Rolled lower-than-average intelligence during character creation

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.

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

underrated post

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

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

Wew.

> 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.

If more DM were like you there wouldn't be so many bitter people on Veeky Forums, 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."

>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.

What was the plan, OP?

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

>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

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

Don't dump stats next time.

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

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

Fuck off.

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.

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.

weak bait

this

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

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".

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

So go suck a dick.

>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.

Mr

Dilkington

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

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"

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.

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!".

>*rattles tits*

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?

Not an argument

>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.

Not an argument is not an argument.

Not an argument is not an argument is not an argument either

Then put up or shut up

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

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.

Your DM is a fuckboy

>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.

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.

>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.

>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)

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.

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 "user, 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

Knowledge(Engineering).

Carrying capacity rules.

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?

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

>Carrying capacity rules.
Yes.

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?

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

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

>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 said, nat 20 is not an automatic success.

>rogue with 14 int
Why tho?

>centaurs, orcs have 8 intelligence.

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

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?

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.

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

>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.

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

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?

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.

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

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?

>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.

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.

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".

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.

That's what wisdom is for you fucking cuck.

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.

Maybe you should learn what roleplay means before roleplaying

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.

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.

It all suddenly makes sense.

What kind of logic is this?

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.

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

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.

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!!!!"

:^)

This is why INT=IQ doesn't work.

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

Sometimes I think my group is bad and then I see the kind of people who go on Veeky Forums

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

>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.

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