So at our table if you are a player who tends towards complicated, involved, detailed and good ideas and you want to take advantage of that during play I would sit them down and explain that RPing a 1 or 2 logic character is going to be a millstone around your neck.
I would encourage them to make the character they actually want to play, a troll with logic higher than 1 or 2.
On the other hand there are plenty of players who are more passive, do not often come up with such complicated, devious, multipart plans and if they want to have a toon with a 1 or 2 logic thats cool as it better fits their actual in game RP.
It can also work if the player is more into bang-bang and not subtlety.
I also let players roll logic, intuition etc checks to get clues or prompts that the player might not have picked up on or have any way of knowing. This is helpful in reinforcing their character's competency or lack thereof.
All of the above does not mean the character is retarded or mentally challenged by having a logic of 1, and it doesn't mean I forbid them from contributing good ideas to the group.
Rather they will not be developing the kind of complicated, devious, multi-part plans that many runs call for.
I have observed over the years that many people just ignore a character's poor mental stats and let people play as they see fit.
To me that's a cop-out at best and metagaming at worst.
Now understand I am NOT saying any of the posters here fit that bill, I don't know you or your table and don't presume to.
I am telling you what I have seen in person while playing with other folks.
Bottom line: I encourage (and sometimes demand) that players RP their character as it's built, including their strengths and weaknesses.
As long as you RP your dump stats I'm cool with it.
What I will not tolerate is a 1 logic character coming up with involved and detailed workable plans.
Or a Cha 1 character trying to play on being pretty/ handsome or trying to play on their charm (well they can but it will end up bad).
You choose your strengths and weaknesses and you better play both ;-)
That's one way to do it.
But it has some drawbacks in my opinion. Let's say you have some Logic-1 or 2- Troll, whose player simply has a lot of interesting and useful ideas. Or the player tends to think tactical while his character is some face with no clue of tactics.
What should a GM do if this happens? You might hint that the character probably would not follow up to the idea he just had or even have the player throw dice if the character likes his own plan. But I would not forbid him to explain a good (or bad) idea because the creative problem solving is a main part of the game for me. And if Troll has the best ideas: so be it.
I also let the player discuss the action of a single player even if they are not physically present or if they are otherwise occupied (generelly speaking, there might be exceptions if the narrative demands it) . It adds to the fun - and they have commlinks anyway.
Logic can come into play in other forms imO. A lot of skills depend on Logic. An if the players are stuck somewhere I sometimes let them roll on Logic or Intuition to drop hints.
Of course if a player is out-of-character most time (a character with "uncouth" or "vindictive" having all the peaceful solutions or if they follow some moral codex I would intervene and perhaps suggest to work at the character or the way it is played.
But that's just the way I do it. It all depends on the GM and players and what gives them the most fun.
