Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Lonely Tylenol]

DM: "Okay, it's the 7th of Moonday, what are you doing?"
Player1: "I'm getting rich."
DM: "Roll your Get Bling."

Hmm...IIRC, this is essentially how they do it in d20 Modern...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

I dunno. I started in D&D, went through AD&D 1 & 2, and now I play 3.5. I remember that in earlier editions before there was a social mechanic (aside from the NPC reaction chart), you essentially played yourself as a mage or yourself as a fighter. Which isn't too far from the earliest ideas of D&D as an offshoot of a tactical wargame. The original concept was that you made the best decision you could come up with and that's what the character did. Eventually, someone realized that they could have their character decide to do something other than what they would do in the same situation, because the character is different than they, and role-playing was born. Then there came the issue of "well, my fighter wouldn't say it in the same words I would. He'd say it in medieval language." And then came "well, my bard wouldn't say it like I would. He'd say it better."

GURPS has for a very long time had a skill-based mechanic for determining the outcome of social situations. It meant you could play someone who was good at (or bad at) those things. D&D just picked up on the concept fairly late in the game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But I think your example makes better proof for Mailus's example. Why is that orc pigeon held to that 8 charisma score. It is very well possible for him to come up wit ha convincing lie every now and then. Everyone exceeds their capabilities every now and then.

Well, that's where the random die roll comes in. An 8 Cha is only a -1 to the roll.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In a game without social mechanics that is a character who cannot feint in combat well. He could have a forceful personality and just be ugly (because charisma includes both personality and appearance which do not have to be linked).

A character whose role in such a game is as a bad liar is someone whose character concept says he's a bad liar and who plays one. If there are no social mechanics then this is not a matter of character mechanics but simply of arbitrarily chosen character concept. Anybody can be a bad liar as a concept.

Sure anybody can be a bad liar. But not just anybody can be a good liar. I want to play a good liar sometimes, often a better liar than I am myself. You're telling me I shouldn't play the kind of character I want to play. I don't see why you would want to tell me that.

 

[DamionW]

Just out of curiosity, where were these written? I looked through my old 2E Players Handbook before posting to try to make sure I had my facts straight.

They were more setting specific IIRC. One place fast-talk can be found is in the Dark Sun supplement Dune Trader detailing how to play a fast-talking merchant class. I believe the intimidate proficiency was in the main setting rulebook. Both were also in the Spacefarer's Handbook for Spelljammer I believe. My point is that mechanics existed prior to 3e and that I am not a "new-generation" player

 

[DonTadow]

You are totally missing the point, my friend. I could just as well have made it: "Why is that elf wizard held to that 8 Strength score? It is very well possible for him to deal 20 points of melee damage every now and then. Everyone exceeds their capabilities every now and then."

Every characteristic has its impact on the character's capabilities. The "orc pigeon" is "held to" his low Charisma for exactly the same reasons any other character is held to his low stat(s): because that's the only fair way to run a game! Yes, the "orc pigeon" could very well tell a really excellent lie once in a while. That's represented by rolling a "20" on his Bluff check, and then applying his total lack of ranks in the Bluff skill and his -1 Cha penalty. Just like the elf wizard can roll a "20" on his melee attack. You see?

Ah, but you are choosing your examples carefully knowinign that damage and hit points are not determined by the person but by the class. You're comparing things in the game that are only partially factored by the character attributes (hit points and damage). Those things yo ucan't compare to skills, in particular charisma based skills.

Even a bluff of 15+ is usually good enough to get by most bluff checks, so even an orc with aa -1 charisma and no ranks can still have a possiblity of lying his way out of encounters. Thus if I did not want to use the dice mechanic on this skill, I could very well let a charasimatic player slide with a very well played lie every now and then.

 

[DamionW]

Good question, My answer is

a) Why not? I don't insist on the same level of abstraction in all task resolution. Actually I prefer to abstract the boring stuff and play out the fun stuff in detail.

Alright, well then boring for who? You the DM or the player? RPGs are a collabaritive endeavor between players and DM alike. If I have fun from plot development and contributing to the development of your game world, but am just not proficient at Level 3 abstraction for social actions, why would you want me out of your game? I'm not disruptive or rude or power-gaming. I just am looking equity in task resolution. I don't even mind while other players perform at a Level 3 abstraction. If they can do it, more power to them. I only ask that you provide some Level 2 task resolution to back it up, even if you say give a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus for the player's performance because it's enjoyable. To ad hoc fiat that their Level 3 bluff suceeds regardless of their CHA score or bluff ranks is just as arbitrary as making a wizard with 10 STR and BAB +0 auto-strike with a greatsword based on how well the player can sword fight in real life. To me, I see that as incomprehensibile. It's like playing banker in monopoly and saying "I like that you passed up Oriental Avenue, that's what I would have done, so I'm giving you $200 from the bank."

b) That's the way I'm used to doing it. These interactions were resolved by pure RP prior to 3E, this worked well for me, and I say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I would like to see a set of social interaction resolution rules that work for me, but if you greatly reduce the effect of what the player's doing, I'm not going to be interested.

Well I'm used to character design having some meaning. You can decide anything is role-playing. I remember seeing on the web "The Mirror" freestyle RPG system where characters are only defined by adjectives: a dabbling carpenter. A professional athlete. A competent marksman. Each of those adjectives had a die-value between d3 and d30 with smaller dice being better. Whenever a task had to be resolved, the GM would set a target number (usually five or so) and any roll below succeeds. That was the extent of the mechanics.

That's a perfectly valid way to play a role-playing game. However, I play DnD where by RAW, a Bluff roll plus CHA bonus vs Sense Motive plus Wis allows me to succeed at convincing an NPC of my falsehood. Sure you can house rule that away, but don't assume that is somehow a more "correct" version of role-playing or that will give me incentives to portray my character with more immersion and less combat. All it will give me incentive to do is design a combat character (if you tell me at the start), or leave the campaign (if you spring this house rule on me mid-game).

 

[Voadam]

Sure anybody can be a bad liar. But not just anybody can be a good liar. I want to play a good liar sometimes, often a better liar than I am myself. You're telling me I shouldn't play the kind of character I want to play. I don't see why you would want to tell me that.

I'm saying you aren't wanting to play a good liar. You are wanting to run a character who is a better liar than you and you don't want to actually roleplay being a liar. There is that definitional difference again.

You are interested in having characters that do not mesh with the style of gaming I run.

As a DM I'm not interested in accomodating your preferred play style over mine in my games.

So you could say more accurately I'm telling you that you shouldn't expect to be able to play your preferred character type in my games.

Play your play style in your games. Choose whatever flavor of play style you like best. Don't expect it to be accomodated in my games.

 

[fusangite]

Sure anybody can be a bad liar. But not just anybody can be a good liar. I want to play a good liar sometimes, often a better liar than I am myself. You're telling me I shouldn't play the kind of character I want to play. I don't see why you would want to tell me that.

Because, in this hypothetical situation, he's the GM and you're not?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Alright, well then boring for who? You the DM or the player? RPGs are a collabaritive endeavor between players and DM alike.

That's a good point, it's a good idea to game with people who want to play the same way you do.

If I have fun from plot development and contributing to the development of your game world, but am just not proficient at Level 3 abstraction for social actions, why would you want me out of your game? I'm not disruptive or rude or power-gaming. I just am looking equity in task resolution.

From this discussion, it's starting to look like "equality in task resolution" and task resolution through dialogue are mutually exclusive - you can't do both at the same time, though compromises are possbile. What it comes down to is that resolution through RP is fun for me and the people I game with. If you're not going to contribute to our fun, why should we want you at the table? You're better off playing with others who want to play as you do.

I don't even mind while other players perform at a Level 3 abstraction. If they can do it, more power to them. I only ask that you provide some Level 2 task resolution to back it up, even if you say give a +2 to +4 circumstance bonus for the player's performance because it's enjoyable.

That's a pretty good compromise, and I wouldn't mind trying that.

To ad hoc fiat that their Level 3 bluff suceeds regardless of their CHA score or bluff ranks is just as arbitrary as making a wizard with 10 STR and BAB +0 auto-strike with a greatsword based on how well the player can sword fight in real life. To me, I see that as incomprehensibile. It's like playing banker in monopoly and saying "I like that you passed up Oriental Avenue, that's what I would have done, so I'm giving you $200 from the bank."

Well for one thing, D&D isn't Monopoly. Whatever the current RAW, resolution through RP is well established in custom and practice. Just because the latest writers of the rule books decided to include these rules doesn't mean that's how I want to play.

<snip>

That's a perfectly valid way to play a role-playing game. However, I play DnD where by RAW, a Bluff roll plus CHA bonus vs Sense Motive plus Wis allows me to succeed at convincing an NPC of my falsehood. Sure you can house rule that away, but don't assume that is somehow a more "correct" version of role-playing or that will give me incentives to portray my character with more immersion and less combat. All it will give me incentive to do is design a combat character (if you tell me at the start), or leave the campaign (if you spring this house rule on me mid-game).

Fair enough, play as you like. This discussion is about personal preferences for play style, as much as a few people seem to think that play styles can be determined to be objectively right or wrong. Assuming the RAW is the "correct" way to play is just as bad as the reverse; there's nothing sacred about the RAW.

All I've been saying is that in my personal experience, resolution of tasks through RP has been more fun than doing so through skill checks.