Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[DamionW]

Your question, if I understand you right, is why social but not physical for player interaction vs mechanical resolution.

Actually this still isn't my question. What I see with your choice of playstyle is this:

When a PC controlled by a player interacts with any other character in your game world, the attitude the other character walks away from the conversation with is based on the player's word choice and portrayal. There's no need for a CHA check, a Diplomacy skill, or any other additional mechanic. That's a correct estimate, right?

Well, in real life there are people such as Ghandi, JFK, and Billy Graham, and in fiction such characters as Aragorn and Wormtongue from Tolkien, or Daenyrys and Tyrion from Martin. These individuals through different aspects of what could be described as the attribute Charisma were able to influence people on a regular basis with their choice of words and force of will. These people make important additions to any history, in the real world or in fictional worlds.

With your example of Ender Wiggins, you've demonstrated not all character concepts are feasible to be executed by all people. The players should have certain requisite abilities themselves to support and prtray these concepts. In order to be a persuasive character, the player must first be persuasive themselves.

So my query then becomes: If it truly is rare to find an actual player who has the propensity to orate with true poignance regularly, how do these vital characters make appearances in your game worlds? Have any of your players charismatic abilities matched up with that expectation? Do you only let NPCs attain such positions of influence in your game world? If they are NPCs, how do you go about faithfully displaying those abilities to the players when they enter the scene?

In a system which does allow mechanics to at least supplement RPed dialogue, we can see these characters as having CHA well above 15 and several ranks of diplomacy, bluff, or perform (oratory). These mechanics may not support such a character concept at first level, but few of the above examples held such powerful influence at the start of their careers. They honed it through practice and growth, just as the RAW mechanics allow for with ability increases and skill ranks. Then players could deliver some decent speeches and augment that with successful dice rolling to deliver in the playing groups minds the idea that these extraordinary individuals exist.

I can imagine many players delivering one or two really good performances at the table that could influence several people. But to have the regular ability to draw on vocabulary so deeply profound as to move people with nearly every discussion the way some of the above examples could seems out of the reach of nearly all players unless they could do that in real life. So how do those characters exist in your game world if nearly nobody can play those roles? That is my question.

Well since you ask, one player has sought out leadership. The party paladin is interested in the dragon leadership one from draconomicon so he can have a dragon mount. He talked to me about it and I told him I would present in game an opportunity for him to acquire one but it would involve a great quest. He is 16th level now and will not gain a feat for another 2 levels. Some dragon interactions have led to him agreeing to quest to prove his worthiness and I expect good story and roleplay stuff to come out of this.

If he never took the feat and the situation came up in game where he through roleplay earned a mount he would get one without spending a feat. That has happened with rescued or allied NPCs who help out the party regularly.

We talked it over and because he wants to go this route I am altering the game so he has the opportunity to earn the benefits of the feat (which if everything goes smoothly will come to fruition when he turns 18th level and he will spend the feat then).

If he was creating a high level character with a feat for a dragon mount as part of his starting stuff, that would be fine too. But in the middle of the game I want that sort of stuff not just to be a mechanical expenditure of a feat, it should be part of the play of the game.

The dragon, like his paladin mount, is going to be played as a full NPC under the DM's control, though with significant ties and relationship to the paladin.

Same thing when the wizard took on a familiar, it was a big in game thing.

So other than dragon mounts, players can't develop cohorts or followers? Or anyone can attract other people to them, they just need to consistently seek out the other character and RP exchanges over and over until the bond is built? The one example you're showing me seems an obscure reference to the leadership feat, so I'm trying to imagine how an average player with average persuasive abilities gets people to follow them without any support from mechanics.

 

[DamionW]

But, what is "routine" is perfectly up to subjectability as is the word "normal situations". Why can't certain social interactions be balled up into this as well?

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.

 

[DamionW]

Hey Mallus, I think you're the only person I agree with on this thread. Keep up the sane posts!

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.

 

[ThirdWizard]

DaimonW has been asking about playing master characters better than he is at social skills. JFK, Winston Churchill, Aragorn inspiring the armies. Fine concepts. Can the Aragorn inspirational war leader concept be executed mechanically as a 1st level character?

Mechanics limit concepts too.

But, why limit it to 1st level? If you want to play a charismatically amazing character, you gain levels. Now, we can go into the whole flawed concept of killng things to gain skill points, which I will concede, but that doesn't change the basic concept that under RAW it is eventually possible to build an Aragorn, Ghandi, Churchill, JFK, or whatever amazing personality, whereas using your way you either are or you arn't. 1st level or 20th it makes no difference. A young boy or an old noble, a clergy member with years of experience under his belt or a street urchin just off the streets, it doesn't matter. All that matters is how good the Player is.


By the way, the way I do it is tell the Players to roleplay their diplomacy et al to the ability as described by their relative skill in the task. The players never ask for a skill roll, I decide based on context whether or not one is called for and what type should be used. If a PC is trying to scare someone, I decide if an Intimidate check is called for, as an example, and ask them to roll it after roleplaying out the situation. The roll simply determines the NPC's reaction.

I do appreciate Hype's approach, and that's my second favorite method. The only reason I don't do that is because I like the skill check to be a bit more ambiguous. The Player doesn't decide to use Bluff, so it necessitates the interaction before the dice.

 

[Rogue765]

I'll just throw in my $0.02 saying that I love puzzles in d&d games. They are not all (as LostSoul seems to be implying) without in-game reasons. I was playing in a campaign that had a big story arc about tracking down a sort of riddler-guy. It was a great arc and would have been very stupid-feeling if we had all just rolled Int checks to solve the puzzles.

Not to mention puzzles in dungeons that are meant to keep unwanted peoples out. I hate disable device checks for things like that. Disable device should be left to poison needles in door locks and not to grandiose puzzles.

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

The meaning doesn't lie in oratory or logical skill -- that's not playing a role, really. The skill is in acting how the character would act, doing what the character would do, interacting with the imaginary world and following fantastic assumptions to their logical conclusion. The skill is in playing the role, being another person, a heroic being from beyond time and space who kills dragons and saves princesses and makes sense doing it. The skill isn't how well you speak, it's how well you interact with the fantastic world as your character.

The dice are an abstraction that makes that possible. The skill is in knowing when to roll, and what kinds of rolls to make.

I mean, that is a style preference, but it's definately a valid one, and one that I'd argue is more centered on playing a role than one that requires the players to become method actors.

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.

If player 2 knows when to call for the right checks, if player 2 can still do the high scores, if player 2 invests the character's capital in what a child genius would invest in, and knows how to use the game system to achieve the goal he wants, he's doing a good job of roleplaying his character, even though he couldn't think of a complex strategy to save his life.

It's not about knowing complex strategy. It's about knowing when your character, the superb genius, would think of such a thing.

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.

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?

Better for what? First-person narration and corny dialogue? Piffle. I don't see a whole lot of value in that. That'll come from those who want to give it regardless of how the outcome is determined, anyway. Admittedly, that's a style preference, and I'm in no way saying that mine is the One True Playstyle. It's different -- better at some things, weaker at others. It just shouldn't be shocking that this opinion exists, and it shouldn't be considered somehow less like role-playing (because, in fact, it's MORE like role-playing).

 

[Peter Gibbons]

But, what is "routine" is perfectly up to subjectability as is the word "normal situations". Why can't certain social interactions be balled up into this as well?

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.

Thank you for saying it so well that I don't have to.

 

[DamionW]

Thank you for saying it so well that I don't have to.

No problem. Just being consistent with my views here...

 

[Voadam]

But, why limit it to 1st level? If you want to play a charismatically amazing character, you gain levels. Now, we can go into the whole flawed concept of killng things to gain skill points, which I will concede, but that doesn't change the basic concept that under RAW it is eventually possible to build an Aragorn, Ghandi, Churchill, JFK, or whatever amazing personality, whereas using your way you either are or you arn't. 1st level or 20th it makes no difference. A young boy or an old noble, a clergy member with years of experience under his belt or a street urchin just off the streets, it doesn't matter. All that matters is how good the Player is.

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.

If the player is a master tactician, he can portray the young boy (six years old) master tactician tactician as a 1st level character or a 20th level one in RAW.

Some things are handled by players even under RAW.

Social can be handled by players or can be handled by mechanics, or can be a mix.

 

[fusangite]

I do. I don't use the social skill resolution mechanics as RAW.

I consider the interaction, the character, and the situation and keep roleplaying or adjudicate based on my judgment and move on.

Works well for me and my group.

I guess what I am asking is: why do you keep Charisma-based skills around and let people dump points into them if they do absolutely nothing? Why not just house-rule them away, with appropriate additional modifications to the lists of class and cross-class skills for each class?

My arguments have been that using mechanics, using pure roleplay, or using roleplay modified by character(including mechanical choices) and situation, are viable rules choices that serve different play styles.

I agree with that part of your argument. It's just that you seem to be saying you leave Diplomacy around for people throw skill points away on fruitlessly.