# Role Playing Intelligence



## kitcik (Jan 10, 2012)

Grogg of the North said:


> There is nothing more dangerous to a monster than a clever player.






Grogg of the North said:


> Though sometimes PCs can be thicker than mud.




These quotes reminded me of an interesting question I've been meaning to pose - how do you have your players role-play intelligence?

I mean, if the player is really strong (or weak), their character can only act within the confines of their Str attribute.

What about intelligance?

Do you allow a character with an 8 intelligence to do brilliant things because their player is brilliant? If not, how do you stop it?

Conversely, if your moron friend is playing an 18 Int wizard, do you grant Int rolls for them to realize things that the player has not?

EDIT: Also, as a player how do you handle this?


----------



## Crothian (Jan 10, 2012)

It's a group game.  Sometimes the smart player comes up with a great idea his character wouldn't think of.  But the wizard character would so in game that is who thinks up the idea.  I don't punish the players for being smart.  Though I will sometimes come up with two puzzles one for the Engineer genius and another simpler one for the rest of the group.


----------



## NiteCyper (Jan 10, 2012)

kitcik said:


> How do you have your players role-play intelligence?
> 
> I mean, if the player is really strong (or weak), their character can only act within the confines of their Str attribute.
> 
> ...




I'd be laissez-faire.



Spoiler



Topic: Player intelligence vs. character intelligence

Let me preface by saying that I have little experience, having only played and DMed less than five times, but I theorize often.

How that I would have my players role-play intelligence is that I would let the game role-play it for them and let them roleplay it as much as they want. Similar to physical performance, there are mental performance checks in-game and they are there precisely to determine character smartness and how well it does for them. I would allow a character with 8 INT to do brilliant things because their player is brilliant, because eight is two points below average. Brilliant plans are not exclusive to the above average in intelligence; they are just consistent and correlative to those with above average of our conception of intelligence. Our conception of intelligence is vague: "Numerous definitions of and hypotheses about intelligence have been proposed since before the twentieth century, with no consensus reached by scholars." I'd let the player adjudicate themself if they decide that what they would otherwise do is not possible by their conception of their character; The player can not do whatever they do want not to do.

If I believed that a plan was too smart for their character to formulate, I'd work with them to have that be their plan anyway by having an NPC suggest the plan. This garners the best of both worlds, roleplaying appropriately low intelligence, but benefiting from one's own knowledge. If I believed that a plan was too dumb for their character to formulate, I'd give them subtle hints as to a better plan and/or I'd retcon so that they have a better plan. For example,
Player: "I lockpick."
DM: "You notice that the padlock is made of iron. Surely, easier to be broken than picked with your mace which is made of stronger stuff." Granted, such wording is condescendant. A check (e.g., Spot) can be pretended to be rolled, to mislead that their PC figured it based on their own wits. 

I've often heard people recount in pain their group's Barbarian who had sub-10 INT , but roleplayed dumber because they believed otherwise. By the numbers, two to three is what marks the threshold to minimal human sentience. Three = full lingual capability. Parrots and great apes are on the brink of human baby talk intelligence. The pack-hunt tactic of flanking can be considered smart, but the animals formulating the tactic have sub INT 3. Yet, Steve the Half-Orc Barbarian with INT 8 will still act stupid enough to abandon flanking tactics.

3 INT, minimum WIS, and formulating ingenious master-plans? I'm going to draw the line at 3 INT: once past and above 2 INT, you can formulate any plan. What of INT 3 humans? They could formulate the plans, but perhaps they can't convey them well. There are people with cerebral palsy that only have impaired motor functions, but they can claim to not be mentally handicapped. If that's the case, despite being able to formulate master-plans, they could still be considered mentally handicapped. There's more than one part to the brain for the intelligence score to affect. To keep things simple, there's the 3 INT milestone and the rest is up to the player. Anyone can recall a time when they decide to abandon flanking tactics despite having average intelligence. 

Keep in mind, an 18 ability score is considered tremendous. Characters regularly possess ridiculous ability scores and that's hard to roleplay. Generalizing the issue:
"How do I do stuff that I can't actually do?"
"The game establishes mechanics for actions. For example, although you may not be able to wield a greatsword in real life, you can play a Half-Orc Barbarian with 18 STR and the game calculates you swinging a greatsword to attack something by having you roll a d20, adding attack modifiers, then rolling for damage, adding damage modifiers.
Another example: Although you may not be able to bluff to your mom in real life, you can play a Gray Elf Rogue with 18 INT and the game calculates you telling a lie to deceive someone by having you roll a d20, adding skill modifiers, then having the victim roll for Sense Motive, adding their own skill modifiers. 
In this way, you can do what you normally can't, both in a physical sense and a mental sense."






Tackling the issue anew: 
A player can metagame to have their character know everything about  their opponents? No. I meant that I'd be laissez faire with roleplaying  intelligence which is different than knowledge. 

Player intelligence vs. character intelligence is believed to require adjudication because of the feeling of  cheating when thinking smarter than one believes that the character  thinks. One must establish whether or not it is cheating and wherefore the feeling originates. The feeling originates from preconceived notions of intelligence levels. Intelligence levels ability score numbers are examined:

Is setting fire to an enemy camp a tactic that an INT 3 Half-Orc Barbarian could come up with? 
Just what separates INT 0, INT 1 (being higher than 0), INT 2 (being  lower than 3), and INT 3 (at which "a creature of humanlike intelligence  has a score of at least")? 
Can an animal come up with the idea of setting fire to an enemy camp? No. 
Can an animal learn to set fire to an enemy camp? Yes. 
Can an animal learn that setting fire to an enemy camp is good? No.
Can a creature of humanlike intelligence come up with the idea of setting fire to an enemy camp? Yes. There is no plan a creature of humanlike intelligence cannot conceive. Plan sophistication vs. hammer-time can be taken up as an issue in turn-based combat and the metagame itself as a different topic. Idiot savants are a perfect example of paradoxes to that issue, emphasizing that intelligence is multifaceted yet woefully determined by a single ability score.


----------



## Greenfield (Jan 10, 2012)

I played a stereotypical "Big Dumb Fighter" in a 4e game, I had a schtick for him whenever the group needed an idea or a plan.  I'd raise my hand at the table and, in a slightly thick "dummy" voice, go "Ooooh Ooooh, I know, I know.  I have an idea!".  Then, when called on, play a lost look and say in a small voice, "Never mind.  It's gone." </anecdote mode>

I tend to give RP bonuses for exceptional play.  So if the 8 Int character keeps acting like the 16 Int player, it will be noted, pointed out, and he'll lose out on that Exp.

Over all, you have to go with the Rp on it, because there's really no way to tell someone that they can't use an idea they have.  So reward the good RP, particularly when it results in the PC's using a less than optimal plan in order to stay in character.

It's actually pretty common for player characters to play smarter than their players are though.  The player has several minutes to think of something that the PC has only seconds to deal with.  

The hope is that they'll actually make good use of that time.


----------



## Grogg of the North (Jan 10, 2012)

Figured I should weigh in since I'm partially to blame....

Should the dumb character be able to do things his smart player comes up with?  Well, the few times I've had that scenario in my games usually its the player saying "No, I'd never have come up with that."  Though I've always been of the opinion that a "dumb" character could stumble upon or come up with a simple solution to a problem.  So if it's roleplayed well, then I'd allow it.  With good roleplaying, anything should be possible.

If the character has super-human level intellect, then giving the PCs a simple int or wisdom check to remember things is a common thing I do.  Plus, for the characters it may have only been one or two days while for the player its been two weeks since we've last met!  

"Give me a wisdom check.  Okay, you remember that the Prince was looking for someone to help him with a problem."

Something as simple as that allows the game to keep moving if the players are blocking on what to do next.

The problem I'm running into my current game is meta-gaming players.  "Oh it's a <insert monster> it has <insert abilities here>!"  

Now with all that being said, I am currently playing an 8 int barbarian.  And yes, I do play him MUCH dumber than he'd probably be.  I do that because 1) The majority of the group enjoys it and 2) He has reason to act that way from his past interactions with people.  

Finally, you may consider reading this:
Reality Refracted: Discussion: Do We Need Mental Attributes?


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Jan 10, 2012)

I've seen a high INT roleplayed a few different ways, and it depends on the other mental stats.  

Booksmart- This is the "Knowledge" skill style player, the typical wizard.  Knows 'About" things, but not necessarily clever, or social.  This is a High INT, Low WIS, low CHA.
Strategist- This is cleverness, the ability to put into action whatever it is you know, be it a lot or a little.  This is High INT, High WIS.  
Street Smart- This is more of a social intelligence, making descisions based upon the effects and reactions of others.  this is High INT, High CHA.

I played a CN Gnome Wizard who was plenty smart, but selfish and snarky.  his Charisma score was dismal, and he'd occasionally snub his allies which was unwise.  But he knew stuff.  

I played a NN Chameleon who was Clever, and was also a secret black market smuggler.  He had all his mental stats really solid, but he was actually a con artist and used other party members for his own gain.  

With all of that said, I encourage my players to work together as a team and discuss everything before acting.  They do so most of the time.  Therefore it's often the combined intelligence of all the players/characters that factors in and so I don't really reward/penalize/comment on individual RPing of mental stats.

And besides (I can say this because none of my players visit this forum), not all of my players are very bright IRL.  I love um, but not all bright.


----------



## Greenfield (Jan 10, 2012)

My BDF did come up with ideas and plans, but I limited them to the "Notice the Obvious" category, figuring a simple mind like his would tend to think in direct and simple ways.


----------



## Jacob Marley (Jan 10, 2012)

It is easy to play dumber than your actual intelligence; it is very difficult to play smarter than your actual intelligence.

In my games, Intelligence modifies the mechanical areas of the game that the rules state it modifies (such as the amount of skills a character receives). Tactics, critical thinking, and puzzle solving are role-played however the player chooses to role-play them. I do not regulate it. If the 8 Int fighter solves all the puzzles while the 18 Int wizard twiddles their thumbs, well, so be it. Though, since we are all friends -- and we are all skilled in different areas -- we tend to self-regulate so that the spotlight tends to shine fairly on each characters' contributions.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 10, 2012)

All interesting points of view - thanks!

While it may be easier for the motivated (presumably by a desire for RP) player to play dumber than he/she actually is than smarter (impossible?), it is probably easier for the DM the other way around. You can give people hints & checks to make them smarter, but there's not much you can do to make them dumber (besides rewards for good RP as [MENTION=6669384]Greenfield[/MENTION] mentioned).

As a player, it is probably most difficult to RP average intelligence (given that role players tend to have above average intelligence) since it is hard to determine which ideas your character is too smart or too dumb for. Then I find you have to fall back on a version of "the party thought of it" type RP.


----------



## xigbar (Jan 10, 2012)

For competent players; Most characters that don't use intelligence aren't able to do many tactically intelligent options. Wisdom can be just easily used for doing creatively brilliant things that make DMs raise the eyebrow. If they can do smart things, they probably use Int or Wis. You don't really much Int for the few Fighter options that use it, otherwise, you don't need to worry about knowing how to do more than hitting things, since it's mechanically all they really do. 

For incompetent players; You should *always* make sure your players get the rules basics. 

Realistically, the Intelligence score of high level wizards implies they should already be crafty enough to figure out all these dirty tricks on their own without the 4th wall's intervention.


----------



## Dandu (Jan 11, 2012)

kitcik said:


> As a player, it is probably most difficult to RP average intelligence (given that role players tend to have above average intelligence)



Bah humbug.


----------



## Empirate (Jan 11, 2012)

When I DM, I like to give exceptional knowledge and insight to the players of PCs who have a special niche in which they're experts. For example, the Int 10 Barbarian/Fighter in my last campaign frequently had moments of tactical understanding and insight: even though he was of average intellect, in his field of expertise (he was an army officer), he was very competent and could even tell the mage what to do from time to time. This was a collaboration between the (very intelligent) player and me giving hints.


My own character, whom I play in a different group, is an Int 20, Wis 8, Cha 12 Wizard. I find him a bit hard to roleplay from time to time, but I've already had a lot of fun in pure RP situations, as well. I'm roleplaying his low Wis as mainly affecting his situational awareness and perception: I'm not in Calimshan anymore, but I regularly try and bribe the good, upstanding people of Tethyr, because that's what was socially acceptable back home; people are really depressed and down, so I try and lighten the mood with a bad joke that totally backfires; the situation is dangerous as hell, we have to be vewy, vewy kwiet indeed, but I simply forget about it for a second there and yell at somebody over a minor issue. Stuff like that.

At other times, I try and play against the stereotype for a bit. For example, when I met a childhood friend again after many years (another PC), and she told me about the rough time she's had, I could sympathize well enough and even give insightful advice about how to cope with her personal crisis: I know her, like her, and am focused on her problems when she tells me about them, so my usual 'head-in-the-clouds, not-really-with-you-guys mode' doesn't come into play. My character _is _rather likable and good with people he comes to care about, after all (Cha 12).

Problem solving, quickly grasping the essentials of a problem, remembering important information, tactical stuff - all those are governed by intelligence, as far as I'm concerned. So in these areas, my character is supposed to be brilliant, and I'm trying to use my brain as efficiently as possible when these things are called for.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jan 11, 2012)

In my latest game the DM basically said "if you as players can think of it, it'll work."  It's the simplest way to go about things.

There are definitely some times where you have to adjudicate certain responses though.  For instance, when the character is more knowledgeable than the player.  I remember one time my cleric rolled for a Knowledge: The Planes check and succeeded with a 25ish, and I honestly had no idea what to say, so I BSed an answer.  What I probably should have done is have the DM say what my character knew.

That's usually what it will come down to in a good game:  The DM and the players work together to tell the story.

As far as the player knowing certain things the character might not, I find it's best to do relevant rolls and go with the result.  Got an Int 16 plan but roll about a 10 instead?  You're smart enough to make it a bit half-baked.

Roleplaying below-average characters is kinda similar.  You might just roll dice and hope you get lucky enough to pull out something fantastic.  Some people might find that emulating someone they know is effective, if a bit insulting in a way.


----------



## Jimlock (Jan 13, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> Over all, you have to go with the Rp on it, because there's really no way to tell someone that they can't use an idea they have.  So reward the good RP, particularly when it results in the PC's using a less than optimal plan in order to stay in character.




This


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 13, 2012)

I don't have a problem with "Big Dumb Fighter" coming up with brilliant small unit tactics. He's got an Intelligence score of what, 8 or 10?

Wolves have an Intelligence score of *two*.


----------



## NiteCyper (Jan 14, 2012)

Greenfield said:


> I tend to give RP bonuses for exceptional play.  So if the 8 Int character keeps acting like the 16 Int player, it will be noted, pointed out, and he'll lose out on that Exp.




While novel, this can be rebuked for the possibility of undesirable shaping. 

"Dude, what are you doing? You aren't supposed to bla-bla-bla."
"But my last DM rewarded us for it." You are deciding what is good roleplay, passing judgment on a player's roleplay efforts, and connecting what roleplay that you like, to power. Moot if you play for just the numbers, but otherwise...

*Intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic *
When children were told to finger-paint explicitly for a reward, when later they were posed with the opportunity to fingerpaint, they were less likely to do so of their own volition. That is the consequence of extrinsic motivation called motivation crowding theory. 

When fingerpainting children were given a reward because they were finger-painting without foreknowledge, they were more likely to fingerpaint of their accord. They didn't start finger-painting FOR a reward, they did it because they wanted to and then were rewarded for their innate desire. That's intrinsic motivation. 

So, while RP XP isn't all bad, pointing out that one'll lose out on RP-XP extrinsically-motivates (and thus motivation-crowds), making players less likely to RP without the promise of a reward. One can decide to only reward for successively better RP-performance. Do not be so hasty in giving your horse-players a lick of that salt-cube of power, lest ye are nipped in return for more.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 14, 2012)

kitcik said:


> Do you allow a character with an 8 intelligence to do brilliant things because their player is brilliant? If not, how do you stop it?




Absolutely yes. One of my _worst_ gaming experiences was being prevented to speak up too many good ideas related to solving the plot because my PC had low Int.

You can have dumb players play genius wizards, can't you? How are you going to _force_ them to play smart if they aren't capable?

I say, always reward a player that is playing smart. If then the player decides to purposefully do something dumb "because my half-orc barbarian would surely do it", reward her as well for roleplaying well 

Anyway, there are mechanics in the game that _will_ give a low-Int character some penalties, no matter what the player does.



kitcik said:


> Conversely, if your moron friend is playing an 18 Int wizard, do you grant Int rolls for them to realize things that the player has not?




I've done this sometimes, for example I often used puzzles to open doors, disable traps and so on. Normally it's always best to make solving such puzzle not the only way to proceed, but sometimes it happens that you thought they would have solved it quickly and instead they got stuck. I'm not against granting an Int roll to give them a clue at that point, but I won't just hand out the solution.

But then puzzles and plot are not something that are resolved by individuals, they are challenges for the whole group (of players!).



kitcik said:


> Also, as a player how do you handle this?




I play at my best  But yeah... occasionally I have purposefully done things that weren't the smartest or most convenient. I have to say however, that this happens to me much more often because I am playing someone _good_, not someone dumb


----------



## NiteCyper (Jan 14, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> notions about puzzles



*_slams the table_* Submit the evidence!


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 14, 2012)

Just to make it clear... when I say "reward the players", I didn't mean to give them XP for good roleplay. I used to do that in my very early DM days, but I changed my mind long ago. I just meant "let them get their own reward" which is the natural outcome of their smart choice (and let them know you appreciate)... don't punish them or rule0 that they can't do it.


----------



## Empirate (Jan 14, 2012)

NOT a "my fun is better than yours" post; just an observation on what the fantastically ambiguous term "good roleplaying" has come to mean in the group I've been gaming with for more than a decade:


I feel good roleplayers should easily be capable of playing dumber than they, the players, are. Constantly shooting out solutions to puzzles and well-crafted tactical plans when you're playing an Int 6 Half-Orc Barbarian smacks of "I need good Str, Dex, _and _Con! I have to dump _some _attribute! But I still should be rewarded for being smart as a player, even if I choose not to roleplay!" to me.

Dumb players not "roleplaying" smart characters well has nothing to do with this: a slow player simply isn't capable of coming up with all the clever things an Int 18 Wizard will pull out of a hat on a regular basis. That's not bad roleplaying, it's simply outside the player's limitations. A good DM will make sure the player doesn't feel compelled to always play the abovementioned Int 6 Barbarian.

A smart player OTOH, especially a smart guy who's also a good roleplayer, can dumb it down - that's _within _his limitations. He can and should restrain himself from always taking those moments of spotlight other players (of smarter PCs) may feel should be reserved for their characters' talents.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 15, 2012)

Empirate said:


> I feel good roleplayers should easily be capable of playing dumber than they, the players, are. Constantly shooting out solutions to puzzles and well-crafted tactical plans when you're playing an Int 6 Half-Orc Barbarian smacks of "I need good Str, Dex, _and _Con! I have to dump _some _attribute! But I still should be rewarded for being smart as a player, even if I choose not to roleplay!" to me.




No, because puzzles, plot solution, and overall strategy are not resolved by the PC, they are inevitably resolved by the players. Call them "metachallenges" if you want.

If you want a puzzle to be solved by the PC alone, probably you could just tell the group "here there's a puzzle, everybody makes an Int check" and no need to even describe the puzzle. Which obviously is not a suggestion...


----------



## Sir_Mathius (Jan 15, 2012)

personally since i never DMed such a situation i can only speak from a player's perspective, as a player i try my best to act as i see my character acting, and if the party wizard happens to be acting like a moron, if the DM allows I pass him a bit of advice or try to give him some of my better ideas that as a character i would not be able to implement.


----------



## Empirate (Jan 16, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> No, because puzzles, plot solution, and overall strategy are not resolved by the PC, they are inevitably resolved by the players. Call them "metachallenges" if you want.
> 
> If you want a puzzle to be solved by the PC alone, probably you could just tell the group "here there's a puzzle, everybody makes an Int check" and no need to even describe the puzzle. Which obviously is not a suggestion...




True enough, puzzles are a hard thing to implement in a pure roleplaying environment (which is the main reason why I mostly eschew puzzles in my campaigns). Plot solution, strategy etc. are roleplayed in my group, though. We've had quite a few interesting moments where the characters' morality, mental faculties, or cultural background prohibited them from taking the (to the players) obvious road to salvation...


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 16, 2012)

Empirate said:


> True enough, puzzles are a hard thing to implement in a pure roleplaying environment (which is the main reason why I mostly eschew puzzles in my campaigns).




I love puzzles, but my main reasons for using them sparsely is first that it's hard to find a really cool puzzle, and second that to be cool it must be a good challenge, the consequence of which is that _it must take time to solve_... it cannot be solved to quickly. This means the best time you can deliver a puzzle to the group is at the end of a gaming session, and timing such thing may not be easy. (Also, if you think there's a chance they _won't_ be capable of solving it, then you must remember to provide alternative solutions to get past it, or otherwise not make the puzzle an adventure-blocker but rather an extra-treasure-enabler) 



Empirate said:


> Plot solution, strategy etc. are roleplayed in my group, though. We've had quite a few interesting moments where the characters' morality, mental faculties, or cultural background prohibited them from taking the (to the players) obvious road to salvation...




I actually like those moments! But when thinking of Intelligence rather than morality, the scenario I have in mind is typically the "who's the murderer?" case. I cannot imagine a group of players who purposefully ignore what they believe is the solution, to better roleplay their low-Int characters, o who silently wait for the lesser-gifted Wizard player solve the case by himself.


----------



## Empirate (Jan 16, 2012)

Sure, if plot solution is all about connecting the dots, player smartness (or lack thereof) comes into play heavily. But it's still fun to have a player groaning that his character would probably not see the obvious and follow the killer Doppelgänger (whom he takes to be just an attractive serving wench out for his - you know)... alone... into the cellar...


----------



## Meatboy (Jan 17, 2012)

Int and Wis are areas where I like to make judicious use of skill checks. If the characters ask what do I know about (whatever) make a check and viola answers.  OR if a character is about to do something foolish, but have a high Wis then I just have them make a roll and maybe politely ask them if they are 100% sure that is what they want to do.  

One always has to let the player make the decision but if they have good stats I like to help them out occasionally.


----------



## Meatboy (Jan 17, 2012)

[MENTION=9249]Viktyr Korimir[/MENTION]
True but could they articulate it to the group?


----------



## TrueSpade (Jan 17, 2012)

I got a question: What if your character is too smart to play? (Like has an Int of over 30+)

I can't talk like a Ph.D ALL the time. Can a High Int character talk "normal"? Is that even conceivable? 

What if his Int was liek, 100+ O____o'


----------



## kitcik (Jan 17, 2012)

TrueSpade said:


> I got a question: What if your character is too smart to play? (Like has an Int of over 30+)
> 
> I can't talk like a Ph.D ALL the time. Can a High Int character talk "normal"? Is that even conceivable?
> 
> What if his Int was liek, 100+ O____o'




Speaking: no worries, keep your trap shut. Stephen Hawking can't speak after all.

Other: you don't have to act like you have 30 or 100 Int, just like you have a higher Int than the baddies and no one will know the difference. This means having a higher Int than the DM. Hmmmmm.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 17, 2012)

TrueSpade said:


> I can't talk like a Ph.D ALL the time. Can a High Int character talk "normal"? Is that even conceivable?




High Intelligence doesn't mean that you're an intellectual or even educated, and trying to "talk Ph.D" all the time is actually going to make you less credible unless you have that kind of educational background yourself.

The trick to playing a very high Intelligence character credibly is to remember that he doesn't have to think *better* than you-- unless the other players are that much smarter than you-- he just has to think faster. The game structure already allows you to do that. Think up a couple of clever plans in advance, and don't mention them until they "come in handy"; then pass it off like your character just thought of it.

Also, personality quirks that give an impression of high Intelligence. Make up a list of things your character "thinks about"-- specifically in case someone ever asks him what he's thinking about. If your character ever explains *why* he did something, use a weird justification.

Have you ever seen _Tango & Cash_, with Sylvester Stallone and Kurt Russell?
[sblock]At the end, where they're facing the bad guy in a funhouse mirror and they both immediately shoot the same mirror and kill him? They both make the right decision immediately, but Cash made the decision based on common sense-- the man's wedding ring-- while Tango made it on more specialized knowledge: the monogram on the man's suit. Wisdom and Intelligence.[/sblock]

Ask a lot of questions, in and out of character; in-character, focus on "what if?" Then act thoughtful when you get the answers.


----------



## Ragmon (Jan 17, 2012)

Here is an interesting example of a hight INT character: Goblins  Archive  02/21/2009  - but you might have read this comic anyway.


----------



## TrueSpade (Jan 17, 2012)

Ragmon said:


> Here is an interesting example of a hight INT character: Goblins Archive 02/21/2009 - but you might have read this comic anyway.




This comic is funny hahaha I wish I had seen it sooner


----------



## Empirate (Jan 18, 2012)

I have a Ph.D., and I can speak normally... no really, I even say  and damn a lot quite regularly (though not when giving a talk to a bunch of colleagues)!


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 18, 2012)

Empirate said:


> I have a Ph.D., and I can speak normally... no really, I even say  and damn a lot quite regularly (though not when giving a talk to a bunch of colleagues)!




And me, with all of my technical vocabulary and legalistically precise grammar? High-school dropout.


----------



## Ragmon (Jan 18, 2012)

Viktyr Korimir said:


> And me, with all of my technical vocabulary and legalistically precise grammar? High-school dropout.




I think that is the cause of a low Wisdom and probable High INT...or just some personal background issue.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Jan 18, 2012)

Ragmon said:


> I think that is the cause of a low Wisdom and probable High INT...or just some personal background issue.




Well, now, that's six of one or a half dozen of the other, isn't it?


----------

