|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 1:53PM
#81
|
|
|
This is what I was talking about, iserith. It's not "fair" not to act like a moron. It's all tied in to the typical roleplayer attitude toward lower-case-i-intelligence vs. physical ability.
Right. And it's silly to a laughable degree. Maxperson has some level of argument in pre-4e systems but even then I know when something is ridiculous enough to ignore.
No, the characters can't do anything they want. They are very clearly restricted by rules that call for dice rolls and have clear meaning for those outcomes. There are prerequisites on feats. But not everything in the game or the game world involves dice or specific number limits, so there are no grounds for restricting any character from doing well at those things. Vocabulary. Planning. Puzzle-solving. If you want to restrict characters based on their ability scores, then put in checks to be made or feats that must be taken.
Right. There are no rules that tell me how to act. There are rules to measure the outcome of things that I attempt to do. And if I'm not good at them, then so be it. Let the dice fall where they may and I'll be happy to see what happens.
Iserith's mentality for roleplaying a 30 IQ as a genious is the same as the person who has a character who is LG, but wants to be able to play LG one day, CG the next, LE the third, LG the fourth, CE the fifth, and so on. The rules don't prevent that any more than they do roleplaying a stat badly. It's all in the "imagination."
There is no need to put in mechanical checks. I've played with 100+ people over the years and only about 4-5 of them were of the type who would ignore the stats and try to play a 3 int as a genious or vice versa. Most people have enough sense not to even want to try.
Alignment doesn't dictate how I act either unless I choose to use it as a creative constraint.
What's wrong with using your imagination?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:04PM
#82
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Iserith's mentality for roleplaying a 30 IQ as a genious
No one is roleplaying a 30 IQ as anything, because IQ is not a number the game uses.
is the same as the person who has a character who is LG, but wants to be able to play LG one day, CG the next, LE the third, LG the fourth, CE the fifth, and so on. The rules don't prevent
Right, so what good is alignment again? As a meter to tell someone when someone else isn't as good at the game as they are?
that any more than they do roleplaying a stat badly. It's all in the "imagination."
As is a clear defintion of what it means to "roleplay a stat badly."
There is no need to put in mechanical checks. I've played with 100+ people over the years and only about 4-5 of them were of the type who would ignore the stats and try to play a 3 int as a genious or vice versa. Most people have enough sense not to even want to try.
I don't try it my own self, but I also don't tell people how to play. I leave that to the mechanics and their own preferences. If there are no mechanics, then it's down to their own preferences. It's possible to play a character in a rude or mean way, and I don't condone that, but as long as a player is following the rules and not pretending that an action succeeded when the rules say it didn't, then there's nothing else to be said about it.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:06PM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
To reiterate: this has nothing to do with cheating or being a jerk. Follow the rules and don't hog the spotlight. But at the same time, don't limit someone's participation or preference, especially not for arbitrary reasons that don't have rules behind them.
I'm not limiting them. They have the option to put a 10 or better in intelligence and not have the issue if that's their preference.
Past editions tried and failed to make it clear what a given Intelligence score means. It's simply not the same as Strength, which is somewhat easier to put numbers to, though even the physical body can achieve things that don't make sense on a normal scale. Play as smart as you want, but follow the rules and don't be a jerk.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I think that IQ being int score x 10 was very clear.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:10PM
#84
|
|
|
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I think that IQ being int score x 10 was very clear.
I still can't believe that's a rule. I mean, I'm taking your word for it that it is/was as you provided reference.
Clearly the designers are paid by the word and not for having good ideas. Because even if you equate INT with IQ, it's still not clear how one is expected to play a dunce or that such instruction wouldn't be horribly offensive in print. To that end, it's best left out of the game. I'm glad 4e did that.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:16PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
We're going to have to agree to disagree, then. I think that IQ being int score x 10 was very clear.
I still can't believe that's a rule. I mean, I'm taking your word for it that it is/was as you provided reference.
Clearly the designers are paid by the word and not for having good ideas. Because even if you equate INT with IQ, it's still not clear how one is expected to play a dunce or that such instruction wouldn't be horribly offensive in print. To that end, it's best left out of the game. I'm glad 4e did that.
Right. IQ is questionable even in the real world. Used as even a derived, unwritten stat in D&D, it's really no better than just looking at what the rules say the modifiers are. I certainly don't recall anything in past editions about what one's Int/IQ meant for anything other than language ability, and I'm willing to bet that it had nothing to do with any real-world interpretation of IQ.
Did you already address what it means to play or run a creature with a much higher "IQ" than the player? That's another reason why Intelligence clearly isn't meant to equate to intelligence: because there's no way to realistically portray creatures with intelligence higher than the player's, let alone higher than that of any human being who has ever lived. I guess we're okay with playing low-Int/IQ characters dumber than they really would be. That's not "cheating," it's just bad roleplaying.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:24PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Centauri's post here: Did you already address what it means to play or run a creature with a much higher "IQ" than the player?
I didn't address it, no, but remember when I said that I view what comes out of a player's mouth through stat colored glasses? That includes high as well as low. If someone says something offensive or maybe stutters their way through a speech and they have an 18 charisma, the NPC will "hear" the speech without the stutter or in not nearly as offensive a way. With regard to intelligence, I recognize that players are often not as smart as the high intelligence PCs they play, so when that player is stuck on a puzzle or other intelligence based problem, I will give that person clues, hints or flat out rolls to overcome the problem.
There is a lot of DM fiat in my game, but I am fair and impartial with it, so it never bothers my players. I personally feel that DM fiat is the greatest tool in the game and can greatly enhance story and game play.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:24PM
#87
|
|
|
Did you already address what it means to play or run a creature with a much higher "IQ" than the player? That's another reason why Intelligence clearly isn't meant to equate to intelligence: because there's no way to realistically portray creatures with intelligence higher than the player's, let alone higher than that of any human being who has ever lived. I guess we're okay with playing low-Int/IQ characters dumber than they really would be. That's not "cheating," it's just bad roleplaying.
Exactly. Another great example of why this fantasy realist claptrap doesn't hold water outside of "some dude in a cubicle wrote a book that said so." By this same reasoning, I should be really upset when the guy with the learning disability at the table doesn't pass muster roleplaying his super-genius wizard. Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:26PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Also, the issue isn't ignoring stats. When it comes to the rules, the effects of stats are very clear. When it comes to how to roleplay stats, there's basically nothing definitive to ignore, just extrapolations based on scraps of information. Another great example of why this fantasy realist claptrap doesn't hold water outside of "some dude in a cubicle wrote a book that said so."
And the books usually don't even say so. They say a few things that seem to be pointing in a certain direction, and the players do the rest, coming to invidividual conclusions not supported by what the mechanics actually do, often just to support their own prejudices about the merits of strength vs. intelligence.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:28PM
#89
|
|
|
With regard to intelligence, I recognize that players are often not as smart as the high intelligence PCs they play, so when that player is stuck on a puzzle or other intelligence based problem, I will give that person clues, hints or flat out rolls to overcome the problem.
So in other words, you are able to divorce stats from roleplaying except that in order for you to feel comfortable doing so, you need to set up some hurdles or hoops to jump over and through. Beat around the bush with clues, that sort of thing.
Why not just skip all that nonsense?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 01, 2012 - 2:34PM
#90
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
With regard to intelligence, I recognize that players are often not as smart as the high intelligence PCs they play, so when that player is stuck on a puzzle or other intelligence based problem, I will give that person clues, hints or flat out rolls to overcome the problem.
So, when a smart person is playing a PC he deems to be not-smart would he play loud noises in their ears to disrupt their concentration, like in "Harrison Bergeron," so they do poorly on puzzles? Would he do the same thing when they're trying to act tactically in combat, or form a coherent sentence?
Edit: Actually, he mentions rolls, so he doesn't have to worry about roleplaying at all: just stick a DC on the puzzle or some part of it, and have the player roll. The player can roleplay the results however they want, but it won't give them a success. Some modules actually run puzzles this way, though plenty of people dislike it, again because of the schism between the physical and mental stats.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
