a thought on mental stats

[big teej]

for the record, this is purely a hypothetical discussion, and I don't plan on implementing this at all (okay maybe once for kicks and giggles)

recently I've seen a few comments about "playing yourself" and "my character's mental stats are not mine"


what if. dun dun dun!!!

you only accounted for physical stats on paper.

i.e. rolling for strength, dexterity, and constitution.

whereas intelligence, wisdom, and charisma are on the player.

obviously systems would have to be developed to allow the numbers based on these stats to function properly

for instance, intelligence - for skill points and other numericals, base it upon level of education

dropout- 8
high school/GED - 10
2 year degree- 12
4 year degree - 14
masters - 16
doctorate - 18
etc.

and base skill points/bonus spells on this accordingly.

(no I don't have any ideas for wisdom and charisma at the moment, but humor me for sake of discussion, assume we have something.)

thoughts?

[Godskook]

How do you handle exceptional cases where someone is 'smart' without having certification to that effect, such as when they grew up in the school of hard-knocks or when they have equivalent experience, -or- on the other side of the fence, when Daddy bought his idiotic child a college degree that was never(nor could be to that point) be earned.

Sure, I'm listing the extremes, but there's more play between the middle and the extremes than you're accounting for.

[Zonasiy]

Doing something like this completely removes a lot of character concepts for a lot of people. If I have, say, a low charisma in real life, then in the game I can never change that. I would never be able to play classes like sorcerer or bard.

The point of this game is roleplaying a character, oftentimes one that's very different from yourself. If you create rules where you can ONLY play yourself, the game loses a lot of its luster.

Also, why stop at mental stats? You can easily do this for physical stats as well.

This would be amusing for something like a one-shot, but in general it's probably not going to improve the game.

[Crow]

for the record, this is purely a hypothetical discussion, and I don't plan on implementing this at all (okay maybe once for kicks and giggles)

recently I've seen a few comments about "playing yourself" and "my character's mental stats are not mine"


what if. dun dun dun!!!

you only accounted for physical stats on paper.

i.e. rolling for strength, dexterity, and constitution.

whereas intelligence, wisdom, and charisma are on the player.

obviously systems would have to be developed to allow the numbers based on these stats to function properly

for instance, intelligence - for skill points and other numericals, base it upon level of education

dropout- 8
high school/GED - 10
2 year degree- 12
4 year degree - 14
masters - 16
doctorate - 18
etc.

and base skill points/bonus spells on this accordingly.

(no I don't have any ideas for wisdom and charisma at the moment, but humor me for sake of discussion, assume we have something.)

thoughts?

Well to start, people learn skills from other places than school. Level of education could be an indicator of how "skilled" a person is, or an indicator of how well they jump through hoops.

If you're not going to have mental stats, maybe a better way to implement skill would be to require an adequately detailed explanation of what the player is trying to do, and how their "character" is going to go about doing it.

[Arundel]

I will start by saying I think its a terrible idea, but I certainly see where you are coming from.

It is relatively easy to sit down and imagine someone stronger, faster, or tougher than you. It is a rather easy thing to put to roleplaying. I would venture it is much much harder to imagine a more charismatic, a more intelligent and I would say hardest to imagine a wiser you.

If I was forced to stat myself I would venture to guess (based on classical scores, not your revisions):

INT 15
WIS 11
CHA 14

Depending on the availability of explosives, guns, axes, alcohol, or women, my WIS can will and does drop to roughly 3. While I can imagine myself stronger (higher STR) I can't really imagine a more Ghandi (WIS+) version of myself without it becoming a strawman of myself. Now I know we don't standardly play ourselves but I do see that we are for the most part limited by our own mental attributes.

[big teej]

How do you handle exceptional cases where someone is 'smart' without having certification to that effect, such as when they grew up in the school of hard-knocks or when they have equivalent experience, -or- on the other side of the fence, when Daddy bought his idiotic child a college degree that was never(nor could be to that point) be earned.

Sure, I'm listing the extremes, but there's more play between the middle and the extremes than you're accounting for.

well, obviously, the DM knows his players,

personally I'd favor a set scale and avoid the slippery slope entirely.

that said, I suppose if you had 3 college grads all agree that the drop-out was intellectually equal to them (though perhaps not educationally) or if you had 3 people call BS on someone's degree, you could allow leeway up or down.




Also, why stop at mental stats? You can easily do this for physical stats as well.

This would be amusing for something like a one-shot, but in general it's probably not going to improve the game.


the reason I've limited discussion to mental stats has to do with the statement that sparked the thread.

it was something to the effect of "the player doesn't lift the huge rock to reveal the entrance, I roll dice to represent my character doing it. but when you use riddles, you're taxing the PLAYER'S intelligence/wisdom, or in social situations, charisma, as opposed to letting them roll"


so, being the curious fellow that I am, I posted this up. :smallbiggrin:


EDIT: bloody ninjas... I'll reply to them tomorrow

[Zonasiy]

the reason I've limited discussion to mental stats has to do with the statement that sparked the thread.

it was something to the effect of "the player doesn't lift the huge rock to reveal the entrance, I roll dice to represent my character doing it. but when you use riddles, you're taxing the PLAYER'S intelligence/wisdom, or in social situations, charisma, as opposed to letting them roll"

That seems like a double standard then. On the one hand, the characters are interacting with the world by using strength to lift a rock. On the other hand, the DM is testing the players by giving them a riddle. If fairness or consistency is desired, the DM should make the player trying to lift the rock lift a rock in real life, or allow a character to make an intelligence roll to see if they figure out the riddle.

Basically this just seems like the DM is making a distinction where there shouldn't be one.

[NichG]

It's a double standard, but a useful one. If all of the interactions between the character and world are described fully by the mechanics, what use is the player? D&D is a game - that means that it engages the abilities of the player to some degree at some point in the process. People can and do argue about what that point is. I think it's clear that its not in physical ability or skill, which is why such things are used as examples of absurdity. You could argue that the game tests your ability to design a character by the rules, and everything else is just evaluating how well you did, but thats pretty stark.

So what it comes down to is that to some extent the player's abilities will, and should, come into play. Whether its their imagination at coming up with plans, their tactical acumen, their ability to solve riddles, whatever, some people will be more skilled than others at such things regardless of their character mechanics.

So my take is, rather than eliminate the mechanical stats that each do something mechanically important, its better to eliminate the implication that the mental stats completely describe the mental abilities of a given player/character. Intelligence isn't all of intelligence, its strictly the capacity for learning skills, doing certain tasks like spell research and crafting, and certain kinds of spellcasting or fighting. Wisdom isn't all of wisdom, its strictly perceptiveness and strength of will.

So you could have someone mechanically with an Int of 3 whose player is good at riddles or tactics, and it wouldn't be 'inconsistent' - it just means the character might have some brain damage that hurts their long-term memory, so they can't retain skills, spells, etc, but the rest of their mind works as well as the player can portray it.

[King Atticus]

for instance, intelligence - for skill points and other numericals, base it upon level of education

dropout- 8
high school/GED - 10
2 year degree- 12
4 year degree - 14
masters - 16
doctorate - 18
etc.

and base skill points/bonus spells on this accordingly.


I actually don't completely disagree with this in theory (based on real life ability to work through things mentally and not just stare at the DM slack-jawed and hope you rolled high enough that he just tells you the answer to the puzzle he spent all week working up)...just in execution. As has already been mentioned there are way too many socioeconomic factors involved in the education system for it to be a relevant yardstick.

Just give your players an IQ test and stat them according to there score.

141+ = 18
131-140 = 16
121-130 = 14
111-120 = 12
91-110 = 10
81-90 = 8
71-80 = 6
70 and below = 4

It would just end with you being ostracized from all your friends when they have a hard number to put on each others intelligence and they blame you for the rift it caused in the group. I completely understand wanting this portion of the game to be more realistic but nobody comes away from that without hurt feelings. Nobody wants to be judged by their friends if their intelligence happens to be slightly lower than the others in the group, that already happens in real life...D&D should give the chance for escapism.

Just my two cents, I'll get off my soapbox now. :smallsmile:

[Zonasiy]

It's a double standard, but a useful one. If all of the interactions between the character and world are described fully by the mechanics, what use is the player? D&D is a game - that means that it engages the abilities of the player to some degree at some point in the process. People can and do argue about what that point is. I think it's clear that its not in physical ability or skill, which is why such things are used as examples of absurdity. You could argue that the game tests your ability to design a character by the rules, and everything else is just evaluating how well you did, but thats pretty stark.

So what it comes down to is that to some extent the player's abilities will, and should, come into play. Whether its their imagination at coming up with plans, their tactical acumen, their ability to solve riddles, whatever, some people will be more skilled than others at such things regardless of their character mechanics.

So my take is, rather than eliminate the mechanical stats that each do something mechanically important, its better to eliminate the implication that the mental stats completely describe the mental abilities of a given player/character. Intelligence isn't all of intelligence, its strictly the capacity for learning skills, doing certain tasks like spell research and crafting, and certain kinds of spellcasting or fighting. Wisdom isn't all of wisdom, its strictly perceptiveness and strength of will.

So you could have someone mechanically with an Int of 3 whose player is good at riddles or tactics, and it wouldn't be 'inconsistent' - it just means the character might have some brain damage that hurts their long-term memory, so they can't retain skills, spells, etc, but the rest of their mind works as well as the player can portray it.

This makes perfect sense and I have no problem with it. My problem comes from the thought process of: player's mental stats don't match character mental stats -> let's change it so player's can't play that character at all so we don't have to deal with this issue.

[LordBlades]

How to mix character abilities and player abilities in puzzles and other thinking situations is a bit tricky.

If you rely on character abilities and rolls, then it ruins most of the fun.Why bother designing a puzzle when all it takes to get the answer is a single roll. You can just say 'you come across a puzzle; roll your wis/int checks' no further details needed.

If you rely on player abilities it's more fun, but it might lead to some awkward in-game situations that break immersion. For example (the most over-the-top thing that I've come across in this field) was something like this: we're exploring a ruined temple belonging to an ancient civilization; The DM (who is a bit of a techno geek) made several things in the temple powered by a system of water wheels and pulleys except the water was long gone. For me (I was in my last years of a MD in hydraulics back then) it all sounded like 'instant machinery; just add water' almost immediately but I was playing a skarn totemist coming from a very primitive culture that had probably never seen a water wheel in his life. The most likely character to solve the problem in-game would have been the dwarf artificer (high int and maxed knowledge: architecture and engineering) except the player was a girl that is completely oblivious to anything technical(her technical abilities have been a running joke in our group ever since she returned a blender for being broken and it turned out she forgot to put in all the parts).

[Morph Bark]

If you're going to use a player's mental stats, just take them away and make them meaningless.

You want to know something? Alright, look it up in one of the books.

You want to Decipher Script? Alright, the DM hands you a badly written note you must try to read (that must also be in a real-world language).

You want to Spot or Listen? Passive checks are solely based on your skills ranks and racial bonuses (+2 Wisdom is translated into a +1 bonus to Wisdom checks).

Sense Motive? It's opposed by the DM's own Bluff.

Diplomacy? Try to spin a good story to the DM who is playing the NPC and see what he ends up doing with it.

Intimidate? Good luck.

Iaijutsu Focus? Base it instead on Dexterity.

Spells? You can always cast your spells as if you have an appropriate ability score, but you receive no bonus spells and the DC is turned into 10 + spell level + 1/5 ranks in Spellcraft or something.

[Retech]

Well it does balance things in some respects.

You'd need to either have an advanced degree or have spent years in the mountains with the monks of tibet to play a tier 1 class. :smallbiggrin:

[mootoall]

How would this handle Int boosting items? Points from level-up? It's really *extremely* difficult to represent even an Int score of 18 IRL.

[Vladislav]

If you're going to use a player's mental stats, just take them away and make them meaningless.

You want to know something? Alright, look it up in one of the books.

You want to Decipher Script? Alright, the DM hands you a badly written note you must try to read (that must also be in a real-world language).

You want to Spot or Listen? Passive checks are solely based on your skills ranks and racial bonuses (+2 Wisdom is translated into a +1 bonus to Wisdom checks).

Sense Motive? It's opposed by the DM's own Bluff.

Diplomacy? Try to spin a good story to the DM who is playing the NPC and see what he ends up doing with it.

Intimidate? Good luck.

Iaijutsu Focus? Base it instead on Dexterity.

Spells? You can always cast your spells as if you have an appropriate ability score, but you receive no bonus spells and the DC is turned into 10 + spell level + 1/5 ranks in Spellcraft or something.I so want to play in this game.

[Username_too_lo]

"But I wanna play a wizard!"

"Shouldn't have quit school to set up your own business then, should you?"

"Um, but I made $2mil last year and I go to IPO in Spring."

"Yeah . . well. . NO WIZARD FOR YOU!"

[Nachtritter]

While it sounds interesting in theory, in practice I can see this leading to lots - and I mean LOTS - of in-game arguments.

"Dude, you should be smart enough to solve this puzzle, man."

"So, wait, you're saying I'm dumb?"

"No, that's not what I'm saying at all."

"Sure sounds like it. Can't I roll for something?"

"Well, uh, I could, but..."

Yeah, it's too open to hurt feelings and everything. There's a reason these stats exist - they help us play someone extraordinary when we ourselves don't feel up to the challenge.

[thompur]

for the record, this is purely a hypothetical discussion, and I don't plan on implementing this at all (okay maybe once for kicks and giggles)

recently I've seen a few comments about "playing yourself" and "my character's mental stats are not mine"


what if. dun dun dun!!!

you only accounted for physical stats on paper.

i.e. rolling for strength, dexterity, and constitution.

whereas intelligence, wisdom, and charisma are on the player.

obviously systems would have to be developed to allow the numbers based on these stats to function properly

for instance, intelligence - for skill points and other numericals, base it upon level of education

dropout- 8
high school/GED - 10
2 year degree- 12
4 year degree - 14masters - 16
doctorate - 18
etc.

and base skill points/bonus spells on this accordingly.

(no I don't have any ideas for wisdom and charisma at the moment, but humor me for sake of discussion, assume we have something.)

thoughts?

I have a BFA Theatre(is there a more useless degree?).
My Nephew earned a BS in Chemical Engineering.

By your method, we both have the same Int. (He's waaaayyy smarter than I am.):smallbiggrin:

[Andorax]

I'd add my own personal recommendation to the "Don't" category here. I tried something like this once, as a World of Darkness campaign. The premise was (for reasons left initially unexplained) a vampire breaking into our existing gaming session and location, killing the GM, and turning the rest of the group, who "came to" and realized what was going on a few minutes before dawn.


Rather than leave the players to choose their "self" stats (in this case, physical, mental and social alike), it was done as a consensus of opinion of the group. Only one or two players took it overly seriously and was offended by it, but they were pretty heavily offended.

I think the worst case was an argument over perception. Player felt he was aware of everything around him, that his perception score was a 5 (on a 1-5 scale, bordering on supernaturally good). Everyone else had him pegged at 3 (high side of average).

I chucked a dry erase eraser at him. It hit him squarely between the eyes before either hand had left the table. He had to put a "3" down.




If you're dead-serious about this, and willing to put some work into it, then I'd suggest an alternate approach to it.

Instead of freely assigning numbers, allow the players to designate a portion of their point-buy for their mental stats. That portion needs to be enough to bring all three up to the same number...so:

0 (all points in physicals) = 8s
3 = 9s
6 = 10s
etc.

Assign the physical stats as they wish. Then have the players take the Meyers Briggs test for personality type, and go through the 16 different types yourself and assign an ability score modification array to each type.

ISTJ: +3 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha (for example). Yes, this isn't straight-up balanced...remember it's in the context of a point buy.

Meyers briggs isn't generally considered a hotly-contested make-people-hate-each-other sort of test, and it might even provoke some interesting discussions outside of the gaming session itself. The stat modifiers are entirely arbitrary, and not set up to favor anyone in specific (unless you know their types already, leak the modifiers, etc.) Strive for a good balance between stat-boosts so that a good int, wis, or cha are all *possible*.

[NichG]

While it sounds interesting in theory, in practice I can see this leading to lots - and I mean LOTS - of in-game arguments.

"Dude, you should be smart enough to solve this puzzle, man."

"So, wait, you're saying I'm dumb?"

"No, that's not what I'm saying at all."

"Sure sounds like it. Can't I roll for something?"

"Well, uh, I could, but..."

Yeah, it's too open to hurt feelings and everything. There's a reason these stats exist - they help us play someone extraordinary when we ourselves don't feel up to the challenge.

That's a failure of the DM to be diplomatic IRL. I mean, there are people who are not good at building D&D characters effectively. If you treated that the same as in this situation, you'd get hurt feelings just as well. You don't say 'dude, you should be smart enough to not take Skill Focus(Basket Weaving)' if you want to stay friendly with the guy. You see if they're not enjoying themselves because of lack of power, and then say 'hey, look at this feat, it'd be a really good match for you' or things like that.

From a point of view of player fun, you might have guys at the table who like puzzles, and if the one guy that doesn't insists on immediately ending the puzzle by force, it's interfering with the fun of the others. Just as that guy might like combat against mooks, so the other players shouldn't one-shot easy encounters just because mechanically their character can, so as to let him enjoy the part of the game he likes. Or just because one player dislikes RP encounters, he shouldn't randomly yell 'roll initiative!' and attack everything rather than let his fellow players try to negotiate. In some sense it's the DM's responsibility to smoothly enable such varied playstyles to coexist.

[Tyndmyr]

Doing something like this completely removes a lot of character concepts for a lot of people. If I have, say, a low charisma in real life, then in the game I can never change that. I would never be able to play classes like sorcerer or bard.

The point of this game is roleplaying a character, oftentimes one that's very different from yourself. If you create rules where you can ONLY play yourself, the game loses a lot of its luster.

Also, why stop at mental stats? You can easily do this for physical stats as well.

This would be amusing for something like a one-shot, but in general it's probably not going to improve the game.

Hell, physical stats are EASIER to test for.

Playing "you get your own stats" is a game I enjoy. I'm very good at it. I'm in shape, I am dexterous, and I am quite intelligent. I may not be wise, but I have enough cha to lie about that successfully.

It's basically "I get all the stats". This is probably not at all good for balance, though. Also, you'll generally get a great deal of arguing over exactly what their numbers should be. It's all subjective as hell, mostly. Especially cha.

[Morph Bark]

Also, you'll generally get a great deal of arguing over exactly what their numbers should be. It's all subjective as hell, mostly. Especially cha.

Could be worse.

You could be playing with Appearance.

[Arundel]

Could be worse.

You could be playing with Appearance.

Wow, now I imagining a group trying to play FATAL playing as themselves.

Thank you for that amazing mental image. I need to go chug some brain bleach.

[NNescio]

Wow, now I imagining a group trying to play FATAL playing as themselves.

Thank you for that amazing mental image. I need to go chug some brain bleach.

Let's just say certain stats would require the application of callipers to certain uncomfortable places.

Urgh.

[SowZ]

If you want a bunch of arguments about intelligence and such... I cannot imagine putting a group of five D&D players, (stereotypically the nerd crowd,) in a room to discuss how smart everyone is/who is the smartest could ever end well.

HINT: There is always freeform roleplaying.

[Morph Bark]

Wow, now I imagining a group trying to play FATAL playing as themselves.

Thank you for that amazing mental image. I need to go chug some brain bleach.

Why, it was a pleasure, good sir! And remember, for all your "it could be worse" needs, just call 0800-MORPH-BARK and you too could have me lashing you with your own imagination! (Though it could be worse!)