Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[fusangite]

Fusangite, I don't think you and I are that far off in our mindsets. Both of us agree there's a balance to be struck between the dice and statistics that the rules allow a character to represent and the memory and dialogue that a player uses to breathe life into that character. We just may be a few shades off in the spectrum over where we feel that balance lies.

That's good to hear! I was mainly complimenting Mallus, in that particular post, on his view that in some groups, having inarticulate people play highly articulate characters interferes with other players' fun.

But I agree: I think we have positions that are pretty close. More importantly, I think we are understanding eachother properly.

Better than letting some shy, dweeby girl play a raging barbarian/bard who is destined to be king and rule over lands? Better than letting the hyperactive, outgoing guy play the drab, stuttering academic wizard? Better than letting the ugly fat guy play the sorcerer who gets all teh ladeez?

The way my suspension of disbelief works in D&D is pretty close to being read-to aloud or listening to a radio play. Not identical to those experiences but pretty damned close. So, having an inarticulate person play a great diplomat messes with my suspension of disbelief in a way that ugly people playing handsome people, weak people playing strong people, etc. does not.

Better for what? First-person narration and corny dialogue? Piffle. I don't see a whole lot of value in that.

I'm glad we don't play in the same game, then. I do value that. It sounds like you get your fulfilment from different aspects of D&D than I do. Whatever mows your lawn.

 

[ThirdWizard]

They can never play an Ender Wiggin master tactician character unless the player is a master tactician under RAW. Regardless of whether they are 1st or 20th level. All that matters is how good the player is.

We all have to draw lines somewhere. We seem to draw them differently.

 

[Voadam]

We all have to draw lines somewhere. We seem to draw them differently.

Agreed.

 

[DamionW]

So no one caring to take me up on post #241? Voadam? Misihari Lord? I understand with no Ender players, no Ender genius characters, but those are less central to most fiction than outstanding leaders and persuaders. So which players get to rise to that level consistently in a RP-only mechanic? How do you decide?

 

[Voadam]

So no one caring to take me up on post #241? Voadam? Misihari Lord? I understand with no Ender players, no Ender genius characters, but those are less central to most fiction than outstanding leaders and persuaders. So which players get to rise to that level consistently in a RP-only mechanic? How do you decide?

In a game run with social interactions handled only by roleplay, by definition the player's roleplaying determines how persuasive or outstanding a leader they are in their individual interactions.

In such a game for your Braveheart speech to be as cool as the one in the movie, it must be as cool as the one in the movie.

How does a DM decide? He makes a judgment call based on the roleplay.

Anyone can play a Churchill or Sherlock Holmes or Ender Wiggins concept character. In a player's handle mental issues run game how well they play them is up to their mental and social abilities. In a mechanics resolution game how effectively the characters succeed at the tasks those concepts are designed to be good at is resolved by how well the characters are designed to mechanically handle those challenges, what power level the game is set at, how well the player uses the mechanics, and luck of the rolls.

 

[DamionW]

In such a game for your Braveheart speech to be as cool as the one in the movie, it must be as cool as the one in the movie.

How does a DM decide? He makes a judgment call based on the roleplay.

Anyone can play a Churchill or Sherlock Holmes or Ender Wiggins concept character. In a player's handle mental issues run game how well they play them is up to their mental and social abilities. In a mechanics resolution game how effectively the characters succeed at the tasks those concepts are designed to be good at is resolved by how well the characters are designed to mechanically handle those challenges, what power level the game is set at, how well the player uses the mechanics, and luck of the rolls.

Ok, so if a player has the capability to regularly generate Braveheart quality speeches, do you as DM regularly allow them to convince NPCs? Are there any limits? What about 1v1 interactions? When examining the quality of this word choice, how do you weigh it against the character as designed? Should a fighter be as good at inspiring courage as a bard, as long as the player can come up with moving monologues? I still am just seeing this all as a very grey area prone to bias, where certain players are able to get significant advantage over other's without regard to character concept. Also, I'm having difficulty imagining Churchill characters without Churchill players to regularly develop such influential, persuasive speech on a consistent basis.

 

[fusangite]

Ok, so if a player has the capability to regularly generate Braveheart quality speeches, do you as DM regularly allow them to convince NPCs?

If you have a player who can generate high quality speeches on the fly, you should thank your lucky stars and encourage it at all costs. The idea that people being articulate is a problem to be solved rather than a privilege enjoyed by everyone in the group is half the problem on this thread. Some of us enjoy RPGs, in part, because we get to hear people say cool things. The idea that people saying cool things is an evil to be managed rather than a privilege to be celebrated is, in my view, symptomatic of a game full of insecure lame people I don't want to spend time with.

 

[DamionW]

If you have a player who can generate high quality speeches on the fly, you should thank your lucky stars and encourage it at all costs. The idea that people being articulate is a problem to be solved rather than a privilege enjoyed by everyone in the group is half the problem on this thread. Some of us enjoy RPGs, in part, because we get to hear people say cool things. The idea that people saying cool things is an evil to be managed rather than a privilege to be celebrated is, in my view, symptomatic of a game full of insecure lame people I don't want to spend time with.

Whoa, I never said it was an evil to be managed. I just am of the mindset it's hard to come by in an average player. Down sparky!

 

[Peter Gibbons]

If you have a player who can generate high quality speeches on the fly, you should thank your lucky stars and encourage it at all costs. The idea that people being articulate is a problem to be solved rather than a privilege enjoyed by everyone in the group is half the problem on this thread. Some of us enjoy RPGs, in part, because we get to hear people say cool things. The idea that people saying cool things is an evil to be managed rather than a privilege to be celebrated is, in my view, symptomatic of a game full of insecure lame people I don't want to spend time with.

I think this thread has definitely reached the "agree to disagree" point. Some RPGers like to hear people say cool things, and some of us like to have a 6 Charisma mean the same thing no matter who is playing the character. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[DonTadow]

Why should puzzles be decided by the PLAYER having to personally solve it but a trap be decided by a die roll, you should require the PLAYER perform some act of manual dexterity, maybe using the old Operation game or have the player build a house of cards to see if he is able to succeed.

Or if a character tries to lift a 1000 pound portcullis to free the party, the PLAYER should be required to go outside and lift the DM's car over his head to see if he successfully makes a Strength check.

Requiring a player to use his own abilities for Intelligence or Charisma but not requiring the same for Strength, Dexterity or Constitution is rather one-sided.

What you describe is the boring way to do traps. I roll up traps in my campaign into the same catagory of puzzles. Theres a trigger and the actual trap. A player can attempt to disarm a trap but if they don't have the right equipment to disarm it (or use faulty equipment) the trap could still go off or something worse, even with a good roll. This does not diminish the effect of disable device but enhances the trap. I'm fro the school of Grimtooth's traps, no easy roll and you're out of there. One of my players lost a hand last session do to a nasty guillotine trap.

They can. I don't think anyone's saying to use any CHA mechanic to make small talk with another individual. However, when a person becomes an obstacle just as a stuck door to a STR check, or a squeaky floor to a Move Silently roll, that's where many of us feel there should be some form of mechanic to supplement the discussion that takes place in character. Granted Voadam and Misihari Lord are prime examples of DMs who feel this doesn't work for them, but that doesn't need to stop us discussing the ups and downs of each position.

Yes but a key part of that is the DM is able to distiguish what is and what isn't a normal task. I don't roll STR for every stuck door because it is obvious my warforged 25 STR will easily move the door. At that point I'm just asking for rolling because I like to hear dice fall.