That's a good plan user, but your character has low Intelligence and wouldn't have been able to come up with it

I know how you feel

this.png

Seriously, it's not that difficult: if a player struggles saying something/coming up with a plan even though it would be sensible for them to do so, the players ooc should give their thoughts and suggestions to the matter.

>your stats dictate all your thoughts and actions
That is not called "role playing". That is the polar opposite of "role playing".

my friends are insecure and under the impression that we are all equals so would take offence if I gave my plan to them, thinking I see them as an inferior who needs help

>My character rolls a dice to swing his sword
>My character rolls a dice to cast a spell
>My character rolls a dice to swim
>My character rolls a dice to cook
>My character rolls a dice to do literally everything ever
>My character cannot roll a dice to come up with a plan

The worst of all though is the DM making you come up with the speech or what is said, when you try to convince or persuade someone.

>It's okay, Bob's character has high Int so he'd have thought about it.

>I hit the goblin with my sword
>Sorry user but you're a wizard with -5 strength
>nuh uh in real life I play sports and do martial arts

>christ, you just got done botching that I didn't want to let "errr, I roll to convince the guards?" fly because you didn't think it was fair to 'demand' that you actually have charisma to play a charismatic character, but now you want to have the INT 8 guy spouting tactical genius? So which is it, do you want your characters' stats to matter or not? make up your fucking minds!

This is one reason why strict "primary attributes" is a shit concept that should be scrapped from game design, unless you are going for gamist beer and pretzels dungeorcrawl or other tacticool shit, in which case nobody should even care if you roleplay them or not.

This.
Truth to be told, my group had many people with either good Wis because of casting, or decent int because of casting or combat expertise requirements.

The absolute worst of all is the DM making you come up with the speech when you're trying to convince or persuade someone, AND THEN making you roll the dice to see if it succeeds. Double jeopardy; you fail if the DM doesn't find you convincing enough, and once you get past that hurdle, you fail if the dice roll dictates that something else made you not-charismatic enough.

>That speech was Winston Churchill-tier, dude....but you rolled a 2 for Diplomacy, which means you were uncontrollably staring at the Duchesses tits and masturbating in your pants while you delivered it. The Duke throws you in his dungeon.

>look mom, I posted it again!
>they're replying mom!

Cringey as fuck, consider never gaming again.

You do realise that there's more to convincing someone than just saying words? How you say them is even more important.

Put some skill points in Profession: Demolitionist

And yet somehow the converse is never true. A high roll dictating you say them well never seems to outweigh the DM's opinion that they weren't great words. So really, how you say it isn't more important. It's just another, redundant fail condition.

Yes bad gms do bad things, you figured it out.

My DM has always had the policy of requiring an argument that seems reasonable, then modifying the DC afterwards depending on how well the point was made. So if people want to give a really detailed argument that would plausibly sway the target, he just sets the DC so low only a no-CHA character would fail it, if they make a decent point but flesh it out poorly or just ask to not have to flesh it out, he goes for a more standard check, if the argument is bad he sets a high DC and if it's just stupid autofail. A couple of times he's given an auto-win for really eloquent arguments, but that's like twice over three years.

So I do think that sometimes it can be done well, although I might have just gotten lucky with this guy.

The reason why social and mental actions require more "player contribution" than just strictly dice results is because gaming is already more of a social/mental pastime than a physical one. We're already abstracting physical actions by necessity. If you're unwilling or sadly unable to at least somewhat represent your character's social/mental capabilities, then at that point the numbers on your character sheet matter more than you, the player.

>A high roll dictating you say them well never seems to outweigh my DM's opinion that they weren't great words.

Yeah, I think I see your problem...

>>That's a good plan user, but your character has low Intelligence and wouldn't have been able to come up with it

>playing games, where Intelligence is an explicit stat
>playing games where Plan-Making isn't a skill you can take
>playing games that dissociate IC and OOC knowledge
It's like you want to be able to complain about something.

...

8 Int is not that retarded.

>can't use a plan because INT is too low
>the guy with a big INT can't come up with a plan with a roll, has to figure it out himself
Shit GM.

>tfw you play Pendragon, a system with no INT stat, because it's impossible to roleplay a character more intelligent than yourself and it's therefore on the player's shoulders to be their own INT as they see fit.

this is what i do and to me its the only thing which makes sense. Cha makes arguing easier but it isnt mind control to me. I think of it as being attractive, having good mannerisms and being a generally good orator.

Similarly, i think of int as more cognitive ability and world-knowledge as opposed to something like coming up with a plan. If you have low int youre bad at maths and history but you can still be creative or come up with a plan (also wtf should i just let you roll and tell you the solution to my puzzle? Get fucked you faggots).

I do let high int guys roll to make a plan though

I know this is probably bait but I'm conflicted on this issue.

Does a high int character with a not so bright player get to make Int rolls to devise a plan? If not, then you're basically testing the player's intelligence rather than the character's. Yet situations like in OP's post are obviously not desirable.

This is a good one, actually.

I'm actually kinda against having int rolls to have the DM give you plans. As a DM, simply giving up a puzzle is painful. As a player, it feels unfulfilling to simply have the answer given to me.

Group planning makes sense, since it allows for something similar to a high-intelligence character while still giving the players agency and the ability to actually play the game.

The pendragon system that mentioned also seems like a pretty good idea, too.

Yeah, I can totally see that point, hence why I'm conflicted. I can see the pros and cons of both approaches.

What do you think about rolling for a hint? One that isn't so obvious that it gives the answer away completely?

As a dm I like to give my players bonuses if they can make a convincing speech

I could see that, and that's how I typically treat knowledge checks. I'm just against "rolling for a plan."

It's like people simply saying "I roll diplomacy... 23" instead of RPing it out and then rolling or giving me something to work with in terms of how they're approaching the situation

Idiot Savant.
Grod can't think well, but god damn that fucker can plan anything as long as it involves violence. Or remembers every statue he sees.

I do the same thing, except for literally everything. If a player role plays something that fits the setting or their character well, they get bonuses. It's worked pretty well so far, but I don't think it'd be great for the more 'gamist' DnD players on here.

As far as intelligence and planning goes, they can roll their skills to get hints and information to help them form the plan...I will never give them the plan. If the player is playing a dumb character and comes up with something brilliant, they either frame it in a way that makes sense for that character or they pass it to another. Easy pz. If they're not willing to do that, and nobody is willing to do that, you're simply not playing a game where it matters.

Actually called on this in shadowrun. My character was an idiot, but I LOVE planning shit.
I got around it by declaring her to be an idiot, but damn good at shadowrunning, and making her bad ideas really obviously bad.
Still didn't stop the GM and party seizing on a couple and making them Plan A and effective.

...

Have you character start using a sock puppet to give himself instructions and speaks in a upper class English accent.

Should only take a few sessions before the GM agrees to stop with the 'low int means no ideas or cunning' bullshit in exchange for the sock puppet getting lost.

What a shitty attempt at morally grey role playing

Git gud user

...

I let them roleplay it, then if it's shit, they roll.

If they deliver something Churchill-tier, it doesn't matter what their character's stats are, they're getting what they want.

If they deliver something Trump-tier......eh we'll let the dice decide whether the NPC is convinced by it.

Does she get her sockpuppets back? I need to know!

>pick a low intelligence role to play
>come up with complex and brilliant plans requiring detailed knowledge
No, THAT is the opposite of roleplaying.

>eh we'll let the dice decide whether the NPC is convinced by it.
Are the NPC more likely to believe it if they have low int?

I'm sorry, I don't know

>a dice
Neck yourself

>player with high int/wis character happens to have the same plan

>That's a good motive user, but your character refuse to join the group for what he had done and therefore has to be killed.

I always thought it was bullshit how in 3.PF Intelligence dictates how good you are at pretty much anything non-combat related, and simultaneously is the stat Wizards need the most of. So naturally Wizards will have skill points to spare on top of being good at everything else.

And there are people who get annoyed when you call it Caster Edition.

What the fuck is a blockchain

...

bitcoin

This. Alternatively slip the wizards notes, if he decides to ignore better ideas, well fuck I suppose that's because the wizard has a low wisdom.
>We could do this good plan
>Or we could do this fun plan

>Having people just roll
>Not allowing them to roleplay what they want, potentially giving them bonuses if they do a good job

>Player describes an attack in a neat way against a nearly dead enemy
I might give them +5 or something damage so they can strike the death blow in a neat way

>Player gives a great speech but rolls a 2 on their persuasion roll
I might give them advantage or give them +x to the roll simply because it was a good speech

>Players can't solve a problem
Have everyone available roll intelligence and suggest ideas based on those rolls (or just use passive intelligence).

Players should be able to augment the abilities of their characters to some extent and characters should be fully able to augment the abilities of players. A genius character should be able to solve any problem that they are normally capable of, but if a character just can't pull off something (eg. a low cha character intimidating people) than good roleplaying can augment that to some extent. Of course limits exist, if you roll a 1 to hit against a tough enemy it doesn't matter how cool you describe your attack, it will miss, it doesn't matter how good an argument you put forth, the princess won't sleep with your 4 charisma tub of lard wizard.

youtube.com/watch?v=SmdWop98R6E&t=3m53s

Profession: Tactician or Profession: Adventurer with a +20 magic item.

what i usually do is if the player says something like "I try to fast talk the guards." i just have them role it if they give a description to how they fast talk the guards i.e. "I explain to them that I inherited the jewelry from my recently deceased aunt." i have them roll with a bonus if they actually role play it I decide it based on the role play

I usually roll the dice first, and then base what I say on what I rolled. If I roll a nat 20 then I put together a cheesy mishmash of chop suy wisdom and movie quotes. If I roll under ten, I spill the spaghetti. If I roll a 1, I insult their mothers.

>That's a good plan user, but your character has low Charisma and wouldn't have been able to convince the party to use it.

>does stupid shit because "It's what my character would do" and get shit for it, too

never play characters that are smarter/dumber than you

Don't present it as, "Here's my plan for you to use." Instead frame it as "Our characters collectively are probably about as smart as we are collectively, let's come up with a plan together."

I wish you guys would stop doing this.

The obvious response is to have the wizard ask the GM what kind of genius, brilliant plans he could make with an INT of 30. Then whatever plan the GM comes up with is the one that's always going to succeed, because it's the GM's plan.

I give them conditional bonuses and negatives. Anywhere from -10 your speech insults the listeners, to a +10 for a churchill-tier amazing speech. For example.

Then again, I tend to do the same thing with most situations. If someone comes up with a clever way to sneak- perhaps by mentioning that they're removing their shoes, or putting on slippers and focusing on carpets, that kind of thing, I'd boost their Move Silently roll.

In my homebrew, I've cut out Intelligence entirely. Instead, it's a combination of your assorted skills and your roleplaying. Instead of spending points on INT, you spend it on knowledges, or lock picking, or whatever.