Which is the most valuable skill in RPGs?(The fine line between RPing and Metagaming)

[CombatBunny]

My intuition tells me that the most valuable skill that a RPG player should have, is the ability to role-play a character, the second being maybe to have a good imagination.

But then I get puzzled because many GMs say that in RPGs you need to have good strategy, problem solving, oratory and some other skills not related directly to role-playing.

I find some incongruence here, because most RPG books and gamers tell you that RPGs are about being someone you could not normally be and experiencing things that in no other way you would be able to.

Then why most GMs ask you to use your own intelligence and social skills before making the appropriate roll for the appropriate situation?

Suppose I’m a dumb anti-social person in real life, but I want the wonder of experiencing to be an ultra-smart and charismatic person, would you find okay as GMs to let me resolve all of this situations with my character sheet’s (CS) stats? Would you let me roll to know all the answers to your puzzles? Can I roll to find out who the villain is or how does all the clues fit together? May I roll to know what is the better strategy to defeat a certain monster or to win a battle?

Some GMs state that on their table you have to use your own wits and oratory to come out of these situations, but in such case they are pushing us players to meta-game and put low scores in those areas. The problem is that then, when you get to an intelligent solution or give a great speech by your own means, the GM tells you that you are meta-gaming because you are not reflecting what’s written on your CS. Then I question “Are we going to use our PC skills or not? How and when?”

How do you handle PC skills VS Player skills in a fair bidirectional way? When do you use his sheet stats and when you don’t?

[Townopolis]

I've never had anyone at my table who wasn't reasonably tactically apt and socially proficient, so how I would deal with someone who is falls into the realm of theory. Nevertheless:

When would I use the character's sheet stats? Always. Every single time. I would also expect the player to playact some of the conversation in a social scene, and players are expected to play tactically in combat. These things, how cogent and cunning the player is, will affect the roll; however, that is something I calibrate to each player. If a player is particularly inept in an area their character is apt in, I would use one or both of these options:

1. Allow the character to roll [mental stat] for DM clues and direction.
2. Allow other players to offer advice and guidance to this player, even when I would normally suppress table talk.

Those would be mostly applicable to combat tactics and highly cerebral endeavors, such as investigation. In social scenes, it's more a matter of knowing how persuasive the player can be and using that to determine how cogent their argument and how adroit their phrasing must be to favorably influence the dice--and it always comes down to the dice and the skills on the sheet. If the lawyer's Cha 8 dwarf flubs his untrained persuasion roll, it doesn't matter how persuasive the lawyer is, it's "I'm sorry, Chad, but Thonghur is nowhere near as glib as you."

By the same token, I would (in theory), only require the outline of a persuasive argument from someone with underdeveloped social skills to give them a bonus on the roll, and if they're playing a 20 Cha whatever specializing in diplomacy, I'd go ahead and extrapolate how that outline translates into the character talking circles around the NPCs.

Edit: on the larger topic of needing skills like "strategy, problem solving, and oratory," it depends on the group, IMO. Those are all things I want my players to invest mental effort into, so I try to provide tactical, strategic, and logical problems challenges appropriate to their level of ability. It's less about being good at the skills and more about engaging in the activity.

[Flickerdart]

Role-Playing is an adjective. The noun is Game. A game presents you with certain rules for interacting with it, and is affected by the context in which it is played. GMs who ignore the rules in favour of free-form roleplaying (demanding that players say what they want their characters to say before being able to roll) are missing the noun and focusing on the adjective; in other words, they're doing it wrong.

However, "it" doesn't mean "having fun wrong." It means "playing the game wrong." This is not, in and of itself, a problem - the objective of a game is to have fun, so if everyone at the table is having fun by skipping the game part, it's fine to do so.

Note that no game has "have fun" as part of its rules. This is part of the context in which a game exists. In other words, if you are trying to maximize your fun with the game, you're already metagaming - engaging with the structure around the game rather than purely its rules. Metagaming isn't evil.

GMs who object to both the rules of playing the game, and meta-rules of playing games in general, might be better served with removing the "game" part of RPG and becoming a writer or actor.

[Honest Tiefling]

Are RPGs a place to experience being someone you are not? Yes and no, I'd say. Depends on what your group wants out of the game. People play differently, and that's the beauty of the genre.

As for myself, I am of the school that nudges as has been mentioned are appropriate. I've never really hadone players be upset about them, especially if the hints reflect their skills.

Am I being too presumptuous in assuming you have built a socially or tactically adroit character, only to have the DM ignore the stats? Because if so, I hear you, buddy. I have social aneixty. I sometimes stutter. I am terrible at comvat. So it bothers me when the DM does such without announcing it beforehand, making me feel as if I have a weak character because I invested in stats that don't matter anymore, and I can't play the character I had envisioned.

If this does plague you, have a talk with the DM. Many hat feeling or have been accused of controlling players, or might not realize how much hints would help you enjoy the game. Talking to them might help a lot in having them understand what you enjoy.

[King of Casuals]

I personally think that people tend to overreact to metagaming a lot, as a lot of it can be justified with a little thing that something I like to call "common sense". Creating a character with combat effectiveness in mind can easily be justified by your character trying to figure out the most effective strategy for combat and training around that strategy. Asking people around you for advice on what you character should do can be explained with the idea that your character either carefully thinks about each course of action and picks the best one, or that he already knew what to do in character.

[Keltest]

That depends entirely on what your objective as a group is. My group is largely concerned with murderhoboing, so a firm grasp of the mechanics and rules is significantly more valuable than RP skills. Even their alignments I largely handwave when they aren't mechanically related.

[Pex]

Obligatory.

http://community.wizards.com/content...-topic/2861636

[mephnick]

The most valuable skill in RPGs is not being a ****.

[Tvtyrant]

From a DMs perspective, I expect my players to actually make arguments and plans in RL, but I let dice rolls tell how well they work. If a player tries to sneak past the opponent as a chicken, it is up to their disguise and bluff roles to make it work. Likewise a terrible or wonderful speech to motivate people is only as good as the check that accompanies it.

[icefractal]

Then why most GMs ask you to use your own intelligence and social skills before making the appropriate roll for the appropriate situation?

Because some people find those things fun. There's not really a 'correct' place to draw the line between what gets played out and what's left to stats - it's a continuum, and both extremes are generally undesirable. So where the division is set for a particular group is just down to the preferences of those involved, though many games do have a default setting.

For example, talking to a guard, attempting to be let inside the Red Duke's tower uninvited.
One extreme: No stats apply at all. The player makes the speech, and that's what matters, down to how convincing their tone and body language was.
One step over: The player decides the wording (which matters), but their delivery is down to the character's stats.
Another step: The player decides the content of the speech, but not the exact wording; that's down to the stats.
And another: The player just decides that they're trying to be let inside the tower; the reasons they give and how good those are is all down to stats.
And another: The player sets the goal - in this case, finding out whether the Duke conducts necromantic experiments, as rumored. The method is abstracted, because really, the character would make a better (or worse, depending on stats) plan than the player would.
Still going: The player sets the high-level goal - getting rid of the Duke as a major power in Shantyport. The method they use to achieve that is abstracted, because again, it would be the character's skill at planning that matters.
One more: The player just sets the character's long term goals. The fact that pushing the Duke out of power is part of achieving those is again, down to the character instead of the player. At this level, the player is primarily a spectator after char-gen.

Now personally, I'm at #3 (The player decides the content of the speech, but not the exact wording; that's down to the stats) as a preference. Many people prefer a notch more or less. I haven't met anyone who prefers the extremes of the stat-driven end, but those are as valid a conclusion as any, in terms of being 'accurate'.

That said, the GM should always be up front about how they're doing things. If they're going to have social interaction be down to what the player says, for instance, they should say that at char-gen and not let people waste points on skills that won't be used.

[Maglubiyet]

The most valuable skill in RPGs is not being a ****.

Seconded. This is, after all, a social game. The ability to get along with others should be pretty high on the list.

[Darth Ultron]

My intuition tells me that the most valuable skill that a RPG player should have, is the ability to role-play a character, the second being maybe to have a good imagination.

But then I get puzzled because many GMs say that in RPGs you need to have good strategy, problem solving, oratory and some other skills not related directly to role-playing.

The most valuable skill is, of course, that a player knows how to play the game. And that is knowing all the rules, role playing a character and being able to fiction at the game table.

I find some incongruence here, because most RPG books and gamers tell you that RPGs are about being someone you could not normally be and experiencing things that in no other way you would be able to.

The books...um...lie.

Then why most GMs ask you to use your own intelligence and social skills before making the appropriate roll for the appropriate situation?

A great many DM's do not like Roll Playing. If a player really wants to just roll play, they can play any video game. Role playing is about having fun interactions, not just watching dice roll.

How do you handle PC skills VS Player skills in a fair bidirectional way? When do you use his sheet stats and when you don’t?

It is rare for the non functioning social person to want to play a charismatic superstar. Just like real life they often just want to tag along in the back. And they know, much like everyone should, that rolling and pretending to be awesome and social is just pointless. If Ben is a poor social person, he won't have any fun being a 25 Charisma elf. His elf character will encounter some NPCs, he will roll some dice and get like a 100, and then NPCs will act like the elf character has an amazing personality.

By no stretch of the imagination is rolling in any way a substitute for a real experience(or even a real role play experience). Does Ben feel like an A list celebrity just as he rolled some dice? Does Ben feel like he did anything remotely social when he rolled the dice?

[goto124]

The most valuable skill in RPGs is not being a [disruptive player].

That's pretty much the one skill anyone in any social situation needs to have.

[YossarianLives]

snop

So what you're saying is players must possess the skills of their character? Do you expect the players of wizards to be expert loremasters who have memorized the rulebooks by heart?

I'm sorry but what you're saying is just wrong. I play RPGs and specifically Dungeons & Dragons so I can pretend to be someone very different from myself. It is called fantasy for a reason. Not everyone can be really smart and good at puzzles. Just because you aren't socially awkward doesn't mean you are an expert at persuasion. I get along with people IRL and have plenty of friends and people I'm in a positive relationship with but I'm terrible at lying and convincing people I'm right.

Why should somebody who is socially awkward and bad at figuring out puzzles be forced to play something they don't want to in a an RPG? Games are supposed to be fun!

[Honest Tiefling]

It is rare for the non functioning social person to want to play a charismatic superstar. Just like real life they often just want to tag along in the back. And they know, much like everyone should, that rolling and pretending to be awesome and social is just pointless. If Ben is a poor social person, he won't have any fun being a 25 Charisma elf.

Hey guys, according to this, I'm a super-duper rare unicorn! Also, so are many people I meet! What are the odds?

More seriously, people probably want to play things they are not. I might want to play a charming PC, with the idea of getting out of trouble with a silver tongue. Sure I might need some help from the DM...More often then I'd like to admit, but it can still be fun even if the DM is giving nudges and hints. I can feel accomplished as much as swinging a sword without describing what squishy organ is getting impaled, as well as try to inject some flavor into the interaction or flair into the interaction even if I get the hints.

Alas, according to this mentality, I should stick to murderhoboing in pen and paper, and save the social interactions for the computer games.

(Is murderhobo hypentated, by the way?)

[Darth Ultron]

So what you're saying is players must possess the skills of their character? Do you expect the players of wizards to be expert loremasters who have memorized the rulebooks by heart?

Bit of a leap to take my ''socially awkward people don't often want to roll play social superstars'' to ''players must have the skills their character does''.

I'm sorry but what you're saying is just wrong. I play RPGs and specifically Dungeons & Dragons so I can pretend to be someone very different from myself. It is called fantasy for a reason. Not everyone can be really smart and good at puzzles. Just because you aren't socially awkward doesn't mean you are an expert at persuasion. I get along with people IRL and have plenty of friends and people I'm in a positive relationship with but I'm terrible at lying and convincing people I'm right.

And most people would say they do also. Though there is a catch. Your not really playing someone very different from yourself, your just playing a different side of yourself and getting away with it. You can't have a fantasy in a RPG without roll playing or just going through the motions that it is fake and pointless.

To use your example, if you can't lie in real life, then your character can't lie in a RPG...unless you roll play(''my character gets a 100 on bluff, everyone believes my lie'') or you do it fake and pointless(Player-''My character tells them to look over there. DM-"They believe your character and look over there''). Note that in both examples the player is not really ling or even really role playing lying.

Why should somebody who is socially awkward and bad at figuring out puzzles be forced to play something they don't want to in a an RPG? Games are supposed to be fun!

They can play what they want, but very often playing falsely just is not fun. A not so smart person can falsely roll play a genius, and have the DM just tell them everything their character would have known and figured out(but that the player did not) but it's all built on a falsehood.

More seriously, people probably want to play things they are not. I might want to play a charming PC, with the idea of getting out of trouble with a silver tongue. Sure I might need some help from the DM...More often then I'd like to admit, but it can still be fun even if the DM is giving nudges and hints. I can feel accomplished as much as swinging a sword without describing what squishy organ is getting impaled, as well as try to inject some flavor into the interaction or flair into the interaction even if I get the hints.

It's not like ''rare'' means ''impossible'' or ''never''.

And if your fine playing with the ''nudges and hits'' and ''help from the DM'', then that is fine. Though a lot of socially awkward people see that as a falsehood. as they are not really playing that character....they are being helped to play that character. And sure, you can feel accomplished that your character was charming..with just a little help from the rules, rolls and DMs help...exactly like the real charming person feels who does the same thing with no help.

[Honest Tiefling]

Uh...It would probably been seen as getting help from the DM to do that, because that is precisely what is happening. I am getting help from the DM to play something I cannot in real life, just as we don't make the fighters swing swords or the rogues to actually lock pick. The rolls help, sure, because I sure as hell ain't charming. And if the DM favors the 8 charisma person with no diplomacy ranks, who is actually charming for their RL skill, then I walk from the table because that player is cheating in my book the same way that I would be cheating if I threw axes at the DM and demanded to have a boost to my roll. Well, not the same way as far as the police are involved, but good enough.

Also, what socially awkward people are you talking about? Because I am one, and I'm wondering what you base your statements of what most socially awkward people want. The socially awkward people I've seen act far differently then the ones you've seen, so I'd say that it would logically mean that socially awkward people can react in different ways and much like other groups, tend to resist generalizations.

[Darth Ultron]

Uh...It would probably been seen as getting help from the DM to do that, because that is precisely what is happening. I am getting help from the DM to play something I cannot in real life, just as we don't make the fighters swing swords or the rogues to actually lock pick. The rolls help, sure, because I sure as hell ain't charming. And if the DM favors the 8 charisma person with no diplomacy ranks, who is actually charming for their RL skill, then I walk from the table because that player is cheating in my book the same way that I would be cheating if I threw axes at the DM and demanded to have a boost to my roll. Well, not the same way as far as the police are involved, but good enough.

Mental and physical things are not equal. You can say no problem ''my character lifts up the boulder'' as it is a simply physical action. But to say ''my character sweet talks them into voting yes'' is a lot more vague and complex.

Also, what socially awkward people are you talking about? Because I am one, and I'm wondering what you base your statements of what most socially awkward people want. The socially awkward people I've seen act far differently then the ones you've seen, so I'd say that it would logically mean that socially awkward people can react in different ways and much like other groups, tend to resist generalizations.

Well, I don't know you.

Most(but not all) socially awkward people want the same things that all the other people want. Some socially awkward people make socially awkward characters. Some socially awkward people like to play whatever it happens to be that they like. And some socially awkward people do like to play the 180 from what they are really like. But a lot also don't like the 180 one as it is so false.

[Cazero]

Mental and physical things are not equal. You can say no problem ''my character lifts up the boulder'' as it is a simply physical action. But to say ''my character sweet talks them into voting yes'' is a lot more vague and complex.

Most of roleplaying is about decision-making, wich undermines every mental stats by default. And instead of correcting that problem, you would aggravate it?

[Darth Ultron]

Most of roleplaying is about decision-making, wich undermines every mental stats by default. And instead of correcting that problem, you would aggravate it?

Decision making does not fit into a mental stat. It is a little of a couple mental stats, and some not at all.

[Cluedrew]

but it's all built on a falsehood

Although I agree with you... is that a bad thing? D&D has been called "magic elf game" for a reason, World of Darkness has impossible monsters crammed into every shadow, Shadowrun is about shamans and cyborgs committing crimes... I think we all know it's false, that's why we are here.

The balance between character ability and player ability is an interesting one. I don't believe there is a single correct position, although I do find it odd when social parts of games are often so heavily weighted towards the player compared to many other parts of games. That is odd, not incorrect.

[Darth Ultron]

Although I agree with you... is that a bad thing? D&D has been called "magic elf game" for a reason, World of Darkness has impossible monsters crammed into every shadow, Shadowrun is about shamans and cyborgs committing crimes... I think we all know it's false, that's why we are here.

The balance between character ability and player ability is an interesting one. I don't believe there is a single correct position, although I do find it odd when social parts of games are often so heavily weighted towards the player compared to many other parts of games. That is odd, not incorrect.

You seem to be mixing fantasy, imagination and falsehood. Yes, any RPG is full of fantasy and people using their imaginations.

The falsehood is much different. It's like when someone lets you win. Sure you still ''win'', but only as the other person let you win. You did not ''win'' for real. The same way winning by the other person having an accident is not a ''real'' win. The same way a high charisma character, but low charisma player, does not really ''do'' anything, but they are treated like a roackstar anyway.

[erikun]

Different people play the game differently, even if we are talking about the same game. Different people and different groups have different priorities when they sit down at a table. As such, it's really difficult to claim one particular skill as the most valuable to everyone: good roleplaying skills might suit you well at roleplay-heavy tables, but might not get you much benefit at tables which prefer kick-in-the-door and tactical combat.

About the one skill I could see as universally useful for RPG players is the ability to talk to and work with other people at the table. After all, regardless of what kind of RPG you are playing, you are going to be playing with other people; being able to play with the other people without causing problems and with being able to deal with problems is key to getting everything to work smoothly.

Well, I suppose there are some single-player systems, but most people interested in those have probably moved on to playing video games.

[talonhawk01]

It's like when someone lets you win. Sure you still ''win'', but only as the other person let you win. You did not ''win'' for real. The same way winning by the other person having an accident is not a ''real'' win. The same way a high charisma character, but low charisma player, does not really ''do'' anything, but they are treated like a roackstar anyway.

Some slight adjustments to show the error of your thoughts.

It's like when someone lets you win. Sure you still ''win'', but only as the other person let you win. You did not ''win'' for real. The same way winning by the other person having an accident is not a ''real'' win. The same way a high Strength character, but low Strength player, does not really ''do'' anything, but they are treated like a roackstar anyway for lifting a boulder/smashing monsters.

Yeah, it's the same thing, and it's bullcrap to penalize a low Charisma player for wanting to play a Bard or a low Intelligence player for wanting to play Wizard.

On the other hand, it'll be a lot of fun explaining to the 5' 100 lbs girl we play with that her giant barbarian with a twenty something strength can't lift a boulder since she struggles with the pickle jar sometimes. ...blue is sarcasm, right?

[Hypername]

My two cents.
At one point at the game, that might come sooner or later, the characters are going to have ridiculous stats. You will have bards running around with 26 Cha, wizards with 30 Int, Clerics with 30 Wis, Barbarians and Fighters with over 9000 strength etc.
It is impossible for the players to even comprehend what those stats mean, let alone roleplay them. Considering most people have at the very most a 13 or 14 in ONE of their real life "stats" it's impossible to RP someone with 18.
If the DM/GM requires actively roleplaying what you say when you use skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate he is pretty much barring the vast majority of player from ever playing a face class. It is a ridiculous double standard. It is like asking the party barbarian to actually hit someone when he makes an attack roll, the party mage to actually cast the spells they use in game and the party monk to climb to the roof of the house every time he makes a climb check.
If we are required to make an actual speech each and every time we use e.g. a face skill, then there is no meaning to the stats. It's just free-form roleplaying, without the "game" aspect to it. It will also increase min-maxing and power gaming as the guy that dumped Cha to get his damage up can now become the party face as he is silver-tongued in real life. Requiring to role play his stats is actually an idea that doesn't work as explained above.
Of course it is fairly obvious that the game shouldn't only consist of silent rolling and no roleplay. The DM/GM shouldn't FORCE people to actually RP everything, but should allow the ones that want to. After all the game is there to have fun. Players have their ups and downs. There are times in real life that even the most charismatic and intelligent person can't roleplay properly because of actual problems in their personal life. What's going to happen then? "Your character becomes inexpicably retarded for today"?
I would also like to note that this is an issue only with face skills. And the reason for this is how the game measures the force of personality of the PC AKA their Charisma. Also they are the only skills that are possible to actually roleplay with your character's words. Many DMs/GMs misinterpret that.

[goto124]

It is like asking the party barbarian to actually hit someone when he makes an attack roll, the party mage to actually cast the spells they use in game and the party monk to climb to the roof of the house every time he makes a climb check.

I'll let you guys know how the next game goes

(It'll end up in the hospital, probably.)

[Maglubiyet]

Yes, people who are socially awkward should never play high-CHA characters. Players should always have the skills they're purporting to emulate.

This is why I have installed trapdoors in my game room. If someone's PC fights a bear, for example, or needs to disarm a ticking time bomb, I just pull the appropriate lever and drop them into a room containing the in-game threat IRL. Prep work for game night is hell, but for roleplaying it's worth it.

BTW, I'm currently seeking new players. My last few groups thought they were fighters, but apparently it was all in their imagination.

[Cluedrew]

You seem to be mixing fantasy, imagination and falsehood. [...] The same way a high charisma character, but low charisma player, does not really ''do'' anything, but they are treated like a roackstar anyway.

This reminds me of a section of the railroading thread when we talked about the difference between illusion and disseat. It is a role-playing game, no one is actually "doing" anything except rolling dice (or whatever mechanics the game uses to resolve conflicts). Its not wrong to use player's social skills in the game, but if the low charisma wants to play a rockstar, there is nothing wrong with them saying "I make some comments before I start singing to get the crowd worked up" and the DM just having them roll for it.

On the other hand, it'll be a lot of fun explaining to the 5' 100 lbs girl we play with that her giant barbarian with a twenty something strength can't lift a boulder since she struggles with the pickle jar sometimes. ...blue is sarcasm, right?

Oh this counter example, classic. Whenever someone says your real life charisma should reflect your character's I'm always tempted to challenge the GM to a fight so my character defeat the BBEG. (I never have, it would leave the other players out.)

Considering most people have at the very most a 13 or 14 in ONE of their real life "stats" it's impossible to RP someone with 18.

Funny thing I know a guy with 18 charisma, he walks by someone and becomes friends with them. The thing is I have no idea how that happens even though I've seen it happen. So depending on the level of acting required for "RP" I agree with you there.

[NichG]

For me, the central draw of RPGs is the ability to be in a position to interact with things in situations which are impossible, inadvisable, or unlikely in real life. Part of that might be exploring personalities or abilities that are different than your own, but its not the only part of that. Sometimes its just 'every time a character in a book makes a bargain with a devil they make an obviously dumb mistake - I want to try out my idea for beating the devil at their own game' or 'I can imagine all sorts of cool things to do with X ability, and I want to see how it works out' or even just 'I love the idea of living in a city that stands between story and reality, and I want to explore the consequences of that'.

So from that point of view, its of utmost importance to me that I actually be permitted to take the actions I want to explore. If a DM says 'no, your character is not smart enough to think of that', it's just code for me to never play a character with less than maximum intelligence with that particular DM. For me, I vastly prefer when everything on the character sheet specifies the character's tools, their abilities above and beyond, but not the way that they employ them. So a challenge for the player is just any situation that demands that I figure out how I want to employ those tools when the answer is not obvious. If the mechanics make the answer too obvious, either by being unbalanced or by having some kind of 'figure out what you should do' skill or stat which you're obligated to roll, then its not interesting because I don't get to see how my ideas play out (for better or worse).

Essentially, I want to see how the king responds to the contents of my proposal, to enact my own strategy for ambushing the orcs, and watch as my plan for the heist plays out (including adapting it when things inevitably turn out different). Because those things are how I interact with and experience the solidity and responsiveness of the fictional world.

[Honest Tiefling]

http://ffn.nodwick.com/?p=27 I feel as if I have to point this out...

I think I disagree. What is the point of even having mental scores on the sheet and forcing people to pay for them if you ignore them? I think it is unfair to have some people pay for high stats in scores that don't end up mattering. Now, is this a great system?...Probably not for a lot of groups. I just don't think you give people a game where you buy up these stats without telling them that they won't matter before you sit down with the finished character.