"Your character is not smart enough to think of that."

>>53701749
Well yes, the 8 int Barbarian named GORG (caps intentional) is not smart enough to think of the magical perpetual motion device you keep trying to force in this setting, steve. Please stop.

>>53701785
That's a gigantic strawman. OP's complaint most often comes up when a low int character tries to do anything remotely clever or tactical, and the DM thinks 8 int means barely-sapient beastman

File: anger7.jpg (31KB, 639x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 639x480px

>find bottles of old undrinkable liquor in dungeon
>ooh hello potential molotov cocktails
>DM vetoes because I'm "not trained in knowledge: engineering"
>find

>>53701846
I take cleverness as wisdom, int as book knowledge. Isn't that's how it's "supposed to be done"?

>>53701928
Liquor strong enough to be a decent incendiary is kinda out of place in a medieval setting.

>>53702870
Not to mention you also need a thickener if you want it to be effective at all.

>>53702922
And most thickeners are modern creations not found in medieval times.

>>53701749
He really isn't, OP.

Forcing characteristics based on stats is shit in general. Stats are just mechanics, the player decides how to act that out.

>>53701846

OP gives no context, so both interpretations are equally valid.

>>53701928
>>53702870
>>53702922
>>53702950
Alright you cucks. Give me a medieval recipe on how to make a Molotov. Don't tell me you can't. D&D's motto is literally "You can do anything!"

>>53702870
>>53702922
It's like you guys have never seen dwarven wine.

>>53702950
Tar would work I think.

>>53702999
Some kind of thicker liquid mixed in with oil or a hard alcohol. Probably a glue or something.

>>53702979
This.

Is "Your character is not smart enough to think of that." a valid point?
Depends on the scenario.

Is "OP is a faggot." a valid point?
Almost always.

>>53702999
It's most likely not possible. The DM should be aware of that instead of barring the ability to try and fail.

>>53702999

I'd say an in universe version, based on elemental alchemy, would make more sense than some real world reinterpretation.

>>53703022
How the fuck are we going to get access to Middle East rig oils factories? Come on.

>>53702973
Why do people only seem to argue this with the mind based stats?
>You have 8 str
>oh you can't left the bolder
>okay

>You have 8 int
>oh you can't figure out how to make a gun
>REEEEEEE, STOP RAILROADING ME, REEEEEEEEE!

>>53703019
Yes, and that's one of the few not included in my "most are modern"

>>53702999
Alchemist's Fire is already a D&D item, and does what you want for molotov cocktails. They're also a low level easy DC to create items.

>>53702973
What if your player wants to build a robot? (in a medieval setting)

How do you explain to him that he isn't smart enough to do that, if you are going to ignore his stats?

go ahead, I will wait

>>53702552
I take Intellect as capacity for learning, thinking critically, swiftly, being perceptive, and common sense/book smarts are just Knowledge: Subject skills.

>>53702999
Crude oil thickened with animal fat or pine tar. Obviously location-dependent.

>>53702973
There needs to be balance between the roleplaying and the mechanics as both constitute a major part of the game. If you go all mechanics, it's not a ROLE-PLAYING game, it's an in-depth board game; if you go all roleplaying, it's not a role-playing GAME, it's improve theater.

If I have abysmal DEX/AGI/whatever number my system uses to represent coordination, I shouldn't describe my character as being graceful, acrobatic, or anything other than a klutz; I DEFINITELY shouldn't try to argue that the goblin could in no way hit me due to my lighting-fast reflexes and cat-like quickness. The mechanics, characterization, and results should all be in concordance.

>>53703092
>learning, thinking critically, swiftly, being perceptive, and common sense
You've combined Int and Wis together there.

Perceptiveness, and common sense are wisdom based. It even says so in the description for the skill. "Willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" Wisdom covers instinctual and subconscious matters.

Intelligence is literally ability to hold information and speed of processing it. To learn and reason via logic. It's all the conscious thinking through things, integrating facts you've learned about the situation at hand and from your past learnings.

Its instinctual versus rational parts of the mind.

And they are separated for good reason as there are plenty of character archetypes that exemplify the lack of one or the other stat, like the absent minded professor or the wise but dumb yokel.

>>53703062
In a game where there are guns, there are most likely rules for how to make guns, so there are mechanics that are based on other mechanics.

>>53703083
They'll have to make transistors and computing languages first. If they can manage that in medieval times then I'll be impressed.

>>53703148
I mean, I sort of agree. I'm saying that you can get creative with the characterization. A character with 5 intelligence doesn't have to have the characteristic of a klutz who goes "durrrrrr food good i poop". What does a low intelligence actually, mechanically, do to your character? How can you take that and make it a fun role?
I once had a player who's PC got a 3 in intelligence, which made it so that he couldn't read and some other things. He played his character as an uneducated man who kept thinking that he was actually smart. Made the game really fun and allowed him to come up with solutions to problems that didn't feel out-of-tune of a regular dungeon crawling game.

>>53703062
There is an underlying theme there.

Fighters are bros, mages are assholes

>>53701928
Isn't that just Alchemist's Fire, plus with the existence of something like this alone would make molotovs redundant.

>>53703339
>PC got a 3 in intelligence
That's literally a single small step above literal animals. Chimps have 2 Int. This isn't a slow but normal person, this is the very definition of drooling retard.

>>53703406
>That's literally a single small step above literal animals.
In some games, yes. Not in the game we played.

>>53703339
>If they can manage that in medieval times then I'll be impressed.
all he has to do is roll

>>53703458
Roll for what? If there's a mechanic in place for making robots, then we're not talking about the same thing.

>>53703363
>calling Molotov by another name makes them redundant
what

>>53703478
You can replace the inner workings with magic.

the player doesn't have to explain shit

>>53703502
The players don't decide how magic works. The rules and the DM do.

>>53702999
This escalated quickly.

>>53703518
So what's the point of having stats if GM decides everything?

moshi moshi baitu desu

>>53703097
This is a good one. It's also likely what greek fire was.

>>53703578
They don't decide everything. The rules decide a lot of things.

File: blouse of displacement.jpg (1MB, 900x1127px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x1127px

>>53701749
>have rogue with INT of 7 (lowest in party)
>wizard with INT 20 can't figure out puzzle
>artificer with INT 20 can't figure out puzzle
>barbarian with INT 9 can't figure out puzzle
>blah blah INT, 17, 12, & 18 cant figure out puzzle
>i already knew how to solve puzzle, once explained, before anyone else stepped up to it
>i say in character "puzzles are just different kinds of locks"
it was a literal drawn out puzzle btw
>my rogue walks up and solves it first time
>adventuring continues as normal in dungeon
>DM talks to me later after session that i should try to act more in character
>respond with what i had said
>he said he knows, but my character wouldnt know what that is, so i should try to stop metagaming
>tell him i think he is overreacting a bit, but ill try to stop

i didnt want to cause problems since group has been going on for months now and knowing the dm he'd just try to railroad my character to being the pointman but always causing me to fail

>>53703658
I think your analogy of locks works.

>>53703658
I think your DM is shit.

>>53703062
Not sure, probably some kind of real world reasoning for it, but I don't feel like getting into it.

>>53703632
The GM adjudicates the rules i.e. decides how they apply to a given situation. If the bard wants to bitchslap a NPC to shut her up, the GM decides if that's an attack roll, or strength contest, or intimidation check or whatever.

>>53703737
>>53703793
imo that was the worst kind of that dm thing he did
but he has from time to time just negated people from doing things like a character was casting thaumaturgy to make another character fail their persuasion roll (thaum charatcer was making other sound like he was farting to fail a flirt encounter)
but that i can understand since that player is one of those chaotic neutral but will fuck with everyone players

>>53703413
What system was it in? Because I'm having trouble thinking of something where a 3 isn't avg for a statistic, or super garbage for stat.

>>53703819
Yes, hence the fact that the DM and the rules work together.

>>53703839
Independently interpreted and houseruled old-school Basic D&D.

A puzzle is a player skill. It's made for the players to solve, not the characters. You shouldn't exclude players from a player skill challenge because of their character's stats.

>>53703406
Feral child would be closer. Chimps exhibit communal behavior, tool-making, and communication.

>>53703406
In a sense, it's actually an infinitely large step away from 2 int. You can't roll a 2 on a 3d6.

>>53702870
I should explain, we were planning to set parts of a jail on fire and while dungeon crawling I found some old rotgut whisky and I thought it would be a nice thing to throw into a preexisting fire

My issue was that because my character wasn't trained in something so fucking arbitrary the DM basically said I was too dumb to think of liquor being flammable.

stupid people can do smart things too

>>53703062
>Why do people only seem to argue this with the mind based stats?
Because mental stats are far more abstract than physical stats.
>8 strength, can't lift boulder
Your ability to lift is generally derived as a secondary attribute, and if it isn't then you still have a rough idea what the average human is capable of in terms of strength. A gorilla can lift a person with one hand, but average joe might need assistance.
>8 int, can't make gun
A bit of an absurd comparison, since making a gun is infinitely more complex than the binary can/can't lift boulder. It's more like:
>can't solve a math problem
This one is a bit tougher, because thought is a highly complex and nuanced process. Even a complete idiot can sometimes exhibit surprising intelligence, and even the smartest people sometimes exhibit overwhelming retardation.

Basically:
>strength is binary, and has very few subsets
>intelligence is highly nuanced

>>53703062
I think this whole thing comes down to the "mind skills" relying more on player input than the "body skills".

A 9 year old probably wouldnt play a high WIS/INT/what-have-you well because the person behind the character cant fathom that mindset. I'd argue the inverse is also true in that most people who finished higher education couldnt play a low intelligence character well because they cant understand how someone could not know something extremely obvious to them. Bonus points if youre dealing with someone who just looked the thing up beforehand.

Only other insight i have on the matter is as far as ive seen, knowledge skills are far too general in most RPGs. Even when brached into things like technology, animal science, medicine, common, etc., a lot of the fields are just far to broad for you to just up and claim your character knows something.

>>53703022
Soap dissolves into oil and works as a thickener.

>>53703055
How did they do it in 7th century Byzantium? Or Europe from the 12th?

>>53701749
No your Barbarian can't be a drunken fist master because of alignment and shit

fuck you I just get him drunk first!

>>53703824
>the worst thing my GM has done is take me aside after a session and ask me to tone down the metagaming a bit

He sounds quite reasonable.

>>53701846
But int 8 IS barely-sapeint beastman.

>>53703658
It's a perfectly legitimate anti-minmaxing strategy.
You're the filthy minmaxer trying to get around it.

>>53703658
What you could have done is explain how to solve the puzzle so one of the higher INT characters solved it and everybody would have stayed in character.

>>53705120
t. shit DM
If it tests character INT then players should just roll INT
If it tests player puzzle-solving ability then don't bitch when players solve the puzzle

>>53705189
If you want your character to be good at solving puzzles, you shouldn't have int as their dumb stat. "Puzzles are just locks" is a pretty damn weak justification, too.

>>53705222
If you want INT-based obstacles then test the characters, not the players. You don't force your barbarian player to throw out his back trying to lift a box of bricks in real life and then make him fail a strength check in-game because he didn't lift with his knees; don't pretend to be clever by printing off riddles from the internet instead of designing an actual gamist obstacle.

>>53705189
Rogue could've just handwaved it through the Wizard.
'Puzzles are locks' is dumb.

Weaklings play barbarians so they can feel like the strong one.
Dumbshits probably play wizards for the same reason. Don't undercut a dude's puzzle.

>>53705222
>aSDFB hfdhsdfb dsafhsgh asdbfsbdgsd g blgurlrp glgus *chokes on vomit*

cmon bud, you can do better. it's what the other dude said, if you wanted to measure their int, whyd you even ask the puzzle. Once there's a real puzzle, youre not talking to the characters youre talking to the players

>>53705273
If YOU want to solve a riddle, that's not a problem. If you want your CHARACTER to solve the problem, you need to do better than "Riddles are just locks, so I can solve this one by the virtue of being dexterous".

Tell the wizard player the solution. Have the character go "Hey, what does this lever do?" and accidentally solve the riddle(or at least give the other players a hint). Have your character remember the solution on account of having seen a similar riddle before. And so on. Just don't go full retard and claim that your character should be able to solve the riddle because he's good at picking locks.

>>53705321
Kill yourself retard.

>>53705344
A shit DM that uses metagame riddles is probably the same kind of shit DM that will bitch about metagaming if you tell the wizard the solution.

>>53703658
Neither of you was wrong. If you figured it out pass the information to the player of the character you feel should get to solve it or just want to solve it.

>>53704951
sounds like a bad fucking roleplayer, frankly
not the 9 y/o, but... also probably the 9 y/o

>>53705362
Given that the poster wasn't smart enough to do that, we have no way of knowing.

>>53701749
and my GM isn't dexterous to avoid being stabbed for being a douchebag after being warned about this by the entire group at least 5 times

>>53705496
If a characters stats have no impact on the presented puzzle, like being solved via an int roll, it stands that you shouldn't arbitrarily dictate that it suddenly does.

>>53702999
You go and buy alchemist fire. It costs 50 gp and should be easily available at any store with alchemist supplies.

>>53701749
Stop using Int as a dump stat, anon. Is it really that hard for you to figure out?

Maybe you are the low INT character?

Your player needs to roll better. Tell him to get new dice.

>>53701785
>>53701846
>Not playing a 3 Int barbarian.
I bet you don't even roll for stats, you pussies.

>>53705090
animals have up to 4 INT
barely sapient would be 5-6

>>53701749
I'm sorry but you are not inventing dynamite or electricity. Now go back to playing your battlemage Mike.

>>53706227
Actually playing low int character lets you get away doing all kinds of retarded stuff because you can always claim 'I was just playing my character lol'. It's a valid strategy if you want to annoy other players and GM, but need alignment other than CN for your build.

>>53702552
Its supposed to be the opposite

>>53702999
IRL there was a thing called Greek Fire that predated medieval warfare. Apparently horrifyingly effective for the time, but the exact recipe/method of manufacture is still unknown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire

>>53702870
>>53702950
>>53702999
>>53703083
>>53703478
>The DnD setting is medieval setting meme
The existance of magic and other fantasy races and creatures with thier own advancements makes medieval times completely non-analogous on term of existing technology.

>>53703658
That's the thing though, low int characters aren't devoid of good ideas, just...less LIKELY to have them.

But IMO, if you present a drawn out puzzle instead of just making them roll, then you're asking the PLAYERS to solve it, and not their characters. Which is fine, but don't be a pissy baby when you don't get the in-character solution you wanted.

>>53701749
Go learn what roleplaying means, you whiny bitch

>>53703062
there are rules for carry/lift capacity based on strength

there are no rules for int requirements to craft

checkmate atheists

>>53702950
Do your research.

>>53703019
Animal fat/gelatins maybe?

File: 1279485560570.png (13KB, 523x497px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 523x497px

>>53701749

I regard shit like this the same way I regard "My character rolls to solve the puzzle": eat shit nigger. You have to provide the intelligence for your character's actions from your own fucking brain. The INT and WIS on the character sheet only give skill points and spell slots: they are not a substitute for your own brain and if you try to use them as such, I'm happy to turn your character into an NPC since you clearly have no interest in actually playing him.

>>53707691
Do you force your players to swing swords when their characters attack monsters?

>>53703062
The first is an example of not having a high enough stat to succeed at an action. You can still play your character however you want - if you want them to push on the boulder for a minute before giving up, you can do that.

The second is an example of your character not having a high enough star to attempt an action. Now you're being told that you can't play your character; the DM has ultimate veto power over what you can attempt in the game. You have no real agency whatsoever.

Do you understand why being told "you don't get to play your character, I do" is much more frustrating than "you get to play your character, I get to play the world"?

>>53705273
>You don't force your barbarian player to throw out his back trying to lift a box of bricks in real life and then make him fail a strength check in-game because he didn't lift with his knees

No, but I make him roleplay being strong. If he says he lifts the box of bricks in a second with his littlefinger I tell him no, wtf, that's not how being strong works. Unless he's some kind of god of strenght instead of a strong dude.

In the same way, sometimes you have to tell the dumb character's player that no, this is not how being dumb works. Both when he ignores his character is dense and when he acts like a CN shit.

The fact that in the specific situations of puzzles and brick boxes playing in character harms more the dumb than the strong is irrelevant.

>>53707720
>this shitty strawman

>>53707849
>The second is an example of your character not having a high enough star to attempt an action.

Except that's false, faggot. Lifting something and figuring out something are both actions. One is physical and the other is mental, but this difference also exists for the used stats.

>>53707858
>I force people to use their own ability instead of their characters
>do you do that for this stat
>STRAWMAN REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>53705273
Nah. I always challenge the players, not the characters. The characters aren't the ones playing the game. What's the point if you just roll to solve everything? Roll to see if your characters solve the puzzle, roll to see if your characters successfully negotiate, roll to win the combat, roll to navigate the dungeon. Let's just replace the game with parcheesi.

>>53707899
But it is a strawman. You don't let them roll to overcome the obstacle, they roll to lift the rock. That means they've already decided how to overcome the obstacle, now you're rolling to see if they succeed.

Do you let them roll to beat a combat too? No choice of actions, no movement on a grid, just "roll and see if you win or lose"?

>>53707882
Wrong, dumbass. You can succeed or fail at lifting something while still trying. You can have your character huff and puff until they turn blue, and nothing can stop you. On the other hand, you can't even attempt a plan if you fail. Because that means you're ignoring the roll and declaring a success anyway.

>>53705344
>Lock-picking
>Sheer virtue of dexterity
Jesus, it's like you don't even understand what abstraction is and how it applies to a game.

>>53707957
They can attempt the plan. You just need to take into account the low intelligence and exploit the living shit out of an oversight on their part.

>>53703044
Depends on the OP.

>>53707691
>The INT and WIS on the character sheet only give skill points and spell slots
Oops they are also used for bonuses to the d20 Skill Checks, my mistake, I'm retarded.

>>53701749
The proper response is "I didn't think of it. They did." while pointing at the smartest member of the party.

>>53707123
>not rolling 3 for int and then taking -2 for half-ork

Fucking geniuses, I swear.

>>53708284
Ok, but how is that any different than a high intelligence character's plan? Do you refuse to take advantage of flaws if they are smart enough to come up with the plan?

>>53703055
Fucking olives! How do they work?

>>53701749
>"Your character is not smart enough to think of that."

should only be allowed if you also allow
>"That's what my character would do"

>>53705090
you probably are the real-world equivalent of 8-int anon.

File: 1433220162962.jpg (26KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x374px

>>53701846
Fuck you, GM is always right.

ALWAYS

File: dur.png (192KB, 798x382px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 798x382px

>>53702999

>>53703658
If I was your DM I would've said that in future you should pass the answer out of character to another player, so that their character can solve it in the game. I did that when I was playing an int 8 character. I'd also give you extra XP to reward you for solving the puzzle so that you're not getting completely fucked over.

Still, this is a conversation he should have had with you when you first showed up with a low Int character.

>>53703062

This used to come up all the time in my games. I'd get players who'd dump all three mental attributes and then try to bull their way through because they the player can figure out stuff. It's another species of metagaming, like reading a module and so being able to solve all the puzzles.

If you're charismatic IRL and then CHA is your dump stat, then all the smooth RP in the world isn't going to bail you out of that.

Or at least, shouldn't. The same goes for INT. I had a character with an INT of 6, whereas I'm a college professor, which means I'm at least an 8. So I had to make an effort to RP my character's decisions appropriately. If you won't play your character as statted, then it's on you to roll a different character who you WILL play. If you try to do it anyway, then the DM has every right to jump in and correct you.

>>53703336

Of all the dump stats to try to RP, wisdom is by far the hardest in practice. People who have it tend to play it, and people who don't have it have trouble playing it for characters with high scores.

>>53703658
>>53703737
>>53703793

I think you just made a convincing argument for why your thief should have been created with a higher INT. Those kinds of insights and uses of analogical reasoning are associated with high intelligence.

>>53709370
It's not metagaming, it's just gaming. If you can't control your character, then you're not gaming, the DM is. You're just a captive audience.

>>53709410
Stop crying you metagaming jerk. If you wanted to play a smooth diplomat you shouldn't have made Charisma your dump stat, if you wanted to play mad scientist creator you shouldn't have made Intelligence your dump stat.

>>53701749
I have two ways for this kind of "problem":

1. characters with low Int : difficult riddle for the player (like solving a rubik cube) ; character with high Int : easy riddle for the player (like a challenge of tic-tac-toe).

2. Character with low Int and smart player that solves riddles easly : "if you can roleplay me how your int 6 barbarian can solve the riddle ic than you can, otherwise you have to roleplay a way your stupid barbarian can suggest the solution to the smart wizard"

>>53709410

If you want your character to be able to solve puzzles like that, then you need to buy INT sufficient to play the character the way you'd prefer to play it.

Put another way, let's say he was a locksmith IRL. His character didn't have proficiency with thieves tools and dex was his dump stat. Now he runs into a trap on a chest. The DM, for fun and flavor, shows a picture of the chest to the players. The player being a locksmith immediately recognizes the trigger and knows a way to easily disarm it.

Or what about a character who doesn't have History, is a foreigner in the region they're adventuring in, and INT is his dump stat. Now along comes an imperial courtier who wants to negotiate with the players. The player is a total fanboy of the setting and just read the fan compendium for the latest Princess Meme of Awesomia book, and remembers that House Obscurion's heraldry is parted dancetty rather than nebuly, and so figures out that the courtier is an imposter.

Now how about a character who dumped CHA and is a leprous wreck out of "faces of meth". But the player is hot as fuck, and her DM has a major crush on her. She's trying to get the (happily married) prince to pardon her and tries to use her "wiles". She bats her eyes, puts her hand on the DM's arm, and leans forward to give him a kiss. "Please?"

A player has a responsibility to play his CHARACTER. Not himself. The first line of defense is his own integrity and sense of fair play. The next line of the defense is the DM and the group's peer pressure. If you can't play a character with a particular stat dumped, then don't dump that stat.

>>53708951
dm can be wrong. because dm is human, and humans are fallible, and often stupid.

>>53708951
>>53709714

So say instead that the DM may not always be right, but he's always in charge.

>>53709758
he might be in charge, but he can still be a gigantic cunt nobody wants to listen to.

>>53705090
Nah, an 8 is like Forrest Gump, or maybe Michael Scott

>>53707278
What are you on about?

>>53707914
This anon is right

>>53702870
So is fucking magic.

>>53703083
It actually might not be the case that he isn't smart enough. Medieval humans and modern humans are identical so that kind of intellect certainly existed.

The extensive knowledge base required, not so much. So yes, in this case states don't matter, just like all of these invent X in Y setting issues. It can most certainly always be done, after potentially several thousand other discoveries and refinements which are required to even understand what the idea is about.

>>53701928
He just didn't want to slow the game down looking for rules.

>>53709837

An eight is like Kenny Powers, Brian Williams, or Biff from Back to the Future. He might be funny, witty, or even wise, but his ability to solve puzzles, retain and apply learned knowledge, construct or critique an argument, and see helpful analogies with other ideas is limited.

If the player is using his own intellect, in excess of what the character sheet says, then he's bringing to bear abilities he hasn't paid for. This shouldn't be so hard for people to understand (though it really looks like it's just one guy left who's litigating the other side at this point).

I think it's that people would rather bitch to the DM so they can sneak a freebie by. If you can make up for it with table talk, you can safely dump attributes you don't plan on rolling. CHA 8 and you're the group's face man? Yes we can!

>>53704024
>You can't roll a 2 on a 3d6.
What if your race has an Int penalty

>>53709629
All three of these are examples where the DM fucked up and then wants to cover for it. In the first example, why the hell are they using a modern lock as flavor for a fantasy setting? Also, why not just say that it doesn't have that flaw, because it's obviously created by a completely different designer than whoever manufactures it in real life?

Same with the second one. Why did they describe the courier's heraldry unless they want players to figure out the Courier is fake based on problem with his heraldry? If that's the case, why are they getting upset the player figured it out? Just say "he bears the heraldry of House Obscurion," unless they have a high enough history, then tell them "it looks like he bears the heraldry of House Obscurion, but it looks like it's parted dancetty and you remember it's parted nebuly."

In the third example, you don't DM for someone unless you can adjudicate with them fairly and reasonably. If you can't look that beautiful woman in the eyes and say "the king recoils in horror from your leprous visage," then that's not a problem with the player, that's a problem with you.

>>53701846
>That's a gigantic strawman.
Just like this thread lol

>>53703658
If int is going to dictate what each character thinks then your high int friends should just be able to roll to solve the puzzle.

>>53707855
>>53707901
The point is to maintain a degree of separation between the players and the characters. You challenge the players with tactical decisions—maybe the puzzle is dependent on the cultural period the dungeon was built in and you have the high INT character roll for knowledge or send them on a sidequest to gain this information. Just throwing them a puzzle you printed off the internet and then complaining when the player with the low INT character solves it is the epitome of lazy shit DMing.

>>53710768
Ok, but that's like saying "having your players battle Superman is the epitome of lazy shit DMing." It's true, but nobody who does that shit is going to listen, and it's missing the point. Ultimately, any puzzle is about challenging the players' logical reasoning skills, just like any combat is about challenging their tactical skills. Including something that fits in the same world as the characters is part of basic DMing, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the players you're challenging.

>>53710932
ok, but then you can't challenge the players and proceed to cockblock a player who has cleared a challenge based on his int score. You either choose to challenge the players with something or their characters....

File: download.jpg (7KB, 218x232px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 218x232px

>>53709837
>Forrest Gump
>not having a quadrillion skill points from his insanely high int mod

>>53711384
Preaching to the choir. That's why I posted >>53707901.

Just call the "Intelligence" stat "Knowledge" instead.

>>53703658
I had something like this happen once. Played Low INT, everyone else had high INT, and the DM had to pull me aside and ask me to stop solving the puzzles because it's out of character and I should give everyone else a chance.

Two sessions later he pulled me aside again and asked me to forget what he said earlier, since me not solving puzzles made them go from being solved in 10 minutes to taking up half the session while everyone else stared at the DM until he basically gave them the answer.

>>53701749

This is that embarrassing moment you realize your GM just hinted "you rollplay your character bad". Its just a nicer way to say it.

>>53702950
Ever hear of something called oil?

>>53703062
Physical stats have hard limits as far as how much you can lift, survive, and shoot a projectile while mental stats are ephemeral as far as what you can do with it unless you're a mage.

Not to mention, shit DM's use your shit mental stats to justify why you can only ever be a dumb Fighter who can only hit and hit harder while mages are allowed to develop working cold fusion reactors because of metamagics and poorly written rules not preventing the rules from interacting with one another in a specific way.

>>53703354
Fighters are usually the ones bitching about their shitty INT though.

>>53709585
Respectable
>>53707691
>it's a role playing game, but don't get into character or i will turn your character into an NPC

obviously the stat roll shouldn't be 100% of the puzzle solving process, but a half-orc with 5 intelligence just isn't going to be able to solve riddles in the same way as the real-life nerd who is controlling him.

>>53706227
STR is needed for melee, DEX is needed for AC, Initiative, and Ranged/Finesse, CON is needed for HP, and WIS is needed for Perception.

But INT and CHA can either be the most important stats in the game or the shittiest depending on how much the DM wants to hold them against you. Sometimes you can ignore them based on your skills as a player (provided you come up with something that your character would plausibly say) or they're the most important fucking stat in the game and you can't do anything outside of combat because your character can't think and doesn't talk.

It's a total crapshoot unless you're a class that actually needs them to cast spells.

>>53713300
>obviously the stat roll shouldn't be 100% of the puzzle solving process, but a half-orc with 5 intelligence just isn't going to be able to solve riddles in the same way as the real-life nerd who is controlling him.
Why not? Also, who care?

I'd rather Grunk figures out how to beat the puzzle than get stuck in the same room for three weeks because the DM thought that he gave us enough vague sentences to form an actual fucking clue.

>>53713398
I guess that's the point. They're basically only for RP unless you're a caster, but if they're there for that the least a player can do is sit 'em at 10
It's not like 22Str will help you compete with the wizard anyway.

>>53713431
Then don't stat grunk for advantage.
Simple.

>>53713431
Sounds like a bad case of shit DM bro.

>>53713465
Grunk have good STR and CON as a Fighter though? It's not like INT is even all that useful as a stat unless you're a mage anyways.
>>53713474
Well Shit DM's in my experience are always the first ones to cry about metagaming, so it makes sense.

>>53709530
>You have to sacrifice your proficiency as a PC in order to enjoy roleplaying in this game.
Man, why do people play D&D again? I don't hear about these issues in games like ShadowRun or CoC.

>>53713567
My GM penalizes people with 1 in any stat. 1 CHA you are literally autistic and have trouble talking about even the simplest of things. 1 LOG you have trouble turning your commlink on. etc

>>53713440
I shouldn't have to sacrifice IC profieciency just to roleplay though. Like the fuck kinda logic does this make?
>We're going to make two stats, make them as vague as possible, and if you fail a coin-flip, your character can't do fucking anything outside of combat aside from comic relief or disruptive douchebag.
Why not just keep that shit in the background like wizards do whenever it comes to their poor physical stats?

>>53713625
That's nice dear, but we're not talking about shitty houserules ITT.

>>53702999
the greeks were doing it for centuries.

>>53713528
>>53713567
A good GM is gonna balance encounters around your strengths.
Dumping stats just so you can out-dps your friends is a dick move, and also makes it way harder for the GM to bakance around.

I always tell my players up front that too low charisma will mean they don't get let into towns.
If they still want to squeeze an extra Dex, they've been warned.

>>53710491
He never said that the picture was of a modern lock.
Unless the lock is magical, or the player is actually wrong, he would be able to disable it OOCly (though the character should not be able to do it).

Maybe the character with the history skill failed and didn't get the clue. In either case, the player shouldn't metagame and use OOC knowledge.

Yes the DM shouldn't allow her to use her OOC appearance to influence the game. I guess the same goes for riddle solving skills, aye?

>>53713674
>Dumping stats just so you can out-dps your friends is a dick move, and also makes it way harder for the GM to bakance around.
The fuck? Damage is the easiest fucking thing to balance around because it's just comparing numbers against other numbers. Seriously, how many campaigns were derailed because some asshole bought power attack or greater cleave vs. a mage who bought sleep and color spray?
>I always tell my players up front that too low charisma will mean they don't get let into towns.
You might as well just say.
>Listen fellas, martials are shit, you're not going to have fun, just pick a caster.
A mage can afford to dip into INT and/or CHA because they only need one stat to do their jobs but a martial will have to choose between having good numbers in what they're expected to focus in or INT/CHA just so they aren't stuck sitting in the corner somewhere until combat happens.

You sound like a shit DM.

>>53713668
And they never wrote down the damn recipe. real shame for us.

>>53701928

Old undrinkable liquor is called vinegar.

>>53701749
Stats don't matter outside of combat and skill checks and should never come up during RP.

Having 7 wisdom and roleplaying your character as if they're a little thick is no different than having 14 wisdom and roleplaying your character as if they're a little thick.

>>53713659
Pretty sure limiting actions based on stats is exactly what is ITT

>>53713832
If one character has HUGE DPS and combat survivability, while the others are mostly skill monkeys... Then it is a pain to balance around.

>>53713765
>He never said that the picture was of a modern lock. Unless the lock is magical, or the player is actually wrong, he would be able to disable it OOCly (though the character should not be able to do it).
It's piss easy to say "that's a clever idea, but it doesn't have that flaw." Why not just do that?

>Maybe the character with the history skill failed and didn't get the clue. In either case, the player shouldn't metagame and use OOC knowledge.
If your challenge can be trivially solved by metagame knowledge then it's a bad challenge. If it can't, then metagaming isn't an issue.

>Yes the DM shouldn't allow her to use her OOC appearance to influence the game. I guess the same goes for riddle solving skills, aye?
Nope. Because the appearance just affects the outcome. She can still flirt with the king all she wants, he's just going to get more and more horrified. The riddle solving skills, on the other hand, affect whether or not you let the player play the game. If you tell someone they can't solve a riddle, you've told them that they're not allowed to play.

>>53701749
Stop playing DnD, really.

>>53709714
what if the pope is your GM?

>>53701928
>play juggler in Warhammer fantasy Roleplay
>Ask GM if he's ok with me making firebombs out of the lamp oil flasks I bought
>says yes because they were pretty expensive
>firebomb goblins and trolls left and right
Oh wait, I forgot this a thread where we whine about how GMs veto things.

>>53703062
>you can't left the bolder
Can I right the boulder then?

>>53705090
8 int is maybe the equivalent of a 80 IQ.
It's limitating to the point most jobs with an IQ requirement such as the military have a cutoff higher than that but without other mental disabilities, you probably know someone with a low IQ like that without knowing it.

>>53715192
>8 int is maybe the equivalent of a 80 IQ
[citation needed]

>>53715192
Literally wrong, 10 is the average in D&D, the average IQ is 90.

>>53714477
>Pretty sure limiting actions based on stats is exactly what is ITT
ITT is a bunch of idiots misunderstanding what actually counts as low within the system, what you're talking about are houserules that only really matter at your table.
>If one character has HUGE DPS and combat survivability, while the others are mostly skill monkeys... Then it is a pain to balance around.
Y'know what the fucking solutions is though? Don't have a lot of combat. Even then your scenario is fishy because in D&D, everyone can contribute to a fucking fight in some way.