Solving the "Just Roleplay it..." problem...

[JohnSnow]

There is a difference between not using an intelligence stat as your roleplay guide and not roleplaying.

Take Moldvay basic where int has two mechanical effects, how many extra languages a character knows, and whether they get bonus xp in certain classes.

I have no problem saying that a character who only knows their native language can be really smart.

You can be really into roleplaying and not care about the stats on the sheet. You can base your roleplay on a character concept.

My point is, if someone is ignoring everything but the mechanical impacts of having a 7 INT fighter by “roleplaying” a smart character, they’re meta-gaming.

If you want to play a Sherlock Holmes characterization concept you approach things with observations and talk through deductions and work on details. Maybe you have some arrogance. If you do not have enough to figure something out you talk about how you can't make bricks without clay.

If you are roleplaying a low INT character as Sherlock Holmes, you’re not roleplaying, you’re acting.

Roleplay in my opinion is more about characterization and approach, not about success or failure at smarts or social interaction.

Stat emulation is part of roleplaying a personality.

Aesthetically as a play experience as a player and a DM I much prefer people focus on characterization roleplay than on stat emulation. I generally want a player to play something fun for them to play and for others to interact with. I could care less if that roleplay characterization reflects stats on a sheet.

If you prefer to ignore stat emulation, mechanical stat balance has no meaning. The mental stats can be ditched unless someone needs them to cast spells. Min-Maxers rejoice.

Choosing to roleplay a neutral, 8 intelligence, 15 charisma concept is fine as your goal for characterization, I just do not think it is superior to basing roleplay off of a concept of "Gimle from the lord of the rings movies" or "angry guy who is fed up with crap".

If you treat the mental stats as mechanics the way you do physical ones (strength gives you a +1 to hit and damage in melee, int gives you +1 language) you are not treating them differently.

And this is the problem I have with “just role-play it.” Without requiring players to take skills which meaningfully influence outcomes, a player can dump the value of the mental stats literally without consequence - if they’re not playing a spellcaster. The spellcaster doesn’t get to just ignore their physical stats, although I guess they can dump their non-critical mental ones just as readily as anyone else.

I like your original suggestion of things like pick uncouth as a trait and get a benefit (inspiration, action point, xp, whatever) when you roleplay it or if it is a negative when it comes up to your detriment. A number of games do this and I think it can be a good mechanical approach if you want to encourage some roleplay from stuff on the sheet.

Thanks. I think it’s a good idea because I know lots of people who won’t roleplay their character’s weaknesses unless they’re mechanically encouraged to do so. Thanks for helping to illustrate my point.

 

[Vinicius Lessa]

So this is like the TV show Leverage? It's interesting. But only the players with the real life skill set can use the ability, so what does it give you?

Asking a dim player, "ok, you can travel back in time and alter reality to make the bank heist work...what do you do?" is an even harder question then "ok, how do you open the locked door?"

While I agree some knowledge of genre tropes is important, and that some people may lack them, it seems you're taking the matter to extremes. Most players will have an average knowledge about most genres, and when lacking it, the game itself can offer examples or instructions - like Blades in the Dark does with examples on the use of it's Mastermind ability, or the previous example from Apocalypse World where the move explicits the process in a simple form. These options are right there in the character sheet, like a menu for the player to pick an option from.

Even games that do not offer these mechanical tools usually have instructions and tips for players to understand their genres. It's a simple matter of players reading those texts to get familiarized with the game premise and the options available during play. Those probably won't be as rich as someone who is a real fan of those narrative genres, but it's a good start. And besides that, nothing excludes other players (or even the GM) from helping the less knowledgeable player out by suggesting moves or directions during play.

 

[bloodtide]

While I agree some knowledge of genre tropes is important, and that some people may lack them, it seems you're taking the matter to extremes. Most players will have an average knowledge about most genres, and when lacking it, the game itself can offer examples or instructions - like Blades in the Dark does with examples on the use of it's Mastermind ability, or the previous example from Apocalypse World where the move explicits the process in a simple form. These options are right there in the character sheet, like a menu for the player to pick an option from.

Outside the internet, a lot of gamers are not genre savvy. But more to the point just because you write "Can have a clever idea" on a character sheet, that does not give the player the ability to create a clever idea. Even with a list like "oh just wish for a tool that will help", they would have to be able to think of the tool they might need.

But I don't know the game rules.

Even games that do not offer these mechanical tools usually have instructions and tips for players to understand their genres. It's a simple matter of players reading those texts to get familiarized with the game premise and the options available during play. Those probably won't be as rich as someone who is a real fan of those narrative genres, but it's a good start. And besides that, nothing excludes other players (or even the GM) from helping the less knowledgeable player out by suggesting moves or directions during play.

I'm not sure why you keep mentioning "genres"? It's more about common sense, knowledge and average understanding. Not everyone has that.

And like I said, for the clueless player to ask the DM or another player what to do, is not "playing a character".

 

[Voadam]

My point is, if someone is ignoring everything but the mechanical impacts of having a 7 INT fighter by “roleplaying” a smart character, they’re meta-gaming.

I disagree.

If you are roleplaying a low INT character as Sherlock Holmes, you’re not roleplaying, you’re acting.

Can you explain the distinction you are making here?

Stat emulation is part of roleplaying a personality.

Nonsense.

Stat emulation can be one guide to aspects of roleplaying a personality if you want, but even if you go with stat emulation, wildly different personalities can be used with the same stats. Optimist or pessimist, introvert versus extrovert, obsessed or carefree, nervous or confident. Any of these personality traits can go with any set of stats.

If you prefer to ignore stat emulation, mechanical stat balance has no meaning. The mental stats can be ditched unless someone needs them to cast spells. Min-Maxers rejoice.

And this is the problem I have with “just role-play it.” Without requiring players to take skills which meaningfully influence outcomes, a player can dump the value of the mental stats literally without consequence - if they’re not playing a spellcaster. The spellcaster doesn’t get to just ignore their physical stats, although I guess they can dump their non-critical mental ones just as readily as anyone else.

Nonsense.

The stat mechanics are not balanced around physically oriented characters not being smart or social in roleplay. They are balanced around everybody focusing on their class stuff to be competent and balanced in combat with straightforward builds that emphasize some things and dump others.

In 5e heavy armor fighters, clerics, and paladins can dump Dex and Int with minimal consequences. Wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks can dump Str with few consequences.

Everybody is incentivized to not dump Con across the board. Front line fighters who expect to be soaking up damage, and squishy back line artillery casters who are super vulnerable alike.

If you go with stat emulation then you go with only certain builds being smart or charismatic, the classes that focus on those stats who are up to expected class combat power, or those who go against their class combat stat builds to buff their non-combat roleplay stats. To play a Hannibal smart leader with innovative tactics roleplay concept and character approach you then have the choice of playing a high int wizard who is sacrificing no combat build, or a fighter who is giving up fighter build stat points to bump up his int.

I do not feel that benefits the game. I feel it is better to allow any roleplay concept for any character build.

If you divorce stats from roleplay then mechanical stat balance still has meaning. The expected builds and classes are still designed to be balanced. Fighters who focus on Strength and Con for their build do not become overpowered. Bards and Warlocks and Paladins with high Charisma do not become underpowered. A wizard's power is tied to their magic which is tied to their Int stat in many ways, not being tied to being the character who is allowed to roleplay being smart.

Every class with their expected build is designed to be balanced in combat for each player to participate meaningfully in combat. They should each be able to also participate in social interactions and cleverly addressing challenges and figuring things out that come up in the game as well.

 

[JohnSnow]

RPGs are “balanced” around 3 pillars of play: Combat, Exploration and Social. The theory is that you can make up for being less effective in combat by being more effective in the other parts of the game.

If you let characters dump all their points into combat effectiveness, you need to be VERY explicit as a DM that you don’t consider mental abilities to be defined by the character sheet - “Regardless of what the sheet says, you, the player, are the one playing this game. That means Bob, that if your Wizard is smarter than you, it’s not going to matter when it comes to solving puzzles or figuring things out - that 18 INT gets you spells and languages. That’s it.”

Because, as a player, if I’m playing a 6 INT fighter, he’s gonna act like a 6 INT person, by which we’re talking Forrest Gump’s dumb cousin. Because that’s what I agreed to when I put a 6 into Intelligence.

 

[Voadam]

RPGs are “balanced” around 3 pillars of play: Combat, Exploration and Social. The theory is that you can make up for being less effective in combat by being more effective in the other parts of the game.

No, there are three pillars of play that everybody is expected to participate in. Classes are not balanced out of a pillar pool. All D&D classes are designed to be balanced for combat and everybody is expected to be a full generally equal team participant in combat. There is no courtier class who has no combat ability but dominates social interactions. No class is designed to be generally less effective at combat but superior in other pillars. Rogues are high damage, high mobility but squishy competent combatants. There is a full caster bard class that is perfectly competent participating in combat.

5e does a decent job of allowing anybody to be a somewhat decent participant in the less defined pillars even if you go full stat mechanics and not roleplay for addressing them. Backgrounds can give two skill competencies that give a choice not tied to class, so anybody can train persuasion to be an at least OK party diplomat with some decent mechanics even if they are not a charisma class with expertise who makes bound accuracy skill rolls trivially easily. The aid another on skill rolls also encourages two people to join an interaction and allows the second person to meaningfully add to the mechanics by granting the better stat person advantage.

 

[bloodtide]

Can you explain the distinction you are making here?

This is the point I'm making too, so I can give an answer.

You can act the way a smart person might act. This is what actors do. But it's not real.

You can not ever act like you are a smart person. If you could do that you WOULD be a smart person.

Take the basic set up:

Rob is smart: he always comes up with clever ideas, always has a plan and is quite aware of things. Playing the game is easy and fun for him. He makes the right calls most of the time and it's rare he falls for tricks or traps.
Kevin is not so smart, and is in awe. He wishes to be like Kevin, but he is clueless. But he will say to the DM "I want to play a smart character"

So Kevin makes a INT 20 character. Just a couple minutes into the game he encounters a problem to solve. Kevin is just as clueless as he has ever been. Rob could solve the problem in seconds. Kevin just sits there and says "I don't know". Then the DM has Kevin make a skill check and when he makes the check, the DM tells Kevin what his character figured out. Then Kevin can "role play" knowing the solution.

Kevin is not "playing" a smart character, he is playing a follower character that does what they are told.

If you let characters dump all their points into combat effectiveness, you need to be VERY explicit as a DM that you don’t consider mental abilities to be defined by the character sheet - “Regardless of what the sheet says, you, the player, are the one playing this game. That means Bob, that if your Wizard is smarter than you, it’s not going to matter when it comes to solving puzzles or figuring things out - that 18 INT gets you spells and languages. That’s it.”

Well, most games have intelligence rules. So if you make a INT 18 character you get what is in the rules. Is the "my smart character can roll and have the DM tell me stuff" is a lot more of a house rule then a game rule. Unless there is really a game out there that says "when you as a player need help playing a character smarter then you are, you can make an intelligence check and the DM can tell you things so you can role play being smart".

Because, as a player, if I’m playing a 6 INT fighter, he’s gonna act like a 6 INT person, by which we’re talking Forrest Gump’s dumb cousin. Because that’s what I agreed to when I put a 6 into Intelligence.

This works both ways though. If you are of average intelligence you can act like "Forrest Gump’s dumb cousin". And IF your a really good role player you would do it ALL the time. Though, that is not exactly true for many players....because as soon as acting like "Forrest Gump’s dumb cousin" MIGHT get the character in trouble or killed they will SUDDENLY act super smart.

 

[Perambulator]

I probably overstated things with "rarely."

While I have encountered that better sort of player a fair bit, I have rarely encountered a game where I didn't have at least one player who tried to bypass a character's mental weakness with good roleplay when their results depended on it.

I rather doubt most RPGs were designed for role playing.

 

[JohnSnow]

Kevin is not so smart, and is in awe. He wishes to be like Kevin, but he is clueless. But he will say to the DM "I want to play a smart character"

So Kevin makes a INT 20 character.

Just a note: I think you meant that bolded name to read "Rob."

But basically, that's my point. If you can't roleplay a character who is smarter (or wiser, or more charismatic) than yourself, then the whole premise of roleplaying games, or at least how we approach mental stats in them is...problematic.

And maybe the best approach is to ditch mental stats and we need to at least figure out a way to reward smart Rob for handicapping his game by playing a dumb character if he chooses to do so.

Disregarding the numbers on my sheet when I go to roleplay feels like cheating. If I make my sheet do the heavy lifting for my combat stats and "dump" my mental ones, I feel like I've gotten something for nothing. But if I deliberately "play dumb," the game may not be as fun for me.

 

[Voadam]

Disregarding the numbers on my sheet when I go to roleplay feels like cheating. If I make my sheet do the heavy lifting for my combat stats and "dump" my mental ones, I feel like I've gotten something for nothing. But if I deliberately "play dumb," the game may not be as fun for me.

Combat stats are Einsteinian, not Newtonian, objectively its all relative and depends on your individual frame of reference.

The way for a 5e wizard to combat optimize their stats is to maximize their int for the spell save DCs and to dump their Strength. For a 5e Fighter heavy weapon fighter it is the reverse, maximize their strength score and dump their int.