|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 7:12:32 GMT -8
I don't give them answers. I give them clues or hints that might lead them in the right direction. I tell players that I give data not information - meaning I do not interpret as a mediary between player and player's character. So I can tweak my data, sort/filter it even, to give the player a sense of intelligence without taking away agency. The Eureka Moment remians with the player. Other players get innundated with data..... Simple example... An old man is walking his German Sheppard at 3mph for one hour headed south on Main Street, passing a girl in a black skirt. The girl is chewing gum and waiting for a black SUV that pulls up. You have all seen this girl and the SUV before. You recognise the plates. PC with High INT gets the clue: The seed is strong. (Whoops, sorry! I mean: the old man tied/filtered to "data" aka find him.) Depending upon the INT he gets to see a map with a legend in miles, feel or without a legend at all. The table will be asking about the girl, the SUV's license plates. They may even ask about the old man's dog or even about the relevance of the dog/red herring. The player playing the high INT I will focus on the old man. Math problems were like this for me back when I was in 6th grade. I will be partial to the high INT player with the data I give same as my teachers were with me in math. They did not give me the answer. They helped guide my path to it. The success was mine.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 7:28:15 GMT -8
High intelligence and the ability to problem solve are different concepts . . . Problem solving is more a learned skill which is better expressed as either education or life experience. Successful problem solving strategies can be taught and improved . . . Without altering IQ . . . Learning a successful problem solving technique doesn't mean that you are smarter than before just better equipped to use what you have. Again the computer analogy for cognition . . . Better software will (hopefully) run better without changing the hardware or IQ . . . Unless it puts too much demand on the hardware requiring an upgrade to run smoothly ie if you don't have the requisite IQ you will simply not be able to process a given problem solving strategy successfully through to its conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 7:45:16 GMT -8
Of course, the player is not going to sit the player's character IQ test, Aaron. The trick will be in the lower intelligent player playing at a high intelligent level or/and coming up with better "intelligent ideas" than the other lower intelligent PCs.
The GM is the software in your analogy. The teacher in mine. The GM in JiB's.
We're not supposed to make the player's IQ match the player character. We're supposed to make the fantasy at the table more accessible while, at the same time, taking away neither the player's fun nor player agency.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 8:08:25 GMT -8
No no you misunderstand . . . The ability to solve a problem isn't really an issue of intelligence. That's the common misnomer . . . We confuse educated people for intelligent and assume high intelligence equates good problem solving. Tappy was closest . . . it's about pattern recognition and memory and recall . . . The only mistake Tappy made was to equate it with cognition. Cognition is very different from IQ. A low intelligence person with experience and education can make good decisions provided he can recall the details . . . High intelligence is often reflected in the speed of reaching the end goal not the accuracy if it. All I'm trying to say is that the player doesn't have to handicap their insights because of their intelligence score . . . And that high intelligence doesn't equate success or accuracy. A lot of very intelligent people have been very wrong about things in the past . . . Think about pre-Einstein theory regarding the behaviour of light . . . I may be intelligent and process information faster and recall more accurately but that doesn't make my conclusions right. Conversely I may be less intelligent and process information slowly but my observations may still be very accurate . . .
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 8:22:41 GMT -8
In fact Stu's GURPs example of a highly intelligent character is really good . . . Because it demonstrates a real truth - here was a character with a high IQ who was unable to exploit the advantage due to a lack of opportunity. If he had been faced with a time crucial problem solving task then I'd have given him extra time to solve the problem to simulate his IQ . . . But the actual task of problem solving, that would come down to Stu the player with the information he has been given and the questions he asks. Unless he had a relevant character knowledge skill that could contribute to solving the problem . . . Demolitions when faced with a bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Sept 20, 2012 8:26:00 GMT -8
Something we didn't touch on in the show: it's also relevant system you're playing.
D20 games have Int and Wisdom, and that affects the conversation on intelligence, as some of what people are talking about as Int might be better covered by Wisdom. Whereas in GURPS and SW you have one fat uber stat (Int/Smarts) which covers the gambit of mental abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 20, 2012 8:46:26 GMT -8
You beat to the punch Stu I was just going to add SW's Smarts as being an exception - because it describes something different. When you first reviewed SW I remember you all being a bit suspect of it being called 'smarts' . . . In hindsight the designers were being rather clever in renaming the stat. PS: I'm really happy Tappy is back on board again . . . He was noticed by his absence. I did fear that a year off from the Boggards was code for a year off from the Podcast . . . I enjoy, though not always agree, with the way he thinks about games (and especially his taste in porn)
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Sept 20, 2012 8:58:37 GMT -8
I have seen a few ways of handling the 'smarter than the player' issue.
The 'idea check' everyone involved in a certain activity (at that time - no jumping in with "I'll roll too!" ) can make a relevant skill check. Success and the skill used will flavor the 'hints' from the GM. So multiple hints could be given out. Failure could lead to a red herring that indirectly puts the group in position to ferret out the real lead.
If the GM just thinks some facts are missing that the PCs need, pick the PC with the highest relevant stat and do a 'you remember' bit.
Really what it comes down to is how the GM and their players interact. If it works for you and yours => keep doing that.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 20, 2012 12:08:48 GMT -8
Then I get perspectives like this from my group that display how little the GM is involved with some players (making note about my egregiousness at Sir Guido's blog post that I am certainly a Douchey DM): "...but the same way one can have fun from the story, having a character that can do things IS part of the fun... so the person who wants to play a wizard but rolled low and got a 12 intelligence wont have fun as he can never be a good wizard and never be able to cast anything but 2nd level spells! Similarly the fighter with the strength 8 will never hit and never do any damage and as such its only reasonable that unless his character is designed as the comic relief he wont get enjoyment out of it." Be sure, Stu, with a player like this having the 26 Int/Smarts from your anecdote, the GM's course of action is clear: you may as well turn over the GM's screen, your adventure notes and just watch unless you have 27 in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 21, 2012 9:21:06 GMT -8
Interestingly New Scientist 8th sept 2012 (been sitting in my bag until today . . . Forgot I bought it the other week) has nice article about IQ, intelligence and it's application in a two page interview with Professor James Flynn. The same gentleman who identified the 'Flynn Effect' - an observation that "worldwide, IQs have risen by up to three points per decade over the last century" (New Scientist, vol 215 no 288, 8/09/12 p26). So maybe the average gamer is a genius? . . . using flawed logic and compared to the average gamer a century ago . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2012 11:47:10 GMT -8
What was the name of that minis game that uses playing cards as the randomizer again?! WANT to play!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2012 11:50:15 GMT -8
From the little I've read about this player, it seems the thing she enjoys most about the game is acting as her character. Yep - that's her - and I don't have any problems. She is an improve performer on the side and when she role-plays - she really role-plays. Before starting the game Frank, did you sit down with everyone and go over what type of game you'd be playing? Long story short - I inherited the game along with the players and their characters as well as what campaign they wanted run. After our talk, I completely revamped my character into something that was more appropriate for the type of story we were playing. Bummer that you had that experience. Right now we're running Jade Regent for Pathfinder because that's what they wanted to me run for them. She is well aware of where her character fits into the current game and her antics are great role-play fodder between the other PCs in the group. I have greatly expanded the about of role-play in our campaign then the GM I took over for and try to find a good balance of both sides of that coin. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out between the group though, because one of the other PCs almost died last game while her character was filing her nails... Myself - I'll never INTENTIONALLY kill of someones character (as the implication was made more in jest) however we run a VERY deadly game with dice rolled in the open. I try to run my monsters with tactics and valid motivations and most of our players will go through several characters through the course of the campaign... let alone the possibility of a little PvP action... Sorry my one liner got your dander up I can tell I must have hit a nerve... Sorry bout that... ;D
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Sept 21, 2012 22:37:04 GMT -8
Regarding playing a character who is smarter than the player.
As was mentioned earlier, it seems to me the answer to the question has to be rooted in the system. In a game with a separate Wisdom and IQ stats, it would seem to me that “common sense” and “problem solving” type examples would usually be more in the wisdom stat, so it would depend on how those two figures work together.
For the GURPS IQ 26 example (and pretty much any system that has IQ as an uber-stat), had I been GM, Stu would have one way or another figured out how deep the hole is, simply because he has a 26 perception. As GM I would consider him basically be a superhero at any mental skill he had, and able to use most/all mental skills at the negative level (because it was only for a limited amount of time).
The hard part of this is that Stu’s character would not magically have any more knowledge that he did not have before. If he was an ancient Greek scientist it would take longer than a few hours to make new knowledge, like create a telescope for instance. Instead all the knowledge that he has would be immediately accessible, he’d be faster but not magically with more knowledge than he already had. So that would put the pressure on the GM to see how far he could push his new brain, basically I’d treat him as if he were like a mentat from Dune, a superhumanly fast thinker about things he already knew.
Again for GURPS, the high IQ wizards are always the guy who notices: hey, that guy doesn’t look right, or: hey, did you hear that, or: I think it’s the left path back to the city. That is a function of the system that assumes that smarter people pay closer attention, which would also be the case of most heroic fantasy books and films. Of course in GURPS, if you don’t want to pay attention, you take the appropriate disadvantage to blunt it, so you have the absent minded professor etc.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Sept 21, 2012 23:39:04 GMT -8
Regarding playing a character who is smarter than the player. If he was an ancient Greek scientist it would take longer than a few hours to make new knowledge, like create a telescope for instance. Archimedes ! Archimedes ! Archimedes ! Mwahahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 22, 2012 0:59:04 GMT -8
Regarding playing a character who is smarter than the player. As was mentioned earlier, it seems to me the answer to the question has to be rooted in the system. In a game with a separate Wisdom and IQ stats, it would seem to me that “common sense” and “problem solving” type examples would usually be more in the wisdom stat, so it would depend on how those two figures work together. For the GURPS IQ 26 example (and pretty much any system that has IQ as an uber-stat), had I been GM, Stu would have one way or another figured out how deep the hole is, simply because he has a 26 perception. As GM I would consider him basically be a superhero at any mental skill he had, and able to use most/all mental skills at the negative level (because it was only for a limited amount of time). The hard part of this is that Stu’s character would not magically have any more knowledge that he did not have before. If he was an ancient Greek scientist it would take longer than a few hours to make new knowledge, like create a telescope for instance. Instead all the knowledge that he has would be immediately accessible, he’d be faster but not magically with more knowledge than he already had. So that would put the pressure on the GM to see how far he could push his new brain, basically I’d treat him as if he were like a mentat from Dune, a superhumanly fast thinker about things he already knew. Again for GURPS, the high IQ wizards are always the guy who notices: hey, that guy doesn’t look right, or: hey, did you hear that, or: I think it’s the left path back to the city. That is a function of the system that assumes that smarter people pay closer attention, which would also be the case of most heroic fantasy books and films. Of course in GURPS, if you don’t want to pay attention, you take the appropriate disadvantage to blunt it, so you have the absent minded professor etc. Yep knowledge is crux and the generation of new knowledge . . . Innovation and 'taking that leap of faith' in applying two knowledges in a non traditional manner to come up with a solution is a much about circumstance and luck as it is to do with IQ. The eureka moment in the bath tub with Archimedes relied as much on the circumstances of the moment as his inspiration . . . Had he not been contemplating a related problem at the time of bathing he may never have made that connection. It is believed by some that Einstein's working in a patent office exposed him to thought, ideas and knowledges that he was later able to use when he created his Theory of Relativity (especially submissions based on incorrect assumptions which prompted him to consider a more viable solution). Having a high IQ doesn't mean you'll be right . . . If your knowledge is faulty you'll draw faulty conclusions . . . But you might also be aware that your assumptions are wrong without being able to (yet) provide an alternative - the search for a unified theory of gravity is a good example as we know that at a sub molecular level quantum mechanics works and at a macro level relativity works but they don't play well together at all . . . The Dune mentat is a really good example . . . Speed of processing is the key . . . A high IQ is like a bigger better CPU on a computer the problem solving component is down to the software installed . . . A slower CPU can still crunch the same numbers and execute the same function just slower (unless it's under spec at which point it just crashes).
|
|