Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[Mallus]

I feel you're downplaying the ROLE part of it.

In a sense, yes. In order to emphasize the PLAY part of it.

 

[DonTadow]

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?

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.

 

[Voadam]

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.

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.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

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.

Why is that elf wizard held to that 8 Constitution score? It is very well possible for him to survive more damage than he has hit points every now and then. Everyone exceeds their capabilities every now and then.

C'mon, I think everyone reading this should know the answer to your question by now!

 

[DamionW]

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".

The problem with this point, Mallus, is that you think players like myself are advocating the: "I bluff" "Roll" "You succeed" level of abstraction. I am doing no such thing. Let's put it in three levels of abstraction with relevent examples:

Combat:
LEVEL 1: PC - I hurt the orc. DM - How?
LEVEL 2: PC - I attack the orc with my long sword while flanking him. DM - okay, make your attack roll with +2 flanking bonus
LEVEL 3: PC - <getting up from the table> I swing my long sword which is weighted about the same as this baseball bat <picks up bat> in a sideways manner striking the orc mid-ribcage

Making Money:
LEVEL 1: PC - I get rich. DM - Umm, how?
LEVEL 2: PC - I spend the week using my Profession: Cobbler skill to make a few pairs of boots and sell them. DM - Okay make your check, and half of that number is how many gp you get from the boots.
LEVEL 3: PC - okay, <grabbing pieces of leather> I spend the week sewing pieces of leather together like so <molds the leather into the shape of a boot> in order to make footwear

Using rope:
LEVEL 1: PC - I tie a knot. DM - Like a simple knot, or a noose, or what?
LEVEL 2: PC - I tie a series of simple knots in the rope to make handholds to climb with. DM - Okay, you take 10 untrained on the Use Rope skill several times and make some firm knots
LEVEL 3: PC - <grabbing the rope he got from Home Depot> alright, I'm making several square knots in the rope <breaks out his boy scout handbook> like this...

Bluffing guards:
LEVEL 1: PC - I bluff to the guard. DM - Umm, what are you trying to tell him?
LEVEL 2: PC - I'm going to try to bluff the guard 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 - Okay, roll your bluff and I'll roll the guard's sense motive and we'll make up a dialogue that works.
LEVEL 3: PC - "<In authoritarian tone> I am with the city inspector's office, stand aside! If you don't <glaring facial expression from the player> you'll face the wrath of the city guard!"

Solving Puzzles:
LEVEL 1: PC - I use an INT check to solve the puzzle. DM - You don't have any clues to go on
LEVEL 2: PC - I use my knowlege (history) skill to figure out the significance of the three colored orbs in this dungeon. DM - Well, based on what you rolled, you think the elves that designed this dungeon did place a lot of emphasis on color in their language
LEVEL 3:
PC - Okay, if I was there, I'd push the third symbol, second symbol, first symbol. Does that do anything? Alright, let me try first sumbol third symbol second symbol. Does that do anything? No.... {until solution is reached}


In all cases, Level 1 does not provide enough detail for the DM to arbitrate. However, for combat, profession and use rope, Level 2 causes the mechanic to work as advertise. Some DMs feel I need to use a Level 3 character portrayal to solve a puzzle or bluff a guard. My challenge is, why is this arbitrarily set there and not for all mechanics? You are entitled to do that as GM. Rule #0 let's you set whatever house rules you want. However, if you don't publish to me at my characters inception that my ranks in Bluff will be arbitrated at a Level 3 of abstraction, how is that fair to me? I can't perform to a level 3 bluff as a player, just like I can't perform to a Level 3 Profession Cobbler. If I know you demand that of me for those skills, I'll either not select them or not play in your game. Either way, waiting until I'm in front of the guard or the puzzle is a little late to spring an expectation of Level 3 performance from me on your particular favored areas of playing.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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).

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.

 

[DonTadow]

Why is that elf wizard held to that 8 Constitution score? It is very well possible for him to survive more damage than he has hit points every now and then. Everyone exceeds their capabilities every now and then.

C'mon, I think everyone reading this should know the answer to your question by now!

Damage is absolute in the game and is not dependant soley on the constituion score. As a matter of fact is the base score of the class plus the con modifer. A better example would be can he survive being poisoned (as it is a direct check to the constituion as opposed to a formula for hit points).

IF we were playing it out there's a chance he could survive (and in my diceless game this was how this occured) and if youre playing by the mechanic there's a statistical way for him to survive.

 

[DonTadow]

LEVEL 1: PC - I get rich. DM - Umm, how?

I believe the correct term is " I make much bling".

 

[Mishihari Lord]

In all cases, Level 1 does not provide enough detail for the DM to arbitrate. However, for combat, profession and use rope, Level 2 causes the mechanic to work as advertise. Some DMs feel I need to use a Level 3 character portrayal to solve a puzzle or bluff a guard. My challenge is, why is this arbitrarily set there and not for all mechanics?

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.

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.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Damage is absolute in the game and is not dependant soley on the constituion score. As a matter of fact is the base score of the class plus the con modifer. A better example would be can he survive being poisoned (as it is a direct check to the constituion as opposed to a formula for hit points).

IF we were playing it out there's a chance he could survive (and in my diceless game this was how this occured) and if youre playing by the mechanic there's a statistical way for him to survive.

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?