There is of course a long standing debate about players playing characters with wildly divergent intellects. That is a part of this (and if you aren't familiar with it.... too bad, I'm not rehashing the details here), but only due to relevance.
I've been pondering a thing for some time. To toot my own horn somewhat, many people I know personally account me a 'very smart' individual. I've come to disagree with this observation, however. It isn't that I am smart or they are 'not smart', its that I have a head full of interesting and obscure trivia, while they know things that everyone else around them knows about.
I think, and mind you I'm no smarter than anyone else, that barring a few unfortunates who are physically defiecent, and perhaps (only perhaps...) a few people who are blessed, almost everyone has the same basic capacity for reason and 'intelligence' as everyone else. The difference lies primarily in education and areas of interest, not actual capacity.
Thus: including an intelligence stat in a game is merely reinforcing a potentially wrongheaded notion. I could go on about bizzare methods of 'increasing' intelligence and the metagaming aspects of it; I could cite a notional model of what I mean via example, but I've laid out the bare bones of my case. I'll leave it at that... mostly because the boss is back and I don't want to get caught out half posted....:D
People also make connections at wildly different speeds, though, and take different factors as being relevant for making those connections. Faster speeds and better filters both seem to correlate with something I'd call 'higher intelligence'.
It is true that basic rationality is a near-universal human gift, but in the sense I mean the word dogs and chimps and lots of other creatures are just as rational as we are, so...
You should see my GRE score. Pathetic.
I'd disagree, atlhough training, interest and experience are a factor in making someone appear smart, there is in my experience a raw intellectual capacity that people have. Those with it can learn and critically think much better than those without it, even when the gifted couldn't give a damn about the subject and the ungifted make it their life. Intellect is more than memorization of information.
It may be your experience is more with the mean, certainly most folks clustered about the mean will seem to really only vary in interest and training not raw ability. I tend to work in a world far above the mean, where folks have an amazing capacity to get it quickly and in depth, so I see the gap on a daily basis.
Well if you are going to have skills rolls based on intelligence, then I think you need the stat. Same for every other stat.
It is sometimes somwhat jarring when the "dumb as a rock" statwise character played by the smart person has a great idea. I chalk that up to great insinct or "battle smarts" and not raw intelligence of the character.
Quote from: CallousWell if you are going to have skills rolls based on intelligence, then I think you need the stat. Same for every other stat.
It is sometimes somwhat jarring when the "dumb as a rock" statwise character played by the smart person has a great idea. I chalk that up to great insinct or "battle smarts" and not raw intelligence of the character.
Tying stats and skills together is a subject of much facination for me. Games like GURPS do it too explicitly it seems, while games like D&D... at the higher levels certainly, seem to do it too little or too tangentally.
I think it is certainly possible to suggest a notional game with no stats at all, just various skills. Certainly if I ever finish up my Dynamic Fu game it will somewhat resemble that.
Xanther: I'll get back with you eventually... promise.:D
Yes I too spike have thought ALOT about attributes, and the scary thing my lastest incarnation for Pandora came to me in a dream. A most vivid dream I have had in my life, It enthralled me so much I took the time to draw it down, and to extrapolate furhter upon it.
What I have done, in regards to intellegence is to get it into a subcategory
called Mental, in the mental category is to place wisdom (Now called focus) and intellegence (Now called creation) a derivitive x 10 of the two scores is called Intution, and that score is the Spark of The mind which I belive is your general IQ, using the 6 different categories of it for a comprehensive whole.
I belive Wisdom is focus becuase it represents a adherence to knowldege and the ability to call upon your self for that correct answer you know to be true
Intellegence is Creation becuase it has the answers, but only by putting the answers together can you create things.
Together, they form intuition which is the whole of the two combinded and can be used as a mesuring stick. I consider, in my example of an 18 focus and a 18 creation to have a 36 intutiion (And therfore a 360 iq) to be perfectly justifiable (considering your taking a savants wiz score and hawkins calculating power into one score)
Depends on the game. How it is recommended to be used, and why.
I've seen brilliant players choose to play complete idiots. I've also seen less than brilliant players struggle to play a brilliant character--so as GM I helped them make connections and get information. My job is to allow people to play "not themselves in fancy clothes." so like any trait--strength, fighting, whatever, I make up what differences I can.
Oh I Agree totaly, which is why I came up with the intuition score,
so even soem one with a 3 focus (wis) and a 3 creation (int) = 60 IQ which is barely playable, but can be done. Perhaps there needs to be some guidelines with regards to the low or high stats and how it should be done next to the chart explaining intell, instead of you know x amount of languages more, or you get more spells per day, ect. Perhaps there needs to be something that justifies this or that, any suggestions on this? How it should be portraited in a book, or the rules?
I like them if, as other said, other in game elements will be based on the character's intelligence and not the player's.
Personally, I factor both into my games and make allowances for them. I consider character versus player intelligence to be an artifact of gaming and deal with it accordingly.
Seanchai
Right, but more seriously what would you like to see with regards to actuall game text in a rules portion regarding it, when it comes to play? What should the players and GM have in order to facilitate a more cohesive focus with regards to how this acts in a game?
Since no-one can ever agree on an exact definition of "intelligence" - mainly because no-one wants a definition of it by which measure they would have to be called stupid - in games I've written I dodge the question by saying there are three mental attributes,
- Perception - how much you notice
- Education - how much you know - not just academically, and this being broad knowledge rather than specific knowledge, since specific knowledge is what we have skills for.
- Confidence - your willpower and resolve
Those three together are going to determine overall how "smart" you are - if you notice a lot, remember a lot, and stick to a task, then people will think you're brainy. If you pick things up quickly and are focused (high Per and Conf) then you can get away with not having a broad pool of knowledge (low Edu); and so on.
When we look at people who are successful in mental stuff, usually they're either outstanding in at least one of those three areas, or quite good in all three. And when we see someone who we say is stupid or incompetent, commonly they're lacking in one or more of those three.
No-one likes to think of themselves as stupid, so it's best to avoid definining "intelligence" in your roleplaying games, and define other things instead, things which together cover all possible meanings of it.
I have never felt that intelligence was a productive stat. It can be difficult to relate to a gap in intelligence, and I believe a lot of people know that. I'm perfectly happy with players playing characters only of their own intelligence. I haven't read an rpg that regulated player ideas based upon the intelligence of the character (with weird exceptions being made on the extreme levels). I feel that having intelligence as a stat restricts play more than it helps play, at both the mechanical level and the non-mechanical level.
I'm interested in keeping the game and metagame close to each other, leaving no room for players to benefit from non-character knowledge.
There are real differences in the ability people have in learning and gaining knowledge.
This is not the same as intelligence (in the sense that often, its assumed that people who are less or more naturally inclined to learning by traditional methods are somehow less or more inherently intelligent; but this is in fact not true), but it is a very significant reality nonetheless.
In an RPG you want to have something that can measure that, as well as your overall perceptiveness, and your ability to communicate and understand what is communicated to you. All of these things usually get summed up as "intelligence".
RPGPundit
I think you need to base the abilities you give characters in a game on the type of things they're going to be doing, what you want the players to control (knowledge/decision-wise), and what you want to have dice rolls for their characters.
If you had a Harry Potter RPG you might decide that you needed multiple "Intelligence" type ability scores (Wits, Knowledge, Scholastic Ability, etc), while the Pit Fighter RPG might only require a "Cunning" ability score.
What you don't want to do is start with the abilities D&D uses and try to shoehorn those into whatever type of game you're making. :)
Quote from: SpikeThere is of course a long standing debate about players playing characters with wildly divergent intellects. That is a part of this (and if you aren't familiar with it.... too bad, I'm not rehashing the details here), but only due to relevance.
I've been pondering a thing for some time. To toot my own horn somewhat, many people I know personally account me a 'very smart' individual. I've come to disagree with this observation, however. It isn't that I am smart or they are 'not smart', its that I have a head full of interesting and obscure trivia, while they know things that everyone else around them knows about.
I think, and mind you I'm no smarter than anyone else, that barring a few unfortunates who are physically defiecent, and perhaps (only perhaps...) a few people who are blessed, almost everyone has the same basic capacity for reason and 'intelligence' as everyone else. The difference lies primarily in education and areas of interest, not actual capacity.
Thus: including an intelligence stat in a game is merely reinforcing a potentially wrongheaded notion. I could go on about bizzare methods of 'increasing' intelligence and the metagaming aspects of it; I could cite a notional model of what I mean via example, but I've laid out the bare bones of my case. I'll leave it at that... mostly because the boss is back and I don't want to get caught out half posted....:D
Well, I don't agree with your premis, so I don't agree with your conclusion. If you compare someone who is "retarded" with someone who is like Einstein, you'll find a distinct difference in Intellectual Capacity. I don't think all minds are created equal. Some people actually think better than others. To me, the Intelligence Requisite reflects this. If you take a low Intelligence person and put him or her into the same class with a high Intelligence person, the High Intelligence person will absorb more, and do better than the low. And so, to me it seems the Intelligence Requisite has a place and does make sense.
- Mark
Quote from: Albert EinsteinWhen I was young I found out that the big toe always ends up making a hole in a sock. So I stopped wearing socks.
Sure Al, that's very clever. :rolleyes:
From my own experiences, many academics are like this. Brilliant in their own area, but not necessarily in all other areas.
Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, I don't agree with your premis, so I don't agree with your conclusion. If you compare someone who is "retarded" with someone who is like Einstein, you'll find a distinct difference in Intellectual Capacity. I don't think all minds are created equal. Some people actually think better than others. To me, the Intelligence Requisite reflects this. If you take a low Intelligence person and put him or her into the same class with a high Intelligence person, the High Intelligence person will absorb more, and do better than the low. And so, to me it seems the Intelligence Requisite has a place and does make sense.
- Mark
You'll note, when I make my original point that I make allowances for those who are actually deficient... in other words 'retarded'. And while they are obviously hindered by their biology, many of them are capable of fairly decent thinking in one fashion or another.
I've got no problem with a system like Jimmy's, that's almost exactly what I was talking about, in fact.
It may be that Xanther was right, that I mostly see the mean, but in my expirence most people toss their hands up in disgust when faced with certain intellectual challenges more out of a lack of desire/confidence than actual ability to learn the subject. We COULD suggest that they are 'less intelligent' but then that reinforces the idea that they 'can't' learn the subject in question, rather than the true state of affairs where they simply don't try, even when being shown. I see it all the time, particularly in math and mechanical subjects. Some people are just terrified of learning Math, or consider themselves mechanically inept, yet when given the simplest of lessons they literally shut their brains off rather than confront their self image. You can SEE IT. You can literally watch them stop paying any attention rather than attempt to learn, and the process of teaching becomes convincing them to overcome their psychological block, rather than overcoming any real inability.
I'm old fashioned. I say it belongs after Strength.
Quote from: GunslingerI'm old fashioned. I say it belongs after Strength.
You're a man after my own heart, Gunny. :)
On a character sheet, Intelligence is a lot like Alignment; it's often ignored.
Personally, I'd like to see more intelligence in game design.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmicePersonally, I'd like to see more intelligence in game design.
-clash
:rimshot:
Quote from: One Horse Town:rimshot:
Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen!
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceThank you, thank you! I'll be here all week, ladies and gentlemen!
-clash
:haw:
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeOn a character sheet, Intelligence is a lot like Alignment; it's often ignored.
Pretty much. I rarely see intelligence have any impact on the game. It's ignored by everyone except players with spellcasters.
Quote from: HaffrungPretty much. I rarely see intelligence have any impact on the game. It's ignored by everyone except players with spellcasters.
Not in MY games! :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceNot in MY games! :D
-clash
Having played in your games, I disagree. What a bunch of freakin' idiots!:p
P.S. When does the next season start?
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeHaving played in your games, I disagree. What a bunch of freakin' idiots!:p
P.S. When does the next season start?
True! All of my players are idiots! Thats why Intelligence - or the lack thereof - plays such a big part in my games!
Beginning of December, we'll have a couple weeks get things going, then take a break for Xmas. Are you going to play Johnny? :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceTrue! All of my players are idiots!
I can attest to that, being one of those idiots!:D
Quote from: flyingmiceBeginning of December, we'll have a couple weeks get things going, then take a break for Xmas. Are you going to play Johnny?
Yep, I think so.
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeYep, I think so.
Awesome! I can't wait! Did his whip-weilding mistress kick him out? :D
-clash
Sillyness aside, and pushing past it, why then does intellegence not matter on a character sheet? Sure it governs certain properities, and skills but its oft a throw away stat, that doesn't have the emotional power that strength or con has to a player, and that bothers me. Why is that?
My theory is that it's not cool enough. Strength is cool becuase it does damage. Mages like intell becuase it gives you bonus skills, and languages and spells. Fighters laugh at this becuase they can do damage every round, and that one extra spell isn't going to be as imporant as that extra damage that you can dig out every round, if you need to.
Plus I think its over used, intellegence. Think about it. How many times do you have to roll your intel score versus a strength check, or a dex check. Not nearly as many a intel check to rmeember the blasted bar keeps what's his face name, I almost guarntee it.
So what we need is a emotional grasp that's tangleble, but back of the mind to really make it matter. Sure some games will have deep emotional intellegence related aspects of it, but that's usally becuase theres a over empahsis of a stat that we feel thats under utliized or has no emotional bagage with it.
So lets break it down, and take it apart, and see what makes it tick, and perhaps give it a much loving boost.
A poster earler was mentioning that they had split intell into a three tireed system, and even earlier than that there was some other systems.
So, lets get down to brass tacks, really I think we all want a mesure of how well some one can do with regards to the function of intellegence in our game, how aware, creative smart or generally intellegent they are. What I think were missing, like i said above is a emotional aspect of it, that can tie down and captivate a player into thinking that intellegence is worth it, but not in such a way as to actually think about it. Its hard to pshyo analyis this part but its there.
In pandora, as mentioned previous I think Ive struck the largest cord with regards to a intellegence score, and that is a function of memory (Focus, or knowldege) and function of something else we cant define (Creation, intellegence) using these two basis for a inutiion socre which is your effective all round IQ.
I like the way creation sounds, becuase its evocative, and gives a better "Feel" to what we think intellegence should sound and act like. And i think thats the heart of intellegence.. how creative we are. A dumb fighter is dumb becuase he only knows how to smash, one way, while a creative, and intellegent fighter can kill a man a million different ways with a million different tricks.
Anyways im rambling on, but id like to get a better analysis of what were really looking for here.
I've always thought Intelligence was a terrible score, mostly because it is so hard to play. You can easily play a character with a high Strength, even if you (the player) are a ninety pound weakling, but how do you play a character that is drastically smarter than you are? My game, The Third Kingdom, has an Aptitude score as opposed to intelligence. Aptitude governs the speed and readiness at which a character learns, but no actually intelligence. The player can have his character be as smart or dumb as he likes. There is also a secondary "Know" score that allows the character to roll to determine if he knows specific bits of random information (in addition to knowledge based skills). The higher a character's Know score the more information they have accumulated. However, it is up to the player to synthesize that knowledge.
Todd
Spike,
It may seem like everyone is on your level (I used to think so too) but what you may not realize is how much effort some people put into appearing smart. I got clued into it by tutoring troubled youths. It's one thing for a kid to say that they get it but quite another for them to then demonstrate the algebra they allegedly learned. From that experience I became sensitive to that sort of behavior.
These phrases are particularly suspect,
- "It's like a light went on in my head"
- "Now it all makes sense"
- "Wow, you're so smart!"
- "No other teacher has ever taken the time to explain this to me before."
- And generic "Thanks mister! I'm smarter now!" comments that have nothing to do with the subject matter.
You might try some trick questions to see if your listeners to see if they really are thinking on your level or if they're lost and trying to fit in.
But all that aside, I think that you're right that a single INT characteristic is not the best way to do things. I prefer a skill list, perhaps with an aptitude discount like thirdkingdom was talking about, and a few disabilities like senile, child, superstition(witch doctors), ADHD, gullible, poor spelling, etc.... Let the Genius characters earn the reputation by buying the skills that their superbrainz are famous for.
Quote from: SpikeThere is of course a long standing debate about players playing characters with wildly divergent intellects. That is a part of this (and if you aren't familiar with it.... too bad, I'm not rehashing the details here), but only due to relevance.
I've been pondering a thing for some time. To toot my own horn somewhat, many people I know personally account me a 'very smart' individual. I've come to disagree with this observation, however. It isn't that I am smart or they are 'not smart', its that I have a head full of interesting and obscure trivia, while they know things that everyone else around them knows about.
I think, and mind you I'm no smarter than anyone else, that barring a few unfortunates who are physically defiecent, and perhaps (only perhaps...) a few people who are blessed, almost everyone has the same basic capacity for reason and 'intelligence' as everyone else. The difference lies primarily in education and areas of interest, not actual capacity.
Thus: including an intelligence stat in a game is merely reinforcing a potentially wrongheaded notion. I could go on about bizzare methods of 'increasing' intelligence and the metagaming aspects of it; I could cite a notional model of what I mean via example, but I've laid out the bare bones of my case. I'll leave it at that... mostly because the boss is back and I don't want to get caught out half posted....:D
quick thought:
I want my games to simulate fiction more than real-life -- a coarse-grained INT stat is a reasonable way to do that.
I also want game rules to let me play a character that's good at things I'm not (so I want fast-talk rules that let me play a silver-tongued devil, when I'm a plodding, verbal cretin). These rules *never* quite work right: if I'm trying to play a character substantially smarter than I am, INT rules break suspension of disbelief -- but IMO they're better than the alternative of not having rules that support that.
To your point: no one should mistake game rules for any kind of nuanced simulation of reality. I think there is such a thing as "intelligence" but it's not something easily understood or modeled.
About games: It's reasonable to expect a framework that lets me play someone smarter than myself. It's also reasonable to let the INT stat make skills and spells cheaper (thus making it easier to create a "smart" character that has the corresponding education one would expect).
These kinds of rules almost *always* require metagaming play and OOC discussion; I'm not a big fan of that in general, but it's nice to have the option.
Cheers,
-E.
Quote from: flyingmiceAwesome! I can't wait! Did his whip-weilding mistress kick him out? :D
She either:
a) double-crossed him in some manner,
b) died at the hands of some old nemesis,
or c) is alive and well and still Johnny's "soul mate" or, should I say, "sole mate".
I haven't figured it out yet.
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeShe either:
a) double-crossed him in some manner,
b) died at the hands of some old nemesis,
or c) is alive and well and still Johnny's "soul mate" or, should I say, "sole mate".
I haven't figured it out yet.
Any one of these could be fun. I'm looking forward to it all! :D
-clash
The Third Kingdom's Aptitude score determine the number of skills a character can begin play with. Individual skills are governed by one of the eight primary Attribute scores (i.e. the Attribute score is used as the base). However, it is possible to have an Aptitude modifier (either positive or negative, depending on the score). The Aptitude modifier applies to all skill Challenges -- therefore, the Weapon Proficiency skill, while goverened by the Warfare Attribute, might have a modifier due to the character's Aptitude score, and so on. While not intelligence per se, Aptitude determines a character's ability to learn, retain, and use knowledge. How the character uses that knowledge, however, is up to the player and the player's portrayal of the character.
Todd
I usually play dumb people 'cause I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer myself. Playing a smart person is like another country, I namedrop important NPC's, stroke my chin, wear black or tweed and roll my vowels.
guardsman: "So, the Bondsmagi is behind the whole thing !?"
Phellini Rimjob thee Hobbit Sage: "Evidently so."
Quote from: SpikeYou'll note, when I make my original point that I make allowances for those who are actually deficient... in other words 'retarded'. And while they are obviously hindered by their biology, many of them are capable of fairly decent thinking in one fashion or another.
I've got no problem with a system like Jimmy's, that's almost exactly what I was talking about, in fact.
It may be that Xanther was right, that I mostly see the mean, but in my expirence most people toss their hands up in disgust when faced with certain intellectual challenges more out of a lack of desire/confidence than actual ability to learn the subject. We COULD suggest that they are 'less intelligent' but then that reinforces the idea that they 'can't' learn the subject in question, rather than the true state of affairs where they simply don't try, even when being shown. I see it all the time, particularly in math and mechanical subjects. Some people are just terrified of learning Math, or consider themselves mechanically inept, yet when given the simplest of lessons they literally shut their brains off rather than confront their self image. You can SEE IT. You can literally watch them stop paying any attention rather than attempt to learn, and the process of teaching becomes convincing them to overcome their psychological block, rather than overcoming any real inability.
Almost seems to me your talking about another Requisite. Willpower. If you have a low Intelligence and high Will Power you can muscle your way to learning X. But if you have a medium Intelligence and low Will Power you can't. Etc. Yah?
Quote from: VBWyrdeAlmost seems to me your talking about another Requisite. Willpower. If you have a low Intelligence and high Will Power you can muscle your way to learning X. But if you have a medium Intelligence and low Will Power you can't. Etc. Yah?
I... am not sure.
Once you've made up your mind to actually learn something 'hard' it often turns out to be anything but. I suppose you could 'nug' your way through something by dint of will, but that wasn't what I was thinking about.
There is this guy I work with. He's the 'network/computer goto geek', he likes his job and, in an ordinary world I'd be saying 'He is smarter than me'. Why? Because I don't know a lot about networking or computers. Of course, I don't really WANT to know a lot about it, not my bag, man.
But this guy is calling me smart in casual conversations. Not because I really am, but because I know stuff he doesn't (and vice versa), becuase I think about things that he casually lets by him... its just different areas of interest at the end of the day. I could learn his entire job in a reasonably short span of time if I just cared enough to a) pay attention when he's going over it with me, and b) studied it on my off time to catch up.
Since neither a nor b are true, he will remain 'smarter' than me in networking and general computer stuff for... essentially... forever, while I will remain 'smarter' than him on oddball stuff like general trivia and in depth socio-political analysis of movies, tv and news... say.
Will doesn't really factor into it, but interest does.
Quote from: SpikeI... am not sure.
Once you've made up your mind to actually learn something 'hard' it often turns out to be anything but. I suppose you could 'nug' your way through something by dint of will, but that wasn't what I was thinking about.
....
Will doesn't really factor into it, but interest does.
I'd say that raw intellect is evident in how fast someone learns. Low intellect and great will/interest can
eventually allow someone to learn something. A person of greater intellect will learn it much more rapidly.
I would never call having knowledge as enough to be considered having a great intellect. It's the speed with which the knowledge can be acquired and the critical thinking ability to rapidly apply it in situations never experienced before.