Most intelligent character is played by the stupidest player

>most intelligent character is played by the stupidest player
>"My ideas are smart because my character is smart!"

They have an advantage for that in GURPS called "common sense" whenever the player is about to do something dumb the GM has to tell them.

This is a big reason I don't like intellect as a stat in tabletop RPGs. GMs and game-rules typically do not help deal with such discrepancies, especially for for tasks that would be intellect-governed in the abstract, but are actually determined by player choices rather than character stats. And it doesn't help that the usefulness of information-related skills and powers is uniquely vulnerable to the vagaries of an unprepared or insecure GM.

>ability called common sense
>whenever the player is about to do something dumb the GM has to tell them
That's also a thing in WoD.

Nah its more like a "Are you sure you want to do that?" You dont blatantly tell the player.

Reminder that there's no difference between
>I roll intelligence to solve the riddle!
and
>I roll dexterity to hit the monster!

>Not forcibly changing the logic of the universe to make his stupid ideas legitimately intelligent in-universe.

shit gm.

Hahaha I would so dm it like this.

>he's a genius his roll just said that whatever he just said is how physics now work in this world as he passed with a natural 20.

So yes that coconut will bounce like a rubber ball shut up and roll with it guys .

>Grok the barbarian who can't read and write is played by relatively smart guy
>he uses his own knowledge to create Grok ideas
this is even worse

The riddle was a trap all along

I am guilty of this. I tend to play characters with relatively poor mental stats, but im not unintelligent and I'm paranoid as fuck, so my characters tend to do the smart thing even if perhaps they shouldn't. Though I do occasionally intentionally gimp myself. In comparison we have a guy who always plays "smart" characters who is pants on head retarded. Of the two of us, dm hates him
.

As probably meant to imply, the reverse is harder. Have a player playing something intelligent where their actions don't quite match up? Use whatever brainy-stats rolls they make to give them under the table insights.

Reminder that there are different rulesets for when players are in and out of combat

I have this problem a lot with party face/charismatic players being played by motherfuckers who can barely handle themselves in conversation, let alone use any of the social skills they insisted on maxing out effectively. Then they get mad when the GM doesn't give them their way with NPCs every time just for rolling a high number.

As a player who can't even portray a charismatic person for his life, this has effectively barred me from benefiting from my character's social skills.

For years I have felt compelled to dump charisma on all my PCs because the GM will treat them as either social retards or assholes regardless of how many points I put into it.

It honestly makes me feel like charisma amd social skills should not exist in tabletop RPGs because in practice they are not used to resolve anything of consequence.

>not using wisdom and int checks to give hints
step it up

Personally always allow players to use personal knowledge to do things if their character has skills for it and can justify it.
Don't see any reason why we shouldn't allow to do the same for stats as long as they don't do anything to retarded or actively insulting.

Oh god yes, this is the worst.

We have one inept fucker at our table (DM's Friend) who has so much social anxiety he can't even properly formulate a response to an imaginary character when we give him plenty of time. He just locks up on the spot. He can't even explain what he wants his character to say in broad strokes he's so paralyzed with fear when he's put on the spot.

He plays a warlord politician.

There's a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, though. You could always intentionally play a low-int character with moderate or high wisdom, in which case you are not book-smart, but you otherwise have good intuition.

>Not being a good DM and using rolls to help them.

"Ah, before you light that bomb roll a Knowledge check. 12? Well because of your super high Int modifier it's a 17 right? Good, because you now realize lighting that fuse is a terrible idea because the blast wouldn't be enough to kill that beast entirely, but be just enough to kill the entire party. And no, you can't move away from the bomb far enough before it blows, it has a small fuse."

>you can't move away from the bomb far enough before it blows, it has a small fuse

>not attaching extra material to extend the fuse

>Thread about disconnect between intelligence of character and player
>Literally 'shit that never happened: the thread'

With this type of person I would allow a dice roll to fill his speach and maybe add-on some when I described to the table. The reason they are playing that type of character is because that's a role they can't do in real life. Just like you can't swing a sword or cast magic. I would reward bonus to any player that could roleplay cha though.

>Social skills and tactful communication aren't used to resolve anything of consequence

Let's be honest though; that has more to do with the GM's style than anything else.

If he's forever a dungeon crawl, politicking your way out of orc rape isn't really a thing.

But damn would it make a good sitcom
>Everybody wants to rape Raymond

Here's a worse scenario:
>all the smart players are playing as idiots
>the dumb guy is the only one playing a character with a speck of common sense

> allow a dice roll to fill his speech
Well, we actually do that. We certainly don't penalize people for not being oracular wizards in real life.

But he just starts spilling the spaghetti even before he rolls because he can't properly explain what he wants to say. Someone always has to suggest something he might have wanted to try to convince or persuade someone about and guess until he says that sounds right.

This kid is almost 30.

>Ships headed for a cliff sir!
>What? Why would our boat be on a cliff?
>Huh, good point.

Definitely. But the point I'm making is that rollplay and roleplay have their parts in RPGs (at least what seems a good deal of them). Why should someone who dumped combat be able to narrate his "psssh nothing personal kid" teleport backstab assassination when he fumbles around with a knife. What's the point of the crunch (rollplay) then? Why should the spaghetti guy be able to roll his way out of convincing a witness not to turn them to the authorities when the bare minimum he could try to say is "But we're the good guys! We're chasing the real killer who's right there!", because otherwise there's no roleplay.

Casting magic which doesn't exist in our world is very different then being able to speak at a minimal level to convey ideas, which exists anywhere with communication.

> because otherwise there's no roleplay.
Welcome to about 75% of gaming groups.

Well, all the more reason to be grateful for mine.

Reminder that since it's a mental game and you use your mind to choose what to do, there is a pretty big difference. Physicality on the part of the player plays no part in RPGs. Unless you want to set up tests of strength, endurance and coordination for the player to complete in order for his character to succeed at similar tasks within the game, there is no conflict involved in rolling dexterity to see if you hit. But for a game that's supposed to be mentally engaging, with the players making choices and confronting obstacles, there is very much a conflict between just rolling intelligence to solve shit and the player actually trying to think through and solve shit.

When folks get into battle, why not just have the player roll intelligence to have his character use the smartest tactics? I mean, why bother ever deciding what your character does? We have mental stats for the character. Roll against them to determine his course of action.

>t honestly makes me feel like charisma amd social skills should not exist in tabletop RPGs because in practice they are not used to resolve anything of consequence.
It's okay if they exist, I think, but only in a limited capacity. (It's also okay if they don't exist though.) Basically, intellectual and social skills should never interfere with player agency. If a player comes up with something clever that isn't somehow anachronistic and doesn't involve shit his character would have no way of knowing (sorry, just because you're a pharmacist, that doesn't mean your steppe nomad has intimate knowledge of medicine, modern or otherwise), he shouldn't be shut down by stats. So if there is an intelligence stat, it should govern shit that the player can't think through or play out. Like learning languages or memorizing spells.

If this makes the mental and social scores in whatever game you're playing too weak, then they should either be discarded or reworked. Maybe intelligence and wisdom can be combined. Maybe charisma doesn't need to exist at all, and any character-based adjustment to social challenges can be inferred from that character's background and description.

>make players do deadlifts instead of rolling strength

Okay here's an idea.
In real life, how charismatic you are is largely governed by stuff like body language as much as it is by what you actually say.
So, when you want to persuade someone, either say what your character says or outline the argument they make.

In some situations this will be enough to convince them, in others it'll be enough to lose you the argument ("No Ed, just cause you rolled a 20 doesn't mean you convince the woman to cut open her son's stomach")

In cases where there's ambiguity roll a relevant social skill/stat to determine how well the character's body language, tone of voice and the like are received

Guys like the one is talking about are a whole other set of problems

This!! It would be an interesting mechanic.

>common sense

I take it every time, in any system that has it.

It'd be cool in really high-powered fantasy. Like the character has achieved such a level of enlightenment that by concentrating they can lie to the universe and change the laws of physics

Sounds like something Donjon would use...

>player has to use his own common sense and social skills no matter what his character has
>player doesn't have to do physical feats his character does
why is this allowed?

I'd allow int checks to give a certain number of hints to the riddle.

If you aren't going to let the player use the character's mental stats, then you really shouldn't be using mental stats at all. House-rule them out, it can be done.

As DM, i would try to talk player out of something stupid regardless their character's advantages. It seems appropriate. Often player's stupid plans are because different expectation from game (Are we playing heroic or gritty game?) and DM's poor description ("Oh, the chasm is _that_ wide? I am not jumping it, then.")

In LARP games i played, there was often rule, that "Character with expertise in field decides how that field work." Doctors would state how serious disease is, tech-guys determine propreties of technology and merchants determine prices of things.

It works, but it might be challeging to keep this up in long run.

I kinda fit into this category but fuck it I'm here to play a game of imaginary Hero's not discuss how a combustion engine works or how exactly I craft a weapon that explodes into a bolt of lightning mid-flight.

Point is why limit players to playing a certain type of character?

If there not smart and there character is help them along same can be said with social retards with high charisma as a GM help them along to some extent.

I have this problem a lot with party tanks/melee players being played by manlets who can barely even lift, let alone use any of the combat skills they insisted on maxing out effectively. Then they get mad when the GM doesn't give them their way in fights every time just for rolling a high number.

>character has int 6
>player comes up with plans that incorporate military strategy, advanced trigonometry, and inventing a technology that does not exist in the setting
>looks at me like I murdered their family when I tell them to roll intelligence

>most stuipd character is played by most intelligent player

To some extent you need to accept that player character abilities don't actually dicate their personality or their in-game creativity/cleverness just how their in-game abilities function.

Intelligence doesn't dictate how good a planner you are or how sound your tactics are it just gives you a bonus to spells and knowledge rolls. Wisdom doesn't dictate those either it just gives you better divine casting abilities. Charisma doesn't dictate how good at actually speaking or being personable you are just how characters immediately react to you.

Abilities needing to be analogus to characters personality or roleplaying ability is really not something you can always accomplish.

>the dumb player is you

>most intelligent character is played by the stupidest player

>most intelligent character is played by the weakest player

>least intelligent character is played by the smartest player


The only thing that matters is if they're good at ROLEPLAYING.

>No, you can't make sure the retards with high INT don't have the party jump off a cliff because I say so.

>think of a good plan to solve the problem
>Harkos the Senile Barbarian is not a clever man, so I keep the good plan to myself and do something dangerous instead
Am I a shit?

I've always thought the best solution to this might be telling the player of the resident smart guy your plan and having it be that character's idea in-character.

>common sense as an advantage or feat

This is the dumbest thing I've seen today.

It's tutorial mode. Some players want to use it, others don't.

i'm dumb as fuck so i never play wizards

That's problem right now. I'm supposed to be the talker who can negotiate his way outta anything (20 (TWENTY) charisma, 17 int, warlock who's patron is the Great Old One).

But i'm hella stupid and not charismatic at all and I don't know what to do anytime we're faced with non-combat options.

That's basically the problem our guy has too. You have all the charisma in the world but it doesn't help if you don't actually I know something about how to guide a conversation, how to make a believable bluff, how to not insult people, or how to say something that actually makes them think about their actions.

Since planing usually happens OoC, i always though this is what actually happens in game, when we (at table) try to come up with plan.

"Intelligence" as a state almost always refers to book smarts, not practical lifeskills and knowledge. Just because the pit fighter knows nothing about ancient Nehekhara and signs his name by using an 'x' after he lets the scribe read things to him doesn't mean he's stupid enough to walk unarmed through the shantytown in Nuln or go naked into Norsca.

>character with high Strength is played by the weediest player
>"I can lift big rocks because my character is strong!"

>character with high Appraise is played by the player who doesn't have a degree in geology
>"hurr durr I roll appraise to see how much this precious rock is worth because I can't just tell it is a 9.9 Mohs 12 carat Botswanian diamond"
Fucking autists am I right? Why are people allowed to play characters who can do something they can't in real life?

Isn't the practical smarts bit supposed to fall under wisdom? Or is it some gray area between the two?

Not all systems have a Wisdom stat.

It's a little different than he described, and also quite cheap. It's more like an extremely vague threat warning than it is just "common sense".

>being able to speak at a minimal level to convey ideas
This is the issue right here. I don't penalize my players for being uncharismatic or bad at haggling or whatever. If they have the skill they can roll it and it will work. The problem arises when a player says "I roll diplomacy . . . 15", and I ask, "okay, what are you saying?"

"Uh, I don't know."

It isn't equivalent to me telling a player they can't roll to attack because they can't wield a sword in real life. People always jump to that example, but that isn't the problem. It's them saying they attack, but not being able to tell which enemy they are hitting. If you are THAT verbally incompetent, and I've known several players who were, choosing to be the party face is a real problem.

Well, you could say the same about a fighter.

He can be buff as fuck, but if he's a dumb player than never flanks or tries to chuck his sword instead of switching to a ranged weapon or spends a whole turn lifting a rock to throw the next turn or whatever, he's still a shit fighter.

What anime is this? It looks cute.

That's a horrible example. That second example relies on someone with a degree in geology being able to tell a fictional rock the GM is telling him about is a Botswanian diamond, when unless you have the specific rock on the table to look at, even an expert geologist wouldn't be able to tell. Especially if the GM is not a geologist himself, and to him it's just a diamond.

i have a buddy whos like that, dumb as a sack of rocks, fuckin love the dude, but holy shit when he plays a character thats smarter then him, its off the fucking rails retarded

RPGs have always been about using the players' smarts.

The key difference is this: You can use your real mind to solve imaginary problems, but you can't use your real strength to lift an imaginary rock.


BTW, you rollplay types never like it when the boot's on the other foot. If you're plotting out your next move in combat, trying to maximise bonuses, provide flanking to an ally for later in the round, etc, and the DM says "Hold it right there Napoleon, your character is a INT 6, WIS 8 Half-Orc barbarian. There's no way he's smart enough to figure that shit out." we both know full well you'd get mad and refuse to accept it.

this exact post has been made multiple times and it's been wrong every time

>you must be as charismatic as your character!!
Fuck the fucking fuck off you fucking fucksack of fuck.

You don't have to be

you just have to be able to pretend you're as charismatic as your character, which is pretty hard to do if you can't say a sentence without six Uh or Um's in them

I just don't think that it's fair that if you manage to roll a high number and have a great bonus, I have to accept what you just said.

This is sorta the problem I have when I consider playing intelligent characters. I'm honestly not the smartest guy and the rest of my group usually thinks of good plans before I do with few exceptions. I just don't know how to roleplay that.

>Reminder that there is no difference between rolling charisma to play a lute and intelligence to solve a riddle.
Checkmate, jackass

Well, because, as stated before, tabletop rpgs are supposed to be mentally engaging, and challenging a player to come up with solutions to a problem through their own wits actually furthers role playing, I mean, if you think about it, why not just rolll intelligence for tactics in combat, and wisdom for for deciding everything your character does?

Because that would not be fun.

By the way: riddles are not fun.

>
> tabletop rpgs are supposed to be mentally engaging
Supposed by you, faggot