Gaming philosophy conundra

[Farmer]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

For instance the GM adjusts the scenario after the fact to make the clever character seem even smarter.

I've certainly done this. Not just for smart characters, but also smart players. If their ideas are better, or just as good but reflects better on them, don't be afraid to write them in and change your own.

Originally Posted by Boomerang

How this might look is that the player looks for a trap in an unusual location, there is no trap according to the GM map, but the GM retcons a trap in that spot so that the player looks clever finding it. Or in reverse, there is a trap there but the player didn’t think to look so the trap is ignored by the GM, unless a different (less intelligent) character happens to wander over it first.

Absolutely. Or if they think to ask somebody about something, or they interpret some lore in a cool way, or make some tactical choice that's interesting, write it in as being the best choice and flow with it.

Originally Posted by Boomerang

Or players are given more time to make decisions based on how smart their characters are, and they go in reverse order of intelligence. In other words the player with the smartest character gets to see how all the other player decisions pan out and have time to think about it, before they have to commit to their own course of action.

I'm not sure that works in combat rounds and the rest of the time, in my experience at least, it's a bit more free flowing. Letting the smarter character *change* their approach once they've heard what others are doing could work, but I wouldn't allow it all the time - experience often trumps native intelligence.

[SolemnGolem]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

When you are the GM how do you manage having a character who is much more intelligent than the corresponding player?

I encounter this quite a bit. I have players who are neurodivergent (autism spectrum, ADHD, etc.) and for them, role playing is often a big draw because it lets them play as a person who may not have these issues and might be more socially fluent or adept.

If it's a social issue (e.g. player is nonfluent, but wants their character to be fluent) then I'll usually give a "time out freeze time" benefit to the player so they can articulate what they want to say. Then I open it up for the rest of the group to distill it down to something slick. And then resume the "real time" social interaction with this new scripted slick narrative.

If it's a knowledge or insight issue (e.g. the character would know something that the player probably doesn't), I can approach it either by opening up to group input, or by passing a note/sending a DM to the player privately. This isn't just limited to neurodivergent individuals either - just imagine a layman player roleplaying as an advanced physicist expert, for example.

As a very minor bit of tableside stagecraft, I've found there's a lot of mileage to be had in giving an individual player a private message, and letting them be the one to "break the news" to the table. Even if the player knows the GM handed them this goodie, if they're the ones who get the credit at the tableside then they come away with the recognition of contribution.

If the GM's openly telling the player their special insights for all the rest of the players to see, then it can quickly create a perception that the player is just there as a GM mouthpiece.

[David Johnston2]

If, partway through the game, the player mentions their character's red tie for the first time, were they wearing a red tie before then.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If, partway through the game, the player mentions their character's red tie for the first time, were they wearing a red tie before then.

Depends on the campaign, but generally speaking, yes - if that's how the player has always assumed their character looks, I'm not going to say "No, that's not the way I thought you character looked, so he/she isn't wearing that." If there was something that happened previously where the red tie would have been important, I'd just retcon things so the character, for whatever reason, either wasn't wearing the red tie or it was concealed when that event happened (say, if the BBEG really hates the color red, and thus would have tried to kill that character, then the last time they had an encounter with said BBEG, the tie was MIA). This is particularly the case if the character description the player gave me in the beginning included the red tie and I just overlooked/forgot about it.

In a campaign where every piece of gear is meticulously tracked, or if the player is clearly just making up the red tie now (presumably for some benefit), then no, the character wasn't wearing the red tie before then... and also isn't wearing it now, unless they just acquired and put one on during play.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

If, partway through the game, the player mentions their character's red tie for the first time, were they wearing a red tie before then.

Depends on what they said. I have no issues with a player claiming X is true and always was unless X is inconsistent with previously established facts.