Should stats have any bearing on roleplay?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many good point, Umbran, but it still doesn't help when the smart guy without he Int-dumped PC bluffs out the correct answer or otherwise doesn't RP within his PC's constraints. Even if you disallow his solution for THAT problem, he'll figure out this, that or the other and simply say it, and the party can act on his words.

It's especially a problem if you have other smart players who can pick up what the problem player is doing and run with it. (FWIW, i and several of the guys in my current group are very smart...but so far, nobody's been guilty of this behavior.)

As they say in the legal profession, you can't un-ring the bell.

 

[Umbran]

Many good point, Umbran, but it still doesn't help when the smart guy without he Int-dumped PC bluffs out the correct answer or otherwise doesn't RP within his PC's constraints.

Yes, and with what I'm saying, if he does so someone in the party gets a +2 on a die roll or something. Big whoop. Like this is a disaster or tragedy or otherwise breaks the game?

Honestly, don't you want the skill check in there anyway, just in case none of the players happens to think of the Fibonacci sequence? Or are you just going to dead-end them on that route because they don't have math they haven't used in years in their heads that night?

Did you drop this puzzle into the middle of a situation where there's nothing else to do? You maybe expect the players of not-so-bright characters to sit there, bored, because it isn't in-character for them to have input? How about the players at the table who aren't mathematicians - you figure they get to cool their heels too for a while, too? Why isn't there a bunch of goblins to fight off while the smart characters are busy with the puzzle?

See what I mean? The flat, "puzzle for the players representing something the characters work through" is classic, but it has definite problems as a design, in general. Don't blame the players for the problem when the design's not too hot to begin with. If you want to use player-puzzles, you probably ought to be doing things that mitigate the problem in the first place.

As they say in the legal profession, you can't un-ring the bell.

My point is that you can make it a small bell to start with, so that the fact that he rang it isn't that big a deal.

I should add - this might remove much of the guy's incentive to violate the character stats, because it reduces the payoff for him.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The solution, again, is to tie stats to either roleplaying or mechanics - not both.

Attributes are a hilariously large new player trap because most people don't want to be super super specialized, they want a character who's a bit good at most things, maybe not so hot at one thing, and a little better at a different thing. Meanwhile the game itself wants you to be super super specialized.

It's not even a point buy vs rolled things. If there's any choice at all, the game rewards super specialization. If you roll your stats, the fighter is still strongly encouraged to make strength high and intelligence low - because he gets no reward for having a high intelligence.

If stats only effects your character's roleplaying, or honestly effects anything that's not your combat (similar to I believe Mutants and Masterminds) then players can make the character they want without feeling like the mechanics are hamstringing them for it. If the stats only effect your in-combat capabilities then players can roleplay however they want, though this honestly isn't my favorite answer.

Really I think the best answer is to divorce the attributes from combat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It doesn't just happen with puzzles, though. As I pointed out with what I did re: the reveal- all within my PCs boundaries- a guy like this can & will do outside of his PCs boundaries.

So, yeah, I agree you can minimize his impact with stuff like that, but only so far- he can still cause massive problems.

If he did as I did, for instance, the campaign is just as messed up, true, but the words issued not from "Poirot Lite" but from pre-Algernon Charlie. There, the issue is less one of mechanics but of one player's anti-role-play damaging the immersive experience and the roles of other PCs. Do you really want to play the team "Braniac" when the guy playing the idiot keeps upstaging you? It's one thing if- out of character- he tells you your PC should be smart enough to do a MacGyver-esque physics trick to save the day; it's another if Urk the Barbarian simply does it.

And in the Fib-door scenario, he could simply "miraculously" keep picking the correct door without saying a word. Yes, you could as DM simply fudge things at door 13, but it isn't fair to other players who may be thinking along the same lines and who are just a step behind. Besides, if the Fib-sequence is essential to the BBEG's grand design or nature- as it was in an episode of Criminal Minds- you've just made a big headache for yourself.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Don't forget, stats cut both ways.

I HATE it when smart players playing stupid PCs nevertheless do the bulk of the problem-solving:

Player: "The safe/trapped doors in the multi-door rooms follow a Fibonacci sequence! In the next room, the 8th door will be safe, and after that, door #13 is the one we want!"

DM: *grrrrrrrr* "Didn't your character sheet explain your PC's low Int as being the result of accumulated brain damage from repeated head-trauma as a child and young teen?"

Would you be OK with:

Dumb Player (w/Smart Character): I don't get this!

DM: *grrrrrrrr* Roll an INT check.

DP: 28

DM: Your character determines the multi-door rooms follow a Fibonacci sequence.

DP:

Because, to me, that is equally as poor of roleplaying as your example. The type of challenge you describe is one that challenges the players, not their characters. I would let the player who gets the puzzle to have his moment to shine. I've also explained this in-game by saying the collective knowledge of the players models the super-intelligence of the high-intelligence character.

Now, if they were all playing a bunch of dumb barbarians...

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Because the stats inform the rest of the mechanics. I simply prefer to leave it at that, rather than trying to turn the stats into a constraint on the player's roleplaying. I don't like imposing such constraints, either by DM fiat ("You can't do that, your Intelligence is too low") or by social pressure ("You know, your Intelligence is pretty low, do you really think you could come up with that idea?").

If you put a 6 in Charisma, you can act as charming as you like, but you'll botch your social skill checks, so you come off as insincere and NPCs respond badly. If you put a 6 in Intelligence, you can act clever, but you'll botch your knowledge checks, so your access to information is limited. (This is why I prefer to think of Intelligence as "book-learning" rather than general smarts.) If you put a 6 in Wisdom, you can be thoughtful and intuitive, but you'll botch Insight and Perception, so you don't pick up on what's going on around you.

The party wizard can dump Strength and the only consequence is a few mechanical penalties, none of which have much impact on the wizard. Why should the fighter who dumps Intelligence be saddled with a lot of crippling RP restrictions? Let the mechanics take care of themselves.

Do you expect a player to actually role play at all then or just say casually "I use my diplomacy skill to calm down the angry inn keeper" then throw some dice?

Also where does it start or end? Do players ever speak in character or does everything come down to dice rolls? If only the dice rolls matter then the game has taken yet another step away from role playing and we might as well be playing one of those old WW2 scenario games by Avalon Hill.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The DM I did that to had worked in it for a while...and changing the cult would have required massive ret-conning.

I wouldn't change it, were I the DM. I would be happy that the group is paying that much attetion to detail and I would let them reap the rewards of understanding what was involved. If players figuring something out that you didn't expect them to ruins your game, then it was a poor plot to start.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Would you be OK with <snipped example>

Actually, in a certain level, yes, because the dice will eventually prevent the dumb PC from solving he problems by sheer force of probabilities unless loaded dice are involved.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If players figuring something out that you didn't expect them to ruins your game, then it was a poor plot to start.

Actually, it was pretty good, overall. The problem was my timing. A few more sessions and the BBEG's plans would have had a certain momentum all their own.

Because of my timing, though, we were essentially able to derail the campaign. Think of it like assassinating a would-be dictator before his second major speech. That would have been a good thing for the world, but in terms of a rollicking adventure, it loses some of it's narrative strength.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Actually, it was pretty good, overall. The problem was my timing. A few more sessions and the BBEG's plans would have had a certain momentum all their own.

Because of my timing, though, we were essentially able to derail the campaign. Think of it like assassinating a would-be dictator before his second major speech. That would have been a good thing for the world, but in terms of a rollicking adventure, it loses some of it's narrative strength.

If it was able to derail the campaign then, IMO, it was a weak plot point. I can see many ways a campaign could continue after a major reveal, even if it happens before you expected it to.

If the whole plot hinged on the dictator, then again I would call it weak. Taking out the dictator early would be a HUGE feather in the cap of my players, but it would also lead to further issues. I would never allow the big reveal to ruin a campaign. A good plot needs to be open enough for the crazy sh...tuff players will pull from their nether regions.