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

[payn]

Nearly anyone who can think and speak can describe a basic, straightforward action. It's even beyond easy for most people.

If a person is not smart, wise or social they outright cannot pretend to be or "role play" doing it.

It's not about details at the most basic. Though, naturaly the more complex the frame work, the more complex the details will need to be.

Ask nearly anyone "Who would Klarg move a boulder?" and they could answer "just pick it up and toss it". NO details needed.

Ask someone who is not smart how would they escape from the dungeon cell, and they will just look at you with a blank look. They can't do it.

Wow, this seems to completely miss the concept of role play entirely. Don't think we have anything left to discuss.

 

[bloodtide]

Wow, this seems to completely miss the concept of role play entirely. Don't think we have anything left to discuss.

I don't see how. Simply put you can't pretend to be something your not, for real.

Take something simple enough: there is a small armed guard tower. How will the character lead that attack?

The clueless person can not give you an answer. They don't know.

The smart, tactical, experienced player can come up with a plan of attack.

You can't Role Play that.

 

[Vinicius Lessa]

I'm not sure there is a game fix. A person is smart, wise or social.....or they are not. While a smart, wise or social person can 'down play' what they are: the reverse is not true. You can roll for an effect, but it will always be false.

That's sorta the point I was getting at. Some of these mental stats are player-constrained. What is the best way to address that?

Have you played PbtA games? They have an elegant solution for what you ask above, in the form of Moves. One example is "Read a Sitch":

When you read a charged situation, roll +Sharp.
On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the answers, take +1 forward. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:
• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?
• what should I be on the lookout for?
• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?
• which enemy is the biggest threat?
• who’s in control here?
On a miss, ask 1 anyway, but be prepared for the worst.

The "Sharp" above is the intelligence stat. The better you roll the more answers you get, and if you act on an answer you gain a +1 bonus for your next roll related to it. There are similar moves for social situations.

(If this is not what you're talking about I apologize. Really tired right now )

 

[GMMichael]

Ask someone who is not smart how would they escape from the dungeon cell, and they will just look at you with a blank look. They can't do it.

Oh yes they can. They just wouldn't do it well.

"I wouldn't get captured in the first place."
"I'd break out."
"I'd use the key."
and my personal favorite:
"I'd pray to Jeebus. So when I die in the cell, I'll be resurrected into an extra-planar paradise by a 9th-level casting aasimar."

 

[Voadam]

See, and I'm just noting that in most "freeform and organic" systems, the result is that the character's mental stats don't actually matter because all the logic, exploration, decision-making, and social attributes are being roleplayed, which means they're coming from the player anyway.

Right and for a lot of people the player doing these things (thinking things through, deciding how to explore, making decisions in the situation, socially interacting with NPCS) is part of the fun.

That's fine if that's how people want to play, but if that's the case, we should just admit it, rather than pretending that we're "roleplaying." The short version is that people can't "just roleplay" a character with a mental or emotional intelligence that's higher than their own. And we've all had that player who dumps Charisma and then "roleplays" a moving speech to the King. And then the player gets pissed when you make them roll to succeed because their character has a 6 Charisma.

I reject this framing about roleplaying entirely.

There is a difference between not using an intelligence stat as your roleplay guide and not roleplaying.

Take Moldvay basic where int has two mechanical effects, how many extra languages a character knows, and whether they get bonus xp in certain classes.

I have no problem saying that a character who only knows their native language can be really smart.

You can be really into roleplaying and not care about the stats on the sheet. You can base your roleplay on a character concept.

If you want to play a Sherlock Holmes characterization concept you approach things with observations and talk through deductions and work on details. Maybe you have some arrogance. If you do not have enough to figure something out you talk about how you can't make bricks without clay.

Roleplay in my opinion is more about characterization and approach, not about success or failure at smarts or social interaction.

Aesthetically as a play experience as a player and a DM I much prefer people focus on characterization roleplay than on stat emulation. I generally want a player to play something fun for them to play and for others to interact with. I could care less if that roleplay characterization reflects stats on a sheet.

Choosing to roleplay a neutral, 8 intelligence, 15 charisma concept is fine as your goal for characterization, I just do not think it is superior to basing roleplay off of a concept of "Gimle from the lord of the rings movies" or "angry guy who is fed up with crap".

If we use them differently in game, we should probably treat them differently in the game rules. That's my point.

If you treat the mental stats as mechanics the way you do physical ones (strength gives you a +1 to hit and damage in melee, int gives you +1 language) you are not treating them differently.

I like your original suggestion of things like pick uncouth as a trait and get a benefit (inspiration, action point, xp, whatever) when you roleplay it or if it is a negative when it comes up to your detriment. A number of games do this and I think it can be a good mechanical approach if you want to encourage some roleplay from stuff on the sheet.

 

[Vinicius Lessa]

Another cool solution, this time from Blades in the Dark, is the Mastermind ability that allows the PC to assist teammates through flashbacks:

Say, if your crew's infiltrator is caught by a guard while sneaking up on a compound, the Mastermind can choose to trigger his/her ability, narrating a quick flashback where he convinced the guard the day before to turn a blind eye when someone was entering the compound this night, in exchange for some cash (or a threat to the guard's family).

I like that these types of tools allow even the most socially awkward player to have socially powerful characters.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Another cool solution, this time from Blades in the Dark, is the Mastermind ability that allows the PC to assist teammates through flashbacks:

Say, if your crew's infiltrator is caught by a guard while sneaking up on a compound, the Mastermind can choose to trigger his/her ability, narrating a quick flashback where he convinced the guard the day before to turn a blind eye when someone was entering the compound this night, in exchange for some cash (or a threat to the guard's family).

I like that these types of tools allow even the most socially awkward player to have socially powerful characters.

I think this kind of thing is the best solution for the issue... character abilities that can be used to replicate the kind of hyper-intelligent or hyper-charming characters we see in fiction.

Instead of expecting the player to be a genius, give them tools to help them portray a genius.

 

[Blue]

I do like FFG gensys narrative dice system, and Mongoose Travellers effect mechanic. Instead of a binary do or do not, you can have a degree of success/failure. I think that is key to a less tangible aspect of TTRPGs like the social pillar. I think you can have a wide variety of more rich play within that style of design.

This set off explosions in my brain -- in the good way. When dealing with more complex and shades-of-grey type of interactions like in the social pillar, having a wider variety of success/failure much more naturally can be fit to the situation. It's much more subjective - it's hard to cateogize that a BAD result casues the duke to stand firm and say it was his final offer, a WORSE result to have the duke take it personally and also hold animinity, and this CRITICAL FAILURE to have the duke throw them out and harbor anger towards them. But still. Especially since it would likely lead into multiple checks to get results and that's something I enjoy - if you're going to have a mechanical system for something that's important, give it some heft and not super swingy like a single roll.

As to the above, no I don't think you should get any bonus for talking about the character's combat prowess. I also dont think you should get any bonus for talking about being a real smooth talker, or an exceptional acrobat, etc... I think the game mechanics should speak for themselves. Your character is a good swordsman because you chose that path for them. Now engage the system with the tool kit your PC has been provided.

Hold a second here to re-examine. In D&D combat the player is getting an enormous bonus from good tactics, teamwork, knowing what their character and their party can do, etc. It's just not a mechanical advantage that's applies to a roll. Skilled play is baked into the system. So either you need a system complex enough for social and acrobatic and the like that skilled play can add that bonus, or you need to simulate that bonus with a mechanical bonus. Otherwise the aspects of play are out of synchronization.

 

[Blue]

It's really difficult to not do that, often without really realizing it.

Agreed. I remember playing a bard with one group, and in the next campaign I tried really hard not to be the face of the party. But most of the other players were a little reserved about it and my no-social-skills-on-purpose character ended up being the one doing most of the negotiating and convincing.

We've had some new players who talk more, and others who have grown a bit out of their shells, so it's good now when we play.

 

[bloodtide]

Roleplay in my opinion is more about characterization and approach, not about success or failure at smarts or social interaction.

This is true, though it's too separate things. You can play a doctor or general character in their 'social' life, assuming you have that skill, of course. You can play an arrogant doctor or a goofy doctor and so on. But what you can't do is do anything medically related.

It's common that a player, nearly always someone who does not have the abilities, wants to play a "cool, smooth, clever, intelligent character. Sherlock Holmes is the classic example, but also add The Doctor, Ethan Hunt, Captain Kirk/Picard/Sisko/Janeway/Archer/Pike or Batman. Hollywood is full of smart, clever characters. They are popular for a big reason: people look up to smart people...even fictional ones. And everyone wants to be the smart person, but that is not possible for everyone.

It feels great to be the player that looks at a puzzle, riddle or problem and solves it. But it only feels great if you do it for real. When someone else helps you and gives you the answer, you know you did not do it.

Aesthetically as a play experience as a player and a DM I much prefer people focus on characterization roleplay than on stat emulation. I generally want a player to play something fun for them to play and for others to interact with. I could care less if that roleplay characterization reflects stats on a sheet.

Very often I will tell such a player they simply can't play such a character. And if they try they are not going to find it much fun. Even doing the bit where the DM tells the dim player what their smart character knows gets old fast. Really, it's just the DM telling the player haw to play their character. That is not fun for most players.

I will suggest alternatives. One of the best is to play a character that wants to learn and gain wisdom. That is right up the players ally. And other types that might better fit the player.

For players that are willing, I even offer help to "improve themselves". If the player is willing to put in the time and effort, and many do, it is possible for them to get at least close to the goal they want in the game.

Another cool solution, this time from Blades in the Dark, is the Mastermind ability that allows the PC to assist teammates through flashbacks:

So this is like the TV show Leverage? It's interesting. But only the players with the real life skill set can use the ability, so what does it give you?

Asking a dim player, "ok, you can travel back in time and alter reality to make the bank heist work...what do you do?" is an even harder question then "ok, how do you open the locked door?"