Quote from: Wisithir on March 27, 2024, 04:42:57 AM
The GM tells the players what their character see and know about the world. The players decide what the characters feel and think about it.  So, yes, deduction is a challenge for the player, not a skill gate for the character. INT should effect finding the clues in the first place and doing the research to discover their significance, not forming conclusions about them.

So intelligence isn't actually a measure of the character's intelligence.  The character is as good at deduction as the player and the number by INT is irrelevant.

If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world.  Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table.  So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.

If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well. 
The reaction roll is always there when I need it. 

If the player's character has a 6 (out of 18) Intelligence score and that player is solving riddles and doing calculus to get the party's asses through a dungeon...whelp I'm not going to punish that player.  I just won't award any bonus xp for good role playing. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on March 26, 2024, 09:17:56 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 26, 2024, 08:27:28 AM
Those are all categories I felt would be things related to knowledge and performance where the capabilities of a PC would differ from a player without impacting the decision-making element for the player in the same way that a being stronger than the player doesn't impact their decisions of what to do with said strength.

Say the character encounters a puzzle or riddle or has to interpret a clue.  They have to engage in some form of logical problem solving.  Does the character's smarts stat figure directly into this or is it the player solving it?  Does the character's intelligence matter here in a mechanical sense?

If elements of it are relevant to Arcana, Lore, Engineering, observable patterns (Insight), Nature or Medicine they would get information the player would get additional information based on their areas of expertise; but Intellect expressly isn't the stat for "performs cognition" in my games.

As I describe under Insight, it'll help you see patterns (this is connected to this) or note what doesn't fit (okay, he had means and motive, but there's no evidence he had any opportunity... there's something we're missing).

It (usually*) doesn't give you outright answers. The player still needs to make the cognitive leap from "Ted's body was found out on the lawn this morning, he had been stabbed to death, you found blood on Jane's coat hidden in the back of the closet, no one knows where she was last night, and one of the kitchen knives is missing" to "Jane stabbed Ted to death last night."

Your mental attributes will supply you lots of information, but it's not cognition. Cognition is for the players to do.

* sometimes something is meant to be so obvious no roll is needed (the ice cream is gone and little Bobby has ice cream stains all over his face and shirt), but if a player really doesn't make the leap I make them roll in front of everyone as I say "DC 0"** to drive home how dense (or more likely distracted) they're being before giving them the answer.

** Ironically, I HAVE had that roll fail because they had a -2 modifer and rolled a 1.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:01:40 AM
If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world.  Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table.  So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.

If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well. 
The reaction roll is always there when I need it. 

That's pretty much how I run charisma-based encounters, too. Player narrates or acts out their goal and general approach. And then depending on how likely I think that approach is to work, I'll either just reason out the NPC's response or modify the dice roll accordingly.

Intelligence challenges are a little more difficult, because no matter how good the roll is, you don't want to just give away the answer. Kind of defeats the point of the game. In D&D-likes, I usually use intelligence as a memory/knowledge stat.  Depending on their character background, a PC can use it to get lore info, identify items, guess at NPC motivations, etc. Wisdom I use as a perceptiveness and intuition stat, so read faces, spot hidden details, and so on. I usually use mental stat rolls for things that can't be solved through roleplay/narration.

For most attribute/skill checks I prefer a system where it's easy to do rulings + rules. Something where the score on the character sheet still matters, and it's easy to modify the difficulty of a check up or down based on the player's approach to the problem.

It's a little off topic, but the way I see it, the dice are there to represent all the variables that are out of the character's control. So if a character with a good climbing skill fails to climb a wall, it's not because they somehow turned into an amateur. The mortar in the brickwork suddenly gave out or something. If the 18 Cha dashing hero fails to seduce the barmaid, it's because she's married, or in a bad mood or whatever. Point is nothing you said was going to work on her. There's nothing more annoying than investing points or whatever into making your character good at something, and then getting screwed by the dice and having to listen to the GM narrate how they're an incompetent boob at what's supposed to be their specialty

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 27, 2024, 10:41:26 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:01:40 AM
If the player characters come to a door that is stuck, I don't make them open a physical door in the real world.  Nor do I have the players bend bars, lift portcullis, pick locks or move stealthily around the gaming table.  So of a player tries to fast talk a guard, I will ask to describe roughly what the character says and if it is reasonable, and believable, I'll make a reaction roll and add modifiers as I deem fit.

If the player wants to method act his way through the encounter I'm cool with that as well. 
The reaction roll is always there when I need it. 

That's pretty much how I run charisma-based encounters, too. Player narrates or acts out their goal and general approach. And then depending on how likely I think that approach is to work, I'll either just reason out the NPC's response or modify the dice roll accordingly.

Intelligence challenges are a little more difficult, because no matter how good the roll is, you don't want to just give away the answer. Kind of defeats the point of the game. In D&D-likes, I usually use intelligence as a memory/knowledge stat.  Depending on their character background, a PC can use it to get lore info, identify items, guess at NPC motivations, etc. Wisdom I use as a perceptiveness and intuition stat, so read faces, spot hidden details, and so on. I usually use mental stat rolls for things that can't be solved through roleplay/narration.

For most attribute/skill checks I prefer a system where it's easy to do rulings + rules. Something where the score on the character sheet still matters, and it's easy to modify the difficulty of a check up or down based on the player's approach to the problem.

It's a little off topic, but the way I see it, the dice are there to represent all the variables that are out of the character's control. So if a character with a good climbing skill fails to climb a wall, it's not because they somehow turned into an amateur. The mortar in the brickwork suddenly gave out or something. If the 18 Cha dashing hero fails to seduce the barmaid, it's because she's married, or in a bad mood or whatever. Point is nothing you said was going to work on her. There's nothing more annoying than investing points or whatever into making your character good at something, and then getting screwed by the dice and having to listen to the GM narrate how they're an incompetent boob at what's supposed to be their specialty

Yes, I agree.  Your methods sound great.  Even experts mess up and it doesn't have to be their fault.  Can't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.  Sometimes you can do everything correctly and still fail.  Good call.


With regards to intelligence checks and puzzles; passing an INT check Gould grant clues as to how to solve the problem/riddle/dilemma.  No need to hold the player's hand.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 26, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
I think the farther you get from reality (in both characters and world), the less useful common sense is.

Quote from: yosemitemikeThe character is as good at deduction as the player and the number by INT is irrelevant.

These two combined are the reason I find the whole "rulings, not rules" and the "problems without solutions/solutions without problems" pragmas to be so silly.  The vast majority of players and DMs don't know a damn thing about spelunking, stonemasonry, small unit tactics, natural philosophy, or medieval social/military history.  But then it doesn't much matter because gonzo nonsensical magic items, spells, traps and the entire dungeon itself don't follow any rules consistent with the real world either.  It's all a game of "Mother May I" where whether solution X to problem Y works is based on whether the player can snow job the DM.

Ultimately you get shit like this, which is not more ridiculous than the average OSR puzzle trap:

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.

That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.

Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:15:10 PM
These two combined are the reason I find the whole "rulings, not rules" and the "problems without solutions/solutions without problems" pragmas to be so silly.  The vast majority of players and DMs don't know a damn thing about spelunking, stonemasonry, small unit tactics, natural philosophy, or medieval social/military history.  But then it doesn't much matter because gonzo nonsensical magic items, spells, traps and the entire dungeon itself don't follow any rules consistent with the real world either.  It's all a game of "Mother May I" where whether solution X to problem Y works is based on whether the player can snow job the DM.

Ultimately you get shit like this, which is not more ridiculous than the average OSR puzzle trap:

Only when you become reductionist about the whole thing. The whole point of ruling is to get off that merry go round before it spins out of control, instead of being so tied to doing everything by some process that you get stupid. 

Sure, if the GM has no common sense and is an idiot, the rulings will go crazy. However, if the GM has no common sense and is an idiot, none of the rules-based cures will help.  They'll just put a little friction on the fast slide to stupid.  Not enough to matter in any meaningful sense. 

If the GM has some common sense and any interest at all about getting better at the craft, then he gradually learns all kinds of pertinent information related to the genre being run.  There is a cure for ignorance, but it takes some effort.  The best kind of rules are not opposed to rulings but in support of them.  They give you a framework in which to make the rulings and just enough verisimilitude in the genre to run something halfway decent until the training wheels can come off.

Dividing tasks between those done by the player and those done by the character is a really important and oft overlooked step in RPG design, things like who says the words, who knows the information, who makes the decisions, and so on.  There isn't a one size fits all answer to the question.  Marketing 101:  everyone is different and just because you like something doesn't make it universal  The fundamental issue is whether or not something is more fun when the player does it or the character does it.  If the folks in your group like solving puzzles, then it's usually best to leave it to the players.  If they hate puzzles or they're just kind of dumb, then it's better to resolve it as some kind of mechanical check.  Of course that begs the question of why have a puzzle if you're just going to resolve it with a roll.,. 

A number of factors get into the "which is more fun" criterion.  Is it something the players enjoy?  I'd rather do first person roleplay than roll the dice anyday.  Is it more practical to do by one or the other?  Having the players fight for real would be entertaining, but there are definite downsides as well.  Do we want to spend table time on this activity?  I could do actual woodcrafting rather than roll but then everyone would have to wait for me to finish.    Then there are other factors people bring up that really don't matter, like consistency.  Why roleplay conversation if you roll for combat?  Because one is more fun one way and the other is more fun the other way.  Consistency can be a means to fun, but can also get in the way of fun if overdone.  It's not an end unto itself.

Just because stats are in the game doesn't mean they need to be used for everything.  In early D&D INT was used for magic-user spells, WIS was used for clerical magic and charm resistance, and CHA was used for initial attitude of NPC encounters and number of followers allowed.  And that's enough.  Using them for things such as puzzles is a relatively recent thing AFAIK.

I personally have more fun with first person roleplay and interaction decisions made by the players and GM as guided by knowledge of the characters' personality.  I'd rather solve the riddles and puzzles myself – that's fun.  So the games I write don't have charisma or social skill checks.  I think people are vastly better at making such decisions than dice.  There are not numbers for mental ability.  If you want to play a smart or a dumb character, a foolish or a wise character, then just play him that way.  There are numbers for things that can't be done with player actions like magic ability and lore knowledge, but those are their own things, not part of something like intelligence, wisdom, or charisma

Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 26, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
I think the farther you get from reality (in both characters and world), the less useful common sense is.

That's the best reason not to stray entirely from reality.  If common sense no longer works then the game isn't much fun IMO

Greetings!

I'm all for roleplaying, and letting Players roleplay and use their own minds to seek to solve problems or whatever is going on. However, having the various attributes and some decent skills are a very important aspect, and also serve as a useful framework for yes, solving issues with a dice roll.

It is not always about "Common Sense" either. Ever had a wife or girlfriend that really loves playing--but doesn't know a fucking thing about any if these game-tangent subjects? Or a guy friend that is an accountant and just doesn't have a brain that thinks too far beyond math-stuff? Whatever. My point is, you can easily have players that will never or are very unlikely to be on your wavelength, or think to figure out some stupid crazy puzzle. Regardless of how "simple" you think it might be. On their own, lots of players will fail dismally, and die horribly every time you do it.

So, to avoid an endless treadmill of stupid and frustration, and not having fun for everyone involved--having Attributes and skill rolls is an absolute joy, and can assist in keeping the game FUN, and progress moving. And avoid having Players look at you will barely concealed disgust, wondering, "WTF is your problem, dude?" Yeah, I have never liked that, so I have always appreciated being able to use Attribute rolls, or skill checks. Such mechanics are great for a keeping a fun campaign going.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I think part of the reason why character INT isn't just the attribute score on the player's character sheet and sometimes instead maps to the player's intelligence is that INT is a relatively abstract concept. You can quantify STR in various concrete ways, max press, for example. But distinguishing between what types of puzzles or riddles someone with a 13 INT should be able to solve compared to someone with a 15 INT isn't as readily quantifiable. How would you really know whether you were accurately role-playing an INT score of 13 versus 15? Compare that with physical attributes like STR. You typically don't role-play STR. Your character either has the requisite strength to do something or doesn't.

And INT shows up in more places than puzzles and riddles. Problem-solving in combat is another area where player intelligence (and experience) matters. I don't think most DMs would disallow some clever tactic or strategy on the ground that the fighter in question lacked the requisite INT score to have that insight in combat (and players typically do not place one of their better attribute scores in INT when playing fighters). If so, then why get bent out of shape about a character with a mediocre INT score solving a difficult puzzle or riddle based on the player's ability?

Old-school D&D is a messy amalgam of character ability and knowledge and player ability and knowledge. I think it works fine, despite the inconsistencies, and that there is no problem to solve here. With a hard-to-quantify attribute like INT, it would strip player characters of a lot of their agency if the DM was routinely adjudicating whether they were intelligent enough to take "x" action or think "y" thought based on INT scores.

Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:17:00 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.

That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.

I am going to clarify here: if the expert player character has a 90+% chance to pick the lock...AND FAILS THE ROLL... Then perhaps IT WAS NOT DUE TO LACK OF EXPERTISE THAT CAUSE THE FAILURE, but rather it was due to some other circumstance that was beyond the control of the character. 

If you fail the roll, you don't pick the lock.  That's the exact opposite of "Quantum Ogres".

Quote from: SHARK on March 27, 2024, 08:53:11 PM
Greetings!

I'm all for roleplaying, and letting Players roleplay and use their own minds to seek to solve problems or whatever is going on. However, having the various attributes and some decent skills are a very important aspect, and also serve as a useful framework for yes, solving issues with a dice roll.

It is not always about "Common Sense" either. Ever had a wife or girlfriend that really loves playing--but doesn't know a fucking thing about any if these game-tangent subjects? Or a guy friend that is an accountant and just doesn't have a brain that thinks too far beyond math-stuff? Whatever. My point is, you can easily have players that will never or are very unlikely to be on your wavelength, or think to figure out some stupid crazy puzzle. Regardless of how "simple" you think it might be. On their own, lots of players will fail dismally, and die horribly every time you do it.

So, to avoid an endless treadmill of stupid and frustration, and not having fun for everyone involved--having Attributes and skill rolls is an absolute joy, and can assist in keeping the game FUN, and progress moving. And avoid having Players look at you will barely concealed disgust, wondering, "WTF is your problem, dude?" Yeah, I have never liked that, so I have always appreciated being able to use Attribute rolls, or skill checks. Such mechanics are great for a keeping a fun campaign going.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

This is exactly why the idea roll exists in Call of Cthulhu and why it's the same as your intelligence stat. 

Quote from: daniel_ream on March 27, 2024, 07:17:00 PM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 27, 2024, 06:20:14 PMCan't pick the lock? Maybe it's rusted shut.

That sounds suspiciously like a variant of quantum ogres.

It's funny you should say that. I sometimes refer to this approach as "Schroedinger's Lock". I started applying it because of games that have "x-in-6" or "x-in-12" skill systems. It makes no sense to me that a person with a given level of skill at lockpicking should have a 7/12 chance of picking any lock in the world. If you go to a locksmith and say "I've got a such-and-such model lock I need open", they're not going to say "well I can do it on a good day". They're going to say "yes" or "no". The important variable is what kind of lock it is, so it makes way more sense to me to say that 7/12 skill rating means that any given lock the character encounters is going to have a 7/12 chance of being one they have the skill to open. I call it "Schroedinger's Lock" because what kind of lock is on the door isn't determined until the die is rolled.

The same logic applies to most skill checks. There's some variance from skill to skill, but people who are good at something tend to be consistently good at it. Everyone has off days, but not to anything like the kind of variance that D&D skill checks tend to produce. Their performance is much more likely to be determined by external factors.