Intelligence Versus Wisdom: Roleplaying The Difference
In game systems with both intelligence and wisdom as ability scores, the player is presented with several challenges. First and foremost among these is the challenge of playing a character with a higher intelligence or wisdom than the player. I don't know the answer to this question, but I have a few ideas about "how do I roleplay a discernable difference between the two abilities?"
In game systems with both intelligence and wisdom as ability scores, the player is presented with several challenges. First and foremost among these is the challenge of playing a character with a higher intelligence or wisdom than the player. Personally, I don't know the answer to this question. But I have a few ideas about the second most important question, "How do I roleplay a discernable difference between the two abilities?"
As has been expressed in other articles, everything in a roleplaying game can be boiled down to a problem. This is true from a trap, a monster, or an NPC. I will attempt to explain my perception of the difference between intelligence and wisdom by describing a scene where four characters approach a trap and try to decide the best way around the problem. The four characters in the party have varying levels of intelligence and wisdom; low intelligence and low wisdom (in this example, the Fighter), high intelligence and low wisdom (the Thief), low intelligence and high wisdom (the Priest), and high intelligence and high wisdom (the Wizard).
So, our party of four noble heroes is traveling in the woods. Suddenly the thief spots a trip wire across the path."Everyone stop where you are, there's a tripwire across the path." Okay, so the point here isn't the dialogue. The thief goes on to explore and reveals the tripwire leads to a primitive trap that could seriously wound commoners but not do much damage to powerful people such as themselves.
The fighter approaches the trap and comes up with three options, bash the trap, go around the trap, or set off the trap (figuring they'll all be fine). The fighter's low intelligence is reflected in the limited number of options he can come up with to deal with the practical dimension of the trap. His low intelligence is reflected in his lack of care for the reason the trap is there, the purpose of the trap, or the trap's connection to the party, if any. In general, his low wisdom prevents him from making connections between the object of his attention and larger contexts. Secondly, his low wisdom prevents him from considering the consequences of each option. Thus he does not consider bashing the trap might set it off, and he does not consider the possibility they would all be 'fine' by setting it off.
Intelligence tells you what the problem is and how to solve it, wisdom tells you whether or not you should.
Now when the thief approaches the trap, he sees several options immediately. In addition to the three presented by the fighter, he comes up with some additional non-mechanical options: including going back the way they came and lying in wait for the owner of the trap. His higher intelligence, without consideration of his skill with traps, allows him a couple of more options than those presented by the Fighter. I mention these options to demonstrate intelligence is a dimension independent of skill. With intelligence and skill, the thief presents a variety of additional options, including setting the trap off in a way that won't hurt anyone, disable the trap in a subtle way that won't look like sabotage, trap the trap so the owner is nabbed when she comes to maintain or check it, et cetera... you get the idea. These ideas involve understanding of the mechanism, cunning, and ingenuity. There is more awareness of the trap being in a context since some of these plans involve the understanding that someone set the trap. Extremely high intelligence might peer into the broader contexts of time, location, interpersonal conflict to discern the nature of the trap. However, even these broader contexts will only present options for dealing with the trap; they will not assist in discerning the best course of action. Intelligence presents ways of solving problems, wisdom helps discern how or if to solve a problem and why. Let's move on to the Priest to see this principle in action.
The cleric in our example has high wisdom but low intelligence. He sees the same options for dealing with the trap the fighter sees. But, he isn't really concerned about these options. He figures the thief will come up with more options than he does. The cleric's mind starts seeking the meaning of the trap immediately. At first this might be in the form of questions: "Who set this trap? Why did they place it here? Is it intended for us or for someone else? Is the trap's purpose to delay / kill / capture / distract?" In order to answer these questions, the cleric considers the information available to him. It is crude, so it probably wasn't their nemesis Morta, as he would try more elaborate and deadly traps. It's able is to wound several weaker people, so this is set with malicious intent. We are traveling on a road used very often, so it probably isn't for us specifically. In the end, the cleric decides this trap's context indicates it is probably set to ambush a random group of travelers. But he still doesn't have a clue on what to do about the trap!
Now enter the wizard, in this example the only one in the party with both a high wisdom and a high intelligence. He makes all of the assessments of the others, but goes further: the wizard finds the best way of tying both the need for a solution to the trap and an understanding of the context. He decides, based on the information provided by the thief that they should leave and return in disguise a little later. When they return, they will set off the trap, make it look like it wounded them and wait for the trapper(s), to teach them a lesson.
In the end, the group follows the wizard's plan and everyone's skills are used: the thief's in finding and setting off the trap, the fighter's in dealing with the trapper(s), the cleric's defensive spells and healing are used when the dust settles, and the wizard's both for the plan and a few flashes to make sure the battle tips in the right direction.
In conclusion, when roleplaying wisdom and intelligence, here are my handy rules of thumb, paraphrased from a professor of mine: "Intelligence tells you what the problem is and how to solve it, wisdom tells you whether or not you should." Here's another one for good measure: "Intelligence asks, 'What?' Wisdom asks, 'Why?'"
- Login to post comments
This problem has recently come to me in the form of roleplaying a martial artist with an extremely high wisdom (18) and an utterly average intelligence (10). Your article parallels a lot of my thoughts, but I'd put it a bit differently. So far, the character hasn't come up with any incredibly complicated solutions, but his solutions are nearly always effective. His high wisdom tends to lead him to the simplest and most effective solution, ignoring complicated plans that might be equally effective since he can't even see them.
Now, here's the question. Which attribute leads to a character being fast on their feet? For example, let's take your sample party and give them a different challenge. Suppose that each individual is investigating a local thieves' guild and manages to be detected. How are they going to react based on their mental scores?
I have also seen a similar issue in convention play several years ago (pre-3rd edition) where in Living City, you were given total points to spread across your stats, and just about everyone was butt-ugly because their charisma score was so low. I took a different tangent, and used my low charisma as an excuse for my PC to have terribly bad manners! =)
It is true that there is (and should be) a difference between intelligence and wisdom, and this author has made a nice example of that.
However, there are those DMs who equate PC intelligence with player intelligence; you know, these are the ones with the ultra-complex riddle/puzzle and expect you to figure it out because your mage has a high intelligence. C'mon guys, give us a break. If we really had a 16 or higher intelligence, do you really think we'd be sitting around a table playing RPGs?
What I'd like to see come back is the comeliness score. I think that charisma, although appearance is a factor, shouldn't be so broad. I had a mage with a very low comeliness (yeah, it was that bad), but a very high charisma-- my take was that although ugly, his demeanor and the way in which he dealt with people commanded some level of respect that his outward appearance might not have warranted at first glance. It was a hard sell as a player, but role playing the strengths of the charisma pulled it off.
Anywho, that's this old player's $0.02 worth. Nice article.
Ah yes, the intelligence/wisdom debate...this has long been a sore point of mine regarding RPG's, especially D&D. I pick D&D as the worst just because it 'hides' a character's actual attributes pretty well: at least in the games I play, I seldom make "Intelligence" checks, but instead do checks based off of "Knowledge: whatever." As you will see below, I think that the problem isn't playing smarter characters, but instead playing the dumber ones, while keeping the game fun and balanced.
Really, though, what do you do in a tactical situation when Intelligence/Wisdom/Wits/whatever comes up? I recall a game run by a good friend of mine in which I came up with all sorts of really good tactics to use against our enemies. The only trouble was, I was playing a Fighter with INT 10 and WIS 12. What do I do? Write a note to the Wizard player (INT 20 and WIS 16), who would miraculously have a battle-trained mind? Gamers (at least, ones like me) are far too proud of their ideas to just throw them away "because my character is only average intelligence." Should we have to give up the tricks? Should we only play brainiacs?
Similarly, I was running a game of Mage: The Ascension where I had an important plot area have a riddling guardian. Now, do you have the players try to guess the riddles and ignore their Intelligence/Wits/Perception scores, or do you rob the players of the chance to be clever and 'get' the riddles by reducing it to dice-rolling? Personally, I just ignored the paper stats because I think part of the joy of roleplaying is the chance to be clever, but I wasn't totally satisfied with the result.
Mechanically, it seems like the best answer would be to have players roll to see if their character is clever enough to come up with their revelation. The trouble is that this solution sucks for actually playing: players will feel gypped when they can't use their ideas, and they'll feel cheated if their character can't make the roll to come up with a (possibly plot-related) idea on the spur of the moment.
I'm actually thinking about playing a hybrid of D&D where Intelligence and Wisdom are totally removed from the associated stats, just like Appearance is dissociated from the Charisma stat. The character's actual "intelligence" and "wisdom" are up to the players, so long as they realize that there really isn't any game effect for either. And this makes some sense: why would a smarter person be able to get higher rankings in Listen, Move Silently, and Swim?
I don't know, it's just an area that I wish I could resolve fairly. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm all ears.
If you were to remove int/wis stats from the game, then on what would you base proficiency checks (2nd ed) or such? I'm not too much into 3rd edition yet, but I imagine that the same issue would arise?
In the case of your fighter with the 10 intelligence-- that's more than average!-- I see your point. Sometimes, for the game, you have to bite your tongue and let the scenario play out.
As for the riddles and things, yeah, it's hard to come up with something clever that the group can figure out without having them roll dice to see if they know the answer. I've resorted to clues and puzzle pieces that can actually be put together to come up with an answer instead of relying on PCs to figure it out on their own. This way, everyone gets to participate, and when they have all (or sometimes most) of the pieces, the answer reveals itself.
Again, just my $0.02. =)
Actually, I think people harp too much on these stats.
A decent DM will use your strength modifier to adjust for damage and to hit scores. I usually don't see a DM make a player roll to see if he can help pick up a couch -- how many people do you know who can't help move a couch? It's a fairly average thing to do.
The stats are just there to give you the bonuses or whatever for skill checks n' such.
Intelligence and Wisdom scores give you a bonus for spell memorization, language skills, etc.
They don't necessarily detract from your ability to be clever or come up with a nifty idea here and there.
Dutch outwits the Predator. But would you say his IQ was 18 on the DND scale? Probably not.
I've said it elsewhere, but a player shouldn't necessarily let the Stats limit how they play their character. 10 is supposed to be average on the DND and GURPS scale. Okay, rarely have I seen anybody with below-average stats...and, yet, most folks seem to think they can't come up with a clever solution if their guy is "average." Well, odds are, the guy player the "average" character is also relatively average -- if he weren't, he'd be playing chess with Stephen Hawking instead. So, given that this fairly average or maybe even above-average guy came up with a nifty idea...well, what are the odds that his character could do the same?
Precisely.
I had a barbarian with low int/wis scores, and played him as such (boy was that fun!). He was definitely the "bash first, take money" kinda guy. Ask questions first? Why do that... takes too much time. I can bash quicker than that.
hehe
Another way to deal with that thorny issue of "Is my character smart enough to do this?" is considering intelligence as how broad-minded someone is rather than how smart they are within their specialty. Using an example above, a fighter with 10 intelligence and 12 wisdom isn't going to be a whiz at history, mathematics, magical theory, or deeply knowledgeable about the gods...but as a fighter, his experience and knowledge are mostly tied up in combat and tactics. I had a player once who played a fighter with 18 intelligence, but the problem was that the guy wasn't nearly that swift himself...and he realized it. The solution we came up with was that all the guy's intelligence was in his smithing skill. He'd been putting points into it every level, so by the end of the campaign he had something like a +16 modifier overall to his smithing attemps. Definitely one of the best smiths in all the kingdoms, if not the world..just don't ask him about geography.
For why a character with higher intelligence would have more ranks in things like swim, move silently, or spot, you have to look at another factor in intelligence: memory retention. Someday I'll have to figure out or find an analysis of what the odds of getting a given score in intelligence are using the roll four drop lowest method. Simple correlation with the bell curve on an IQ test would give an idea of just how bright that intelligence score is supposed to be.
I like this idea too. Nobody ever said that the 18 INT means that he's well rounded. I know very smart people who are a whiz at medicine and Spanish...but not so good at math and directions.
Man, if only I had this excuse in high school, then I could've just skipped my trig class! LOL
I think Gaidin has the right idea with the selective application of mental scores, or at least that's how I prefer to do it and how the group I game with tends to do it.
I figure, if the low-intelligence character who has been an assassin his whole life, whose father was an assassin, whose grandfather was an assassin (you get the idea) comes up with a clever or elaborate plan to take someone out, it's permissiable, the majority of his learning is focused in that particular area. On the other hand, if the same char's player gets witty when a complex puzzle or arithmetic problem comes up, that would be the time to bite his tongue.
"Which attribute leads to a character being fast on their feet? For example, let's take your sample party and give them a different challenge. Suppose that each individual is investigating a local thieves' guild and manages to be detected. How are they going to react based on their mental scores?"
To this, I say Wisdom is the mental ability to use. The way I've heard the difference defined is "Wisdom equals perception, Intelligence equals retention."
It seems to me that the original post and most of the replies are taking wisdom as merely a different way to approach a puzzle or tackle a given situation of strategy. But, that is more or less solely Intelligence.
In the example of the trap used in the original post, Wisdom really plays no part in the detective work of the dealing or meaning of the trap.
"The cleric's mind starts seeking the meaning of the trap immediately. At first this might be in the form of questions: "Who set this trap? Why did they place it here? Is it intended for us or for someone else? Is the trap's purpose to delay/kill/capture/distract?" In order to answer these questions, the cleric considers the information available to him. It is crude, so it probably wasn't their nemesis Morta, as he would try more elaborate and deadly traps. It's able is to wound several weaker people, so this is set with malicious intent. We are traveling on a road used very often, so it probably isn't for us specifically."
This thought process is a TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE, often used by modern day detectives, D&D thieves and the like.
Wisdom and Intelligence go hand-in-hand. A low-Wis, high-Int character like the Thief above, speaks about how attune his Intelligence is (like the absent-minded professor). But a priest with a high-Wis and low-Int when looking at a trap, plays nothing of a detective (at least, not well) - his Int is too low. What does this mean? Probably that the priest has nothing to do with the trap. Maybe he goes off and prays, letting the others deal with it.
And if your high-Wis, low-Int characters feel like they're missing out on all puzzle solving, either tell them to make a high-Int character, or, as the Game Master, run an adventure that doesn't always involve puzzles and hack n' slash. High-Wis characters are amazingly fun in games focused on character development, while boring and sloppy in hack 'n slash / puzzle solving games.
One of my all time favorite character's was a cleric with high-Wis and low-Int. He never even attempted to have input with puzzles, but since the campaign was not puzzle after puzzle, and was more focused on plot and character development than strategy, he REALLY shined (Kudos to the DM for that one)!
-Toven
"Mechanically, it seems like the best answer would be to have players roll to see if their character is clever enough to come up with their revelation. The trouble is that this solution sucks for actually playing: players will feel gypped when they can't use their ideas, and they'll feel cheated if their character can't make the roll to come up with a (possibly plot-related) idea on the spur of the moment."
-Iridilate
Okay, first of all, why do we even consider rolling dice to come up with an idea? Rolling dice in table-top gaming came from war-gaming (like Chainmail) and at a time when this new concept of Dungeons and Dragons was basically what we now call "hack 'n slash". Are we still bound to making random rolls because we are to inept to play out our characters?
Secondly, what kind of players do you have and what kind of adventures are you running that players feel "gypped" when they are not "puzzle-solvers"? What kind of homogeny is it that brings the expectation that role-playing means equal opportunity for all to be detectives? My advice is to tell your players to try their hand at enjoying something DIFFERENT. As far as modeling characters off of types of people in the world, I know many people that hate puzzles and have different motivations and goals. Play a righteous character, or a dumb one; or a character with a brilliant mind to solve puzzles but hates them, instead focusing on moral dilemas in logical deconstruction and reconstruction.
In what light has a discussion on the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom in gaming gone to the specific tangent of puzzle-solving without regard to moral, emotional and social means? It just seems very much "the tip of the iceberg."
-Toven
If you really can't handle it, i say make characters with your real life levels in Intellegence and Wisdom. Then, nobody can doubt your descisions are correct. If you're really so smart that Planned Character Generation won't let you do it, you've got a lot better a future then gaming, don't you?? That way, you get a penalty if you're too smart.
The numbers on your character sheet are for measuring tangible, quantifiable values. "Intelligence" and "Wisdom" are nothing but aptitudes for certain skills and abilties. They can't possibly be more than that, no matter what arbitrary names we assign them. Let them dictate your own cunning and decision making abilities, and you're no longer playing the game: the game is playing you.
Ultimately, your character has no mind of his own. If you want to cut yourself out of the decision making loop, invite you friends to sit down with munchies and watch a movie. Maybe play MST3K together instead of D&D. We role-play to take charge of our own stories, not to become a passive audience.
Excellent points Giacomo!
Giacomo does have a point, but I don't agree with it all the way. I roleplay in order to play the part of a character, not myself in a clown suit. And if I don't deem my character sufficiently clever or sophisticated enough to come up with a certain solution, then I usually forego that solution in favor of a simpler one. That usually happens if my character is about to say something that would be totally out of character for her. I'm not about to craft elaborate and fool-proof plans just to prove something about myself. I want to play a role.
Anyway, over to something different - the beginning of the article. The one that stated: "First and foremost among these is the challenge of playing a character with a higher intelligence or wisdom than the player."
However tangential this question was to the rest of the article, I found it more interesting. Possibly because it is a so much more generic quandary than the rather d20-specific question of Wisdom contra Intelligence. Or, to put it simpler, roleplaying a high Intelligence is a very common problem, whereas the Wisdom stat is a concept virtually exclusive to d20.
And whereas acting smarter than you are is an interesting challenge, I don't think it's that difficult to do, really... at least if you define intelligence as a combination of problem-solving aptitude, memory and speed of thought.
Memory is the easiest. While I don't suggest a high intelligence should automatically imply photographic memory, it is easier to remain on top of things if the freakishly smart character's player is allowed to jot down notes and such. Even if the character _does_ have a sucky memory, it will allow the player to keep track of small details and thus have a clearer picture than the players of "dumber" characters. This especially helps with the problem-solving aspect, as the player will have all the clues at hand.
A quick-witted character presents its own problems. The gamemaster can allow the player additional time to think, simulating a higher mental reaction speed. The gamemaster could also give the player warning before something bad happens, because the character is that much quicker on the uptake.
Patterns and shapes can be easier seen when you're very intelligent. The gamemaster can clue in the highly intelligent character's player to the fact that something is off about seemingly unrelated events that have jogged the character's subconscious.
Finally, keep in mind that this is roleplaying, guys. You already gain a few points of Intelligence compared to your characters simply by the fact that the GM doesn't deliver nearly as much junk data as the real world. Nearly everything the GM says is relevant in some way, and that means a lot of your problem solving abilities can be devoted to something else besides trying to decide what information to keep and what to discard.
And, of course, we're all roleplayers, and therefore smarter than everyone else. But you already knew that. :)
A simple way to imput the difference in wisdom and intelligence, is simply this: An intelligent man who smoked, would know that smoking was bad for him. On the other hand, he may as well lack the wisdom to stop. In other words, He may Know that smoking is bad for him, but hhe may not have the perception or common sense, to stop.
"Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad."
As for the riddles and things, yeah, it's hard to come up with something clever that the group can figure out without having them roll dice to see if they know the answer. I've resorted to clues and puzzle pieces that can actually be put together to come up with an answer instead of relying on PCs to figure it out on their own. This way, everyone gets to participate, and when they have all (or sometimes most) of the pieces, the answer reveals itself.
scooter
mini chopper
pocket bikes
e scooters
"A simple way to imput the difference in wisdom and intelligence, is simply this: An intelligent man who smoked, would know that smoking was bad for him. On the other hand, he may as well lack the wisdom to stop. In other words, He may Know that smoking is bad for him, but hhe may not have the perception or common sense, to stop."
Willpower, in other words?
I've done that very analysis with some fairly simple Javascript, though I think I no longer have the script or the results (it was more of a boredom and curiosity thing than any kind of real research). Nevertheless, it would be easy to reproduce.
I seem to recall the average was actually quite low, somewhere around 11 or 12...
just 2 notes:
first, there is a short discussion of int-wis-cha relations in the 3rd (or ist it 3.5th?) edition of the PHB.
second, regarding players solving puzzles vs. rolling to solve them: these are actually two different situations. the first one is when you want to see if a character is able to deduce something or knows a relevant bit of information: then roll away. however, if you put an actual puzzle into an adventure... you probably want them to solve it. in that case i suggest this: if you produce a difficult puzzle, you can also prepare some clues in advance; you can then hand some or all clues to characters with high Int (or with high perception, in case of physical clues) as thus make it easier for the "smarties" to solve the puzzle while still not robbing them of the chance to think.
I think this is the most aptly put. I'd take it (because I have to simplify things, or make things plain) to be Int... having the information; Wisdom.... knowing what to do with it.
I know the reply is late, but I only just found the site. :)
What I've seen in Adventure! is an cute twist on Wits : for every dot about 3, once a game, you can ask the GM for an NPC to give you a feeder line for a witty comment. For example, the NPC who is ranting at you could be requested (OOC) to say, "If you were my husband, I'd poison you!" Which, as you have prepared the line, would leave you ready to reply, "And if you were my wife, I'd drink it!"
Something like this could be useful in puzzles; at a certain score in Intelligence / Wits / Whatever mental stat you felt relevant (but that's another issue :D), you'd be given hints in puzzles. This leaves you as a GM the opportunity to make puzzles hard enough that the players - while having a chance to get it - don't necessarily *have* to, leaving some of it up to their characters, in the form of hints. (I found this worked well in a freeform I once played in, *almost* solving this great big mystery, and having the GM fill in the final gaps for me. It also helped wrap up one of the plots, so all was good. :D) There's be a balance issue as to exactly how hard you'd want the puzzles, or blatant you'd want the clues, but it's an idea, nonetheless. :)
When I have characters that have a high IQ being played by someone with an IQ that is somewhat less, I handle it differently. In the riddle example above, I would let the players make guesses and add in Intelligence Checks. Each successful IQ check would give that player a clue (due to their characters intellect). Then the player could continue trying to solve the puzzle. The more they made their IQ check by, the bigger a clue I give them. Thus if you have 2 characters, one with an IQ of 13 and one with an IQ of 17, they can both roll an IQ check. If the character with a 13 IQ rolls a 5 and the one with a 17 IQ rolls a 10 then the they would both get the same clue (as one made his by 8 and the other made theirs by 7). The smarter character would have a better chance of getting better clues more often. This way, the players still have the satisfaction of solving the puzzle (or riddle) on their own, without having to be made to feel stupid or having the game bog down.
As for playing a character with a low intelligence if you have a high IQ... If you wanna play a character that's smart and comes up with good ideas because YOU'RE smart and come up with good ideas, then play a smart character. I hate it when people stupid characters as geniuses. Play a dumb character as a dumb person. To do otherwise is completely out of character and should not be tolerated. Unless you are playing an idiot savante, you're not going to be coming up with ingenius battle plans.
I know that I have addressed two different posts here. Sorry.
"Victims, aren't we all?"
I have never thought of that. What a neat way to have riddles and still let players answer them without getting completely frustrated. Thanks for the input-- I'll add it to my box of tricks. =)
You're welcome Sir! Anytime.
I think people take the rules, attributes and allignments too seriously. Sure, they can help us in some situations, but if you are using them all the time, I find, it gets really boring and the adventure seems lame, no matter how good it really is, because then you are playing out of a book and not your imagination.
WE are the characters, aren't we? If I'm a fighter with a low intelligence and I come up with a cool idea or strategy, why can I not use that idea? Just because some low number is written next to INT?
In fact the DM should reward me for great thinking and give me extra XP.
Your article is great in showing the difference between INT and WIS, but in a game situation it doesn't always work that way.
Intelligence is the ability to find the answers. Wisdom is the ability to choose the most appropriate one, imho.
Riddles and puzzles often have a specific answer or solution (or at least a limited set). I handle them such that the whole party discusses their ideas and provide a single answer based on their collective intelligence/wisdom. Even those of little wisdom or intelligence can have a totally unexpected insight via luck. I want the party to work as a unit as much as possible. This is my rationale for keeping things rolling with the role playing and avoiding the rolling of a die.
As for traps, that's the rogue's job. The rogue is dependent on both wisdom and/or intelligence depending on the chosen skill set.
My 2cp.
Hehe... I love playing a rogue with low wisdom and low intelligence.
"Oh, wow. So that's how that trap works? Um, sorry guys."
Here's my take on it...
I see where you're coming from with saying "WE are the characters"...but sadly you aren't. If that was the case, you'd likely have far less stuff (or at least different stuff) written down on your character sheet; and if you are me you would have a much lower attack bonus, AC, and reflex saving throw. YOU are the player...not the character.
However if you come up with a good idea, as someone else said, this could be luck on your characters part, and should be rewarded for it...whether it be with bonus XP for quick thinking, or some other in-game reward.
As for using stats all the time making the game boring and lame...it does happen sometimes, but it' the nature of the beast. As a GM, I try to run "by the book" (but not necessarily OUT of the book) whenever I can to provde my players with consistency of approach in all situations. As a player though, all gloves are off. My GM doesn't make me stick to my character sheet when decideing what I'm going to do in a given situation; but she does stick to "the book" when decideing what modifiers will apply to my roll or the DC I'm facing.
It's a fine line, but part of remembering that it's a game is remembering that the game has rules for a reason...balance.
I have never had problems with my player's misusing their stats, or over/under playing certain numbers. I HAVe had to explain my views on int-vs-wis and what seperates them as individual stats. I don't fully agree on what this aritcal paints the two stats as. I do not see wisdom as a stat that cuases one to ponder, and inteligence as a stat that cuases one to know...and I don't understand the whole "int asks what, and wis asks why" thing...Thats seems more confusing then the already confusing point behind this whole thred.
I can't say the way I do things is better then anything you are doing already, alls I can say is we never have problems with this sort of thing, so it must suit both my players and myself (the gm)just fine.
The way I have always seen wisdom vs inteligence is that wisdom is "knowing" by feeling or common sense...inteligence is knowing through text-book information and learned factual info.
A schooled man points to the cumungulus cloud, pointing to its weight, pressure and velocity...tells us that its anvil shape and dark insides means that warm weather has struck a cold front quite hard, and that the rain will begin soon due to physics and nature.
A wise man simply pulls out an umbrella and says "I just knew it was gunna rain"
Wise men (such as clerics who follow the way of the Gods) are intune with forces that govern their world. They do not need to consult a bunch of books on ethics to know poison is wrong, they do not need to join a class on astrophysics to understand the movment of the stars. they lack the proof in writing to prove they truly "know" things of complex nature, but they without a doubt seem to handle these things with a weird ease that only comes from "just knowing" whats up. They are wise, they don't need to read a physcological fact-sheet on an individual human's nature, they just know by looking into his eyes. Like grandpa...like Buda...like Confusious. And I know people won't agree, but seriously...that is wisdom.
Inteligence is knowing through fact, Books, schooling, education through study of real science. What a wise man says "don't worry how I know, I just do" the inteligent man says "I KNOW, and heres the proof". A educated man dosn't nessarly have the wisdom to use the info he has aquired correctly in the world around him, but he is certified and fully credited in his science and information. He has spent much time searching the world for real mechanics and uses them to aquire more abilities and skills (hence why really smart people get extra skills...in game and in real life).
I agree with Calamar, and how he allows those with higher int-scores to get more hints and feelers for the right answers to problems in game. I too do this. If a player sports an 18 int, I somtimes just simply give the riddle's answer to him. Lets not forget that Einstein was considered "not that bright" by other leading minds of his time. He couldn't tie his shoes, he couldn't work an elevator, and he didn't understand basic princibles of time till he was 16 years old. He could very well have a 10 inteligence (thats above average...most people forget that). This means that an 18 inteligence is quite impossible to imagin for us normal minded people. I refuse to stump somone that inteligent with a little riddle on a wooden door, written my morons who built the dungeon.
The same goes for wisdom...If somthing is going to go wrong, if things are not really "right" with a situation, I will tell those with higher wisdom that "somthing is weird here", I wont always point out directly what it is, but I will hint at the root of it is the score is really really high, or simply just give them the answer if its huge.
Wisdom and inteligence are easy to understand if you just read the definitions in a dictionary...
The way this original poster of this artical made both scores seem, seems like he wasn't thinking much about how wisdom and inteligence are used in "real life"...
Sifolis said: The way I have always seen wisdom vs inteligence is that wisdom is "knowing" by feeling or common sense...inteligence is knowing through text-book information and learned factual info.
Well put. I think most here would agree with that. Nice analogy with the cloud example, too.
The DMs in my group (me or whomever's turn it is) also give hints to PCs with higher intelligence scores, and nudge the higher wisdom characters when something doesn't seem right. It's my impression that the better DMs do this rather than make their players suffer through riddles or other scenarios where the player just can't see the answer but the character would (or at least have a better chance of figuring it out).
Yup...we do that too. It simply doesn't make sense for high minded PC's to make bad choices because the player can't make good ones.
Obviously, it's something that can't be abused...otherwise every player would max out their INT and WIS scores so that they always figured everything out.
But, I'm not above nudging when it seems appropriate.
Bingo. But I will say, that I don't see anyway to abuse giving away information. When you have a table of players, you often find most of them maxing out combat related stats, and people never pay attention to the other stats.
I think you might call how far I take this to be "abuse" since somone with 16-18 int almost never needs to think before he answers cus I (the GM) will give all or most of the answer to the player. Making it an auto win, or so easy that the player slaps his head and says "duh". I turn riddles into baby talk or child's play becuase of high wis or int almost always. This cuases alot of players to become scholars in my game (high wis/int). These same players tend to not use high scores in the other game we play, cus the GM dosnt think he should be forced to give his answers away...after all he did think them up (with his real life int of 9).
That brings me to another problem I have, DMs often are afraid or reluctant to "give" away answers or allow NPCs to die. I have a huge riddle box that took my players three weeks to beat cus no one had a high int or wis, so i forced them to answer the good ol fashioned way. But when they re-entered with a mage with int of 17, I simply gave him every answer. The trick is never letting a trick or trap rely on just one score. But all those riddles were freebees for that mage, and I gave him every answer like I usually do when a matter of inteligence or wisdom is forced on a player with high scores.
But, I also do this with all scores. Everyone knows in my game there are three magical rolls of Charisma to be made when dealing deeply with anyone. These rolls are made to bond and become true friends. The first roll is made when first interacting with the NPC. if the first roll succeeds the player has made a good first impression and is allowed a 2nd roll when he wishes to make it (now, later or never....minutes, days or years after the first roll). The 2nd roll deals with the more personal issue of "does the NPC actually want to hang out with you". This means that yeah, your first impression was great, the guy thinks your cool and all, but are you the type of person he would enter a friendship with? If this roll succeeds, then again, the player can decide when he wishes to make a third roll. if the third roll also works, the player now has won the NPC over fully. There is a trust, a common bond, a inside realtionship between the two. These rolls are often made over the span of months to years, but can be made in the same night if the situation seems right for bonding.
If the player fails any of these rolls three it dont mean the NPC hates them, plots agianst them, or tend to give them the cold shoulder, it simply means the NPC is not forced to "love" you. They can still love you, devote much energy to a friendship etc, but they will do so for in-game reasons, not cus you swayed thgem with your amazing ability to charm people with your wit and style of jib.
We have found a way to make all stats equally interesting, and no one stat can solve every problem. I see many players choose high charisma so they can be the diplomat, I see many players choose high wis just so they can judge the outcome of any natrual sistuation better. I see people choose inteligence to rip my riddles to shreds, and of course we all see people make strength, dex and con their strong stats. But as long as DMs see the game as "mostly combat" the players will tend to waste all high scores on stats used to kick ass. In my game high int and wis can make a player very popular in any riddle-box or overly confusioning mechanical situation.
Sorry if I lost my way with this post, but I'm typing too fast to care.
This brings up an interesting question...what are the most common "high scores" in everyone's campaigns? Most players in my games go for a high Dexterity and Charisma...they've learned by now that the kung-fu-movie-set-piece style of combat encounters suits a high Dex over Strength, and that the social interactions are going to be just as important if not more so than the combat encounters.
Do most peoples players tend towards the high Str/Dex combo unless making a magic user?
It all depends on the class.
Ftr: Str/Con
Thf: Dex/Dex ;)
MU: Int/Dex
CL: Wis/Con
and so on
Its either a bruiser picking st/dex/con so they can kick all ass to end all ass.
Or they move towards the scholar type who wants all the smartsy skills.
I will say that my campaign setting is very kind to scholars. they go down in history, bring new technology to the realms, become huge foundational figures in cultural evolution etc. Since every chapter usually takes place 50-300 years later, the influence and impact of retired PC scholars is usually evident in all forms of culture across the realm.
Sure fighters go down as mighty scions who duked it out in some great war or two, or get mugs raised to them for eternity in every pub known to man, as warriors pay homage to the PCs who slew alot of monsters...but scholars brought gun powder, whole realms of science, discoveries in time travel, realm jumping and spiritual advacment of entire races.
I'd say more people play the smart-types these days. But our games hold 5-15 people at any given time (usually 8-11), and there is never a shortage of bull-bodied sword-junkies.
Some folks like to bump the standard.
I have a player who is a fighter (a kensai in 2nd Ed or a weapon master in 3rd) who likes to pump up his Wisdom score when given the chance to do so.
And I've never played with anyone who gave a fig about Charisma -- but that might just be me.
Charisma is such a good device for NPC/PC interaction. I strongly reccomend exploring its importance when you run a game. No single stat is more useful then another, or more of an integral part of them game then another. They are all equally useful when the DM knows what he is doing.
Ivbe played in many games where certain stats are ignored or less-used, and those games are always run by a GM who dosnt understand the game and usually fails to exploit his roll as game-master to its full possibilities.
back to work...
Back when comeliness was a stat (AD&D), we made great use of that as well as charisma. I had a mage who had a very low comeliness score (appearance was quite ugly), but a very high charisma score. The DM and I were able to play it out as if the mage, although unattractive, held a great deal of influence by his leadership ability and ability to command respect due to his art.
This was a case where the DM did understand the more complex aspects of the game; however, I agree w/ Sifolis that many don't delve quite deep enough.
The only quibble I have here is that I don't think casting a stat aside necessarily means that the GM doesn't understand the rules -- I've chosen to ignore stats and other rules for a variety of reasons...but failure to understand the game was never one of them.
But, I will agree that Charisma is usually the most under-used stat (especially in D&D rules, any flavor) and that is unfortunate.
Ok, it might not mean that the GM has forsaken the idea behind the game, or that the GM is lost on the subject of good game-running, but I still must say- when I play in a game and the GM is totally ignoring or underplaying a given stat it tends to wear on the player's view of the GM.
I played in a realm where a GM was saying that INT wasnt a stat, that we could be as smart as we played the PC, this was such a smart move in his eyes, but to the rest of us we were like "wha? Dude, I'm a stoner in real life, but my wizard is 8th level"...how is that possible? Before long tha GM started finding snags in his game play. PCs were all often told things like "well, since your a wizard, you WOULD know all about this subject" or "since your assumed to be pretty smart, Ill say you already know of that stuff".
now thats an easy way to handle it I guess...but an easyer way would be just to use the fricken stat. I can't tell you how unsettling it is to PCs to see a artsy-fartsy DM trying to re-invent the wheel at the at the mercy of the PC's understanding of the rules. Its quick and never really thought out.
I guess you say when you remove stats from a game, that you had full understanding of its impact...I still must wonder if your PCs like when you do this. It dont matter if it works, fails or just sorta-kinda-works....all that matters is if your player's dig the re-figuring of the rules to suit what ever motive you had to remove a stat from a balanced game.
I for one could see playing a game without a stat, but it would take tooling, re-tooling, test-play and a whole bunch of refigning of the matrix behind what that stat was once used for. It would also without a doubt have unforseen effects on matters that no DM could forsee becuase no one can tally up all possible things effected once the stat is removed.
Sure it can be done...you can also eat a bike, peice by piece (saw a guy do it on Ripley's) after sawing the bike into tiny chicklet sized bites...but why? really...why would you do that? dunno, prolly to get attention "Look! theres the only dude who ate a bike! I think it was a huffy!"...well I for one aint gunna remove stats so my players can say "hey look theres the DM who thinks strength isnt needed in his games!"...its silly.
I am interested in knowing what it IS that made you remove stats from your game, since you said it wasnt the lack of understanding rules.
Sifolis said "...I think it was a Huffy."
Heh... that was funny =)
From time to time, I ignore combat rules. If the rules are bogging down a fight and time is a factor, I might curtail or throw out some combat rules to get the ball rolling. Players usually don't mind 'cuz this usually works in their favor.
Why do this? 'Cause my players and I only get about 2-3 hours a week to actually play. If it's 09:45 and everyone has to leave in 15 minutes, but I know it's gonna take 30 more minutes to kill the 10 orcs that they're up against...eh, I speed things along to make sure we get to a good stopping point. This has nothing to do with understanding the rules...it's about doing what's convenient for the group.
Another stat I've *never* used is the comliness stat that Old Timer mentioned. And...I honestly couldn't say why...other than we're not in a situation often enough to remember that the rule is there for it. I wouldn't call that lack of understanding (tho some might).
cumlyness was removed many years ago for good reason (some say..I do), and making a random battle shorter isnt bad in my book (ive done just that, not enough time, screw the orks, we all know you got this battle licked), I wouldnt call either of your points a lack of understanding.
But removing an integral stat from the game is just dangerously risky. Perhaps your players dont mind, but every stat is equally loved by certain PCs and players alike. No one stat is more usful then another...Removing one, or finding reason to remove one would mean that you found it useless or silly...and if you found st,con,wis,car,int or dex-useless or silly, then THATS a lack of understanding not only the rules, but the potential of individual stats...Each one has great worth and is very important...if anything-adding a stat would be somthing I would do. But id never remove a stat from the game...damn, thats just a waste of good mechanics. Throwing the baby out with the bath water...
If you find one stat unworthy of your campaign, I strongly suggest you look deeper at the stats possibilities within game play. A realm of just dex,st,int and con is just 1 dimensional and lacking the finer stats that give story and role-play a back bone. The stats most people say are stupid or not worthy of high scores usually have a DM whos not fully using the spectrum of stats within his game, or the player is just thinking too little about what a high stat in somthing OTHER then a battle-stat or get-more-spells-stat can really do for them in a robust world of fantasy...
Sifolis said: A realm of just dex,st,int and con is just 1 dimensional and lacking the finer stats that give story and role-play a back bone.
In my experience, I would have to agree with this sentiment. I have found players that focus A LOT on the "core" stats are more roll-players than role players.
I'm working on a generic system myself, its similar to gurps in that its skill based, but ive changed the abilities around a bit,
I basicaly took Str Dex Con Int Wis, then dumped Cha for Mental Strength, or Mst
Basicaly I always hated that in D&D, Cha was the dump stat, it was unimportant, it could be forgon for others, usualy there where key stats for all the classes and the others just didnt matter, Mst tries to fix that by incorperating shock into the game, and is modiefied by it,
But ive ran into a connundrum, Wis and Int now seem less important Wis because all it does is let you be a little moar perceptive, and Int because its a generic system, so there arent levels and thus, no bonus skills,
I really dont know how to solve this. I'd like these to be usefull again.
I don't have any answers to offer without knowing more about your system, but I feel I should point out that in 3rd edition D&D Cha is definitely not a dump stat - when my group converted our campaign to 3.5e there was a rush of requests from players who wanted to retcon their stat allocations to get a decent Cha score. Many of which I allowed as I never really felt comfortable with quite so many ugly, personality-deficient heroes with halitosis wandering about the place ;-)
It sounds like you may have started at the wrong end of the problem. Most people like to build stats first because they appear first in the d&d books. Figure out your game mechanics; figure out your action; figure out how your skills are going to work. Then, go back and decide if you need stats and if so which ones.
I have always considered Mental Strength as a component of Wisdom though, so I see your problem with overlap.
I have my system mostly figured out, I havent fleshed it out yet but the outline is there, its kind of a hybrid between gurps and D20 uses d100 and d10s, its skill based, you buy skills with points and they allow you to do various things different skills are harder or easier to learn, theres advantages and dissadvantages like in gurps running the gambit from mundane extrordinary and supernatural, saves are here, will for mental effects, fort for physical and reflex for awareness, i was never happy that fighters didnt need good reflexes, so this will modify your reaction to things rather than the action you take, making a reflex save allows you to react to things like supprise attacks, obstical mechanics need to wait till i can get records of what the avarage guy can pull off, but I'm running 1 second turns
I've given more thought to int and wis, and while i thought of a few ideas none of them where good enough, I can make int/wis requirements for things, but that gets people to raise them only just enough, I want there to always be a reason for you to add a point into Int like other abilites
The Difference:
Sorcerers need Wisdom
Wizards need Intelligence
End of story.
All the points above are valid as far as I'm concerned. The only right answer is to let your players decide how to do it. After all this is a COLLECTIVE story experience. So you need to all decide on what is the best course to take otherwise it will be a negative session. I have a player at the moment who is frustrated with other players - playing a higher intell than their rolled number. 'But they wouldn't think of that' he keeps arguing. And, from a rule point of view, that is correct. But then again, as someone said above - if we wanted to simply let the numbers dictate the characters actions we'd have to roll for every action, and then the DM would need to say what the character comes up with.
So there has to be a balance between using the numbers for numbers sake, and using your own noggin for all the fun stuff.
But I've only just found this community and I love it!
Well, then we welcome you, Yanek. Stay awhile and tell us what you think, though it may take some time to read the novels we call comments around here ;)