaking, with a 9 his character is probably within 1 or 2 points of what he actualy IS 'IRL'. The Generous roll systems most people use to generate 'heroic' types may get us in the habit of thinking that a 12 or 14 is just 'average' and anything below 10 is horrible... but that's just not the case.

I also agree with another poster that since it's pretty much impossible for an average player to 'play' a 19+ int (even with some dm flubbing here and there), it's also fair game for him to 'round upwards' on the other end of the spectrum too.

The INt Score has mechanical effects on the game already... he knows less skills and less languages then smarter people would, and he has a penalty on knowledge skills and other int based checks. Should probably leave well enough alone at that IMO.

[Shalist]

It's really no worse than someone with 8 strength roleplaying that they regularly beat orcs at arm-wrestling, someone with 8 con roleplaying that they like run marathons, or someone with 8 dexterity roleplaying that they're part of a famous troupe of acrobatics and marksmen.

Really though, being pedantic (referring to my own opinions, mind you) is all well and great for the Internet, but if ignoring or changing a few things here and there makes the game funner for the entire group, then ultimately that's what you should roll with *shrug*.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Ideally, every stat and number should be reflected in roleplay.

[Zanos]

You don't need to be smart to have good tactical sense. That can simply come from years of experiencing.

It'd give the player a pass on coming up with combat strategies if their character has a past of being experienced in combat. A 9 in int is barely below average anyway.

It seems kind of silly to roleplay all mental stats anyway. A 30+ int wizard is smarter than the smartest person who ever lived, how do you RP that? Most people just revert to "You could not possibly understand the flow of the arcane that brought me to this juncture", but that gets tiresome. Stats should be RP'd somewhat, but I wouldn't put hard limits on it.

[Prince Raven]

It seems kind of silly to roleplay all mental stats anyway. A 30+ int wizard is smarter than the smartest person who ever lived, how do you RP that?

Metagame the whole way through, when anyone calls you on it you can justify it with a massive INT score.

Personally I think you should factor everything into account, stats, alignment, backstory, etc. when roleplaying. I'll roleplay my character even in combat situations. 6 intelligence & 6 wisdom? Make dumb decisions, get people killed, get yourself killed, have fun.

[Tengu_temp]

Does he at least have a good (13+) wisdom? If so, he can play the laconic type of leader who finds solutions through a combination of experience, common sense and instinct, rather than logic.

But yes, in general, if you want your character to be good at something, at least have the decency to put a score of 12 or more into it. And 8 might be only slightly below average stat-wise, but in many cases (like when you use point buy) it's the lowest you can go, so it can still be played as noticably below average. Also, an average human is not that bright in the first place.

[ryu]

And yet ''average'' humans can still be plenty good at coming up with simple and effective plans. Figuring out the most efficient and safe route to murdering things and taking their stuff is NOT rocket science until intelligent spellcasters get involved people.

[hennasmith]

Does he at least have a good (13+) wisdom? If so, he can play the laconic type of leader who finds solutions through a combination of experience, common sense and instinct, rather than logic.


I've got a sleeping baby on my lap, so I can't double check his character sheet, but I'm pretty sure his WIS was only an 11. Not low, but not really high either.

[sktarq]

If it is an issue talk to him about it. Often you can figure out fun "compromises". For example in a party of supposedly smart characters who were basically royal investigators -(Eberron King's Citadel Unit in Sharn) I had the dumb character. Int 9/8 Barbarian Warforged. Problem was I happen to be the best PLAYER at this type of game. (Part of why I played against type actually) So the DM made a deal while we were talking about my character build. We made him "slow" he thinks things over until he comes up with a brilliant idea. Normally he did this overnight when everyone else slept. So if I had a "clever" thought or plan I'd hold it until the next day in game time. Int the stat is a sum of a whole lot of parts of thinking. Perhaps he is amazingly tactical and has strategic analysis down but has no memory-is constantly forgetting things....like who they are supposed to rescue or what kid of gem they are hunting.
It takes working with your player and finding a way for the character "flaw" to bring more fun and better stories to the table.

[Totema]

I, and most DMs I've played with, like it when stats in general are RPed but aren't bothered too much when they're not. There's always a workaround that lies in the gap between story and gameplay.

For example, one of my current players is an archtypical Big Stupid Fighter. But he also likes to play the leader a lot, which mainly means coming up with a lot of the plans and tactics. How is that supposed to work? Well, the halfling wizard with high INT to match acts as his adviser. The plans actually "come from" him, even though it's the fighter's player who actually makes them.

[Jeff the Green]

For me at least, stats should be role played. When I play high Int low Wis characters, I'm constantly coming up with complex plans that require a lot of game knowledge to put together, but not self editing for common sense at all (in true murderhobo style!). When playing high Wis low Int characters, I'm the voice of reason for the party but I seldom make my own ideas. And when I'm low Int low Wis, I tend to come up with pretty much the same plan every time (for example, my Mineral Warrior character always had a plan A of "Charge the enemy and hit them" and a plan B of "Dig underneath, pop up, and hit them!"

JaronK

Basically this, but I feel like a high enough Int can cover somewhat for a low Wis and vice versa. A very high Int character won't instantly know something's an insane idea, but can play through the consequences of each plan basically as soon as he thinks of them.

[ericgrau]

He is still nearly average and should be capable of a lot. I do agree he shouldn't be able to figure out everything with great expertise. But if it's related to his class like battle tactics, let him go to town. If it's a completely unrelated clever plan, it might still be ok 2/3 of the time for an average guy or even someone who is a little bit below average.

And anyone may attempt to lead and do so successfully even with a bad charisma. Crowds won't be rushing to follow his every whim, he may rub some people the wrong way and not make a lot of friends, but he shouldn't be horrible at it nor incapable.

So... mentals should affect roleplaying a little but they shouldn't be shackles that bind someone and keep him from participating in things besides swinging big sticks.

[SethoMarkus]

I see these threads a lot; you want him to roleplay Int 9, so you dumb him down to approximate the character better. What would you do if his character's Int was 38?



That's only slightly below average.

If you really want to enforce it; when he tries to do something smart, just make him roll Knowledge for it. Or if he tries to convince someone to do something, make him roll Charisma. But also do that for all the other characters (including NPCs), because it's only fair that they would also be constrained by the same game-mechanical framework.

I didn't even bother reading further after I saw this post. This is the answer. If the fighter had a 4-6 INT it may be a different story, but a 9 INT is so close to average that I doubt you should be able to tell the difference. And a good combat leader doesn't need to be "intelligent" or charismatic. As long as the character is experienced and respected the concept works. If you really want to make a distinction, play out that he/she is knowledgeable regarding combat and tactics, but is naive/ignorant of politics, (non-battlefield) history, etc.

[Magnetic]

He has the lowest INT and CHA in the group.

My conundrum stems from his rollplaying. He's playing a leader and solving problems, directing strategy, etc. Should I say anything? I don't want to screw up group dynamics, and IRL he's a natural leader, plus our usual DM so he's used to the strategy. And I can understand that it's a hard habit to break, but I kind of feel like he should be playing what he rolled. So, how would you handle this?

You should hug him. I am serious.

You have a player who is solving problems and using strategy.

Be thankful for that.

You DO NOT KNOW what is like to be a group where no one is willing or able to do those things. It is awful beyond my ability to describe.

I have been in groups of experienced players where, without exaggeration, mundane locked doors and walls present a serious strain on the groups problem solving ability.

For me, the entertainment value of a gaming session is largely determined by the intelligence and creativity of the participants. If it is the same way for you, then you should not even be contemplating taking steps to make a player "dumb it down".

[Squirrel_Dude]

You should hug him. I am serious.

You have a player who is solving problems and using strategy.

Be thankful for that.

You DO NOT KNOW what is like to be a group where no one is willing or able to do those things. It is awful beyond my ability to describe.

I have been in groups of experienced players where, without exaggeration, mundane locked doors and walls present a serious strain on the groups problem solving ability.

For me, the entertainment value of a gaming session is largely determined by the intelligence and creativity of the participants. If it is the same way for you, then you should not even be contemplating taking steps to make a player "dumb it down".I know how you feel, brah. I've watched a situation where a party with a monk (stereotypical high dex, ranks in tumble monk) didn't know how to get past an obstacle course.

They resorted to the sorcerer trying to use her fire fairy abilities to melt the iron holding the place together, and then freaking out when that wasn't working instantly.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah. How things happen like "We need to get into this merchant city. We're on legitimate business. We have papers for entry. The guard asked to see my papers... oh crap, lets see if we can figure out someway to tunnel through the wall instead without being found!" :smallsigh:

[LordBlades]

Ideally, every stat and number should be reflected in roleplay.

The problem is that with mental stats is a bit tricky to do.

It's not hard to RP lower mental stats (or at least understand what you should do, not all people are that good at playing dumb, but most people understand what 'dumb' is).

RP-ing higher stats (especially significantly higher ones) on the other hand is much harder. Assuming most of us would be somewhere in the 10-14 Int/Wis/Cha range in D&D terms, I believe it's nigh impossible to conceptualize how a creature with 30+ int/wis/cha would see the world.

[tiltedwindmill]

After hearing the comments range mostly from...
(all stats should be roleplayed) to (it's not really that bad, and if its good overall, let it slide)
... I would like to propose the far alternative.
I advocate never roleplaying your stats!

Ridiculous you say? Yeah, somewhat... but honestly, as depicted by penny arcade here :
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11
D&D is very different from group to group. To me, controlling my character to the best of my ability IS the game. It isn't roleplay in the sense of "what do I think my character would do?" but rather in the sense of "what would I do if I were in my character's place?" That is what is fun for me. I hope/think that is what is fun for the rest of my group.

Figuring out what the best thing for your group is can be aided by talking to people on forums, but in my experience, is best deduced by talking to your group.

[Thrudd]

After hearing the comments range mostly from...
(all stats should be roleplayed) to (it's not really that bad, and if its good overall, let it slide)
... I would like to propose the far alternative.
I advocate never roleplaying your stats!

Ridiculous you say? Yeah, somewhat... but honestly, as depicted by penny arcade here :
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/01/11
D&D is very different from group to group. To me, controlling my character to the best of my ability IS the game. It isn't roleplay in the sense of "what do I think my character would do?" but rather in the sense of "what would I do if I were in my character's place?" That is what is fun for me. I hope/think that is what is fun for the rest of my group.

Figuring out what the best thing for your group is can be aided by talking to people on forums, but in my experience, is best deduced by talking to your group.

I don't disagree. Depending on what type of game you desire to run. What is expected of players? If players who have characters with low mental stats are penalized by being forced to choose less than ideal actions for their characters, how is this mitigated? Does the character receive "plot armor" to make sure they keep succeeding so long as they are roleplayed according to their stats?
I wouldn't bother with this type of play, at least not anymore. Yes, low stats should be some sort of hindrance, but you can't expect to control players' game decisions. In 3.P, low INT means no arcane spellcasting (which limits multiclassing), low skill points, unlikely to pass any INT based checks for knowledge, etc. That's enough of a penalty, without requiring the player to choose stupid actions against their own common sense. Low WIS is much the same...no divine casting, low will save, low perception skills (which are among the most important skills).
When it comes to relatively inconsequential character interaction, I would say have fun and play up the stats however you like. When social interaction with NPC's/monsters is important and requires rolls, I would expect a player to be smart enough to keep out of it if their character doesn't have the stats to not make a mess of things (assuming they have a choice). As the DM, I will have low INT creatures and NPC's act accordingly. However, when it comes to the actual gameplay (exploring, problem solving, combat tactics) the players need to be free to use all of their real intelligence, because I am not going to make it easy for them. There will be no forgiveness for someone deciding to do something blatantly foolish "because that's what their character would do", the dice will fall where they may. I wouldn't stop someone from playing however they want, however I also do not give out "plot armor" (since there generally isn't a "plot" perse).

[Yuki Akuma]

So the player is a good leader out-of-character, and tends towards doing that in-character as well?

Well... how about you have him come up with ideas and plans out-of-character, and then justify it in-character as someone else's idea, or a joint plan between various members of the party?

[ddude987]

I would say, unless the player is metagaming (which is a completely different problem), then let them use whatever ideas and thoughts they come up with. The game is about fun, and telling somebody they can't try out their idea or tell the party their genius plan simply because they have a stat below average is silly.