Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[DonTadow]

That's a fair analogy, but it still doesn't directly answer my question. Leaders and exceptionally charismatic individuals make for a flavorful addition to a plotline. Do you include these types of characters in your game world? If so, how? Are they limited to NPCs if the players can't achieve that level? If they are NPCs, do you play them out yourself, or are they limited to "off camera" scenes?

Or, let me switch questions here. How does the Leadership feat work in your games? Is it off limits to PCs? If they do have access to it, do they automatically gain their cohorts/followers, or do they need to RP out the exchanges with them? If they don't RP it out, why does that mechanic work as is but not other mechanics that depend on the character's charisma? I'm asking because I am still trying to understand the advantages of a RP-only resolution mechanism...

Role playing is preferred in minor npc social interactions because it speeds up the game. According to the rules, you'd have to roll charisma skills everytime you talk to an npc. Every thing you know outside your basic character stuff you'd have to roll intelligence skills on. Every door you open, every sword you lift you'd have to roll a strength check for. Even drinking at the inn woudl require constitution checks everytime.

I say minor things that aren't terribly plot, dungeon or adventure specific can be handled based on the characters base attribute.

 

[Mallus]

May I cut in?

Leaders and exceptionally charismatic individuals make for a flavorful addition to a plotline.

Agreed.

Do you include these types of characters in your game world?

Yes, certainly.

If so, how?

Because I say they exist.

Are they limited to NPCs if the players can't achieve that level?

I don't understand what you're asking. PC's can attain anything their play warrants.

I'm asking because I am still trying to understand the advantages of a RP-only resolution mechanism...

The advantage? Its more engaging for the players, more fun. Having to navigate a social obstacle is something for the players to solve. And, one assumes, they derive some pleasure from using their wits to solve it. By randomizing the solution (and employing mechanics), you cheat clever players out the joy of overcoming the obstacle themselves. For some people, the enjoyment comes not from the declaration of a successful result, but from the process of attaining said result from their (ie, the players) own effort.

Mind you, I'm not in favor of RP-only, but I can see the reasons why someone might be.

 

[ThirdWizard]

According to the rules, you'd have to roll charisma skills everytime you talk to an npc. Every thing you know outside your basic character stuff you'd have to roll intelligence skills on. Every door you open, every sword you lift you'd have to roll a strength check for. Even drinking at the inn woudl require constitution checks everytime.

Untrue.

 

[I'm A Banana]

His ability to execute this character concept will depend on the player's tactical skill. The player's tactical brilliance will be limited by the player's tactical skills.

And in a game of role playing, of fantasy, of imagination, some people don't think that limitation is a fair one, anymore than their ability to execute a character concept of a super-strong berserker will depend on how much they can bench press, anymore than their character's physical prowess is limited their own physical skills.

Forcing a character's abilities to conform to a player's abilities isn't better role-playing. And it can be considered worse because of that limitation, because of that cap on imagination, because it doesn't tell you "anything you can imagine is possible!" it tells you "anything you can imagine and also actually do is possible!"

Forcing a player to figure out a puzzle herself does the same thing, saying that this role, that this imagination, is limited by reality. And that's not nessecarily something players will accept, and it doesn't have to be. Some groups will enjoy it, and good for them, but that some don't should hardly be surprising. D&D is a game of imagination and fantasy after all, and something that limits that imagination and fantasy is something that isn't going to be enjoyable to some people.

 

[DamionW]

I don't understand what you're asking. PC's can attain anything their play warrants.

Hello again Mallus. What I am referring to is this chain of reasoning:

1. Without any mechanical representation of CHA in dialogue, influencing NPCs is limited to the dialogues the players can develop in their own choice of words.
2. Truly charismatic characters, such as Elvis or JFK in real life, or Aragorn from Tolkien, or Daenyrys from Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series utilize the force of their personality and their choice of words to sway many people to their ideas.
3. Unless the players are as charimatic themselves as JFK or Aragorn (a rare occurance I think most are humble enough to admit), they wouldn't be able to consistently influence NPCs with their words in the same manner as the above examples.
4. If no players, possibly not even the DM are that poignant with their speeches, how do you fit those characters into the game world?

Voadam through his example implied unless you are a tactical genius like Ender Wiggins, you can not effectively play an Ender-type character. So my question is, who is truly charismatic enough to effectively portray an Aragorn? Who makes that call?

 

[Mallus]

Forcing a character's abilities to conform to a player's abilities isn't better role-playing. And it can be considered worse because of that limitation, because of that cap on imagination, because it doesn't tell you "anything you can imagine is possible!" it tells you "anything you can imagine and also actually do is possible!"

But doesn't that, in effect, remove all skill from playing D&D? It renders all player input effectively meaningless, except for basic declarations of desired outcome.

Two players could play Ender Wiggin-like characters; Player 1 plans like Ender Wiggin, Player 2, like Barney Fife. And their chances for success would be exactly equal. Since how they actually play the game doesn't matter. Only how they conceive of their characters.

I think a *much* better option is for players to --gasp-- limit themselves to character concepts they have the skills to play (or better yet, except limited successes when playing away from their strong suit), and for DM's to design campaign environments with varied challenges, making sure to indulge each players strengths/prefered playstyle.

 

[Voadam]

because it doesn't tell you "anything you can imagine is possible!" it tells you "anything you can imagine and also actually do is possible!"

D&D isn't "anything you can imagine is possible." I can imagine an archmage teleporting about the planes. I can imagine a jedi knight with a light saber. I don't expect to be able to play either in a 1st level D&D game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

A player says he wants to play a character like Ender Wiggins from Ender's Game, a master tactician, but in D&D.

His ability to execute this character concept will depend on the player's tactical skill. The player's tactical brilliance will be limited by the player's tactical skills.

A DM could institute a skill or int check mechanic and give hints but then that depends on the DM's tactical abilities being better than the player's for this to be an aid. Alternatively the DM could have a mechanic where the tactician simply wins on succesful checks and the DM describes how it happens.

However, in a game where these house rule mechanics are not implemented, the character's tactical success and brilliance is limited by the player's tactical skill.

If this argument can be used to argue that Cha-based skills should be ignored in favour of player ability, since there aren't systems that cover all player vs. character ability interaction, then you can also use it to argue that attack rolls should be ignored in favour of player ability. Or that any mechanical system that creates a divide between player and character knowledge should be ignored.

That is, of course, if it were true that the existence of situations in which player ability and character ability are not separated by the rules implied that any of the systems that do separate these abilities should be ignored. Which it isn't.

That you have an example of a situation in which player ability and character ability are blurred together does not imply that player ability and character ability should be blurred together in other domains, and certainly not in domains that have rules that deliberately separate player and character ability, as is the case with Cha-based skills.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

D&D isn't "anything you can imagine is possible." I can imagine an archmage teleporting about the planes. I can imagine a jedi knight with a light saber. I don't expect to be able to play either in a 1st level D&D game.

But this isn't a discussion about genre.

 

[DonTadow]

Untrue.

How is it untrue? Techincally if you follow when you are suppose to institute skill checks and ability checks you would be checking every five minutes. How else do you explain using a strength check at one door but not another when they are both closed doors? Easy because as DMs, we choose when we are going to do checks and when we arent. If we can deem it a bonafide obstacle for the pc, then we'll ask for a check.