INT question

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

Fast does not equal accurate or powerful. I know many people who consistently make unwise decisions or stupid mistakes' date=' and do so very rapidly.[/quote']

Well, OK, but I would call that, "fast acting," or "fast deciding," rather than "fast thinking." Intelligence and decisiveness are fairly independant variables.

[pinecone]

Re: INT question

 

How high does a character's INT have to be to be a member of Mensa International?

 

Also, is such a membership a perk?

 

I'm a member and I don't consider it a perq.....1 pt at most

 

The way Int works in Hero I don't believe there is any connection, I'd be happy with Einstein having a 9 Int (absent minded and unobservant) and still be happy seeing that he has Physics 16 or more.

[Dust Raven]

Re: INT question

 

Well' date=' OK, but I would call that, "fast acting," or "fast deciding," rather than "fast thinking." Intelligence and decisiveness are fairly independant variables.[/quote']

 

Smarts and decisiveness are different. In my opinion, INT is decisiveness (and recall and perceptiveness). Smarts or high intelligence (using the pop definition) can sometimes indicate a high INT score, but a high INT score does not automatically indicate smarts or high ingelligence.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

Smarts and decisiveness are different. In my opinion' date=' INT is decisiveness (and recall and perceptiveness). Smarts or high intelligence (using the pop definition) can sometimes indicate a high INT score, but a high INT score does not automatically indicate smarts or high ingelligence.[/quote']

Well, I guess we just have different interpretations. To me, INT is Intelligence, after all, that's what it stands for. Decisiveness can sometimes indicate a high INT score, but a high INT score does not automatically indicate decisiveness.

[Wolfgar]

Re: INT question

 

For MENSA? Somewhere between 14-20 INT should do it.

[Wolfgar]

Re: INT question

 

Note also that Hero is not really consistent about what INT is. If it is your ability to process and relate information quickly you probably could do with another stat to process it effectively. Given the current rather woolly definition I never really understood why animals have a low INT.

 

I believe the stat is your ability to take in the information, understand it, and then react appropriately. Animals are great at taking in information, but rotten at reacting properly unless carefully walked through by someone else first.

[Dust Raven]

Re: INT question

 

Well' date=' I guess we just have different interpretations. To me, INT is Intelligence, after all, that's what it stands for. Decisiveness can sometimes indicate a high INT score, but a high INT score does not automatically indicate decisiveness.[/quote']

 

It can indicate a number of things. I don't necessarily think it indicates anything automatically, other than perceptiveness. It does give a concrete bonus to a number of Skills, but that bonus could be for a number of reasons, such as having a good memory, an acurate/logical mind, etc, but not necessarily any of them.

 

[personal rant]

In any case, INT isn't any more equal to intelligence (taking any definition from any dictionary) than Energy Blast is to energy and/or blast (also taking any definition from any dictionary). Absolutely those definitions inspired the names of the game terms, but if they also defined them, we'd need to description of them in the rules.

[/personal rant]

[Wolfgar]

Re: INT question

 

INT shows that a character knows how to react properly to a given set of information, Skills gives the ability to react.

 

For example: Say you have a complex math problem in word problem format. A character with low INT and no SS: Mathematics would be totally lost. A character with high INT and high SS: Mathematics would solve the problem easily. A character with low INT and high SS: Mathematics may not be sure what to do, or they may be able to solve the problem based on the fact they have solved dozens of similar problems in the past. A high INT character with no SS: Mathematics would be able to figure out what the problem was asking for, but may not know how to solve it on there own. They would usually know who could though.

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

Just a reminder from the book:

 

"Intelligence represents a character's ability to take in and process information quickly. It does not necessarily reflect knowledge...INT has more to do with processing and reacting to information than with raw learning."

 

Consider also that with negative INT a character must succeed with an INT roll before making "any" decision, and performing any action at all requires an INT roll.

 

I would say that Dust Raven's comments on speed of thinking regardless of accuracy of thought are accurate. This also makes sense in the perspective that it allows for the SFX surrounding a character's INT to shape the meaning moer specifically.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

It can indicate a number of things. I don't necessarily think it indicates anything automatically' date=' other than perceptiveness. It does give a concrete bonus to a number of Skills, but that bonus could be for a number of reasons, such as having a good memory, an acurate/logical mind, etc, but not necessarily any of them.[/quote']

Like I said before, I don't have a problem with your interpretation. You can do what you want in your games. In my games, INT *automatically* indicates Intelligence, by definition. Just as STR indicates Strength, and DEX indicates Dexterity. And the bonus to skills is IMO for precisely the reasons you mentioned: good memory, accurate/logical mind, etc., which are at least important components of intelligence.

 

[personal rant]

In any case, INT isn't any more equal to intelligence (taking any definition from any dictionary) than Energy Blast is to energy and/or blast (also taking any definition from any dictionary). Absolutely those definitions inspired the names of the game terms, but if they also defined them, we'd need to description of them in the rules.

[/personal rant]

I suppose we actually agree on this point, but for opposite reasons. I think Energy Blast is an accurate name: you blast targets with it, it does damage due to transfer of energy of some kind, kinetic or something else. I don't look to HERO or any game to supply a definition of intelligence. But when there is a characteristic called "Intelligence," I take it to mean "intelligence."

 

I would say that Dust Raven's comments on speed of thinking regardless of accuracy of thought are accurate.

So if a person very rapidly comes up with the wrong answer, that would be a high INT? I think accuracy is assumed within "processing information quickly." Otherwise what would be the point? Anybody can "process" for five seconds and give a inaccurate answer.

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

So if a person very rapidly comes up with the wrong answer' date=' that would be a high INT?[/quote']

 

It could be. The book supports such a useage of INT.

 

I think accuracy is assumed within "processing information quickly." Otherwise what would be the point? Anybody can "process" for five seconds and give a inaccurate answer.

 

No, actually, many people cannot. It takes some people a long time to come up with an inaccurate solution.

[Sean Waters]

Re: INT question

 

I believe the stat is your ability to take in the information' date=' understand it, and then react appropriately. Animals are great at taking in information, but rotten at reacting properly unless carefully walked through by someone else first.[/quote']

 

The taking in of information and the processing of it shouldn't be in the same ability then, IMO.

 

I mean, animals are excellent at processing certain types of information: show a hawk a page of geometry and calculus at 100 feet and it can see, in perfect clarity, a whitish block with some black lines one it, which it will ignore.

 

Replace the book with a rabbit and suddenly the hawk is calculating velocity and gravity and momentum and making anticipatory provision for escape vectors.

 

Same hawk, same INT, same information similarly perceived.

 

Utterly different result.

 

Replace the hawk with a genuis mathematician with 20/20 vision in a gang glider and the situation is not reversed: the scientist can neither read the page nor, in all likelihood, see the rabbit. Even if he did spot the rabbit he would be making some half hearted stab at what it is going to do and he'd never have a chance of catching it in one elegant swoop.

 

Information processing is all about context.

 

Now we can never make it perfect, but hiving perception out of intelligence is a really really good start.

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

The taking in of information and the processing of it shouldn't be in the same ability then, IMO.

 

I mean, animals are excellent at processing certain types of information: show a hawk a page of geometry and calculus at 100 feet and it can see, in perfect clarity, a whitish block with some black lines one it, which it will ignore.

 

Replace the book with a rabbit and suddenly the hawk is calculating velocity and gravity and momentum and making anticipatory provision for escape vectors.

 

Same hawk, same INT, same information similarly perceived.

 

Utterly different result.

 

Replace the hawk with a genuis mathematician with 20/20 vision in a gang glider and the situation is not reversed: the scientist can neither read the page nor, in all likelihood, see the rabbit. Even if he did spot the rabbit he would be making some half hearted stab at what it is going to do and he'd never have a chance of catching it in one elegant swoop.

 

Information processing is all about context.

 

Now we can never make it perfect, but hiving perception out of intelligence is a really really good start.

Note some animals have a pretty high INT if you compare to human in HERO. Particularly cats...although of course here Steve willingly shows his bias.

 

But what you point to Sean, is just a system issue of how INT is vaguely defined. This is both a strength (as we get to assign it all kinds of SFX and meaning) and a weakness (as it breeds the disconnect you cite).

 

Oooh, PS, too, don't forget - animals get an Animal Intelligence Disad, due to the human template, so note how INT is qualified even systemically!

[Sean Waters]

Re: INT question

 

Note some animals have a pretty high INT if you compare to human in HERO. Particularly cats...although of course here Steve willingly shows his bias.

 

But what you point to Sean, is just a system issue of how INT is vaguely defined. This is both a strength (as we get to assign it all kinds of SFX and meaning) and a weakness (as it breeds the disconnect you cite).

 

Oooh, PS, too, don't forget - animals get an Animal Intelligence Disad, due to the human template, so note how INT is qualified even systemically!

 

I only have the 4th edition bestiary, but to take an example, the doberman only has 13- hearing and smell perception (including PER bonuses) on a 6 INT.

 

If animals do get an animal intelligence disadvantage then this perhaps addresses the problem to an extent, but does once more show the human bias of the system, rather than being a true kit for building characters.

 

Moreover I think it is daft to suggest that intelligence and perception go hand in hand. They are very different qualities, and it makes no sense to me that someone with 18 INT can smell almost as well as a hunting dog (dogs have tracking scent so they do have an advantage in tracking but in sheer ability to notice a smell there should be no contest - dog wins every time.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

It could be. The book supports such a useage of INT.

 

No, actually, many people cannot. It takes some people a long time to come up with an inaccurate solution.

In all my years of playing HERO, both as a player and a GM, I have never seen a character rewarded with the *wrong* answer for successfully making an INT roll.

 

If they can come up with an inaccurate answer in a long time, they could also come up with an inaccurate answer in a short time. We assign INT values to computers, is that so they can give us wrong answers quickly?

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

In all my years of playing HERO, both as a player and a GM, I have never seen a character rewarded with the *wrong* answer for successfully making an INT roll.

 

If they can come up with an inaccurate answer in a long time, they could also come up with an inaccurate answer in a short time. We assign INT values to computers, is that so they can give us wrong answers quickly?

I have seen plenty of games where knowledge rolls are not based on INT and INT does not influence coming up with the correct answer. Given the rulebook and given the express quote I gave, I could imagine INT being a separate complementary roll as to how swiftly one comes up with an answer. Bad knowledge roll, great INT roll => bad answer fast.

 

That being said, I am not saying I have seen this, either. Then again, I have also never seen INT used to determine how fast someone (or something, such as a computer) came up with something. I have only seen time applied as a negative modifier and INT rolls or KS General-based rolls done simply as whether they are right or wrong, generally in a phase or out-of-combat.

 

But the book clearly permits such an interpretation, and given in real life some people think stupid thoughts much faster than others, I do not see why we would necessarily disregard such a scenario, depending on game needs.

 

However, the real central issue is that someone's point is that INT can reflect speed and not necessarily accuracy of thought. I do not think you can claim they are wrong when reviewing the rules. You can say (and I would agree) that it is an atypical application. But it is not against the core book in any way I can identify.

 

PS - and would add that a computer with a high INT can generate lots of bad data IN HERO. Because INT controls number of programs, and those programs might have low ability scores.

[Dust Raven]

Re: INT question

 

Like I said before' date=' I don't have a problem with your interpretation. You can do what you want in your games. In my games, INT *automatically* indicates Intelligence, by definition. Just as STR indicates Strength, and DEX indicates Dexterity. And the bonus to skills is IMO for precisely the reasons you mentioned: good memory, accurate/logical mind, etc., which are at least important components of intelligence.[/quote']

 

I suppose we can agree to disagree. You are confusing though. You are capitalizeing Intelligence, Strength, etc, but are referring to them as if they are not game mechanics. It seems you really don't separate the game mechanics from English definitions.

[Sean Waters]

Re: INT question

 

OK, looking at gaming definitions, INT is the ability to take in and process information and does not reflect raw learning. So nothing in Hero reflects raw learning, except possibly INT levels with 'raw learning' sfx.

 

Having the ability to perceive and process information governed by the same ability is still pretty daft, as it is:

 

1. Counter-intuitive - most people (who did not already know) if asked what an 'Intelligence' stat governed would not guess at the Hero definition, and,

 

2.Bloody awkward: you want a really smart character who is in a world of his own (i.e. the 'classic' smart professor type) you have to buy low INT and skill levels. Stupid, stupid, stupid*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*but still, possibly, high INT

[Dust Raven]

Re: INT question

 

1. Counter-intuitive - most people (who did not already know) if asked what an 'Intelligence' stat governed would not guess at the Hero definition, and,[/qupte]

It's no more (or less) counter-intuitive than Energy Blast, Missile Deflection or even Ego or Presence.

 

2.Bloody awkward: you want a really smart character who is in a world of his own (i.e. the 'classic' smart professor type) you have to buy low INT and skill levels. Stupid, stupid, stupid*.

No you don't. You don't have to by anything. You could buy high or low INT, Skill Levels or no Skill Levels... though any "smart professor" would likely have Scholar and/or Scientist and a variety of associated KS/SSs.

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

1. Counter-intuitive - most people (who did not already know) if asked what an 'Intelligence' stat governed would not guess at the Hero definition, and,[/qupte]

It's no more (or less) counter-intuitive than Energy Blast, Missile Deflection or even Ego or Presence.

 

 

No you don't. You don't have to by anything. You could buy high or low INT, Skill Levels or no Skill Levels... though any "smart professor" would likely have Scholar and/or Scientist and a variety of associated KS/SSs.

You could also just couple any combo of skills/traits with a Disad "In a world of his own."

[Sean Waters]

Re: INT question

 

It's no more (or less) counter-intuitive than Energy Blast, Missile Deflection or even Ego or Presence.

 

 

No you don't. You don't have to by anything. You could buy high or low INT, Skill Levels or no Skill Levels... though any "smart professor" would likely have Scholar and/or Scientist and a variety of associated KS/SSs.

 

I think most people who have never played Hero would get 'energy blast' about right. They might struggle with whether a bullet is an energy blast, but they would get there.

 

The problem with INT is that it does two unconnected things: information perception and information processing.

 

The intelligent professor who notices absolutely nothing going on around him is unlikley to be considered Hero intelligent or, if you do build him that way, you are going to need some kludge, as zornwil suggests, to make it work as envisaged.

 

Yes you can build him, but the obvious way to build someone smart is with high intelligence. Intelligence does not really serve a useful role in the system, and as far as I am concerned should be comlpetely replaced with skill levels and skills.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

I have seen plenty of games where knowledge rolls are not based on INT and INT does not influence coming up with the correct answer. Given the rulebook and given the express quote I gave' date=' I could imagine INT being a separate complementary roll as to how swiftly one comes up with an answer. Bad knowledge roll, great INT roll => bad answer fast.[/quote']

To be precise, I wasn't talking about Knowledge rolls, I was talking about INT rolls. That's what I said. A player who buys up his character's INT is expecting that his character will have a high intelligence. That's what INT stands for, right? I hope we are all in agreement with that at least. I never dreamed I'd be making a controversial statement to say that INT stands for, and is intended to represent, intelligence. Such a player is hoping that his character will use his high intelligence to get the right answer, not to get the wrong answer quickly.

 

Almost every intelligence test I've ever seen has a time component in it. I remember one for example using colored blocks. The subject is shown a pattern of colors and must create that pattern using the blocks as quickly as possible. They aren't especially difficult - anyone will be able to construct the correct pattern eventually - but those with higher intelligence (at least according to the creators of this test) will do so faster. And rapidly coming up with an incorrect pattern will not increase your score.

 

That being said, I am not saying I have seen this, either. Then again, I have also never seen INT used to determine how fast someone (or something, such as a computer) came up with something.

Well, then what are you arguing about? You're the one who agreed with Dust Raven's "fast but not accurate" interpretation.

 

But the book clearly permits such an interpretation, and given in real life some people think stupid thoughts much faster than others, I do not see why we would necessarily disregard such a scenario, depending on game needs.

The book permit a lot of interpretations, that doesn't mean they're all equally valid. And yes, some people come up with wrong answers faster than others, but that doesn't mean the difference is that the faster wrong guy has a higher INT.

 

However, the real central issue is that someone's point is that INT can reflect speed and not necessarily accuracy of thought. I do not think you can claim they are wrong when reviewing the rules. You can say (and I would agree) that it is an atypical application. But it is not against the core book in any way I can identify.

Fine. I already said something similar. I don't have a problem with other GMs doing what they want in their games. I just don't think that rapid, inaccurate thought represents high intelligence. And I would hope they extend the same courtesy in saying that I am not wrong in intepreting the rules.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: INT question

 

I suppose we can agree to disagree. You are confusing though. You are capitalizeing Intelligence' date=' Strength, etc, but are referring to them as if they [i']are not[/i] game mechanics. It seems you really don't separate the game mechanics from English definitions.

I'm sorry if the capital letters confused you. How 'bout this:

 

In my games, INT represents intelligence, by definition. Just as STR indicates strength, and DEX indicates dexterity.

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

I think most people who have never played Hero would get 'energy blast' about right. They might struggle with whether a bullet is an energy blast, but they would get there.

 

The problem with INT is that it does two unconnected things: information perception and information processing.

 

The intelligent professor who notices absolutely nothing going on around him is unlikley to be considered Hero intelligent or, if you do build him that way, you are going to need some kludge, as zornwil suggests, to make it work as envisaged.

 

Yes you can build him, but the obvious way to build someone smart is with high intelligence. Intelligence does not really serve a useful role in the system, and as far as I am concerned should be comlpetely replaced with skill levels and skills.

I don't see that as a kludge. It's simply a personality "defect".

[zornwil]

Re: INT question

 

To be precise' date=' I wasn't talking about Knowledge rolls, I was talking about INT rolls. That's what I said. A player who buys up his character's INT is expecting that his character will have a high intelligence. That's what INT stands for, right? I hope we are all in agreement with that at least. I never dreamed I'd be making a controversial statement to say that INT stands for, and is intended to represent, intelligence. Such a player is hoping that his character will use his high intelligence to get the right answer, not to get the wrong answer quickly.[/quote']

 

Again, if we are not separating both variables (time and accuracy), I don't disagree with the player expectation. The default behavior as I've observed, as indicated, is that GMs do not separate the two facets. If we did, HERO seems to support that. However, the discussion seemed to involve "answers" as opposed to necessarily logical acuity, the 2 being rather different. I really don't know what you're using INT for here and GMs do use the stat differently, since it is a fudgy stat.

 

Almost every intelligence test I've ever seen has a time component in it. I remember one for example using colored blocks. The subject is shown a pattern of colors and must create that pattern using the blocks as quickly as possible. They aren't especially difficult - anyone will be able to construct the correct pattern eventually - but those with higher intelligence (at least according to the creators of this test) will do so faster. And rapidly coming up with an incorrect pattern will not increase your score.

 

Okay, but this has no necessary relevance to how HERO has defined the "INT" stat. Rather we are forced (as we should be, with a game mechanic) to work backward from the mechanic to see what it supports. It can support this, but it does not seem to be required to do so according to the rules and potential reasonable applications.

 

Well, then what are you arguing about? You're the one who agreed with Dust Raven's "fast but not accurate" interpretation.

 

I am not sure how you are defining "arguing," but in any case, I am standing by the statement that DR's interpretation is practiceable and supported reasonably by the text. You are welcome to argue against that but earlier I thought you accepted that as an alternate interpretation.

 

The book permit a lot of interpretations, that doesn't mean they're all equally valid.

 

Hence my comment I have not observed this useage.

 

And yes, some people come up with wrong answers faster than others, but that doesn't mean the difference is that the faster wrong guy has a higher INT.

 

Of course, not necessarily. I can also kill a character without necessarily using a KA or Energy Blast.

 

Fine. I already said something similar. I don't have a problem with other GMs doing what they want in their games. I just don't think that rapid, inaccurate thought represents high intelligence.

 

I would interpret "intelligence" similarly in its colloquial use. I don't believe the term has a real scientific meaning but I might be corrected. It is primarily a colloquial term with all kinds of meanings in its popular useage.

 

And I would hope they extend the same courtesy in saying that I am not wrong in intepreting the rules.

 

Nobody said you were "wrong" in applying it in your game as you suggest, to my knowledge.