Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[fusangite]

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.

Nice post, Mallus. It sounds like your DMing style is much closer to mine than those on either side of the debate, here. And, you sensibly redirect us to the central issue here: what kinds of GM-player interactions are rewarding for the participants?

In my Monday night game, our GM has created a skill called Knowledge (Tactics); I believe it is a class skill for Fighters and possibly some other rapid BAB advancement classes. But nobody ever rolls on it. Why? Because although our GM is a retired military officer with a degree in military history, his ability to fight tactically under D&D rules is inferior to that of his players. So, although we could use the skill to get him to position our characters for flanking et al, we don't, in part because we can do a better job, ourselves but more importantly because tactically outmanoeuvering our GM is a key element of our enjoyment of the game. Similarly, for some people, playing out NPC interaction word-for-word is such an element; for others, solving puzzles is.

For anything a player could figure out him- or herself, the rules already contain or could easily accommodate a skill that the player could roll on to either substitute for or aid (such as in the form of hints) in that process be it Bluff, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Tactics), Knowledge (Arcana/Nature) [for monster identification and weaknesses], Knowledge (Puzzles) or whatever. How and whether such skills are employed is a matter of the particular style of the GM and his group.

I would not have fun in Don's group. But some people's assertions that the RAW allow his players to solve puzzles with simple Int checks or that puzzle solving is intrinsically opposed to role playing are totally unpersuasive to me.

With respect to the Int check argument. Even if I were to accept that all types of intelligence and cognition are located in that attribute and not in Dex, Cha or Wis or not statted at all, very smart people presented with cryptic crossword puzzles or other kinds of puzzles popular in our culture usually can't figure them out without a fair amount of training and practice. This suggests to me that these skills probably have DCs of over 23; the people I see figuring out the London Sunday Times crossword are usually either employing their Craft (Cruciverbalist) skill or taking 20 or both.

With respect to the anti-RP argument, I will say that the puzzles my GM presents are jarring in their interruption of my suspension of disbelief. But they don't have to be that way. Not every puzzle entails being attacked with a giant floating word jumble surrounded by undispellable anti-magic fields. Performing a ritual at the correct time on an astrological megalith is a good example of a puzzle that could blend right in with the landscape of almost any RPG.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

So you think there's no merit to the idea of a character concept based on the premise "I am a tactical genius"? Actually, IIRC, in GURPS, there is a Tactics skill that allows the GM to provide the player with insight into the tactics that his opponent is likely to use, and what an effective counter might be. If the opponent also has Tactics, it turns into an opposed roll as the two sides attempt to outsmart each other. This is a system that patches a hole in the mechanics by providing a way for a character to be good at something his player is bad at. I don't see how this is a threat to player involvement.

Certainly some players are better at things than others. And their abilities are different than their character's abilities. The purpose of game mechanics is to provide a task-resolution system that can simulate (e.g.) having the ability to pick a lock, even if you don't know the first thing about it. Any place where there is a lacuna in the system requires ad-libbing by the players. That's unavoidable. But it doesn't mean there isn't a hole in the system. And just because there's a hole doesn't mean there shouldn't be one. As I mentioned, simplicity is a good reason not to make rules for every situation. And even if there were rules for every situation, they only cover what a character is capable of. What the character is motivated to do is always determined by the player, at least in D&D...although not in every game. My Life With Master springs to mind as a possible exception in which your motivation is created for you by interaction with the GM's character.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Also, the RAW supports option 1 succeeding on exactly the same basis.

 

[Nebulous]

I've used homemade puzzles and riddles sparingly in the past; they're fun to write up, and can really trip/reward players. But i see what others mean that it can cause problems with the character/player continuity.

I just had the following idea: let's say you have a real brainteaser of a riddle/ puzzle to spring on the players. Rather than give them open-ended time to figure it out (or fail, and end the adventure prematurely because of their mental ineptitude), the DM can set an XP goal, say, 500 per player. Then counting off on a stopwatch, they have five minutes to solve it collectively. Each passing minute ticks off another 100 XP. If at the end of 5 minutes they can't figure out, give it to them in a glorious epiphany. That way it's more of game, rather than "do or die" kind of pressure. They're rewarded for pulling it off but not penalized.

Just a thought anyway.

 

[Mallus]

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.

What about asking an inept tactician (who plays a melee genius) to actually move his mini on the battlegrid?

When all is said and done, RPG play has to be comprised of something. It can't just be a player stating stating what outcomes they desire, and handling the rest in abstract. There has to be some player input regarding how the desired outcome is achieved (combat tactics, diplomatic skills, puzzle-solving ability, etc.).

Otherwise your left with the game that plays itself. Or, rather, your left with a game in which character building skills are the only ones that matter, and actually in-game player choices/actions are simulated away to the point of meaninglessness.

DM: "Okay, it's the 7th of Moonday, what are you doing?"
Player1: "I'm getting rich."
DM: "Roll your Get Bling."
Player1: "I got a 26"
DM: "Okay, you're rich."
Player2: "I want to get women!"
DM: "Roll your Hook-up."
Player2: "Damn, I got a 3."
DM: "Sorry, you're celibate as an ugly priest today".

 

[Mallus]

So you think there's no merit to the idea of a character concept based on the premise "I am a tactical genius"?

No, I'm saying there's no merit in playing a character concept that you are unable to play.

I'll never succesfully play a master tactician in D&D. And that's my fault, not the rulesets. There are other aspects of the game that I oh-so-humbly feel I excel at, and its in those areas I find my enjoyment.

I'm not going to demand of the rules that they negate the meaningful tactical choices that
more skilled combat-oriented players make just so I can play a 'great tactician'.

In the same way, if I solve a puzzle, or another player comes up with a brilliant lie, I expect the other people at the table to accept that gracefully, their 'character concepts' be damned.

 

[DonTadow]

What about asking an inept tactician (who plays a melee genius) to actually move his mini on the battlegrid?

When all is said and done, RPG play has to be comprised of something. It can't just be a player stating stating what outcomes they desire, and handling the rest in abstract. There has to be some player input regarding how the desired outcome is achieved (combat tactics, diplomatic skills, puzzle-solving ability, etc.).

Otherwise your left with the game that plays itself. Or, rather, your left with a game in which character building skills are the only ones that matter, and actually in-game player choices/actions are simulated away to the point of meaninglessness.

DM: "Okay, it's the 7th of Moonday, what are you doing?"
Player1: "I'm getting rich."
DM: "Roll your Get Bling."
Player1: "I got a 26"
DM: "Okay, you're rich."
Player2: "I want to get women!"
DM: "Roll your Hook-up."
Player2: "Damn, I got a 3."
DM: "Sorry, you're celibate as an ugly priest today".

LMAO

I'm disappointed you've turned down my invitation, but I"m glad to see we're on the same page. I really don't see where I disagree with you. My general view is like you, thre needs to be a comprimise, but my dm style that i enjoy the most favors heavy rpg.

In other words My views are that there should be role playing, but I don't want them to effect the mechanics. The mechanics support the role playing and are essential to the game, else you're just reading a play. But a mechanics led game is essentially letting the game run itself.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think Mallus hit on the point that I was trying to figure out in this dicussion (thanks M) Abstracting aspects of the game that a player is weak in into skill checks essentialy removes that aspect of play from the game. I enjoy resolving interaction with NPCs through dialogue. If you instead depend on a character's skills, it's a better simulation of the character's abilities but less fun. Basically you're evening the field between the socially adept guy and the social klutz by removing the part of the game where the socially adept guy has an advantage. For me, the cost of this approach far outweighs the benefit.

There are a number of things I think should be left to player ability because a) I enjoy doing them and b) they're difficult to model well. Social interaction is certainly one of these. It's difficult to model well with D&D because the rules are simplistic. It's difficult to model in general, because no matter how high your diplomacy skill is, you don't get to enjoy being good at a negotiation, you only get to win and enjoy the reward. You still miss out on the experience.

If I were designing the game I'd leave out skills like diplomacy and tactics, using instead something along the line of "social perception" and "tactical perception" that allow the DM to give appropriate hints but is explicitly not used as a resolution method.

I wonder if part of the reason there is such a dispute over this issue is because of the number of people that are new to D&D with 3E. From OD&D through 2E there weren't any social skills, and all interaction was resolved through roleplay. It worked very well, as far as I recall. For me, using a social roll stil feels very strange. I can see how those new to the game may think that that's the "right" to play because that's what the rules say, though.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I wonder if part of the reason there is such a dispute over this issue is because of the number of people that are new to D&D with 3E. From OD&D through 2E there weren't any social skills, and all interaction was resolved through roleplay.

Reaction Adjustment.

Noone used it, but it existed.

EDIT: I'm not really interested in discussing this topic yet again, but I thought I'd point that out.

 

[DamionW]

I wonder if part of the reason there is such a dispute over this issue is because of the number of people that are new to D&D with 3E. From OD&D through 2E there weren't any social skills, and all interaction was resolved through roleplay. It worked very well, as far as I recall. For me, using a social roll stil feels very strange. I can see how those new to the game may think that that's the "right" to play because that's what the rules say, though.

Well, there were both proficiencies/skills for Fast-talk and for intimidate (the latter let you select STR or CHA as the prime ability, a common gripe). For everyone that feels that better roleplaying is brought through removing social mechanics, I feel you're downplaying the ROLE part of it. Case in point: If you have a half-orc fighter with Cha 8 and no ranks in bluff, that ROLE is of someone who is not a capable liar. If in the course of playing the game you develop a piece of dialogue that is convincing and entertaining to the DM, he could arbitrate that the dialogue is convincing to the NPC (it convinced him -> he's portraying the NPC -> it convinced the NPC). Well that has now proved to those that are making the effort to design characters that are better at social interactions than the player that it is a useless endeavor. The only true way to guarantee your character can become more persuasive is to improve the player's skills of persuasion. Otherwise, invest the mechanics of the character design in other endeavors and just try and develop better lying skills. When he then looks at the uber-munchkin power-fighting skills of said half-orc fighter, he sees him succeeding at those too. That is by design. So why should the player of that character benefit twice by being a good liar, but no one is benefited by being a good rope-tier, or a good blacksmith, or any other skill?