Thread Closed
(08-20-2015, 07:11 PM)Edda Wrote: A longer, more robust description of a character's action does not make them appear any more intelligent than if you had gone the simpler route. It may make the player seem more intelligent, but it should not reflect on the perception of a character.
Though at this point, it is just an argument of semantics, and there is a clear miscommunication here of what it takes for someone to perceive IC intelligence.
No, I don't think it's a miscommunication, it's just a contextual problem. Â There are two opinions here.
1. Â The perception of wit is a function of the audience, its portrayal the responsibility of the writer.
2. Â The perception of wit is the responsibility of the audience, its portrayal is the function of the writer.
I'm certainly of opinion 1. Â If a player's character is not witty, but we are told that the character is witty, I do not believe that it is endemic on the other players to make something which is not in keeping with the character to be true.
For example, I cannot tell any other player that my character is funny. Â I can tell jokes as my character, and I can certainly say my character tells a lot of jokes. Â I can make those jokes as funny as I possibly can. Â I can even make many other people think my character is funny if I'm good at those. Â But I cannot force those players, or their characters, to laugh because I said, "My character is funny." Â Therefore, my character is as funny as I'm capable of being. Â My characters are not able to be any funnier than I am.
It's the same here. Â A person can feasibly say their character has a great deal of knowledge they don't have. Â They can do their best to act intelligent or witty. Â They can try their best to come up with witty remarks or to perform fast and complex on-the-spot problem solving. Â And we, as players and characters, might remark highly on the character's intelligence and call them a genius. Â But a character isn't intelligent because we're told they are, especially if the player isn't themselves intelligent. Â Therefore, a character cannot actually be any more intelligent than the player. Â There's simply a limit.
Now, many here are postulating that, if someone says their character is intelligent, we need to take that as gospel no matter how unintelligent the character is (despite the intention of the writer). Â I simply don't think that's either rational or even necessarily reasonable in an open setting. Â Maybe if you're around a tabletop with your friends, people can cut you slack and give you the benefit of the doubt. Â However, we're not under any compunction, as players, to have to pretend something bland or insipid is witty and insightful. Â That is the responsibility of the writer, and are titles we bestow as the audience.
And that means some people will have limits, and it's best to know them. Â It certainly shouldn't be the responsibility of the audience to react according to the players' demand rather than the players' performance.