Now I understand where rounser is really coming from. I had assumed that he meant that it was legitimate to dump a 7 in Charisma then play a master speaker. In fact, he advocates dropping the mental stats altogether...and this is even more ludicrous.
Following a three-strikes-and-you're-out system, these are the main three strikes against his argument.
Player/Character Dichotomy
The first is an elementary concept taught to newbie roleplayers: the dichotomy between the player and the character. If we start at an extreme and work in. Let us assume there are three players, A, B and C; with three characters, X, Y and Z. Player A is a professional fencer. In the first combat, character X whips out his rapier and Player A shouts: 'I attack the villain with a prise de fer. If he moves to block, I'll change to a cutover, followed by a drop to the lowline combined with a fleche.' The DM looks at him, slightly bemused, and tells him to roll the attack dice. Character X, a low level wizard, is not only not proficient in the rapier, but has an awful attack. In a rage, Player A demands: 'I can do that out of character, why can't I do it in character?'
A little later, Character Y, playing an uneducated barbarian, comes across a complicated mathematical problem. Now Player B, a lecturer in Advanced Calculus and Number Theory, works out the answer in a few seconds and tells the DM the answer. The DM tells him to roll Knowledge: Mathematics (except he can't because you can't use it defaulted), so Character Y doesn't figure it out. Player B cries out: 'I can do that out of character, why can't I do it in character?'
Finally, the PCs get into town. Character Z, with a 4 in Charisma and a 3 in Intelligence, goes to the townsquare and begins to making a rousing speech filed with subtle nuances, amusing references and rhetorical devices. Player C is in the diplomatic service. The DM leans over and says to him: 'You can't do that- your Charisma is too low...' And guess what Player C cries out...
Yet according to the logic presented by rounser, all three are justified. His premise that 'if you can do it out of character, then your character can as well' should hold for all scenarios: be they roleplaying, skill checks or combat. Yet I would hope he would admit Player A is wrong, fairly sure than he would concede that Player B is wrong and despite this he implies Player C is correct, despite the fact that they are all making the same fundamental error. His logic breaks down very rapidly.
STRIKE ONE.
Implications to the Game
Now I'm a stickler for gameplay and game balance. rounser clearly isn't. His proposed 'solution', i.e. scrapping Int, Wis and Cha (and by extension the various social skills) is fine in theory. However, when applied to the actual game it makes a mockery of the classes which are set up to be strong in the roleplaying and interaction departments. The bard, already seen as a 'weak' class, has only one real card left: his social skills. Without these, the bard is simply a second-rate sorceror who can wave a martial weapon around (and light armour if he wants arcane failure %). This class would need a complete overhaul in the new proposed system. The bard isn't the only class. The rogue can also depend strongly on his social skills. Paladins, clerics and druids all have Diplomacy on their class list. Sorcerors and wizards, relying on Charisma and Intelligence, have the useless byproduct of being charismatic or intelligent. Rangers have Animal Empathy, a Charisma-based skill, and even Barbarians have Intimidate, another Charisma-based skill. If one is to remove Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma, then one would have to tinker with any class which is either dependent on these or has any skill based on them in the class listing. That's...er...every class (even the fighter has good old Craft- Int based and Handle Animal- Cha based).
You couldn't even replace them with strange sub-stats such as Perception or Willpower, and Int, Wis and Charisma are very catch-all. Indeed, it would be necessary to almost create a new sub-stat for every skill if one is to fragment them, deluging the system in Scholarship, Insight, Willpower, Perception, Reason, Animal Affinity (Handle Animal generally isn't roleplayed), Practicality, Common Sense, Mechanical Aptitude, Creativity and Logic: among dozens other. For the problem is that Int is not just a roleplaying stat- it also has a significant mechanical impact, and if one is to begin to fragment bits off, then the proverbial can of worms is opened. Dozens of new sub-abilities, a complete reworking of the skill system and a reinvestigation of many feats (particularly Leadership.) Do we really want our beloved game to become drudging through sub-abilities with a definite but trivial game impact? I think not.
STRIKE TWO.
Player Choice
My final point is ironically the one rounser would pick me up on: player choice. rounser argues that by imposing roleplaying based on the abilities that the player has chosen, you are restricting player choice. Quite the contrary. Unless the DM hands out characters, then it is the player himself that chooses where he assigns stats or deploys his points. If the player wishes for a charismatic character, put a high score in charisma and play a bard. As is mentioned over and over, you can't expect to have an ultra combat-machine who is also an international statesman, a religious leader and a profound philosopher. No single character can 'have it all' (assuming 'normal' stat distribution) but the player can choose where to distribute his points or abilites. So no curtailment in player choice is experienced.
Indeed, the converse is true. By abandonning the abstract ability scores of the character, the player's choice is restricted to his own mental abilites of real-life . This means that less outgoing players cannot play charismatic charmers, less intelligent players cannot play geniuses and less wise players cannot play wise characters. This is a nonsense. Roleplaying is about escapism, breaking the mould and being someone different. I doubt there is a DM among us who would tell a slightly dim newbie that he can't play an intelligent character because he is too stupid. Yet the logical continuation of rounser's argument leads to this scenario. By imposing the matching between player mental ability and character mental ability, you limit player choice to playing characters of equal (or less) intelligence, wisdom or charisma to themselves. That is limiting player choice; merely telling them they can't throw a 4 in intelligence and play a supra-genius clearly is not.
STRIKE THREE.
rounser- You're out.
