player knowledge/ character knowledge

[de-trick]

we all know that we can't use player knowledge and character knowledge.

player knowledge:We as a person know bob the fighter just killed the bad leader in the other room

character knowledgethe character knows something in character


my question If you play a ranger and you don't know anything about the woods your character would show that, so if you don't know something in real life how are you suppose to do that thing if you don't know how to do it.

[Lucky]

my question If you play a ranger and you don't know anything about the woods your character would show that, so if you don't know something in real life how are you suppose to do that thing if you don't know how to do it.

With the survival skill?

What's there to do in the woods that's so bloody confusing?

[Paragon Badger]

Perhaps a better example would be a character with 25 Intelligence or Wisdom..

Err... Just wing it and hope nobody catches on to you?

[Josh the Aspie]

Well, knowing about what the right thing to do is, and knowing how to do it are two different things. The first is eminently easier to get a grasp on.

If you want to play a ranger, but aren't sure what to do in wilderness situations, I suggest you read the books "the hatchet" and "my side of the mountain" which may give you some basic understanding of the dos and don'ts of the wild, as well as tracking/hunting tips.

If you are playing a play by post game, you can generally stop to look things up on the net, or to get some help from friends. You can also take time to consider, run simulations through your head. "What will he do if I do this?" and think about the motivations of the monsters. "What is the monster trying to do. What does he want to do to accomplish that goal, and what would make him curse the most if I did it?"

[de-trick]

I used the ranger idea as an example, but alot easier to say someone with a high wisdom or int would know alot more things than I or many other people would know, also they would think in a different way than the player

[Josh the Aspie]

One thing you can do is ask your DM for hints about what the opponent is likely to do, or ask for the DM to secretly make int and wis checks for you before you do something stupid. Generally speaking, request a check of some kind.

The problem with this is that generally speaking, DMs often like to use some combination of RP and stat rolls to determine how well your character does.

[Jasdoif]

If you as the player don't know the specifics of something that your character knows, it's often easiest to simply say your character does it, and not worry about the details behind it.

This is especially useful for the more fictitious skills like Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana) and Use Magic Device. Attempting to describe how your character performs a Spellcraft check to identify a potion could be a nightmare.

[de-trick]

I think i tried to make my character come to life to much, and forgot DnD is dungeons and dragons a game where you go through the dungeon and slay the dragon

[Dan_Hemmens]

I used the ranger idea as an example, but alot easier to say someone with a high wisdom or int would know alot more things than I or many other people would know, also they would think in a different way than the player

A lot of that is already accounted for by the fact that you, the player, are capable of thinking about things rationally in a comfortable living room, while your character is in a cold hard dungeon making split second decisions.

Still more of it is accounted for by the fact that you, as a player, know literally everything about the functioning of the game universe (that is to say, you know the game mechanics).

The rest is taken up with skill checks.

[Josh the Aspie]

Of course it doesn't help when you ask for information to base your role playing decisions on and.... the DM refuses to tell you the information you need.

"About how difficult is it to climb that wall? Just, you know, relative to a few of the things on this pre-provided table in the player's handbook. I have several ranks. I figure my character would know."

"That's meta gameing. Make the decision without any idea of how difficult it is."

or, worse...

"The druid NPC I want you to listen too automatically silences you, no save, and the ranger hits you with a warning shot."

"Well since he hit me I..." "He didn't really hit you."

"He didn't hit me?" "Well, he grazed you."

"Did he damage me, or my gear, in any way?" "Just say what you do, now."

"Well I need to know if he actually hit me with his 'warning shot' or not to decide." "Make the decision now."

Grrrr.

[Spiryt]

Opposal situation is much bigger problem, I think.

We have John Kowalski, a stockbroker who is playing Gurk, Half-orc Barbarian. He has, let's say +2 Frost Scythe. Also he just found Holy longbow.

The party is split for a while.

Gurk ecounters Hezrou, 300 ft ahead. His intelligence and impressive knowledge about Planes results that he of course has no idea what exactly is standing ahead of him. But Beast looks rather clumsy and, in the name of Gruumsh, he already defeated much bigger foes.vHe charges the Hezrou.

John Kowalski however is playing D&D for longer time, and he remember quite much about Demons. He's character is dumb guy, but he KNOWS that Frost is uselles against demons, holy weapon is effective, and generaly avoiding melee for a while will be good due Hezrou's stench. He also remembers that Hezrou's CR is "something around 10", so he can be to though for one character to defeat.

Now it's kinda hard - even with lot of goodwill of John, nobod can expect from him that he will act suicidal.
He basically must act as if he didn't know anything. Rather hard to do.

And if John doesn't "remember something", but is an old routier who knows everything about Demons...

[Josh the Aspie]

And this is but one reason why experienced players are more effective and dangerous than newbies with the same exact character (assuming it was built for them by the experienced player).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

When the player doesn't know what to do, but the character would: Roll vs appropriate skill at appropriate DC, hints given depending on the result of the roll. Or, in some cases, just a flat roll vs skill at appropriate DC "Okay, my character is doing whatever he needs to do to be able to do this, what's the DC?"

When the player is using OOC knowledge the character doesn't have:
DM: "Do you have any ranks in <appropriate knowledge skill>? No? Make me an IQ check then, to see if your character actually knows this. Bards can make a Bardic Lore check at higher difficulty than normal.

For example:

GM: It has been pouring down rain for a solid week and showing no signs of letting up. The party is soaked and it is getting closer to sunset. How are you going to set up camp?

Player: Umm... well, my character has x ranks in Survival... would he know how to set up a camp in bad weather that would be better for the party or start a fire in this downpour?

DM: Do you know how in real life?"

Player: No, but I'm not an x level Ranger in real life either.

DM: Okay, make me a roll, DC y. If you succeed, you negate any penalties the party would take from the bad weather tomorrow.

Example 2:

DM: <insert florid description of a demon>

Player: Wait a sec... <flips through the MM> Ha! thought so, that's a <demon>, we need to use Cold Iron weapons, and they're immune to electricity and poison, and have protection against fire, acid, and cold!

DM: Does your character know that?

Player: Well, he's not exactly a starting out adventurer...

DM: Does he have any ranks in Knowledge: Religion, Knowledge: Arcane, or Knowledge: The Planes?

Player: Umm... no...

DM: Then make me an IQ check to see if you really do know it or not, otherwise you cannot use that knowledge in character.

[Spiryt]

DM: Then make me an IQ check to see if you really do know it or not, otherwise you cannot use that knowledge in character.

This is obvious and really easy to say, but how he cannot use this knowledge?

Cannot he use this cold iron weapon at all? Had he to cast some poisonous spell/weapon first, beacuse he doesn't know about immunity?

Let's say that the demon will start fighting and players had seen that he is dangerous from the first round.. All players will drow cold iron, and cast something sonic, for example. You cannot make them forgot what they know.

[Overlard]

Perhaps a better example would be a character with 25 Intelligence or Wisdom..

Err... Just wing it and hope nobody catches on to you?

The only thing worse than a player who can not accurately playing a character with 25 Intelligence, is one who can.

[Tormsskull]

This is obvious and really easy to say, but how he cannot use this knowledge?

The player says "I use my cold iron weapon" and the DM says "No you don't."

Cannot he use this cold iron weapon at all? Had he to cast some poisonous spell/weapon first, beacuse he doesn't know about immunity?

If a character has several weapons at his disposal, and has been using one the whole session, and then when he encounter a demon that he knows OOC requires a cold iron weapon to hit but doesn't know IC, when the player says he switches to the other weapon I as the DM would ask him why. Then gauge his response, then determine if it is appropriate.

If the character only has 2 weapons and always switches to the cold iron one whenever he encounters anything that even resembles a demon, then I'd allow him to do it. If the character never switches except when he knows OOC, I'd bar him from the action.

The only thing worse than a player who can not accurately playing a character with 25 Intelligence, is one who can.

If you have someone at your table who has the equivalent of an Intelligence 25 in real world terms I recommend sucking up to them a lot, because they are going to be one of the most successful people you'll ever meet in your life.

[SensFan]

On the subject of the Ranger in rainy weather example, as a DM, I would rule that either the char does know it or doesn't know it, regarless of player knowledge. As far as I'm concerned, if Bob and Jack are both the players of identical Ranger characters, Bob's Ranger shouldn't be better at Survival just because Bob is an avid camper and Jack has never left the city. If you make Jack's character make a Roll to see if he knows, Bob should make the same roll. Personally though, I would probably rule that anyone with a few ranks in Survival would know the basics about camping in bad weather.



On the subject of 25 Int people, wasn't Einstein only the equivalent of Int 18 or so (the maximum natural Human intelligence)

[Cyborg Pirate]

If you have someone at your table who has the equivalent of an Intelligence 25 in real world terms I recommend sucking up to them a lot, because they are going to be one of the most successful people you'll ever meet in your life.

I find this a funny sentiment, considering that high-intelligence in RL rarely has to equate to high-succes. If anything, many extremely intelligent people also tend to be extremely lacking in other areas, making them social outcasts and often "unrecognised geniuses" types. Idiot savants also come to mind. These are all not the people who are highly succesful and famous. In highly succesful and famous people, we may see above average intelligence (tho hardly always) but more importantly, above average charisma and social ability.


So, If I had someone with 25int at my table, I wouldn't be sucking up. More likely, I'd be helping that person with advice how to finally get laid for once.

[factotum]

Because D&D is turn based, you get a lot more thinking time than your character actually does. This can offset things like him supposedly being more intelligent than you are, because in game terms he will be thinking more quickly than you are!

Roleplaying a high Wisdom is probably tougher than high Int, but maybe that's just me...

[The Glyphstone]

On the subject of 25 Int people, wasn't Einstein only the equivalent of Int 18 or so (the maximum natural Human intelligence)

18's the highest Starting intelligence you can get. Einstein probably rolled an 18 for his starting score, then added on his age bonuses (+3 at Venerable), and any bonuses from gaining levels in Expert.

[Tormsskull]

These are all not the people who are highly succesful and famous. In highly succesful and famous people, we may see above average intelligence (tho hardly always) but more importantly, above average charisma and social ability.

Well, I'm not sure if you realize what exactly a 25 Intelligence would entail. Sure, charasmatic people can be quite successful by schmoozing with other people, forming deals through kindness/friendship/good manners, what have you. But someone with a 25 Intelligence would be able to make so many innovations that I'd have a hard time believeing that they would not be successful.

So, If I had someone with 25int at my table, I wouldn't be sucking up. More likely, I'd be helping that person with advice how to finally get laid for once.

That's an interesting response. You seem to becoming from the angle of smart = socially inept. If I were a psychiatrist I'd have a field day with that, but I'm not, and that's hardly the point of the thread.

[Redblade]

As it says in the PHB (I think its there anyway)

"A character with high Charisma and low Intelligence can usually pass herself off as a knowledgeable, until she meets a true expert."

I just try to sound like I know what I'm doing and make skill checks. As long as none of my ramblings contradict the RAW (and to a lesser extend the laws of physics) I just make up something plausible that fits in with whatever skill check I'm making.

[Cyborg Pirate]

Well, I'm not sure if you realize what exactly a 25 Intelligence would entail. Sure, charasmatic people can be quite successful by schmoozing with other people, forming deals through kindness/friendship/good manners, what have you. But someone with a 25 Intelligence would be able to make so many innovations that I'd have a hard time believeing that they would not be successful.

That's an interesting response. You seem to becoming from the angle of smart = socially inept. If I were a psychiatrist I'd have a field day with that, but I'm not, and that's hardly the point of the thread.

I'm not saying smart=socially inept. There are many succesful people who are smart, but in the vast majority of cases, this succes, tho supported by their intelligence, is mostly a product of their charisma. Intelligence itself does Not neccesarily bring succes. Reading Steven Hawking's work for example, I'll venture to say that he's quite a charismatic person, despite his disability.

Merely making innovations doesn't get you anywhere. There's a man out there, who has discovered how to levitate non metallic objects. Artificial gravity if you will. But this man is not only not recognised in academic circles, he's hardly recognised Anywhere. Most people believe his demonstrations to be hoaxes, but no-one has bothered to actually check. Why? I say that it's because this man commands no interest from others. He may have incredible Int, but no way to be recognised for it due to an abysmal Cha.

(some of you may know who I'm talking about)

But that's all still just high intelligence. Once we get into RL examples of truely extreme Intelligence, we come into the area of idiot savants. People often demonstrating incredible mental abilities, but who are autistic to various degrees otherwise. These are not great succeses in the world. Instead, they tend to become curiosa, and subjects of wonder and study.

Point I'm trying to make is: Just about all (hell, I'd even venture to say All) highly succesful and influencial people throughout history have high charisma in common, but hardly always high intelligence. Apologies if this comes across as a little rantish, but the idea that high intelligence will automatically breed succes is fallacy that a significant portion of the world still keeps making, not realising later why they end up working in a dead end job for the rest of their lives while it always seemed they had potential for so much more when they were young.


And Tormsskull, if you were a psychiatrist, you would be familiar with the current theory that too much intelligence is detrimental to survival. Again, Intelligence =/= succes. Charisma = succes. Charisma + Intelligence = great succes. Extremly high intelligence IRL tends to be found in idiot savants.



[edit]No, one mistake. Charisma + Intelligence =/= always great succes. It has much potential to be, but also much potential to be a dead end.

[Tormsskull]

Apologies if this comes across as a little rantish, but the idea that high intelligence will automatically breed succes is fallacy that a significant portion of the world still keeps making, not realising later why they end up working in a dead end job for the rest of their lives while it always seemed they had potential for so much more when they were young.

Not rantish at all, though I fear we are straying OT. It may be due to my background or other extraneous factors, but usually when I see someone say that intelligence does not equal success it immediately makes me wonder how successful the person is. In my experience, most people want to think/say that they are smart. But if they have a bad job, little education, or little other "evidence" of their intelligence, they have to have some way of rationalizing why they are unsuccessful even though they are smart (as they think they are).

Therefore they will explain that though they are very smart and work hard, other people are better at sucking up and that's why those other people get the promotions. That is why those other people continually move up the corporate ladder why they, the "smart" one stays at the entry-level position.

Others will explain that they choose not to be successful, because the pursuit of success is a rat race that detracts from true happiness in life.

Whatever their explanation, they usually have a very bad attitude towards successful people.

And Tormsskull, if you were a psychiatrist, you would be familiar with the current theory that too much intelligence is detrimental to survival. Again, Intelligence =/= succes. Charisma = succes. Charisma + Intelligence = great succes. Extremly high intelligence IRL tends to be found in idiot savants.

Hmm. Well, if Intelligence does not equal success, Charisma does equal success, and Charisma + Intelligence equal great success, then there IS a correlation between Intelligence and success.

IRL I'm not sure if anyone in the history of the world has ever had the equivalent of a 25 Intelligence in the D&D game. An 18 Intelligence is supposed to represent geniuses. A 25, IMO, would represent an intelligence to a degree that we would have a hard time comprehending.

[de-trick]

off topic about the high int and high chr if you have a low con than it wont last long if you know what i mean

[ALOR]

Point I'm trying to make is: Just about all (hell, I'd even venture to say All) highly succesful and influencial people throughout history have high charisma in common, but hardly always high intelligence. Apologies if this comes across as a little rantish, but the idea that high intelligence will automatically breed succes is fallacy that a significant portion of the world still keeps making, not realising later why they end up working in a dead end job for the rest of their lives while it always seemed they had potential for so much more when they were young.

Really wish i hadn't made Charisma my dump stat now

[tainsouvra]

my question If you play a ranger and you don't know anything about the woods your character would show that, so if you don't know something in real life how are you suppose to do that thing if you don't know how to do it.

Your DM should be giving you hints and allowing you Survival (or whichever skill is relevant) checks for success regardless of whether or not you know how it should be accomplished.

I used to spend a few weekends, or longer, up in the mountains each month. Did this for several years (it was a lot of fun, I promise), and at this point I could probably survive out there better than your average D&D player, to put it lightly. I could not, even if my life depended on it, manage to track an individual squirrel who passed by a week ago over solid rock when it rained last night, but a Ranger could get his skill modifiers high enough to pull that off. When something like that comes up in game, I roll Survival, then say "ok, he pulls it off somehow" and the game continues. We just don't worry about how it can be done, it just is.

"About how difficult is it to climb that wall? Just, you know, relative to a few of the things on this pre-provided table in the player's handbook. I have several ranks. I figure my character would know."
"That's meta gameing. Make the decision without any idea of how difficult it is."

That's not meta-gaming, and I'm a pretty hardline anti-metagamer at times. That's the DM screwing up twice--once for not describing the wall well enough for you to already know how hard it would be to climb, then a second time for giving such a lame excuse when he's asked to fix the first mistake.

If you have the patience to keep playing with him, you're a more patient man than I

Once we get into RL examples of truely extreme Intelligence, we come into the area of idiot savants. People often demonstrating incredible mental abilities, but who are autistic to various degrees otherwise. These are not great succeses in the world. Instead, they tend to become curiosa, and subjects of wonder and study.

No offense, but no, it doesn't work that way. Idiot-savant is one of those media-overplayed things that, when you get down to the actual psychology of it, is not really that interesting anymore.

Basically, due to some quirks of how the brain develops, anyone can be born with very exceptional ability in a very limited area, regardless of their intelligence. This occasionally causes someone with severe/profound mental retardation to have a single area in which their ability surpasses that of people who are more intelligent, but that doesn't actually have any bearing on their intelligence itself. It also doesn't happen any more often in people with intelligence-affecting developmental disabilities--it's just as common in the neurotypical population.

[Totally Guy]

Reading Steven Hawking's work for example, I'll venture to say that he's quite a charismatic person, despite his disability.

Oh he is, he tells jokes about Cambridge winning the fooball, and that his proudest achievement was being on Star Trek (and the Simpsons). Sorry to say that the best bit of the day was when he crashed and he needed someone to come and reboot him.

On topic, I got my little brothers to play D&D (with the rules I could remember and a dungeon) and one played the Dumb half orc barbarian and the other played a halfling sorceror, trouble was that the Barbarian came up with all the plans. We had to pretend that the sorceror was actually thinking of them whilst the Barbarian player explained them. (He only chose barbarian because he's fed up with computer game mages getting a raw deal and so he'd go for brute strength this time as D&D mages probably suck too )

[Josh the Aspie]

Merely making innovations doesn't get you anywhere. There's a man out there, who has discovered how to levitate non metallic objects. Artificial gravity if you will. But this man is not only not recognised in academic circles, he's hardly recognised Anywhere. Most people believe his demonstrations to be hoaxes, but no-one has bothered to actually check. Why? I say that it's because this man commands no interest from others. He may have incredible Int, but no way to be recognised for it due to an abysmal Cha.

I, at the age of 10, could also levitate non-metallic objects. All I needed to do was go to the discovery center (a theme park for kids that loved to learn, basically) and put a beach ball on top of a device that shot air strait up out of it, thus surrounding the beach ball in a cushion of upward and inward thrust.

Just because something does not fall does not mean that gravity has no effect upon it. Every gravity nullifying device I have ever heard of has already been debunked. The reason that people keep believing in it is due to there being enough commoners out there with low int or wis who have access to 'the interweb' but that don't search for debunk pages.

Further, the inability of a self proclaimed scientist/inventor to recognize that gravity down, plus an enveloping upward and inward thrust of variable intensity based upon distance from the source of the thrust, is more likely to result in a semi-static wobbly position than the nullification or reduction of gravity would does not exactly cause me to trust their level of intelligence.

Nor do people who believe to be plausible a massive government conspiracy requiring the silence or complicity of thousands, if not millions of government employees and contractors - many of whom have families, love their country, or would love to get rich quick by being invited on a Rosie O'Donald talk show - cause me to trust that they have an iota of wisdom.

And this has nothing at all to do with their relative level of charisma.

That's not meta-gaming, and I'm a pretty hardline anti-metagamer at times. That's the DM screwing up twice--once for not describing the wall well enough for you to already know how hard it would be to climb, then a second time for giving such a lame excuse when he's asked to fix the first mistake.

If you have the patience to keep playing with him, you're a more patient man than I

To be fair to him, he did describe the wall as being made of crumbly mud. But I had no ideas on hand holds, or smoothness/roughness. I just knew it wasn't angled out towards me, and there would be -some- kind of added difficulty over a wall with plenty of hand holds. However that can range from DC 15 to DC 35, and that's a wide enough gap I figured my character would have SOME general understanding of it's relative difficulty before even trying to scale it. I just wanted a general ball park. I knew it was unlikely he'd know the exact DC. But I figured he'd know within 5 or 10.

Then again, it could have been that he was planning on fudging for me, and got upset that I was asking for some idea of the number range when he was planning on being nice. And that's a thought that just occurred to me.

Basically, due to some quirks of how the brain develops, anyone can be born with very exceptional ability in a very limited area, regardless of their intelligence. This occasionally causes someone with severe/profound mental retardation to have a single area in which their ability surpasses that of people who are more intelligent, but that doesn't actually have any bearing on their intelligence itself. It also doesn't happen any more often in people with intelligence-affecting developmental disabilities--it's just as common in the neurotypical population.

I, for example, have been judged to have a genius level IQ. Different tests measure it at different places, but generally my Logic IQ is the highest. I have Aspergers Syndrome (thus, my nick name showing me to be an Aspie), have a spelling learning disability, and a touch of OCD and Turrets. But most of the more serious cases I know don't have any particular bonus to their IQ.

[Nocturne]

Sorry to add to the Off Topic discussion, but you people should really consider reading "Neanderthals at Work" (ISBN 0-471-52727-0). IMO it does the job of describing "what exactly leads to success" quite nicely. (I tend to be around 50% Competitor, 45% Rebel, 5% Believer - last time I did the test in the book).

You need a healthy supply of Intelligence, Charisma AND Wisdom to be successful.

That said, I must say I'm enjoying the rest of this thread immensely! I don't so much have a problem trying to roleplay stupid, but roleplaying super Intelligence is often a problem for me. I like the idea that the player has far more time to think between rounds than the character has. :)