Mike Mearls resurrected the old theme about whether RPGs should have mental attributes or not. Nowadays there's a general trend toward even more involved social rules, beyond the usual Fast Talk skill and Charisma attribute.

Do we really need that? In what cases do you really win if the player has a Diplomacy skill of +24, Sexual Innuendo 18 or Taunt 74%?

Or just take Intelligence. Knowledge and memory is one thing, but it's rather ridiculous if the character is a supra-genius but has problems solving the Sphinx' riddle. You don't let him demonstrate how he swings his sword or casts his spell, by the same logic he should just roll his Int to solve the puzzle and make his Bluff check to convince the guards to let him in after midnight. Most games I've played in don't work that way, yet some players might be closer to the combat ability of their characters than their leadership skills. It really isn't very logical...

Why do we differentiate here?

I really like eyebeam's take on the whole issue esp the second paragraph  :

QuoteI suppose it's not a bad idea if you absolutely cannot stand even symbolic representations of your character's mental/emotional life, but other than that, objections like these seem to me to come from not analyzing the process thoroughly enough. Why not make the role first and use it to guide your portrayal? If you roll like a dumbass, act like one after the roll. This is no different from a lot of improv which defines the situation beforehand.

I think another problem is enmeshed in gamer culture, which has a pathological devotion to the mind-body problem because, let's face it, there are many of us who spent time with noses in books as partial compansation for sucking at gym class. Gamers think they're smartypantses and want to take credit for it, but when it comes to hand-eye coordination, all of the sudden these immersion-oppressing mechanics somehow don't impede them despite the fact these players can't really juggle or do a handstand. All those "stat yourself as a character" things end up with high Int/low Str for a reason.

Regards,
David R

For 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.

Quote from: David RI really like eyebeam's take on the whole issue esp the second paragraph  :



Regards,
David R

Bah! I was a powerlifter, and played football and baseball. I was also a guitarist and singer, and led several rock bands. I also always have my nose in books. I hate geek stereotyping!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI hate geek stereotyping!

-clash

*shrug* I don't even consider myself a geek or rather geeks don't consider me part of the tribe, but I definitely see why the stereotype exist.

Regards,
David R

Geek is this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-is63goeBgc


Yeah thats right you get to resolve your problems with lightsabers baby!

Quote from: SosthenesWhy do we differentiate here?

For the very reasons stated by Mike:

QuoteIt's lame for the GM to create a puzzle for the players to solve with a die roll. For a group looking for immersion, it's equally lame to convince the mob boss to sell you the Tommy guns you need to fight the deep ones with a roll.

I don't understand his solution, though...

QuoteCharisma == Power. This stat measures your PC's skill with magic. All classes use it for spellcasting, psionics, or whatever. Again, a player has no skill in magic, so we can't translate that from the real world to the fictional world.

Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate go out the window.
Gather Information becomes a Knowledge-based skill.
I'm sure I'm missing other skills.

For all the Intelligence and Charisma stuff, we rely on the players. The group is left to find the place where they want such things to rest. The immersive group can get into character, with the GM making decisions based on how he knows his NPCs would react to the players' depiction of their PCs.

By the same token, groups that don't want immersion and that use third person depiction ("Bob the fighter talks to the innkeeper about the spooky guy in the corner in a threatening manner") can simply use that. If you want to play an eloquent speaker and you can't act it out, you probably would prefer a low-immersive group anyway.

The player who wants to feel smart via the rules can load up on the Knowledge stat and its skills. This approach does require more concrete expressions/rewards for that stat and its skills.

So, if CHA is just magic aptitude, and Diplomacy & al. are thrown out, how DO charismatically challenged players convince the mob boss? Not by impressing him with their PC's bookish learning?

There's two types of puzzles I put into a game.

• The simple puzzle.  It's a small challenge to be overcome and you move on.  Like a locked door.  If people can solve it without a die roll, that's their (non-xp) reward.  Good for them.  These puzzles can always be overcome with a simple die roll by someone with the right skill / tools.
• The complex puzzle.  These are always optional.  I never put one in that's going to put the game to a grinding halt if they can't solve it.  However, solving it may provide useful information, loot, extra roleplay rewards, etc.  These can't be solved by a simple die roll, though good dice rolls give clues as to their solution.

When it comes to social interaction, I like simple rolls that give actual benefits.  The dice become an equalizer, at this point, but complication is kept to a minimum so that any roleplaying done can still flow easily.  Roll persuasion...  okay, the farmer's friendly to you now.  Stuff like that.  I also enjoy it when social skills come into play in the combat game.  Things like bluffs, feints, or presence attacks to reduce morale just add interesting options and allow social characters to participate more fully while playing up their schtick.

What I do not like is ditching social mechanics altogether, particularly if their are skills and such for them.  If you have a persuasion skill, you'd better tell me what it fucking does and how to use it.

I also do not like social mechanics that overwhelm the game and/or roleplaying.  This "social combat" trend in games like Exalted 2e and Burning Wheel drive me batty, because they turn a natural flowing conversation into a tactical sub-game.  That is seriously uninteresting to me.  Just give me a dice roll or two and let the goddamn conversation continue or end.  Please!

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, if CHA is just magic aptitude, and Diplomacy & al. are thrown out, how DO charismatically challenged players convince the mob boss? Not by impressing him with their PC's bookish learning?

Well, as there are no rules, it's the DM's decisions. He has to consider several factors, including the apparent strength of the PC, whether the mob boss loses face etc. All those things the DM already thinks about, but this time it isn't about modifiers but the whole decision.

I do that a lot, anyways. Most social skills are a bit awkward for lots of situations. Let's say the mob boss can't really allow himself to lose, but the opponent is a gnome bard with Intimidate +28. How do you explain in game terms that he let him go, pat him on the back etc? How does the gnome bard explain it?
Or what about the level 15 fighter, no skill ranks in Intimidate , Charisma 10. Scarred, huge, plate-clad. By the rules, the circumstance bonus would have to be huuge to give him any chances if the mobster is of high enough level.

Lots of social situations clash with the rules anyway. True for most game systems, if the GM doesn't actually skip most interactions and goes straight for the die.

You know what interests me. Say you get a player who wants to be a charming rogue who talks her way out of trouble. She makes a character whose got high stats in all the relevent skills. But she can't roleplay the character. She relies totally on dice. So it's always kind of been a problem with me. I always encourage my players to create roles that they can actually role play.

I mean with combat it's a different matter. Everything happens in the imagination. But with social skills etc it normally translates to roleplaying and roleplaying is visual. If you're role playing a charming rogue or a very intelligent wizard and all you are doing is relying on dice...sorry I was going somwhere with this.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou know what interests me. Say you get a player who wants to be a charming rogue who talks her way out of trouble. She makes a character whose got high stats in all the relevent skills. But she can't roleplay the character. She relies totally on dice. So it's always kind of been a problem with me. I always encourage my players to create roles that they can actually role play.

I mean with combat it's a different matter. Everything happens in the imagination. But with social skills ect it normally translates to roleplaying and roleplaying is visual. If you're role playing a charming rogue or a very intelligent wizard and all you are doing is relying on dice...sorry I was going somwhere with this.

Regards,
David R

No, I understand the issue.  It's just one that has to be handled OOC.

It boils down to the fact that a social character is going to be the centerpiece for a majority of roleplaying scenes.  If the player is socially retarded, the majority of roleplaying scenes are going to be awkward and painful.

Nobody wants that.

A stupid player who's playing a smart PC is just funny, though that can also break up the mood of the game.

This really boils down to peer response.  You have to make sure that players are capable of the role they want to play, not of the character, but in making the game a fun and entertaining experience for all.  If someone's socially retarded and they want to play the party "face," you're going to just have to shoot them down for the good of the game.  They're no good at it.

That's not a fault of the rules being usable to get mechanical benefits for having a socially adroit character.  The purpose of such rules isn't to be a crutch, but a guideline and a part of play.  It is the fault of a fallacy that everyone can play anything equally well.

Quote from: RedFoxThis really boils down to peer response.  You have to make sure that players are capable of the role they want to play, not of the character, but in making the game a fun and entertaining experience for all.  If someone's socially retarded and they want to play the party "face," you're going to just have to shoot them down for the good of the game.  They're no good at it.

That's not a fault of the rules being usable to get mechanical benefits for having a socially adroit character.  The purpose of such rules isn't to be a crutch, but a guideline and a part of play.  It is the fault of a fallacy that everyone can play anything equally well.

Exactly. Nothing more to add.

Sosthenes sorry for the slight derail.

Regards,
David R

Derail? This is perfectly on topic. What happens when we don't have some mental and social abilities and why this might not be a problem. And I, too, have to agree with RedFox. Not everyone can play anything. Even escapism and wish fulfillment has some limits. I've had some real bad experiences when this is ignored.

On the other hand, even socially awkward uber-geeks aren't that hopeless when it comes to social interaction in games. Most of them _do_ know what to say, and the usual lack of courage isn't a big factor in RPGs. The delivery isn't as good, but that's easier to ignore.

OK, here's a real situation that came up in play a couple weeks ago. We were playing Aces in Spades, and the Squadron commander (NPC) tells the new Supply Officer (PC Troupe) that the former supply officer sold the harp out of the officer's mess piano, so they need to find a new piano pronto. The S.O. grabs a group of men (All PC troupes) and asks them where the nearest cheap piano might be. They grouse for a bit, then decide to scrounge for one in the ruins of an abandoned French town near the Front. This is all setup, BTW, so you know what's going on.

Aaanyway, the pile into the Squadron truck and drive to the town. One group heads for a ruined brothel, another for a mostly intact bar. The second group walks into the bar, surprising three English deserters who'd been squatting there. In the bar, hanging by their feet, are two fresh corpses, one partly butchered. The deserters, a very rough lot, corner the two unarmed PCs outside, the S.O. and a mechanic, and the S.O. attempts to convince them to let them go.

OK, so these guys are deserters, and murderers, and apparently cannibals. Are they going to let some officer sweet talk them into letting them go? These guys are going to swing or be put up against the wall if they're caught! Yet the supply officer is really good at convincing people - it's part of his job. So here we go. I let him make his roll after making his speech. He nailed it, with a fair Quality, but I judged it not good enough an argument for that situation. After a bit of argument - a delay caused by his "success" - they decided to kill the PCs.

That's how I handled it. The Players were cool with it too.

-clash

Wish fulfillment and fantasy don't have limits.  It's the social and game elements that are limiters.

People who have problems dealing with the give and take of a functional social group environment are going to have issues with the compromise that's inherent in what I mentioned above.  If those people are of the "got picked last for volleyball in school" variety, then the issue's compounded even further.

It may be very important to look critically at this, because it seems like Mearls' basis for his proposed excising of social and mental mechanics is precisely to avoid the deleterious effects of people playing roles they aren't really suited for, rather than broaching the idea that they should play something they're stronger at.