For GMs, its quite easy to play NPCs that are smarter than you, by cheating.

For Players, its a lot harder unless the GM gives them a lot of leeway. Generally, players have a tough time being able to play a character who's actually more intelligent than they are, except in the most mechanical sense of having a bonus to knowledges.  Therefore, it would make more sense to have a "Knowledge stat", which does not require that the Player himself actually think smart, just get a bonus to his PC's stats, than an "intelligence" stat, which would actually require a player to roleplay his character smartly.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SosthenesOr his manual dexterity as opposed to his overall coordination.

I've seen systems that separate Dexterity and Agility. I've seen systems that separate Charisma and Looks. IMHO, you're talking about a different set of issues. You're talking about the granularity of the abstraction once it occurs. That's a decision you make after you've decided to abstract trait into the game mechanics at all.

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

That's utterly ridiculous. To some degree, my mental aspects are applied to almost everything my character does anyway. I decide what combat maneuver he takes or, whether he runs or stands tall. When I talk as my character, it's my thoughts that come out of his fictional mouth. In lots of ways, I _am_ my character at this time.

There's an infinite spread between what's simulated mechanically and what I decide. I could roll the whole combat at once or do several rolls per strike. There's not just one way to make rules.

My character has almost infinite differences from my real-life person. Not all of them have to be expressed at all. And most of those left don't have to be expressed mechanically. And even from those, most of them don't have to be attributes.

Quote from: flyingmiceThe 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

Okay, cool.  Just a lack of information on my part.  

To address Spike:

If that works for you, it's great.  It's certainly the other end of the spectrum from, "delete all social and mental abilities from the game."

I find that in actual play, it really does disrupt the mood at the table.  Moreover, once you've decided to cut out the awkward talk and roll the dice to resolve the entire issue, you've deleted one of the more entertaining aspects of roleplaying games, that distinguishes them from board games (IMO): the roleplay of social interaction between PCs and NPCs.  That's some fun stuff, right there.

By putting the socially awkward person in the primary social position of the game, you're forcing everyone to either endure bad social interaction, or forego social interaction in almost its entirety in favor of abstracting it through dice mechanics.

That's why I favor having players play to their strengths, as well as what they desire to play.  It results in more fun for everybody.

Quote from: RPGPunditFor GMs, its quite easy to play NPCs that are smarter than you, by cheating.

For Players, its a lot harder unless the GM gives them a lot of leeway. Generally, players have a tough time being able to play a character who's actually more intelligent than they are, except in the most mechanical sense of having a bonus to knowledges.  Therefore, it would make more sense to have a "Knowledge stat", which does not require that the Player himself actually think smart, just get a bonus to his PC's stats, than an "intelligence" stat, which would actually require a player to roleplay his character smartly.

RPGPundit

I'm not exactly sure of the differentiation - Why not just play "Intelligence" exactly as you would "Knowledge?" Or do what D20/D&D do, "Intelligence" is the Ability, "Knowledge - Subject X" is the skill - and in most cases that's what you use to apply to a given situation. That way, as I've said before, you're not throwing out your nose despite the trees...or something...

Quote from: SosthenesThat's utterly ridiculous. To some degree, my mental aspects are applied to almost everything my character does anyway. I decide what combat maneuver he takes or, whether he runs or stands tall. When I talk as my character, it's my thoughts that come out of his fictional mouth. In lots of ways, I _am_ my character at this time.

There's an infinite spread between what's simulated mechanically and what I decide. I could roll the whole combat at once or do several rolls per strike. There's not just one way to make rules.

My character has almost infinite differences from my real-life person. Not all of them have to be expressed at all. And most of those left don't have to be expressed mechanically. And even from those, most of them don't have to be attributes.

That not ridiculous at all, needless to say you are going to interact with your character, thats the whole point of the game, but to stop you from abusing your character with your own abilities you have to enforce your characters stats and skills, even if it gose against you as a player

Either you play dumb as a dumb character, or you can enforce it through the system,  but if you play smart as a dumb character, you are playing outside your characters limits (again the only way to stop this becomes throught how the related stat works within the system)


if the game has no need to define a certain aspect, then you are pretty much free to do what you want arn't you,

but if it is defined and a player starts metagaming beyond that described limit, what are you going to do?

Quote from: RedFoxOkay, cool.  Just a lack of information on my part.  

To address Spike:

If that works for you, it's great.  It's certainly the other end of the spectrum from, "delete all social and mental abilities from the game."

I find that in actual play, it really does disrupt the mood at the table.  Moreover, once you've decided to cut out the awkward talk and roll the dice to resolve the entire issue, you've deleted one of the more entertaining aspects of roleplaying games, that distinguishes them from board games (IMO): the roleplay of social interaction between PCs and NPCs.  That's some fun stuff, right there.

By putting the socially awkward person in the primary social position of the game, you're forcing everyone to either endure bad social interaction, or forego social interaction in almost its entirety in favor of abstracting it through dice mechanics.

That's why I favor having players play to their strengths, as well as what they desire to play.  It results in more fun for everybody.

It depends on the player.  I find that 80% of the time I don't even have to ask for dice rolls. Players will roll dice whenever they think they oughta.  I had a scene in my last Runequest game where the player, a socialable sort, was trying to convince a god-king to give up some funds for a library.  Now I, as the GM, found his arguments sort of weak and pointless. But if he had rolled really well, the king, who is most certainly not me, would have probably bought them. As it was, he rolled atrociously, and the king wound up not buying it.  Unless rolling dice is a mood breaker....

Later my less socialble 'lose cannon' player wound up suggesting that she, and her friend, would like to sleep with the same king to his face. She rolled dice, all on her own, and presto, the God-King has some sort of fertility aspect to his 'Sun' thing. I didn't ask for a roll, and to be honest the player didn't quite get what she expected either (I think her exact wish was to lick him... he was painted in gold you see and she was curious about the taste).

Players do stuff. If a wallflower has 20 charisma and never uses it, that's his business. If he wants to dominate social scenes by being tall dark and silent, well, his stats say he can, who am I to argue with it?

If making players play characters that are 'just like them' in terms of ability works for your group, more power to you.  I, for one, enjoy the occasional break from being a small, lightning powered yellow mouse.

Quote from: SpikeIf making players play characters that are 'just like them' in terms of ability works for your group, more power to you.

Whoa, hold up there pika-pi.  Chill with the hyperbole.  I never once stated that people should be forced to play characters that were identical to their players.  I said that it's better when players play to their strengths, and that those who are completely unsuited to a role should not play that role if it will prove disruptive to the game.

If someone's an average sociable sort and wants to play Mister Supercharisma, that's fine.  If every time someone opens their mouth, it makes people around them groan or yell stuff like, "What the hell did you just say?!" at them, then they shouldn't be playing Mister Supercharisma.

Quote from: pathfinderapEither you play dumb as a dumb character, or you can enforce it through the system,  but if you play smart as a dumb character, you are playing outside your characters limits (again the only way to stop this becomes throught how the related stat works within the system)

if the game has no need to define a certain aspect, then you are pretty much free to do what you want arn't you,

If we really have to argue about the two points I highlighted, it's better we stop here. That's not the way I rol(l/e).

Quote from: SosthenesIf we really have to argue about the two points I highlighted, it's better we stop here. That's not the way I rol(l/e).

you don't need stats for things that can't (because they arn't relative to the game) be used in a practical way within a game,

say something like a stat for hair colour, (unless you are playing "Hairdresser: The prunning") would be a waste of time, and so there would be no need to define that aspect,


But if you arguing against stats being used to define a character within the system, (when it has a relevance to the game setting) then what use have you for any stats at all?

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.

That's no different from fighter characters with tactically stupid players.

"My guy is an ex-soldier, was fifteen years in the regiment, made it to Sergeant, was posted to Iraq three times, had a lot of firefights."
"Yes, so you said. Well now you have a party of five characters, and there's an enemy, about platoon strength - that's thirty guys. What do you do?"
"I charge, firing from the hip."

Often when "combat" is discussed in this Roleplay vs Dice in Social & Combat debate, people think of one-on-one combats, where the details of what to do are purely physical, do I swing the sword from above the shoulder or below, etc - and most of us are happy to let the dice and rules decide that stuff. But with combats with multiple people, there comes into it this thing called "tactics" - how to arrange the group of people for maximum lethal or intimidation effect.

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.

Quote from: SosthenesYou 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.

That's because we're playing a ROLEPLAYING GAME. In a roleplaying game, we play out our... roles! Our characters. We play the personalities and relationships and ideas our characters have.

If you want to play out swinging swords or casting spells, that's not roleplaying, try the SCA or your local Wiccan group.

Quote from: RPGPunditTherefore, it would make more sense to have a "Knowledge stat", which does not require that the Player himself actually think smart, just get a bonus to his PC's stats, than an "intelligence" stat, which would actually require a player to roleplay his character smartly.

Well, in d4-d4, I didn't put an intelligence stat, I called it Perception and Education. Perception is how well the character the details of the world around them - putting those details together into something that makes sense is up to the player. Education is just their general knowledge, which might be academic, or just from years of keeping their eyes open and having lots of different experiences.

I did that because if you call it "intelligence", then people will argue for fucking ages about what it really means. Players will use it to try to weasel out of their fuckups.
"Stupid guard, I tell him to go fuck himself."
"Okay, he shoots you."
"Wait no, actually my guy has intelligence 124, he would never have said that."
"But you said it."
"But my character is smarter than me."
(etc)

If you call it "perception" and "education" you don't get that argument. Perceptive and educated people do stupid things; intelligent people don't do stupid things.

What you call your stats isn't just cosmetic, unfortunately. Players will have all sorts of arguments over them. For example, over on the SJGames forums you can see that because Steve Jackson decided to call GURPS's intelligence stat "IQ", you get all these people trying to translate intelligence test IQ into GURPS "IQ". It's not, it's general intelligence and education, also affecting perception and willpower - but there's that name, "IQ". He could have just changed the fucking name, but no...

Decide what you want to represent in your game system, and what you want to leave up to the players' good sense and roleplaying, and name things accordingly. So for example I wanted the d4-d4 system to cover what the characters noticed (perception) and what the characters knew (education), but I wanted what the characters decided it all meant, and what to do about, to be left up to the players.

What you want is a chart comparing player IQ to the IQ of their characters. Then the cross referenced result is applied to any dice rolls! ha, ha!!

Quote from: JimBobOzI did that because if you call it "intelligence", then people will argue for fucking ages about what it really means. Players will use it to try to weasel out of their fuckups.
"Stupid guard, I tell him to go fuck himself."
"Okay, he shoots you."
"Wait no, actually my guy has intelligence 124, he would never have said that."
"But you said it."
"But my character is smarter than me."
(etc)

Another solution is to adjust the power between GM and player a little and rather than give the GM total control (which is half the problem with social/mental stats):

PLAYER: "Stupid guard, I tell him to go fuck himself."
GM: "Whoa that seems unwise.  Make a diplomacy check."
PLAYER: "I rolled...awesome and a half."
GM: "Sorry sir, I had no idea it was you.  Please go on in."
PLAYER: "That's more like it, peon."

...or...

PLAYER: "Stupid guard, I tell him to go fuck himself."
GM: "Whoa that seems unwise.  Make a diplomacy check."
PLAYER: "I rolled...craptastic."
GM: "He shoots you."
PLAYER: "Well I had that coming."

In 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.

Whether a game should? Thats really all about how it's designed. Bu if it does have them it should be used well. But if a character is supposed to be smart, but the player isn't, then hell yes, give hime a roll if he wants it.


As games are all about having fun, different situations call upon different reactions. If your players are having fun exploring a mystery and agonizing over a puzzle or clue, let them do it. Howeer, if they're bored and want to get to a fight or something let them make the roll.

Same goes for social and even combat in my games. If a player isn't very good at "the talking part", let them make that roll. If they get into a fight they cannot lose, or are tired of having to fight in "the arena". Make a roll to determine the outcome (if it matters, don't even roll if it doesn't) and move on to "the good stuff".