How do you play intellligence?

[BestPlayer]

So how do you role play a different level of intelligence than that which you yourself have? Mostly what I have seen from other players is a complete disregard for the intelligence stat of their characters. They make decisions based on their own intelligence. Really I'm not sure how else you would do it.

Also is the interesting situation where your character's intelligence changes. For instance imagine you have a 9 intelligence and then find a headband of intellect (or whatever it is called) and your intelligence goes up to 19. You are now much smarter. You're even smarter than you yourself are (most likely). So how do you role play this?

[Nifft]

RP'ing your mental stats is mostly voluntary.

There are things that a DM can do to help though:

- High-Int PC: allow the player to ask other players for advice during the PC's action.

- Low-Int PC: the player has less time to make decisions about the PC's action during combat.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Best way is probably not to try to tie Int strongly to general smartness or decision making. It measures the ability to do the things that are modelled using rolls and modifiers, not the things that aren't.

[mgshamster]

For my table:

An int of 6-17, the player uses their own Int and uses the modifier and dice to make up for the difference.

An int of 5 or less, we request they play the PC a bit more dumb.

An int of 18 or higher, and they can collaborate with the group (when away from the party) and use everyone's brains for their PC.

[LaserFace]

I don't know where my intelligence lies, but characters I play exist on a spectrum of "Most like Batman" at the top and "Most like Fry from Futurama" at the bottom.

If I were emulating a sudden increase in intelligence, I'd be like Fry when he got worms.

[Cybren]

I don't know where my intelligence lies, but characters I play exist on a spectrum of "Most like Batman" at the top and "Most like Fry from Futurama" at the bottom.

If I were emulating a sudden increase in intelligence, I'd be like Fry when he got worms.

Are you saying that you're... hungry for worms?

[LaserFace]

Are you saying that you're... hungry for worms?

no, hungry for woooooooooorms

[Naanomi]

If my Intelligence is much lower than 7, I don't jump in to solve puzzles and the like at first (normally I'm good at that stuff) and try to build the character so it isn't built on tricky 'tactical' thinking; it otherwise I don't pay much mind to it high or low. Wisdom is the same; but I do try to pay a bit more attention to my Charisma stat to guide my role playing

[JakOfAllTirades]

If my character has a higher INT score than mine, I just assume he's really good at anything that requires a high INT score in-game, like INT checks, and INT-based skill checks. Those will take care of themselves when dice rolls are called for. As for the rest, I take lots of notes on everything, so my character doesn't forget names, plot points and other important details.

For low INT characters, the same guideline applies to INT-related dice rolls; he's going to fail most of them. And I simply never take notes when playing a low INT character. If he fails to remember something from last session, or three sessions ago (or whatever), so be it. Actually, the "no notes" technique has been surprisingly effective for simulating a less than clue-full character in some of the more complicated games I've played in.

[CantigThimble]

Having a low intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that you, the player, can't contribute to situations involving tactics or puzzles. The trick is to roleplay your ideas into the game through some combination of the characters disposition, superstition and/or blind effort. The ideas should come out a bit distorted but hopefully still intact enough for other characters to catch on and make something of them. Hopefully you have another problem-solver kind of player to help out so you don't overuse this, but I've been experimenting with it recently and it's kind of an interesting way of approaching things. I like to try to throw out a nice mix of disruptively foolish ideas and good ideas in disguise. I aim for just disruptive enough that a party member will need to step in to fix things, but not disruptive enough that things go wrong before they get that chance. It's actually kind of a fun way to get other players involved.

[MrWesson22]

Put simply, I take the lead more when playing a high int character and less if low int in problem and puzzle solving or strategy discussions.

As a side note, it is hilariously entertaining to watch someone with low real life intelligence try to RP a high int character.

[FreddyNoNose]

Having a low intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that you, the player, can't contribute to situations involving tactics or puzzles. The trick is to roleplay your ideas into the game through some combination of the characters disposition, superstition and/or blind effort. The ideas should come out a bit distorted but hopefully still intact enough for other characters to catch on and make something of them. Hopefully you have another problem-solver kind of player to help out so you don't overuse this, but I've been experimenting with it recently and it's kind of an interesting way of approaching things. I like to try to throw out a nice mix of disruptively foolish ideas and good ideas in disguise. I aim for just disruptive enough that a party member will need to step in to fix things, but not disruptive enough that things go wrong before they get that chance. It's actually kind of a fun way to get other players involved.

Yes!

You can also to something that seems stupid but is really brilliant. A party member tries to steal something you interfere and prevent it. Like knocking something over or tripping.

[djreynolds]

One way to look at this.

Intelligence and experience, as a player with an 8 intelligence levels up so does his proficiency bonus which shows he/she has learned something along the road

It may not be much but a wizard with a 20 intelligence has a +5 bonus to all intelligence skills

Where a cleric with an 8 in intelligence but with proficiency in religion and history will have around the same, -1 +6=+5

So the cleric has gained experience with history and religion but hasn't put too much time into investigation or nature

The wizard though is good at all intelligence checks but his arcana is +11 because its his craft

So if you roll a low intelligence or select an 8, a fighter can still be good with history.

[mephnick]

So how do you role play a different level of intelligence than that which you yourself have? Mostly what I have seen from other players is a complete disregard for the intelligence stat of their characters. They make decisions based on their own intelligence. Really I'm not sure how else you would do it.

There pretty much is no way to do it. Most people here are probably like INT 8-12 (average), so we can't know what thinking like a genius feels like.

INT is really a DM stat, because intelligence is the ability to make connections and recall information. The DM should be feeding extra information to intelligent characters automatically, either through passive INT and Knowledge checks or clues, so it really depends on the play style of your group. INT definitely matters less if the DM tells all knowledge and lore openly to the table instead of slipping the information to the relevant player. It feels much better as a high INT PC to get a slip of paper that says "Most people think Shambling Mounds would burn easily, but you know that they are resistant to fire and absorb lightning." and let your intelligent PC warn the group of this knowledge.

[Nifft]

If my character has a higher INT score than mine, I just assume he's really good at anything that requires a high INT score in-game, like INT checks, and INT-based skill checks. Those will take care of themselves when dice rolls are called for. As for the rest, I take lots of notes on everything, so my character doesn't forget names, plot points and other important details.

For low INT characters, the same guideline applies to INT-related dice rolls; he's going to fail most of them. And I simply never take notes when playing a low INT character. If he fails to remember something from last session, or three sessions ago (or whatever), so be it. Actually, the "no notes" technique has been surprisingly effective for simulating a less than clue-full character in some of the more complicated games I've played in. That's brilliant. I'm totally stealing that idea.


Having a low intelligence doesn't necessarily mean that you, the player, can't contribute to situations involving tactics or puzzles. The trick is to roleplay your ideas into the game through some combination of the characters disposition, superstition and/or blind effort. The ideas should come out a bit distorted but hopefully still intact enough for other characters to catch on and make something of them. Hopefully you have another problem-solver kind of player to help out so you don't overuse this, but I've been experimenting with it recently and it's kind of an interesting way of approaching things. I like to try to throw out a nice mix of disruptively foolish ideas and good ideas in disguise. I aim for just disruptive enough that a party member will need to step in to fix things, but not disruptive enough that things go wrong before they get that chance. It's actually kind of a fun way to get other players involved. Hmm, it kinda sounds like your group is more immersion-RP, and you're more playing to the group than participating as a character.

In other words: you're using your character to communicate to the other players, and the intended effect is to make the other players feel smarter.

That sounds really cool, if it works, but it's strange in that you take yourself further out of the game, in order to inspire others to feel more like their characters. You're a bit like a co-DM in that situation, handing out clues to enhance someone else's fun.

[CantigThimble]

Hmm, it kinda sounds like your group is more immersion-RP, and you're more playing to the group than participating as a character.

In other words: you're using your character to communicate to the other players, and the intended effect is to make the other players feel smarter.

That sounds really cool, if it works, but it's strange in that you take yourself further out of the game, in order to inspire others to feel more like their characters. You're a bit like a co-DM in that situation, handing out clues to enhance someone else's fun.

Hmm, kinda I suppose. There are a decent number of events in a game where it comes down to the players coming up with ways to deal with the situation. If I was playing a high intelligence character then I, as a player, would come up with the best plan I possibly could and and propose that in character. When I'm playing a low intelligence character I don't see that as an excuse to stop contributing to moving the party forward in those situations, it just means that I'm going to RP it differently. It is metagaming, but in the way that is necessary and valuable for the game. For example, if I think my character would do something extremely disruptive to the game (as any character) like kill another character or destroy the adventure plot, then I will curb that impulse (at least to some extent) for the sake of a smooth game and find some in character justification for the change in attitude. That's metagaming, but it's the kind of metagaming you have to do to play an RPG. Of course, ideally every character will be built in such a way that they can always interact well with eachother and the plot with no metagaming, but that's practically impossible.

And I often find myself kinda co-DMing in lots of small ways. I think it's mainly because I have a lot of trouble with DMing and I can't help but try to smooth over the parts of the game that might be frustrating for my DM.

Edit: And really, if you're RPing a low intelligence character well shouldn't it make the other characters feel smarter by comparison? :smalltongue:

[FreddyNoNose]

There pretty much is no way to do it. Most people here are probably like INT 8-12 (average), so we can't know what thinking like a genius feels like.

INT is really a DM stat, because intelligence is the ability to make connections and recall information. The DM should be feeding extra information to intelligent characters automatically, either through passive INT and Knowledge checks or clues, so it really depends on the play style of your group. INT definitely matters less if the DM tells all knowledge and lore openly to the table instead of slipping the information to the relevant player. It feels much better as a high INT PC to get a slip of paper that says "Most people think Shambling Mounds would burn easily, but you know that they are resistant to fire and absorb lightning." and let your intelligent PC warn the group of this knowledge.

But where this line of crap leads to is this:

DM: you arrive at the gate of hell and make you IQ check. Yup, you defeated all of hell.

When I hear the iq of the character is going to be meta like you suggest, you mean lets find a way to make it easy for the player to "win the game". That is anti-roleplaying.

[mephnick]

But where this line of crap leads to is this:

DM: you arrive at the gate of hell and make you IQ check. Yup, you defeated all of hell.

When I hear the iq of the character is going to be meta like you suggest, you mean lets find a way to make it easy for the player to "win the game". That is anti-roleplaying.

...You're going to need to try that one again because I'm not really sure what you mean.

[Nifft]

Hmm, kinda I suppose. There are a decent number of events in a game where it comes down to the players coming up with ways to deal with the situation. If I was playing a high intelligence character then I, as a player, would come up with the best plan I possibly could and and propose that in character. When I'm playing a low intelligence character I don't see that as an excuse to stop contributing to moving the party forward in those situations, it just means that I'm going to RP it differently. It is metagaming, but in the way that is necessary and valuable for the game. For example, if I think my character would do something extremely disruptive to the game (as any character) like kill another character or destroy the adventure plot, then I will curb that impulse (at least to some extent) for the sake of a smooth game and find some in character justification for the change in attitude. That's metagaming, but it's the kind of metagaming you have to do to play an RPG. Of course, ideally every character will be built in such a way that they can always interact well with eachother and the plot with no metagaming, but that's practically impossible.

And I often find myself kinda co-DMing in lots of small ways. I think it's mainly because I have a lot of trouble with DMing and I can't help but try to smooth over the parts of the game that might be frustrating for my DM.

Edit: And really, if you're RPing a low intelligence character well shouldn't it make the other characters feel smarter by comparison? :smalltongue:

For me, the default would be to talk out-of-character. Basically, just thinking out loud about all the dots that I saw, and then not making the final connection.

For your way to work, you have to:
a) Guess right about the solution to the problem; and
b) Guess right about how to communicate that answer to your friends such that you don't give away that you knew the solution; and
c) Do all of the above before your friends figure out he solution themselves.

Your way is intriguing, but you have to be right about the solutions.

My way allows more fallibility -- if I'm wrong about something, like I'm going off in the wrong direction or paying attention to the wrong clues, then someone else (like the DM) can jump in and correct the direction of the conversation.

So, I'm curious if your way can be adapted for someone who can't always jump to the right conclusion (i.e.: like me).

[Esprit15]

I tend to use it to influence whether I give input on puzzles and academic questions that come up in the game, IC. I'll ask the DM more questions about the world, or if I'm missing some obvious connection that a PC smarter than me would be able to make. To me, Intelligence as a stat is two things: the amount of information you have readily accessible in your head at any given time, and to a lesser extent, your ability to draw connections with that information (which I also correlate with Wisdom).

[2D8HP]

Since I started playing 5e I rarely roll stats anymore.

I rolled high INT sometimes in 1e and the main difference was my PC spoke more languages, otherwise the stat was ignored by me (my memories are dim, but I mostly remember Fighter being first choice, and Cleric being second choice no matter the stats).

I rolled a high INT once for 5e and my co-players really hassled me to play a Wizard, I looked at the rules minutiae that I would have to master, realized that my IRL intelligence was too low (I'm a slow learner), said no way to that mess, and played my first High Elf Rogue (with the Firebolt Cantrip), much to the annoyance of the other players.

Normally I play point buy or standard array and play PC's with 8 or 9 INT, which is probably higher than my RL intelligence, but no one calls me on it.

I'm a nit puzzled by so few wondering about*playing high and low WIS.

[CantigThimble]

Well, I'm not necessarily right about the challenge at hand, but I can probably come up with some way to move forward or get a bit more information and try to make that happen. Hell, sometimes just taking brash and uncalculated action is exactly what the party needs to get past analysis paralysis. It IS less effective than just discussing it OOC but that's kind of the point and it's an interesting way to challenge yourself. Plus, my groups often have issues with getting into character and discussing things OOC tends to make that worse. I try to only act in character unless its a matter of clarifying rules or something like that.

Stuff like this is challenging but does make things more fun sometimes. Once while going through Harpy Pass, all our characters wore earplugs to protect against their magical songs. The DM made us come up with hand gestures and use them exclusively to communicate with eachother for the rest of the session.

[FreddyNoNose]

...You're going to need to try that one again because I'm not really sure what you mean.

People are trying to cheat the system. Oh, but my character is a genius and therefore wouldn't have done that stupid thing he just did. Next time we should make a die roll vs int and then the result will be a genius result that wins the situation! See he is so smart he always wins!!!

[Coffee_Dragon]

So you're saying it's a slippery slope? The road to conquering hell is paved with passive Int checks for general lore.

[GlenSmash!]

I play intelligence like I play Strength. I add (or subtract) the modifier to Ability Checks, Saves, and ,depending on the character, attack roles.

[2D8HP]

Except that they're so traditional and integral to the rules, I'd actually like it if they were no mental/social "stats", as separating player from PC decisions is difficult.

[GlenSmash!]

Except that they're so traditional and integral to the rules, I'd actually like it if they were no mental/social "stats", as separating player from PC decisions is difficult.

I can see a certain player who is socially awkward wanting to roleplay as someone who isn't or someone who considers themselves slow what to roleplay as a genius. Just like I like to roleplay as someone who can go toe to toe with a dragon even though my doughy self couldn't possibly try that.

For me RPGs are just the kind of thing to exercise that imagination.

If a player has trouble thinking of how a smart or charismatic character would go about being smart or charismatic, then we'll use the dice to figure it out.

[Millstone85]

So, 5e seems to expect mainly two kinds of check from Intelligence:
* knowledge checks (Arcana, History, Nature, Religion or general)
* investigation checks (Investigation)

With good modifiers for my knowledge checks, I should be able to roleplay a character who is confident in the education they received and what they remember from it. A knowledgeable person, maybe a know-it-all.

As for investigation checks, those seem to be much like perception checks. Only it is not about whether or not my character notices the spilled documents on the ground, but about their ability to reorganize and understand those to get the information the DM will then communicate to me the player. With a good modifier, I should be able to roleplay someone who is confident about acquiring new information.

But a check is the roll of a die, and that doesn't spell confidence. Or dread, for that matter, if the modifier is low. It is practically just dumb luck. That's what make it very difficult for me to roleplay any ability.

As for roleplaying a smart character independently from game mechanics, I am not smart enough for that.

[BW022]

If I have a high Intelligence character then I ask the DM "What does my character know about X?" a lot. Typically I'll have Int-based skills so I'll be asking the DM for a lot of intelligence type checks along the lines of those knowledge kills. I'll typically also roleplay some aspect which relies on those skills or background knowledge -- collect maps or books, keep star charts, spend 'down-time' reading about tides, memorize key facts, practice a professions (such as indexing a section of a library, making potions, collecting gossip about crimes in the city, etc.), maybe I tell stories, etc.

Never had an item which raises one's intelligence to 19. In addition, typically such items go to a class who can benefit from a high intelligence. However, if a lower-int character did get one... then I'd suddenly 'remember' a lot more and switch to asking about what my character knows about x a lot.

[Ixidor92]

Personally, I try to tie my character's personality directly into their intelligence. For example, if I am playing a druid with an 8 in intelligence, then they may not necessarily be dumb, but they likely have spent almost all of their time inside the woods, away from society. What most people consider common knowledge is not understood by him. Essentially, he is not "book learned" like most people. On the other hand, if I play a wizard with an 18 in intelligence, then he knows a lot of facts, and he knows that he is intelligent in that sense. It bothers him if something shows up that he doesn't know, and he tries to find out more. This can be compounded by a low wisdom resulting in a lack of awareness, or a low charisma resulting in social awkwardness. Most people I play with do similar things to this, so we don't end up worrying too much over the exact intelligence scores of each character

[McNinja]

Intelligence is also represented by memory. My character has 8 INT, which I rp as memory issues.

[Dalebert]

I'm very reluctant to interfere in player agency. I wouldn't try to metagame too much about whether they have good judgement about whether they should or shouldn't do something, or to offer tactical advice that didn't occur to them. I just see intelligence as being able to learn things quickly and retain them--basic book smarts but not necessarily street smarts. Similarly, I wouldn't take away a player's agency because they're not smart. An int 6 orc could still be very cunning with his tactics even if he can't even read. If anything, cunning and tactics might be somewhat related to wisdom though I still don't want to start down the path of using that to impact player agency either.

It's reflected in being good at knowledge checks. I might let them role to see if their characters knows something that's relevant to a action they're about to take, like shoot a Firebolt at a red dragon, e.g. "You recall a book you read about these and that they swim around in lava and stuff. It's probably immune to fire." I might also let them make an int roll to see if they remember some relevant detail that the PC failed to write down like the password an NPC gave them. You might want to give them hints about a particular puzzle they're trying to solve simply to move things along if they seem stuck.

[Millstone85]

I'm very reluctant to interfere in player agency. I wouldn't try to metagame too much about whether they have good judgement about whether they should or shouldn't do something, or to offer tactical advice that didn't occur to them.Your reluctance is justified, but is it "metagame" if it further separates the character's mind from the player's?

Last session, a player couldn't recall something their character heard the previous session. It was just a few minutes ago in-universe, but well over a month ago in real life. The character is a wizard, which presumably means high Int and thus good memory. When the DM said the player just had to take better notes (and she already takes more of those than anyone else, often to the point of not talking enough), I asked if maybe she could make an Intelligence check. The DM said that would be meta. But no, what the DM was doing, that in my opinion was meta.

[Dalebert]

I specifically gave that as an example of something I'd allow--the character remembering something the PC failed to write down.

[Millstone85]

I specifically gave that as an example of something I'd allow--the character remembering something the PC failed to write down.Yeah, I missed that. But would you allow it as acceptable metagaming, or do you agree it is really the opposite of metagaming? Maybe there is an aspect of metagaming I don't recognize here.

[Dalebert]

I probably use the word a bit too loosely to be honest. Not really interested in doubling down and arguing the semantics of it. :)

[Millstone85]

No problem. It was a bit off-topic anyway.

[Sariel Vailo]

How do you play inteligence.. Ahem firzt your name is rick. Second have your granchild named morty follow you around third have morty shove things in his buthole just way up their.

[Vaz]

How do you play inteligence?.. *Ahem* First, your name is Rick. Second, have your grandchild, named Morty, follow you around. Third, have Morty shove things in his butthole; just way up theirthere.

Fixed. For intelligence.

[2D8HP]

.



.


Huh???

What in the Abyss was just referenced?

I don't get it at all.

[Millstone85]

Huh???

What in the Abyss was just referenced?

I don't get it at all.Rick and Morty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6TUs69Cw94)

For a condensed experience, watch the couch gag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ecYoSvGO60).

[2D8HP]

Rick and Morty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6TUs69Cw94)

For a condensed experience, watch the couch gag (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ecYoSvGO60).


I followed the links, and....

.....the 21st Century is a very puzzling place.

[Millstone85]

I followed the links, and....

.....the 21st Century is a very puzzling place.An appropriate response, considering Rick and Morty are fundamentally a parody of Doc and Marty from Back to the Future.