PDA

View Full Version : The social/mental/physical disparity in roleplaying



Grizl' Bjorn
2017-05-02, 10:03 PM
This has come up in a couple of different threads (e.g. 'let's talk about what bugs us') and it's something I've been thinking about for years.

Suppose you divide tasks into social, mental and physical. The categories are from WoD, but I think they're basically applicable to most rolls in most roleplaying games. In 5e for example, the knowledge skills, intelligence skills and most wisdom skills are mental, the charisma skills and insight are social and pretty much everything else is physical.

A weak, unfit player can very easily play a character who is good at physical tasks. There may be some loss (the player may know a little less about martial arts, acrobatics climbing etc., and this might be reflected in their roleplaying) but on the whole there is no problem here.

However, an introverted or socially maladriot player will have considerable difficulty playing a character with good social stats. To a certain extent this can be mitigated by 'going by the rolls' and not paying much attention to the force of the roleplayed arguments and charm, but this takes away realism, and also an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game- using wits and finesse to try and talk imaginary people into doing things in imaginary situations.

Perhaps hardest of all will be a dumb (or perhaps just not on the ball) player playing a smart character. 'I come up with a brilliant solution to the puzzle' 'great... what is it?'

The asymetries here mean that all of a character's physical skill comes from their stats, but if there are two characters with a charisma stat of 16, the player who doesn't say anything or constantly sticks their foot in their mouth will have a lower 'effective' score for social skills, likewise for intelligence. On one extreme the danger is making a character's social stats irrelevant by leaning too much on the roleplay. On the other extreme the danger is making the skill of a player in conversation and problem solving irrelevant- thus taking away two enjoyable aspects of the game.

What's the solution here?

Mechalich
2017-05-02, 10:15 PM
There's no perfect solution to this, but it is absolutely something that GMs need to be aware of and work to manage actively. Not only is it important to make certain that introverted players are allowed to be effective social characters if they choose to build one, the converse is equally, if not more, important. Socially adept characters, or highly intelligent players, who produce characters who have the manners of a goat or are as dumb as a box of rocks need to be held by the GM to those standards. If a character rolls up a Thog and then proceeds to play as if they're Roy, you have a big problem.

As for players who have characters with intelligence greater than their own, that's a dicey own, and not just for players who aren't particularly intellectual. Many games, including D&D, allow players to have characters with legitimately superhuman intelligence (and also monsters with superhuman intelligence, though this is a lesser issue since the GM has more options to work with). Effective portrayal of genius in fiction of all kinds is extremely difficult, and often hinges on the narrative providing some mechanism to allow fait accompli scenarios that reveal the products of genius without elucidating the mechanism (the character of Grand Admiral Thrawn, well known among Star Wars fans, is a good example of this). In tabletop, sometimes the GM has to just provide answers to the players based on them being super-smart and call it good.

KillianHawkeye
2017-05-03, 12:00 AM
The obvious solution is to discard table-top roleplaying in favor of LARPing so that each character's physical performance is also based strongly on the player's natural talent. :smallwink::smallwink::smallwink:

Mr Beer
2017-05-03, 01:02 AM
Agree that supersmart is the hardest to convey. I dislike the idea of letting players roll to come up with a clever solution to an in-game problem, though I guess if it's strictly math based or something, then that would be reasonable. In most systems, high INT would tend to inform skills, so you'd be better at passing skill rolls.

I suppose that since TTRPGs reward (or should reward) ingenious player ideas, being legitimately slow IRL is a disadvantage. Not sure if that's a bug or a feature though.

Kalmageddon
2017-05-03, 01:51 AM
There is no solution because roleplaying itself is a mental and, even more, a social activity.

Knaight
2017-05-03, 02:34 AM
There is no solution because roleplaying itself is a mental and, even more, a social activity.

This. Now, there are designs which can emphasize or deemphasize particular subsets of these skills - I can think of a couple of games which really reward spreadsheet skills and the free time to crunch numbers (HERO), and others where that doesn't come into play at all, some which emphasize spatial positioning (Savage Worlds) and others where it comes up a lot less, some that emphasize budgets and planning ahead (Ryuutama) and some which don't, and even some that heavily reward a knack for working within a double blind decision framework in an abstract space (Burning Wheel), along with a bunch that don't do that. Fundamentally though there are some core skills that tend to stick around, and that's not a problem.

Martin Greywolf
2017-05-03, 03:06 AM
Yeah, I'm with "you can't have a solution to this by definition" camp. There are things you can do to mitigate these problems, but all of them will take you out of the game at least a little.

Case 1: socially awkward player playing a high charisma PC

You can encourage the player to use vague descriptions instead of playing out the conversations word-by-word as you normally would. Saying "I seduce her by pretending I too play the lyre" will have to do instead of playing through the conversation.

Case 2: not super smart player playing a genius PC

Best solution so far is to give these players meta currency and have them spend it to say "Ah, but it was all according to plan" or "Of course, I prepared for that and have this doodad on me". It doesn't perfectly simulate being smart, but it helps - this is one of the tricks DMs use behind the screen all the time.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-05-03, 04:07 AM
You can be a bit lenient as long as they show good intent. Let's say a player makes a seduction check on an NPC by acting out a serenade. Their character would obviously be much better at singing than the player is, so their wailing does not raise the DC. It's a bit more problematic if they try this approach while at the NPC's father's funeral, but if you think the player actually doesn't know any better, hey, allow it with the specific side note that this only works in games.

Brainy stuff can depend on the game a lot. If there are enough skills to use it with that can help. Hacking a computer usually does not require the player to describe what kind of malware they're downloading through which port. And even something like being a great tactician can sort of work that way. "We surround the enemy. And I of course know the most tactically sound way to do so." Even if the GM thinks surrounding the enemy is a stupid move under the circumstances (spreading the lines too thin, not being prepared for an outside attack) they can grant some sort of bonus that helps with that, or even subtly take control of the players to hint at stuff. "Your hirelings surround the enemy, sticking together in small groups, each with a lookout watching their back." Maybe even better is to allow other players to pitch in. Their combined brainpower simulates the expertise of any single PC.

It's a hassle, in some ways the DM is now playing against himself and it can cause intra-party conflict. But if we didn't want to have this sort of flexibility we'd be playing a computer game.

Misereor
2017-05-03, 05:54 AM
This has come up in a couple of different threads (e.g. 'let's talk about what bugs us') and it's something I've been thinking about for years.

Suppose you divide tasks into social, mental and physical. The categories are from WoD, but I think they're basically applicable to most rolls in most roleplaying games. In 5e for example, the knowledge skills, intelligence skills and most wisdom skills are mental, the charisma skills and insight are social and pretty much everything else is physical.

A weak, unfit player can very easily play a character who is good at physical tasks. There may be some loss (the player may know a little less about martial arts, acrobatics climbing etc., and this might be reflected in their roleplaying) but on the whole there is no problem here.

However, an introverted or socially maladriot player will have considerable difficulty playing a character with good social stats. To a certain extent this can be mitigated by 'going by the rolls' and not paying much attention to the force of the roleplayed arguments and charm, but this takes away realism, and also an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game- using wits and finesse to try and talk imaginary people into doing things in imaginary situations.

Perhaps hardest of all will be a dumb (or perhaps just not on the ball) player playing a smart character. 'I come up with a brilliant solution to the puzzle' 'great... what is it?'

The asymetries here mean that all of a character's physical skill comes from their stats, but if there are two characters with a charisma stat of 16, the player who doesn't say anything or constantly sticks their foot in their mouth will have a lower 'effective' score for social skills, likewise for intelligence. On one extreme the danger is making a character's social stats irrelevant by leaning too much on the roleplay. On the other extreme the danger is making the skill of a player in conversation and problem solving irrelevant- thus taking away two enjoyable aspects of the game.

What's the solution here?

I use a "nursing the modfiers" approach.
Basically, I don't allow a charismatic player to use his personal charm to get by a guard if his character has atrocious social abilities. If I did, why should the player waste points on social skills? And why would anyone make a "face" type character? Nope, they have to roll, but I'll make the effort worth some modifiers. Likewise I don't penalize an quiet player for not trying to be charming in person, when his or her character is smoother than teflon on ice. Do your spiel and roll the dice, and I'll make whatever effort you put into it worth some modifiers.

My players only get to breeze by on a ability/skill check if their effort is entertaining to the rest of the table, or they make a superb effort comparatively to the difficulty of the task.

Slipperychicken
2017-05-03, 06:35 AM
To involve players' physique in roleplaying and better represemt fatigue, I've implemented a system:

On any strength roll, do your choice of pushups, bench-press (if available), or sit-ups. The number you do (until you spend more than 3 seconds between reps) represents the highest possible result your character can achieve on that roll. If you are found to be cheating (not using proper technique, etc), then the check is s critical failure.

On any dexterity-based roll, you have to play kick-up with a beanie bag. Likewise, the number of kicks before it hits the ground serves as a cap on the possible results with that roll. Elbows, head, shoulders, and other parts of the body may be used at the group's discretion. Touching the bag with your fingers after the first kick is an automatic critical failure. A particularly entertaining display may be awarded inspiration.

For constitution rolls, it's the same thing with the cap determined by the number of jumping jacks you do, divided by 5. For instance doing 100 jumping jacks means the highest result is 20. Getting sloppy (failing to properly extend legs, arms not fully upwards, etc) means it's a critical failure.

Millstone85
2017-05-03, 08:42 AM
It still surprises me that the mental aspect would be considered the most problematic.

First, there are knowledge checks, or should I say character-knowledge checks. This is something that ought to be separated from the player. A floating and otherwise motionless ball, with eyestalks? Okay, probably a gas spore, but has my character even heard of beholders? Then again, maybe that's the problem, because nobody at the table is prepared to "play dumb". DMs who forbid their players to ever have a look at the MM only validate this mindset.

Then there is the matter of cleverness...
'I come up with a brilliant solution to the puzzle' 'great... what is it?'In 5e, that would be an Intelligence (Investigation) check to piece together clues on how to solve the puzzle, if not get the complete solution.

It is not entirely satisfying but it is something. I can more or less see where the rollplay should end and the roleplay begin.

Not so with the social aspect.

Frozen_Feet
2017-05-03, 09:17 AM
The same goes what I said in the other current thread about disparity in player skill:

Overall, the plainest, common sense solution to disparity in player skill is to teach the weaker players to be better at whatever game is being played. [ ... ] Most other "solutions" tend to dodge the problem rather than actually solve it, or they just shift the problem around.

As noted by earlier posters, tabletop gaming is by its nature 1) non-physical and 2) mental & social exercise. The only way to solve 1) is to get the Hell away from a table and start doing physical things. There is no way to get rid of 2), in any group activity actually being smart or social provides some sort of advantage over not being so.

Jay R
2017-05-03, 11:50 AM
Back in the 1970s, I proposed just re-defining "Intelligence" to mean magical intuition and "Wisdom" to mean divine intuition. That idea worked back then, since the stats weren't used very often.

Now, it's harder. The closest you can come to is to consider "Intelligence" the ability to recall knowledge quickly under stress, and "Wisdom" the ability to process perception quickly under stress.

I also try to treat actual ideas that come from player intelligence, wisdom, and charisma to be the equivalent to situational bonuses that come from paying attention to the situation in combat. Putting together a good speech to convince the king to aid you is thus similar to thinking to roll the boulders down on the enemy.

The crucial thing you need to realize is that you cannot prevent player intelligence from improving the PC's effectiveness, just as a smart battle plan will help your fighters to fight more effectively.

Thrudd
2017-05-03, 11:59 AM
Hopefully, playing these games helps the players actually improve their real-life mental and social "stats", and the disparity will shrink in any given group as they play and learn from each other. As was pointed out, table top games are mental exercises which generally reward different types of intelligence (including social intelligence), so players who have more skill in that area will do better. That's how it's supposed to be. The players who aren't good at first learn by playing with those more skilled than them, and get better. That's also how all games and skills work, in real life.

Mordar
2017-05-03, 12:20 PM
There is no solution because roleplaying itself is a mental and, even more, a social activity.

/thread (in my opinion). Role-playing games are (were?) meant to be a social and intellectual pursuit where the players take on the forms and personas of fictional characters in a fictional world.

Will there be different levels of skill in taking on those personas? Yes. Will there be different levels of social and intellectual ability? Of course, though "playing to type" suggests that the population may skew lower on one scale and higher on the other scale as compared to the general population.

I do think it is interesting, but fitting, that one can "roll play" out of weaknesses in the social sphere very easily (and by design) while the mental sphere takes a bit more ingenuity on the part of the players (including the GM)*, and the physical sphere is, of course, fully "rolled".

The OP mentions the issue of player social skill impacting character social results, and how the same does not apply for physical skills. I agree that there will be times when player skill (perhaps social skill, perhaps perception of the "proper course of social interaction") can obviate the need for a social skill roll...I don't see that as a problem, and probably a mark of a good game. However, there is a legitimate concern that (much like the highly skilled player playing the "dumb barbarian" and still telling the wizard how to manage his spellcasting to bypass the intricate trap on the ancient pyramid and then directing the party through the trivia maze to the treasure) a socially capable player will marginalize the face character made by the less-socially-adept player.

I think the key here is to not let the socially adept player hog the spotlight and provide the face-character-player their chance to shine. In particular, make use of their intent and ideation as much or more than their actual delivery. Much like a fighter gains bonuses to attacks based on using the terrain and other features in a combat against the adversary (say, flanking for +2 or combat advantage or whatever), allow and encourage the same in social interactions. Just because I can't deliver a speech that rallies the crowd against the shopkeeper doesn't mean I can't elucidate the points I want to make (he's a stranger...he's gouging the poor...he's in league with Weaseltown, whatever) to gain additional value to my roll. That way even if I can't demonstrate skill in convincing the crowd (or swording the goblin in the head), I can evidence understanding of the situation that might be helpful in advancing my case.

In short, I think the physical sphere and social sphere are a lot a like...with the added caveat that the social sphere does have the option of directly bypassing rolls.

- M

* - To overcome weaknesses in the mental sphere not directly tied to in-game knowledge (arcana, religion, etc) requires willingness and ability on the part of the GM to "hint" well, and that's a tough thing to do. And there's the RPG-age-old issue of "how to play dumb" when the player isn't, and there are clear downsides to playing "dumb" including character death/group failure.

sktarq
2017-05-03, 01:17 PM
I find the idea that since PRPG's are a mental and social activity those with greater mental and social ability are just going to be better and nothing should be done problematic. Your stats should matter. While the advantages exist the GM/ST/DM should prevent abuse and mitigate the discrepancies between the character on the sheet and the character as played


Dumb Player with Smart Character: Give more hints. Let ideas percolate for longer. Let them ask questions in some situations (what does my character think the chances of X are? Being one such family of questions) Bring up relevant plot points to them. Ask them leading questions that get them to question/study things the party is misreading.

Smart Player with Dumb character: Far tougher than the above. Give extraneous info (but not false info). Demand answers to mental challenges faster.
See if you can work with the player on this (I once had an 8 int warforged who for table reasons had to be able to come up with solutions to mental challenges so we decided that the character was more really slow thinking than anything. And spent the evenings mulling things over while people slept-so the next "day" I could contribute to such problems) There are other ways too-guys with spikes for example. While I don't like doing it if abuse is going on the GM/ST/DM can be vague in their descriptions when a dumb/unwise character asks stuff vs smart/wise. To an extent this can also be done with charisma

Socially Inept players with Socially Adroit Characters: Encourage vagueness. "I ask about X", "I try to get them to think I'm a delivery man" "I try to get them to say how they and the other guards feel about the targets" type stuff rather than acting it out. It may help to describe what the character does do (mimicing how the DM/ST/GM describes the results of physical tests and combat rolls) and add colourful details and humour like you would for dramatic combat ..This does have limits though. REALLY maladroit players may well have no idea about good things to target or ask about. Try to lead such people often feels frustrating for both player and GM/DM/ST particularly if the player is experienced in TTRPG's in general as it often mimics how basic strategy and attack and other combat options are laid out to new players. Much care must be given to not letting the player feel like a puppet of more socially adept players and GMS as they often specifically chose to build a socially adept "face" type character. So it is mostly manageable but has tendency to really blow up badly if things go wrong.

Socially Adroit Player with a Socially Inept Character: I think this is the toughest to deal with. Best solution I have come up with is to just secretly roll checks for what player does with the scores of their character and react to the roll more than the player. So even if the player presents a good logical deal to the NPC (if they fail a secret persuasion check) have the NPC react with distrust and demands. Have the NPC's flat out treat the PC worse than other PC's so that the other players step up. Have NPC's be overtly friendly to high charisma PC's right out the gate and semi ignore low ones. It can easily be taken too far and needs a light touch. But really I have not found a better way.

sktarq
2017-05-03, 01:37 PM
Other things that help as a DM/ST/GM - when presenting a social challenge to the party and you know the party's face is played by a socially inept player or a mental challenge and the "smart" PC has a dunce player be extra careful in body language and presentation. Square your shoulders to that player and make extra eye contact with that player. If you can try to mimic their speech patterns to a degree.
Handing them the lead response is the goal. Even if it is more about having them lead the the OOC talk about what to do. Make that player feel like the star. If another pc tries something in their wheelhouse and fails look to them, or even ask, if they want a swing at it. Use combat metaphors to explain that they can try again in many cases. Just because the wizard missed with his staff that the fighter will also miss with his sword is an apt metaphor for many social challenges. Try to reward players who do this stuff well because playing against your own mind is far harder against one's body in a game set in a socially linked headspace.

Thrudd
2017-05-03, 03:21 PM
Some people think of this past-time as a ROLE playing game. Others think of it as a role playing GAME. Which approach is more dominant in your philosophy will dictate to some extent how much the GM mechanizes the mental/problem solving aspects of the game and/or helps players out.

Whether you emphasize the ROLE or the GAME, sometimes the GM will give the players hints, even if there is not a mechanical excuse for doing so. And ultimately, the players have to rely on their own thinking or else they aren't really doing anything.

There is no getting away from the players' intelligence and creativity coming into play during the game. If it doesn't, there is literally no point to the activity. If the player's own choices don't affect the outcome because they are always overruled or "helped" by the GM whenever they might make a mistake, citing the intelligence score of their character, there is likewise no point to the activity.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-04, 07:03 AM
There is no solution because roleplaying itself is a mental and, even more, a social activity.

I agree here, there is really nothing to be done.

After all it is a false premise to start with that somehow ''everyone can be amazingly great at everything''. But no matter how many times a teacher, high school counselor , coach, or your parents say ''everyone can do everything'', it is simply not true.

And you can't even start to fix that with a game.

You can do the odd parental thing were the DM or Players ''judge'' one person and then ''help them''. It's artificial, but it can work as long as everyone does not think about it and the game just rolls on. Though few people have the willingness to do the ''help'' long term (aka forever).

I find the best thing to do is to simply let people just be themselves and not worry about it.

Grod_The_Giant
2017-05-04, 08:27 AM
However, an introverted or socially maladriot player will have considerable difficulty playing a character with good social stats. To a certain extent this can be mitigated by 'going by the rolls' and not paying much attention to the force of the roleplayed arguments and charm, but this takes away realism, and also an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game- using wits and finesse to try and talk imaginary people into doing things in imaginary situations.
So your argument here is "it's hard to play a socialite when you're not good at talking; sure, there are rules that let you do it, but I don't like when we use them, so there's no solution." Yes?

Because seriously... there's your solution right there: use the friggin' rules. We don't demand that you know how to use a sword to make an attack roll, or that you know ancient history to make a Knowledge (History) roll, so why demand that you be good at talking to make a Diplomacy roll? Handle it like anything else-- get the player to describe what they're trying to accomplish in as much detail as they enjoy, award a bonus for a particularly clever idea/good speech, and roll to see the result. (Or go "that makes sense, it works," as the case may be).


Perhaps hardest of all will be a dumb (or perhaps just not on the ball) player playing a smart character. 'I come up with a brilliant solution to the puzzle' 'great... what is it?'
Hints. Give the player hints more often than others, ask them "are you sure?" more often when they're going to make a mistake, and occasionally use your narration to play to their strengths: "you see this, this, and this detail; Mialee realizes a conclusion!"


The asymetries here mean that all of a character's physical skill comes from their stats, but if there are two characters with a charisma stat of 16, the player who doesn't say anything or constantly sticks their foot in their mouth will have a lower 'effective' score for social skills, likewise for intelligence.
That's a spotlight problem more than a "good at talking" problem. Encourage the talkative player to step back sometimes, and the quiet ones to step forward.

Quertus
2017-05-04, 08:36 AM
First off, "going by the rolls" does not take away from the realism; in fact, if anything, it adds to the realism. What it can do is take away from the immersion. As a fan of player skills, how could I possibly respond but, "get better at immersion"? :smalltongue:

Once you accept going by the rolls as the most realistic way to play the game, and start there as your baseline, the question becomes, what can you add to the game to make it better?

To really answer this question, you have to understand a lot about the nature of fun, games, and human psychology, but, fortunately, it's already spelled out in the title: role-playing game.

Going by the rolls should help the geniuses playing idiots and the socialites playing... dullards?... to understand that you care about correct role-playing of the character, and you aren't going to let them use their skills to gain unfair advantage thought bad role-playing of their characters' disadvantages. Half the problem solved already! And, as a fan of player skills, you can scream, "get better at role-playing!" at them if they try to use their personal knowledge / charisma to override their characters' deficiencies, if you like. :smalltongue:

Wait, did I say half? Well, while you've solved the problem of getting value out of playing a character with higher stats, you still need to work on the role-playing aspect. To draw these players out, you need to show that it's the roll that matters, but require that they explain a few of the details of certain things, or show how they can get bonuses for certain things, to encourage them to engage at a level as close to role-playing / acting out their character as possible.

To sum up what I said in the other thread, in my games, there's 3 levels of modifiers to success at an action.

At the lowest level, you have the circumstance modifiers: you can gain small advantage in combat by flanking, taking higher ground, etc; small bonus in survival by bringing a blanket, shovel, whatever; small bonus to social by dressing well (or poorly, depending), being polite (or rude, depending), etc.

In the middle, you have your character's skills and your roll.

At the highest level, you have what you are trying to accomplish - your strategy, if you will: having your pixie grapple a giant rock vs hitting it with a touch attack; taking shelter in a cave vs in a lake; appealing to a target's virtue/vice vs trying to convince them to eat something they know that they're deathly allergic to.

And, personally, as a fan of player skills, I make things like solving puzzles a completely player skills thing, with the caveat of hitting people upside the head with books when they fail to take into account the player skill called "role-playing".

So, as a fan of player skills and role-playing, I'm not seeing the problem.

Segev
2017-05-04, 08:51 AM
A significant part of the cause of this problem is the nature of where the games come from. D&D is the grand-pappy of RPGs (even if there might be one or two older ones), and it evolved from a minis wargame. Combat was the initial main focus of mechanics. Physical activities the second, because the game mainly focused around what is now termed kick-in-the-door style play. Characters were game pieces, and losing one was just a mechanical inconvenience as you had to level up a new one.

Later games - both newer editions of D&D and other RP systems entirely - expanded into having PCs be what we think of them as, today. But the combat systems remained the most well-developed, even as some systems added skill subsystems and even some social mechanics. (Mental mechanics remain almost exclusively an aspect of skill subsystems.)

A solution would be to identify what the goals of a "social" or "mental" subsystem would be, and to design one that relied on mechanics as much as the physical subsystems (particularly combat) do, with that level of depth.

Just as tactical knowledge and decision-making is important to the combat minigame, social tactics and understanding would be important to choosing the right ploys to attempt on different people to shift their priorities, earn their respect/fear/love/lust/ire, and convince them (based on their emotional state and how they think of you) to take actions you desire. For symmetry, such systems would also have to give the players an idea of how their characters are influenced, in turn. (Because of this, I advocate for a bonus/penalty system to make cooperating with a character's mechanically-driven mental and emotional state easier, and defying it harder, rather than flat-out "mind control" where the (N)PC is compelled to particular (in)action.)

A mental - as in intellectual - subsystem would probably actually have to be a few specific, probably skill-based subsystems. But tools in that arsenal might be that meta-currency somebody else suggested, allowing smarter characters retcon ability. "Good thing I thought to prepare THIS spell today!" "I foresaw this happenstance, which is why I called the police before we came here. They should be arriving....well, now."

Jay R
2017-05-04, 10:57 AM
Playing the game means making a long series of decisions about what the character tries to do, based on the player's knowledge of the situation and the character's abilities.

If those decisions matter, then a player who makes more intelligent decisions will have a more effective character than a player who makes less intelligent decisions.

And if those decisions don't matter, then "playing the character" means not much more than rooting for a player at a sporting event.

[This is part of why I don't want a DM who will ensure that the characters will live no matter what. In this situation, I'm not overcoming anything; the DM is. I'm just telling the DM which tool to do it with. Yes, when the battle is raging I would like a quick, easy risk-free solution, just like everybody else. But the next day, I want to have been in a dangerous, threatening situation which I found a way to conquer. For that to be what happened, sometimes I have to fail to conquer it (or a lesser plan might have failed to conquer it), or it was never actually threatening.]

Of course, those player decisions should take into account the character's stats. Suppose we need to convince the king that a raiding party of orcs is nearing the city, and my fighter has low CHA. I would not waste time using the diplomacy skill; I would throw a bag of orc heads at his feet. This is a well-planned method for changing somebody's mind without using CHA.

If my low-INT, low-CHA fighter convinces the king with that bag of heads, he has been neither as intelligent as the wizard nor as charismatic as the bard, but he has been the one with the best plan for convincing him, without intelligence or charisma. This is no different from a low-STR character using a winch to move a heavier burden than the fighter who merely lifted with his hands.

Use what you have that will work, and don't try things that aren't likely to work.

You cannot keep the player who makes with the best decisions from having the most effective character - if player decisions matter at all.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-04, 12:12 PM
A solution would be to identify what the goals of a "social" or "mental" subsystem would be, and to design one that relied on mechanics as much as the physical subsystems (particularly combat) do, with that level of depth.


Except this would not work.

Even if you had a billion page, interactive amazing game that was exactly like real life....it still would not change the players. So if a player is ''X'', they will still be ''X''. Worse, if Fred has a hard time ''talking to people'', he will still have a hard time ''pretending to talk to people''. For a player to pretend to do something is just as hard as doing it for real...or, you, know they would already be able to pretend to do it.

Even if you make it a pure roll playing game where the player can roll for everything and never role play at all, you'd still have the problem of the player will need to know when to roll. So you'd need a whole other ''common sense game'' to have that game just tell the player when they should roll or a take an action in the other game.

And you'd have to have every other player to use the system and agree to play ''at that one persons level''. So, even if a normal player say, thought of a real joke for his gnome character, he would still just roll the dice and be like ''my character says a joke" and each of the other players would roll to see if their character thought it was funny...

And that would be on top of the fact that such a roll playing game would be about as bad as an 80's text adventure computer game. So it would be like ''my character talks to the king and the king likes me''. Wow, exciting game play.

Quertus
2017-05-04, 12:22 PM
Playing the game means making a long series of decisions about what the character tries to do, based on the player's knowledge of the situation and the character's abilities.

If those decisions matter, then a player who makes more intelligent decisions will have a more effective character than a player who makes less intelligent decisions.

And if those decisions don't matter, then "playing the character" means not much more than rooting for a player at a sporting event.

[This is part of why I don't want a DM who will ensure that the characters will live no matter what. In this situation, I'm not overcoming anything; the DM is. I'm just telling the DM which tool to do it with. Yes, when the battle is raging I would like a quick, easy risk-free solution, just like everybody else. But the next day, I want to have been in a dangerous, threatening situation which I found a way to conquer. For that to be what happened, sometimes I have to fail to conquer it (or a lesser plan might have failed to conquer it), or it was never actually threatening.]

Of course, those player decisions should take into account the character's stats. Suppose we need to convince the king that a raiding party of orcs is nearing the city, and my fighter has low CHA. I would not waste time using the diplomacy skill; I would throw a bag of orc heads at his feet. This is a well-planned method for changing somebody's mind without using CHA.

If my low-INT, low-CHA fighter convinces the king with that bag of heads, he has been neither as intelligent as the wizard nor as charismatic as the bard, but he has been the one with the best plan for convincing him, without intelligence or charisma. This is no different from a low-STR character using a winch to move a heavier burden than the fighter who merely lifted with his hands.

Use what you have that will work, and don't try things that aren't likely to work.

You cannot keep the player who makes with the best decisions from having the most effective character - if player decisions matter at all.

This is why removing player skills from the game is a pipe-dream. You can choose (somewhat) which player skills you reward, but you cannot choose not to reward player skills at all without invalidating player agency. As a big fan of player agency, it's not surprising that I'm a fan of player skills, too.

We may differ a hair over the role of the character's personality in this equation, and quibble over the weight of role-playing on the scales of effectiveness, but sounds like we're on the same page.

Knaight
2017-05-04, 12:45 PM
This is why removing player skills from the game is a pipe-dream. You can choose (somewhat) which player skills you reward, but you cannot choose not to reward player skills at all without invalidating player agency. As a big fan of player agency, it's not surprising that I'm a fan of player skills, too.

It's not just somewhat - some player skills are harder to deemphasize or emphasize than others, but there's room for a dramatic range of player skills. If you've already picked a particular system this narrows a bit, but even then there's all sorts of setting stuff.

Segev
2017-05-04, 12:57 PM
Except this would not work.

Even if you had a billion page, interactive amazing game that was exactly like real life....it still would not change the players. So if a player is ''X'', they will still be ''X''. Worse, if Fred has a hard time ''talking to people'', he will still have a hard time ''pretending to talk to people''. For a player to pretend to do something is just as hard as doing it for real...or, you, know they would already be able to pretend to do it. As usual, you fail to read what I wrote and insert your own made-up argument to rail against.

Even if Fred doesn't know the first thing about swordplay, he can tell that moving his fighter into flanking position is advantageous, and how to path himself to avoid AoOs. He can judge that the big orc casting healing magic might be a better target than the ogres in the front who keep getting healed.

The goal of such a system for social aspects would be to allow Fred to not have to break the ice, himself. He could simply say, "I want to figure out who to talk to to get this thing I want done, done." He'd describe, perhaps, how his character goes about searching, but even if he's got no idea, he'd be able to roll to figure it out. The GM lists candidates and what they could do and how, and Fred picks one to go talk to. He says what his pitch is - what he's offering, what he wants, and any strategic notes on how to manipulate, cajole, intimidate, or entice the target NPC to want to work with him. He may have to make several rolls, figuring out what the target wants and doesn't want, selling things so the target desires them, and ultimately negotiating an agreement.

Or, if Fred wants his bard to woo the fair princess, he doesn't have to compose sonnets nor be charming, himself. He only has to start by figuring out what she likes, and state that he'll play on that. Or state that he's going to try to instill in her a liking for something he's good at. Working from those points, he builds up (through rolls and choices) her enjoyment of things associated with him, and thus his own presence, until he has her generally happy to be around him and liking his company.


Even if you make it a pure roll playing game where the player can roll for everything and never role play at all, you'd still have the problem of the player will need to know when to roll.First off, combat is not just "pure roll playing," even though there's a lot of rolling. This need be no different.

Secondly, why would the player need to "know when to roll?" The player says what he's trying to do. The GM tells him when and what to roll. And maybe the player rethinks his strategy if the nature of the roll isn't to his liking.


And you'd have to have every other player to use the system and agree to play ''at that one persons level''.Everybody uses the same subsystems at the table anyway. And no, nobody has to play "at that person's level" any more than they play at the lowest level of combat skill at the table.


So, even if a normal player say, thought of a real joke for his gnome character, he would still just roll the dice and be like ''my character says a joke" and each of the other players would roll to see if their character thought it was funny...:smallsigh:

Because obviously, if the witty banter you engage in over a sword-fight doesn't give you bonuses to hit and damage, you won't do them. Nor will you describe how your character looks unless that earns you bonus XP. Nor will you describe the dramatic scene where you swing across the gorge on a rope you've lasso'd to a passing flying whale; you'll just roll Acrobatics with a +2 circumstance bonus and say "I cross the gorge with a bonus for that rope."

I know you probably have this experience, DU, but you have only yourself and the way you punish your players for not mind-reading what you wanted them to do to blame.


And that would be on top of the fact that such a roll playing game would be about as bad as an 80's text adventure computer game. So it would be like ''my character talks to the king and the king likes me''. Wow, exciting game play.Yep, just like D&D is "my character fights the ogre and the ogre dies" with a single roll. Totally.

icefractal
2017-05-04, 02:02 PM
You can remove the social component - partly. It will still be present when the players are debating on a course of action with each-other, unless you rule that using Diplomacy against the other PCs is not only allowed but mandatory, which most people are going to hate. Also, it will mean that social encounters are a less significant part of the game, similar to picking a lock or some other "roll and done" task.

But I don't think it's possible to remove the mental component, because ultimately if there are decisions, and those decisions are meaningful, then there are better and worse courses of action. And the players are using their own mental facilities to pick between those courses of action.

People talk about the mental component in regards to puzzle solving, or knowledge-having, or other things like that which you can choose to abstract away if you don't care about making them a focus of the game. But it's not only those!

When you decide where to move in combat, which spell to cast, which spell to prepare, which place to travel, who to ally with, which goals are a higher priority - really any meaningful decision, that's the player's mental abilities coming into play, not the character's.

The only way to avoid that, in a traditional RPG framework like D&D, would be if the players don't make any decisions other than purely cosmetic ones. Do you use red or green spells? Either one will work equally well. Do you travel through the haunted forest or the bandit-filled mountains? Either one gets you to the destination at the same time with the same amount of danger. Combat? Combat could be entirely automatic, the players wouldn't even need to be there except as spectators.


That said, some narrative RPGs would work for this ... sort of. In games where you're not trying to succeed (like Fiasco) or even not playing as a specific character at all (like Microscope), then the mental abilities of the players are irrelevant to how successful the characters are. In highly abstract games, conflict resolution results can be separate from the specific actions characters take - ie. your character panicked and stumbled into a bookcase which fell on him, but since you succeeded at the roll / spent more narrative currency, then the conflict resolves in your favor; perhaps a spellbook happened to ‘go off’ when it fell off the shelf and randomly fired the perfect spell to send the foes fleeing.

However, there’s a reason I say “sort of”. Most games of that type - all of them that I’ve played, at least - are heavily dependent on player creativity and roleplaying to be enjoyable. You can play FATE with your brain turned off, and the characters will still be just as likely to succeed … but it will be the most boring experience since watching paint dry.

Mechalich
2017-05-04, 02:59 PM
When you decide where to move in combat, which spell to cast, which spell to prepare, which place to travel, who to ally with, which goals are a higher priority - really any meaningful decision, that's the player's mental abilities coming into play, not the character's.


Ideally people would make those sorts of decisions in character and not in a purely tactical aspect. After all, if a player who is controlling a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks character comes up with a cunning and highly involved multi-step strategy for blocking the BBEG's plan, the GM is fully within their rights to say 'make an intelligence check, oh you failed, nope, your character isn't smart enough to come up with that idea.' Now this is often hard for a GM to do, in both intelligence and social skills based situations. Telling players who just came up with cool-sounding ideas 'your character doesn't get to do that' is not fun. There is actually a strong argument that players shouldn't play against type very often in RPGs because it's difficult to sustain as a practical matter.

Ultimately the player should be deciding what their character would do, not what is the best solution or even what is a solution at all. That includes tactical choices and spell preparation choices and even build choices. Now D&D has a specific problem in that the smartest characters are already the most powerful (wizards) which means playing mental stats appropriately just hoses martials even more than they otherwise would be and that's a design flaw.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-04, 03:12 PM
Ideally people would make those sorts of decisions in character and not in a purely tactical aspect. After all, if a player who is controlling a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks character comes up with a cunning and highly involved multi-step strategy for blocking the BBEG's plan, the GM is fully within their rights to say 'make an intelligence check, oh you failed, nope, your character isn't smart enough to come up with that idea.' Now this is often hard for a GM to do, in both intelligence and social skills based situations. Telling players who just came up with cool-sounding ideas 'your character doesn't get to do that' is not fun. There is actually a strong argument that players shouldn't play against type very often in RPGs because it's difficult to sustain as a practical matter.


My characters always end up having to be one of the "smart" or "knows stuff" characters, so I don't try to force myself to play low-INT or ignorant characters. I'd end up hurting the "team" by being silent, and having no fun struggling to keep my mouth shut.




Ultimately the player should be deciding what their character would do, not what is the best solution or even what is a solution at all. That includes tactical choices and spell preparation choices and even build choices. Now D&D has a specific problem in that the smartest characters are already the most powerful (wizards) which means playing mental stats appropriately just hoses martials even more than they otherwise would be and that's a design flaw.


Thus the running joke with Roy.

icefractal
2017-05-04, 03:29 PM
After all, if a player who is controlling a dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks character comes up with a cunning and highly involved multi-step strategy for blocking the BBEG's plan, the GM is fully within their rights to say 'make an intelligence check, oh you failed, nope, your character isn't smart enough to come up with that idea.'There are several issues with that:
1) Most plans in RPGs do not actually require a genius to come up with. Also, Int isn't the only factor involved.
2) Intelligence checks are very swingy.
3) This simply encourages keeping the plan to yourself and doing the relevant steps without saying they're part of any greater scheme.
4) More important than any of that, this only simulates lower Int, not higher.
5) More important than that - in what way does this make the game more fun? I can't see how someone coming up with a plan and then randomly not being able to do it makes things a more enjoyable experience for anyone at the table.


The issue in general hasn't been much of a problem in any game I've been in, but if I did want to solve it I think I'd go the other direction - eliminate/redefine stats that can't be simulated entirely within the game.

In 3.x D&D, for example, Int already does a number of useful things (number of skills known, casting stat for several classes, bonus to a number of skills) even if we completely drop any claim that it determines how smart the character is. Ditto Wisdom. Charisma, and Charisma-based skills, would have to be refactored if interactions were going to be down to RP. Possibly by turning the skills into a pool of "social points" that you could use to "unsay" things that went over badly, sense what kind of leverage would motive a given NPC, make people more willing to talk to you in the first place, etc. Or just merge it with Wisdom.

Segev
2017-05-04, 03:31 PM
You can also get some mileage out of allowing OOC collaboration between players to come up with plans and ideas, and then assign those ideas that are deemed best to the character who's intellect and wisdom suggests he might have come up with it.

Jay R
2017-05-04, 04:56 PM
Ultimately the player should be deciding what their character would do, not what is the best solution or even what is a solution at all.

This assumes that it's a binary choice - the one thing that is most effective vs. the one thing that is in character. The idea that there is only one thing that a character might do in a given situation, and that tactical considerations aren't part of it, is simply false. It doesn't apply to any person I've ever met, with any level of intelligence.

Out of the many things that my character might reasonably do, I want to choose the most effective one. And in my experience, an intelligent, well-read, experienced gamer is not only more likely to choose an effective option, she is also more likely to choose an in-character one.

Near the end of The Princess Bride, Fezzik happens to think to get horses for the party. That isn't out of character, and it is well within his mental capabilities, as he carefully but simple-mindedly explains.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-04, 05:02 PM
This assumes that it's a binary choice - the one thing that is most effective vs. the one thing that is in character. The idea that there is only one thing that a character might do in a given situation, and that tactical considerations aren't part of it, is simply false. It doesn't apply to any person I've ever met, with any level of intelligence.

Out of the many things that my character might reasonably do, I want to choose the most effective one. And in my experience, an intelligent, well-read, experienced gamer is not only more likely to choose an effective option, she is also more likely to choose an in-character one.

Near the end of The Princess Bride, Fezzik happens to think to get horses for the party. That isn't out of character, and it is well within his mental capabilities, as he carefully but simple-mindedly explains.

Indeed. Typically, a character will have a goal, something they'll want, and part of being in-character is doing what the character thinks will get them that goal, balanced against other things the character thinks or feels are important.

I apologize to whoever I'm stealing this from without giving credit, but someone here has repeatedly said (paraphrasing) "Most characters actively do no want to die, just as most real people do not want to die. Avoiding death is in-character for almost every character." And yet for whatever reason, some players and GMs come across as if they think that avoiding death is an "out of character" or "metagame" consideration.

jayem
2017-05-04, 05:07 PM
You can also get some mileage out of allowing OOC collaboration between players to come up with plans and ideas, and then assign those ideas that are deemed best to the character who's intellect and wisdom suggests he might have come up with it.

Which you'd also likely do in combat.

Segev
2017-05-04, 05:59 PM
Which you'd also likely do in combat.

Absolutely. It is something I've seen a rare (and generally poor in other ways besides this) GM try to prevent by forcibly telling people not to metagame in combat. It goes over poorly and always makes for a less engaging combat round.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-04, 06:03 PM
Absolutely. It is something I've seen a rare (and generally poor in other ways besides this) GM try to prevent by forcibly telling people not to metagame in combat. It goes over poorly and always makes for a less engaging combat round.


In my head, the "perfect system" syncs up the in-setting, in-character, and mechanical aspects if the combat so that the disconnect or tension is minimal.

Sadly, this may be what some refer to as a "platonic ideal", and not something that can every actually be real.

Esprit15
2017-05-04, 06:24 PM
One tactic I have seen work well is to let the player RP something until they start making a mistake. At that point, let them finish their sentence and ask them for the appropriate roll, and explain how the character adjusts their behavior, or note things that they may not have realized but their character would have. For example:

Player: "Everyone, but as much alchemist's fire as you can. That young red dragon won't know what hit it!"
DM: Hey, wizard, roll me Knowledge (Arcana) real quick.
Player: *roll* 27
DM: You might want to go with something cold based. Red dragons are immune to fire. Your character would know that.

Obviously there can be more subtle examples, but it's something that has helped a lot, especially in games where the players may not know everything about the setting.

Mechalich
2017-05-04, 06:46 PM
This assumes that it's a binary choice - the one thing that is most effective vs. the one thing that is in character. The idea that there is only one thing that a character might do in a given situation, and that tactical considerations aren't part of it, is simply false. It doesn't apply to any person I've ever met, with any level of intelligence.

Out of the many things that my character might reasonably do, I want to choose the most effective one. And in my experience, an intelligent, well-read, experienced gamer is not only more likely to choose an effective option, she is also more likely to choose an in-character one.

Near the end of The Princess Bride, Fezzik happens to think to get horses for the party. That isn't out of character, and it is well within his mental capabilities, as he carefully but simple-mindedly explains.

No, it doesn't assume a binary choice. The most effective thing might be the most in character or it might not be. Yes, if the character is in a position to consider the situation logically and arrive at a reasoned conclusion they will probably choose whatever option they conceive of as the best. However, the character is not always going to be in a position to consider their problems logically. When a character is subject to mental, emotional, or other stressors they may be inclined to make a decision that is anything but the 'best' solution because they don't even get to the point where they are reasoning.

To use an alternative example from The Princess Bride: during the rescue, Inigo encounters Rugen (the six-fingered man). Rugen, after his guards are killed, flees. Inigo pursues, which is totally against mission objectives and almost results in his death and the complete failure of the mission (because if Rugen survives and reunites with Humperdick they just kill Westley). The best decision, in that situation, would have been for Inigo to let Rugen go and focus on the mission. However, if that had actually happened in the film, everyone would scream bloody murder because it would be colossally out of character.

Imposing character-based burdens on is a classic storytelling technique, heck FATE has an entire mechanic built around the principal. Even the oWoD rewarded players for 'acting according to their nature.' D&D, of course, lacks any mechanism to reward a player for staying in character and roleplaying personal weaknesses of any kind.

Psikerlord
2017-05-04, 07:55 PM
Just rely on the rolls a bit more rather than player skill. No player could effectively roleplay and 18 Int or 18 cha character anyway. Or the GM a 20 int dragon, for that matter.

Roleplay as much as you want, whatever you feel is fun. What gets said might produce a bonus/penalty to the roll. And then you roll.

Not really a problem ime. This is one of those places where the "game" comes to the fore as opposed to the "role".

Bohandas
2017-05-04, 08:11 PM
This has come up in a couple of different threads (e.g. 'let's talk about what bugs us') and it's something I've been thinking about for years.

Suppose you divide tasks into social, mental and physical. The categories are from WoD, but I think they're basically applicable to most rolls in most roleplaying games. In 5e for example, the knowledge skills, intelligence skills and most wisdom skills are mental, the charisma skills and insight are social and pretty much everything else is physical.

A weak, unfit player can very easily play a character who is good at physical tasks. There may be some loss (the player may know a little less about martial arts, acrobatics climbing etc., and this might be reflected in their roleplaying) but on the whole there is no problem here.

However, an introverted or socially maladriot player will have considerable difficulty playing a character with good social stats. To a certain extent this can be mitigated by 'going by the rolls' and not paying much attention to the force of the roleplayed arguments and charm, but this takes away realism, and also an enjoyable and challenging aspect of the game- using wits and finesse to try and talk imaginary people into doing things in imaginary situations.

Perhaps hardest of all will be a dumb (or perhaps just not on the ball) player playing a smart character. 'I come up with a brilliant solution to the puzzle' 'great... what is it?'

The asymetries here mean that all of a character's physical skill comes from their stats, but if there are two characters with a charisma stat of 16, the player who doesn't say anything or constantly sticks their foot in their mouth will have a lower 'effective' score for social skills, likewise for intelligence. On one extreme the danger is making a character's social stats irrelevant by leaning too much on the roleplay. On the other extreme the danger is making the skill of a player in conversation and problem solving irrelevant- thus taking away two enjoyable aspects of the game.

What's the solution here?

Abstraction. Don't require specification of the exact words or the exact solution or what-have-you and/or give it to them on a successful roll or check.

Thrudd
2017-05-04, 08:43 PM
One way to resolve this is to make sure the rules specifically delineate what is determined by dice and mechanics, and what is not. If something is resolved using game mechanics, then it is always resolved by game mechanics, not player skill. Things that don't rely on game mechanics are the province of player skill, it is a clear line.

In D&D (and most games), there are no game mechanics which decide where characters move and what actions they take in combat (with a few special exceptions). Making those decisions is up to player skill. If the player wants to play in a way they feel is more authentic to their character's emotions rather than a way that is more tactically optimal, that is their choice. The rules don't demand that you make poor decisions on purpose because of the numbers written on the sheet, an neither should the GM or anyone else at the table.

If there is a mechanic that determines a target's social reaction to a character, then the dice decide that, not how good the player is at smooth-talking. If they want to act out how their character is smooth-talking, that's fine, but the dice determine the outcome regardless of how good or bad the player is. Allowing a player to skirt the rules and get advantages because they possess a skill not normally required for the game is unfair to the other players, and such situations should be carefully considered by the GM.
This is not different than a player who happens to be an expert fighter getting to automatically win in-game combats because they can out-wrestle the GM or can describe in detail how their techniques would work.
If the game involves players trying to out smooth-talk each other, or you want that to be a feature of the game, then there should not be a mechanic which overrides the player's skill in those situations.

All games must include some component of player skill, else it is not a game. What those skills are depends on the game. The game decides that by determining what things are within the player's control and what things are not.

Dragonexx
2017-05-04, 09:48 PM
No, it doesn't assume a binary choice. The most effective thing might be the most in character or it might not be. Yes, if the character is in a position to consider the situation logically and arrive at a reasoned conclusion they will probably choose whatever option they conceive of as the best. However, the character is not always going to be in a position to consider their problems logically. When a character is subject to mental, emotional, or other stressors they may be inclined to make a decision that is anything but the 'best' solution because they don't even get to the point where they are reasoning.

To use an alternative example from The Princess Bride: during the rescue, Inigo encounters Rugen (the six-fingered man). Rugen, after his guards are killed, flees. Inigo pursues, which is totally against mission objectives and almost results in his death and the complete failure of the mission (because if Rugen survives and reunites with Humperdick they just kill Westley). The best decision, in that situation, would have been for Inigo to let Rugen go and focus on the mission. However, if that had actually happened in the film, everyone would scream bloody murder because it would be colossally out of character.

Imposing character-based burdens on is a classic storytelling technique, heck FATE has an entire mechanic built around the principal. Even the oWoD rewarded players for 'acting according to their nature.' D&D, of course, lacks any mechanism to reward a player for staying in character and roleplaying personal weaknesses of any kind.

It should be pointed out that this is an example that just because things work in books or movies, it doesn't mean they will work in a cooperative story. There players can always go "I'm roleplaying somebody who's tactically competent!". And it's really hard to keep IC and OoC knowledge separate when things are that crucial. Trying to force it is a recipe for ruining everyone's fun. Just trust players to play their character.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-04, 11:34 PM
Even if Fred doesn't know the first thing about swordplay, he can tell that moving his fighter into flanking position is advantageous, and how to path himself to avoid AoOs. He can judge that the big orc casting healing magic might be a better target than the ogres in the front who keep getting healed.

And you miss my point. Fred does not need to be an ''expert sword user'', but he does need to know how to play the game. And whatever ''about him that is not normal'' can get in the way of that. Most of all he would need to be able to do things like speak up and say ''oh, my character does this'' and not hide in the back of the room being shy.




The goal of such a system for social aspects would be to allow Fred to not have to break the ice, himself. He could simply say, "I want to figure out who to talk to to get this thing I want done, done." He'd describe, perhaps, how his character goes about searching, but even if he's got no idea, he'd be able to roll to figure it out.

Er, how does poor Fred describe something he has ''no idea'' about? How does rolling a dice ''break the ice''?



Or, if Fred wants his bard to woo the fair princess, he doesn't have to compose sonnets nor be charming, himself. He only has to start by figuring out what she likes, and state that he'll play on that. Or state that he's going to try to instill in her a liking for something he's good at. Working from those points, he builds up (through rolls and choices) her enjoyment of things associated with him, and thus his own presence, until he has her generally happy to be around him and liking his company.


See, if Fred has the ''amazing'' ability to ''figure out what a fantasy princess likes'' then he'd be well on his way to figuring out the whole ''how to be social and charming''. But how does poor anti social introvert Fred ''suddenly'' get this ability he does not have? What do you do when Fred does not have all the amazing social talents your just giving him and he is more like ''um, I don't know what to do''. So his character is not doing amazing things, they are hiding in the corner....just like Fred does in real life. How do you build on nothing?




Secondly, why would the player need to "know when to roll?" The player says what he's trying to do. The GM tells him when and what to roll. And maybe the player rethinks his strategy if the nature of the roll isn't to his liking.

This is a big part of games with dice: when to switch from Role playing to Roll playing. For example, a good player with a normal personality might just use their own mind and role play their character talking to a NPC played by the DM and figure out things ''for real''. OR that player can roll play where they just sit there, roll a dice, and say ''ok, DM what did my character figure out?''

But a lot of that is on the player where they have to figure things out ''a bit'' by themselves and know when to roll.

It is a really, really, really bad game if the DM has to say every couple of minutes to a play ''oh, um, hey, roll this to see if your character knows this or that or does this or that'' with the poor player just sitting there all befuddled like ''ok, whatever you say DM''. There is not much point to the game if the DM controls a player.




Everybody uses the same subsystems at the table anyway. And no, nobody has to play "at that person's level" any more than they play at the lowest level of combat skill at the table.


But, if normal Joe stands up and role plays an amazing poetic seduction of an elven princess and everyone sits back and is like ''wow, good role play'' and then you go to poor, poor Fred and are like ''ok Fred roll a d20''. So Fred rolls a d20, and the DM is like ''ok, Fred your character seduces an elven princess too'' and everyone is like ''er, good roll Fred''.

So Fred feels great right? Like wow, he rolled that d20, it was just as amazing as Joe's truly awesome real role playing, right?

So see, to keep Fred happy and feeling normal, everyone will have to play at his level. Everyone must roll play like Fred, and not role play, or it will be pointless.



Because obviously, if the witty banter you engage in over a sword-fight doesn't give you bonuses to hit and damage, you won't do them. Nor will you describe how your character looks unless that earns you bonus XP. Nor will you describe the dramatic scene where you swing across the gorge on a rope you've lasso'd to a passing flying whale; you'll just roll Acrobatics with a +2 circumstance bonus and say "I cross the gorge with a bonus for that rope."


Most games, like D&D, do have bonuses for such things. And a lot of good DM's do encourage players with bonuses if they do such descriptive things and are not just all robotic.

Frozen_Feet
2017-05-05, 03:03 AM
One way to resolve this is to make sure the rules specifically delineate what is determined by dice and mechanics, and what is not. If something is resolved using game mechanics, then it is always resolved by game mechanics, not player skill. Things that don't rely on game mechanics are the province of player skill, it is a clear line.

As has already been pointed out by multiple posters, this kind of mechanizing doesn't really even out a disparity in player skill; it only makes player skill ineligible for admission, and the logical end result is a zero-player game similar to Life, where the players only design their character's (starting) parameters; they don't actually make decisions for them or act as them, causing the game to cease to be a roleplaying game.

On every intermediate step along the way, you are simply moving the balance of player skill from favoring the skill you're mechanizing, to favoring whichever player best understands the game mechanics.

The only real solution, again, is to teach the weaker players to be better at whatever game is being played.

Segev
2017-05-05, 09:27 AM
And you miss my point. Fred does not need to be an ''expert sword user'', but he does need to know how to play the game. And whatever ''about him that is not normal'' can get in the way of that. Most of all he would need to be able to do things like speak up and say ''oh, my character does this'' and not hide in the back of the room being shy.Oh, sure. But...what does this have to do with the price of rice in China?

Of course Fred needs to play the game. Don't conflate "inability to muster the gumption to take your turn" with "bad at social skills." I am pretty lousy when it comes to socializing. I can't smarm into a group and be fast friends with them, and even when I have passable social encounters, I rarely make long-lasting friends. I don't network well, and I don't know how to persuade people to take up a cause or help me with something if I don't know them very, very well.

But I can play an RPG and take my turn when it comes up.


Er, how does poor Fred describe something he has ''no idea'' about? How does rolling a dice ''break the ice''? How does poor Fred use a weapon he's never picked up before? How does rolling a die "hit the ogre?"

Seriously, it doesn't take an average reading comprehension level to understand what I'm getting at, here: Fred says WHAT he wants his PC to do. The dice determine how well he does it. He need no more describe his "ice breaking technique" than he needs to describe his "spiked chain technique." Is it great if he can? Of course it is! It adds life and flavor to the game when he has the knowledge, imagination, and confidence to get more descriptive. But it isn't crucial if he really can't think of how it works and just wants to play a character who's good at it.


See, if Fred has the ''amazing'' ability to ''figure out what a fantasy princess likes'' then he'd be well on his way to figuring out the whole ''how to be social and charming''.Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying in order to misunderstand it, or do you really have this much trouble comprehending other people's text? It isn't FRED who, through some sort of real-life social cues and ability to read between the DM's lines of description, divines the fantasy princess's likes and dislikes. It is his character who does this through social interaction and observation. FRED simply says he's having his character try to do that, and the DM either walks him through a few obstacles to get into a position to do it (allowing Fred to strategize what skills he'll use and choices he'll make to overcome them), or simply lets him make a roll or two (if Fred's PC is reasonably already in a position to make these observations).

Using D&D's overly simple social skills, Fred would, once in position, be asked to make a Sense Motive check, and the DM would, based on the DC for various information he has on the Princess's drives (and how close to the surface she wears them), tell Fred several things he finds out. (If the Princess is using Bluff to present false ones, the relative results of her Bluff and Fred's Sense Motive would be compared to determine what Fred is told.)


But how does poor anti social introvert Fred ''suddenly'' get this ability he does not have?The same way poor parapalegic Fred "suddenly" gains the ability to walk his fighter across a battlefield without a wheelchair: game mechanics for his character.


What do you do when Fred does not have all the amazing social talents your just giving him and he is more like ''um, I don't know what to do''.What do you do when Fred does not have all the amazing swordplay talents you're just giving him and he is more like, "um, I don't know how to fight ogres?"

Answer: You point out that he doesn't have to know how to do it. Just what he wants to do.

And, if Fred is the social-mini-game equivalent of a player who doesn't understand how to take his turn in combat, because he knows the rules so poorly (or can't figure out which monster to attack or why), then you do the same thing you would in that latter case: you help him by explaining his options and asking what his goal is.


So his character is not doing amazing things, they are hiding in the corner....just like Fred does in real life.Why is his character doing this? Is his fighter also cowering away from the fight because he hasn't a clue how to wield a sword against an ogre, just like Fred would be in real life?


How do you build on nothing?Same way you do for combat.



This is a big part of games with dice: when to switch from Role playing to Roll playing.If you're doing it right, there's not a "switch" so much as a continuum.


For example, a good player with a normal personality might just use their own mind and role play their character talking to a NPC played by the DM and figure out things ''for real''. OR that player can roll play where they just sit there, roll a dice, and say ''ok, DM what did my character figure out?''Or that player could play his character to the best of his ability - succeeding or failing IRL to live up or down to the character's traits based on the player's RP skill and ability to fake talents he may not have - and then roll dice to see how effective it was.

Oh, and though I know, DU, that you always fail to grasp this, choosing what to strive to achieve is also role playing, even if you have to roll dice to see if your character can accomplish it. Even choosing the approach - where the approach dictates what rolls will be needed to succeed - is role playing.


But a lot of that is on the player where they have to figure things out ''a bit'' by themselves and know when to roll. Er, wha? Sure, sometimes a player will know what roll he's aiming for, but a lot of the time he'll just say what he wants to do, and outline a strategy to get there, and the GM will tell him, "Okay, that will require a [blah] roll."


It is a really, really, really bad game if the DM has to say every couple of minutes to a play ''oh, um, hey, roll this to see if your character knows this or that or does this or that'' with the poor player just sitting there all befuddled like ''ok, whatever you say DM''. There is not much point to the game if the DM controls a player.Fortunately, that's not at all what I've described. If you still think it is after reading my response, DU, I strongly urge you to say to yourself, "Okay, that's not what Segev meant," and go back and re-read my post while asking yourself constantly, "What does Segev actually mean?"

I'd challenge you to respond line by line, but as evidenced by the way your replies are to things utterly alien to what you quote me as typing just before you make them, I doubt that will help. I suspect your problem is that you're bound and determined to be able to come to a specific conclusion, and thus will mentally prune any facet of a point that doesn't let you paint anything but your conclusion as the one right way to do things. Because you keep rewriting whatever people say into things that aren't even straw man versions of what they said. They're cartoonish drawings that we can only identify as being meant to look like particular positions because you label the cartoon with a quote from the real position before responding to the cartoon, which didn't do anything resembling the quote.



<Farmer Segev> "We should plant some corn; it's easy to grow and will provide variety compared to the wheat we always grow each year."

<Miller Darth Ultron> "But if we burn all of our wheat fields, we'll starve when we have no crops!"


That is the level of disconnect I perceive in your responses.



But, if normal Joe stands up and role plays an amazing poetic seduction of an elven princess and everyone sits back and is like ''wow, good role play'' and then you go to poor, poor Fred and are like ''ok Fred roll a d20''. So Fred rolls a d20, and the DM is like ''ok, Fred your character seduces an elven princess too'' and everyone is like ''er, good roll Fred''.

So Fred feels great right? Like wow, he rolled that d20, it was just as amazing as Joe's truly awesome real role playing, right?

So see, to keep Fred happy and feeling normal, everyone will have to play at his level. Everyone must roll play like Fred, and not role play, or it will be pointless.



Most games, like D&D, do have bonuses for such things. And a lot of good DM's do encourage players with bonuses if they do such descriptive things and are not just all robotic.[/QUOTE]

Darth Ultron
2017-05-06, 12:24 AM
But I can play an RPG and take my turn when it comes up.

Being a good player in a complex RPG is a lot mre then just knwing when to take your turn.



How does poor Fred use a weapon he's never picked up before? How does rolling a die "hit the ogre?"


Fred, the player does not use a weapon. And rolling dice does not hit and ogre: it's not like Fred's character has dice he throws at an ogre.



Seriously, it doesn't take an average reading comprehension level to understand what I'm getting at, here: Fred says WHAT he wants his PC to do. The dice determine how well he does it. He need no more describe his "ice breaking technique" than he needs to describe his "spiked chain technique." Is it great if he can? Of course it is! It adds life and flavor to the game when he has the knowledge, imagination, and confidence to get more descriptive. But it isn't crucial if he really can't think of how it works and just wants to play a character who's good at it.

To be a good player in a complex RPG a player needs three things: A knowing the game rules, knowing when and how to use the game rules and a basic understanding of the game world reality, and by default real world reality.

Now knowing the rules is the easy one, though maybe only about half of all players do this. It is as easy as opening the book and reading the rules, and understanding the rules.

Knowing when and how to use the game rules. This is a big one. A player can memorize a whole page of the game rules, but still has to have the awareness to use them in game play. A great example is where a player has their character stand in front of the forest and the player asks ''Can my character make a spot check to see the forest?'' And then DM will chuckle and explain that the player does not need to make a check for that. Yet a coupe minutes later when the character is looking for a hiding goblin in the forest they will be like ''I just look, does my character see the goblin?" and the DM has to say ''ok, this is where you make a spot check.''

Knowing and understanding the game world reality, and real reality is the hardest one of all. It covers things such as ''jumping off a 50 foot high wall to the ground will hurt (and why), in both reality and the game world. It covers things like ''if you insult someone, they won't be happy'', again in both the real world and game world. This one is hard in the 21st century as most players have see so much ''bad reality'' and they think it is all true. Like they think that if you toss a match into a barn it will explode like a 500 megaton bomb or you can jump from a helicopter onto a moving train and do a flip and throw two knives at 200 miles an hour...in a tunnel.



Are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying in order to misunderstand it, or do you really have this much trouble comprehending other people's text? It isn't FRED who, through some sort of real-life social cues and ability to read between the DM's lines of description, divines the fantasy princess's likes and dislikes. It is his character who does this through social interaction and observation. FRED simply says he's having his character try to do that, and the DM either walks him through a few obstacles to get into a position to do it (allowing Fred to strategize what skills he'll use and choices he'll make to overcome them), or simply lets him make a roll or two (if Fred's PC is reasonably already in a position to make these observations).

It's more your ignoring what I'm typing. How is Fred, who is incapable of the social and mental things needed to play the game, doing the things he can't do? How does Fred say his character does things he can't even think of or even conceive? How does Fred strategize when he does not know how to even start?

See the problem, if Fred could do all the amazing things you say Fred can automatically do, then he would not be Fred the gamer who can't play the game like other players, he would just be one of them normal players.




Using D&D's overly simple social skills, Fred would, once in position, be asked to make a Sense Motive check, and the DM would, based on the DC for various information he has on the Princess's drives (and how close to the surface she wears them), tell Fred several things he finds out. (If the Princess is using Bluff to present false ones, the relative results of her Bluff and Fred's Sense Motive would be compared to determine what Fred is told.)

Note that for Fred just ''getting into position'' is a huge task that he has no idea how to do. As again, if he did, he'd be a normal gamer.

And worse of all, when the DM tells Fred things his character learns from a roll....Fred still, all on his own, understand that information in both the real world and game world and be able to make use of it. You could sit down and read a whole encyclopedia to Fred about the princess, and he listens and then says ''ok, then what?"

And you could have Fred make an intelligence check for every piece of information so the DM can explain it in detail. But other then this slows the game down to a crawl, it is also the DM playing the players character.



What do you do when Fred does not have all the amazing swordplay talents you're just giving him and he is more like, "um, I don't know how to fight ogres?"

Answer: You point out that he doesn't have to know how to do it. Just what he wants to do.

That is not true even with combat. Fred can't just sit back and say ''I want my character to fight the ogres'' and then leave the room. He has to know the game combat rules, and he has to know how to use them and he has to understand both the game reality and real reality.

Fred has to under stand ''ok, I roll the d20 to hit'', has to understand how and when to use his characters abilities, feats, spells and such ''Ok, so I'm using power attack now" and the whole reality bit of ''it's a bad idea for my character to rush, alone, into a circle of twelve ogres, with no help, back up or escape plan.''



And, if Fred is the social-mini-game equivalent of a player who doesn't understand how to take his turn in combat, because he knows the rules so poorly (or can't figure out which monster to attack or why), then you do the same thing you would in that latter case: you help him by explaining his options and asking what his goal is.

Yes, you can turn the game into Everyone Helps Fred, if you want too.



Or that player could play his character to the best of his ability - succeeding or failing IRL to live up or down to the character's traits based on the player's RP skill and ability to fake talents he may not have - and then roll dice to see how effective it was.

If you just let a player play at whatever ability they have....this thread would not exist.



Oh, and though I know, DU, that you always fail to grasp this, choosing what to strive to achieve is also role playing, even if you have to roll dice to see if your character can accomplish it. Even choosing the approach - where the approach dictates what rolls will be needed to succeed - is role playing.

In a good game, as others have said, roll playing is not everything. Unless your playing a pure roll playing game, with no role play elements at all.



Er, wha? Sure, sometimes a player will know what roll he's aiming for, but a lot of the time he'll just say what he wants to do, and outline a strategy to get there, and the GM will tell him, "Okay, that will require a [blah] roll."

This is true....for good players that understand the three things I mentioned above. Other players though have a problem....



Fortunately, that's not at all what I've described. If you still think it is after reading my response, DU, I strongly urge you to say to yourself, "Okay, that's not what Segev meant," and go back and re-read my post while asking yourself constantly, "What does Segev actually mean?"


Well, I can't guess what you meant. If you say ''I don't like the color blue'' I'm going to go with ''you don't like the color blue'' as it is what you said.



I'd challenge you to respond line by line, but as evidenced by the way your replies are to things utterly alien to what you quote me as typing just before you make them, I doubt that will help. I suspect your problem is that you're bound and determined to be able to come to a specific conclusion, and thus will mentally prune any facet of a point that doesn't let you paint anything but your conclusion as the one right way to do things. Because you keep rewriting whatever people say into things that aren't even straw man versions of what they said. They're cartoonish drawings that we can only identify as being meant to look like particular positions because you label the cartoon with a quote from the real position before responding to the cartoon, which didn't do anything resembling the quote.


This is called ''disagreeing'' .

Segev
2017-05-06, 08:39 PM
Clearly, you simply can't read past your own preconceptions. Fred isn't smarming personally. He knows he rules for social mechanics as well as he knows the combat mechanics. You keep trying to pretend that only is possible for combat, but for social you must know how to social IRL.

The things that you seem so confused by are me pointing this out.

GPS
2017-05-07, 09:17 AM
Of course, those player decisions should take into account the character's stats. Suppose we need to convince the king that a raiding party of orcs is nearing the city, and my fighter has low CHA. I would not waste time using the diplomacy skill; I would throw a bag of orc heads at his feet. This is a well-planned method for changing somebody's mind without using CHA.
I'm assuming you're playing 3.Xe, as this wouldn't fly in later editions like 5e due to the intimidation skill being charisma.

Honestly though, I don't get the problem here. Why not just let players roll for social interactions as per the rules, let them give some higher form RP if they have it in them, and don't force them if they don't. Not every solution to an RP problem has to be a disseration on modern roleplay philosophy.

(Although I do recognize your point about playing to your character's strengths)

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-07, 09:23 AM
I'm assuming you're playing 3.Xe, as this wouldn't fly in later editions like 5e due to the intimidation skill being charisma.


This gets into where maybe the standard RPG approach of attaching each skill to one and only one characteristic is a mistake.

I've been thinking that maybe some skills should have an "or you can use this characteristic in the right circumstances" secondary option.




Honestly though, I don't get the problem here. Why not just let players roll for social interactions as per the rules, let them give some higher art form of RP if they have it in them, and don't force them if they don't. Not every solution to an RP problem has to be a disseration on modern roleplay philosophy.


(Although I do recognize your point about playing to your character's strengths)


What I usually ask of my players is that they try. As long as they make an honest effort, I'm not going to expect every gamer to be Connery's Bond.

Bonuses come from good RP, and it takes the character saying something completely offensive or ridiculous to incur any sort of penalty.

Millstone85
2017-05-07, 09:46 AM
I'm assuming you're playing 3.Xe, as this wouldn't fly in later editions like 5e due to the intimidation skill being charisma.
I've been thinking that maybe some skills should have "or you can use this characteristic in the right circumstances" secondary option.The 5e PHB does invite DMs to consider the possibility of a Strength (Intimidation) check and the like.

sktarq
2017-05-07, 10:00 AM
This gets into where maybe the standard RPG approach of attaching each skill to one and only one characteristic is a mistake.

I've been thinking that maybe some skills should have "or you can use this characteristic in the right circumstances" secondary option.

World of Darkness has a roll system built on this concept. ST looks at the Player approach and picks the closest relevant Attribute (stat) and Skill. The player then uses their scores in those to roll for success/fail (and degree). A socially and mental adroit player can shape their character's actions to take advantage of their own high stats even when it is not the most obvious line of attack, but if the character has very low social or mental score they are still at a disadvantage to a lower skilled player with a highly skilled character.

Tanarii
2017-05-07, 10:43 AM
Back in the 1970s, I proposed just re-defining "Intelligence" to mean magical intuition and "Wisdom" to mean divine intuition. That idea worked back then, since the stats weren't used very often.Until NWP thats effectively what they meant, although I'm sure the idea of rolling under your stat to resolve something was around long before it became official with NWP in Oriental Adventures, and probably saw print in Dragon magazine.

But Charisma was always what is now effectively 'Persuasion' in the form of encounter Reaction Rolls.


Now, it's harder. The closest you can come to is to consider "Intelligence" the ability to recall knowledge quickly under stress, and "Wisdom" the ability to process perception quickly under stress.Which is the route 5e went, for the most part.

Intelligence is the PC's ability to recall information. Not determine if they know or don't know it, but rather recall what they already knew on the spot. It's also the ability to deduce, or recognize a clue is important. Both work hand in hand with whatever the natural 'player skill' is.

Wisdom is the ability to perceive the environment: notice potential threats, possible lies. But it's also the ability to notice something out of place or off (gut feeling). That works hand in hand with 'player skill' as well.

Charisma checks are used to determine if the player gets what they want. They still need to determine what they are asking for, so that what level risk the creature(s) need to take is known. But the question of what persuasive angle of attack is to be taken is still important. So it works hand in hand with 'player skill' as well.


None of the checks are designed to replace 'player skill'. 'Player skill' doesn't do what the checks are designed to do. They work hand in hand. (Edit: unless, of course, the DM wants to have one or the other of these be true. There's even a section in the DMG on How to Run the Game, which is IMO the most important part of the entire DMG, talking about how to use dice, and what the pitfalls of each way are.)

Necroticplague
2017-05-07, 12:49 PM
I've played around with the idea of solving this issue by making some skills use the same mechanics as combat. Just as you have a physical battlefield where you make attacks against your armor to wear down health, you can have a conversational arena where you make proposals against someone's stubborness/attentiveness to wear down their will to argue. Instead of Withdraw, you Backpedal. And similarly, mental exercises of some forms can be about attacking the logical pieces of the problem with your wits. You Analyze the trigger vs. it's Complexity. You Experiment against it like how you'd Charge against a creature, only on a more mental realm. Then, you have physical, mental, and social skills on working on the same ground, with similar levels of involvement.

Jay R
2017-05-07, 05:56 PM
I'm assuming you're playing 3.Xe, as this wouldn't fly in later editions like 5e due to the intimidation skill being charisma.

Several versions of several games, but you are correct that 3.5e is the most recent D&D version I've played.

But I'm not sure how any version could prevent my example from working. Intimidate is a CHA-based skill in 3.5e as well. But the point is that the PC is not using any CHA-based skill at all. Instead of using poor persuasion skills to try to persuade the king that there are orcs around, my character simply proves it. With several orc heads at his feet, any king knows that there are orcs about, regardless of the persuasion skills of the person who dropped them there.


Honestly though, I don't get the problem here. Why not just let players roll for social interactions as per the rules, let them give some higher form RP if they have it in them, and don't force them if they don't. Not every solution to an RP problem has to be a disseration on modern roleplay philosophy.

That works fine. But for a character with low CHA, it's a poor option. There are better ones.

A clever, well-read, imaginative player can play any character better than a less clever, less knowledgeable, unimaginative player can, just as he can play any position in any game better. If player decisions have any value at all, then better decisions are better than poor decisions.

No rule can change the fact that clever play includes avoiding dependence on poor skills. A weak character doesn't try to climb the castle wall; she looks for another way in. A low-DEX character doesn't pick the lock; he tries to talk his way inside. Everybody knows that. But the same logic applies to low-INT , low-WIS, and low-CHA characters. A clever player finds ways around the character's weaknesses - even when the weakness is lack of cleverness.

I have a friend who doesn't ever want to read the rules. Since I know the rules better than he does, I can usually come up with a better plan for his character than he can, and I often give him suggestions during a game. I can play a high-INT character more effectively than he can, and I can play a low-INT character more effectively than he can.

The INT or WIS or CHA on the character sheet can never erase the value of player INT, WIS, or CHA - because good decisions are better than poor decisions.

Not because the high-INT player will play the low-INT PC as brilliant, but because she knows better than to try to use an INT-based strategy at all, and is more likely to find the best low-INT option for the character.


(Although I do recognize your point about playing to your character's strengths)

That leads directly to my main point - a clever player, who plays to his character's strengths, will play more effectively than a lesser player who doesn't figure out how to, regardless of the INT score on the character sheet.

scalyfreak
2017-05-07, 06:24 PM
A clever, well-read, imaginative player can play any character better than a less clever, less knowledgeable, unimaginative player can, just as he can play any position in any game better. If player decisions have any value at all, then better decisions are better than poor decisions.

That's the nature of all games though, physical as well as mental. Someone who is more athletically gifted than I am will play any physical game (basketball, football, tennis, Rocket League) better than I will. Someone who is more intellectually and mentally gifted than I am will play any game where that matters (chess, poker, backgammon, Rocket League) better than I will.

The difference between RPGs and the games I've mentioned so far is that the object in RPGs like D&D and other tabletop systems isn't to win, not in the traditional sense. Instead of beating an opponent or a team of opposing players at the game, we win when we - the players and the DM together - finish the story in triumph. Whether that is when we defeat the Ultimate Evil, together as a group, working with the DM to defeat the challenges he/she throw at us, or by not getting anyone's character killed for once in a session, that is up to the group as a whole to decide together before the campaign starts.

And because RPGs are a team sport, another way everyone wins is also when those clever, well-read, more creative players in the group help the ones who are less well-read and imaginative become more so.

sktarq
2017-05-07, 08:00 PM
That leads directly to my main point - a clever player, who plays to his character's strengths, will play more effectively than a lesser player who doesn't figure out how to, regardless of the INT score on the character sheet.

True. but the much of the tread is about to prevent a clever player sidestepping their characters weaknesses by using their own personal skills/attributes in their place.

And just because it can not be eliminated doesn't mean that the problematic situations that come from this complex of issues shouldn't be challenged and mitigated.



and as for the orc head example? A it takes more work to do it that way - so you pay for the lower skills with physical risk, orcish no show risk, time (and the opportunity cost associated with that), etc. And that compensates for getting around the challenge of convincing the target of Orcish presence - unless he thinks it is all a trick.

scalyfreak
2017-05-07, 08:16 PM
True. but the much of the tread is about to prevent a clever player sidestepping their characters weaknesses by using their own personal skills/attributes in their place.

And just because it can not be eliminated doesn't mean that the problematic situations that come from this complex of issues shouldn't be challenged and mitigated.

To be perfectly honest (I've been following the thread but stayed silent until today) I can't help thinking this should be a non-issue. If a player is successful in using their own persona skills/attributes to make up for their character being low in CHA or INT, I would be inclined to blame the DM for allowing the player to get away with that.

It can probably never be eliminated, no, but an important part of the DM's job is to make sure that players lacking that cleverness aren't short-changed in the process of just playing the game.

In the last tabletop group I was a part of, the paladin more or less by default became the leader of our motley group. The guy who played the paladin was not the type to automatically step up and take charge - not very decisive, for one, but also not the sharpest tool in the shed, if you get my drift. So the DM and the rest of us did our best to help him out so he could keep playing his paladin the way he wanted to. He got better at it, over time, but he will never be able to think quickly on his feet or be nearly as good at swift decision making as the other players on the table. However, as long as we all kept having fun, and the game kept working out, we were all okay with that, including him.

The way I see it, a lot of the "problems" caused by having one player at the table being noticeably smarter and better at social interaction than the others, can be mitigated if that player also is willing to adjust their play style and in-character behavior to what the rest of the group needs to keep the game fun for everyone and not just him or her.

ross
2017-05-07, 11:28 PM
If you're not going to roll for mental and social activities, why are there mental and social stats at all?

Dr_Dinosaur
2017-05-07, 11:43 PM
Anyone else get the feeling DU has someone specific in mind when he talks about "Fred?"

Thrudd
2017-05-07, 11:53 PM
If you're not going to roll for mental and social activities, why are there mental and social stats at all?

social should be rolled for if there are rules for PC to NPC interactions. But every single choice you make in the game is a "mental activity" - players deciding what their characters should want, where to go and what to do and how to do it. You can't roll for that, or there wouldn't be a game.

ross
2017-05-08, 12:24 AM
social should be rolled for if there are rules for PC to NPC interactions. But every single choice you make in the game is a "mental activity" - players deciding what their characters should want, where to go and what to do and how to do it. You can't roll for that, or there wouldn't be a game.

Choosing goals, where to go, and what to do aren't mental or social checks. Mental and social checks are things like knowledge skill checks, persuasion and intimidation checks; anything that falls under a skill.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-08, 07:31 AM
social should be rolled for if there are rules for PC to NPC interactions. But every single choice you make in the game is a "mental activity" - players deciding what their characters should want, where to go and what to do and how to do it. You can't roll for that, or there wouldn't be a game.

Reading some posts on various gaming forums, there are gamers out there who think that "what the character wants" and "what the character decides" should be rolled for. :smallconfused: A sort of unholy union of gamist and sim, if one likes those terms. :smallannoyed:

sktarq
2017-05-08, 08:30 AM
Reading some posts on various gaming forums, there are gamers out there who think that "what the character wants" and "what the character decides" should be rolled for. :smallconfused: A sort of unholy union of gamist and sim, if one likes those terms. :smallannoyed:

And if the player wants to run their character that way, so what?.
I know more than a few times I've rolled will or int checks for my own character to see how well he controls his temper or sticks to the more intelligent thing to do. And used the result to inform how I choose to play. I find good for avoiding the whole overly cool-level headed types in favor of more complicated people seeming types.
I've also used it for plenty of "how well does my character react". As a rough guide of scale-My viking Berserker has a very different reaction to an accountant if they both roll a 2 on a d10 to how well they react to surprize birthday party.
As long as it is not being forced on people who don't want to play that way and is not used to disrupt the game for the whole group I don't see why people who chose to expand on the idea are problematic.

Jay R
2017-05-08, 08:33 AM
If you're not going to roll for mental and social activities, why are there mental and social stats at all?

First, because there are lots of things they simulate that cannot be played out - bonus spells, languages known, whether my character knows certain background information about the world that I cannot know, etc.

Besides, I am going to roll for them. But when playing a low-STR character, I avoid depending on STR rolls. And for the same good reasons, when I play a low-INT character, I avoid depending on INT rolls. That's good role-playing for me, and good strategy for the character.

It's no different from the fact that, knowing I am very awkward, I avoid doing thing that require deft movements. My wife doesn't want me to wash the crystal or good china. My character should do the same.

weckar
2017-05-08, 08:41 AM
Awareness of your shortcomings is not inherent, though. Especially mental shortcomings.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-08, 09:05 AM
And if the player wants to run their character that way, so what?.


That's not really addressing their stated position.

It's not that they want to play THEIR characters that way. It's that they think characters should be played that way, full stop. As in all characters, their's and everyone else's.

Quertus
2017-05-08, 09:06 AM
That's the nature of all games though, physical as well as mental. Someone who is more athletically gifted than I am will play any physical game (basketball, football, tennis, Rocket League) better than I will. Someone who is more intellectually and mentally gifted than I am will play any game where that matters (chess, poker, backgammon, Rocket League) better than I will.

Story time!

A clever being can often substitute skills and attributes in a given challenge. Some people play chess by watching their opponent's eyes and body language, for example, and win an Int-based challenge through superior social skills.

When I was little, our gym class was broken into two groups, and given a challenge: first group to pass a ball to everyone in the group. While the other side immediately set to scattering and passing the ball seemingly at random, I called a huddle, got my half to line up around the perimeter of our half of the gym, and pass the ball from one person to the next. I solved this IRL Dex-based challenge through a combination of Chr and Int.

So, even RNG aside, it isn't guaranteed that someone with higher stats in what the challenge is "about" will win: a clever player can redefine the challenge to their advantage.


Reading some posts on various gaming forums, there are gamers out there who think that "what the character wants" and "what the character decides" should be rolled for. :smallconfused: A sort of unholy union of gamist and sim, if one likes those terms. :smallannoyed:

So, I want my D&D character to begin work on building the tools to build the tools to build a nuclear bomb...

Thrudd
2017-05-08, 09:39 AM
Choosing goals, where to go, and what to do aren't mental or social checks. Mental and social checks are things like knowledge skill checks, persuasion and intimidation checks; anything that falls under a skill.

Yes, but the whole discussion is about players who are "too smart" for their characters. Those that make good choices and are successful, even though the character has a low intelligence score. The implication being that the rules or the GM should have a way to override a player's choices if they are not correctly portraying what they believe the numbers on the sheet indicate (or that players should be peer-pressured into acting "dumb" and making poor choices because of the numbers). This isn't about where rules already exist, like whether your character can be given hints about monsters they haven't seen before (although that is a rule and a type of skill I personally don't like and don't use, but that's off the topic). Making choices for the character, as the character, represents things the character is thinking and feeling, hence "mental activity".

Quertus
2017-05-08, 10:10 AM
I've known people who were dumb, who were good at being dumb - the "bag of orc heads" is a great example of this behavior.

I've also known people who were bad at being themselves - they would just hit their head into that brick wall, unable to conceptualize the possibility of going around it.

So long as the character isn't drawing on information the character doesn't have, and so long as the GM is correctly role-playing NPCs responding to the character's charisma instead of the player's, what's the problem?

Thrudd
2017-05-08, 10:18 AM
I've known people who were dumb, who were good at being dumb - the "bag of orc heads" is a great example of this behavior.

I've also known people who were bad at being themselves - they would just hit their head into that brick wall, unable to conceptualize the possibility of going around it.

So long as the character isn't drawing on information the character doesn't have, and so long as the GM is correctly role-playing NPCs responding to the character's charisma instead of the player's, what's the problem?

Exactly. That's what the game is. People get too focused on trying to act to the numbers on the sheet. The numbers on the sheet are not there to tell you how to role play, they are there to tell you how your character will interact with the rules, enabling you to make informed and strategic decisions. How you portray that collection of numbers as a person is defined only in your own mind (and maybe by prompts like alignment, traits, flaws and bonds, etc).

Segev
2017-05-08, 10:58 AM
Reading some posts on various gaming forums, there are gamers out there who think that "what the character wants" and "what the character decides" should be rolled for. :smallconfused: A sort of unholy union of gamist and sim, if one likes those terms. :smallannoyed:
That's not quite what I've advocated, if you're referring to our lengthy argument in another thread. What I advocated was having mechanics which represent the various drives your character has. You pick these drives at chargen. They can change over time, through mechanical action. With a well-developed social system, other characters can work to change them, instilling new passions or causing old ones to lose their savor. You (as player) can either help this along by using mechanics to try to get your character to "improve" towards what you agree is a fun thing for him to like or dislike, or can use the character's mechanics to try to fight it and send him on paths to try to preserve drives you like and shed urges you don't want him to have.

At any point in time, when these urges and drives become theoretically compelling feelings, the mechanics tell you just how strongly your character is feeling them and what his emotional state will be for indulging vs. rejecting them.

This is quite a bit different from "rolling to see what your character wants."

Your character's mechanics already tell you what he wants in the short term, and may also give an idea what he wants in the long term. You, as player, are still his final executive function, acting on the myriad final components to make a choice, but the character's urges and drives will punish him for resisting, and reward him for indulging, and do so in ways that you, as player, feel it at least as strongly as you feel any other mechanical rewards for "good gameplay choices."



It's not that they want to play THEIR characters that way. It's that they think characters should be played that way, full stop. As in all characters, their's and everyone else's.That's a mischaracterization, at least (again) if you're referring back to our prior arguments on the subject. I would want such a system for a game that had heavy social interaction components. I think such a system could make for a fun game.

I no more or less want "everybody" to have to use this system than I want "everybody" to have to use the combat system in d20. If we're playing d20, yes, I want everybody using the same combat system, rather than some people rolling to see if they hit and marking damage when they're hit, and others saying, "No, my character chooses to move his shield so that it blocks your sword," and ignoring the combat system entirely. Because he knows it's "in character" for his warrior to be able to parry you.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-08, 11:40 AM
That's not quite what I've advocated, if you're referring to our lengthy argument in another thread. What I advocated was having mechanics which represent the various drives your character has. You pick these drives at chargen. They can change over time, through mechanical action. With a well-developed social system, other characters can work to change them, instilling new passions or causing old ones to lose their savor. You (as player) can either help this along by using mechanics to try to get your character to "improve" towards what you agree is a fun thing for him to like or dislike, or can use the character's mechanics to try to fight it and send him on paths to try to preserve drives you like and shed urges you don't want him to have.

At any point in time, when these urges and drives become theoretically compelling feelings, the mechanics tell you just how strongly your character is feeling them and what his emotional state will be for indulging vs. rejecting them.

This is quite a bit different from "rolling to see what your character wants."

Your character's mechanics already tell you what he wants in the short term, and may also give an idea what he wants in the long term. You, as player, are still his final executive function, acting on the myriad final components to make a choice, but the character's urges and drives will punish him for resisting, and reward him for indulging, and do so in ways that you, as player, feel it at least as strongly as you feel any other mechanical rewards for "good gameplay choices."


That's a mischaracterization, at least (again) if you're referring back to our prior arguments on the subject. I would want such a system for a game that had heavy social interaction components. I think such a system could make for a fun game.

I no more or less want "everybody" to have to use this system than I want "everybody" to have to use the combat system in d20. If we're playing d20, yes, I want everybody using the same combat system, rather than some people rolling to see if they hit and marking damage when they're hit, and others saying, "No, my character chooses to move his shield so that it blocks your sword," and ignoring the combat system entirely. Because he knows it's "in character" for his warrior to be able to parry you.


Sorry -- to be clear, I know that it's a different thing than the thing you've advocated, and I wasn't thinking of your idea when I posted that.

I've run into people who aren't just looking to express the character's internal "struggles" mechanically -- but rather who express disdain and derision towards the idea that immersion can exist on any level, and who use words like "amateur theater" and "make believe time" to describe what most people would consider "normal" in-character roleplaying. They assert that all aspects of the character need to be mechanized in order to be balanced, fair, and properly "simulated".

Unfortunately, my big exchange with someone on the matter was lost when another forum lost several months of data due to a corrupted database (along with the discussion with someone else that really soured me on the "no myth" theory), so I can't link to it.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-08, 12:18 PM
Anyone else get the feeling DU has someone specific in mind when he talks about "Fred?"

No names have been changed to protect the guilty and any similarity of any person alive or dead is intentional and the reason the name was used.

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 12:21 PM
A clever being can often substitute skills and attributes in a given challenge. Some people play chess by watching their opponent's eyes and body language, for example, and win an Int-based challenge through superior social skills.

Any time someone tells you that the secret to success in poker is to play the players and not the cards, this is what they mean. Ironically, this doesn't actually require high social skills. It requires a high degree of observation, understanding of human body language, and the ability to interpret and think fast. Sounds like a high int or wis still helps here... :smallsmile:



When I was little, our gym class was broken into two groups, and given a challenge: first group to pass a ball to everyone in the group. While the other side immediately set to scattering and passing the ball seemingly at random, I called a huddle, got my half to line up around the perimeter of our half of the gym, and pass the ball from one person to the next. I solved this IRL Dex-based challenge through a combination of Chr and Int.


Unless I've misunderstood, this is a great example of just the kind of thing the discussion in this thread is trying to find ways to prevent. What hasn't yet been covered, at least not nearly in the same depth as how to limit/curtail the impact creativity on the point of a player like the one described in your story, is why this is a problem?

I would actually like to see someone sit down and map out, in detail, what exactly it is that's wrong with having players essentially be smart enough to make their characters do what people are already doing in real life - playing to their strengths in ways that compensates for their weakness.

Segev
2017-05-08, 01:12 PM
Sorry -- to be clear, I know that it's a different thing than the thing you've advocated, and I wasn't thinking of your idea when I posted that.

I've run into people who aren't just looking to express the character's internal "struggles" mechanically -- but rather who express disdain and derision towards the idea that immersion can exist on any level, and who use words like "amateur theater" and "make believe time" to describe what most people would consider "normal" in-character roleplaying. They assert that all aspects of the character need to be mechanized in order to be balanced, fair, and properly "simulated".

Unfortunately, my big exchange with someone on the matter was lost when another forum lost several months of data due to a corrupted database (along with the discussion with someone else that really soured me on the "no myth" theory), so I can't link to it.Ah, okay. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Also, condolences on losing access to a discussion that had potentially interesting points in it.


Unless I've misunderstood, this is a great example of just the kind of thing the discussion in this thread is trying to find ways to prevent. What hasn't yet been covered, at least not nearly in the same depth as how to limit/curtail the impact creativity on the point of a player like the one described in your story, is why this is a problem?

I would actually like to see someone sit down and map out, in detail, what exactly it is that's wrong with having players essentially be smart enough to make their characters do what people are already doing in real life - playing to their strengths in ways that compensates for their weakness.I think you've misunderstood.

The notions being discussed here are how to help players who are not good at X play characters who ARE good at X, by introducing mechanics to allow them to do so. It also is somewhat there to help minimize the ability of players who are good at Y not investing in Y on their characters because they can make their characters just as effective at Y by using only their own real-world talents to do it.


Imagine if a combat system called for LARPing the battle physically, and then a single roll at the end if the GM felt the combat was inconclusive. The character stats matter in the die roll, but not in the LARP'd combat. Marshall R. Tist, the player of a character who has no investment in combat whatsoever, nevertheless wins fights regularly because he, personally, can beat up any of the people LARPing the monsters. Wm. P. Dude put everything he could into the stats of his barbarian warrior-prince to make him a mighty fighter, but he can't lift a foam sword over his head without toppling, so fights are so often one-sided against him that the GM doesn't even allow a roll at the end.

This is the kind of problem that arises when certain players want to play silver-tongued bards, or other players don't bother investing in social stats because they can talk rings around the GM. That's the kind of problem that is being discussed in this thread, at least insofar as I can tell.

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 01:30 PM
The notions being discussed here are how to help players who are not good at X play characters who ARE good at X, by introducing mechanics to allow them to do so. It also is somewhat there to help minimize the ability of players who are good at Y not investing in Y on their characters because they can make their characters just as effective at Y by using only their own real-world talents to do it.

Yep, I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up!

I don't see the first issue as a problem, and if it is, there is already a mechanic in place for it... that's why we roll a Persuasion check and apply the CHA bonus, regardless of whether the player actually is good at persuading people OOC. Most groups who value the role playing side of D&D and want to see players act out what their characters do, would probably encourage the player to try and act out the conversation, but the roll of the dice would dictate the outcome, not the players ability or lack thereof.

If I apply that way of thinking to the player who don't bother investing in Y for their character because they expect their on natural ability to compensate, they aren't really a problem either. No matter how eloquent and persuasive the player was, he still rolled 12 with a -3 modifier on the skill check, and 9 was not enough to convince the NPC to invest in our new business.

As for allowing the charismatic and persuasive player to role-play their low-CHA character out of a sticky situation - if that's how he or she wants to play they should have arranged their stats that way. I am probably the worst chess player in the world, so I simply don't create characters who are masters at playing chess.

Obviously this might be more of a problem when a highly intelligent player tries to play an idiot, but that shouldn't come up very often. I think we sometimes misunderstand the stats and assume that an INT of 8 or lower automatically makes our character the village idiot, when in reality, that probably just makes him that guy who graduated from college with average grades, instead of with honors.



This is the kind of problem that arises when certain players want to play silver-tongued bards, or other players don't bother investing in social stats because they can talk rings around the GM. That's the kind of problem that is being discussed in this thread, at least insofar as I can tell.

Forgot to comment on this part. And the problem there is not the smooth-talking player. It's the GM.

Segev
2017-05-08, 01:41 PM
Indeed, that is why there are such rolls. Personally, my interest in this thread is in discussing ways to make those systems deeper, the way combat is deeper than, "Okay, combat starts. Roll your Melee roll. If you beat the DC of this monster, you kill it and win!"

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 01:58 PM
Indeed, that is why there are such rolls. Personally, my interest in this thread is in discussing ways to make those systems deeper, the way combat is deeper than, "Okay, combat starts. Roll your Melee roll. If you beat the DC of this monster, you kill it and win!"

Combat does indeed have more detailed rolls than that.

But there's no reason existing rules can't be used to make conversational situations a bit more detailed than "roll for diplomacy. Okay, you made it." All you have to do is break it down into individual parts, the way the combat rules divide a fight into rounds that in turn are divided into actions and bonus actions.

Roll an Insight check to see if you correctly understand the motives of the NPC you want to persuade. Religion or History could perhaps be substituted, depending on context. Roll again to see if you are able to successfully establish common ground with the NPC. Now roll to see if you were able to build a convincing argument based on your understanding of the established common ground and the NPC's motivations. Now roll, one last time, a Persuasion check as you deliver your argument.

As with real conversations, you have no idea if you got it right until you see your counterpart's reaction to your, in your mind, brilliant argument.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-08, 02:00 PM
This is the kind of problem that arises when certain players want to play silver-tongued bards, or other players don't bother investing in social stats because they can talk rings around the GM. That's the kind of problem that is being discussed in this thread, at least insofar as I can tell.



Forgot to comment on this part. And the problem there is not the smooth-talking player. It's the GM.


I'd consider it more a problem of the player not honestly investing the character-creation "stuff" (points, feats, attributes from rolls, or whatever) into accurately mapping/modelling the character they're going to play. They're trying to eat their cake and have it too, by investing in something else while trying to get away with using their own out-of-character "abilities" to fill in the hole they've left on the character sheet.

As a counter-example, a player who is quick on the uptake and processes information quickly and has a good memory and excels at cutting through complexity... and is internally honest about how they struggle to not take advantage of that regardless of what the character sheet says, will put some "stuff" into their character's "smarts", instead of using "smarts" as a dump stat and making up for it with their personal abilities.

("Stuff" and "smarts" and so on, because I'm being as system-agnostic as possible... lest the conversation succumb to the Playground Fallacy.)

To be clear, sometimes it's just lack of self-awareness, and sometimes it's delicately disingenuous.

sktarq
2017-05-08, 02:05 PM
@ Segev : easy way to bypass the Roll-melee-vs-DC-of-monster-to-win issue is to play systems that support that. This was probably my biggest drive switch most of my gametime from DnD to WoD.

@scalyfreak : while rules exist that do work for some of the problem those rules are very often inconsistently used in RW gameplay. As for geniuses playing idiots that do smart smart stuff, there is a type of player who does this a lot. And when the dumbest character in a party is the one regularly out smarting the other PC's (because they are doing it OOC) it can lead to all sorts of issues both IC and OOC. And as for the low charisma silver tongued fighter whose player can talk rings around the DM? Well that player can often be very good and convincing about why the things he just said over the gaming table should be taken as more important than some abstract dice roll. Expecting the DM to be the smartest and socially adept person at the table is a bit unfair in my opinion.

@ Thrudd : I would simply add your stats and other mechanical traits like feats or merits to the list of things that inform your character as prompts along with those same things as alignment, traits, flaws, and bonds. Why because they have almost certainly impacted their character's past and the personality that grew out of it. If your character is of extreme strength for example (and especially if they are of high strength and mass) plus they don't like hurting people it is quite likely that a history of accidentally hurting people has impacted how they move etc. Being used to be the smartest person in the room can have effects that come out only because the character has that stat at 18

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 02:06 PM
Most of the time, the player in your counter example will probably try to avoid playing classes that won't allow some them to put some stuff into smarts, as well. Because to constantly have to check yourself and second-guess to make sure you're not over-stepping your character's stat boundaries becomes exhausting very quickly, not to mention it takes most of the fun out of the actual role-playing part of the game.

And I still maintain that if the player in your first example does it on purpose and gets away with it, the DM/GM/ST/HG may not be the root of the problem, but he/she is certainly contributing and enabling it.

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 02:11 PM
@scalyfreak : while rules exist that do work for some of the problem those rules are very often inconsistently used in RW gameplay. As for geniuses playing idiots that do smart smart stuff, there is a type of player who does this a lot. And when the dumbest character in a party is the one regularly out smarting the other PC's (because they are doing it OOC) it can lead to all sorts of issues both IC and OOC. And as for the low charisma silver tongued fighter whose player can talk rings around the DM? Well that player can often be very good and convincing about why the things he just said over the gaming table should be taken as more important than some abstract dice roll. Expecting the DM to be the smartest and socially adept person at the table is a bit unfair in my opinion.

Easy solution: The smartest player at the table is not allowed to play the dumbest character. And the DM doesn't have to be smarter than that player to understand why that can lead to issues. He/She just has to be not-stupid.

In the end, a lot of the problems you're describing can be avoided if the group sits down and talks to each other and the DM OOC about what they want and expect out of the campaign. Making the group dynamics work both IC and OOC is everyone's responsibility, and that includes what type of character each player chooses and how they choose to play that character.

Segev
2017-05-08, 02:11 PM
To me, it's a matter of how well the system supports the investment of your resources. If the system has a lackluster social subsystem and the majority of it is tacitly expected to be handled by how well you RP, it's a trap to invest character-building resources into the relevant attributes, since you'll be no better or worse than you otherwise would at social stuff, while you'll be markedly worse at everything the system actually supports mechanically.

I've played White Wolf characters focused on social stuff, and been scolded for wanting to "roll play" my way through it by actually rolling Charisma+Presence rather than actually "role playing" how my character talks the NPC into whatever it was I was trying to get him to do. And then there's the Appearance stat, which, in oWoD (but not Exalted 2e) was basically useless; spend resources to be pretty, not that it will matter.

Now, is that a problem with the ST? Sure, in part, but the system had only "yeah, um, roll and see how mnay successes you get, just like any other skill check" for its social system. And White Wolf always has a pretention around its RP, compounding the issue.

D&D, too, has only "it's a skill check," rather than the several defensive and offensive stats to track that combat has (saves, AC, to-hit, hp, damage...). Yes, you can expand that a bit to multiple checks depending on how you want to handle it, and for some games, that's enough, but it still lacks the depth of combat as a subsystem.

This isn't meant to denigrate those systems so much as to demonstrate that there is room to grow such a subsystem.

sktarq
2017-05-08, 02:56 PM
@ Segev : Ah yes. The appearance stat was one of the hardest to get was in the book run anywhere similar to that in play. It mentioned that much of time appearance would be the prime stat used for very short term interactions. Bluffing guards included. And it very very much grew in nWoD, the added debate structures in the Rome Vampire splat and the God Machine Chronicle new edition. I'd recommend you check them out.

@ scalyfreak : You have had more luck with this than I have. Most of the time what you recommend does work but when it doesn't the DM has to be ready with solutions. And enabling problems for many DM's often comes down to knowing HOW to get in the way of problem without ruining the fun for everyone. This is especially true if the problem is generated because of the players stronger personality and they can get the other players on their side. Part of what the thread is about are what tools and arguments can be brought to bear to fix things. Plus conversations tend to go better when the DM has other tools - deterrence is powerful social tool at the table.

scalyfreak
2017-05-08, 03:12 PM
I have been lucky with the groups I've played with in the past, definitely. And it has been very varied groups, with people from all walks of life who sometimes only had the game in common.

I do agree that it is a bit unfair to expect the DM to always have all the answers to problems with group dynamics, and it definitely helps if the strong personality among the players either side with the GM when problems arise, or makes an effort to help resolve the conflict rather than fanning the flames.

Samzat
2017-05-08, 03:20 PM
I think I would handle the social skills thing by saying "you can roll if you dont wanna roleplay it, but if you can play to the character and make an offer in which it would be breaking character for the NPC to refuse it gains a bonus, but if it fails there then it is dictated that the character says it in an ineffectual tone or something of the sort." This way a diplomatic character being played by an antisocial player can still function well, but a character with low charisma that says something amazingly good has a sensible reason why they might not succeed, instead of the NPC arbitrarily objecting against something it makes no sense for them to accept.

As for intelligence, I heard some good suggestions about polishing the general idea to make it live up to their character's smarts

Tanarii
2017-05-08, 03:57 PM
Seems like the complaints about a players social skill misses the point of what's being adjudicated, at least in D&D.

The random roll isn't to see if the PC is persuasive or not persuasive, intimidating or not intimidating, etc. It's to see if the NPC is persuaded or intimidated or deceived or not. The player can influence that by making decisions that may make it automatic success, automatic failure, or something that involves a random chance possibly including a bonus from a skill.

But they aren't replacing how skilled the delivery is. I mean, if it's a player that completely lacks social skills, like the bad movie versions of autism or tourettes, then yeah, maybe there's an issue. But I've never met someone like that IRL at all. Ever. What's a bigger issue is someone being able to make & communicate the decisions they are making that will influence the situation. Not how good their patter is. And that bigger issue affects EVERYTHING in an RPG. Not just social & mental, but also what their character chooses to do physically.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-08, 04:09 PM
We have two sides of the same coin here, perhaps: players who struggle to live up to their character's stated abilities, and players who blatantly exceed their character's stated abilities.

In both cases, I'm of the opinion that who the character is supposed to be, and how the character is played, and the things that go on the character sheet, need to match up, and that disconnects are an issue.

PC or NPC, you don't just put "stuff" in "smarts" or "charm" because it provides a mechanical advantage, you put "stuff" there because the character is intended to be a smart, or charming, individual, and will be played that way.

Segev
2017-05-08, 04:39 PM
We have two sides of the same coin here, perhaps: players who struggle to live up to their character's stated abilities, and players who blatantly exceed their character's stated abilities.

In both cases, I'm of the opinion that who the character is supposed to be, and how the character is played, and the things that go on the character sheet, need to match up, and that disconnects are an issue.

PC or NPC, you don't just put "stuff" in "smarts" or "charm" because it provides a mechanical advantage, you put "stuff" there because the character is intended to be a smart, or charming, individual, and will be played that way.

Absolutely. I just clamor for mechanical support for those decisions, so it's not wasting the resources to put them in a less-fleshed-out subsystem that will be obviated by RL capability of the player(s).


And Tanarii, while I'm glad you've never encountered this, I've been in games with heavy thematic emphasis on social interaction and politics of a personal nature, but with poor support (i.e. roll a skill check after you describe your actions) mechanically, and watched players who are good at giving the "right kind" of speech or coming up with an elaborate gift appropriate to the recipient just automatically pass without a roll...despite playing what is, on paper, an uncouth barbarian. He gets lauded as breaking stereotype, even...despite his character sheet having all his stats geared towards combat.

Meanwhile, the player who built a Courtier with all of the school choices and skill investment in the social stuff doesn't have the creative chops to get their head into this setting to that degree, and has to resort to rolling (oft with a penalty for giving less-than-stellar gifts or sub-par orations despite the player's best effort), and still getting only the bare minimum when they blow the roll out of the water. Because that's roll playing, not role playing.

Fortunately for me, I wasn't either of these characters or players. But I was present many times for it. And it was not even just one GM, as this was a living campaign.

This is why I want the mechanical support to be there. We don't have the barbarian with all his stats pushed into combat having to describe brilliant combat technique with his spiked club in order to crush foes with it, and the courtier can't give such a brilliant description of exactly what techniques and styles he uses to take down the enemies that he need not even roll.

And yes, the roll IS to see just how persuasive the PC is; that's the point. The NPC is persuaded based on how difficult it is to persuade him compared to how persuasive the PC was. If the PC is 25 units of persuasiveness, and it takes 15 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is persuaded. If it takes 30 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is not persuaded.

Ideally, a more in-depth system would have specific rules for how this all works beyond "well, roll to see if you can figure out a way to get a bonus to the next roll, then make that roll and see if it worked."

Mechalich
2017-05-08, 05:11 PM
And Tanarii, while I'm glad you've never encountered this, I've been in games with heavy thematic emphasis on social interaction and politics of a personal nature, but with poor support (i.e. roll a skill check after you describe your actions) mechanically, and watched players who are good at giving the "right kind" of speech or coming up with an elaborate gift appropriate to the recipient just automatically pass without a roll...despite playing what is, on paper, an uncouth barbarian. He gets lauded as breaking stereotype, even...despite his character sheet having all his stats geared towards combat.


Poorly designed social resolution systems seem to be a general trait of TTRPGs (and more broadly of RPGs in general, though most video game RPGs just don't have any sort of non-scripted social conflict system and those that do have something highly limited). There are a variety of reasons why this is so, but it is clearly the case. Many RPGs also have the problem that they lack the institutional constraints that make social gains and losses meaningful - in many games a character who loses in social scenarios but who blatantly outclasses their social superior in physical combat can just straight-up murder than person in order to eliminate the social consequences. There is also the regrettably common situation that games allow characters to pretty much completely bypass any and all social obstacles using magical powers from very low power points in many game systems and settings. Charm person is a good example of the impact, but it's hardly alone and at least your targets get a save. A properly built starting VtM character can Dominate every significant mortal they ever meet. There's also the problem that many games de-incentivize investment in social-based solutions to obstacles by presenting large numbers of encounters with no social options whatsoever. D&D has a whole list: undead, vermin, oozes, constructs, and many aberrations and magical beasts all simply want to eat your brains and there's no negotiation possible.

Tanarii
2017-05-08, 05:33 PM
And Tanarii, while I'm glad you've never encountered this,I've never encountered someone IRL who cannot speak effectively, as (AFAIK mis-)portrayed in various movies for various disabilities. IMO that's the level of delivery it would take for the players 'delivery' to affect the outcome of DM adjudication if he's adjudicating based on content, not delivery.


and watched players who are good at giving the "right kind" of speech or coming up with an elaborate gift appropriate to the recipient just automatically pass without a rollBoth of those sound like they fall squarely in 'player decision making' (aka 'player skill') to me. Not PC delivery (aka force of personality), memory/acuity, or awareness of the world around them. Which is what Cha, Int and Wis represent, at least in the latest edition of 5e.


...despite playing what is, on paper, an uncouth barbarian. He gets lauded as breaking stereotype, even...despite his character sheet having all his stats geared towards combat.If the player making decisions based on something the character could not know, you've got a meta-gaming issue. (Assuming, yknow, the table cares about that.) Not a player capability / PC capability mismatch.


Meanwhile, the player who built a Courtier with all of the school choices and skill investment in the social stuff doesn't have the creative chops to get their head into this setting to that degree, and has to resort to rolling (oft with a penalty for giving less-than-stellar gifts or sub-par orations despite the player's best effort), and still getting only the bare minimum when they blow the roll out of the water. Because that's roll playing, not role playing.Again, you're talking about the metagaming issue, but this time in reverse. A mismatch of player decision making capability vs perceived PC decision making capability, along with associated player vs character knowledge. That's not the same as a player vs PC delivery / execution capability ... which is what the dice actually decide. And in this case, you've got a DM substituting dice rolls for player decision making (and associated knowledge) instead of just delivery/execution.

And that's an issue (in both directions) for physical activities / combat as well.

For the former, if a player determines he will attack an invisible creature his PC doesn't know about but the player does, do you allow a roll to attack? If the player is a rock climber (like me), does his declaimed knowledge of what's possible and not possible to climb change the DC? If so, the DM is allowing metagame knowledge / decision making to take place of non-PC knowledge / decision making, just like they did for the Barbarian.

Conversely, for the latter do you similarly allow a player to roll the dice to determine which spell is the best one to cast in a given combat round? Or if it's time to retreat? Or which target to focus fire next? Because that's what you're describing in the case of the Courtier.


This is why I want the mechanical support to be there.I don't object, in theory, to a social or mental system that don't obviate player decision making / skill, while adding complexity to resolution for a more fine-grained set of results. ie combat for social or mental stuff. Just so long as it recognizes the difference between that and in-game execution by the PC.


And yes, the roll IS to see just how persuasive the PC is; that's the point. The NPC is persuaded based on how difficult it is to persuade him compared to how persuasive the PC was. If the PC is 25 units of persuasiveness, and it takes 15 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is persuaded. If it takes 30 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is not persuaded.Yeah I realized that was a mistake on my part. They are effectively the same thing. The point is the roll doesn't occur at the decision making (and associated knowledge) level, it occurs at the execution level.

Someone once wrote something that explains it a lot better than I can:
http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/
Half of what people are complaining about is due to people mixing up several steps here.

Mechalich
2017-05-08, 06:59 PM
Yeah I realized that was a mistake on my part. They are effectively the same thing. The point is the roll doesn't occur at the decision making (and associated knowledge) level, it occurs at the execution level.


Not necessarily true. It is entirely possible, depending on system and circumstance, for a player to make a roll that is intended to decide what their character will do next, or to at least make a roll that will present them with possibilities for what to do next. For example a player could role Knowledge (Computer science) to analyze a system with the intent of that roll representing them figuring how what they are going to do when it comes to attempting to hack that system. This actually happens a lot in a game that deals with highly technical information that it is unreasonable to expect any player to have experience dealing with, or with information that may in fact be completely fictional in nature because it relies on sci-fi physics that doesn't actually exist. Eclipse Phase or Star Trek will deal with this sort of thing with some regularity. This is, in fact, largely the purpose of skills representing technical knowledge - the player rolls them and the DM adjudicates that roll to provide options going forward those options range from the simple 'use fire on the trolls' to the highly complex 'we'll need a tachyon field generator and a gravity laser system to even start constructing the device.'

The Angry GM goes on about 'the Approach,' which is fine, but it is also fully within a GM's powers to ban an approach as not within the capabilities of a character to come up with or to have a character to role if they can come up with that approach. Example: in the Roy vs. Thog arena fight Roy triumphs by collapsing the roof on Thog. That's extremely in character for Roy, but he had to have the intelligence to conceive of that approach in the first place and points in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering to even recognize that approach was possible in that circumstance. Thog isn't capable of either of those things and if a player who is running a Thog tried that in game a GM not only can but should forbid that option. (obviously this only applies when Thog is not surrounded by assistance, but the GM needs to make sure that happens on occasion too, since farming out your brain to the rest of the party is a metagaming-based exploit).

Nupo
2017-05-08, 07:13 PM
In situations where we want to role play out a skill check we do. The player does not roll a dice, instead I, the DM, assign a number, in my head, from 1-20 that corresponds to how well I feel that player role played it compared to what that person is capable of. I then add the characters modifier to that number and check the total against what was required to accomplish the task. This makes role playing relevant, but also keeps character stats relivant. It also also doesn't penalize players that are less capable, or reward players that are more capable.

My current group has players with a wide variety mental ability. Player A may give a role playing performance that I assign a 15 to, but if that exact same performance came from player B I would only give it a 5 because that person is capable of much more.

Essentially substitute the players role playing performance for the die roll, but keep everything else the same.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-05-08, 07:34 PM
Perhaps more consideration should be given to the idea of games that don't represent the character's mental acuity mechanically at all. That way people can feel free to play their characters as they see fit. They can also feel free to make, say, an intelligent fighter without hindering their build because being smart costs points, and being smart does little to nothing for fighters.

This probably isn't suited to every sort of game, but it should be a strong option for games like basic D&D where players playing cleverly is a desired outcome.

icefractal
2017-05-08, 08:05 PM
Example: in the Roy vs. Thog arena fight Roy triumphs by collapsing the roof on Thog. That's extremely in character for Roy, but he had to have the intelligence to conceive of that approach in the first place and points in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering to even recognize that approach was possible in that circumstance. Thog isn't capable of either of those things and if a player who is running a Thog tried that in game a GM not only can but should forbid that option. (obviously this only applies when Thog is not surrounded by assistance, but the GM needs to make sure that happens on occasion too, since farming out your brain to the rest of the party is a metagaming-based exploit).That fight is somewhat of a different case though, since when a situation like that cames up in a game, it's (IME) almost certainly either:
A) Player Generated - that part of the fight reminded me more of Fate than D&D - Roy was repeatedly using Create Advantage (first with the knowledge of architecture, and then by getting Thog to weaken the columns) and then cashed all the advantages in at once to hit Thog with an overwhelming attack.
B) Specifically placed there by the GM, and that info given to the player as the result of a skill or background they have.

I don't know of many (any?) games that model structural architecture in the kind of detail where an opportunity for a collapse like that can be spotted 'naturally' and executed without either the player or the GM having an explicit intent to do so. So that's already more of a character ability than a player one.

Thrudd
2017-05-08, 08:24 PM
Not necessarily true. It is entirely possible, depending on system and circumstance, for a player to make a roll that is intended to decide what their character will do next, or to at least make a roll that will present them with possibilities for what to do next. For example a player could role Knowledge (Computer science) to analyze a system with the intent of that roll representing them figuring how what they are going to do when it comes to attempting to hack that system. This actually happens a lot in a game that deals with highly technical information that it is unreasonable to expect any player to have experience dealing with, or with information that may in fact be completely fictional in nature because it relies on sci-fi physics that doesn't actually exist. Eclipse Phase or Star Trek will deal with this sort of thing with some regularity. This is, in fact, largely the purpose of skills representing technical knowledge - the player rolls them and the DM adjudicates that roll to provide options going forward those options range from the simple 'use fire on the trolls' to the highly complex 'we'll need a tachyon field generator and a gravity laser system to even start constructing the device.'

The Angry GM goes on about 'the Approach,' which is fine, but it is also fully within a GM's powers to ban an approach as not within the capabilities of a character to come up with or to have a character to role if they can come up with that approach. Example: in the Roy vs. Thog arena fight Roy triumphs by collapsing the roof on Thog. That's extremely in character for Roy, but he had to have the intelligence to conceive of that approach in the first place and points in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering to even recognize that approach was possible in that circumstance. Thog isn't capable of either of those things and if a player who is running a Thog tried that in game a GM not only can but should forbid that option. (obviously this only applies when Thog is not surrounded by assistance, but the GM needs to make sure that happens on occasion too, since farming out your brain to the rest of the party is a metagaming-based exploit).

That's the sort of thing I would never condone. If Thog's player thought to try smashing the roof supports, it would be too immersion breaking and inappropriate for the GM to tell him "no, your character can't think to do that, it doesn't happen." Totally against the spirit and principle of the game.
If Thog's player asked: "does Thog think the roof will come down if he hits this beam?", then I'd roll Int and probably tell him "he doesn't know". But the choice of what to actually do must always be for the player.

sktarq
2017-05-08, 08:45 PM
That fight is somewhat of a different case though, since when a situation like that cames up in a game, it's (IME) almost certainly either:
A) Player Generated - that part of the fight reminded me more of Fate than D&D - Roy was repeatedly using Create Advantage (first with the knowledge of architecture, and then by getting Thog to weaken the columns) and then cashed all the advantages in at once to hit Thog with an overwhelming attack.
B) Specifically placed there by the GM, and that info given to the player as the result of a skill or background they have.

I don't know of many (any?) games that model structural architecture in the kind of detail where an opportunity for a collapse like that can be spotted 'naturally' and executed without either the player or the GM having an explicit intent to do so. So that's already more of a character ability than a player one.

Honestly most do. If the player asks. If it is player generated it can happen. Most DM's just cannot focus on every possible PC ploy and especially with leading questions that kind of thing can happen pretty quickly. The DM isn't thinking about the roof until the player just removed the last pillar and the asks what happens to it. They have too much on their mind with other things.

I've always been a "the world is my primary weapon" player. So I've always been sensitive to this kind of play and know how deeply disruptive it can be. To some extent it is "clever play" in another it is the DM accidentally handed the players a nuke in the fluff.

When I talk about abuse of the issue the thread is named after I mean just that. Some is to be expected but eventually it becomes a problem.

Tanarii
2017-05-08, 10:17 PM
Not necessarily true. It is entirely possible, depending on system and circumstance, for a player to make a roll that is intended to decide what their character will do next, or to at least make a roll that will present them with possibilities for what to do next. yes, that's absolutely true. I've mostly been in a 5e mindset recently. Many systems explicitly have skills or checks for things that are effectively the decision making process.


The Angry GM goes on about 'the Approach,' which is fine, but it is also fully within a GM's powers to ban an approach as not within the capabilities of a character to come up with or to have a character to role if they can come up with that approach. Example: in the Roy vs. Thog arena fight Roy triumphs by collapsing the roof on Thog. That's extremely in character for Roy, but he had to have the intelligence to conceive of that approach in the first place and points in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering to even recognize that approach was possible in that circumstance. Thog isn't capable of either of those things and if a player who is running a Thog tried that in game a GM not only can but should forbid that option. (obviously this only applies when Thog is not surrounded by assistance, but the GM needs to make sure that happens on occasion too, since farming out your brain to the rest of the party is a metagaming-based exploit).
Again, this comes down to metagame knowledge vs PC knowledge. And that's a different aspect from in-game execution. They are closely related things, but IMO it's an important distinction to make. Provided you're playing in a game where they need to be significantly separated. Some tables will run games where metagame knowledge separation is fairly huge, others it will be primarily consideration of mechanics vs in-game knowledge. And I've even played in some where it's almost like OoTS or other webcomics, where even that isn't really a major factor. (They tend to be pretty slapstick.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-14, 07:43 PM
Not necessarily true. It is entirely possible, depending on system and circumstance, for a player to make a roll that is intended to decide what their character will do next, or to at least make a roll that will present them with possibilities for what to do next. For example a player could role Knowledge (Computer science) to analyze a system with the intent of that roll representing them figuring how what they are going to do when it comes to attempting to hack that system. This actually happens a lot in a game that deals with highly technical information that it is unreasonable to expect any player to have experience dealing with, or with information that may in fact be completely fictional in nature because it relies on sci-fi physics that doesn't actually exist. Eclipse Phase or Star Trek will deal with this sort of thing with some regularity. This is, in fact, largely the purpose of skills representing technical knowledge - the player rolls them and the DM adjudicates that roll to provide options going forward those options range from the simple 'use fire on the trolls' to the highly complex 'we'll need a tachyon field generator and a gravity laser system to even start constructing the device.'


Rolling to discover what's possible or reveal what a character's knowledge suggests they should do next, is not really the same as rolling to determine the character's actual goals, motivations, course, choices, etc. It's one thing to roll for the character to determine HOW to do something or IF something is possible... and another thing entirely to roll to see if the character WANTS to do something or WHY they'd choose to do it.

I know others disagree, but in my opinion, the mechanics of the game system should never try to tell me, or "empower" others to tell me, what my character wants or what my character thinks or how my character feels.

Darth Ultron
2017-05-14, 09:36 PM
I know others disagree, but in my opinion, the mechanics of the game system should never try to tell me, or "empower" others to tell me, what my character wants or what my character thinks or how my character feels.

I agree here. I have never liked ''the monster is scary and does this mechanical game effect and please role play your character as scared.''.

My preference is to make the game scary to the player, who will then role play the character being scared. Not that the player is ''scared'' of anything in the game ''for real'', but they are scared of things that might effect their character in the game.

Max_Killjoy
2017-05-14, 10:16 PM
In this scene, I can just hear certain gamers saying to the player, "No, no, your character is supposed to be terrified! Your character can't be exasperated or resigned or sarcastic! Your character is supposed to be afraid! Where's the fear!" And that's how we end up with all sorts of mechanics to exchange player agency and actual roleplaying, for telling the player what they're character "has" to feel.

(Again, not pointing that at anyone in particular here, just at certain gamers I've run into or whose posts I've read elsewere.)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CTtro3NLeA

I like his reaction. It's the sort of reaction that quite a few of my characters would have in that situation.

Jay R
2017-05-14, 10:29 PM
In general I agree, but there are exceptions.

Some experiences terrify people such that they cannot choose to act. Those kinds of experiences can legitimately be handled with a saving throw. But that should be a minority situation - the presence of a demon, one's first experience of the undead, fear spells, etc.

Quertus
2017-05-15, 12:43 AM
Perhaps more consideration should be given to the idea of games that don't represent the character's mental acuity mechanically at all. That way people can feel free to play their characters as they see fit. They can also feel free to make, say, an intelligent fighter without hindering their build because being smart costs points, and being smart does little to nothing for fighters.

This probably isn't suited to every sort of game, but it should be a strong option for games like basic D&D where players playing cleverly is a desired outcome.

I wanna start my reply here, because I want to turn this idea on its head for a moment. What behavior do we want to encourage? What solutions do we develop when we start there, and work backwards?

I want to encourage Player Skills. The above advice is great for most of that, encouraging and rewarding the player to learn to play the game as well as possible, and solves a great many of our problems.

This method doesn't encourage the player to learn to play a large range of characters, or to roleplay characters vastly different from themselves (which is part of the draw of RPGs).

It also encourages being the Determinator, rather than encouraging role-playing. This particular issue is no small part of what prompted me to create Quertus, the tactically inept academia mage for whom my account is named.

I think part of what is necessary to create a healthy balance of both encouraging player skills and encouraging role-playing is to change the gaming mindset from getting the players to try to "win" to instead try to explore what happens when these particular characters encounter this particular scenario.

Once the players are invested in helping to create that outcome, I feel it solves most of our problems.


Any time someone tells you that the secret to success in poker is to play the players and not the cards, this is what they mean. Ironically, this doesn't actually require high social skills. It requires a high degree of observation, understanding of human body language, and the ability to interpret and think fast. Sounds like a high int or wis still helps here... :smallsmile:

Unless I've misunderstood, this is a great example of just the kind of thing the discussion in this thread is trying to find ways to prevent. What hasn't yet been covered, at least not nearly in the same depth as how to limit/curtail the impact creativity on the point of a player like the one described in your story, is why this is a problem?

I would actually like to see someone sit down and map out, in detail, what exactly it is that's wrong with having players essentially be smart enough to make their characters do what people are already doing in real life - playing to their strengths in ways that compensates for their weakness.

That still sounds like social skills to me, whether those skills are paired with intellect or perception or wits or charisma. :smalltongue:

And if this thread is trying to prevent IRL me as an "unrealistic" character, well, I'm pretty sure that says something right there...


I am probably the worst chess player in the world, so I simply don't create characters who are masters at playing chess.

That's certainly one way to solve the problem, but is it the only way?

Part of the draw of RPGs is getting to play someone else. I could, for example, play a doctor, without going through medical school. Now, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable BSing diagnosis and medical jargon and such, and would need to discuss things at a rather high, abstract level while role-playing the medical side of things, relying on my character's statistics to cover the "I'm a doctor" side of things.


We have two sides of the same coin here, perhaps: players who struggle to live up to their character's stated abilities, and players who blatantly exceed their character's stated abilities.

In both cases, I'm of the opinion that who the character is supposed to be, and how the character is played, and the things that go on the character sheet, need to match up, and that disconnects are an issue.

PC or NPC, you don't just put "stuff" in "smarts" or "charm" because it provides a mechanical advantage, you put "stuff" there because the character is intended to be a smart, or charming, individual, and will be played that way.

This sounds like one of the many reasons I need to "take a 20" to make a character I'll enjoy playing.

Perhaps I should adopt this as a good measure of the elegance of a system: how much effort is required to make the model match the vision.

And this feels like another problem that is helped by getting the players in the mindset of trying to explore their vision of their characters, rather than trying to "win" the game.


Absolutely. I just clamor for mechanical support for those decisions, so it's not wasting the resources to put them in a less-fleshed-out subsystem that will be obviated by RL capability of the player(s).


And Tanarii, while I'm glad you've never encountered this, I've been in games with heavy thematic emphasis on social interaction and politics of a personal nature, but with poor support (i.e. roll a skill check after you describe your actions) mechanically, and watched players who are good at giving the "right kind" of speech or coming up with an elaborate gift appropriate to the recipient just automatically pass without a roll...despite playing what is, on paper, an uncouth barbarian. He gets lauded as breaking stereotype, even...despite his character sheet having all his stats geared towards combat.

Meanwhile, the player who built a Courtier with all of the school choices and skill investment in the social stuff doesn't have the creative chops to get their head into this setting to that degree, and has to resort to rolling (oft with a penalty for giving less-than-stellar gifts or sub-par orations despite the player's best effort), and still getting only the bare minimum when they blow the roll out of the water. Because that's roll playing, not role playing.

Fortunately for me, I wasn't either of these characters or players. But I was present many times for it. And it was not even just one GM, as this was a living campaign.

This is why I want the mechanical support to be there. We don't have the barbarian with all his stats pushed into combat having to describe brilliant combat technique with his spiked club in order to crush foes with it, and the courtier can't give such a brilliant description of exactly what techniques and styles he uses to take down the enemies that he need not even roll.

And yes, the roll IS to see just how persuasive the PC is; that's the point. The NPC is persuaded based on how difficult it is to persuade him compared to how persuasive the PC was. If the PC is 25 units of persuasiveness, and it takes 15 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is persuaded. If it takes 30 units of persuasiveness to persuade the NPC, the NPC is not persuaded.

Ideally, a more in-depth system would have specific rules for how this all works beyond "well, roll to see if you can figure out a way to get a bonus to the next roll, then make that roll and see if it worked."

I think you just need better GMs. Or a system which expressly forbids that kind of behavior. :smallyuk:

Whether the subsystem is simple or complex, it shouldn't be replaced by player skills.

That having been said, Roy probably didn't have to roll to hit with the roof. Choosing a different course of action can change the roll, or eliminate the need for a roll altogether, but the result of the roll should not substitute player skills for character skills.

Mechalich
2017-05-15, 12:48 AM
There's also the problem that, if there is no mechanical means to represent mental stress of various kinds, it's strictly role-playing only, then there will be a substantial fraction of players who will always produce unstoppable terminator characters and players who don't do that are therefore intentionally weakening their characters by comparison. This is especially true now - where the average TTRPG gamer has played a half-dozen or more video game RPGs that encourage playing as invincible golden gods who never bat an eye at any possible mental (and to some degree physical) trauma of any kind.

Now, a halfway decent system ought to provide some inducement to make characters more interesting by having shortcomings of various kinds, and once you have that, a GM is fully within their rights and is in fact expected to play those up. If you have a GURPS character that buys arachnophobia, then the player doesn't get to say 'nah, I'm not scared' when the giant spiders web down from above.

Knaight
2017-05-15, 12:53 AM
Part of the draw of RPGs is getting to play someone else. I could, for example, play a doctor, without going through medical school. Now, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable BSing diagnosis and medical jargon and such, and would need to discuss things at a rather high, abstract level while role-playing the medical side of things, relying on my character's statistics to cover the "I'm a doctor" side of things.

There are ways to do this without straight up intelligence stats - and they often make a lot of sense. Steven Hawkings is clearly brilliant; that doesn't mean he knows jack about surgery. Meanwhile there are some doctors who aren't very bright. If the goal is to remove character restrictions by removing mental stats, that can be done without removing skills that are largely mental more broadly.

S.H.I.N
2017-05-15, 03:27 AM
The opposite is also true, tho. Imagine a quick-witted player having to play an antisocial character, or a very smart player having to play dumb. The fact that they "have to play according to stats" it's not something i would encourage as a GM or like as a player.

The problem is focusing too much on what your character sheet says you can do and not on what the player behind that character sheet can actually pull off. TTRPGs allows you to do things you won't be able to normally do regardless of your actual skills, so it's not like the GM can say "No Chris, you can't have 18 on CHA because you're too awkward/apathic/dumbwitted to actually convince someone to get on your side" or "Nah, you can't have 9 INT, you're too smart for that. Start from 14 and roll a d4".

That's not fun at all.

There is no easy solution, unless the Gm is aware of a player's shortcomings and try to work a way around them to make the whole experience fun for everyone.

Jay R
2017-05-15, 09:33 AM
The opposite is also true, tho. Imagine a quick-witted player having to play an antisocial character, or a very smart player having to play dumb. The fact that they "have to play according to stats" it's not something i would encourage as a GM or like as a player.

It's not as hard as you think. I can play the antisocial character who doesn't try to convince people that orcs are approaching with argument, but just throws the orc heads on the floor. And I can play the dumb character convincingly, but he will often do something very effective that didn't take deep thought, like Fezzik getting the horses, or Sam Gamgee understanding Frodo's mind more than the smarter members of the party.

Playing a dumb character both effectively and authentically is a skill. Like most other mental skills, a smart, knowledgeable player can do it better than one with less intelligence and less knowledge of the rules. It actually takes as much intelligence as playing a smart one effectively.

I've played with rules that people think will eliminate the player's ability to play better. In my experience, they don't.


There is no easy solution, unless the Gm is aware of a player's shortcomings and try to work a way around them to make the whole experience fun for everyone.

Of course there's an easy solution, and we've been applying it for four decades. The easy solution is to enjoy playing the game.

Knaight
2017-05-15, 03:00 PM
The opposite is also true, tho. Imagine a quick-witted player having to play an antisocial character, or a very smart player having to play dumb. The fact that they "have to play according to stats" it's not something i would encourage as a GM or like as a player.

I've played plenty of characters far dumber than I have, including some which were deliberately dumb to the point of comedy. It's not hard.

S.H.I.N
2017-05-15, 04:38 PM
I haven't explained myself well. What i meant wasn't that you should play that character, if that's a choice of yours. I meant that you shouldn't play that character ONLY because your stats say that.

Quertus
2017-05-15, 06:06 PM
I haven't explained myself well. What i meant wasn't that you should play that character, if that's a choice of yours. I meant that you shouldn't play that character ONLY because your stats say that.

So, to flip that on its head, your stats shouldn't say that, unless that's the character you want to play.

Jay R
2017-05-15, 07:56 PM
I haven't explained myself well. What i meant wasn't that you should play that character, if that's a choice of yours. I meant that you shouldn't play that character ONLY because your stats say that.

Why not? I've played point-but game in which I decide which are my PC's high stats, but I've also played "roll 3d6 in order" games, like original D&D. And I've enjoyed both kinds.

In a game of original D&D, I rolled STR 4, DEX 16, CHA high, WIS low, and the rest low-to-average. I was considering dumping him, when the DM said, "That's a nine-year-old kid." So I went with it. He became David, a nine-year-old street kid who was a 1st level Thief. (There was more background than that, of course.)

He once took down a sentry by walking up sniffling and crying, and saying, "Where's my daddy? I can't find him. I'm cold, and I'm tired, and I'm hungry, and I'm thirsty, and I want my daddy!" As the sentry turned to get some food, the kid sneak attacked.

scalyfreak
2017-05-15, 07:56 PM
Of course there's an easy solution, and we've been applying it for four decades. The easy solution is to enjoy playing the game.

And thus endeth the lesson.

S.H.I.N
2017-05-16, 01:52 AM
Guess i was wrong then.

Jay R
2017-05-16, 08:44 AM
Guess i was wrong then.

Not wrong, exactly - just used to a single style of gaming. There's nothing wrong about talking about that part of the hobby you know. This gives you a chance to learn about other approaches.

S.H.I.N
2017-05-16, 09:18 AM
Not wrong, exactly - just used to a single style of gaming. There's nothing wrong about talking about that part of the hobby you know. This gives you a chance to learn about other approaches.

Well, i have always played with the same 4 guys (the same that taught me how to play) for more than 5 years and hardly played anything that wasn't WFRP (as in: always played the same game with the same people) so you might be right.

OT: Now that i think about it, i have wrote something even I wouldn't totally agree with. I must've wrote that on the fly without giving too much thought about it. I do this pretty often but i know i definitely shouldn't.

Jay R
2017-05-16, 10:12 AM
Well, i have always played with the same 4 guys (the same that taught me how to play) for more than 5 years and hardly played anything that wasn't WFRP (as in: always played the same game with the same people) so you might be right.

OT: Now that i think about it, i have wrote something even I wouldn't totally agree with. I must've wrote that on the fly without giving too much thought about it. I do this pretty often but i know i definitely shouldn't.

Reviewing our thoughts and improving them by writing them down and sharing with others, and honestly listening to their critique and re-think our positions - this is internet discussion at its finest.

2D8HP
2017-05-16, 11:01 AM
Since it's difficult for me to play a PC that's more charismatic, intelligent, or wiser than I am, I like the Pendragon approach of dropping "Intelligence", and "Wisdom", and substituting "Appearance" for "Charisma".

Segev
2017-05-17, 01:03 PM
As I've said elsewhere, to me, the ideal social mechanics system plays almost like a tactical game with semi-hidden information. You know only some of what you might wish to about a given character, and you try to find out more so you can use it to be as persuasive as possible. Choice to manipulate vs. to simply appeal openly is tactical, as well, and is based on HOW you try to achieve your persuasive goals.

Rolls are to build up how much somebody enjoys your presence, how they feel in general about a subject, or to find out things about them. You can make something sound more desirable by playing on drives they have.

From a final decision-making standpoint, I'd prefer a "soft" enforcement. You don't dictate, "Bob's barbarian is so in love with my Enchantress that he'll rob the King for a kiss from her." Instead, you develop a desire in Bob for the Enchantress's kiss and/or favor and offer it as a reward for robbing the King. The receipt of that reward - and possibly just the promise of it while working towards it - would give the barbarian some sort of morale-based buff. Refusing might cost a morale-based debuff, depending on just how badly the barbarian wants the favor of the enchantress.

These effects become incentives to represent the short-term, illogical, un-shared drives the character feels vs. the longer-term, rational, gameplay-fueled drives the player naturally experiences. Bob can still decide that, no, he doesn't want his barbarian doing that, and that his barbarian does have the gumption to resist the urge...but he suffers the penalties (or at least lack of reward), getting at least a taste of the sense of loss his barbarian feels. Or Bob can decide that, heck yeah, his barbarian's cool with stealing from the king and getting a kiss from that hot lady. And Bob enjoys the gameplay boosts that come with the barbarian's good feelings and eagerness to get that (to Bob) otherwise intangible reward. Since, unless the enchantress's player is attractive to Bob and is offering a real-world kiss for Bob's cooperation, Bob isn't getting the visceral rewards that his barbarian is.

Amphetryon
2017-05-17, 01:36 PM
To those arguing that playing a Character whose mental traits are different than your own is easy on the basis that you've done it: Gifted athletes, musicians, and others can often play their sport or instrument with ease. Many others can make the sport or instrument look easy. That doesn't mean the task is easy to everyone else.

Your ability to do something is not a good indicator of another person's ability to do that same thing.

Jay R
2017-05-17, 03:12 PM
To those arguing that playing a Character whose mental traits are different than your own is easy on the basis that you've done it: Gifted athletes, musicians, and others can often play their sport or instrument with ease. Many others can make the sport or instrument look easy. That doesn't mean the task is easy to everyone else.

Your ability to do something is not a good indicator of another person's ability to do that same thing.

That's a very good point.

[It's also another strong argument saying that you cannot eliminate the effect of the player's abilities on the game.]

Quertus
2017-05-17, 04:43 PM
To those arguing that playing a Character whose mental traits are different than your own is easy on the basis that you've done it: Gifted athletes, musicians, and others can often play their sport or instrument with ease. Many others can make the sport or instrument look easy. That doesn't mean the task is easy to everyone else.

Your ability to do something is not a good indicator of another person's ability to do that same thing.

Oh, come on, I was publishing my own math theorems while still a teenager, surely y'all can do the same thing. No?

Like Naruto and the Shadow Clone jutsu, math was extremely difficult for me at first; I just focused on developing the appropriate skills.

Barring a few outliers, I see no reason why players cannot develop the player skills to roleplay someone with different mental stats than themselves.

Easy? Again, barring a few outliers, for whom such things come naturally, no. But possible.

scalyfreak
2017-05-17, 08:30 PM
Barring a few outliers, I see no reason why players cannot develop the player skills to roleplay someone with different mental stats than themselves.

Easy? Again, barring a few outliers, for whom such things come naturally, no. But possible.

The biggest reason they can't is usually a combination of not wanting to leave their comfort zone, and the rest of the group not being able to constructively help them do so anyway and learn from the experience.

One positive side-effect of roleplaying games is growing your social skills in a safe environment.

Quertus
2017-05-19, 09:56 AM
The biggest reason they can't is usually a combination of not wanting to leave their comfort zone, and the rest of the group not being able to constructively help them do so anyway and learn from the experience.

One positive side-effect of roleplaying games is growing your social skills in a safe environment.

I concede that I had not taken environment into consideration.

I hail from the drop-in game era. I made it a point to game with as many different groups as possible, to see what their take on gaming was, see what they had to offer, and expand my skills as much as possible.

Not everyone can experience as rich and diverse a set of gaming experiences as I have collected over the past 4 decades or so.

And so, I must amend my stance to, barring a few outliers, anyone given the appropriate opportunity can develop such skills.

Jay R
2017-05-19, 12:02 PM
And so, I must amend my stance to, barring a few outliers, anyone given the appropriate opportunity can develop such skills.

I mostly agree with you, but I have two caveats.

1. As we experienced in school, and at every sports field we've ever been involved in, we all learn at different rates, with different levels of difficulty, from different starting points, and to different levels

2. One of the biggest blocks to learning role-playing skills, or tactical skills, or any other useful D&D player skill, is the (fairly) common belief that such things shouldn't be part of the game.

Having said that, I strongly encourage people to try to get better at any aspect of any game they enjoy.

sktarq
2017-05-19, 02:46 PM
But the kind of comitment in time, mental energy, social capital, and learning curve time only makes sense for someone who plans to partake of D&D or other TTRPG's for a significant total time. Otherwise the effort won't match the reward.

And many players are not that commited to the hobby. They play because their friends or SO does and they fun. Or they found a single system or DM/GM/ST that they are comfortable with. Or they have a bevy of other social commitments and hobbies and no one can have that much of their time.

Their are plenty of causal gamers who bring a lot to table. Putting a high bar on entry in terms of knowledge (which for most TTRPG's starts high) time and skill development seems like a bad idea if not unfriendly. I may not be much of a beer & pretzels type myself but I think they are key for the community and gamer development.

scalyfreak
2017-05-19, 07:46 PM
But the kind of comitment in time, mental energy, social capital, and learning curve time only makes sense for someone who plans to partake of D&D or other TTRPG's for a significant total time. Otherwise the effort won't match the reward.

Very true. And the safe environment isn't a guarantee unless the group has played together for a while, or they started out as already being friends.

Jay R
2017-05-19, 10:47 PM
But the kind of comitment in time, mental energy, social capital, and learning curve time only makes sense for someone who plans to partake of D&D or other TTRPG's for a significant total time. Otherwise the effort won't match the reward.

I get that that's true, but I don't understand it. I tried to play the best game i could in my first game of D&D, with no idea that I would ever play a second time. I try to play all games well. Why wouldn't I?


And many players are not that commited to the hobby. They play because their friends or SO does and they fun. Or they found a single system or DM/GM/ST that they are comfortable with. Or they have a bevy of other social commitments and hobbies and no one can have that much of their time.

I don't see any logical path from "I'm not going to do this much" to "I won't try to do it as well as I can."


Their are plenty of causal gamers who bring a lot to table. Putting a high bar on entry in terms of knowledge (which for most TTRPG's starts high) time and skill development seems like a bad idea if not unfriendly. I may not be much of a beer & pretzels type myself but I think they are key for the community and gamer development.

As I said, I know that this is true. But I think it's irrelevant. Those people aren't on a forum talking about it when they can't play. I assume that anybody in this conversation has a level of commitment to the game, above that of the casual gamer who's only here to be with friends.

Quertus
2017-05-19, 10:55 PM
But the kind of comitment in time, mental energy, social capital, and learning curve time only makes sense for someone who plans to partake of D&D or other TTRPG's for a significant total time. Otherwise the effort won't match the reward.

And many players are not that commited to the hobby. They play because their friends or SO does and they fun. Or they found a single system or DM/GM/ST that they are comfortable with. Or they have a bevy of other social commitments and hobbies and no one can have that much of their time.

Their are plenty of causal gamers who bring a lot to table. Putting a high bar on entry in terms of knowledge (which for most TTRPG's starts high) time and skill development seems like a bad idea if not unfriendly. I may not be much of a beer & pretzels type myself but I think they are key for the community and gamer development.

Not all actors have the same "range" of characters they can portray. If they care about portraying something outside their range, it requires effort.

If people want to roleplay characters outside their range, whether in personality, or mental stats, or whatever, I merely contend that most could learn to do so, given the property environment, and effort.

If they don't want to, well, then they shouldn't attempt to play characters outside their range. The only bar on entry I'm suggesting is, "play something you can play", with the subtext, "and you can learn to play anyone".

Knaight
2017-05-20, 12:12 AM
I get that that's true, but I don't understand it. I tried to play the best game i could in my first game of D&D, with no idea that I would ever play a second time. I try to play all games well. Why wouldn't I?

There's degrees of this. Take chess - you can sit down to a chess board, play as well as you can, and do your best that way. Alternately, you can spent time brushing up on openings, studying up on famous games, and then sit down to a chess board and play as well as you can, doing your best that way. That involves putting in significantly more time, and there are a lot of people who like chess, but not enough to do that.