Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Voadam]

Third Option: Adjudicate based on the mechanic providing that the player has provided sufficient detail to advance the plot and determine a resolution DC. If I happen to not be good at immersion in character, I argue that doesn't make me a bad player. That just means its not one of my strengths. As long as I can provide you with sufficient detail of what my character is portraying in the game world, then it shouldn't matter how well my intonations, inflections and other representation of my character's emotions are. My acting of my character's bluff doesn't convince you as you're acting out the NPC? Tough. If the mechanic says it works, you have an obligation as a fair DM to ensure I have as much an opportunity to affect the artificial reality of the game world as munchkin combat player. I am not actually my character and you are not actually the NPC, so whether you believe my bluff is irrelevant.




If DM believes there are only options 1 and 2, it is a big deal because he is not being equitable to the players who feel option 3 is fair to them.

You may want to reread my original post you disagreed with. I said the task could be handled by mechanics (your option 3) or by DM adjudication without the skill checks.

The choice between the options should be determined by preferred play style.

Using dice mechanics encourages use of the mechanics over roleplaying. It also encourages specialization along lines of character mechanics for these types of activities, so only wizards are any good at puzzles or bards are good at the variety of social interactions. It limits players interacting with the world to what the mechanics allow. Fighters can only be about half as good as a druid at being friendly. This can all be good or bad depending on play style preferences.

For those like yourself who want to play from a step removed without immersion the more social and mental mechanics the better to keep you separated from your character when these aspects come up.

For those who like the roleplaying aspects of the game to be handled by roleplaying, these mechanics are detrimental to that style of playing the game.

 

[DamionW]

Scenerio:
The pcs are attempting to gain access in an exclusive bar. They figure the bouncer as not too too bright so they attempt to bluff themselves in.

Method Actor(high role player)- acts out the scene with the dm. -- This is my favorite way as it stays within the game.

Lazy Role player (lazy)- "I Bluff". Rolls dice. "i score a 23 do I bluff him?"
dm "what do you say"
Lazy player "I rolled a 23"

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"

Alright DonTadow, here's my counter-scenario:

The players have stumbled onto an orc encampment and need to dispatch them quickly before they call for reinforcments.

Min/maxer: Ok, I remove 4 points from my attack roll using my power attack feat to do more damage.

Method Actor (who happens to hate combats and wants to get through them to get back to plot): I kill the orc to move on.

Basic Role-player: I rush forward with the battle rage in my heart and swing my sword at his head.

How do you resolve each of those cases? You roll the dice and determine whether the orc is dead or not. Do you under any circumstances say, "Okay, I need to see specifically which arm swing you use to deal your sword's blows." If you're not asking to see those arm swings, then you are assuming based on the characters STR score and weapon prowess that they simply roll the dice as indicated. Tell my why it is equitable to the Basic Role-Player in your scenario to have to demonstrate the in-game actions his character uses to alter the reality there (i.e. convince the guard), but not have the min/maxer demonstrate his sword swing? And if you don't do that, explain how a player who is not proficient at developing character dialogue will ever be able to develop a proficient character at charismatic abilities? It's just a lack of fidelity. The basic role-player in your example described in sufficient detail how the bouncer was to be fooled. Saying "I bluff the bouncer" is just as bad as "I hurt the orc." It doesn't define the method of success or failure. Saying "I'm with the inspectors and he better let us through" is as detailed as saying "I swing the sword at their head." Why does one succeed solely based on the dice (the sword swing) and one needs the player to emulate in-game reality (tell you the specific words)?

 

[DamionW]

The choice between the options should be determined by preferred play style.

Who's preference, you as the DM or the player's preference?

Using dice mechanics encourages use of the mechanics over roleplaying. It also encourages specialization along lines of character mechanics for these types of activities, so only wizards are any good at puzzles or bards are good at the variety of social interactions. It limits players interacting with the world to what the mechanics allow. Fighters can only be about half as good as a druid at being friendly. This can all be good or bad depending on play style preferences.

Using dice mechanics that work as advertised in combat encourages people investing their character-design in combat oriented characters. Any character that spends the mechanics to be good at social interactions should be rewarded. If that fighter's player decides that with his 1st level PC feat he picks negotiator instead of something that accentuates his fighter feat chain, and he puts his higher ability score in CHA instead of STR he could be well more friendly than a druid who puts their lowest score in CHA and all skill ranks in Knowledge Nature instead of Diplomacy. Now, if you decide based on the Druid's player's portrayal of friendliness that the character is friendly regardless of what their CHA score is or their skill ranks, you've made those knowledge Nature ranks twice as useful (because there was no DISadvantage for passing up Diplomacy ranks) and CHA really is a dump stat because you don't even take it into account when you evaluate their portrayal as accurate.

For those like yourself who want to play from a step removed without immersion the more social and mental mechanics the better to keep you separated from your character when these aspects come up.

For those who like the roleplaying aspects of the game to be handled by roleplaying, these mechanics are detrimental to that style of playing the game.

For those that like the role-playing aspect of the game, they should be matching their social portrayals to the mechanics they picked. If you are portraying your character as being lying through his teeth at the drop of a hat just because he has a guard to get around, but you didn't make the effort to design your character with any bluff skills or CHA points, you know what? You're doing a crappy job of acting out that character. And if the DM just happens to like your lines of dialogue and think their ingenious enough to fool the guard, he's just giving incentive to be a good actor and liar in real life, not a good role-player.

 

[Voadam]

[my original quote] Saying "My character is good at intimidation, I'm not. I use intimidate to get them to surrender . . . 16" is simple character task resolution without roleplaying.

I disagree completely. If I can't intimidate a flea, and the DM demands that I be intimidating in order to use the skill I bought using valuable skill points, I'm going to be plenty cheesed off. Dave the Barbarian is a scary guy, but I'm not. I can say "Dave goes 'Grr' at his foes and stares them down in a frightening manner, saying something unpleasant involving his axe and their soft bits," but I can't reasonably be expected to deliver an intimidating monologue. The game mechanic determines what Dave can accomplish. Any acting on my part is simply icing on the cake. If I happen to be playing a patently uncharismatic character, but I'm charismatic IRL, and use my charisma to talk my way through encounters, I'm cheating. I'm gaining an unfair advantage over the people who spent their skill points on Charisma-based skills.

How are you disagreeing? You only seem to be saying that you should be allowed to use mechanics to resolve the situation, not that using the mechanics is actually roleplaying as KM and I defined it, playing a role.

You are not saying that you are roleplaying an intimidating character. You are saying you are controlling a character with high intimidate skill ranks. You are saying that since there are skill mechanics you don't want to have to roleplay him.

Its fine to want to play from a third person perspective and use mechanics to resolve social interactions and determine NPC reactions to PC actions. It is fine to like coffee ice cream.

It is fine not to like that style of play either. It is fine not to like coffee ice cream. It is a matter of arbitrary taste and preference for different play styles and different resulting play experiences.

I don't like coffee ice cream. I don't like the social skill mechanics or int checks for puzzles in D&D.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

As for Kamikaze. Again Why? I won't list my examples again, but there are many reasons in which the players make decisions for the characters, why not puzzles?

Why not puzzles? Why not skill checks? Why not combat? If ability scores and skills are irrelevent to the character's decision-making and puzzle-solving capacities, why should they be relevent to any action he takes? Just tell the DM "I climb the wall carefully and competently by finding footholds and handholds and using them like a makeshift ladder." No need to roll Climb anymore, especially if you're a climber IRL and can advise the DM on the importance of proper grips and balancing. No need to ever take Use Rope if you can just bring a Boy Scouts knot tying manual to each session and show the DM exactly what you do with the rope. No need to ever roll any dice again, since you can just describe exactly what you do and the DM can describe exactly what the world does in response and then you shoot at the bad guy and the DM tells you that you miss and you say nuh uh I hit him because my character's a crack shot and the DM says no he's a ninja and dodges your bullet and you say but I have magic bullets that track him and the DM says but he's got armour that deflects bullets even magic bullets...

 

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Voadam
The choice between the options should be determined by preferred play style.

Who's preference, you as the DM or the player's preference?

This is heavily tangential, but ultimately all rules decisions are the purview of the DM. The DM should tell players up front what changes he makes, but decisions on what rules are changed or excluded are up to the DM.

Players and DMs can talk about rules and mechanical bits and players can make suggestions and requests, but ultimately the DM says what rules are used and players decide whether they want to play in the game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wow you'd get a laugh out of my experiences. I've had over a dozen players in campaigns, conventions and one shots do this. A lot of people believe that that the bluff skill means the character automatically bluffs the guard and the character knows how to lie so he says a good lie. They expect the dm to handle the details.

Bluffs the guard into believing what? Lies with what intent? Even just saying, "I bluff the guard into thinking I'm someone who should be here," is good enough in most cases. Especially if the player doesn't know what kind of person would legitimately be there, but his character the professional liar, would. The DM can fill that in because he should know what kind of lie the guard would believe. If the DM says, "sure, you tell him you're an undercover spy from the allied kingdom of Hoob, and ask him politely not to blow your cover since you're on a mission of great diplomatic importance," suddenly the player has a good story to use the next time he bluffs a guard. He didn't know anything about Hoob before, but his character did, and now he's got a hook for roleplaying based on the results of a die roll.

If you just say "I bluff," you're not saying anything. And if people are actually doing that in your games, that's a different problem than the issue of player abilities vs. character abilities. That's a lack of interest in having a character at all.

edit:

Saying "I bluff," and leaving it there is like saying "I attack," and not defining important variables like "the orc" and "with my longsword." It has no content by itself, and needs to be placed in context in order to have any meaning. If a player doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand what the Bluff skill is, and again, that's a completely different problem than the one under discussion.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

How are you disagreeing? You only seem to be saying that you should be allowed to use mechanics to resolve the situation, not that using the mechanics is actually roleplaying as KM and I defined it, playing a role.

Using mechanics is not itself roleplaying, but it is an essential step in roleplaying: determining the limits of the character's ability so that you might play the role of that character. If I can't come up with Dave the Barbarian's actual dialogue, not being a particularly intimidating guy, I can at least narrate what Dave is trying to do, and roll to see what happens. I switch from 1st-person roleplaying to 3rd-person roleplaying, resolve the action in the 3rd person, and then resume 1st-person roleplaying again.

You are not saying that you are roleplaying an intimidating character. You are saying you are controlling a character with high intimidate skill ranks. You are saying that since there are skill mechanics you don't want to have to roleplay him.

I am roleplaying an intimidating character. I cannot improvise all of his lines, which means that I need to default to a task-resolution system in order to continue to play the role. Doing otherwise would mean that I break out of the role and say what I'd say instead of what the character would say. I am certainly not saying that "since there are skill mechanics you don't want to have to roleplay him." My premise, as I'm sure you're aware, is that I can't tell you exactly what Dave says or does, but I can tell you "Dave gives the guy a withering look that makes him seem pretty darn scary." That's roleplaying, in the 3rd person. I'm still deciding Dave's actions, still operating the character in the character's idiom, and staying more true to that idiom than saying in character, "Um, I'm gonna rip your arm off and, uh, feed it to, uh...I mean, hit you with it." That would be breaking character, because Dave would never say something so lame with the intent to intimidate.

In this case, using the mechanics allows me to better roleplay the character than if I doggedly stuck with the 1st-person narration. The mechanics are there to allow me to roleplay a character that I can't ad-lib lines for.

3rd person roleplaying is still roleplaying.

 

[Voadam]

Why not puzzles? Why not skill checks? Why not combat? If ability scores and skills are irrelevent to the character's decision-making and puzzle-solving capacities, why should they be relevent to any action he takes? Just tell the DM "I climb the wall carefully and competently by finding footholds and handholds and using them like a makeshift ladder." No need to roll Climb anymore, especially if you're a climber IRL and can advise the DM on the importance of proper grips and balancing. No need to ever take Use Rope if you can just bring a Boy Scouts knot tying manual to each session and show the DM exactly what you do with the rope. No need to ever roll any dice again, since you can just describe exactly what you do and the DM can describe exactly what the world does in response and then you shoot at the bad guy and the DM tells you that you miss and you say nuh uh I hit him because my character's a crack shot and the DM says no he's a ninja and dodges your bullet and you say but I have magic bullets that track him and the DM says but he's got armour that deflects bullets even magic bullets...

Ability scores and skills are irrelevant to combat tactical decisions under RAW. Absent existing mechanics, under the rules ability scores do not mechanically benefit or detriment tactical decisions which are controlled by the player.

An int 3, wis 3 half orc can play by the rules and depending on the player running him, make great tactical decisions about how much to power attack, how to position on the field for flanking and cover and AoOs. An int 18 character played by a poor tactician player can make many tactical mistakes. These are just not handled by mechanics, it is simply a player decision making arena.

Player choices, not character ones determine tactics.

DMs could provide hints, int checks, or xp penalties to guide characters towards fidelity to their character mechanics, but such would be house rules designed to promote a different play style than that encouraged under the RAW.

 

[DamionW]

In this case, using the mechanics allows me to better roleplay the character than if I doggedly stuck with the 1st-person narration. The mechanics are there to allow me to roleplay a character that I can't ad-lib lines for.

3rd person roleplaying is still roleplaying.

Thanks Doc for putting it eloquently and simply.