How do you play characters smarter than yourself?

[Mnemnosyne]

I'm sure DM's especially face this problem a great deal, but even players of intelligent characters will have this problem. The average real-life human D&D player would probably be considered INT 10-14, with particularly intelligent people possibly approaching 16, but I doubt there are many players who could claim an 18 intelligence, since that's meant to be the pinnacle of natural human ability. We're talking Einsteins and Stephen Hawkings here, which puts most of us far below that level. One might argue that they were high enough level to get a few int bonuses from leveling, but even so that puts them at 23 maximum, while D&D characters with stat-boosting magical items can commonly exceed these numbers by a considerable amount.

So I am curious as to how others handle the issue of playing NPC's and characters that are vastly more intelligent and possibly vastly wiser than they could possibly hope to be.

DM's seem to have an easier time at it, they can construct a plan and then not stick to it if they decide the character would have thought of that before. An idea I have come up with for playing super-intelligent NPC's is to give them a number of plan-adjustments based on their INT or WIS score or both. Design a plan and stronghold or whatever, and when the players come up with something I didn't think of, I might spend one of these adjustments to alter the NPC's defenses to counter that plan. By limiting the number of such adjustments strictly based on the NPC's ability scores, I prevent it from being a free 'he thinks of everything', since there are a limited number of times I can adjust the existing plan like this, but it seems to allow me to play a character much more intelligent than myself by making adjustments after the fact for things that such an individual would have thought of.

As a player, on the other hand, it is much more difficult to accurately portray such a character, it would seem. There's no easy way to go 'well he would have thought of that' even when I didn't. Especially since as a player it would often mean undoing something we've already done.

One of the few ways I can think of - if there's time - is to come to boards like this one for advice on the situation, thus getting the opinions of many in order to make up for the fact that none of us are as smart as the character in question. We can then hopefully pick the best advice. However very often there's no time to do such a thing (such as if the problem comes up mid-session and needs to be solved right then).

How do you handle playing characters smarter than you, as a DM and as a player? Obviously the situations are quite different, so it's really two questions there.

[Lord Vampyre]

It was true that in 2nd edition that an 18 was considered the pinnacle of human ability, except your Int and Wis went up with age.

Personnally, I've always taken the Int score to be approximately 1/10th of the average person's IQ. Making a character with a 13 or 14 Int, approximates to an IQ of 130 to 140.

Now we also have to remember that our society today is built on the geniuses of yesterday. Meaning that some of the things we take for granted today, like architecture and engineering were developed by people with IQ's approaching or even exceeding the 180 to 200 range. Their work took them years of research. Fortunately for us, they documented all of their material, so we don't have to recreate it from scratch.

It is unreasonable to expect your character to think of something that the average person could do, simply because they don't have the access to the vast amount of knowledge available that we have now. Unfortunately, even a genius is limited to the level of technology he is currently at.

Now, to actually play a character smarter than myself, I generally look at their skills and see what they might come up with based on their background. Generally, if the character is actually smarter than the player, it will come up in play. Simply with insight, knowledge, and other various skills working out better than player could manage in real life. Just my opinion, but hey its worked so far for me.

[Lev]

Simple, if you are a player don't play anything you can't clearly imagine-- it says it in the book like if you've never been out in the woods simply do not play a ranger over something else.

NPCs, Dragons, Gods, it's pretty easy. Give them a character flaw that impedes how they show it off, make them slow and deliberate to act, and give them DM mulligans when things don't work out exactly.

When it comes down to it, you shouldn't be DMing or playing things you really can't imagine very well. If you think that sucks then it probably does, kinda explains why DnD is played primarily by Nerds and not just Geeks-- Chess players and not just Anime watchers, heh.

[Soranar]

A character that's smarter than you, can reach the same conclusion as you much faster. He can also draw on more knowledge than you can (normally).

But, you're not restrained by time like he is. And you have the infinite power of Google , Wikipedia and sites like these on your side.

Example

In combat, a round is only 6 seconds of "real time" for your character but you take a lot longer to plan it out. That ability alone makes you smarter than your character (simply having time to check where everyone is, what they're doing, know who will act first and then decide on the proper course of action is a lot)

Einstein often mentioned that he wasn't smarter than everyone else: he just ponders things for a long time. Being smarter, arguably, makes that process shorter so give yourself enough time to figure out which action is the best.

Of course replicating a smart person that gets to think for a long time... that's a problem. As you mentioned, and what you're currently doing, you do have advantage. You can ask for advice from many people (while out of character), read on whatever subject and act as if your character just thought of it (i.e. Trolls are vulnerable to fire: we all know that but not necessarily our characters) or mimic the greats (i.e.: I saw this in a movie once, I read about this smart thing/act/trick somewhere, etc.)

N.B. Just remember that if someone really smart (talented) makes a mistake, it's usually catastrophic compared to an average person. The reason is fairly simple: that person is so used to being right (and not be able to ask anyone else for advice since he/she is the most qualified) that when they do make a mistake it's often impressive (thus you can act ''smar" by doing something stupid, helps if your Wisdom is low)

[Mando Knight]

The smartest people know how to fake knowledge and derive actual facts from real knowledge. At the same time. Seamlessly.
...I think. I know I do it all the time, and most everyone seems to believe me and ask me questions, so...

Also, if all of your knowledge is magic, then you don't have to be really smart to mimic the high Int. It's magic. If the fourth rune comes from the ancient Hygalian symbol for "destruction" and the circled star represents the eternity of the heavens, and you're the expert on that kind of stuff, who's going to argue with you?

[Lev]

The smartest people know how to fake knowledge and derive actual facts from real knowledge. At the same time. Seamlessly.
...I think. I know I do it all the time, and most everyone seems to believe me and ask me questions, so...

Also, if all of your knowledge is magic, then you don't have to be really smart to mimic the high Int. It's magic. If the fourth rune comes from the ancient Hygalian symbol for "destruction" and the circled star represents the eternity of the heavens, and you're the expert on that kind of stuff, who's going to argue with you?

http://www.chessboss.com/
He means that a smart character will think of things differently than it's more simple player-- it's about logic pathways in the brain AKA the amount of oxygenated blood being absorbed and efficiently converted in the neocortex and then transferring that energy into efficient logic.

Chess masters commonly burn 4,000-6,000 calories per day due to this energy usage and it's this "12 steps ahead" mentality used in everyday life which actually raises one's int score.

Now, try playing a few rounds on chessboss and you'll see what high int is.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Im not into smart characters. So I dont run into this problem. If I did, I would simply let the dice speak for themselves, and use my IRL Bluff skill to pass by.

[jiriku]

1. Take more time than the PC has.

2. Use resources that aren't available to the PC.

3. Get opinions from RL experts on a subject, even if the PC isn't an expert.

[Yukitsu]

http://www.chessboss.com/
He means that a smart character will think of things differently than it's more simple player-- it's about logic pathways in the brain AKA the amount of oxygenated blood being absorbed and efficiently converted in the neocortex and then transferring that energy into efficient logic.

Chess masters commonly burn 4,000-6,000 calories per day due to this energy usage and it's this "12 steps ahead" mentality used in everyday life which actually raises one's int score.

Now, try playing a few rounds on chessboss and you'll see what high int is.

They found that chess has a limited number of solutions, kind of like tic-tac-toe, so it's not as great an example anymore. Chess can currently be won with wrote memorization rather than intelligence, which is why computers that learn eventually always draw or win. So that place isn't the best example.

As to the OP, just do the best you can. I just remember to take stock of everything the party has, what the limitations of those abilities are, and mix them and the situation to create solutions. Usually I can come up with something that makes combat easier, or bypasses it. Am I int 23 like my character? No, but the other players at the table comment that I have smart ideas that keep us alive.

[Orzel]

I take my time and metagame hard. Whip out that search engine, bro.

[PId6]

Divinations, Knowledge everything, and metagame. You really don't have too many more options than that.

[graeylin]

Die rolls...

Announce to the DM that you are doing a knowledge check, either using a skill (which you have because of your PC's intelligence) or a general check vs your intelligence score, and let the die rule. You should have a higher chance to beat the odds, and then the DM can give your PC a bit of info "you" don't have, making it seem the PC is smarter.

Nobwillick stops at the door, and surveys the room, looking for clues (intelligence check). He knows that every room leaves behind clues about the person who owned it, if one can only decipher them.

[DeltaEmil]

In D&D 3rd edition, high intelligence score is for me nothing more but a modifier to a few combat stats as well as bonus skill points, and I don't claim to play a smart person.

[Mando Knight]

They found that chess has a limited number of solutions, kind of like tic-tac-toe, so it's not as great an example anymore. Chess can currently be won with wrote memorization rather than intelligence,

Ah, no. There's a limited number of solutions, but the possible plays are in the millions, so it's still strategy up to the point where you can look it up in an endgame table. Before then, the openings have names (since they're limited), but you've got several thousands of possibilities between where you are and where one will checkmate.

[Lord Vampyre]

Ah chess!!! As with most things in life, there are a finite number of possibilities. Fortunately, this finite number is far larger than most people can actually fathom. Thus strategy still exists, unless your a computer.

[Lev]

Ah chess!!! As with most things in life, there are a finite number of possibilities. Fortunately, this finite number is far larger than most people can actually fathom. Thus strategy still exists, unless your a computer.

My fists are also finite, there are 2 of them!
Rawr!

[fryplink]

Ah chess!!! As with most things in life, there are a finite number of possibilities. Fortunately, this finite number is far larger than most people can actually fathom. Thus strategy still exists, unless your a computer.

Assuming that the game is less then 40 moves, there is a claim that the number of different chess games within those moves is 10⁴³, but that is refutable

After the first four moves 71852, according to Flye st. Marie.

YAY google!

[aje8]

There are more possible chess positions than atoms in the universe. Our computers are no where near solving chess. It is solved for 6 pieces or less on the board though.

Regardless, intelligence is best done by taking more time and using search engines. Also: making stuff up. Use incredibly advanced vocabulary without actually saying anything and the character sounds smart, without you actually being smart.

[fryplink]

There are more possible chess positions than atoms in the universe. Our computers are no where near solving chess. It is solved for 6 pieces or less on the board though.

Regardless, intelligence is best done by taking more time and using search engines. Also: making stuff up. Use incredibly advanced vocabulary without actually saying anything and the character sounds smart, without you actually being smart.

This is true, to the point that once a chess player his tournament level, once you get into the endgame, it's considered polite to concede if it is impossible for you to win, and mighty difficult to stalemate (considering that your opponent is a tournament player of similar skill). My "coach" for chess told me to concede whenever I could tell that even a grandmaster couldn't win the game from there

(ex, opponent has both rooks, and I have a knight, literally impossible for me to win, incredibly improbable to stalemate against even new players)

[Mando Knight]

Fortunately, this finite number is far larger than most people can actually fathom. Thus strategy still exists, unless your a computer.

Even if my estimate of millions were correct, that would mean only a dedicated chess computer would be able to run the game to its solution. The total databank alone would be in the gigabyte range. But it's too conservative: the game-tree complexity is in the googol range, meaning that any method of mapping out the entire game from start to finish is effectively impossible for anything other than a supergalactic computer. At least. It might even need a heaven-piercing computer.

[aje8]

This is true, to the point that once a chess player his tournament level, once you get into the endgame, it's considered polite to concede if it is impossible for you to win, and mighty difficult to stalemate (considering that your opponent is a tournament player of similar skill). My "coach" for chess told me to concede whenever I could tell that even a grandmaster couldn't win the game from there

(ex, opponent has both rooks, and I have a knight, literally impossible for me to win, incredibly improbable to stalemate against even new players)

Hum.... weird. My chess teacher has taught me never to resign. (If it wasn't clear, I'm also a competitive player) Because if your chances of winning involve them playing terrible and dropping a rook or even two, there's still a small chance of victory and that small chance is greater than the 0% you get from resigning. Espically given that tourament games are played with a clock and thus them running out time or losing as a result of time trouble when you're dead lost is very possible.

Regardless though, my statement was just correcting those with wildly incorrect estimates. It wasn't meant to state that never resigning is correct, even though I believe that.

[Nefarion Xid]

I wouldn't say IQ is the best correlate of the Intelligence stat in D&D. Int is more related to your education and accumulated knowledge rather than problem solving and pattern recognition. So, Intelligence is more like "how good you are at academic pursuits" rather than simply "how smart you are".

Take any random grad student. Would they have a high Int score? Sure, along with plenty of ranks in an appropriate knowledge skill. Must they necessarily have a high IQ? From observation... eeeeh! People with advanced degrees just have a high academic acumen, they're good at school, but not necessarily smarter than everyone else. Who would you say is more deserving of an Int 16... a teenage dropout with an IQ of 160 or a university professor with a mere 115?

I think it's the case that wizards are smart because they've worked hard to become so rather than only the smartest people become wizards.

Now, as for playing a character that's more intelligent than you are: make liberal use of your knowledge skills. Grab a circumstance modifier on your diplomacy check because you remember the local etiquette. Exploit monster's vulnerabilities, etc etc.

Edit: I wouldn't say Einstein necessarily had a crushing IQ either. He was just a great deal more focused than many of us could ever hope or would want to be. The amount of time spent thinking about physics and the intensity with which he did it just earned him multiple lifetimes worth of work compressed into a single one. I suppose the majority of us have the same ability to a much smaller degree when we find something that absolutely enthralls us.

[urbanpirate]

playing a character more intelegent than you are iis not as hard as it would seem.
just keep in mind they are doing all the detail work you are pretty much just calling the shots.

brain surgery for example for the player , cut his head open and remove the tumor is about all you need to know

for the actual surgeon it is much harder. but unless your dm is a nit picking toolbag you shouldn't be concerned about the minutia ( like spelling)

[Milskidasith]

It was true that in 2nd edition that an 18 was considered the pinnacle of human ability, except your Int and Wis went up with age.

Personnally, I've always taken the Int score to be approximately 1/10th of the average person's IQ. Making a character with a 13 or 14 Int, approximates to an IQ of 130 to 140.

Now we also have to remember that our society today is built on the geniuses of yesterday. Meaning that some of the things we take for granted today, like architecture and engineering were developed by people with IQ's approaching or even exceeding the 180 to 200 range. Their work took them years of research. Fortunately for us, they documented all of their material, so we don't have to recreate it from scratch.

It is unreasonable to expect your character to think of something that the average person could do, simply because they don't have the access to the vast amount of knowledge available that we have now. Unfortunately, even a genius is limited to the level of technology he is currently at.

Now, to actually play a character smarter than myself, I generally look at their skills and see what they might come up with based on their background. Generally, if the character is actually smarter than the player, it will come up in play. Simply with insight, knowledge, and other various skills working out better than player could manage in real life. Just my opinion, but hey its worked so far for me.

I don't think IQ works the way you think it does. Most real life geniuses who did great things would stretch to be 180. 200 is so rare I don't think anybody has actually achieved such an IQ; I think the highest ever recorded was 190-something, though I may be wrong.

Likewise, not all things were made by high IQ people. The building you're living in? Probably designed by an engineer who, while above average, is certainly nowhere near 180 or even 160. Most things in this world are probably made and designed by people who are, on the whole, probably only a little bit above average. Even new technologies are probably not made by people with 180 IQ, because even if they created as many things as Edison (was attributed to have) created, we'd still progress remarkably slowly if those people were the only ones who did anything.

[awa]

This is what i do as a dm when a player has a high int or wisdom.

1 let them plan retroactively, simple stuff like if the party splits up but forgot to set a meeting place before hand.
2 discus things out of character for extended amounts of time in combat or other time constrained situations.
3 tell them information your character realizes this.

[Mnemnosyne]

I don't think IQ works the way you think it does. Most real life geniuses who did great things would stretch to be 180. 200 is so rare I don't think anybody has actually achieved such an IQ; I think the highest ever recorded was 190-something, though I may be wrong.

Well his method would actually be pretty accurate an assessment, then, since 18 is max human stats unless you get into increases by leveling or age, and in 2nd Edition it was max human without powerful magic to increase it (or again age increases). It would mean that 18 intelligence = 180 IQ. Not that IQ is all that great a measurement system (it's about the best we can come up with but it has serious issues with some fields).

Overall it seems like most people agree that time and access to information is our only real advantage.

I had not considered the fact that a combat round is 6 seconds, while we have minutes (or hours or more in pbp) to ponder our actions, and that's a good point. OOC advice from fellow players also can help with that.

The major difficulty for a player, considering what's been said thus far, then comes up when the character has a considerable amount of time to think of something but the player really doesn't. Like something that is going to take a few days in-character, but is being done in the middle of a live session and 'time-compressed'. Even something as simple as considering a plan while making a two-day journey from one town to another can present something of an issue for the player to properly represent this character.

Perhaps the best solution, if the party and DM are agreeable, are to go over things like that with the DM so he can give the player of the high int/wis character a couple additional hints to represent additional connections the character makes as she analyzes the situation.

[Milskidasith]

Well his method would actually be pretty accurate an assessment, then, since 18 is max human stats unless you get into increases by leveling or age, and in 2nd Edition it was max human without powerful magic to increase it (or again age increases). It would mean that 18 intelligence = 180 IQ. Not that IQ is all that great a measurement system (it's about the best we can come up with but it has serious issues with some fields).

Int being equal to IQ/10 is so horribly inaccurate it's laughable. Just consider that IQ is on a bell curve with a standard distribution of about 15 points (meaning there are exponentially less people with higher and higher IQ), but that 80 IQ points is only a +4 bonus in D&D terms, so little that it could be fairly easily overcame by luck. Granted, D&D is horrible at modelling real people in general, but that's another issue.

[valadil]

I've yet to play a character with that high of an int score...

Nah I just get information from the GM. Make ridiculous amount of knowledge/int checks. Get information. Claim your character figured it out and go from there.

[FirebirdFlying]

Re:Int vs. IQ -
If we assume, as isn't necessarily the case, that stats are generated by a 3d6, then an 18 comes up .5% of the time. If we look at a IQ distribution chart (one I found on Wikipedia, anyway), ie what they try to match IQs to, .5% is about 127 (likewise, a 3 is about 73, generally considered borderline mental function).

So - 18 isn't actually that good. Quite smart, yes, but not once-in-a-generation. D&D simply lacks the granularity to take starting stats to such depth.

EDIT: And re the topic at hand - well, I agree with everyone else, basically. Preparation can make up for intelligence. Wisdom's actually harder, I find. Hence why I tend to play low-wis characters.

[Nefarion Xid]

Well, if you suppose that every person in a D&D world is created with 6 rolls of 3d6, then intelligence falls neatly on a bell curve as well, just not the same one. If you assume that 1 out of 216 people have 18 intelligence, that would make it comparable to an IQ of 145.

Of course, I don't think for a second that 18 is the nigh unattainable pinnacle of human capability either. An 18 Int strikes me more as a valedictorian rather than Dr. Hawking. Adventurers aren't better than everyone else because of raw natural ability, they just happen to be the sort to devote their lives to swordplay or arcana. That and adventurers just seem to have a whole array of psychological disorders. Any number of people in the village might be strong enough to be a Fighter, but it takes a special (crazy) kind of person to actually go explore the local dungeon... and murder the sentient inhabitants and take their stuff.

Edit: Whoops. Standard distribution fail on my part. 1/216 is much closer to an IQ of 138 or so.