Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Mallus]

To a certain extent, things like good tactics are not covered by the rules. It's hard to play a character who has good tactics if you don't. This is a hole in the rules... snip

What the hell?!

It sounds to me like you just stated 'There is a hole in the rules because the mechanics don't allow a player to be good at the things they're bad at'.

All players have strengths and weaknesses. A good system/campaign doesn't reward people for skills they don't have, it provides a variety of challenges that engage many kinds of player, who are good at --and interested in-- different aspects of the game.

It seems we've moved beyond 'taking the DM out of the game' to taking the player out as well.

 

[DamionW]

Then let's go back to your example:

Basic Role player- "I'm going to try to bluff the bouncer into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. "
DM "ok tell me what you say exactly and roll me a bluff sweet roll me a bluff"

My problem is the exactly worded part. The basic roleplayer has defined the lie he's choosing. Whether in his exact wording he's stammering, or nervous, or otherwise portaying the lie he's chosen to a sufficient believability is not relevant. He's given you all you need to adjudicate that action succeeding. To ask him to method act the lie just because you like acting is not equitable unless you ask EVERY action to be mimiced by ALL players. Because then you are letting players with stronger acting skills and lying skills dominate the games in which their character design doesn't support.

 

[DonTadow]

What the hell?!

It sounds to me like you just stated 'There is a hole in the rules because the mechanics don't allow a player to be good at the things they're bad at'.

All players have strengths and weaknesses. A good system/campaign doesn't reward people for skills they don't have, it provides a variety of challenges that engage many kinds of player, who are good at --and interested in-- different aspects of the game.

It seems we've moved beyond 'taking the DM out of the game' to taking the player out as well.

I don't think they are holes as much as they are there to make the game what it is a game. If all the players decisions are based on numbers and stats and the player has no decisions to make, what is the player playing, he's just going through motions.

 

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Voadam
We seem to have a definitional disagreement on roleplaying.

You say third person control of a character is roleplaying the character. I say it is a step removed from actually roleplaying the character.

In other words, if I don't roleplay the way you do, I'm not really roleplaying. That's a good attitude. :\

Are you going out of your way to be offended here?

If you don't do what I define as roleplaying, then you are not roleplaying as I defined the term. It is a tautology. It is simply different interpretations of what roleplaying actually is, not an attitude of condemnation towards you.

 

[DonTadow]

Then let's go back to your example:



My problem is the exactly worded part. The basic roleplayer has defined the lie he's choosing. Whether in his exact wording he's stammering, or nervous, or otherwise portaying the lie he's chosen to a sufficient believability is not relevant. He's given you all you need to adjudicate that action succeeding. To ask him to method act the lie just because you like acting is not equitable unless you ask EVERY action to be mimiced by ALL players. Because then you are letting players with stronger acting skills and lying skills dominate the games in which their character design doesn't support.

When i said exactly "i always say exactly to scare my players" I am usually just listening to the lie being told. There are instances where it is important to get something right. To remain consistant I always ask for the exact phrase though it does not matter 9 times out of 10. The important thing is that a lie is present.

Sorry for using the word exactly but its become sort of a catchphrase of mine in my campaign. The word exactly is quite fun to exalt fear in your players.

 

[DamionW]

When i said exactly "i always say exactly to scare my players" I am usually just listening to the lie being told. There are instances where it is important to get something right. To remain consistant I always ask for the exact phrase though it does not matter 9 times out of 10. The important thing is that a lie is present.

Sorry for using the word exactly but its become sort of a catchphrase of mine in my campaign. The word exactly is quite fun to exalt fear in your players.

What is your motivation for wanting your players to fear you? I don't want to play with a DM that wants me fearing him. I want to play with a DM that wants to cooperate to create an artificial reality with interesting plots populated by dynamic characters. I want to play with a DM that treats me fairly regardless of my acting skills. If I knew you wanted me to fear you, I might not have sat down to join in your game. The bottom line is that there are two demands you can make as a DM:

Option 1: You want the player to perform as so: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"

Option 2: The player who is not good at the authoritarian tones or glaring expressions could state "I'm going to try to bluff the bouncer into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. "

If you as DM refuse to adjuicate option 2 as a success because he won't descend into character, that is a house rule. The RAW support option 2 succeeding based on the CHA's skill and bluff ranks as compared to the guard's WIS and Sense Motive ranks. Now, if you just like hearing Option 1 and desire to see it from your players, you have an obligation to them from day 1 of character design to express that expectation. If I as player know you have that expectation I can choose to:

Option 1: Design a brutish combat munchkin because I know I will never be able to portray the intonations and body language to your enjoyment, so I will not get fidelity of action in my bluff attempts compared to my combat actions.

or

Option 2: Wish you well, pack up my books that first day and disregard my interest in your plot developments and game. We have play style differences and I know from experience I will not have fun in the communal experience of sitting at your table every weekend.

You seem very quick to emphasize the words role-playing as justification for expecting a level of acting at all times for players. I choose to emphasize the word game to demand a level of equity from any DM I play with.

 

[DonTadow]

What is your motivation for wanting your players to fear you? I don't want to play with a DM that wants me fearing him. I want to play with a DM that wants to cooperate to create an artificial reality with interesting plots populated by dynamic characters. I want to play with a DM that treats me fairly regardless of my acting skills. If I knew you wanted me to fear you, I might not have sat down to join in your game. The bottom line is that there are two demands you can make as a DM:

Option 1: You want the player to perform as so: "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"

Option 2: The player who is not good at the authoritarian tones or glaring expressions could state "I'm going to try to bluff the bouncer into believing that we are with the city inspectors and it is best if he let us in else we'll bring the city guards through. "

If you as DM refuse to adjuicate option 2 as a success because he won't descend into character, that is a house rule. The RAW support option 2 succeeding based on the CHA's skill and bluff ranks as compared to the guard's WIS and Sense Motive ranks. Now, if you just like hearing Option 1 and desire to see it from your players, you have an obligation to them from day 1 of character design to express that expectation. If I as player know you have that expectation I can choose to:

Option 1: Design a brutish combat munchkin because I know I will never be able to portray the intonations and body language to your enjoyment, so I will not get fidelity of action in my bluff attempts compared to my combat actions.

or

Option 2: Wish you well, pack up my books that first day and disregard my interest in your plot developments and game. We have play style differences and I know from experience I will not have fun in the communal experience of sitting at your table every weekend.

You seem very quick to emphasize the words role-playing as justification for expecting a level of acting at all times for players. I choose to emphasize the word game to demand a level of equity from any DM I play with.

Correction: I want my players to fear the world. To do this I make it as much like the real world as I realsitically can. This is just how I run my game and my players enjoy it. I like to create an atmosphere that emerges them in the game. I want them to know that anything they do or say can come back to haunt them so choose their moves and words carefully. Now, DM to DM, this is how i create atmosphere. 9 times out of 10 it doesnt matter, but the players think it does and they enjoy it. My atmosphere has little to do with success or non success again I use the mechanics unless its something specific. (I recall running some town where the pcs had to deliver a message verbatim). The goal is to make sure the players don't eralize the mechanics are even there. It isn't broadway acting but it is role playing

 

[DamionW]

But Don, do you see my point at all? If you even use the words "tell me exactly what you say," I'm assuming you are using that information to make a ruling on my success in that action. If I know that is the way you perform as DM, I might not want to play. So why aren't you pasting that as a house rule so anyone who plays understands your expectations? I have several times joined games where the DM happens to be a player that prefers the Method Actor play style and expects it from me. I'm a storyteller playstyle. I enjoy plot development and making a good story, not descending into a character. If I know that you are secretly hoping I start method acting more, I should be able to choose not to play because you are judging my playstyle based on your paradigm. That's not fair to me who's just there to have fun.

 

[DonTadow]

But Don, do you see my point at all? If you even use the words "tell me exactly what you say," I'm assuming you are using that information to make a ruling on my success in that action. If I know that is the way you perform as DM, I might not want to play. So why aren't you pasting that as a house rule so anyone who plays understands your expectations? I have several times joined games where the DM happens to be a player that prefers the Method Actor play style and expects it from me. I'm a storyteller playstyle. I enjoy plot development and making a good story, not descending into a character. If I know that you are secretly hoping I start method acting more, I should be able to choose not to play because you are judging my playstyle based on your paradigm. That's not fair to me who's just there to have fun.

Understand two things. One, my argument (on this particular issue, not sure how we got this far off the puzzle question) is that role playing is the meaning of the game and the mechanics help it.

Two, my last statement was me telling you my playstyle. It might not work for some. Honestly it doesnt work for some at all. I have an extensive house rule webpage and if I do bring in a new player there is an orientation they go through.
http://www.chrystaria.com/manual.htm .
My entire game is played in character. Players are to stay in character as much as possible. Now, are my players actors... noope (well the one). But they rarely break character. I've brought in players whom said it wasn't for them and tahts fine, but my core group now have either adapted or love it.

 

[DamionW]

Well, sorry for the thread hijack, but it fits with the smarts vs. intelligence debate the same way there's a difference between proficient character dialogue and the charisma stat (the mechanical representation of the dialogue's persuasiveness). Asking a player to solve a puzzle in their head rather than involving character actions (like the provided example of disintegrating the wall next to the puzzled door or using a spell to bypass it) is the same DM preference as expecting an in-character dialogue to adjudicate a bluff or diplomacy attempt. If I know from day 1 that is your method of DM arbitration, that's one thing. However too often I've been burned by finding myself three sessions in before I realize the DM will never examine my character design's strengths when making a selction of outcomes because he's basing it on my playstyle rather than the mechanics. That's three weekends I could have been partaking in a different pass-time instead of being with that play group.