Intelligence is not a superpower

[Quertus]

Here's one: Say you're on a rpg design team and you write up a subsystem. Lets go with d&d 4e skill challenges, the first version with it's muktiple flaws. Would high "intelligence", high "wisdom", or lots of previous rpg experience let you spot the flaw that the "harder = more rolls" design meant that pcs were more likely to succeed a "hard" challenge than an "easy" challenge (the game putting pc success rates at 65% to 75% and more rolls pushing results towards the averages)? Then which "stat" to catch the perverse incentive to fail challenges (originally the default suggestion was success bypassing a medium/easy fight or two, but fights were action & xp & loot when success had no other suggested reward)?

Either.

The "int character" would do the calculations and be able to tell you the chances of success.

The "wis character" would, by experience, realize that single rolls tend to have more extreme results, and lots of rolls tend to "even out" over time. They might not know that there is an issue, but they'd have the experience to recognize that and look further.

The ideal situation is that the wis character prompts the int character to do the math, leveraging both of their strengths.



Wisdom, probably. The key insight here is that players might not want to bypass all encounters, and that in a game where xp and loot are the marks of progression, that if something is to be seen as a better alternative to combat, it has to provide at least the same level of rewards (compared to the "cost" of combat) in order to be an actually better result.

This could be done through game-theory-like analysis (actual mathematical game theory) but understanding human incentive and behavior seems like a more likely first signal that there's an issue.

So the two are actually similar - the "wis character" would be likely to recognize the potential problem, the "int character" can analyze the problem and determine the severity of it.

So, to flip that on its head… the individual who thinks that *maybe* this should be tested? I call them "Wise" (or, really, I call those who *don't* realize that the math doesn't just "work", and needs to actually be *tested*… pejoratives that amount to "unwise".)

The person who is able to do the math, and test it? I call them "intelligent".

I worked at a software development company where I once made a statement to the effect of, "before I upload this code, written in a language I don't know, that will impact all our customers, to our live servers, I thought that maybe someone should test it". Being me, the code worked fine, despite my having never used that language before that day. But the fact that everyone could - and did - simply push code live without testing it? It seemed too unwise for my tastes, and that simple request changed company policy.

-----

Recognizing what is actually Incentivized by a set of rules? That's a tricky one. I know, because I'm good at some, bad at others.

"Experienced" can certainly help, yet there's plenty of times that fresh eyes can set what experienced ones cannot.

Guile, psychology, and… whatever combination of factors drive char-op can all help.

But I think that the biggest factor is the ability to set aside preconceived notions, and look at something for what it truly is. I don't have a name for that (outside the referential "see with eyes unclouded by hate").