Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[DamionW]

I think this thread has definitely reached the "agree to disagree" point. Some RPGers like to hear people say cool things, and some of us like to have a 6 Charisma mean the same thing no matter who is playing the character. Different strokes for different folks.

Yeah, I guess I was wrong to try and keep the discussion moving further. I just like having discourse with people of a different mindset to prod out how they feel compared to me, but I guess there comes a point of no impasse. Oh well.

 

[fusangite]

I think this thread has definitely reached the "agree to disagree" point. Some RPGers like to hear people say cool things, and some of us like to have a 6 Charisma mean the same thing no matter who is playing the character. Different strokes for different folks.

To be fair, I fall between these two positions, as you can see from my previous posts. I just found, as the argument seemed to be approaching a middle ground, a new way of expressing the "problem" hit me out of left field.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

So no one caring to take me up on post #241? Voadam? Misihari Lord? I understand with no Ender players, no Ender genius characters, but those are less central to most fiction than outstanding leaders and persuaders. So which players get to rise to that level consistently in a RP-only mechanic? How do you decide?

This thing's still alive?

I think I said that I essentialy agree with you on this point. With pure IC dialogue you're never going to have Ghandi. You can do it with straight rolls, but then you don't have the satisfaction of having your dialogue determine events.

But, to steal Psion's schtick, this isn't a dichotomy. You don't have to do either pure dialogue or pure rolling: there's a continuum. Obviously, I'm way out on one end of it. I'd scoot over a little bit though if I could find a way that I could model Mr. Ghandi without giving up the things that I like about dialogue based resolution.

One idea that I've been playing with is using Cha bonus + skill + dialogue modifier vs TN. No roll. The dialogue modifier is benchmarked to 0 at either what I consider the player's average effort or players' average effort in general, with a range of +/- 10. If I have a chance to try it out, I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[fiddlerjones]

I'm generally in agreement with those who advise a healthy mix between the two schools of thought: player-centric, and character-centric roleplaying.

I personally assert that the player chooses the actions for a character, whose abilities are then taken into consideration through skill checks and the like to determine the outcome of those actions. Example: the player decides that his character will attack the otyugh by taking a five-foot step and a full attack. The character performs the action, the result of which is determined by his attack and damage rolls.

Similarly, the player approaches a puzzle and decides to solve it. The character puts his knowledge and reasoning ability to use, generating hints for the player and such.
That's how I would do it anyway.

The kind of puzzle I would suggest is something akin to one used in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." Indy comes to a grid and deduces that he has to walk only on the lettered tiles which spell the name of God. This is something for the player to figure out, just as he would decide that his character is going to take full defense and provide cover for the wizard against enemy archers. Indy then recalls the name of God, Jehova. He begins to step on the J, which crumbles. Then he remembers that in the time that the crypt was built, the Latinate alphabet was being used, and I was used instead of J. This is where the character's abilities should be taken into consideration. One can assume that Harrison Ford rolled up a knowledge (religion) check for Indiana, and the result was high enough to remember that by this point the name of God was often considered to be Jehova. It was not high enough, however, to determine the proper spelling. After making his mistake, he took a moment to consider further (another check) and proceeded to solve the puzzle.

Like combat, a good puzzle shoudl combine player and character abilities. The player determines the method by which his character will approach the situation, and the character's abilities determine the outcome.

 

[Rogue765]

So the player picks the right armor, figures out the right spells and selects when to bullrush, but we "pretend" its the character despite the fact that no roll nor skill attribute to these tactics. However, whenever someone mentions some type of puzzle people scream its the players doing it. Despite the fact that the puzzle is a legit puzzle conserning the dungeon. Despite the fact that the characters receive clues on the puzzles previously. Despite the fact that the characters are in the room with the puzzle, riddle or clue and theres no realistic stat to equivilate a character realy solving the puzzle. Again, tis the same of settling killing a monster to one roll. Dungeons= puzzles/ Dragons= monsters

Replace the word PUZZLE with TRAP and then answer if you let the player roll a die to represent his character's success, or if you require the PLAYER to physically disable a real trap? Same question with locks.

A trap is, for all intents and purposes, a puzzle. Figuring out that you have to replace the golden statue with an item of the exact same weight to prevent a giant stone marble rolling down and crushing you or which tile not to step on in order to avoid falling through a trapdoor or which hanging torch to pull on in order to prevent the poison dart from shooting at you doesn't mean that the PLAYER must give the exact solution to the problem,according to the rules he just rolls a d20 to see if his Rogue character makes a Search and/or Disable Device check. Now if you want to let a player who deduces that pulling the third sconce on the left turns the trap off and automatically bypass it, that's good. But if a player is able to roll to see if he solves a physical puzzle like a trap, lock or finds a secret door using the relevant ability, then he should be allowed to roll to solve any other puzzle.

And the original example you gave where the PC's had to figure out what one person needed then figure out what the next NPC needed, did you allow the players to roll a Gather Information check to determine this, or would you have if they asked?

 

[Voadam]

Ok, so if a player has the capability to regularly generate Braveheart quality speeches, do you as DM regularly allow them to convince NPCs? Are there any limits?

The situation obviously impacts how successful people can be. Mel Gibson gave a speech to inspire his troops. He didn't talk his way out of anything when he was captured at the end.

What about 1v1 interactions? When examining the quality of this word choice, how do you weigh it against the character as designed? Should a fighter be as good at inspiring courage as a bard, as long as the player can come up with moving monologues?

Sure. A fighter can give the same speech as a bard. I have no problem seeing Braveheart as either a fighter or a bard or other classes in D&D terms. He gets the troops fired up with a speech before they charge into battle.

However the bard can give people a mechanical morale bonus the fighter never can.

I still am just seeing this all as a very grey area prone to bias, where certain players are able to get significant advantage over other's without regard to character concept. Also, I'm having difficulty imagining Churchill characters without Churchill players to regularly develop such influential, persuasive speech on a consistent basis.

Tactics, figuring out plots, keeping track of details, figuring out puzzles, being persuasive, creating optimized characters, utilizing mechanical options well, these are all things players can handle where players' abilities can vary in competence. So the question is do you want players to handle them, or mechanics and DM intervention to do so.