Quote from: flyingmiceThat's how I handled it. The Players were cool with it too.

-clash

Cool, though I wouldn't have called a for a roll, myself.  If the argument was simply insufficient, I'd have told the guy, "Don't roll, there's no way you're convincing them with that argument."

Not to say you did it wrong, btw.  Just how I would've handled it.

I've got some odd ideas here myself.  I was all in favor of removing charisma style stats and replacing them with 'feat-like' static 'good at social stuff' type abilities.  I still rather like that for some reason.

Here's my thing. It's a game, and your character gets to be someone you are not. Sometimes that means the wallflower will be playing the social monster.  

And I'm cool with that.  I don't force the wallflower PLAYER to roleplay that intense social scene. I know it will be awkward and painful and sucky. He can roll it.

now, if he's not a wallflower, but instead an uncharismatic goon who loves to talk and 'act'... he gets to 'roleplay' and despite every dumbass thing the player may say, his character comes across as smooth and charming as the dice say he does.

Why? because I've noticed that how smooth and suave someone is often revolves around presentation and.... well... chemestry. The player don't have it, but the character does.  Two guys could approach two girls with the exact same cheesy pickup line. One gets slapped, the other gets a date. What was the difference?

The character.

I don't insist on theater level acting from my players. I Don't even insist they pay much attention to what's going on... as long as enough players are enjoying themselves, the game was a good one. The wallflowers can enjoy watching from the sidelines if they want. It's not my business to tell them how to enjoy an RPG. Its my job to provide the game, nothing more.  My only criterion for how good or bad any given session is how much fun the players had. That's it.  

So dummies playing geniouses, geeks playing Bond... all cool with me.

"yadda day yadda yadda crispian... Perform(oratory) 47! BOOYAKAH"

Quote from: RedFoxCool, though I wouldn't have called a for a roll, myself.  If the argument was simply insufficient, I'd have told the guy, "Don't roll, there's no way you're convincing them with that argument."

Not to say you did it wrong, btw.  Just how I would've handled it.

The successful roll gained him a delay while they argued, it just wasn't good enough to let them free. If he had failed, they would have been killed right then. The delay allowed the other group enough time to get back and snipe the bastards. If his Quality hadn't been just good enough on the success, they wouldn't have got back in time. It had a real consequence. I don't ask for rolls without consequense.

-clash

To have the right answer to this, you are first going to have to fully understand the question,

The problem
1) the literal interaction of the "player" on the game
2) the abstract interaction of the "characters" in the game

you are only going to have problems with the play/ character contrast when you either don't understand, or forget, that these are two diffrent elements within the game, it's just a simple issue of the right tool for the job and not blurring the lines between the two,

There is no way a IQ 10, is going to be able to play an IQ 200 character in a literal sense, but you can still have fun playing the same character in it's abstract sense, you just have to apply the challenges in the same abstract way, it do anyother would be unfair,


Understand the distinction between the two, then apply as needed,
simple

I posted in Mearls's blog in reply, but I'll give a fuller answer here...

I'm fine with the replacement of Intelligence with Knowledge and Wisdom with either Willpower or Perception.  Any of the above make sense, and really it's nothing more than a cosmetic change imho.

Charisma?  Not so much keen on that one...  I don't know if this makes me oldschool or new-school, but I don't see why you can't have a suave character but be pretty bad at it yourself.  As Red Fox notes, it makes the game a bit awkward at times, but it's not too painful to allow the player to fake it, and then make a roll to see if it impresses folks anyways.

Even if D&D did rid itself of charisma, I hate "Magic" stats for D&D with a burning passion.  You're basically creating a mega-dump-stat situation for any non-spellcaster.  Sure, Charisma is often dump-statted, but this would be an even worse situation unless "Power" did something else interesting, too.

-O

Quote from: obrynCharisma?  Not so much keen on that one...  I don't know if this makes me oldschool or new-school, but I don't see why you can't have a suave character but be pretty bad at it yourself.

But where do we have sufficient reason for a stat? In current D20, my Cha 8 might be as ugly or good-looking as I want him, that's simply description. If we don't have something as all-encompassing and ill-defined as "Charisma", most details that factor in will be pure description, too.

And ditto on the magical stat. Unless that's clearly optional and the mages have to pay for it from zero. That might work out and finally get rid of the Con 16 wizards I've been seeing so much lately...

Quote from: pathfinderapTo have the right answer to this, you are first going to have to fully understand the question,

The problem
1) the literal interaction of the "player" on the game
2) the abstract interaction of the "characters" in the game

you are only going to have problems with the play/ character contrast when you either don't understand, or forget, that these are to diffrent elements within the game, it's just a simple issue of the right tool for the job and not blurring the lines between the two,

There is no way a IQ 10, is going to be able to play an IQ 200 character in a literal sense, but you can still have fun playing the same character in it's abstract sense, you just have to apply the challenges in the same abstract way, it do anyother would be unfair,


Understand the distinction between the two, then apply as needed,
simple

QFT

The argument always seems to be "Well, the reason we use physical statistics is that we can't really slice open an Orc in the living room - or the yard, for that matter."

OK. I'm with you.

But then why assume that you could perform an amazing song that stirs your warrior brethern to slaughter the enemy? Why assume you could even get in to see the Mob boss in the first place?

It's all "Let's Pretend" with rules around it.  There's a huge spectrum of answers to the conundrum of the low charisma player trying to play a high charisma character.  From going strictly with rolls of the dice to resolve the question, to letting the player act it out and judging the resolution based on that performance - all are "right" answers depending on the group.  Hell, they could change from player to player within a group, or even between situation to situation involving the same player.

I think the problem with the Mearls "solution" is that it cuts out one end of the spectrum - anything to do with the statistics.  I think that diminishes the open nature of any system. Is it wrong? I'm sure there are players and groups out there that would jump all over it - as is evidenced by the response both here and there. But it seems to me it's better to put the statistics in there and then provide a path to remove them, rather than remove them altogether.

I always tell my kids - take the jacket with you.  You can always take it off if you get hot.  If you get cold, you can't put it on if you don't have it.

Man, you really do learn everything you need to know by 1st grade

Quote from: SosthenesBut where do we have sufficient reason for a stat? In current D20, my Cha 8 might be as ugly or good-looking as I want him, that's simply description. If we don't have something as all-encompassing and ill-defined as "Charisma", most details that factor in will be pure description, too.

Leadership - attracting followers and cohorts. IIRC.

Quote from: James J SkachLeadership - attracting followers and cohorts. IIRC.

Hmm, what? Do you mean as reason or explanation for the stat itself?

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, what? Do you mean as reason or explanation for the stat itself?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood.  I was taking it as "Is there a mechanical reason for the statistic - else it's just as good a a description." Which is kinda how GURPS handles it, I think, with the ability to purchase certain advantages/disadvantages to cover this aspect.

So I was saying I knew of at least one mechanical impact of Charisma for classes that didn't have Charisma as an important stat, and so could dump.

As I said, I apologize if that's not what you were looking for...

Quote from: SosthenesHmm, what? Do you mean as reason or explanation for the stat itself?

You agree you need a framework to define any given character right?,
And that definition can only ever be abstract, true?

Why do you have a problem with a mental stat but not physical one?

The reason is to define that character, in this case Leadership,
and the only practical use of this would be in it abstract form

What effect would such a skill have in the game?
Well what effect would such a skill have in real life?

And so let the effect on the game be based on the lack or merit of that skill,
just keep it abstract

Nope, I just was complaining both about the reason and the explanation in my post, so I didn't know to what you were referring. And well, of course you need the stat in the current D20 version. But generally, it's a bit vague 'round the corners what the stat actually does. Not everybody leads, and even then it's not the only factor. Some people might be more influenced by appearance, some by eloquence etc. Charisma is just the usual explanation for Hitler/Grima...

Currently, it measures social abilities and sorcerous power. And it's used to have both three physical and mental stats, relevant for some mechanical details.

A stat just for magic seems a bit odd, and without mechanisms for social influence, what else do you have? I think that excising those stats isn't as easy as Mearls might think. You'd have to change big parts of the system to make this coherent.

Quote from: pathfinderapYou agree you need a framework to define any given character right?,
And that definition can only ever be abstract, true?

So what? We're talking about the necessity of a _specific_ mechanical abstraction. Simply stating that my character is "likable" is an abstraction, too . We don't define his appearance in terms of attributes. Or his manual dexterity as opposed to his overall coordination.

Also, the types of actions influenced by the "Charisma" attribute might be less abstract as the actions influenced by his strength. With one, I'm rolling dice, with the other I might as well be talking. So we have a difference here and this could as well be reflected mechanically.

Quote from: SosthenesSo what? We're talking about the necessity of a _specific_ mechanical abstraction. Simply stating that my character is "likable" is an abstraction, too . We don't define his appearance in terms of attributes. Or his manual dexterity as opposed to his overall coordination.

Also, the types of actions influenced by the "Charisma" attribute might be less abstract as the actions influenced by his strength. With one, I'm rolling dice, with the other I might as well be talking. So we have a difference here and this could as well be reflected mechanically.

but you can stat "likable" or manual dexterity in some systems,
just like anything else, (but lacking in that you will need to use the next closest stat, or bring in the stats as needed in to the game)

As with anything else in the game it's up to the GM to enforce the rules

You are making the mistake of thinking that you as a player can replace your characters stats/skills/ etc by appling your own mental aspects,

but thats not playing your character is it, say if you were playing some guy with an IQ of 1, if you applied your own IQ (say an average 100) you would be playing out of character, agreed?, it's then the GM would have to pull you up on this and enforce your QI within the game (through the system, rolling dice etc) instead of playing that character out of its range

if you don't keep this distinction your players could make a mockery of their character, and in the end the whole game,

Player can't exploit the same thing in a physical sense (but could in a LARP game) but can in a mental sense, and thats when you need to restrain within an abstract way, (system etc)

if you as a chemist said you know how to make gun powder as your character just because you know how to in real life, most people would say thats wrong and stop it, agreed?

So if a smart guy playing a dumb guy does something just as much out side of that characters range, the only way you can keep him from running rampant is by enforcing the limit of his actions through the abstract system of the game, stats, sytem etc ("you may know the anwser, but you roll really poorly, sorry you failed")

The same applies if you are a dumb player playing a smart character,
just flip it,

the mental stats within a game can be a support or a handicap depending on the degree of contrast between you and your character,

(how would you stop a strong person in a larp game using his strength in game?, or a weak person playing a strong character?,)