If a character does something stupid but has a high mental stat do you let them roll?

[randomhero00]

This comes up a lot in my games. We play till the wee hours of the morning so its inevetiable that someone makes a mistake his or her character wouldn't have. Do you/should I let them roll a wisdom/intelligence check to see if there character would have really done that?


Thing is if I allow that all the time it almost makes it too easy for the caster types in the party and is yet another set back for the melee that likely don't have high mental stats.

[AstralFire]

I don't let them roll, I pull them aside and suggest that perhaps they should rethink that action.

IMO, I think on this point balance should not be the consideration; save that for the rest of the game.

[WarKitty]

Most of the time I just say "are you sure?" and let them take the action back. Balance it out by saying "are you sure?" a lot as a DM - it gets them to pause, but if sometimes the answer is "yes" and it works, they don't automatically assume it shouldn't work.

[Marnath]

Take-backs are a good idea to allow, especially when the player likes to jump the gun and act before you've described the area fully.

"I open the door and step through." It wouldn't be fair to say "ok, roll 35d6 falling damage for falling into the pit" because the character would see that and not step in.

[nedz]

I normally summarize their actions.
"So you kick the Sleeping Dragon on the butt ?"

BUT if they roll the dice it happens. I do this to stop players changing their minds and provaricating. I link the dice roll to doing the deed.

Even a genius can make a mistake. Ever heard of the cosmological constant ?

[randomhero00]

Yeah but a genius is going to make a whole heck of a lot less mistakes than a stupid farm boy that happened into some power.

Like I said. I think it makes sense to roll a wisdom or intelligence check. But then that usually makes melee types even worse when they shouldn't be.

[Starbuck_II]

Most of the time I just say "are you sure?" and let them take the action back. Balance it out by saying "are you sure?" a lot as a DM - it gets them to pause, but if sometimes the answer is "yes" and it works, they don't automatically assume it shouldn't work.

I thought, "are you sure" means: "Wow, that is so cool."

I pretty sure most people believe it means same thing.

[randomhero00]

BTW I'm not really talking about "Are you sure?" moments that every type of character should get. I'm talking about the more subtle moments of, will this screw something over?

[bloodtide]

In the old days I used to stop the play and ask them if they were sure, and even point out the very obvious thing they are missing. And sometimes I still do with a new player or if the game is very slow paced.


But most often, I just re-write the script. So whatever 'dumb' action the smart guy has taken, just turns out to be the right and safe one. And the game simply goes on without even a slight bump.

[Tengu_temp]

I'm one of these "are you sure?" DMs too. Though my players usually point out the stupid actions of their party members much faster than I do, so I don't really need to warn them a lot.

[randomhero00]

My point of this thread though is the things that border off the "are you sure?" stupidity levels.

And even then, for those that "are you sure?" do you give them more to intelligent characters with high mental stats? Or are all equal? There should really be a feat for new players that let's the DM warn them when they're about to do something stupid.

[Dr.Epic]

Depends on how stupid, how out of character, and what the consequences are.

[Toliudar]

I almost never give extra consideration for high mental stats. Very occasionally for remembering a detail from many gaming sessions ago, or to solve a puzzle that's slowng down the game, but that's it.

[DarkEternal]

I have a player that plays a dwarf cleric with 18 INT and 26 or something Wisdom who does stuff like this all the time. He likes to watch party members sleep, and brush their hair just because he can, walk through the nature and use various stone related spells to carve his face into mountain sides, has ideas of making the party wizard an addict to drugs by doing that spell(I think it's from BoVD) where you need to draw on the victim for ten minutes or something because it would be really, really funny to him and so forth.

Honestly, he plays it and I percieve it that he's just really eccentric to the point of being a crazy old git. You can depend on him in combat, though even there he has strange ideas, like using Righteous Might on him, then picking up huge boulders and tossing them at dragons and such. Everybody has a good laugh, and sure, if he didn't bring any good effects to the party it would grow tiresome, but periodical stupidity is all good and fun for everyone. Hell, if he's of a certain alignment, like a Chaotic Neutral(like he is), reward him for it.

[bloodtide]

My point of this thread though is the things that border off the "are you sure?" stupidity levels.

I don't have a problem with smart people doing stupid things. I work in the technology field with lots of people with lots and lots of 'high education'. And let me say in the nicest way...that most of them are quite dumb when it comes to the real world.

My camping neighbor, a collage graduate and high IQ guy, LOOKED FOR A GAS LEAK IN HIS TRAILER WITH A LIT MATCH! I know this as I was all of 20 feet away when his trailer exploded.

[randomhero00]

I almost never give extra consideration for high mental stats. Very occasionally for remembering a detail from many gaming sessions ago, or to solve a puzzle that's slowng down the game, but that's it.

Not that I disagree with you exactly, but why shouldn't you? Really smart characters would know better.

[Psyren]

Take-backs are a good idea to allow, especially when the player likes to jump the gun and act before you've described the area fully.

"I open the door and step through." It wouldn't be fair to say "ok, roll 35d6 falling damage for falling into the pit" because the character would see that and not step in.

I'm with this guy

[bloodtide]

"I open the door and step through." It wouldn't be fair to say "ok, roll 35d6 falling damage for falling into the pit" because the character would see that and not step in.

I never do take backs.

But I'd do the 'You see a pit and start to fall', roll Dex check of 10 to grab a hold of something before you fail in. Naturally, they will make it. But even if they don't you can have them fall like ten feet and then land safely in the flooded former trap pit or such.

[kc0bbq]

Not that I disagree with you exactly, but why shouldn't you? Really smart characters would know better.

Smart people do dumb things all the time. Intelligence doesn't guarantee common sense.

[randomhero00]

Smart people do dumb things all the time. Intelligence doesn't guarantee common sense.

Yeah, but I have a character for instance, that has all VERY high mental stats. Cha, wis, and int. Its hard to imagine him making a stupid mistake.

[bloodtide]

Yeah, but I have a character for instance, that has all VERY high mental stats. Cha, wis, and int. Its hard to imagine him making a stupid mistake.

This is not hard to imagine at all. 'Perfect' people still make mistakes. As a matter of fact, often 'smart, wise and charismatic' people are so 'stuck' seeing things way 'out there' they they often miss very, very simple things.


But, I think the best way to go is to simply make is mistakes, not mistakes.

[mucat]

Yeah but a genius is going to make a whole heck of a lot less mistakes than a stupid farm boy that happened into some power.

Naw. Geniuses make at least as many mistakes as anyone else. And a lot of times, their mistakes are a hell of a lot more entertaining, as measured in standard units of property damage * (screams of terror)^2.

If the mistake is really one that the character wouldn't make -- the brilliant wizard forgets a salient fact about how magic works, or the farm boy forgets that chickens make a lot of noise when startled -- then it makes sense to remind them. And if the mistake is because the player hasn't understood something that would be obvious to the character -- such as the pit in the room example above -- then always explain it to them.

But I wouldn't use any mechanism that implies "smart (or even wise) people make fewer mistakes." I know way too many smart people, and even one or two wise ones, to believe that for an instant...

[Volos]

Take-backs are a good idea to allow, especially when the player likes to jump the gun and act before you've described the area fully.

"I open the door and step through." It wouldn't be fair to say "ok, roll 35d6 falling damage for falling into the pit" because the character would see that and not step in.

(Max falling damage is 20d6, the extra would be from spikes or some such I assume? And those get attack rolls VS flatfooted AC of the character)

But aside from that, your players should learn to adapt to your play style after a few sessions. They should know how to handle their characters, and take-backs shouldn't be needed. In the case of walking into a death trap, I just give them spot and listen checks (at increased DCs if they are being really stupid) and hopefully they catch themselves before doing something too stupid. If not, atleast they know I gave them a chance.

But for example on knowing your DM's play style; my players realize that boats are death traps (profession sailor anyone?), doors are never to be trusted (especially after you just walked though it safely), airbone travel is not all it is cracked up to be (blizzard/sandstorm with 5 elder air elementals and a druid raining pain down on them), and going underground is just about as safe as plane shift (seriously, bad things happen in the underdark).

[randomhero00]

Naw. Geniuses make at least as many mistakes as anyone else. And a lot of times, their mistakes are a hell of a lot more entertaining, as measured in standard units of property damage * (screams of terror)^2.

If the mistake is really one that the character wouldn't make -- the brilliant wizard forgets a salient fact about how magic works, or the farm boy forgets that chickens make a lot of noise when startled -- then it makes sense to remind them. And if the mistake is because the player hasn't understood something that would be obvious to the character -- such as the pit in the room example above -- then always explain it to them.

But I wouldn't use any mechanism that implies "smart (or even wise) people make fewer mistakes." I know way too many smart people, and even one or two wise ones, to believe that for an instant...

How sure are you that they really are smart people? I know a lot of people that can come off as smart, but when you dig deep they aren't. They just like quoting facts a lot. Which isn't the same thing. (basically they have a sharp memory for trivia, but that doesn't make them smart)

[bloodtide]

This comes up a lot in my games.

Maybe you can give an example or two?

[Toliudar]

Not that I disagree with you exactly, but why shouldn't you? Really smart characters would know better.

When DM'ing opponents with superhuman intellects, you don't have the ability to give them better plans than you yourself are able to come up with. And metagaming knowledge of the players plans and abilities in order to simulate that intelligence will only lead to the players hiding stuff from you - or even more stuff than they already do. Consider the occasional lapses in judgment on the part of smart PC's a karmic balance.

[mucat]

How sure are you that they really are smart people? I know a lot of people that can come off as smart, but when you dig deep they aren't. They just like quoting facts a lot. Which isn't the same thing. (basically they have a sharp memory for trivia, but that doesn't make them smart)

I'm talking here about scientists whose work has shaken their field to the core; they're definitely not just quoting facts they learned from someone else (unless they're secretly buying Cliff Notes from space aliens.)

And many of them are still walking mistake factories. ("No, Dave, that collision was not the tree's fault.")

[snikrept]

A smart character should be able to come up with good plans of action, but unless he also has high wisdom he might be incapable of determining which plans he came up with are the good ones.

A wise character might be able to determine if a course of action is good, but be incapable of coming up with a good course of action.

If he's both smart AND wise, then yeh, maybe let him reconsider his actions a bunch.

[randomhero00]

Maybe you can give an example or two?

Attacking a high priest in his temple of a major city. My DM figured that her god would assume avatar form to protect her and b**ch slap the crap out of my character. As a player I had no idea gods actually game down to deal with such petty matters. But apparently they do (in her campaign, and I got no, "are you sure you want to do this?"). And my character with his knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma would have known this and not attacked the high priest. But as a player I had no idea a high level deity would actually take interest in me.

I'm talking here about scientists whose work has shaken their field to the core; they're definitely not just quoting facts they learned from someone else (unless they're secretly buying cliff notes from Space Aliens.)

And many of them are still walking mistake factories.

Well personally I'd assume those scientists (how do you know them anyhow? thats cool) have low wis but high int scores which allows them to be absent minded and make mistakes.

[Emmerask]

"Are you sure" is more then enough warning that the player will make a really stupid move.
In general I don´t hold my players hands to guide them through the adventures no matter how smart they supposedly are, otherwise I would be forced to take their character sheets away from them and play with myself ^^