RP Low Intelligence

[blackjack50]

Listening to a friend’s game last night and an incident occurred. It upset 2 group members, but I couldn’t help but laugh so hard I cried (while muted). One player is a super low intelligence dwarf barbarian. The group had captured a key bad guy and were going through the interrogation/intimidation usuals. Bad guy offers them info in exchange for money and freedom. They agree. I personally thought it was a mistake. If the guy tells the bbeg or whoever...they are in trouble. Anyway.

The 2 inquisitors tell the barbarian to “take care of him.” I think y’all have detected where that is going. He proceeds to pull his club and kill the bound enemy in one whack. The DM busts out laughing (me too), the other party members just kind of jaw drop...nobody speaks for a minute or 2. This is supposed to be a good campaign. And killing a bound enemy is super against the code of the cleric. Never mind that he didn’t get the information.

The game ends as people start to discuss and get kind of upset. The dwarf defends himself by saying: “you said take care of him. I’m low intelligence...and the guy is going to go back to the enemies.” So what do y’all think? How far should one go RPing lownintelligence? Especially when acting rashly.

[HappyDaze]

When I was recently watching Cobra Kai, I kept thinking that Johnny Lawrence was a great example of a character with mental dump stats. He's absolutely not a drooling moron, but he struggles to make smart (or even adequate) choices.

[RossN]

I think low Intelligence is probably the hardest to play of all the mental attributes - a character with low Charisma might be an intensely shy introvert who never says anything or someone who talks a lot but never says anything interesting or appropriate or is unintentionally (or intentionally!) obnoxious. A person with low Wisdom might be an absent minded professor, a hothead who reacts emotionally to everything or simply weak willed ("These aren't the droids we're looking for.")

With Intelligence though it's harder as outside of comedy and Forrest Gump we don't really see that in a main character too often. One thing I often see in dimbulb protagonists is that many of them are trying to convince others/themselves that they are clever. I remember once reading that Peter Sellers said that Inspector Clouseau of the Pink Panther films deep down knows he’s an idiot, but must keep up this frantic pretence of competence.

[HappyDaze]

deep down knows he’s an idiot, but must keep up this frantic pretence of competence.

For many players I've known, trying to do this and stay in-character is too much like the facade they struggle to maintain IRL.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally find the most fun way to play these characters is a combination of uneducated and care-free. They're not necessarily terminally stupid or incapable of basic functioning, but they don't know things that you'd need education to know (in whatever setting or context), and they don't really care to know either. The stereotypical Barbarian is actually quite smart in his own context, he knows how to track game and cook over an open fire, understand navigating by stars and the seasons, maybe even leatherworking, and so on. But he cares nothing for book-learning, philosophy, understanding civilization or anything related. On the other hand, a stereotypical low int noble probably knows a the basics of weapons and armor, the game of thrones and court, and so on. But he isn't good at his studies, doesn't care to be, and is uninterested about things that don't concern him. Both characters (and similiar) rarely, if ever, overthink things, which i think is pretty defining for them.

[zinycor]

The other players need to relax, is a game and the dwarf player roleplayed his character very well.

[EggKookoo]

I think of low-Int characters as not really being dumb or whatever, but more like simply not having a lot of patience for thinking. They're capable of thinking about things and even in complex ways, but it's an effort. Almost painful. They give up and resort to more, er, direct solutions.

[False God]

I think that's fine, taking everything at face value is IMO a good way to RP someone who isn't very smart. They don't read into things, they don't think too hard about any given situation. Everything just kinda "is".

Perhaps he could have objected if he was incredibly morally opposed, but he could have been trying to "seem smart" by just assuming he knew what they meant.

I think it's fine. On the overall scale of "evilness" its rather low, at least for an adventuring party.

[Tanarii]

First of all, that's the first time I've seen RP used correctly in a while, to mean "making a decision for the character in the fantasy environment". Kudos.

As far as the question goes, was there an intelligence check involved?

If no, it's not decision making based on a character low intelligence. It's decision making based on the players interpretation of what their character would do based on the situation and things being said.

[Naanomi]

Low INT can be played a variety of ways; that is one of them. Low stats generally can be expressed a lot of ways, though sometimes combinations of very high and very low stats get challenging to portray. I had a 3E Sorcerer with CHA in the 30s and 4 INT... I always pondered why people agreed with my clearly idiotic choices so often

[Waterdeep Merch]

I think the dwarf did a hilariously good job playing it. That's proper comedy right there. I get that it sucks "losing" because of someone else's decision, but I'm not sure this changes the outcome of the overall campaign enough for people to be getting heated over. I'd feel different if I was in the situation and it resulted in another player's death, but not here.

As everyone's already said, low intelligence is usually played for comedy. If you want to play it more 'serious', I can think of two routes. One is the brutal tyrannical sort, a bully. Someone that gets angry when people insult their intelligence, and gets violent fast. The other is the well-meaning idiot that listens to people they know/believe are smarter than them. They pick up simple mottos and follow them routinely, or avoid making any big calls themselves- they'd much rather be following orders if they can help it.

That last one can work great for a variety of story roles. Write out a few witticisms they've heard that they try to follow. Simple things, like "Good adventurers always go left", or "When in doubt, run". If this leads to something bad happening, they have something of an internal struggle, trying to decide if their belief was wrong. If someone else points it out, depending on the relationship they have, they might honestly ask for a few pointers before reshaping their viewpoint to do what they're saying from then on instead.

You can find a million idiot bully characters in fiction. If you want an idiot hero that isn't (always) played for laughs, try Ser Duncan the Tall from the Dunk and Egg stories.

[elyktsorb]

I feel like the dwarf did a good job.

First of all, who tells the barbarian 'to take care of' an enemy unless they want that enemy dead? Like, regardless of the context.

On the topic of rping low intelligence, I specifically go out of my way to never dump intelligence. Like, I'll dump Strength or Charisma before I dump Int because I like playing characters that can formulate not stupid ideas and such. That being said, if I were to rp low intelligence I'd likely make a character who acts like they know everything, but knows nothing.

[blackjack50]

When I was recently watching Cobra Kai, I kept thinking that Johnny Lawrence was a great example of a character with mental dump stats. He's absolutely not a drooling moron, but he struggles to make smart (or even adequate) choices.

Well and that I agree with. I think low intelligence doesn’t have to be drooling moron. But it does require not considering decisions or not understanding what others say.

[blackjack50]

The other players need to relax, is a game and the dwarf player roleplayed his character very well.

That is what I felt. Like...you said “take care of him” and you didn’t provide context? You just assumed the dumb guy would know what you mean? It was hysterical as well. And quite honestly? I think the PLAYER honestly thought that is what they meant. This is literally his second campaign ever.

[blackjack50]

I feel like the dwarf did a good job.

First of all, who tells the barbarian 'to take care of' an enemy unless they want that enemy dead? Like, regardless of the context.

On the topic of rping low intelligence, I specifically go out of my way to never dump intelligence. Like, I'll dump Strength or Charisma before I dump Int because I like playing characters that can formulate not stupid ideas and such. That being said, if I were to rp low intelligence I'd likely make a character who acts like they know everything, but knows nothing.

Well as others have put, and now I suppose I see some semblance of their point, a barbarian can be wise but not intelligent. Thus he can still make decisions based on logic and inference. As a teacher? I have kids who demonstrate DAILY they can be not intelligent, but be downright crafty little jerks (hiding vapes or cigarettes or trying to get out of work). But still. The decision I saw made since role play wise.

[blackjack50]

First of all, that's the first time I've seen RP used correctly in a while, to mean "making a decision for the character in the fantasy environment". Kudos.

As far as the question goes, was there an intelligence check involved?

If no, it's not decision making based on a character low intelligence. It's decision making based on the players interpretation of what their character would do based on the situation and things being said.

That is a GREAT point. No check was involved because it happened so fast. So it would be that. Though I do think one can use the numbers of ones stats to be a “guide” for how a role play should be done. A low intelligence character isn’t going to be pondering the theory of relativity or the finer points of alchemical combinations. A low charisma character role play wise isn’t going to say the best things (or anything) in a conversation. At least then when the check DOES come up for those situations? It makes sense why the modifier is low.

[Morty]

People vastly overstate how much mental attributes should dictate how a character plays and this is a particularly flagrant example of it. A character with low intelligence doesn't mean an idiot who can't grasp complex concepts. This action might have fit this character - I have no context to judge. But low intelligence doesn't have much or anything to do with it.

[Drascin]

With Intelligence though it's harder as outside of comedy and Forrest Gump we don't really see that in a main character too often. One thing I often see in dimbulb protagonists is that many of them are trying to convince others/themselves that they are clever. I remember once reading that Peter Sellers said that Inspector Clouseau of the Pink Panther films deep down knows he’s an idiot, but must keep up this frantic pretence of competence.

Honestly, I'd say we see a lot of main characters with little intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to be analytical and learned, to observe a thing and reason about it. It's not being a drooling moron. I'd wager a lot of us here, myself included, have a bit below average int scores!

Let's take, for example, Han Solo. We all love Han, he's great, but my boy has the intelligence score of a turnip. He jumps to conclusions, is terrible at trying to predict consequences, is actively dismissive of more theoretical learning (in many sources Chewbacca is the one running the actual books on their smuggling operations because Han has zero patience for all the numbers), and generally outside his sphere of smuggling and piloting he doesn't know ****. He just uses great charisma and a practiced skill at improvising to make **** up as he goes along.

[Tanarii]

That is a GREAT point. No check was involved because it happened so fast. So it would be that. Though I do think one can use the numbers of ones stats to be a “guide” for how a role play should be done. A low intelligence character isn’t going to be pondering the theory of relativity or the finer points of alchemical combinations. A low charisma character role play wise isn’t going to say the best things (or anything) in a conversation. At least then when the check DOES come up for those situations? It makes sense why the modifier is low.
They can be a personality guide to some degree, in the same way "low Str" or "low Dex" or "low con" affecting decisions about "what would my character do" when there is no roll involved.

In other words, it's certainly possible to treat a low ability score as an unwritten personality trait of "I ... get sore after weightlifting / bump into things / have hay fever / have poor memory / am inattentive / am meek & shy" and have your character act accordingly.

(I tried try to choose things that sound like they'd go with a n 8 ability score, minor inconveniences.)

But when the really affect decision making is when a roll is involved. Outside of that it's optional as a personality trait. Or even an outright "it's what my character would do" crutch.

[ThatoneGuy84]

I mean, props to how he dealt with it. Sounds very similar as to how I may have with a similar character.

Low int isn't necessarily someone just being dumb or stupid. Things like how was his attention span during the convo? Ect makes a difference also as to how a charactory may or may not deal with the situation.

If my low int barb wasnt really paying attention to the deal they where working out, and then they said "take care of him" I would equally as likely to do the same thing, playing from a charactor aspect.

[cutlery]

I think if there is a mea culpa to me made, it is from the character or characters that gave the barbarian the instruction "take care of him".

The barbarian, whose primary problem solving algorithm is:

10 hit it with club
20 goto 10


As it is pretty likely from your description he's been playing in a smash first ask questions maybe sort of style already.

So, the cleric character should come to realize that that is a series of events they set into motion. The barbarian doesn't care, because it all fits just fine into his code.

[EggKookoo]

I've said before in other threads, I see Int as book smarts and Wisdom as street smarts. A high-Int, low-Wis character might be Data from TNG. A low-Int, high-Wis character is more like Garibaldi from B5. Garibaldi isn't stupid, but his decisions come more from the gut and direct personal experience over theory or something he might have picked up academically.

Maybe another way of describing it is Intelligence prefers deductive over inductive reasoning, and Wisdom is the reverse.

[Keravath]

From a role play perspective, I think it is great for the dwarf to role play their low intelligence and the situation this way IF they have been role playing the character this way all along.

If the player has been playing the character but ignored the int until a point when a misinterpretation will be hilarious - that isn't roleplaying.

Has the dwarf ever misinterpreted another request? Is this the first time? Does it happen fairly frequently? I am guessing the answer is no otherwise the other players might have been a bit more cautious with what they asked the dwarf to do (maybe not ...).

In terms of roleplaying int ... this has a lot to do with exactly what a player/DM/table thinks the int stat means.
1) Low int could mean a low level of mental acuity, difficulty understanding and interpreting situations and information on a logical, reasoned level.
2) Low int could mean a lack of interest in thinking things through. Perhaps the character is quick to act, slow to think, doesn't reason things out "most of the time" even if they could.
3) Low int could mean a lack of formal education and knowledge. The skills nature, arcana, history, investigation all rely on int and all could be worse without the fundamental knowledge about the different areas even if the character could manage to reason things out in some cases.

Each different interpretation of the int stat ... as well as the many ways these could be combined and other interpretations I haven't mentioned ... have a huge impact on how a player can choose to roleplay a low int score character.

Misinterpreting the meaning of "take care of him" in this context requires a character that really didn't follow the entire interrogation, didn't know what was going on, didn't know that the rest of the party had made some agreement ... or requires assuming that whatever character told him to "take care of it" had suddenly changed their minds about making an agreement and instead wants the bad guy killed.

I completely agree that it is an hilarious misinterpretation that I think is an awesome twist as both a DM and a player ... but was it in character or just the player seeing the opportunity to do something hilarious but out of character for how they have been playing their character up to now? We can't tell without more details but I can see how the other players at the table could be surprised by the action if the character hasn't been played that way up until this point and if the character had been played that way then the players shouldn't be surprised when their instruction goes sideways.

[Tanarii]

I mean, props to how he dealt with it. Sounds very similar as to how I may have with a similar character.

Low int isn't necessarily someone just being dumb or stupid. Things like how was his attention span during the convo? Ect makes a difference also as to how a charactory may or may not deal with the situation.

If my low int barb wasnt really paying attention to the deal they where working out, and then they said "take care of him" I would equally as likely to do the same thing, playing from a charactor aspect.

That's a personality trait that should be associated with low Wisdom, not with low Intelligence.

A low Intelligence associated personality trait might be "I'm a slow learner" or "I'm terrible at abstract thinking" or "my memory is a sieve". Alow Wisdom associated personality trait might be "Sometimes I don't pay attention then jump to conclusions as a result."

A high intelligence characters associated personality traits might be "I learn quickly" or "I can memorize large amounts of data with mnemonics" or "I'm good at abstract pattern analysis". A high Wisdom might be "I'm very aware of non-vocal subtext".

Edit: certainly "I get easily confused by complicated instructions" might be associated with low intelligence, but that's not what this was.

Also edit: I'm intentionally using 'might' in all these. Because any given one of them might also be in spite of a high or low score in the ability.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think low Intelligence is probably the hardest to play of all the mental attributes Presuming that you are an adult: have about three more beers and try again. :smallsmile:

The other players need to relax, is a game and the dwarf player roleplayed his character very well. Yes, unless there had been an extensive norm building among the PCs previously.
Low INT can be played a variety of ways; that is one of them. It surely is.

First of all, who tells the barbarian 'to take care of' an enemy unless they want that enemy dead? Like, regardless of the context. The only low INT on display, based on what's in the thread, is from the other players :smallbiggrin:

[Anonymouswizard]

People vastly overstate how much mental attributes should dictate how a character plays and this is a particularly flagrant example of it. A character with low intelligence doesn't mean an idiot who can't grasp complex concepts. This action might have fit this character - I have no context to judge. But low intelligence doesn't have much or anything to do with it.

I'd mostly agree, altgough I'd be a bit more extreme than you. This also tome sounds like a case of low processing ability (INT) being roleplayed as poor decision making (WIS). The character tcan interpret it in two ways, and instead of pondering over the meaning immediately jumps to the (more problematic) interpretation. Most of my characters have low WIS because IRL I have the impulsiveness and poor judgement of an anime protagonist.

A character with 3 INT probably isn't a drooling idiot, but they might not be competent at mental mathematics or have poor visualisation abilities. They might have a learning disability or neurodiversity condition, but that would be a Personality Trait or Flaw, not tied to stats. But a low INT character could, if the character wanted to, learn advanced physics, they just won't pick it up as quickly.

Fun fact, I know from RL experience that a speech impediment is not a sign of a low Charisma score, having both a (minor) speech impediment and the ability to hold a stage and make the audience ignore a long scene setup.Sure, I probably only have a +0 or +1, but Charisma is more than speaking pretty.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Presuming that you are an adult: have about three more beers and try again. :smallsmile:

No joke, this is part of how I like to play even average Int/Wis character in D&D. Not saying I'm a genius or anything, but I'm a (nearly) Forever DM that's deeply intimate with the rules of the system and know how to use them to my advantage when I get the chance to sit on the other side of the screen. Inebriation levels the playing field.

If I'm supposed to be playing a genius, I grab coffee and take notes instead.

[Composer99]

So, before I say anything else, my mind immediately went to this sketch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY).

On topic: I would be inclined to think that a character who had an Intelligence between 4 and 7 would either interpret "take care of" as literally as possible, or simply wouldn't understand what was meant by the term (whether because they didn't know how to parse it generally or how to parse it in that specific situation). If their Intelligence is sufficiently low (3 or less, for reasons discussed below), I'd imagine they couldn't even comprehend the request unless they'd been trained to do something specific in response to it. (Of course, that "something specific" could very well be "kill".)

All that's to say, a wonderfully droll moment, but not necessarily, at least in my view, a solid portrayal of low Intelligence.



A character with 3 INT probably isn't a drooling idiot, but they might not be competent at mental mathematics or have poor visualisation abilities. They might have a learning disability or neurodiversity condition, but that would be a Personality Trait or Flaw, not tied to stats. But a low INT character could, if the character wanted to, learn advanced physics, they just won't pick it up as quickly.


Beasts in the game tend to have Intelligence scores between 1 and 3. Not to say they aren't clever after their own fashion (they certainly aren't drooling idiots), but I think it might be asking too much for a character with that level of Intelligence to, say, be drawing Minkowski diagrams or what-have-you.

[Sorinth]

For me,

Low Int and Low Wis: No impulse control do whatever pops into their head. It's not that they can't understand something they just don't think more then 3s ahead and forget things in the moment in favour of doing what they want.

Low Int but ok/good Wis: They have little patience and like a straightforward solution. These tend towards the murder hobo line where the best plan is to simply walk in and kill everything that fights back.

Ok/Good Int but low Wis: They miss a lot of subtle cues and as a result get the wrong impression about people. So the party meets a shady NPC and my guy will think that guy is honest upstanding person that they should go to for advice/help.


One way of handling everything is to look at the associated skills and RP it as if you made a skill check but got the wrong info. So for example, with low Int you'll get facts about a person/place wrong possibly mixing it up with another person/place. So when the party talks about travelling to some distant place you'll mention some things you heard about the place that you as the player just make up on the spot.

[blackjack50]

So apparently the Barbarian was totally in character. He pretty much follows orders from the others in any situation that is role play situation that requires thinking concepts beyond that of a child. DM compared him to Drax when it comes to decision making and ability to grasp ideas (albeit the character is nothing like them because he is role played very different in terms of socially and so on...not a jerk).

Due to rolled stats...wisdom and int are not so good.

[DwarfFighter]

The game ends as people start to discuss and get kind of upset. The dwarf defends himself by saying: “you said take care of him. I’m low intelligence...and the guy is going to go back to the enemies.” So what do y’all think? How far should one go RPing lownintelligence? Especially when acting rashly.

If a character is so stupid he takes everything literally, how does "take care of him" translate into "kill him"? Sure, the joke works in 51st State, because the big dumb guy has lived the life of a criminal enforcer where that sort of language is used all the time. But this Barbarian hanging out with a group of do-gooders?

This behavior is just disruptive. The player is taking the situation in his own hands and "hiding" behind his supposedly low Int score to defend his actions. It's really just the same as the Alignment excuse. "My character is Evil, so of course he's a jerk. I'm just playing his Alignment!"

[Laserlight]

I note that killing the prisoner was against the cleric's code, not the barbarian's. Barbarian did fine.
Serious question for the other players: What did you THINK was going to happen?


This wasn't particularly an example of Low INT. Grog, however

Grog: I go through door.
DM: There's a longsword on the floor.
Grog: I pick up the sword and shake it.
DM: It doesn't do anything special.
Grog: I throw it over my shoulder.
DM (rolls): Okay, you were lucky, it doesn't hit any of the other party members, it just clangs on the floor.
Grog: Clang? I spin around and look for the noise.
DM (starting to grin): there's a sword on the floor.
Grog: I pick up the sword and shake it.
DM: It doesn't do anything special.
Grog: I throw it over my shoulder.
DM: There's a clang behind you, metal hitting stone.
Grog: What? I spin around and look for the noise.
DM: there's a sword on the floor.
Grog: I pick up the sword and--
Cleric (hastily): Grog, give sword to me.

[Chugger]

[QUOTE=

This behavior is just disruptive. The player is taking the situation in his own hands and "hiding" behind his supposedly low Int score to defend his actions. It's really just the same as the Alignment excuse. "My character is Evil, so of course he's a jerk. I'm just playing his Alignment!"[/QUOTE]

I would rather have some disruptive behavior if it's entertaining - if it's colorful role playing - rather than yet another in a long string of Dudley Dorights who always do the perfect thing and never mess up or mess around. As long as it doesn't cross a certain line and become _too_ disruptive, I'm fine with it.

If you can't stand this sort of thing - that's fine - you need to find a table of very serious players who think clearly and are really good at tactics and who are always focused and trying to win. Or w/e it is that works for you. For some of us, a little chaos - a little weirdness - a little quirkiness is okay - it's funny - it's not another battle of the optimized characters each struggling to make a perfect move every time. It has a little more life in it and is more entertaining for us. But if you don't like that, you're free not to like that. We are all different and enjoy different things.

[Tanarii]

If the dwarf player's statement is taken as is, it definitely appears to be a case of the player wanting to do something anyway, and using a character trait as retroactive justification.

[zinycor]

If the dwarf player's statement is taken as is, it definitely appears to be a case of the player wanting to do something anyway, and using a character trait as retroactive justification.

Yeah. But I don't see that as bad thing.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Kudos to the dwarf player! Or anti-kudos to whoever said "Take care of him!"

Unless the character is a medical professional rather than, say, a barbarian, the obvious cinematic meaning of "Take care of him," is "Kill him dead." The next meaning in line is "Pay him."

I think those angry players have no business being angry at anyone except possibly themselves.

Just me.

Anyway,

Ken

[Tanarii]

Yeah. But I don't see that as bad thing.
Depends on if the table considers a player deciding their character killing a captured prisoner out of hand so they can't get reinforcements (or whatever) is acceptable. Especially without consulting the rest of the party.

I've had this exact same thing happen at my table, a player declared their PC was stabbing a captured raider begging for their life. I immediately said "okay, he's dead" without batting an eye. It shocked everyone else. I had to address it at the beginning of the next session. At the very least, I should have given other PCs a chance to stop it, they were close enough.

I'm a declared actions have consequences kind of DM and my limits before something is too much for fantasy games are kinda high. But lots of people's aren't.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Depends on if the table considers a player deciding their character killing a captured prisoner out of hand so they can't get reinforcements (or whatever) is acceptable. Especially without consulting the rest of the party.

I've had this exact same thing happen at my table, a player declared their PC was stabbing a captured raider begging for their life. I immediately said "okay, he's dead" without batting an eye. It shocked everyone else. I had to address it at the beginning of the next session. At the very least, I should have given other PCs a chance to stop it, they were close enough.

I'm a declared actions have consequences kind of DM and my limits before something is too much for fantasy games are kinda high. But lots of people's aren't.
Heh, two days ago I ran a game where the players had to deal with a ship captain that had betrayed them thanks to being controlled by an alien entity. They had every reason to believe he was being mind controlled, including watching him fall unconscious after killing the monster controlling him. Then a player decided to jump in and shank the captain "just to be sure" and left his corpse at the bottom of the sea.

After they returned, I gave them a short task to explain the situation and return the captain's looking glass to his grieving widow, herself a potentially powerful ally that was essentially closed off to them now. The players realized they'd screwed up and essentially forfeited the most useful reward the adventure could've had due to murderhobo-ism.

Sucks, but we're moving on. The party will be more careful in the future.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,


Heh, two days ago I ran a game where the players had to deal with a ship captain .... The players realized they'd screwed up and essentially forfeited the most useful reward the adventure could've had due to murderhobo-ism.

Sucks, but we're moving on. The party will be more careful in the future.

Heh! I like this too!

Anyway,

Ken

[KorvinStarmast]

No joke, this is part of how I like to play even average Int/Wis character in D&D. Not saying I'm a genius or anything, but I'm a (nearly) Forever DM that's deeply intimate with the rules of the system and know how to use them to my advantage when I get the chance to sit on the other side of the screen. Inebriation levels the playing field.

If I'm supposed to be playing a genius, I grab coffee and take notes instead. Good advice. (And our only near TPK was when the three players at the table were all well into their cups ... that's when Korvin died ... )

[Waterdeep Merch]

Good advice. (And our only near TPK was when the three players at the table were all well into their cups ... that's when Korvin died ... )
Must've been worth a story, at least!

[Mercureality]

I generally find the most fun way to play these characters is a combination of uneducated and care-free. They're not necessarily terminally stupid or incapable of basic functioning, but they don't know things that you'd need education to know (in whatever setting or context), and they don't really care to know either. The stereotypical Barbarian is actually quite smart in his own context, he knows how to track game and cook over an open fire, understand navigating by stars and the seasons, maybe even leatherworking, and so on. But he cares nothing for book-learning, philosophy, understanding civilization or anything related. On the other hand, a stereotypical low int noble probably knows a the basics of weapons and armor, the game of thrones and court, and so on. But he isn't good at his studies, doesn't care to be, and is uninterested about things that don't concern him. Both characters (and similiar) rarely, if ever, overthink things, which i think is pretty defining for them.

This exactly. Low mental stats doesn't have to mean stupid.

I play my low intelligence characters as having little or no patience for higher learning, and they're not generally knowledgeable. They can probably read the languages they speak, but not well. They're probably bad at puzzles and other tests of mental acuity. They'll probably forget important NPC names in-character. It doesn't mean they're stupid in the moment, and they can say smart things and come up with good plans.

A low "wisdom" character might be wise philosophically, but despite knowing the "right" thing to do, often lack the self control to follow through on their own advice, they make questionable decisions regarding drug/alcohol consumption, have poor impulse control, allow their curiosity to get the better of their good sense, get romantically involved with people they shouldn't, etc. etc.

A low charisma character might be reasonably likeable in a general context, but have no talent for convincing other people to their way of thinking or leading a group. Perhaps they suffer from imposter syndrome and lack self esteem.

There's nothing wrong with playing up the negative stats either, but it really hamstrings RP to constantly have to play a dumb, unlikeable jerk because of the mechanical constraints 5e imposes.

[Frogreaver]

Listening to a friend’s game last night and an incident occurred. It upset 2 group members, but I couldn’t help but laugh so hard I cried (while muted). One player is a super low intelligence dwarf barbarian. The group had captured a key bad guy and were going through the interrogation/intimidation usuals. Bad guy offers them info in exchange for money and freedom. They agree. I personally thought it was a mistake. If the guy tells the bbeg or whoever...they are in trouble. Anyway.

The 2 inquisitors tell the barbarian to “take care of him.” I think y’all have detected where that is going. He proceeds to pull his club and kill the bound enemy in one whack. The DM busts out laughing (me too), the other party members just kind of jaw drop...nobody speaks for a minute or 2. This is supposed to be a good campaign. And killing a bound enemy is super against the code of the cleric. Never mind that he didn’t get the information.

The game ends as people start to discuss and get kind of upset. The dwarf defends himself by saying: “you said take care of him. I’m low intelligence...and the guy is going to go back to the enemies.” So what do y’all think? How far should one go RPing lownintelligence? Especially when acting rashly.

I find the only fun and fair way to play terminally dumb characters in a team RPG is to telegraph most of the terminally dumb things you are going to do (at least the ones that affect the parties goals) so that the party has the opportunity to talk you out of them (but not with rational person logic, only with what I'll term "little kid logic"). When done right this tends to get lots of laughs, highlights your PC's stupidity and doesn't outright screw the party or the teams goals. There's also still the chance that the party fails to appeal to your little kid logic and you ultimately do the terminally dumb thing anyway - but at least they had the chance to intervene.

Your example here is a great example of why I take this philosophy. For at least 1 player the dumb character (or rather the player of that character) probably just ruined the campaign for another player (and if not the campaign, at least his character).

In your example I would have had the barbarian start that scene with something like "I walk toward the prisoner and ask 'kill him slow or fast?'"