Solving the "Just Roleplay it..." problem...

[bloodtide]

But basically, that's my point. If you can't roleplay a character who is smarter (or wiser, or more charismatic) than yourself, then the whole premise of roleplaying games, or at least how we approach mental stats in them is...problematic.

It's not exactly a problem. It's just a reality. You can run down the whole list of mental attributes, you can not be any of them for real, you can only fake doing it. Just take being brave and fearless. It's easy to write that on a character sheet, and if in safe easy button game they can "act" that way: as long as they know the DM will never kill their character or do anything else negative ever as the DM follows a restrictive "gentleman's agreement" and "house rules". It's easy to "act brave and fearless" when your in a safe place. Of course, some games like mine are not 'safe'. A player can loose their character to death easily in my game. And well as have their character suffer from unimaginable horrors. And yes, that includes things that "ruin" the character and/or make them "impossible to play". In such a game you would find the player is "suddenly" not role playing brave and fearless like it says on the character sheet.

And maybe the best approach is to ditch mental stats and we need to at least figure out a way to reward smart Rob for handicapping his game by playing a dumb character if he chooses to do so.

Generally a smart person is also aware enough that you can just ask them to role play their character. You don't "need" to do anything.

But this is the same problem as above. A player can "act dumb" when it's fun or funny.....but amazingly....they will suddenly not be dumb when they don't want to be.

Disregarding the numbers on my sheet when I go to roleplay feels like cheating. If I make my sheet do the heavy lifting for my combat stats and "dump" my mental ones, I feel like I've gotten something for nothing. But if I deliberately "play dumb," the game may not be as fun for me.

You could give bonus things, experience, inspiration, fate points, or whatever. But you'd have to give a big bonus....and be willing to give a huge penalty when they "suddenly" don't role play their character.

 

[pemerton]

RPGs are “balanced” around 3 pillars of play: Combat, Exploration and Social.

Which RPGs do you have in mind here?

I can think of a number of RPGs that don't fit this description: Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, Marvel Heroic RP, 4e D&D, just to name a few.

 

[Vinicius Lessa]

Yeah, I was going to ask the same question as @pemerton . I think the OP/ @JohnSnow may be generalizing things a bit. There are many playstyles and cultures out there for which that frame of "pillars" (combat-social-exploration) feel meaningless.

About the portrayal of PC's mental qualities in TTRPGs, I agree it's an overall valid concern but I find that, again, it will only be important insofar it's meaningful for each game & culture. There are already games out there that do what you're looking for: Call of Cthulhu depicts PC's intellect and mental faculties, allowing the more knowledgeable PCs to shine; PbtA (and other narrative games like FATE or Cortex) give PCs powerful social leverage, as these games tend to be people/drama oriented; Pendragon makes PCs passions & virtues powerful just like the Arthurian legends it emulates; etc. But why should, say, OD&D bother with that? In it, Charisma only factors in for hiring henchmen at the tavern or (more rarely) reaction rolls, both secondary activities for it's high procedural dungeon delving core play. And rolepaying a high charismatic PC in this context won't add much except for color (which may be fine, if the group finds it fun).

The problem I see is when a given game theoretically values mental/social faculties in it's premise, but do not give satisfactory solutions to depict those in-game or through it's core play procedures. I see this in more simulation-oriented games like GURPS, where the rulebook depicts each and every physical situation possible from treading water to digging holes in different surfaces, but when it comes to mental/social interaction it never strays that far from ye old GM fiat (I admit my memory may be fuzzy though, as it's a long time since I played GURPS, if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me).


Edit: for clarity.

 

[pemerton]

The problem I see is when a given game theoretically values mental/social faculties in it's premise, but do not give satisfactory solutions to depict those in-game or through it's core play procedures.

In Classic Traveller, we treat INT as a guide to how to play a character - so INT 2, 3 and 4 PCs get played as not too bright. And we use EDU as a proxy for some field(s) of knowledge - details depending on PC backstory and other elements of the character - which can then open up the possibility of certain checks, or inform how the GM frames the situation for the player of that PC.

These approaches aren't stated in the rulebooks. They're barely implicit either. But they do seem to work.

It's a completely different approach from (say) 4e D&D or classic D&D.

 

[Emberashh]

The way Ive told people that Ive taught to play 5E and DCC is that Descriptive Roleplaying isn't just for people who are too shy to do the whole "Acting" bit, and in fact is usually at its best when Descriptive and Active roleplaying are used simultaneously.

The Descriptive method on its own already carries a lot of weight in letting any player get in and roleplay, but also covers anyone who just doesn't have the social energy to Act in-character even if they usually would.

But it also gives an easy way to deal with wild personality disconnects between players and their characters, while still allowing for the general feel of roleplaying to be maintained. Not everyone has to force out an Act, but you also don't have to make the whole thing feel like meaningless dice rolls.