Can intelligence or Social stats work?

[Lorrraine]

Quotes from the Lords of Olympus questions thread

Q: (Does the lack of "intelligence" attributes or social mechanics mean that) if an individual player can't think quickly on his/her feet, they are prohibited from playing certain characters (notably those characters that are witty)?

A: Here's the thing: I've never ever seen a mechanical substitute for intelligence or social grace in an RPG that acted as an effective prosthesis for those players who lack in these things anyway.  You can give a character a +25 to Diplomacy and Bluff, but if the PLAYER is socially inept, he still won't know when or how to use these things. He'll screw it up anyways. You could give a character a 22 INT or an I.Q. of 250, but if the PLAYER isn't that bright, god help him, then the character will still come off as dumb because of the choices he makes and the things the dumb player has him say or do.
So to answer your question: would a player be "prohibited" from playing a clever or charming character if the player himself is thick or boorish? No, no one is prohibited, but the reality of the situation is that he wouldn't actually pull it off. What I would say is that how a player describes his character at the start of a campaign is always more about how that character sees himself than about how he really is.  And there are tons of people out there who think they're brilliant or graceful when they're actually anything but.  In one campaign I ran I had one player who'd gone to great pains to describe that his character cared deeply about mortals and treated them like equals, and then went on to do anything but for the entire campaign.  In another, I had a player who described his character as a "diplomat", who went on to always get angry and blurt out insults or make threats and always refused to give ground on any issue.  On a different note, I've had plenty of times where I've seen really clever and involved players say that they're going to play a character who's stupid, but those characters inevitably end up becoming party-leaders who think up ways to solve the problems, because the player can't help himself.  So really, you can't make mechanics that are meant to save you from playing your character differently than you would like to describe him initially.

I would argue that it is possible to enforce behavior which is more consistent with the character's stats.

Take for example the charismatic player who is playing the non-charismatic character. . . . Let us say that this PC becomes group leader---at the very least the GM should consistently remind the other Players that they are not responding to the character as they should be (they should probably be shunning the low-charisma character, rather than making him their leader). Make the guy wear a tag at the game table that says: "Hi, I have a very low charisma!"

The same thing goes for intelligence, not every actor who plays Sherlock Holmes is ultra-smart, but with the right set-up it is possible to create the illusion of intelligence. There are actually a number of points in the Amber DRPG book which relate to this point. One good example is the "look at the board" thing (on page 79). Or the "Being Smarter than you are" thing (on page 223), this deals with the GM playing elder Amberites, but the idea of creating the illusion of intelligence can be applied in other areas as well.

All of which doesn't mean this is a totally easy process, but I do think it is possible to give a PC abilities in charisma and/or intelligence which are not possessed by the Player. And if the player doesn't, as you say above "know when or how to use these things," the GM can give helpful suggestions and hints there too.

I'm not sure that the real barrier here is that one can't create mechanics, but that there is a resistance to having enforcement of a character's stats. For example, I can think of one specific case where the GM simply felt that the role of the PCs was to figure things out and talk things through. This GM felt that things like giving a stupid player the correct answers because of his character's high intelligence, was a violation of the basic purpose of playing the game.

At one point I introduced something called a Jiminy to a game. We had a PC whose player lacked basic common sense. He did however have an ally and some good stuff. The ally, sick of bailing him out, gave him a cheap little artifact that had enough intelligence, awareness, and knowledge to give the PC in question good advice. This worked about as well as you might expect since the player in question had the freedom to ignore the advice whenever he wanted. The artifact also kept its creator's best interests in mind while giving advice.

I see the Jiminy as serving similar ends to what warp9 suggests, but using very different means. I did absolutely nothing to infringe on the players control of his character. All advice came from a character within the game. And that character had an agenda albeit one roughly aligned with the PC's interests.

Telling a PC not to do things out of character, for whatever reason rapidly becomes intrusive. It also can easily deprotagonize the PC making them more of a hand puppet for the GM than an independent character. Furthermore if buying a stat immunizes someone from mistakes it makes the game less fun for everyone. Even the smartest Amber characters make mistakes, often great big universe changing mistakes. Corwin once considered it a good idea to fight up a narrow staircase and throw away his only escape route. He had his reasons.

And yeah, if a game centers on PCs figuring things out and talking things through then just giving a PC the answer because he has the right stat will break the game.

[jibbajibba]

I have a slightly different take.
If a PC with high int makes an obviously stupid plan then I would say that in fact the plan is genius and its just the limits of my Int that make it seem stupid
So in real like I woudl say I have about 15-16 Int (in a d20 type model) so if a guy with 18 int has a plan that seems to me to be daft well... that is my issue.

Likewise if an 18 Charisma secret agent walks up to a girl in a bar and says 'alright love got time for a shag?' whilst that might seem gross and rubish to me might well just be the perfect thing to say with the perfect inflection....

[warp9]

I see the Jiminy as serving similar ends to what warp9 suggests, but using very different means. I did absolutely nothing to infringe on the players control of his character. All advice came from a character within the game. And that character had an agenda albeit one roughly aligned with the PC's interests.

One important clarification I'd like to make here is as follows: simply offering advice to a PC, is not an infringement on the player's control. The PC can choose how to use the advice (or perhaps not use it at all).

In terms of the group with the low charisma leader, that is a slightly different situation. And this might be more a matter of interfering with their decisions. Although I don't think that this level of interference rises to the level of "rail-roading."

Telling a PC not to do things out of character, for whatever reason rapidly becomes intrusive. It also can easily deprotagonize the PC making them more of a hand puppet for the GM than an independent character.

Hopefully you don't have PCs constantly doing things which are out of character. However, when this sort of thing does happen, I believe that it is reasonable for the GM to do something about it.

But there are two things to keep in mind here:

(1) acting to limit a course of action is not the same as telling the PCs specifically what to do. In most cases the PCs will have a large number of options, and having one less option is not that big a deal.

(2) the GM doesn't have to bash the PCs over the head with this stuff. In the case of the ultra-low charisma leader, I'd sit down with the group and have a talk with them about the role of charisma in the game. Hopefully we could come to some understanding about better role-playing character interactions with regard to charisma, and hopefully we could all agree that it does not make sense for an ultra-low-charisma character to be the best choice of group leader (note: that is not the same thing as saying that the character with the highest charisma should automatically be group leader---Hitler probably had a high charisma but I'm not sure that most groups would be in favor of making him their leader)

Furthermore if buying a stat immunizes someone from mistakes it makes the game less fun for everyone. Even the smartest Amber characters make mistakes, often great big universe changing mistakes.

Some people smoke, even when they are smart enough to know that it is bad for their health. You can know that something may have negative consequences and yet still do it.

In fact, IMO one of the elements of great drama is having a tragic character who can't resist doing something which he well knows is probably a dreadful mistake. And, as I've said above, just having the GM give you advice doesn't mean you have to follow that advice.

Also, unless the character is of truly god-like intelligence, then there is still the chance to make mistakes. This GM hints/advice should not apply to all situations, unless the character really is supposed to be ALL-KNOWING.

[The Yann Waters]

And yeah, if a game centers on PCs figuring things out and talking things through then just giving a PC the answer because he has the right stat will break the game.

What game even allows for a quick stat check to come up with a brilliant plan, though? I can't think of any. It's the execution of those plans that the stats generally govern, not their initial conception.

[Croaker]

I'm rather torn on this one.

In my younger years, I tended to resolve every social situation by roleplay, and take the ideas of the players as the ideas of the characters. Because, well, we're here to roleplay, right?

Problem is, sometimes, you want to play a character that is to social interaction what ADRPG Benedict is to Warfare: A virtual god.
That's why social stats and abilities were introduced. To allow you to play a character that is even more different from yourself.
This is because, IMO, social stats and skill are usefull and necessary: To allow you to play a character that is different from yourself.

But while RPGs find perfectly acceptable for you to roll dices (or else) in order to skewer ennemies instead of just hitting them with a latex blade, accepting the same thing for social interaction is almost never done, in part because it's boring.

So we can see 2 cases that are bad derivative of these:
- The charismatic and talkative roleplayer, that will min/max his character by dropping social skills, knowing his good roleplay will allow him to succeed nonetheless, whereas his character should have failed.
- The not-so charismatic player, or the shy one, that want to play a character that is good at social interaction but who, despite his awesome stats, will achieve at best average success, his GM making him roll in desperation to compensate his poor roleplay.

None of these are fair.

IMO, the solution is akin to what Jibbajibba does.
What I usually try to do is criss-cross roleplay and rolls to determine success:
Your roleplay determines your basic success, and this is adjusted up or down based on your rolls.

As an add-up to Pundit's replies in the Lords of Olympus questions thread, I'd say that Amber (Yes, AMBER!) has got his own social stat: Stuff. With good stuff, people like you. With Bad Stuff, they don't. Is that any different from a "charisma" statistic?

[warp9]

I have a slightly different take.
If a PC with high int makes an obviously stupid plan then I would say that in fact the plan is genius and its just the limits of my Int that make it seem stupid
So in real like I woudl say I have about 15-16 Int (in a d20 type model) so if a guy with 18 int has a plan that seems to me to be daft well... that is my issue.

Likewise if an 18 Charisma secret agent walks up to a girl in a bar and says 'alright love got time for a shag?' whilst that might seem gross and rubish to me might well just be the perfect thing to say with the perfect inflection....

That works fine for charisma, and would also apply to plans made by charismatic individuals---others will tend to see their ideas in the best possible light, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, when it comes to intelligence, you can call a stupid plan by another name, but the key issue is: what happens when you put the plan into practice?

I suppose you could continue down that same line thinking by forcing the stupid plan to somehow work, but that raises some more questions. . . .

[warp9]

In my younger years, I tended to resolve every social situation by roleplay, and take the ideas of the players as the ideas of the characters. Because, well, we're here to roleplay, right?

Problem is, sometimes, you want to play a character that is to social interaction what ADRPG Benedict is to Warfare: A virtual god.
That's why social stats and abilities were introduced. To allow you to play a character that is even more different from yourself.
This is because, IMO, social stats and skill are usefull and necessary: To allow you to play a character that is different from yourself.

But while RPGs find perfectly acceptable for you to roll dices (or else) in order to skewer ennemies instead of just hitting them with a latex blade, accepting the same thing for social interaction is almost never done, in part because it's boring.

So we can see 2 cases that are bad derivative of these:
- The charismatic and talkative roleplayer, that will min/max his character by dropping social skills, knowing his good roleplay will allow him to succeed nonetheless, whereas his character should have failed.
- The not-so charismatic player, or the shy one, that want to play a character that is good at social interaction but who, despite his awesome stats, will achieve at best average success, his GM making him roll in desperation to compensate his poor roleplay.

None of these are fair.

Well said---I agree with all the above.

As an add-up to Pundit's replies in the Lords of Olympus questions thread, I'd say that Amber (Yes, AMBER!) has got his own social stat: Stuff. With good stuff, people like you. With Bad Stuff, they don't. Is that any different from a "charisma" statistic?

My problem with the "stuff method" is that IMO a social stat should be a bit more stable, but stuff can change fairly quickly.

[jibbajibba]

That works fine for charisma, and would also apply to plans made by charismatic individuals---others will tend to see their ideas in the best possible light, and give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, when it comes to intelligence, you can call a stupid plan by another name, but the key issue is: what happens when you put the plan into practice?

I suppose you could continue down that same line thinking by forcing the stupid plan to somehow work, but that raises some more questions. . . .

Say for example the party need a plan to enter a warehouse secretly avoiding all the guards and access a vault get in see some plans and get out leaving no traces.

As a Gm you imagine the PCs seducing a guard a week earlier stealing an id pass, then returning it before it was missed, using it to create a retinal duplicate. then on the night of the crime they use that and some high tech body suits that reduce their ir signiture to zero. Using detailed plans of the warhouse/vault taken from the systems computers and the manufacturers of the vault they gain access through a series of maintenance shafts get access get ito the vault take micro images of al teh plans then once they get out they hack back intot eh security files to get rid of all evidence of the use of that duplicated id pass and retinal image.
What they actually do is borrow a pizza truck and drive up to the front gate and then say we have a pizza for Dave and use that to sneak in.... Now maybe they are so smart that in true Sherlock Holmes fashion they deduced from a single onservation of the personel fiels that they were given that David Namister the project leader had Italian grandparents and from his medical profile was obviously fond of late night snacks rich in salt and fat they deduced that pizza was the obvious choice of meal. ... etc ....

[Croaker]

My problem with the "stuff method" is that IMO a social stat should be a bit more stable, but stuff can change fairly quickly.

Agreed.
It was mostly to point out the fact that even Amber HAS a social stat, even if it is a fickle one

[AshenHaze]

In my games I allow the character's to spend up to 10% of there points into bad stuff or good stuff.  The character's who go bad stuff never really climb out so it doesn't change a whole lot.  I did this because none of my players would go bad stuff because later in the game the bad luck didn't seem worth the small advantage they might have.

[warp9]

Say for example the party need a plan to enter a warehouse secretly avoiding all the guards and access a vault get in see some plans and get out leaving no traces.

As a Gm you imagine the PCs seducing a guard a week earlier stealing an id pass, then returning it before it was missed, using it to create a retinal duplicate. then on the night of the crime they use that and some high tech body suits that reduce their ir signiture to zero. Using detailed plans of the warhouse/vault taken from the systems computers and the manufacturers of the vault they gain access through a series of maintenance shafts get access get ito the vault take micro images of al teh plans then once they get out they hack back intot eh security files to get rid of all evidence of the use of that duplicated id pass and retinal image.
What they actually do is borrow a pizza truck and drive up to the front gate and then say we have a pizza for Dave and use that to sneak in.... Now maybe they are so smart that in true Sherlock Holmes fashion they deduced from a single onservation of the personel fiels that they were given that David Namister the project leader had Italian grandparents and from his medical profile was obviously fond of late night snacks rich in salt and fat they deduced that pizza was the obvious choice of meal. ... etc ....

I've been thinking about this concept of fixing the universe in order to make the plan work.

It does seem to be one way of going about things, but it still bothers me a bit.

There is nothing wrong with the example you gave (unless there was already specifically established information that contradicted some of those conclusions about the project leader). But for me, I think that the main concern would be that it would become more and more obvious that you are actually re-ordering the universe to fit those bad plans. And, if it started to feel that way, IMO it would hurt the believability factor of the setting.

On a related note, that reminds me of one of the things I really dislike in many TV-shows and movies. . . . I don't like it when it seems that the writers just decided they wanted to make something happen, and then tweaked the universe to fit. You can get away with that kind of thing up to a point, but I'd rather have them take into account what had been established in the world/setting so far, and from that basis, move on to decide what would actually make the most sense to have happen.

In short, I still favor the idea of the GM giving helpful suggestions to the ultra intelligent PC. (it doesn't mean that the PC actually has to follow those suggestions, but the advice is there if it is wanted)

[warp9]

Agreed.
It was mostly to point out the fact that even Amber HAS a social stat, even if it is a fickle one

Fair enough.

[Bird_of_Ill_Omen]

This question about player INT vs character INT reminds of a discussion I was having with a GM friend of mine a little while ago about how he was having a hard time balancing the difficulty of his scenario -- he wants to make his adventure challenging enough that it requires some good planning and ingenuity from his players, but not so tough that they get frustrated about how to solve the mission successfully.

There's obviously many factors involved in his issue, but the one that relates here is when I reminded him that in roleplaying games, most of the sensory data that characters receive are through verbal descriptions given by the GM.  The point I was making is that sometimes it's easier to notice a useful clue if you are actually in the room, as opposed to imagining the room for your character.  So when my GM friend was frustrated when his players weren't making certain connections he was hoping they would, I suggested that the pertinent details weren't "sticking" in their heads -- the details didn't stand out in the player's imagination in the same way that they stood out in the GM's imagination.  The result is that he had "stupid players" (as the old saying goes, "No well-conceived plot survives contact with the players").

So to make intelligence a factor of CHARACTER as opposed to PLAYER, the GM can reflect that in the quality of sensory data he supplies to each player.  In this case, GM information becomes subjective to the character's stat as opposed to objective truth.  Obviously, in practical terms you can't do this ALL the time since all your players are there at the table as you describe stuff.  But there are opportunities in the game to give some details to one player, and other details to another.  This subjective information is probably a paradigm shift for many GM's, but it is a technique for making INT scores a factor.

To a player with medium INT you might describe someone as a man in a white lab coat.  To a character with high INT, you might describe him as a chemist in a white lab coat (since the higher INT character remembers the difference between a chemist's lab coat and a physician's).  It gives the GM reasonable excuse for making certain plot-crucial connections for characters which they might otherwise not do on their own.

This is, of course, only useful if you want to run the kind of game where INT stats play a factor.  If you want to run a game where players figure things out, then this isn't going to work for you.

[RPGPundit]

This reminds me very much of what Erick suggested GMs do in terms of good and bad stuff; if you phrase your description differently a person will react differently.

However, a stupid person, even if given more information, will not necessarily make better decisions.  So again, I don't think this is necessarily an intelligence thing.

RPGPundit