Quote from: JohnnyWannabeYep, I think so.

Awesome! I can't wait! Did his whip-weilding mistress kick him out?

-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....

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?

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!

-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.