Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

These are handled by mechanics, but different ones. Dave the barbarian has Power Attack, which means he has training or experience that have caused him to alter his swing instinctively when he fights something that seems easy to hit. Dave doesn't consciously calculate the best precision/damage ratio, but he has a feel for it after many hours of bashing orcs with his greatclub. Dave also knows that if the orc is looking the other way, it makes it easier to brain him with the club. Dave doesn't know that he gets a +2 bonus for flanking, but he does know that if the orc is fighting Ed the fighter, he's more likely to look the other way.

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, rather than an example that shows how the rules are irrelevent to character decisions. To some extent this has been recognized and attempts have been made to patch it. For example, tactical feats from Complete Warrior. Overall, however, the reason why the hole is there is because it would be incredibly difficult and intricate to try to simulate good tactics using game mechanics, and so they left a place where character and player knowledge is blurred, to simplify the game. They also defined places where character and player knowledge are discrete, namely skill checks.

edit:
But anyway, the lack of a mechanic covering a situation does not imply that mechanics are disposable. The Use Rope skill is there for a reason. Bringing your book of knots to a session doesn't allow you to bypass using the skill. Neither does being a diplomat IRL allow you to bypass using the Diplomacy skill. Doing either is cheating. I suspect it seems obvious why the Use Rope example is cheating, and for anyone who agrees with that, please note the parallel to the Diplomacy skill example.

 

[DonTadow]

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)?

Don't let my method actor hear that remark or you'll insult his 300 lbs human fighter .

A fighter uses weapons and his attack is with that weapon. HIs attack is modified depending on waht weapon you wield.

Someone attempting to bluff is using the lie "produced by the player" to see how well that lie gets over.

The roll is not the lie itself, but how well the lie is interpreted. Just as the fighter needs a weapon the bluffer needs a lie to begin it. The mechanic is important, it's the gas to the car, but it doesnt make any sense to have gas without a car and vice versa.

I always find it odd that people call things "a role playing aspect" of the role playing game. Its like saying, I liked the basket ball aspect of the basketball game. I know there are variations but you can't take the role playing out of the role playing game, else you'd just have a game.

 

[Voadam]

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.




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.

Mechanics are unnecesary to roleplay a character. Even though there are no mechanics you can roleplay the different characters in a murder mystery.

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.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Someone attempting to bluff is using the lie "produced by the player" to see how well that lie gets over.

The roll is not the lie itself, but how well the lie is interpreted. Just as the fighter needs a weapon the bluffer needs a lie to begin it. The mechanic is important, it's the gas to the car, but it doesnt make any sense to have gas without a car and vice versa.

I always find it odd that people call things "a role playing aspect" of the role playing game. Its like saying, I liked the basket ball aspect of the basketball game. I know there are variations but you can't take the role playing out of the role playing game, else you'd just have a game.

This I agree with. What I disagree with are the two suggestions that:
1. using game mechanics is necessarily not roleplaying
--i.e. when I describe what Dave the barbarian is trying to do and roll for it, I'm somehow not roleplaying Dave.
2. game mechanics should be optional if the player happens to be good at whatever he wants the character to do
--i.e. since I'm a good liar, I don't need to put points into Bluff, and can put them into Use Magic Device instead. Sweet!

 

[DamionW]

Well DonTadow, let's go back to your acting/singing dichotomy. I say that liking RPGs but not being good at developing specific character dialogue is equivalent to saying I like music but have bad natural pitch. To enforce me to play all of the game in dialogue to me is equivalent to coming up to me and saying you can't truly appreciate that aria, you're tone-deaf. Who are you to tell me that my appreciation of music is less than yours? I partake in music listening because it is enjoyable to me. It's the same reason I partake in role-playing games because I enjoy story development, not character portrayal. Just because your playstyle enjoys character portrayal shouldn't penalize me as a player participating in a game you DM if I happen to just like the plot development.

 

[Voadam]

edit:
But anyway, the lack of a mechanic covering a situation does not imply that mechanics are disposable. The Use Rope skill is there for a reason. Bringing your book of knots to a session doesn't allow you to bypass using the skill. Neither does being a diplomat IRL allow you to bypass using the Diplomacy skill. Doing either is cheating. I suspect it seems obvious why the Use Rope example is cheating, and for anyone who agrees with that, please note the parallel to the Diplomacy skill example.

All mechanics are disposable. Adding or subtracting mechanics simply changes the game.

 

[DamionW]

If you dispose of ALL mechanics, you're not role-playing, you're rampaging in a schizophrenic break between reality/fiction. Mechanics define how out of game decisions affect the fictional reality. Without any mechanics at all, all out of game decisions must exaclty mimic in game reality at which point you must cease being a player yourself and become a character.

 

[DonTadow]

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...

Because there is a mechanic set aside for most skills, combats and such. Puzzles can not be linked to any one skill because there are so many kinds, thus a good DM will provide clues to the puzzles dependant on checks associated with the puzzle. My initial point was that there is not a "solve puzzle mechanic".

With puzzles there is a problem, a mechanic and a resolution for it. With climbing there is a problem, a mechanic and a resolution. My characters always describe what their doing, as you did with your example, its my job to figure out what mechanic will resolve the issue. If you want to climb, find the footholds and all that good stuff you still need to roll because thats the mechanic determined and suggested to solve it. If thers a puzzle there solving it is the solution.

The way you describe things, a puzzle would be solved by sayiing "I carefully look at all the pieces and figure out every one solving the puzzle. And again, I must say mysteries are a form of puzzles. I feel this has been neglected because of the obvious, no one wants to throw away their intrigue plot with a roll. But if there was a roll skill, it seems likely you should be able to do this with that skill.

 

[Voadam]

Just because your playstyle enjoys character portrayal shouldn't penalize me as a player participating in a game you DM if I happen to just like the plot development.

Yes it should.

A DM determines what house rules he runs. If he decides to accomodate your different play style tastes that is his choice, but I would expect a DM to run a game according to the style they like. You as a player should knowingly decide whether it is still worth it to you to enter a game run in that different style that will penalize your character concept that does not correspond to that play style.

It would be like complaining that you shouldn't be penalized for wanting to play a ranger who casts spells in a DM's home brew world where all rangers are the spell less option from Complete Warrior.

 

[DonTadow]

Well DonTadow, let's go back to your acting/singing dichotomy. I say that liking RPGs but not being good at developing specific character dialogue is equivalent to saying I like music but have bad natural pitch. To enforce me to play all of the game in dialogue to me is equivalent to coming up to me and saying you can't truly appreciate that aria, you're tone-deaf. Who are you to tell me that my appreciation of music is less than yours? I partake in music listening because it is enjoyable to me. It's the same reason I partake in role-playing games because I enjoy story development, not character portrayal. Just because your playstyle enjoys character portrayal shouldn't penalize me as a player participating in a game you DM if I happen to just like the plot development.

But if you're in a chior you should sing, no matter how bad you are. The choir sings. role players role play and you should make some attempt at it if you're playing the game. The mechanics only exist in dungeons and dragons to facilitate the role playing, not vice versa.