PDA

View Full Version : Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma and Metagaming



snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 02:26 AM
So if one has low (for this purpose, low is defined at 8 or worse) Constitution, Dexterity, or Strength there is defined penalties across the board. The low strength character has trouble carrying items, is weak in melee, etc. Low Dex and Cons characters see similar effects.

However, the non-physical stats, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma pose an unique situation. A smart player could be controlling that 8 intelligence character and come up with bright ideas despite their character being a moron. Likewise, a low Wisdom character can make wise decisions in-game due to a wise player controlling them despite the character themself being a fool.

Is it too much to ask to expect that:

1) A player with a low intelligence character cannot offer strategy or ideas to their teammates. Unfortunately, while the player may be very smart, the toon itself isn't and cannot come up with brilliant solutions.

2) A character with low wisdom is going to do dumb things. They are foolish and should commit stupid decisions once in awhile. If the player doesn't commit foolish actions, because the player is not a fool, then couldn't the DM have the right to have the character perform foolish actions every once in awhile?

3) A character with low Charisma could be ugly, mean, shy, arrogant, lacking in self-esteem/confidence or a couple of these combined. Shouldn't they cause a social mishap a session (unless they have a good wisdom score, let's say 12+, in which they know enough to keep their mouth shut). If they have a low wisdom and low charisma then couldn't they be considered "that guy" who is starting fights and causing trouble?

4) A character with high charisma and low wisdom may not only do foolish things but may actually convince others that it is a good idea :smallbiggrin:

Of course, this should work both ways. A player with a high wisdom character and not too much common sense ought to get a couple of: "Do you really think you should do this" before doing a foolish action. Additionally, a person playing an intelligent character could ask for a roll to come up with a solution if they cannot figure it out (as their say, 18 intelligence character is likely smarter then they are).

Dhavaer
2008-08-25, 02:29 AM
So what does this mean for my 36 Intelligence Smart Hero/Mage/Archmage?

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-25, 02:36 AM
I think the problem is that emulating different mental stats can be hard (my HALO character's mental stats are similar to mine, apart from his Wis being higher then mine is). Are the people you are refering to particularly good at RPing?

drengnikrafe
2008-08-25, 02:36 AM
This is fine and dandy if your players are good roleplayers. To forcebly penalize people because they got a bad roll / decided to play as a barbarian / ect is rediculous behavior for a DM. I get the feeling if a DM made all his players do that, sooner or later a new thread would pop up that said "My DM Doesn't Allow Me to Make Suggestions to the Party Because I have a low INT score. Help?"

A good roleplayer can think like their character, and do that on their own, possibly making the game more fun. But, for bad roleplayers, there's nothing you can really do. And, the second poster here has a point... what do you do with inanely high stats? Does the DM have to give hints randomly? It's not a very good game mechanic, I'd say.

AslanCross
2008-08-25, 02:38 AM
I think it's fine for characters with low Int but high Wis to come up with decent solutions. This happens in my party a lot. The ranger has 8 Int but 18 Wis, and ends up the de facto leader most of the time due to the rest being too tired or distracted to RP properly, or they just don't know what to do.

I'd rather have her RP a little out of character than have the session grind to a halt more than its already quick-as-molasses pace.

It's strange, but RPing low Int/high Wis seems more difficult than high Int/low Wis.

tyckspoon
2008-08-25, 02:43 AM
Unfortunately, while the player may be very smart, the toon itself isn't and cannot come up with brilliant solutions.



No. This is the one thing you do not do. Never take control of the player's character without a sound mechanical backing along the lines of a Charm or Domination effect. You can apply carrots and sticks to help people stick closer to their stats- that low-Int barbarian who Macguyvers his way out of something instead of smashing it may get less roleplay XP, or even receive a penalty if his acts were egregious and constant enough. Conversely, he could get some bonus XP for taking the less-effective but more in-character option of doing something dumb. But you should never forcefully make him *unable* to choose the smart way.

And unless you play with the rule that everything said at the table is considered in-character, a party discussion about what to do is usually an out-of-character affair. In character, the entire playgroup's discussion is probably represented as only the group's smart characters working it out amongst themselves.

Dausuul
2008-08-25, 02:57 AM
No. This is the one thing you do not do. Never take control of the player's character without a sound mechanical backing along the lines of a Charm or Domination effect. You can apply carrots and sticks to help people stick closer to their stats- that low-Int barbarian who Macguyvers his way out of something instead of smashing it may get less roleplay XP, or even receive a penalty if his acts were egregious and constant enough. Conversely, he could get some bonus XP for taking the less-effective but more in-character option of doing something dumb. But you should never forcefully make him *unable* to choose the smart way.

And unless you play with the rule that everything said at the table is considered in-character, a party discussion about what to do is usually an out-of-character affair. In character, the entire playgroup's discussion is probably represented as only the group's smart characters working it out amongst themselves.

This.

If it makes you feel any better, you can regard Intelligence as being a measure of academic aptitude; people with high Int scores are "book smart" but not necessarily any more clever in a practical sense, while people with low Int scores don't do well with books and numbers but are still capable of figuring stuff out in the real world.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-25, 03:24 AM
It's strange, but RPing low Int/high Wis seems more difficult than high Int/low Wis.

That's because low int, high wis characters are simple, but their words have a lot of insight (Forrest Gump) while high int, low wis characters come up with wacky, but logical only in a very twisted way ideas (Red Mage).

random11
2008-08-25, 04:12 AM
From the three, I think charisma is the easiest one to handle.
It is relatively easy since charisma is more about the reaction of the crowd than what the character actually does.

With intelligence, there is also a possible solution: Base the group's knowledge and information based on what the characters know. In cases when there is no character that specializes on the subject, pick random characters that heard about it somewhere, and the reliability of the information will be connected to the intelligence.
Give low int characters false information. Not too often to make it a routine, but often enough to get at least one scene when the group is armed to the teeth with fire-based weapons, and running away while one of them is shouting "maybe I got it wrong and the tale was about a beast who is IMMUNE to fire".

ghost_warlock
2008-08-25, 04:21 AM
No. This is the one thing you do not do. Never take control of the player's character without a sound mechanical backing along the lines of a Charm or Domination effect. You can apply carrots and sticks to help people stick closer to their stats- that low-Int barbarian who Macguyvers his way out of something instead of smashing it may get less roleplay XP, or even receive a penalty if his acts were egregious and constant enough. Conversely, he could get some bonus XP for taking the less-effective but more in-character option of doing something dumb. But you should never forcefully make him *unable* to choose the smart way.

And unless you play with the rule that everything said at the table is considered in-character, a party discussion about what to do is usually an out-of-character affair. In character, the entire playgroup's discussion is probably represented as only the group's smart characters working it out amongst themselves.

Exactly, what we usually do in situations like this is just pretend that it was the smart character or a group solution whenever the "idiot" character's player comes up with something brilliant.

Or, D&D is a heroic fantasy game where the players cannot always be counted on to individually come up with solutions that their characters might. We don't actually live in the world the characters grew up in. For them, rampaging monsters, trap-filled dungeons, and necromancing spellcasters are perfectly natural, even commonplace and that will skew their perspectives.

Even an idiot character who's managed to survive to adulthood in such a world is going to have some clever insights to problems that are pretty bizarre to us in our comfy world with running water and relatively sheltered upbringings - either ones they worked out themselves or things their parents/friends/relatives came up with and passed on to them. "Uncle Jimmy says you always use fire on trolls," that sort of thing. This goes double for idiot character who also happen to be adventurers, especially ones that've managed to survive to 3rd level and higher. They may be a bit on the slow side, but they know how to survive in their world better than you or I necessarily would; give them some credit.

As for clever tactics in combat, speaking is a free action. Who's to say that a smarter/more charismatic character isn't barking orders?

Treguard
2008-08-25, 04:38 AM
It's strange, but RPing low Int/high Wis seems more difficult than high Int/low Wis.

From experience, most of my gaming buddies seem to come across as high int/low wis (smart academically, but lacking in the common sense department). Some of them effortlessly exude this around the table- inadvertantly making facepalm-inducing or cheesy characters without thinking about the ramifications of tipping the scales.

Anyways, concerning the question, I thought the typical solution is that when a puzzle/problem is approached by a party the players are free to solve it but the character(s) with the highest appropriate mental faculty actually expresses the solution and roleplay the thought process. This becomes harder to achieve if your DM enforces a "whatever you say, your character says" rule but at least everyone has an appropriate level of input without breaking of of character.

drawingfreak
2008-08-25, 05:23 AM
I had a player whose character had a Wisdom score of 4. His character's answer to everything was that he could use a catapult to [insert something related to the situation here]. He also had a tendency to steal shoes and fix torn up ones.

I did eventually give him a magical catapult that he could carry around in his pocket. Place it on the ground and say the magic words "Awp-awp Ind Ah-whey!" and it would grow to massive size.

Akimbo
2008-08-25, 06:19 AM
Judging by your last thread, and where I've seen you recently, this seems like it's part of being upset at "Those damn Wizards who keep casting the right spells."

But honestly, look at it again, logically determining your foes weaknesses and casting spells at that is a high int thing to do.

As for low Wis/low Cha characters being that guy who's an arrogant jackass who makes everyone else's life harder.

Of course he is. But he's also the Wizard, and so the party can't do without him and he can take care of whatever he's pissing off.

Also,vyou just made playing Barbarians and Fighters even less fun, because now they can't come up with plans, (and so can't talk much in character), have to make boneheaded mistakes (I grapple the dragon! DM: You can't, size categories. Player: I know but I have to waste my action trying anyway cause I'm a doofus.) And piss off everyone they talk to, but they aren't even allowed to keep their mouth shut because that requires higher Wis.

Akisa
2008-08-25, 06:26 AM
why can't the low int and wis player come up with the idea but in character it is the high int and wis?

Treguard
2008-08-25, 06:46 AM
^ This is why I like systems with exploding die like 7th Sea or Deadlands (if you roll maximum, you can roll again and keep on rolling until you roll less than max, then add up the total). It allows even dummies to occasionally come up with a good idea that could save the day.

I mean, how often do you see in movies when the big, dumb guy says something truly insightful or points out the key component to a successful plan, before quickly forgetting what he just said and acting dumb again? :smallsmile:

nagora
2008-08-25, 06:52 AM
So if one has low (for this purpose, low is defined at 8 or worse) Constitution, Dexterity, or Strength there is defined penalties across the board. The low strength character has trouble carrying items, is weak in melee, etc. Low Dex and Cons characters see similar effects.

However, the non-physical stats, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma pose an unique situation. A smart player could be controlling that 8 intelligence character and come up with bright ideas despite their character being a moron. Likewise, a low Wisdom character can make wise decisions in-game due to a wise player controlling them despite the character themself being a fool.

Is it too much to ask to expect that:

1) A player with a low intelligence character cannot offer strategy or ideas to their teammates. Unfortunately, while the player may be very smart, the toon itself isn't and cannot come up with brilliant solutions.
Fair enough; a decent player won't make suggestions that are out of character anyway.


2) A character with low wisdom is going to do dumb things. They are foolish and should commit stupid decisions once in awhile. If the player doesn't commit foolish actions, because the player is not a fool, then couldn't the DM have the right to have the character perform foolish actions every once in awhile?
Yes.


3) A character with low Charisma could be ugly, mean, shy, arrogant, lacking in self-esteem/confidence or a couple of these combined. Shouldn't they cause a social mishap a session (unless they have a good wisdom score, let's say 12+, in which they know enough to keep their mouth shut). If they have a low wisdom and low charisma then couldn't they be considered "that guy" who is starting fights and causing trouble?
Yes.


4) A character with high charisma and low wisdom may not only do foolish things but may actually convince others that it is a good idea :smallbiggrin:
Yes, and it's always fun when it happens.


Of course, this should work both ways. A player with a high wisdom character and not too much common sense ought to get a couple of: "Do you really think you should do this" before doing a foolish action. Additionally, a person playing an intelligent character could ask for a roll to come up with a solution if they cannot figure it out (as their say, 18 intelligence character is likely smarter then they are).
Of course.

What's the issue here? Do you have players with characters they don't want to play?

kamikasei
2008-08-25, 06:59 AM
I would draw a line between, firstly, advising a player that his character's mental stats point towards a certain general sort of personality; secondly, telling him that some specific action (bad) or general trend in his play (better) is inconsistent with his mental makeup, and that he'll perhaps face penalties for failing to stay in character; and thirdly, actually telling a player that his character does something, which you consider appropriate for his stats but which the player won't do voluntarily, which should be avoided like the plague.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-25, 07:02 AM
This is how we handle it:

8 int Fighter: Supposing you were to give us cover-fire while we snuck in, taking advantage of the bonus we get for a distracted opponent?

12 int Rogue: Would that work?

30 int Wizard: Yes, thats why I came up with it.

Treguard
2008-08-25, 07:04 AM
Yeah, don't overdo playing up abilitie penalties; it could end up hedging into "flaws" territory.

hamishspence
2008-08-25, 08:24 AM
"I have a cunnin' plan" is a good way of describing low Int character coming up with a solution. You don't have to have low Int character DO stupid things, but they should seem somewhat stupid to their buddies, without being a total drag on the party.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-25, 08:37 AM
If you're consistently playing your Int 8 character as a booksmart know-it-all who uses big words (unless he's using them incorrectly), the GM has the right to call the player on bad roleplaying.

However, sometimes people have good ideas, and people are still going to put whatever brain cells they do have to work if it's in an area of their expertise. An Int 8 Fighter isn't going to be able to grasp on the complex arcane concepts the Wizard is talking about, but as a Fighter, understanding battle tactics and discussing strategy shouldn't be out of the realm of capability. It could be he intuits strategy (higher wis) more than logics it out. And so on.

Wisdom has a broad interpretation... it means common sense, but also perceptiveness and intuition, and even divine awareness. Someone with low Wis might be "foolish" in terms of being impuslive, but maybe not; maybe he's just not good at picking up on other people's cues, or lacks those "gut feelings" other people get when in a bad situation. A high wis character may feel in tune with the cosmos but it should be okay to lose their temper once in awhile. It happens. Sometimes brilliant people can do stupid things, and vice versa.

IMO, it's more important that someone plays their character consistently, and just be able to say that if they seem to be exceeding (or not meeting the potential of) their ability scores, let them be able to explain why that's in character.

Charisma's another thing that's too broad to be "enforced" in a way that's like, "Well, you must do BLAH once a session..." No. Low cha could be shyness... if the PC isn't talking much, fine. Low cha could be someone that people just don't listen to much. And I don't like the interpretation that Charisma includes appearance, but if it does, how the hell do you RP ugly? A bit much, yes?

Should we ask the low dex characters to trip on every tree root they walk over? Should we ask the low con characters to be constantly sneezing?

Absolutely people should RP their traits, and be rewarded when they do it well, but I think one should be careful not to take it too far (especially if it's going to be annoying.... achoo!)

Person_Man
2008-08-25, 09:00 AM
I usually ask new players to put their character's mental stats at approximately where they think their personal mental stats are. (Interestingly enough, people that I subjectively think have low Wis usually put it higher then I would expect, and people that I subjectively think have high Wis put it lower. Go figure). Then once they understand what roleplaying is and how to avoid blatant metagaming, then they can do whatever they want. "For the first campaign try playing someone like yourself, but with a heroic life. Once you actually understand what the different stats and abilities mean, play anything you want."

But I know a carpenter who dropped out of high school and strongly dislikes reading, and he has always insisted on playing a Wizard with high Int. And its really not a problem to DM, and doesn't subtract from the overall fun for anyone else. It's a game, not a reality simulator. It's great if players want to go above and beyond to maximize the verisimilitude of the experience. But its not required. Nor should a DM ever interpose his views of what "the correct" way to roleplay should be on his players. Although your intentions are good ones, you'd just come off as being a jerk.

Tempest Fennac
2008-08-25, 09:03 AM
People tend to think my Wis and Cha are higher then I think they are (I think it's because I can use Reiki). I know what you mean about correct RPing methods (it's kind of awkward when you have characters coming up with plans which don't fit their mental stats on a regular basis).

Telonius
2008-08-25, 09:06 AM
High Int, Low Wis: Comes up with lots of plans, but doesn't really think them through to the completion. (Nale's capture plans, plus roller skates, would qualify).

High Wis, low Int: Excellent for modifying plans that a high-Int person comes up with.

Low Int, Low Wis: "Hold my beer, watch this!"

Tengu_temp
2008-08-25, 09:09 AM
Should we ask the low dex characters to trip on every tree root they walk over?

<Dojikko fan> If they're female, YES!! </Dojikko fan>

Ascension
2008-08-25, 09:23 AM
I'm in the "encourage it, don't enforce it" school, and also agree that if the rest of the players aren't coming up with anything intelligent, don't make the barbarian's player chew on his tongue, let him share his insights and then give someone else the in-character credit.

Also, tangentially related:
I love playing high CHA, low WIS, medium INT characters.

They're smart enough to come up with a plan and likeable enough to convince people to go along with it... but their plans are often of the "This is so crazy it just might work!" variety. Wacky hijinks usually ensue.

One such character successfully bluffed his way past a pair of guards whose language he didn't speak, just by looking official enough; accidentally killed the boss of a dungeon by dropping another monster on top of him through a hole in the floor; bribed and bluffed his way into the heart of a Drow city; made a high enough untrained disguise roll to convince pretty much everyone in said Drow city that he was a harmless old man; and made several attempts to poison an enemy monk before realizing he was immune to poison and resorting to kidnapping and torturing him instead. Unfortunately, his grand escape plan, which was already a longshot, was nearly ruined by the party's low INT, WIS, and CHA dwarf fighter, and the DM, realizing that he would TPK us if he sent us up against the whole city of Drow, instead forced us to spend the greater chunk of our loot bribing our way out in one piece.

Shazzbaa
2008-08-25, 10:17 AM
I've had a GM in a system that wasn't D&D once tell a player that he would need to put more points in charisma if he wanted to be calling the shots during battle and being the leader-type all the time... but that was a system where it's a lot easier to just put points in another stat.

While I (for the most part) agree with you that low-INT characters should refrain from being clever all the time, that low-WIS characters are going to be either a little out of their minds, a little absent-minded, or totally un-observant, and that low-CHA characters are not going to deal well with others... unless your players are particularly open to the idea of being forced into their character's stats, trying to make them act a certain way might backfire.

For one, I think it'd be nice to find out how they envision their low stat coming across. A low-WIS character could be totally gullible, or maybe perfectly intelligent but just hideously unobservant. Low-CHA -- are you shy? Are you just unimpressive? Once you've decided "my high WIS, low INT means that I'm observant but a little slow on the uptake -- I could tell if someone was lying to me, but I'd assume it's for simplistic reasons" or "I'm low CHA because I look weird and no one can understand my accent," it's a lot easier to play that stat out. After all, there are several different ways these traits could manifest. I've said before that high-CHA people (IRL) are not always silver-tongued charmers... rather, some high-charisma people are blunt and pushy, but can get away with it because everyone believes in what they say. Along those same lines, a low-CHA person doesn't necessarily blunder through conversation -- they might *say* all the right things and just get overlooked because no one takes them seriously.

Which brings me to what you can change: how the world reacts to the character. If a character is particularly stupid, other NPCs might talk down to them. If a character has no personal magnetism, he might struggle to get NPCs to take him seriously. I had one really, really uncharismatic character who was easy to play as such, because the GM had the other NPCs treat me like a freak who was wasting their time, which just made me play her even more nervous and stammering than I already was (of course, he made it clear before the game that this would be the case, so I was all for it).

But any time you're going to enforce the mental stats, I think it's important to find out how the players are interpreting that. Or else, when the world starts treating a character like Red Mage when he was going for more of an Absent-minded Professor, the player will be frustrated, because he can't get his concept across.

Tangents!


And unless you play with the rule that everything said at the table is considered in-character, a party discussion about what to do is usually an out-of-character affair. In character, the entire playgroup's discussion is probably represented as only the group's smart characters working it out amongst themselves.

I'm in the "encourage it, don't enforce it" school, and also agree that if the rest of the players aren't coming up with anything intelligent, don't make the barbarian's player chew on his tongue, let him share his insights and then give someone else the in-character credit.

I've been there! When I played an illiterate barbarian in one group, the DM gave us the riddle "What comes once in a minute, twice in a moment, but never in a hundred years?" and I clammed up and made no attempt at solving it, despite being familiar with the riddle and knowing the answer immediately. When, to my frustration, NONE of the other players had the remotest clue what it could be, I finally pointed out that my character was incapable of solving it, and the other players then worked out that -- since he was illiterate -- he never would have thought to answer "The letter M."


EDIT:

High Int, Low Wis: Comes up with lots of plans, but doesn't really think them through to the completion.

See, I consider myself, in real life, to be higher on the INT, lower on the WIS... not because I'm a crazy fool, but because I'm so unobservant that it's laughable. When I fail to piece something together, it's usually because I missed some detail of it. When asked five minutes after talking to a woman what colour her hair is, I'm at a complete loss, because I probably didn't even notice that she had hair. My friends joke that I have a negative spot check, and that's certainly true.

This usually has me using my INT to make up for my lacking WIS. Contrary to the example you gave, I tend to think EVERYTHING through -- "gut instincts" come from WIS, after all, so I make up for having a crappy gut instinct by analysing every element of every problem I come up against.

mangosta71
2008-08-25, 10:33 AM
I'm playing a rogue with 9 int, 12 wis, 14 cha in a 4e campaign. I RP him as a guy that's not overly bright (though also not horrifically stupid as it's only a point lower than average), but he's also a bit more cunning than most people. The most fun thing I've done to this point is climbing through a second story window of the wizard's tower and looting it while said wizard was at the inn chatting with the rest of the party, then climbing through a second story window of the inn and coming down to the common room to say hello to him. When the paladin asked if I'd learned anything, I put on a ^@%#-eating grin for the guy and whispered "Shut up!"

Yakk
2008-08-25, 11:15 AM
Bah, that's not metagame mechanics.

Intelligence: The character with high Intelligence can prove that the universe itself is wrong. The Sherlock effect. The player can make up some out-there explanation for what is going on, and on a successful check (whose DC is determined by how close it was to what the DM planned, and how beneficial the explanation would be to the PCs), that is what reality consists of. Any inconsistencies between what the players have experienced and the explanation must, naturally, be explained -- poor fit causes additional penalties.

Wisdom: A character with high Wisdom knows better than to walk into that undetectable glass wall. The Player or DM may make Common Sense checks. When the player to do something that actually is foolish, a Wisdom Check means that the DM must honestly inform the player it is foolish, and the scale of the foolishness. This is even if the Player might not have "enough" information to realize the extent of the foolishness at the time.

Charisma: With enough chutzpah, even the gods smile upon your Hero. A Charisma check can be used to determine if the players choice of actions where actually the right choice all along, even if it seemed like it was a horridly stupid plan to charge the 17th division with only a toothpick.

Now, having low Cha/Int/Wis is crippling! :-)

Chronos
2008-08-25, 11:30 AM
My favorite example of high-int, low-wis roleplaying that I've seen was a character who opened a stuck trapdoor by jumping up and down on it. It was, in fact, a good plan, to the extent that it worked. It was also, in fact, a terrible plan, to the extent that it worked.

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 11:32 AM
While I (for the most part) agree with you that low-INT characters should refrain from being clever all the time, that low-WIS characters are going to be either a little out of their minds, a little absent-minded, or totally un-observant, and that low-CHA characters are not going to deal well with others... unless your players are particularly open to the idea of being forced into their character's stats, trying to make them act a certain way might backfire.

For one, I think it'd be nice to find out how they envision their low stat coming across. A low-WIS character could be totally gullible, or maybe perfectly intelligent but just hideously unobservant. Low-CHA -- are you shy? Are you just unimpressive? Once you've decided "my high WIS, low INT means that I'm observant but a little slow on the uptake -- I could tell if someone was lying to me, but I'd assume it's for simplistic reasons" or "I'm low CHA because I look weird and no one can understand my accent," it's a lot easier to play that stat out. After all, there are several different ways these traits could manifest. I've said before that high-CHA people (IRL) are not always silver-tongued charmers... rather, some high-charisma people are blunt and pushy, but can get away with it because everyone believes in what they say. Along those same lines, a low-CHA person doesn't necessarily blunder through conversation -- they might *say* all the right things and just get overlooked because no one takes them seriously.



I agree with the Charisma observations. Examples of what I would consider high charisma jobs would be politicians, actors, car salesmen. Basically, people with strong personalities who are able to convince you of their positions. For example, I'd consider Nixon and Churchill to have had high charisma despite being not physically attractive. Of course, physical attractiveness would play a part in this (Kennedy had more charisma then Nixon after all).

As for fighters, I'd think that the fighters coming up with battle strategy and tactics would be the ones that go for the combat expertise type feats (an strategy considered by most to be unoptimal but a valid build), thus high Intelligence fighters. Roy Greenhilt is an intelligent fighter who can be expected come up with tactics and strategy but your 8 Intelligence fighter is much more like Thog (probably not as bad but along the same lines). Your average and high intelligence fighters are the sergeants and officers commanding the troops while your low intelligence ones are among the grunts.

As for barbarians, where is it written that they have to have an intelligence of 8? It is certainly plausable to have an intelligent barbarian. Again, it isn't optimal but it is plausable that a barbarian village would have intelligent but uneducated people.

As for the carrot approach instead of the stick, that is probably the better way to do it. Cutting XP or giving bonus XP for roleplaying is most likely a better approach then forcing ones hand.

Flickerdart
2008-08-25, 11:32 AM
I think you should name that last one the Kamina Effect. It fits.

Arbitrarity
2008-08-25, 11:40 AM
Many puzzles in games I play tend to be based around collective player intelligence. Few puzzles are intended to be solved by one player, unless theirs is the only character in the area. So we also distinguish player from character when solving puzzles, etc. Solutions come from the character most likely to solve the puzzles, like our ranger (16 INT, 18 WIS). In social situations, there tends to be a strong push towards "Let the bard talk, and we suggest things quietly". This, of course, only applies where diplomacy is important. Otherwise, characters speak as players do, though some players are very quiet :smallsigh:

chiasaur11
2008-08-25, 11:49 AM
Bah, that's not metagame mechanics.

Intelligence: The character with high Intelligence can prove that the universe itself is wrong. The Sherlock effect. The player can make up some out-there explanation for what is going on, and on a successful check (whose DC is determined by how close it was to what the DM planned, and how beneficial the explanation would be to the PCs), that is what reality consists of. Any inconsistencies between what the players have experienced and the explanation must, naturally, be explained -- poor fit causes additional penalties.

Wisdom: A character with high Wisdom knows better than to walk into that undetectable glass wall. The Player or DM may make Common Sense checks. When the player to do something that actually is foolish, a Wisdom Check means that the DM must honestly inform the player it is foolish, and the scale of the foolishness. This is even if the Player might not have "enough" information to realize the extent of the foolishness at the time.

Charisma: With enough chutzpah, even the gods smile upon your Hero. A Charisma check can be used to determine if the players choice of actions where actually the right choice all along, even if it seemed like it was a horridly stupid plan to charge the 17th division with only a toothpick.

Now, having low Cha/Int/Wis is crippling! :-)


The first one is down right Red Mageian. Good show.

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 11:59 AM
Finally, if this was in effect it would certainly have to be:

1) Approved of by the players

2) Announced before character creation so that players could adjust their stats to avoid penalties if they wish

Obviously, it wouldn't be fair to come in with this interpretation mid-game and blindside people. That really wouldn't go over too well :smallsmile:

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 12:20 PM
Judging by your last thread, and where I've seen you recently, this seems like it's part of being upset at "Those damn Wizards who keep casting the right spells."

But honestly, look at it again, logically determining your foes weaknesses and casting spells at that is a high int thing to do.

As for low Wis/low Cha characters being that guy who's an arrogant jackass who makes everyone else's life harder.

Of course he is. But he's also the Wizard, and so the party can't do without him and he can take care of whatever he's pissing off.

Also,vyou just made playing Barbarians and Fighters even less fun, because now they can't come up with plans, (and so can't talk much in character), have to make boneheaded mistakes (I grapple the dragon! DM: You can't, size categories. Player: I know but I have to waste my action trying anyway cause I'm a doofus.) And piss off everyone they talk to, but they aren't even allowed to keep their mouth shut because that requires higher Wis.

The other thread was just an intellectual exercise for fun :smallsmile:

I really have nothing against wizards. Anyway, if this interpretation was in effect, the players would have agreed on it beforehand and created their characters with this in mind so they'd have the option of having fighters and barbarians who don't have low wisdom and/or intelligence.

Stormageddon
2008-08-25, 12:39 PM
I am playing in a game where the entire group has a low int and wis scores, except for the Cleric who has a high wisdom and just barely enough int to be smarter than her friends. We are roleplaying it, and I got to say it's pretty fun. But I don't think it should be mandatory for players to have to roleplay it. Unless they role a 3 int than they should roleplay it. I also think you could roleplay a low str, dex, or con. Low str means you're charter doesn't do manuel labor could be lazy ext. Low dex could mean you're charter trips over his/her owe feet once in awhile. Low con you're charter is constantly getting sick. Just depend on how much roleplaying the PC wants to do.

Where I really have noticed a problem with this is the DM's metagaming their int and wisdom into monsters that you know couldn't have behaved that with the scores they have.

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 01:07 PM
Where I really have noticed a problem with this is the DM's metagaming their int and wisdom into monsters that you know couldn't have behaved that with the scores they have.

Excellent point.

Inhuman Bot
2008-08-25, 02:40 PM
Question: How do you nadle high charisma charcters, when the player isn't all the charismatic? That happens alot in our group.

JMobius
2008-08-25, 02:42 PM
Question: How do you nadle high charisma charcters, when the player isn't all the charismatic? That happens alot in our group.

Let them try to emulate it as best they can, but when it comes down to the effect that it has, let the dice decide.

Morandir Nailo
2008-08-25, 03:04 PM
It's fun to roleplay a low mental score and all, but I certainly don't think that players should ever be punished/discouraged from coming up with and using creative solutions, no matter what their character sheet says. As it is impossible to roleplay being smarter than you are, I don't expect you to do the opposite either.

If you roll a low-Cha character and decide that he's an ass, great. If you want to play the head-in-the-clouds low-Wis guy, fine; those things really do enhance the game experience as long as they're not taken too far (it's one of the reasons why I'm a Roll Your Stats advocate). But I don't expect you to keep your mouth shut when you have a great solution to a problem just because of a number on a piece of paper; I expect you to speak up instead. This is largely a consequence of my play style, though: I'm definitely in the "challenge players, not PCs" camp.

And, as has been stated before, there is one thing that a DM should never, ever, ever do, and that's take control of a PC (unless dominated, and even then I'd leave it up to the player to act accordingly). As DM, you control all of existence; the player gets one individual, and s/he has total control over that character. You simply cannot tell a player what his/her character does.

Mor

JoshuaZ
2008-08-25, 06:15 PM
I usually ask new players to put their character's mental stats at approximately where they think their personal mental stats are. (Interestingly enough, people that I subjectively think have low Wis usually put it higher then I would expect, and people that I subjectively think have high Wis put it lower. Go figure).

There's a well known phenomenon that people of low ability in something (such as spelling, or puzzle-solving) will rate themselves as having at least average or above ability. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of this effect although I do remember that there is a Wikipedia article on it. Grr...

TheDarkOne
2008-08-25, 07:48 PM
I usually just assume that a characters mental stats just represents the portion of those mental abilities that I can't or don't want to handle my self. For example a character with low int won't be the best at learning new things (skill points), or remembering in game facts (knowledge skills), or be very good at casting spells, but he'll be perfectly fine at abstract thinking, tactical reasoning etc. This even kind of makes sense, a person who is intelligent isn't necessarily intelligent at everything, and a person that's stupid at quite a lot of things won't always be dumb at everything. So in my opinion you're fairly free to interpret how good your character is at anything that's not directly linked to a stat via mechanics.

Also, I do it this way because I like doing it this way, it would also make sense the other way. Just because you're character has a high int, wis and cha doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be a tactical genius or will be able to come up with an execute brilliant plans. It could just mean he's really really good at learning the abstract and complex things behind magic, and memorizing a lot of facts.

snoopy13a
2008-08-25, 07:51 PM
There's a well known phenomenon that people of low ability in something (such as spelling, or puzzle-solving) will rate themselves as having at least average or above ability. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of this effect although I do remember that there is a Wikipedia article on it. Grr...

According to the internet, 80% of Americans think that they are above-average drivers.

Is this what you mean:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect

Hal
2008-08-25, 07:58 PM
Has this (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850)been brought up yet?

In all seriousness, it's a difficult line to walk. However, if you have to tell a player, "No, you're not smart enough to come up with that, do something else," then something went wrong.

Devils_Advocate
2008-08-25, 11:41 PM
There's a well known phenomenon that people of low ability in something (such as spelling, or puzzle-solving) will rate themselves as having at least average or above ability. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of this effect although I do remember that there is a Wikipedia article on it. Grr...
Incompetant people lack the competence needed to recognize their incompetence. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL)

Is that actually a big revelation, though? I had previously assumed it to be common knowledge that most stupid people aren't smart enough to realize how dumb they are.

chiasaur11
2008-08-26, 12:01 AM
Incompetant people lack the competence needed to recognize their incompetence. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL)

Is that actually a big revelation, though? I had previously assumed it to be common knowledge that most stupid people aren't smart enough to realize how dumb they are.

And wise men realize just how poorly suited they are for so many things on a cosmic scale.

One of life's crueler ironies.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-26, 12:10 AM
I think unless confronted with evidence otherwise, people tend to drift towards the average in their perceptions. If my character has a 10 int, I'm going to assume that's about what I have, even though I probably have higher (no idea how much higher). Similarly I'll assume the same for a 10 charisma, though I'm probably a point or two lower.

Duke of URL
2008-08-26, 02:14 PM
See the essay (http://forums.layonara.com/roleplaying/109544-roleplaying-attributes.html) on the subject that I wrote for another site.