>Rolled lower-than-average intelligence during character creation

>>50364278
I'm sorry you're not interested in roleplaying.

>>50364278
Intentionally make stupid decisions and say you're being in character.

>>50364278
Try actually roleplaying your character next time.

>>50364278

Bad DM simple as that, DM should reward clever thinking by the players.

50364293

Work harder and you might just get that (you) that you crave.

>>50364278
Well, considering that character isn't you, you might want to try to roleplay him better. Or if you're not into that, just say he's wise instead of smart.

>>50364278
>Rolling for stats
It's your own fault.

>>50364278
>Come up with a brilliant plan to save our party from a shitty situation
>DM goes "You can't do this, because your character isn't smart enough to come up with that plan."
Tell the other player to say "Hey, I just came up with a brilliant plan".

>>50364278
Rather than be a nofun DM i'd have you try to explain it in retard to the others, no clarification allowed.

>>50364314
>>50364298
>>50364293
>>50364302
OP is clearly retarded
so if he can come up with that solution, so can his retarded character

>>50364302
Try shoving a dragon dildo up your ass the next you encounter a dragon.

Lower-than-average doesn't mean retarded.

The average INT score is 30, mine was 25.

>>50364298
This, but unironically. If your character isn't smart you shouldn't play them as such. It's okay to make unoptimal decisions.

>>50364336
underrated post

>>50364334
If I thought I could pull off Karl Pilkington's brand of stream of consciousness no-filter stupidity I would.

>>50364278
>DM penalizing players for getting themselves out of shit.
>Not encouraging fun times and dramatic escape from dastardly things.

Wew.

>>50364293
>>50364302
>>50364314
>>50364326
>>50364336
>>50364358
> It's wrong to have a bright idea just because you're stupid.
If anything, a simple 'INT' check would of sufficed. Failure means he explains it wrong, while a success means his brilliant plan comes out as intended. From there, maybe another check by the others could of been done to try and determine what was said, if the first INT check fails.

Simple as that, if you want a gamey approach. Personally, I'd just let it slide and let the adventure go on.

>>50364401

If more DM were like you there wouldn't be so many bitter people on /tg/, most sensible answer so far.

Fuck all of you amateur theater hour fucks. If players are engaged enough to come up with interesting plans, that should be encouraged instead of "well, you're too stupid to have actually come up with that plan."

>>50364401
>could of been
And no, as you demonstrated, it's not wrong to have a good idea when you're stupid.

HOWEVER
>I swear to God, this "you can only be as academically/socially good as your character should be" is fucking retarded.
is a retarded and wrong thing to say.

>>50364278
What was the plan, OP?

>>50364427
I prefer to have players who are engaged enough to refrain from acting OOC whenever it's convenient.

>>50364401
>If anything, a simple 'INT' check would of sufficed. Failure means he explains it wrong, while a success means his brilliant plan comes out as intended. From there, maybe another check by the others could of been done to try and determine what was said, if the first INT check fails.

I really fucking hate this approach. It's punishing the player for shits and giggles. Roleplaying should be about making decisions, not acting out The Sound and Fury

>>50364460
Yes, and you DECIDED to play a retard, and now you have to live with it! So sorry.

Don't dump stats next time.

>>50364455
They aren't acting out of character; they are acting based on the information you have provided to them as a DM.

>>50364469
If we're talking 3.PF, they're already mechanically disadvantaged with fewer skills, etc. Being a retard is already mechanically represented.

Fuck off.

>>50364472
there's a right way to do this (in character)
and a wrong way to do this (out of character)
it doesn't matter whether they succeed or not as long as the story is coherent.

>>50364495
Maybe next time don't play a dogshit game system.

But until you don't, well, you gotta live with your own bad choices. And that means not playing a character smarter or more charismatic then the stats say. You don't get to dumpstat CHA and then play a diplomancer because OOC you can talk people into shit, and you don't get to pull complex plans out of your ass either.

>>50364293
>>50364302
>>50364314
weak bait

>>50364328
this

>>50364455
>implying RPGs are only about reproducing a fictional character as faithfully as possible

>>50364278
Look him in the eye and say "I don't claim to be the smartest man at the table but the fact I came up with the plan despite zero IRL experience in this situation means that any fucking idiot can come up with that plan".

>>50364495
You do realize that this isn't an excuse for contradicting what's written on your sheet, right?

So go suck a dick.

>>50364513
>implying the secondary goals of RPGs matter as much as reproducing a fictional character as faithfully as possible

On one hand, I don't see anything wrong with a low intelligence character occasionally coming up with brilliant plans. Intelligence 8 or even 6 doesn't mean you're limited to "me bash head with rock," and as any pet owner with a stubborn cat or dog can tell you, even int 2 animals are capable of doing very clever things when they want to.

On the other hand, if your idiot character is the party's lead strategist, you're not doing a good job of roleplaying. You need to play the character you made, not Commander All 18s the Hero of the Multiverse.

>>50364398
Mr

Dilkington

>>50364495
Nowhere is it written or implied that people with a low intelligence score are considered mentally retarded.

>>50364508
Roleplaying is at it's core the same thing as commanding a wargame unit. Just because you are playing the game from the role of an orc commander does not mean that you must make tactically disadvantageous choices because that represents the barbaric culture of the orcs.

I don't understand why amateur theater hour fucks like you want to force players into making less interesting choices because "that's what a medieval peasant would do"

>>50364566
I don't understand why minmaxing fucks like you want to 'claim' to play a game, but metagame any moment where actually playing the fucking game becomes too hard for you to actually play to the character you created.

>>50364469
I didn't DECIDE to play a low-INT character, I just rolled slightly lower than average on it since our DM absolutely wanted us to roll stats because "having randomized characters is more fun!".

>>50364641
>*rattles tits*

>>50364278
Why not just out-of-character suggest it to a player who has a character that's intelligent enough to come up with something like that?

>>50364641
Not an argument

>>50364532
>implying that it doesn't depend on what type of play style the campign is about
D&D in particular is mostly suited for gamist players; if you are aiming for P&P Diablo, for example, playing faithfully to character is not even a secondary goal.

>>50364668
Not an argument is not an argument.

>>50364722
Not an argument is not an argument is not an argument either

>>50364722
Then put up or shut up

>>50364278

RPGs shouldn't even have mental stats. Your IRL intelligence affects every single decision you ever make. It's incredibly difficult to "properly" play a character that's dumber than you, and impossible to play one that's smarter than you - every decision you make should be better than what you're actually capable of making.

>>50364278
Its understandable. The whole point of playing a character is that you are playing them. Dumb people don't come up with good plans. What I would have suggested as a DM is just claim that a character with a high intelligence came up with the plan.

>>50364794
>Dumb people don't come up with good plans.

Now that's just stupid. Being below average intelligence, doesn't mean you can't think of clever plans. That's just silly.

>you can only be as physically good as your character should be
Complete nonsense, everyone knows it, nobody argues it. This is partly the reason to play RPGs anyway, to get the thrill of fighting monsters every Sunday night without getting physically injured.
>you can only be as academically good as your character should be
Your DM provides you with information on rooms you enter, it should stand to reason the DM also would be able to figure out what your character has been able to learn so far. That said, planning is the game part of the game, so DMs should just deal with it when their players play the game.
>you can only be as socially good as your character should be
If you can't sing, don't sing at the table. Roleplaying the womanizer bard is not something you're allowed to do if you're completely socially inept.

>>50364794
>never heard of thr idiot who once in says something simple, but brilliant

Look, the correct way to deal with this is an INT check. Roll high? Your plan comes out of your mouth perfectly and is understood. Roll low? You cannot convey your plan properly as you either babble incoherently, or leave out key details that drive the plan.

This is the perfect middle ground between metagaming and perfectly roleplaying your character.

>>50364880
Isn't telling your plans clearly, a charisma check?

>>50364794
My group fixes this problem by explaining that the Intelligence stat stands for academic experience, not actual intelligence.

A low-int character might be book dumb, but still street smart.

>>50364894
Not if you're too dumb to string together your words. But as a DM, I would allow it if my player made a good case.

>>50364444
>What was the plan, OP?
To crash their plane with no survivors.

>Rolled lower-than-average intelligence during character creation
>Suffers a penalty for intelligence based skill checks

And we're done.

>>50364938
There was no stat check.
I was just prohibited from coming up with a good plan because my character isn't smart enough to do so.

>>50364948
Your DM is a fuckboy

File: 1351086532949.gif (491KB, 150x132px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 150x132px

>>50364293
>>50364302
>>50364314
>connecting gamist stats with narrative
Newsflash: Your character is more than what is on the character sheet. The numbers on the sheet is only there for situations where a dice roll is required.

>>50364986
Newsflash: the numbers approximate your characters capabilities. A 3 INT Barbarian should not be inventing a printing press. A 3 STR Bard should not br lifting a carriage full of grain.

>>50364986
>Newsflash: Your character is more than what is on the character sheet.
Yes.

>The numbers on the sheet is only there for situations where a dice roll is required.
No.

If you have low INT, you're not smart. If you have low WIS, you're not wise. If you have low CHA, you are unpleasant or unremarkable.
If you don't understand that you're as bad as players who, in a setting without firearms, say "Well I'll randomly mix coal, sulphur and saltpetre and see what happens".
And if you don't realize what's wrong with this, you clearly don't get the meaning of roleplaying.

>a dumb person must ALWAYS have bad ideas
I'm a fucking dumbass and even I get shut right sometimes

An INT score would just be that the character has a smaller pool of knowledge to pull from. A character could know how to make a sword better than anyone else but have an INT score of three because he knows little about anything else. The score only gives you the general idea of how much they should know, not what they know.

>>50365088
>A 3 INT Barbarian should not be inventing a printing press
Is there a rule for that? (There isn't)

>A 3 STR Bard should not br lifting a carriage full of grain
Is there a rule for that? (There is)

>>50365117
A PC with low stats is still better than a normal person. And why wouldn't you want players to experiment and come up with gunpowder? Sound fun.

File: 0c3b56aadc4c38545d328e990c7820661456087487_full.jpg (256KB, 640x708px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 640x708px

>>50364278
Pff. if you think that's bad
>be rogue with 14 int
>rest of the party is 16 int paladin and 19 int wizard.
>rest of the party treats me like a retard
>random peasants treat me like a retard
>BBEG treats me like a retard, but he treats everyone like retards
>the same "anon, your character can't come up with such a complicated plan, you're the dumbest one in the party!"
>quit the game 2 sessions after

>>50365192
Knowledge(Engineering).

Carrying capacity rules.

>>50365192
Is this a feeble attempt at trolling or are you really this dull?

10 in any stat is the human average in D&D. Even a peasant isn't entirely unlikely to have something as low as 8 and as high as 12.
INT 10 is average. At 8, your intelligence is noticeably below average. At 6, you are fucking retarded.

>And why wouldn't you want players to experiment and come up with gunpowder? Sound fun.
Because they would have absolutely no reason to randomly pick up what casually happens to be the right ingredients in the right doses and mash them togheter to create something they didn't even know could exist. Do I REALLY have to explain this?

>>50365242
>Knowledge(Engineering).
Roll 20, invent press.
Skills were a mistake.

>Carrying capacity rules.
Yes.

>>50365252
10 is average for a PC in D&D, not a commoner. They generally don't even have stats because there's no use for it.

>Because they would have absolutely no reason to randomly pick up what casually happens to be the right ingredients in the right doses and mash them togheter to create something they didn't even know could exist.
Well, wizards come up with new shit all the time by mashing stuff together. Why not gunpowder?

>>50365339
It's not even worth answering you anymore. You're either baiting, too lost in your delusional idea of gaming, or too stupid.

>>50365339
>Roll 20, invent press
A natural 20 is no automatic success.

>>50365339
>Skills were a mistake
Not at all. They are a measured capacity of one's knowledge. Just like how INT should measure a person's knowledge and all that fun shit.
As >>50365408
said, nat 20 is not an automatic success.

>>50365197
>rogue with 14 int
Why tho?

>>50365192
>centaurs, orcs have 8 intelligence.

>They can't ever, EVER have a good idea.

>>50365339
Because it creates an unfair advantage through meta knowledge. Is it fair to look through the GMs notes and find out you'll be facing trolls which are vulnerable to fire and then bring a mob with torches just because?

>>50365408
But it is a very excellent display of the skill, as determined by random chance.

What level of engineering skill are you expecting from players that do this? If the 3int barbarian has a rank in the skill I don't see what part of the book would stop him from performing just as well as an engineer.

Only the GM can veto it, but if that's the solution the goalpost moved.

>>50364278
> "No, but Steve's character's smart enough."
> Give the plan.

>>50365339
>Roll 20, invent press.
1) If your GM allows you to make a skill check to invent something there's no reason you should be able to invent, you're got a shit GM. Irrelevant though, since according to the rules,
2)A natural 20 is a success only in task you can actually realistically accomplish. You can't jump into space by rolling a 20 and sure as hell you can't invent something out of thin air just by rolling a 20.

>Carrying capacity rules.
>Yes.
Yes indeed.

Go back to MOBAs.

>>50365427
>>rogue with 14 int
>Why tho?
to skillmonkey better

>>50364307
Do you realize that seeing someone expending the extra time and effort to ensure a lack of (you) is more rewarding than the (you) itself?

>>50365408
>>50365427
Well I guess that's good to know. Still, in your system it would appear that not even an INT 18 character would be able to create a printing press anyway.

>>50365432
Yes, this is why intelligence based on INT isn't a good idea.

>>50365433
Players will gain metaknowledge of D&D just by playing it. Do you roleplay new characters freaking out over the first goblin attack every time?

>>50365192
>And why wouldn't you want players to experiment and come up with gunpowder?

Because it's metagaming taken to its absolute extreme, that's why.

>>50365450
Knowledge is NOT based, and so are skills. Unless the barbarian invests all feats in Skill Focus, he will never have a high enough result to pass the check.

Also, he'd need an equally high craft skill.

>>50365494
Sorry, but that's one GM's check.
If the stupid Barbarian can consistently take 20 and has a full rank in the skill I don't see why they couldn't do it. The mechanics let that kind of check be prolonged over time.

You're mistaking common sense for what's actually in the rules because you think they're indistinguishable. It's a symptom of using trash systems too much. It's lucky for the writers, since they can rely on you defending their work.

I thought wisdom was intuition, smarts, planning and such, whilst intelligence was more based around education and "book smarts".

>>50365252
6 is bottom 10% of intelligence - dumb, but not even at borderline mental intellectual disability. You need a 5 for borderline, and 3-4 to be mentally disabled.

>>50364901
That's what wisdom is for you fucking cuck.

>>50364278
As someone who has to deal with an asshat that tries to invent gunpowder in every fantasy game he is involved in, no matter what character he is playing, I side with your DM.

Just because you got an A-Level in Chemistry eight years ago, doesn't mean your character has that knowledge too.

>>50364278
Maybe you should learn what roleplay means before roleplaying

>>50365560
He literally could not. INT 3 (- 4), means he'd need 4 ranks in Engineering JUST TO BREAK EVEN.

He'd need to dedicate literally ALL of his skill ranks to do an idiotic thing. Also, the check required would be at least DC 25.

>>50365489
Probably not. For why would an INT 18 character feasibly WANT to create one? Why would they, when an invisible servant can be used just as easily to copy books? One ritual later, and your entire work is done with a fraction of the effort.

Not to mention the printing press isn't something you just "Make". It's not like coca-cola where you fuck around and suddenly it's coca-fucking-cola. Gunpowder was even an 'eh' one for me, on creation scale. If creating new technology was that easy for an INT 18 PC, then most level 30 bosses would be carrying around enchanted guns that never need a reload, rather than swords and clubs.

>>50365474
It all suddenly makes sense.

>>50365560
What kind of logic is this?

>>50365580
This is sort of true. It's a blurred line. Just like the constant conundrum of how one can have high strength but low constitution. Or vise versa.

>>50365560
What would an INT 3 Barbarian's motivation be for making one, though?

>45 posters
>85 replies
Spread your legs madam, I'm checking for samefag

File: int to iq.jpg (59KB, 639x257px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 639x257px

For anyone who gives a shit, a quick comparison of the "4d6 drop lowest" distribution curve to the IQ distribution curve. Reminding you also that below 80 IQ and you're basically retarded.

>>50365628
How far back is your fantasy setting to not have gunpowder invented already?

>Party in tavern
>Wizard: "I walk up to the huge barbarian and beat him at arm wrestling."
>DM: uh no you're a frail old man with twig arms
>Wizard: "WTF DM STOP STIFLING MY ROLEPLAYING!!!!"

:^)

>>50365697
This is why INT=IQ doesn't work.

>>50365667
>Probably not. For why would an INT 18 character feasibly WANT to create one?
I agree. Clearly these players aren't thinking big enough.

>>50364460
>>50364495
>>50364566
>>50364668
Sometimes I think my group is bad and then I see the kind of people who go on /tg/

>>50364278
To be fair it is a matter of of how the PC sat is. At 9 in 3 x you are a a touch lower intelligence but still inside the normal. At 8 you may well have a learning disability. At 7 & 6 you are borderline retard.

http://simantics.blogspot.com/2011/01/d-and-iq.html

People make more out of IQ then should be, but in larger blocks it is a effective measure of intelligence gaps. Also


>Rolled lower-than-average intelligence during character creation

Who still rolls sats?

>>50365603
>implying i play DnD
look at him, look at him and laugh

>>50365739
Every time that thread is made people keep forgetting rolls are for things on which the result is on question. Yes, technique is a big part of arm wrestling, but it doesn't let you magically win against people many times as strong as you. The wizard would lose, no need for a roll.

Now if the monk tried to do it a roll would be reasonable

>>50364278
Find another gm, and fuck all of you justifying that shit gm.
Would you say Baldric from blackadder is a smart man? No? But he still comes up with cunning plans , some of which even work.

>>50365755
I don't necessarily disagree with their sentiment. While you should try to roleplay your character appropriately, the fact is they've already paid for the disadvantage of low intelligence mechanically; let them have the odd moment of brilliance, it's certainly preferable to the GM dictating how they can roleplay.

>>50365770
>Who still rolls sats?

OSR guys, but as I recall most of them wouldn't care about this sort of thing, since they're typically there to play a fucking game rather than pretend to be actors.

>>50365833
Nigger, be real. "I have a cunning plan, my Lord" was never preceded by a good idea.

>Low INT = Retarded

lol no.

>>50365667
>the printing press isn't something you just "Make"
This goes for almost all modern technology as well, when people try and transplant real technology into D&D they end up transplanting in an end product without any of the decades or centuries of incremental changes it took to get that product. D&D doesn't have block printing as far as I know, nor does it have movable type, any real paper production industry or any of the educational and industrial drivers for the development of printing.

Tell your plan to the dude playing the smart guy
If DM whines about meta just say he's clearly smart enough to come up with it independently

>>50365697
3d6 fits better. You just have to shift it so a 10 means IQ of 85.

>>50365833
>>50365844
A roll would have to be made for the dumb character to formulate his plan to completion and then the player would roleplay communicating it to his party members to mantain some sense of plausibility. Even if it failed you can try again and individually convince some other party member to vouch for you like >>50365910 said. That kind of situation is exactly what rolls are supposed to be for. There's no need for the character FAILING, just show him struggling while going out of water

>>50365770
I'd put 8-9 at a bit dumb, 6-7 at noticeably dumb, 4-5 at borderline, and 3 at retarded. Similarly, 12-13 is a bit smart, 14-15 is noticeably smart, 16-17 is genius, and 18 is pinnacle of human intelligence.

>>50364355
>Lower-than-average doesn't mean retarded.

>The average INT score is 30, mine was 25.

40k rpg?

If so a borderline retard is int 23, if their int lines up with ours. But it likely does not. Environmental poison ( mostly lead and other heavy metals), little to no early education, and childhood malnutrition does lower the overall intelligence of a population. Not going to even try to ball park it but I think a 40k human is dumber for their place on the internal INT spread then a modern person. It would go a long way to help address why they have so much issues using technology.

>>50365996
It's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 2nd edition.

A zero-education farmer would be around 20, a borderline retard around 15, an actual retard around 10.

>>50365722
That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that regardless of background and regardless of stats, this one guy always has his character develop gunpowder using his own out-of-character knowledge.

>>50366212
Well knowledge isn't enough to make gunpowder anyway, you have to know exactly how to put the ingredients together, and then you have to spend time on finding the ingredients, and then you have to spend time on making it, and so on. Just knowing how to do it is the least of their worries.
Anyway, if you really don't want them to do it, it's easy to fuck with them by changing the recipe just a little.

>>50365489
>Do you roleplay new characters freaking out over the first goblin attack every time?
That's one of the most fun parts of WFRP. Characters losing their shit when they get attacked by things they thought were only urban legends.

>>50366392
Is that really fun every time?

>>50364326
This
H
I
S

>>50364278
DM mistaking that ability scores are simply weighted probability and not hard limits on capability.

8 int characters can have moments of genius just as well as 18 int characters can have moments of transcendental stupidity.

File: colin.jpg (4KB, 265x190px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 265x190px

>>50364278
>using intelligence/charisma as mechanical stats in a roleplaying game, creating the "narrative/gameplay" segregation
Yet another reason why DnD is shit, what else is new?

>>50365890
Well whether or not they have earlier inventions can depend on the dm or setting but you're correct about end products.

>>50364278
>hit the gym every day
>do mad horse steroids
>DM tells me my wizard doesn't even lift
WHAR THE FUCJ BRO

>>50366733
>use the rules wrong
>"boy these rules are dumb"

>>50367907
Intelligence and Charisma shouldn't be stats at all in a roleplaying game, because there is no way for a person with lower charisma/intelligence to roleplay a person with higher charisma/intelligence adequately.
Wisdom is a fringe case - when used as a perception stat, or as cruise-control via GM giving free hints - it's fine.

File: dfdfdfdfdfd.jpg (48KB, 468x302px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 468x302px

Forrest Gump had an iq of 75 and became a multi-millionaire, world-class ping-pong player, war hero, and he met the president twice. Your DM was just being an idiot.

This is exactly why you don't use an 'intelligence' stat.

Because all of the characters actions are controlled directly by their player, you do not give them a representation of logical intelligence.

INSTEAD you give them a 'knowledge' or 'academic' ability that represents this. That way they can't cook up a bomb (even if the player knows how to), but they can logically come up with a plan that isn't retarded, because the person may be witty or clever without actually being 'booksmart'.

>>50364278

Munchkin

>>50368048
>became a multi-millionaire
which has nothing to do with intelligence and more with charisma
>world-class ping-pong player
since when do ping-pong players have to be smart?
>war hero
which is less about being smart and more about following orders
>met the president twice
again, more a charisma thing

nobody is saying that as an idiot you are useless

>>50368254
>Surviving in one of the most chaotic environments America ever fought in where even the orders could prove to be dangerous and fatal
>Not taking some form of cunning

>ping-pong
It takes dexterity to not lose Ping-Pong. But it takes intelligence to win. How else are you going to figure out and apply different kinds of spins, bounces, and so on in response to your opponents strategy? It's almost as if it takes some sort of... On the fly planning?

File: 1474801702134.gif (460KB, 512x392px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 512x392px

>>50364278
If you think dumb people can't have occasional flashes of brilliance, especially when life is on the line, you're even more retarded than OP's character.
There's literally nothing wrong with it, so long as it doesn't become a habit

I pity the poor bastards that get saddled with some of the people ITT

>>50364298
I once did that in an L5R group I was in. I was very much the setting lore guy in our group, so much so that the GM often asked me about the particulars of the setting.

When my character died and I rolled a new one up I decided to metagame the group a little with the GM's help. I made a character that at first glance was super scholarly and highly intelligent, but the reality was he was mostly faking it. I arranged a code gesture with GM for when I failed Lore rolls and when I did I'd give screwed up information to the group.

The first few times I got stuff wrong, I'd insinuate that the GM was changing shit up to keep me on my toes. Eventually I pushed it too far and another player called me hard on my bullshit to the point of pulling out a book and reading where I was wrong. At that point the GM couldn't take it anymore and started laughing. The jig was up and we explained what was so funny. Fortunately the group was good sports about it and laughed at all the trouble I caused.

>>50368161
There's nothing inherently wrong with giving a baseline of what your characters logical ability is. In this case the GM is wrong, not the system.

A character should be smart enough to come up with a plan to not die during an adventure. If a Chimp can find out stick+mound=food, a fully sentient player character should be able to figure out something in a life-or-death situation. Otherwise, they aren't quite fit for adventuring, right? Adventurers are better than the average member of their species anyhow (how better depends on the system, of course), so it makes minimal sense for someone to literally be 'too dumb to not die', barring gross stat reductions.

Preventing the player from actually immersing himself in the game world because of some abstract number on the character sheet is counterproductive to 'role-playing'. The baseline for the characters intelligence should start at the players intelligence.

I'm still a fan of "describe the plan to the group out-of-character, the character whose job is being the smart guy can come up with it in-character."

>>50364278
Or worse
>figure out the solution to problem with space station
>has to do with quanta
>character is space soldier
>lower than average in
>choose to play to character and don't spout solution
>session lasts 3 and a half hours longer
>talk about it ooc after session
>>why didn't you just say so anon
>I-I didn't wanna meta game....

>>50364542
This, so much this.