Highly Intelligent Character

[whitekeys]

Three requests:

 

1. Are there currently any guides, here or elsewhere, on how to play/create highly intelligent characters, or characters that have access to information that other characters do not?

 

2. Can you list any fictional characters such as described above? Sleuths, detectives, savants, highly evolved aliens, or characters who regularly use technology to aid them, like techies. Not ones from your own role playing games.

 

3. How do you view the apparent role playing paradox that a character knows something a player does not? Not in regards to the narrative story, but in regards to their own character's knowledge. For example, a character that can fix internal combustion engines should be able to answer the question "What parts do you need to fix it?" but the player may lack the lingo. It's also not something the GM would necessarily provide with a skill roll since the GM may lack that same knowledge. 

[Surrealone]

1. Here's a decent enough guide: http://www.superheronation.com/2012/06/23/writing-highly-intelligent-characters-and-points-of-view/

 

2.

Can you list any real life fictional characters such as described above?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real life fictional character' since that's an oxymoron.  (After all -- something that's 'real life' is necessarily non-fictional.)  Thus, the only way I can make sense of this is to answer for 'real life people or fictional characters'.  Using that as a guide, I can readily name the following sleuths, detectives, savants, etc.:

• Einstein (real person)
• John Nash (real person)
• Frank Abignale (real person)
• Sherlock Holmes (from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels and short stories)
• Raymond Babbit (savant from the movie Rain Man)
• The Oracle (from The Matrix trilogy of movies)
• Eddie Morra (from the movie Limitless) when he's taking NZT
• Dr. Gaius Baltar (from the Battlestar Galactica TV series reboot)
• Dr. Gregory House (from the House M.D. TV series)
• Mr. Spock (from the Star Trek TV series and movies)
• Data (From the Star Trek TNG TV series)
• Reed Richards (from the Marvel comics)
• Tony Stark (from the Marvel comics)
• Victor von Doom (from the Marvel comics)
• Alexander Joseph 'Lex' Luthor (from the DC comics)  

3. I don't see a paradox associated with roleplaying a character that knows something the player does not -- specifically because Hero system has skill rolls to account for things the character may know that the player does not.  Such rolls include but are not limited to: science skill rolls, AK skill rolls, KS skill rolls, professional skill rolls, deduction rolls, tactics rolls, etc.  If a player is unsure of something and feels the character might know it, s/he can always inquire as to whether s/he can make the appropriate skill roll ... and if the GM answers in the affirmative, then a successful roll should result in the GM filling in the gap between what the character knows that the player does not.  A wise and perceptive GM can also have the player make this kind of roll when s/he (the GM) feels the character should know or perceive something to which the player is ignorant or blind.

[Beast]

1 do not just jump in watch and observe

   buy skills for areas of expertise you wish to be good in 14-(talk w/ your gm )
   buy scholar and KS's like super powered world/Criminal underworld/law enforcement proceedures/Creatures of myth
   buy overall skill levels  to get help from everywhere
   buy Perks(get others to help you/access to data bases you cannot afford
   buy skills like Elelctronics/Mechanics/computer programing/system operations/Inventor
 

2 Batman/Iron Man

 

3 learn to fake it and roll with it
   that is why it is called a ROLE PLAYING GAME

[TheQuestionMan]

http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Enhanced_Intelligence

[TheQuestionMan]

Polymath 

Universal Scholar (20 active points) - Advanced Player's Guide II 

Universal Scientist (20 active points) - Advanced Player's Guide II     

Universal Jack Of All Trades (20 active points) - Advanced Player's Guide II 

[whitekeys]

I thought I was being funny when I said "real life fictional". I think it's a funny phrase 

 

But what I meant was characters from fictional works, comics, movies, etc. as opposed to characters that you've created for your own role playing games. Sorry for the confusion. I will edit original post.

[Crusher Bob]

You can try reading here, but that is mostly comments about writing intelligent characters.  Also realize that part of what you may be asking about is the 'social stereotype' of intelligent characters, not 'actual' intelligence.

 

So, for example, we may note that knowing how to win fights by knowing where to make your character move and who to hit first and how to get the other people at the table to follow along would generally make your character good at combat, but has nothing to do with what's written down on your sheet. 

 

So, are you asking something similar about player vs character intelligence?  If the character is supposed to know something (like who the guy to hit first in fights is) but the player hasn't the slightest idea, then what do you do about that?  Some things can be easily handled by skill rolls, like, say knowing how to fix automobiles.  You can just say, I roll my auto mechanic skill and do the best fixes with the time and tools available.  But people tend to start making frowny faces when you try to do the same thing with stuff that is normally much more tied to player actions (like social skills, or what actions to take in combat).  Alas, that quandry has spawned a million arguments.  So the best advice I can give you is have a discussion with the other players about how your table is going to handle that sort of thing.

[TheQuestionMan]

Insufferable Genius  

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsufferableGenius  

[TheQuestionMan]

Scientific Prowess  

http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_Prowess  

[steriaca]

There is a thread about Genius Tricks on the board.

[whitekeys]

You can try reading here, but that is mostly comments about writing intelligent characters.  Also realize that part of what you may be asking about is the 'social stereotype' of intelligent characters, not 'actual' intelligence.

 

So, for example, we may note that knowing how to win fights by knowing where to make your character move and who to hit first and how to get the other people at the table to follow along would generally make your character good at combat, but has nothing to do with what's written down on your sheet. 

 

So, are you asking something similar about player vs character intelligence?  If the character is supposed to know something (like who the guy to hit first in fights is) but the player hasn't the slightest idea, then what do you do about that?  Some things can be easily handled by skill rolls, like, say knowing how to fix automobiles.  You can just say, I roll my auto mechanic skill and do the best fixes with the time and tools available.  But people tend to start making frowny faces when you try to do the same thing with stuff that is normally much more tied to player actions (like social skills, or what actions to take in combat).  Alas, that quandry has spawned a million arguments.  So the best advice I can give you is have a discussion with the other players about how your table is going to handle that sort of thing.

Yes, it's more of about player vs character knowledge. But not knowledge that would be meta-game knowledge, I'm talking esoteric information that your character is familiar with but no one else is, including people in real life.

 

I'm aware that it doesn't pose a hindrance to the flow of a role playing game to lack some tidbit of knowledge, like how the Lorenz Transforms are supposed to be calculated in Special Relativity. You can ignore this paradox by simply rolling the dice to determine success and stating "My character knows how to do this." But I feel there are more creative ways of tackling that issue, it's more gamey that way and less role playey in my opinion. I wanted people to comment on how they view that, not necessarily how they overcome it. 

 

Furthermore, I also strongly object to the idea that the GM is supposed to fill in all those gaps, as was suggested by a previous comment. I feel like that gives all the creative license to the GM, when the players are just as creative, not to mention the increased burden of having to improv on the spot. I feel like the players become actors who don't know their lines or their roles. 

 

I feel like if you're going to write a character who is familiar with esoteric information of some kind, you should have something to say on the subject. And that goes beyond esoteric information, as well. It's your schtick, after all. That's a little bit like building a combat-heavy character but not bothering to describe any of your combat maneuvers... you just roll the dice and say "I hit". Thoughts on that?

[whitekeys]

The links are great guys, thanks so much. Especially the ones from Powerlisting.wikia with the reference to characters.

[Cassandra]

Traits of Intelligence Fictional Characters.

 

Cramming - The Ability to learn new things quickly.

 

Eidetic Memory - The Ability to remember things, especially when they might be important to the plot later.

 

Enhanced Sense: Perception +1 - The Ability to notice things with all there senses.

 

INT 18 - This is pretty close to genius level for most human beings.  Remember Einstein had a 190 IQ.

 

VPP - A variable power pool would allow a character to put together things like electronic devices, weapons, or even a set of powered armor with various items they might find in a lab, workshop, or cave.  They could have a restriction "Only in a Lab" or "Only Technological Items" but you never know just how brilliant a person is.

 

SL: Overall +1 - The ability to channel one's intelligence into the current project, focusing on picking a lock, breaking a code, or tracking down a signal.

 

 

And Let's not forget the Social Skills.  The Con Man who can get anyone to give them money through smooth talk.  The beautiful woman who can talk her away into high society through the promise of friendship.  The Gambler who knows when to hold them, and knows when to fold them.  The military genius who knows how to hit them where their not, or turns an inferior defensive force into an offensive one.  The Computer Genius who can hack a security system you can walk in and know where the guards are.

[Netzilla]

On the issue of player vs. character knowledge, my group tends to rely on each other to help out.  If, for example, someone in our group is playing a computer expert but are themselves only barely computer literate, I (a computer programmer) and one of the other players (a network admin) will help them come up with suitable technobabble explanations for what their character is doing.  If no one in the group has the requisite knowledge and no one comes up with something reasonable sounding (by comic book/Hollywood standards), then we just abstract it out to the appropriate rolls and move on.

 

On the issue of someone playing a character that is much more intelligent than they are, that's handled in similar fashion.  The GM might give that player more information on a situation than they would to the player of a different character.  When I GM, I allow players of such characters to get input from the rest of the group even when they're alone (6-8 heads being better than 1 and all that).

[zslane]

One has to be careful with Super Genius characters though, especially if they have absurdly high INT and Deduction values. Players will sometimes feel entitled to have the answer to every situation/puzzle handed to them. With characters like that, there is no "detective work" phase in a session/mission because all the carefully crafted mystery is simply side-stepped with a dice roll.

 

GM: "The giant Jack-in-the-Box springs open and you hear loud pre-recorded cackling. You see a note attached to the clown's nose. It reads: "What goes up and down, but never down and up?"

 

Super Genius: "I rolled a 6 on my Deduction skill. What's the answer?"

 

GM: (sighs) "Let's play Jenga instead."

 

Super Genius: "That doesn't make any sense..."

 

[Maccabe]

The answer is a HILL.

[Hyper-Man]

Here are the relevant excerpts from my rookie version of Mr. Fantastic.

 

Dr. Reed Richards
Mr. Fantastic

VAL    CHA    Cost    Roll    Notes
60    INT    50    21-    PER Roll 21-
20    EGO    10    13-
10    PRE    0    11-    PRE Attack: 2d6

Cost    Powers
20 The Ultimate Gadgeteer: Variable Power Pool (Gadget Pool), 14 base + 80 control cost,  (54 Active Points); Limited Power Technologoy Based Abilities Only (-1/4); all slots OAF Arrangement Fragile (Focus of Opportunity.  Uses parts he has on hand to work with.; -1 1/2), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; Jammed, Must be made each Phase/use, Can choose which of two rolls to make from use to use; -1 1/4), Extra Time (5 Minutes, Only to Activate, -1), Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (0 DCV; -1), Unified Power (-1/4)

[Notes: This is just an example slot.  Reed can come up with almost any needed gadget given the time and something high tech to work with.]
0 1) Transdimensional Gun!: Blast 10d6, Transdimensional (Single Dimension; +1/2) (75 Active Points); 2 clips of 12 Charges (-0) Real Cost: 12 - END=[12]

Cost    Skills
3    Analyze:  Combat 21-
3    Computer Programming 21-
3    Concealment 21-
3    Deduction 21-
3    Electronics 21-
3    Inventor 21-
3    Mechanics 21-
3    Navigation 21-
3    Security Systems 21-
3    Systems Operation 21-

Skills Total: 30

Cost    Perks
10    Money:  Wealthy
1    Positive Reputation:  It's Mr. Fantastic! (A large group) 8-, +1/+1d6

Perks Total: 11

Cost    Talents
3    Lightning Calculator
20    Universal Scholar 21- [Notes: APG1 page 49.]
20    Universal Scientist 21- [Notes: APG1 page 50.]

Talents Total: 43

HM

[freakboy6117]

LIMITLESS the movie and TV show both feature normalish guys who become superhumanly intelligent when they take a drug.

 

Interestingly they get all the types of intelligence not just cognition but emotional and kinesthetic etc.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

[Crusher Bob]

One thing you could try would be to rebrand luck to 'genius!'.  So every time the GM lets you, you can roll 'genius!'and then instead of being lucky, you can make statements about the game world as long as they don't blatantly contradict what's happening.  Similar games (FATE, Savage world, etc) allow for this sort of player editing of the world state, but Hero doesn't have any of this sort of mechanic built in.

 

Another possible rebranding of luck is 'I allowed for that in my plan!'.  So you buy, say, 5d6 of planning for 25 points.  And then when something surprising happens, you can roll your 5d6, and for every 6 you get, you can say something about how your plan allowed for this surprise.

[whitekeys]

One thing you could try would be to rebrand luck to 'genius!'.  So every time the GM lets you, you can roll 'genius!'and then instead of being lucky, you can make statements about the game world as long as they don't blatantly contradict what's happening.  Similar games (FATE, Savage world, etc) allow for this sort of player editing of the world state, but Hero doesn't have any of this sort of mechanic built in.

 

Another possible rebranding of luck is 'I allowed for that in my plan!'.  So you buy, say, 5d6 of planning for 25 points.  And then when something surprising happens, you can roll your 5d6, and for every 6 you get, you can say something about how your plan allowed for this surprise.

That's so interesting you mention this, Crusher Bob, because that is, in a manner of speaking, my modus operandi constantly, when I play and GM. It's one of the reasons I asked this question because I wanted to know how open other gaming groups were to the idea that players can take creative control of their environment just as much as the GM can. I feel like highly intelligent characters in one instance of player control coming up more frequently. For example:

 

GM: There's a massive problem that's going to kill a lot of people.

 

Player: Well, if my calculations are correct, we should be able to get this and that, attach it to the other thing, and it should save the world. (Without rolling, necessarily).

 

...as opposed to a character who might have had to shake down someone else for the information, a character who was more capable of just evacuating everyone really quickly, or or a character more capable of punching the problem into submission.  It's like... the idea that highly intelligent characters "know" stuff that gives them the authority to come up with pseudo-plausible solutions to problems. I would be crestfallen, to say the least, if I got "Nah, you can't do that" from the GM. It's happened.

[womble]

Yes, it's more of about player vs character knowledge. But not knowledge that would be meta-game knowledge, I'm talking esoteric information that your character is familiar with but no one else is, including people in real life.

 

I'm aware that it doesn't pose a hindrance to the flow of a role playing game to lack some tidbit of knowledge, like how the Lorenz Transforms are supposed to be calculated in Special Relativity. You can ignore this paradox by simply rolling the dice to determine success and stating "My character knows how to do this." But I feel there are more creative ways of tackling that issue, it's more gamey that way and less role playey in my opinion. I wanted people to comment on how they view that, not necessarily how they overcome it. 

 

Furthermore, I also strongly object to the idea that the GM is supposed to fill in all those gaps, as was suggested by a previous comment. I feel like that gives all the creative license to the GM, when the players are just as creative, not to mention the increased burden of having to improv on the spot. I feel like the players become actors who don't know their lines or their roles. 

 

I feel like if you're going to write a character who is familiar with esoteric information of some kind, you should have something to say on the subject. And that goes beyond esoteric information, as well. It's your schtick, after all. That's a little bit like building a combat-heavy character but not bothering to describe any of your combat maneuvers... you just roll the dice and say "I hit". Thoughts on that?

 

My view is that everyone involved should try and give the answer as much verisimilitude as possible. If it's a question anyone round the table has any expertise in, I'd expect the GM to allow them to chuck in their twopenn'orth once the Savant had made a successful and appropriate roll, and then the player of the knowledgeable character provides some sort of solution.

 

The GM isn't "required" to fill in all the gaps, but if no one else can, it's down to them to flesh out their world. Maybe that's by providing the Savant with more information, either about the problem, the resources available to solve it, or the metaphysics of the world, or maybe it's by giving actual names to solution components. If a GM was to insist on always "doing the designing" of the solution, once the Savant has proved they know what to do, via the abstract mechanic of the skill roll, it would, indeed, be constraining player agency unacceptably.

 

For a player to be able to make their character's esoteric knowledge credible in the game setting, the player has to have a good grasp of the game setting, or the GM constantly has to rein them in (or push them to the bleeding edge, where their character's brain would take them) to the paramaters of the metaphysic. Providing that grasp is, mostly, down to the GM. I find it rare to be in a group where players will do very much "prep" in this direction, and in a homebrew setting, the GM would have to provide the material for "study", which might mean committing thought to paper to a greater degree than desired or possible, so it all has to come across the table.

 

That's so interesting you mention this, Crusher Bob, because that is, in a manner of speaking, my modus operandi constantly, when I play and GM. It's one of the reasons I asked this question because I wanted to know how open other gaming groups were to the idea that players can take creative control of their environment just as much as the GM can. I feel like highly intelligent characters in one instance of player control coming up more frequently. For example:

 

GM: There's a massive problem that's going to kill a lot of people.

 

Player: Well, if my calculations are correct, we should be able to get this and that, attach it to the other thing, and it should save the world. (Without rolling, necessarily).

 

...as opposed to a character who might have had to shake down someone else for the information, a character who was more capable of just evacuating everyone really quickly, or or a character more capable of punching the problem into submission.  It's like... the idea that highly intelligent characters "know" stuff that gives them the authority to come up with pseudo-plausible solutions to problems. I would be crestfallen, to say the least, if I got "Nah, you can't do that" from the GM. It's happened.

 

I think that the idea that players can take creative control of their environment to the same degree as the GM to be contrary to the crunchy ethos of the Hero system. Numbers provide boundaries. Hexes provide boundaries.

 

For starters, the player almost always has to roll. Regardless of how good they are at problem solving. Sometimes that roll might be an auto-success, because they're extremely able and the task is trivial, so the dice don't need to be picked up, but the GM has the final say over what will, and won't, work, because they are the only ones who (should) have a complete picture of what is actually going on. A genius character might be able to figure out nearly everything, but if some key data isn't available, or the opposition is just as clever, there has to be a way of evaluating the imponderables, and that's exactly what dice mediate in tabletop RPGs.

 

An example from a game recently: the Bad Guys are making county-flattening plasma bombs. We've figured out how, and where, and the GM has set up a "Where Eagles Dare" situation for us to go all action movie and kill the super who's fuelling the bombs. One of the characters is a scientist, and part of her superpower is the ability to change the properties of materials she touches, but the player knows pretty much nothing about materials science, though the character does. The table, though, has some knowledgeable heads. We will gloss over the super-science, but the GM let us contribute to a plan which now means we don't need to assault into a mountain-top fortress full of SS mooks and possibly lots of Nazi supers, and which involves some stealth into a poorly-guarded hangar and have the scientist work her mojo on the bomb casings so that when they are used, they'll go off in the Germans' faces, killing the enemy super. In this case, it was just a matter of connecting the dots the GM had provided, using real world knowledge that the table as a whole had, and which was so basic that really the player of the clever-bonce character should have known.

[Crusher Bob]

One of the things we 'want' is for 50 points of being 'smart' to be around as useful as 50 points put into 'strength' or whatever.  Right now, i's very hard to judge what exactly you get, if anything, out of 50 points of being 'smart'.  Sure you could just role-play it, and give the 'smart' character some advantage, but there's also the fact that 50 points of STR is better than 25 points of STR, and there are rules to support how much better.  The role playing answer just gives 'some' help to the smart guy, but there are no real results from having 50 points of 'smart' compared to 25 points of 'smart'.

 

That's one of the reasons I put forward the rebranded luck idea.  You get more 6s by putting more points into genius! so at least there is some idea about how useful it is.

[bubba smith]

1. Here's a decent enough guide: http://www.superheronation.com/2012/06/23/writing-highly-intelligent-characters-and-points-of-view/

 

2.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real life fictional character' since that's an oxymoron.  (After all -- something that's 'real life' is necessarily non-fictional.)  Thus, the only way I can make sense of this is to answer for 'real life people or fictional characters'.  Using that as a guide, I can readily name the following sleuths, detectives, savants, etc.:

• Einstein (real person)
• John Nash (real person)
• Frank Abignale (real person)
• Sherlock Holmes (from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels and short stories)
• Raymond Babbit (savant from the movie Rain Man)
• The Oracle (from The Matrix trilogy of movies)
• Eddie Morra (from the movie Limitless) when he's taking NZT
• Dr. Gaius Baltar (from the Battlestar Galactica TV series reboot)
• Dr. Gregory House (from the House M.D. TV series)
• Mr. Spock (from the Star Trek TV series and movies)
• Data (From the Star Trek TNG TV series)
• Reed Richards (from the Marvel comics)
• Tony Stark (from the Marvel comics)
• Victor von Doom (from the Marvel comics)
• Alexander Joseph 'Lex' Luthor (from the DC comics)  

3. I don't see a paradox associated with roleplaying a character that knows something the player does not -- specifically because Hero system has skill rolls to account for things the character may know that the player does not.  Such rolls include but are not limited to: science skill rolls, AK skill rolls, KS skill rolls, professional skill rolls, deduction rolls, tactics rolls, etc.  If a player is unsure of something and feels the character might know it, s/he can always inquire as to whether s/he can make the appropriate skill roll ... and if the GM answers in the affirmative, then a successful roll should result in the GM filling in the gap between what the character knows that the player does not.  A wise and perceptive GM can also have the player make this kind of roll when s/he (the GM) feels the character should know or perceive something to which the player is ignorant or blind.

I think he means a la peter parker/spider-man

[whitekeys]

... it's down to them to flesh out their world. 

The perceived ownership of the setting is problematic for me, and, I believe, tends to result in such instances as I previously mentioned where GM's say "Nah, you can't do that." I realize that's probably the standard, for the GM to create the world, but my games always begin with a conversation between all people around the table, coming to some kind of understanding about how the world is supposed to function. You make lots of other great points in your post.

 

Regarding the example you gave, I have a question. Suppose the GM had not necessarily anticipated the solution struck by the Science-super. How would you perceive the GM's hesitancy to allow such a plan to be executed? Of course, this is a line of questioning heading towards "Whats to stop me from making up those kinds of "solutions" all the time?" where, it may not be as obvious for each problem presented by the GM. 

[akrippler]

Am i just reading it wrong or is cramming lackluster? In 5e it says 8 hours to get a 8- roll. Why would you even spend time and points just to get 25% success chance on a base roll?