Quote from: HalfjackIn other words, rather than driving the outcome you think is best, decide if it matters and if both outcomes are fun, put the system on the table and find out what happens rather than exercise fiat or argue stat definitions.

Dice rolls are needed for things with uncertain outcomes, not for thigns which seem like certainties or trivialities. We do not normally roll the dice to have the PC step off the curb to cross the road, or to see what happens when a PC tied to the train tracks is run over by the train. Nor would we use a single die roll to resolve the entire campaign, "Roll 1d6, if you get a 6, then you find the dragon's lair, rescue the prince and kill the dragon."

Part of a GM's job is to decide when dice rolls are needed. The GM will make that decision on the basis of a mixture of reason, whim, what seems fun, and how much they like the player at that moment.

The point of the example I gave was that players will, if their characters have an intelligence stat, use that to justify or try to take back their own stupid decisions. "My guy is dumb, so of course he does this thing which fucks the whole party, haha, that fucked you up, haha." Or, "What, my stupid decision turns out to have bad consequences? Um, but my character is totally smart! He'd never have done that!"

If you don't have an intelligence stat in the game, but instead have things like "perception" and "education", you avoid that argument, because perceptive and educated people do stupid things.

You missed the point of the example.

Quote from: James McMurrayFor riddles and similar situations I give bonus XP if they solve it on their own, but let them roll for it if they're stumped.

That's a pretty decent idea, actually.

I may look into stealing that.

"Figure it out on your own, you get bennies.  Roll the die for the win, then I just give you the answer."

Quote from: JimBobOzThe point of the example I gave was that players will, if their characters have an intelligence stat, use that to justify or try to take back their own stupid decisions. "My guy is dumb, so of course he does this thing which fucks the whole party, haha, that fucked you up, haha." Or, "What, my stupid decision turns out to have bad consequences? Um, but my character is totally smart! He'd never have done that!"

If you don't have an intelligence stat in the game, but instead have things like "perception" and "education", you avoid that argument, because perceptive and educated people do stupid things.

I'm not following why a person prone to questioning GM fiat by claiming his character is "more intelligent than that" is going to be averse to claiming his character is "more perceptive, charismatic, diplomatic, and or educated" than that.  I guess I don't follow the distinction between stat and skill -- it seems artificial.  Maybe it's an artifact of failed abstraction?

No, he's calling into question your assumption that the GM's response would be "OK, he shoots you..." If the GM does not respond in this way, then rolls can become important and the "inevitable" argument might not occur.

Or you could try to avoid the argument via design, as you do, by trying to stat characters in such as way as to diminish the possibility.

My issue with that approach is that you will, sooner or later, run into a player who questions "education" in the same way one might argue over "Intelligence."  Then you're in the same place.

And before you argue that if someone argues over education, it's a social issue of the group - well, the same applies to people who would argue over "Intelligence"

Quote from: James J SkachMy issue with that approach is that you will, sooner or later, run into a player who questions "education" in the same way one might argue over "Intelligence."  Then you're in the same place.

Sure. But I don't claim that my approach can solve or avoid 100% of the arguments you game group has over nothing. Only about 90%.

If you come up with some method that avoids or solves 100% of the pointless arguments your game group has, let me know. In the meantime, I'm happy with dealing with 90% of them.

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's no different from fighter characters with tactically stupid players.
And many players are clueless about tactics. In general, GMs are soft on these tactical doofuses, just as GMs are soft on players who are social doofuses. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

Well first off your example is pretty extreme, but I do get your point. I'd much rather have players who are not good with the "tactical" stuff create characters who have a lot of tactical knowledge and make knowledge based tactics rolls, then have a social doofus create a fast talking witty character even though he can't roleplay a fast talking witty character and only rely on dice rolls. *shrug* Maybe it's about breaking the immersion,  but as you say, it's not called a roleplaying game for nothin'

Regards,
David R