Intelligence is not a superpower

[PhoenixPhyre]

In Exalted or similar games? Good question, I'm not conversant enough in their specific mechanics. Also plausable in Toon or possibly the Diskworld setting.

And thanks for the map explanations guys. I've met the idea before just not in that exact wording. It's another analogy that I feel is imprecise in important ways, similar to the "rules = user interface" as an all encompassing rpg rules analogy.

<deleted a lot not on topic>

Perhaps also hindering discussion is what people think superpowers are. I've seen write ups of the Sherlock Holmes literary character in d&ds and hero system at different point levels. Was human fighter with 20 int & wis in ad&d a "better" representation than a 200 point hero system with a literal "amazing deduction" power? Was a d&d 3.5 with 30 int and tons of skill points "better" than a 100 point hero with some skills taken to 19- on 3d6? And in game terms does it matter that only one of those can actually investigate if their player can't figure out the right questions to ask?

In a D&D type game, superpowers are best described via features. Feats, class features, racial features, etc. Not via stats at all. Because that way they're explicit and can be seen by everyone. This means less bickering about scope and vision.

Even skill ranks are a bad fit, unless those skills have explicit "if your modifier is >x, you can...".

[JoeJ]

In a D&D type game, superpowers are best described via features. Feats, class features, racial features, etc. Not via stats at all. Because that way they're explicit and can be seen by everyone. This means less bickering about scope and vision.

Even skill ranks are a bad fit, unless those skills have explicit "if your modifier is >x, you can...".

The problem really isn't that the is GM giving the NPC super intelligence powers, it's that they're giving them powers that operate by fiat, outside of the regular rules. In D&D, you can easily give an NPC the ability to cast one or more of the existing divination spells X number of times per day, and now they can anticipate what the PCs will do. But because you're playing by the existing rules, the PCs have a chance to figure out a way to either counter or work around that ability and regain the upper hand. For other fantasy games, you can usually find similar powers that will do what is needed.

Fiat abilities... well, an NPC that operates by fiat can work occasionally (he official M&M game world has several), but usually only for a one-shot adventure because they get old fast. They're not a good choice for a campaign BBEG.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The problem really isn't that the is GM giving the NPC super intelligence powers, it's that they're giving them powers that operate by fiat, outside of the regular rules. In D&D, you can easily give an NPC the ability to cast one or more of the existing divination spells X number of times per day, and now they can anticipate what the PCs will do. But because you're playing by the existing rules, the PCs have a chance to figure out a way to either counter or work around that ability and regain the upper hand. For other fantasy games, you can usually find similar powers that will do what is needed.

Fiat abilities... well, an NPC that operates by fiat can work occasionally (he official M&M game world has several), but usually only for a one-shot adventure because they get old fast. They're not a good choice for a campaign BBEG.

Agreed. And divination and such have limits (especially in 5e). But honestly, if a DM came out and said "this guy's really good at seeing through anyone so you can expect anything you plan to be known to him," I'd almost be ok with that. It would annoy me, but I could live with it off the game was fun.

I just dislike hidden rules. Hiding (or finding) powers in intersections of other rules where none of them actually say anything like that and it's just assumed based on extrapolations and inference and such is, to me, cheating. The rules exist for the game. If they're going to be useful, we all have to know them and agree on them. Which is best done in the open.

I'm not even averse to granting PCs cool tricks. But I want them to be explicit, not hidden between the lines. Because that way I can plan and use them to make better sessions. If we work together, the game is better. And that takes a meeting of the minds as to what is possible. And hidden rules obatruct that meeting of the minds.

[Democratus]

No, it is not. It might be for some people. But that is not a universal statement with a value of True.

Yes it is. Universally.

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this.

That's collaborative fiction.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes it is. Universally.

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this.

That's collaborative fiction.

This again.

Claiming that the character-first, "actor stance" approach to gaming, conducted without regard for the effects on "The Story", is "collaborative fiction", is like claiming each person living their life is engaged in "collaborative fiction" -- and while that claim might appear to certain sorts of hardcore postmodernists, it's pure bollocks.

Claiming that the rules-first approach, that regards the PC as a playing piece is an elaborate free-form boardgame, is "collaborative fiction", is even more ridiculous.

"All gaming is storytelling" is simply and plainly an attempt to elevate one approach/stance/style of gaming, a personal preference, to a supposed universal truth. But it's nothing new, it's been going on since the old days of Usenet in the mid 90s, with for example David Berkman "advocated a style of play based around 'what was good for the story', not what the mindless dice or needs of simulation would call for. 'Advocated' as is 'this is the best way, any other way is stupid' type of advocating."

http://whitehall-paraindustries.com/...ry_bad_rep.htm

[Willie the Duck]

Oh good, we get to have another soon-to-be-locked flamewar over the definitions of broad terms like game and fiction. I'll bring the marshmallows.

Those sorts of retroactive abilities, etc, are a complaint I have about a lot of post-Forge systems, really.

To me there's zero difference between "Once per X you may declare that the character actually prepared for this already and therefore gets Y bonus against the attack", etc... and effing Calvinball.

I wasn't hoping specifically to speak about those individual rules, so much as just asking if people wanted to discuss rules structures overall vs. discussing advice on playing smart villains, but it looks like the horse has left the barn on that. Anyways...

No, those are fine. They are certainly not Calvinball as they usually have very well defined boundaries. Instead they are more like equippment kits assumed to contail all the tools you would need for a certain range of tasks without requiring you to prepare them in detail. Or like spell component pouches which follow the same idea of "just assume that the character prepared all cheapcomponents for all spells he might want to cast".

I'm talking about mechanics that, for example, allow the character to retroactively change established facts, events, or explanations, to "emulate" things like "I realized what your plan was all along!" See, for example, Oceans 13, where the it looks like the team has been bested, and then they explain that no, they'd realized all along that a double-cross was going on, so they crossed the cross.

I agree with both sides, depending on which type of mechanics, and what we mean by Calvinball. Calvinball has (at least) two components-- things being determined as they progress and as the need calls for it, and being a form of codified cheating. There are things that are determined at the time they are needed that I personally consider reasonable (wild cards in a card game, for instance), so long as they fit an established rules structure and have an established set of boundaries. I wouldn't have much problem with a game having a 'well prepared' ability a less-than-cagey player could give their character that effectively represents 'my character is better at planning than I am and thus this 10 lb. object in my pack is the thing they would know to bring that I didn't.' The distinction is that there should be established rules for what that could be -- if it is a D&D-like party going treasure-hunting in the mountains, the item could be a block and tackle, as the character would realize that dragging large amounts of treasure (or injured party members) up and down mountains becomes massively problematic with just rope, etc. If the party winds up meeting a mountain creature, and decides that the best avenue towards getting the treasure is to seduce them, it couldn't suddenly become a bouquet of roses, because that's drifting into Oceans 13/bad-Batman-gambit-plot territory.

[Satinavian]

To give an example :

Splittermond has a magic school for fate magic with a subschool for prophecies. One of the spells within, called preparation, allows for a certain duration to retroactively have packed an item below a certain size and cost which is rationalized as being hinted as useful by a vision granted by the spell.

I would not think this ability is problematic. Even if it could theoretically be a bouquet of roses.

[Taevyr]

are TTRPG's a form of collaborative storytelling: Yeah, I don't see how you can doubt this. There's nothing forcing it to be a particularly good/deep story, but there's always some plot, even if it's simply "are you a bad enough group to kill Tiamat". A B-Movie plot to excuse entering a scripted dungeon with specific encounters tailored for min-max-combat-lovers is still a plot, just an excuse plot.

Are TTRPG's mainly, of hell forbid exclusively, a form of collaborative storytelling: Hell no. In the previous example, I think it's pretty clear that the plot is merely a framework for combat simulation. It's up to player preference, which can swing completely between combat, rp'ing, some exploration if the DM likes prepping that, etc. A group like that might not even care about the story so long as they can fight challenging opponents, which is a perfectly fine playstyle. They might go through every conversation spamming bluff/diplomacy checks, and just continue from there, which is a perfectly fine playstyle. And I'd hesitate to call it collaborative storytelling, as they're basically just fighting highly challenging trains on the DM's plot rails.

Yes it is. Universally.

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this.

That's collaborative fiction.

That sounds more like a logic problem/fictional problem solving than necessarily being part of a story, but I'll give you that.

However, that isn't general tabletop. Tabletop is generally something like this

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this. *rolls*
DM: Sorry, you didn't roll well enough. Try something else or take 20/Good roll, you successfully resolve x.

Again, the game-ifying of it is key. The fact that failure or success might not depend on what makes the best story, but a random die roll, is key. And any given group can play it more like "what makes the best story" and largely spurn dice rolls, it's a perfectly fine playstyle. But storytelling needn't be the focus, and even if it is, always has a degree of trade-off with the random factor involved. Unless you just throw away the dice and play pretend, which would also be a perfectly fine playstyle. It just wouldn't be tabletop anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh good, we get to have another soon-to-be-locked flamewar over the definitions of broad terms like game and fiction. I'll bring the marshmallows.

Wouldn't happen if there wasn't a repeated effort to define RPGs such that only one subjectively-preferred approach to RPGs counts as an RPG.

I wasn't hoping specifically to speak about those individual rules, so much as just asking if people wanted to discuss rules structures overall vs. discussing advice on playing smart villains, but it looks like the horse has left the barn on that. Anyways...

I may have misunderstood the question, then. What rules structures were you thinking of?

I agree with both sides, depending on which type of mechanics, and what we mean by Calvinball. Calvinball has (at least) two mechanics -- things being determined as they progress and as the need calls for it, and being a form of codified cheating. There are things that are determined at the time they are needed that I personally consider reasonable (wild cards in a card game, for instance), so long as they fit an established rules structure and have an established set of boundaries. I wouldn't have much problem with a game having a 'well prepared' ability a less-than-cagey player could give their character that effectively represents 'my character is better at planning than I am and thus this 10 lb. object in my pack is the thing they would know to bring that I didn't.' The distinction is that there should be established rules for what that could be -- if it is a D&D-like party going treasure-hunting in the mountains, the item could be a block and tackle, as the character would realize that dragging large amounts of treasure (or injured party members) up and down mountains becomes massively problematic with just rope, etc. If the party winds up meeting a mountain creature, and decides that the best avenue towards getting the treasure is to seduce them, it couldn't suddenly become a bouquet of roses, because that's drifting into Oceans 13/bad-Batman-gambit-plot territory.

I don't have a problem with "standard gear" or "toolkit" equipment rules in general, but more because they overall reduce bookkeeping and nitpicking.

Where I draw the line is when the character has "Schrodinger's gear" or "always has exactly the right thing"... "I just happened to pack my bat-shark-repellent!" even though the sharks are in a tank in the supervillain's lair in the middle of the Sahara Desert. "You see, Robin, I knew that..." Ugh.

More broadly, what I really loath are abilities that exist outside the character, or allow the player to make retroactive changes.

"The docking clamps holding their ship fail to disengage, and they can't undock to chase us as we escape!" "Why?" "Last time they did repairs they used a cheaper second-hand part that wasn't any good." -- the player gets to establish a fact about the setting and the actions of NPCs that is completely disconnected from their character's actions, and took place in the past.

"My character is so smart that they knew all along that Dr Williams was a traitor, so I did X to thwart their scheme!" -- retroactive, not related to anything the character or player had done previously, allows the player to no-sell the natural outcome of the previous in-setting events and actions... by invoking a zero-effort player-layer ability.

[Tanarii]

Yes it is. Universally.

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this.

That's collaborative fiction.

No. If you need to catch up, here's multiple pages on the matter: Collaborative Storytelling is a meaningless phrase
(I was shown to be wrong on the title of that thread by the way, Collaborative Storytelling can haz meaning. It's just nowhere near universal, as the discussion showed. And explicitly, your example was demonstrated to be incorrect multiple times.)

If you want to try and explain why you're wrong in detail, start a thread and cross link it here. I'll be happy to shoot it down again at length.

[Max_Killjoy]

To give an example :

Splittermond has a magic school for fate magic with a subschool for prophecies. One of the spells within, called preparation, allows for a certain duration to retroactively have packed an item below a certain size and cost which is rationalized as being hinted as useful by a vision granted by the spell.

I would not think this ability is problematic. Even if it could theoretically be a bouquet of roses.

It's not problematic, because it establishes at the moment of casting an in-setting event that later explains the roses.

Problematic would be using the ability at the moment the roses are needed, and then saying "Well actually when we were buying gear two days ago I happened to buy roses." It immediately brings to mind a cartoon character pulling a bouquet out of hammerspace for comedic effect. Or children playing make-believe and one of them pulling a "I knew that all along" out of their butt to no-sell another kid's statement.

are TTRPG's a form of collaborative storytelling: Yeah, I don't see how you can doubt this. There's nothing forcing it to be a particularly good/deep story, but there's always some plot, even if it's simply "are you a bad enough group to kill Tiamat". A B-Movie plot to excuse entering a scripted dungeon with specific encounters tailored for min-max-combat-lovers is still a plot, just an excuse plot.

Are TTRPG's mainly, of hell forbid exclusively, a form of collaborative storytelling: Hell no. In the previous example, I think it's pretty clear that the plot is merely a framework for combat simulation. It's up to player preference, which can swing completely between combat, rp'ing, some exploration if the DM likes prepping that, etc. A group like that might not even care about the story so long as they can fight challenging opponents, which is a perfectly fine playstyle. They might go through every conversation spamming bluff/diplomacy checks, and just continue from there, which is a perfectly fine playstyle. And I'd hesitate to call it collaborative storytelling, as they're basically just fighting highly challenging trains on the DM's plot rails.



That sounds more like a logic problem/fictional problem solving than necessarily being part of a story, but I'll give you that.

However, that isn't general tabletop. Tabletop is generally something like this

DM: You are in x situation, what do you do?
Player: My character reacts to the situation like this. *rolls*
DM: Sorry, you didn't roll well enough. Try something else or take 20/Good roll, you successfully resolve x.

Again, the game-ifying of it is key. The fact that failure or success might not depend on what makes the best story, but a random die roll, is key. And any given group can play it more like "what makes the best story" and largely spurn dice rolls, it's a perfectly fine playstyle. But storytelling needn't be the focus, and even if it is, always has a degree of trade-off with the random factor involved. Unless you just throw away the dice and play pretend, which would also be a perfectly fine playstyle. It just wouldn't be tabletop anymore.

There's also "what would this person do in this situation?", which can totally disregard "what makes the best story".

"The best story" might feature weeks of investigation building up to a reveal of the villain's hidden plan, and who the villain really is... and then weeks more of back and forth trying to thwart the plan.

What the character might do, however, is something that reveals what's really going on half way through session one... blowing up "The Story".

And in that moment, when the player has to decide "am I going to forgo this action for The Story, or am I going to stay true to the character?", we're looking at what the player's focus actually is.

No. If you need to catch up, here's multiple pages on the matter: Collaborative Storytelling is a meaningless phrase
(I was shown to be wrong on the title of that thread by the way, Collaborative Storytelling can haz meaning. It's just nowhere near universal, as the discussion showed. And explicitly, your example was demonstrated to be incorrect multiple times.)

If you want to try and explain why you're wrong in detail, start a thread and cross link it here. I'll be happy to shoot it down again at length.

Good call.

[Max_Killjoy]

Note: I don't know how much this affects communities other than this forum, and especially discussions of D&D-based games.

One thing I've noticed is a presumption on these forums that being super smart (D&D specific: high INT score) also means that
* you're super prepared
* you're super paranoid
* you can accurately predict and understand what other people are thinking even if you've never met them
* you can adapt instantly (or very quickly) to changing circumstances
* you rarely if ever make mistakes or have holes in your defenses--if you do, it's because the author is handing you the idiot ball.
* you can learn anything faster, even completely non-intellectual things
* you're better at tactics, possibly even superhumanly good

In my opinion, that doesn't follow either from the rules (of D&D specifically here) or from anything like real-world experience.

Rules

Here's 5e's description of the Intelligence ability score:


and here's 3e's (from the SRD):


Note what it applies to: learning and reasoning. You pick up new knowledge fast. You can reason quickly from existing knowledge. Note that reading or understanding people and their motivations isn't listed. Neither is tactics. Or preparation. Or anything on that first list, really.

Real world
I grew up around smart people. I went to school with smart people (Physics undergrad, Physics PhD). I've interacted with a lot of people of varying degrees of intelligence. In my experience, smart people are no less likely to make stupid mistakes, especially outside of their area of focus. They're more generally prone to having egos that blind them to the flaws in their reasoning. They're just as prone to confirmation bias and other such errors of thought. And they're effortlessly out-maneuvered and out "thought" in anything like a social scenario by those with much less intelligence but better people skills. And they're way more likely to make stupid mistakes in things that aren't easily amenable to logic or for which the information is lacking. They have one tool, rational thought. And since they're so good at that one tool, they often think themselves into pits that someone with a bit more epistemic humility (and better perception) avoid.

I call them "brilliant idiots." Get a physicist talking outside of his field and often they'll end up acting like they can fix everything (it's a stereotype for a reason--it's actually quite true). But the tools that serve them so well in the very well behaved world of particles and solids fail miserably when applied to humans. Or even things like chemistry or programming--don't ask a physicist to program something if you want it to work consistently or be easy to maintain. Been there, done that. Scientific code is miserable from an engineering standpoint. Heck, just being able to solve the equations of motion of a ball doesn't make you very good at actually catching one. And most people who can do physical things well do so not by understanding the theory (although that happens as well) but through practice until the muscles move without conscious thought.

And most super-smart, super-educated people I've known have been quite rigid in their beliefs, especially in their specialty. They have their pet model and they'll hammer everything into conformance. And if something doesn't work, they tend to reject that reality and substitute their own. Or blame reality rather than their model. They've thought themselves into a corner and solve the issues by declaring that it's the real world that's at fault.

Spoiler: A joke that's too close to the truth to be funny

Show

An experimentalist brings a graph to a theoretician, asking "why does it do that" (pointing to a particular part of the curve)? The theoretician thinks for a moment, then confidently gives a complicated explanation. About half-way through, the experimentalist says "wait, you're holding it upside down". The theoretician turns it over, looks at it for a second, and continues on his same explanation of why it's like that.

Hey, no one said physicists had senses of humor. They're surgically removed as part of the PhD entrance process.

On the other hand, I've met lots of people without much formal education and without much "intelligence" who were deep wells of understanding about people and things. Who could diagnose a failing engine by listening to it. Who could get to the heart of a complicated interpersonal matter with a single question, despite not having training. Who had gut instincts that led them right way more than the super smart people's best logic. Especially in matters of who to trust.

Game
So here's my plea.

To DMs--don't have your super-smart people be perfect. Give them flaws, blind spots, etc. just like anyone else. Let the party, if they find those blind spots, exploit them and surprise the bad guy. That's not the idiot ball. Being super smart doesn't mean you're perfect or that you thought of all the angles. And it certainly doesn't give you access to other ways of finding out what the players are up to.

To players--accept that your INT 20 wizard is great at academics. But isn't Batman. And doesn't have to be a super paranoid uber-optimizer 5D chess master. In fact, the game is generally better (IMO) the fewer such people that there are.

Going back to the original post, I largely agree.

Some of the things that players want raw INT to apply to are things that really come from training, experience, or learning in specific fields. Just being "smart" doesn't make someone a brilliant tactician, or automatically better prepared, or hyper-observant, or somehow able to read people perfectly. Sherlock in Elementary isn't able to read people because he's just that smart, he's able to read people because he's also hyper-aware (to such an extent that it's painful), and more importantly, because he has put tremendous study into HOW to read people.

One of the things the WW games do well is separate out certain traits that other games tend to conflate. Intelligence, Wits, and Perception are separate.

Anyone who has been around a university for a while, or spent much time online, has known That Guy, the one who is an expert in one particular field, and thinks that makes them an expert in all fields, and always the smartest person in the room, and never wrong. And they seem to get into gaming disproportionately.

There's a similar problem with Charisma... it's often treated as a superpower in and of itself... the Diplomancer problem, expecting broad and impossible power from a non-superhuman characteristic. "If I'm persuasive enough, I can convince the king to name me his heir, and then commit suicide."

[JoeJ]

To give an example :

Splittermond has a magic school for fate magic with a subschool for prophecies. One of the spells within, called preparation, allows for a certain duration to retroactively have packed an item below a certain size and cost which is rationalized as being hinted as useful by a vision granted by the spell.

I would not think this ability is problematic. Even if it could theoretically be a bouquet of roses.

The DC Heroes game had an Omnigadget, which the player didn't define until it was used. It had actual rules, and the point cost was based on how many different things you could declare it to be. In M&M you can get the same effect by spending a hero point to edit the scene, or to perform a power stunt with your gear. In both games, there's a resource cost to keep it from being overused to the detriment of the game.

[Satinavian]

A scene editing power would be too far for my taste as well. With the above power, preparing the item is still something the character does and it is clear how and when he gets the information necessary to do so. That feels different.

[Rynjin]

A scene editing power would be too far for my taste as well. With the above power, preparing the item is still something the character does and it is clear how and when he gets the information necessary to do so. That feels different.

It works great in M&M, but the whole system is basically built around the Hero Point economy; without them, any given task maxes out at around a 55% chance of success, so players are encouraged to dump them in pretty much every fight and then gain more by allowing the GM to screw them over in specific ways via their Complications.

So the "edit a scene" function has a pretty big opportunity cost in raw numbers power, so you'd better get a lot of bang for your buck.

[icefractal]

As far as what falls into character skill vs player skill overall, my standpoint is simple - the things the players enjoy doing themselves should be player skill, the things they don't should be character skill.

There is no "right" answer for this. There exists a continuum where one end is full-contact LARPing, and the other is "give the GM your character sheet, including goals/personality/etc, and a few weeks later they'll tell you how the campaign went" - ie. treating all decisions as character-based, not player-based. And anywhere along that continuum is equally "valid".

So if your group likes tactical decisions, then the tactics should be player controlled (as they are in 3.x for example). If they don't, it should be abstracted (as in Fate, where "flanking position" is an aspect you create). If the group likes trying to persuade NPCs with their own social skills, they should do that, and if they don't then it should be down to rolls. Neither one is "more correct", they're only correct or incorrect for a given group.

So why is it the character's Strength that matters to lift something, but the player's actual ability to solve a puzzle that matters? Because those players enjoy solving puzzles but don't enjoy competitive weightlifting. And that's it, no other justification is necessary.


Of course, this can be frustrating when your preferences don't match the rest of the group. If you want to solve puzzles but everyone else wants to roll Int-checks (or vice-versa), it's a mismatch, and you've either got to put up with it or find a better suited group.

But that doesn't mean you can call your preference an objective truth. I mean, I don't particularly like the Horror genre, but I'm not going to go around saying "Horror isn't a valid genre for RPGs" because that would be stupid.

[JoeJ]

It works great in M&M, but the whole system is basically built around the Hero Point economy; without them, any given task maxes out at around a 55% chance of success, so players are encouraged to dump them in pretty much every fight and then gain more by allowing the GM to screw them over in specific ways via their Complications.

So the "edit a scene" function has a pretty big opportunity cost in raw numbers power, so you'd better get a lot of bang for your buck.

It's also limited in that it's not intended as a way to change something in a scene that has already been established, but to establish something that fills in the blanks. For example, if you're fighting in a chemistry lab you could use Edit a Scene to say that there is a vial of acid within reach, but you couldn't use it to say that you're actually in a railroad station.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's also limited in that it's not intended as a way to change something in a scene that has already been established, but to establish something that fills in the blanks. For example, if you're fighting in a chemistry lab you could use Edit a Scene to say that there is a vial of acid within reach, but you couldn't use it to say that you're actually in a railroad station.

I'm actually quite fine with this style. I've thought about including it as an option for Inspiration in 5e: you can declare one detail about the scene as long as it doesn't contradict established fact. DM can veto, but that doesn't burn your Inspiration point. The later is there to stop "and there's really a Holy Avenger on the table!" Or "and the boss is willing to just surrender!"

Never done it, because lazy.

[Lucas Yew]

As far as what falls into character skill vs player skill overall, my standpoint is simple - the things the players enjoy doing themselves should be player skill, the things they don't should be character skill.

There is no "right" answer for this. There exists a continuum where one end is full-contact LARPing, and the other is "give the GM your character sheet, including goals/personality/etc, and a few weeks later they'll tell you how the campaign went" - ie. treating all decisions as character-based, not player-based. And anywhere along that continuum is equally "valid".

So if your group likes tactical decisions, then the tactics should be player controlled (as they are in 3.x for example). If they don't, it should be abstracted (as in Fate, where "flanking position" is an aspect you create). If the group likes trying to persuade NPCs with their own social skills, they should do that, and if they don't then it should be down to rolls. Neither one is "more correct", they're only correct or incorrect for a given group.

So why is it the character's Strength that matters to lift something, but the player's actual ability to solve a puzzle that matters? Because those players enjoy solving puzzles but don't enjoy competitive weightlifting. And that's it, no other justification is necessary.


Of course, this can be frustrating when your preferences don't match the rest of the group. If you want to solve puzzles but everyone else wants to roll Int-checks (or vice-versa), it's a mismatch, and you've either got to put up with it or find a better suited group.

But that doesn't mean you can call your preference an objective truth. I mean, I don't particularly like the Horror genre, but I'm not going to go around saying "Horror isn't a valid genre for RPGs" because that would be stupid.

I wish my sig wasn't already filled up, as it seems that I really like this very nugget of wisdom.

[Witty Username]

Game
So here's my plea.

To DMs--don't have your super-smart people be perfect. Give them flaws, blind spots, etc. just like anyone else. Let the party, if they find those blind spots, exploit them and surprise the bad guy. That's not the idiot ball. Being super smart doesn't mean you're perfect or that you thought of all the angles. And it certainly doesn't give you access to other ways of finding out what the players are up to.

To players--accept that your INT 20 wizard is great at academics. But isn't Batman. And doesn't have to be a super paranoid uber-optimizer 5D chess master. In fact, the game is generally better (IMO) the fewer such people that there are.

Eh, I have found that players that are playing "super paranoid uber-optimizer 5D chess masters" will do so regardless of their characters intelligence.
I have personally found wisdom to be more frustrating, because it matters for so many more things mechanically, as dm, you get to the point where you can't actually hide information from players (insight is almost game breaking at social encounters). Meanwhile, int applies to almost nothing (especially if perception gets used in place of investigation).

For smart monsters, the big thing is can they recognize classes in my mind. the one with no armor and weapons and a large book is a wizard, the one in plate and a great sword is a fighter. And possibly which saves they are likely to have. Past that they may decide to run earlier.

[Morty]

This thread reminds me of why I've grown dissatisfied with the traditional attribute spreads (strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc.) and became eager to explore other means of representing aptitudes.

[Tanarii]

I have personally found wisdom to be more frustrating, because it matters for so many more things mechanically, as dm, you get to the point where you can't actually hide information from players (insight is almost game breaking at social encounters). Meanwhile, int applies to almost nothing (especially if perception gets used in place of investigation).

Yeah, that's definitely a problem with the DM turning Insight and Perception into superpowers. They're amazingly useful in a campaign where there are lots opponents using Deception and Stealth, of course. But Insight isn't mind reading, and Perception just lets you spot/hear/smell things that there is a less than 100% chance you might otherwise overlook.

The biggest problem with Perception as a superpower is how DMs handle traps. The majority of work when it comes to traps requires Investigation, or player skill. Perception just gives you extra details to work with. It shouldn't directly reveal any component of a trap, unless it's really basic and obviously perceivable trigger (e.g. a tripwire). Ditto for secret doors / hidden compartments.

Edit: since you're using 5e names for skills, I'm specifically talking about 5e here.

[Max_Killjoy]

This thread reminds me of why I've grown dissatisfied with the traditional attribute spreads (strength, dexterity, intelligence, etc.) and became eager to explore other means of representing aptitudes.

Unfortunately, a lot of the attempts just end up with different odd edge cases and overlaps/conflations.

"We split agility from dexterity, but combined strength and endurance!"
"We just give you three, Physical, Mental, and Social!"
"There are no characteristics, just a long list of skills!"

[Democratus]

No. If you need to catch up, here's multiple pages on the matter: Collaborative Storytelling is a meaningless phrase
(I was shown to be wrong on the title of that thread by the way, Collaborative Storytelling can haz meaning. It's just nowhere near universal, as the discussion showed. And explicitly, your example was demonstrated to be incorrect multiple times.)

If you want to try and explain why you're wrong in detail, start a thread and cross link it here. I'll be happy to shoot it down again at length.

{Scrubbed}

People creating a story together is collaborative fiction. This includes a DM giving a situation and the players saying how their characters react.

{Scrubbed}

[Morty]

Unfortunately, a lot of the attempts just end up with different odd edge cases and overlaps/conflations.

"We split agility from dexterity, but combined strength and endurance!"
"We just give you three, Physical, Mental, and Social!"
"There are no characteristics, just a long list of skills!"

I don't see any problems with any of those. It helps if you stop expecting attributes to simulate anything realistically, which they can never do, and treat them as tools for a job.

[NichG]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

People creating a story together is collaborative fiction. This includes a DM giving a situation and the players saying how their characters react.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

A thing taking place and that thing being the central purpose of an activity around which the parameters of the activity should be decided are different. Best to acknowledge that different people can want different things out of the endeavor rather than trying to tell people what they actually want.

[Max_Killjoy]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

People creating a story together is collaborative fiction. This includes a DM giving a situation and the players saying how their characters react.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Not really.

Start with the fact that not all gamers are "creating a story together".

A thing taking place and that thing being the central purpose of an activity around which the parameters of the activity should be decided are different. Best to acknowledge that different people can want different things out of the endeavor rather than trying to tell people what they actually want.

Plus this. But that never stopped the "all gaming is storytelling, even if you don't want it to be, even if that ruins it for you" crowd from insisting they know better.

[Batcathat]

Start with the fact that not all gamers are "creating a story together".

Aren't they? It might not be the main focus of every group but I can't think any game, any style, where it's not true. Even a story that's nothing but the GM presenting monster after monster and the players deciding how to stab them is still a story, I'd say. Do you have any examples of what you mean?

[OldTrees1]

Aren't they? It might not be the main focus of every group but I can't think any game, any style, where it's not true. Even a story that's nothing but the GM presenting monster after monster and the players deciding how to stab them is still a story, I'd say. Do you have any examples of what you mean?

One side is taking a reasonable premise (RPGs are collaborative and happen to create stories) but jumping to conclusions (what is best for the story is relevant).

The other side is rejecting the reasonable premise rather than the leap in logic.

Then you have responses like NichG's where they point

A thing taking place and that thing being the central purpose of an activity around which the parameters of the activity should be decided are different. Best to acknowledge that different people can want different things out of the endeavor rather than trying to tell people what they actually want.

Indeed
A book is a weight, but not everyone uses a book for the purpose of it being a weight.

[Willie the Duck]

I may have misunderstood the question, then. What rules structures were you thinking of?

Honestly was trying to leave it open. Just... anything. Mechanisms in place for the GM to play someone better at strategic thinking than they are, particularly if it isn't the old 'enemy knows everything the GM does' method. I tend to lean hard on the idea that the best rules facilitate play for the least experienced gamers (including actual kids), as the most experienced gamers barely need rules structures to keep the game going.

One side is taking a reasonable premise (RPGs are collaborative and happen to create stories) but jumping to conclusions (what is best for the story is relevant).

The other side is rejecting the reasonable premise rather than the leap in logic.

And in all cases the thread premise will be ignored for a chance to bang the drum for their own perceived side once again.

I don't see any problems with any of those. It helps if you stop expecting attributes to simulate anything realistically, which they can never do, and treat them as tools for a job.

I generally wouldn't merge strength and endurance while splitting agility and dexterity, as either the attributes should be narrow of broad, consistently. Social/Mental/Physical seems fine, especially in a game where each of them is highlighted well. Just having a long list of skills generally isn't actually just skills, though, as there are usually a bunch of other things that are analogous to Hit Points and similar (they just don't stop in the middle for attributes, which are this odd in-between land that somehow gained primacy in most systems).