The Forge Archives

While perusing some old posts, I wondered about something.

There are obviously a number of differences between RPGs and normal boardgames, but one difference is that normal board games generally do not attempt to value or describe the social or mental power of the pawn/playing piece in question. Basically, the player's "stuck" with exerting his own social skills and mental acuity and whatever mechanics there are towards winning the game.

Of course, in a 'traditional' RPG, player's also still use their own social influence and wits in addition to whatever stats or rules there may be for their character(s).

I'm thinking about what would happen in a game where there were explicitly no social or mental scores for characters - the players resolve social issues 'just through roleplay' and mental problems they can either solve themselves (and so their character can as well), or they can't (and their character is stuck as well).

The question is: has this been done before? References?

(There are of course plenty of interesting issues in here. Is it 'fair' to players of different social skill/intelligence to make their personal abilities relevant like this? Does it matter? Which would be supported better - G, N, or S? But let's stick to the basic question first, spin off something yourself if you like).

Hello,

I'd take it one step farther - removing any and all qualities from the character which are not relevant to the resolution system.

In Primetime Adventures, for instance, the only number associated with a a character is his or her Screen Presence for a given episode. That's it. How smart, tough, or social a character is will be delivered through narration of conflicts and outcomes during play, which are largely resolved through rolling Screen Presence.

In Universalis, you can give a character any quality you want (and that everyone else agrees with, essentially) - and by the same logic, you can leave any quality out.

There isn't any difference between social/mental and physical/skilled qualities in role-playing. Keeping or not keeping these qualities involved in resolution is exactly the same, regardless of categories. Twenty years of almost worthless debate could have been avoided if people had realized this earlier.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThere isn't any difference between social/mental and physical/skilled qualities in role-playing. Keeping or not keeping these qualities involved in resolution is exactly the same, regardless of categories. Twenty years of almost worthless debate could have been avoided if people had realized this earlier.

This is an interesting point. Most games do involve all of their stats in the resolution system, with some weighted more important than others. However, you can go really minimal, like PTA seems to do. I have a tabletop miniatures game called Charlie Company that does something similar. It's a VietNam War game, and the only stat any figure has is time in-country. The number of months the figure has been in the war is the only thing that is ever tested against, otherwise all figures are exactly the same. Very interesting mechanic, and really ably represents experience in the game.

I am working on a Universalis-style feature for another game, where the characters have no stats, just descriptors of exceptional characteristics (both detrimental and helpful). All characters are assumed to be roughly the same unless a descriptor applies. Basically, a character's stats will be stated in the same way a person would describe the character: X is a great hunter and very strong, but he is too vain, or Y is beautiful and quick-witted, but too easily distracted.

Years of playing White Wolf games has convinced me that a lot of people *like* the process of allocating points to dfferent stats, even if those stats don't make that much difference afterwards.  There must be some force other than tradition which keeps game designers using the same type of stats 30 years after the creation of D&D.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI'd take it one step farther - removing any and all qualities from the character which are not relevant to the resolution system.

I mostly agree, although this really begs the question: "What does "relevant to the resolution system" entail?

This isn't so much a "what do you think" question as it is a "This is a really important thing to ask yourself when writing a game."  Before you start adding stats, (or at least, at the same time) you should know how you intend to stats to affect play.  If a stat will not affect play, don't add it.

--
That being said, I think there is a lot to be said for having qualities to characters that are not relevant to resolution.  It's color.  The most obvious example I can think of is the characters name.  Very vew (if any) resolution systems take the name of the character into account, but we still give the character a name.  Many systems blend the two:  Marvel Superheros comes to mind: Spiderman has Incredible (40) Strength.  Color and resolution effectiveness, tied together.

QuoteThere isn't any difference between social/mental and physical/skilled qualities in role-playing. Keeping or not keeping these qualities involved in resolution is exactly the same, regardless of categories. Twenty years of almost worthless debate could have been avoided if people had realized this earlier.

Hmm.  I don't think this line is as rigid as you declaim here (LARP, for example, comes to mind), but that's probably a debate for another thread.

thanks,

James

Ron,

I believe your statement that "there isn't any difference between social/mental and physical/skilled qualities in role-playing" is a bit misleading in this case. Of course there is a difference. If a game has a physical stat, and a knowledge stat, then they are used to measure very different things. Taking one of those out, while leaving the other, makes a huge difference.

Your example of a "screen presence" stat is a great example of blanket representation of multiple ability measures, but I still don't think that means that there is no difference. Only that the difference has been averaged out under a different label. (Not really any different than averaging strength and grace under a group "body" trait, except by degree). And I agree that sort of thing could probably be very effective.

But whether or not a specific trait is spelled out in the rules or left up to the player/who-ever to decide if it's relevant (or is averaged into a single stat)... just isn't the same as actively removing social/intellectual traits from the scope of the character in a game entirely.

In your examples, I can still play a character who is different than me socially and intellectually.

In the example of the first post I cannot.

Quote from: TobiasI'm thinking about what would happen in a game where there were explicitly no social or mental scores for characters - the players resolve social issues 'just through roleplay' and mental problems they can either solve themselves (and so their character can as well), or they can't (and their character is stuck as well).

The question is: has this been done before? References?

Hey Tobias, in "Lejendary Adventures" Intellect is an optional attribute to use with characters. There are reviews on RPG.net and they have their own forum at www.lejendary.com.

I have to admit I think its a great idea - one of the things that saddened me during red box D&D play years ago was that my fighter character didn't have a very high intelligence stat, so I felt that I shouldn't be joining in trying to solve puzzles (which were a big part of the fun) but instead leave it to the magic-user or the thief in the party. Lejendary adventures probably would have been a much better system for the type of play my group was having than D&D back then.

Ironically when I was playing L5R I used to be irritated by players who poured all their points into building gruff tough samurai, but still came out with eloquent speeches, cunning plans, and perfumed lies at every opportunity. I had poured all my character creation points and every point of xp into building courtier characters, why should they be able to role-play for free what I had to pay so dearly for?

Paladin is my favourite game for identifying the important stats to a situation for a certain type of play (ie play that explores Paladin's premise) and ignoring everything else that "should" be used to map out a character. All the stats are moral qualities - it still blows me away. I came to Paladin just after Vampire, where after having been thrilled by intro text that talks about fighting and exploring the beast within each of us... I was then asked to assign a Drive skill to my character.

Tony

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI'd take it one step farther - removing any and all qualities from the character which are not relevant to the resolution system.

In Primetime Adventures, for instance, the only number associated with a a character is his or her Screen Presence for a given episode.

While this is a fine choice, I don't think that it's the only or best one for all cases.  There is a lot to be said for having qualities which are there for the players' understanding rather than strictly for the mechanical usage.  I debated about this in my recent review of  My Life With Master.  The qualities of the Master -- Aspect, Type, Want, and Need -- all have no effect on the resolution system.  What I said was,

Quote from: John KimNone of these are referenced by any of the other mechanics, however, and have no effect on resolution.  However, they give some structure to what is otherwise a brainstorming session to collectively come up with ideas for cool bits and hooks for the campaign.

I am currently in the process of making my character for a HarnMaster campaign, and I feel it has a similar effect.  In MLWM, setting the Master's traits is part of understanding him in relation to the intended genre.  In HM, generating the background stats is part of placing the character within the world.  

In both cases, they do have indirect effects on resolution.  i.e. The Master's Need and Want are used in determining what he will order. Similarly, a character's background is extremely important for how he is regarded and who his connections are.

It sounds like people are allocating points so as to get a handle on their character. Much like perhaps having a table from which you choose your characters profession (sailor, tailor, whatever) and then getting if not any mechanical effect (in this example), you are at least having your perceptions shaped.

But it is kind of odd. If my game is about hitting people and shooting people, but I share a set of points between the stats relevant to those tasks...wierd stuff goes on then.

Eg, you'll get gamists optimising their characters (strong and dumb PC's) and others in the same group who want sim perhaps and simply appreciate their character has an int of 12 or whatever.

These people, even if they know about CA and have a solid social contract, have not been focused by the system toward any goal.


That said, I think Ron is basically saying (I may be wrong) that just because people have intelligence or charisma, it doesn't mean you have to have it in your game. Especially if you have it in your game but do duck all with it in terms of the system. Its just a superfluous third nipple then.

Quote from: BlankshieldThat being said, I think there is a lot to be said for having qualities to characters that are not relevant to resolution.  It's color.  The most obvious example I can think of is the characters name.  Very vew (if any) resolution systems take the name of the character into account, but we still give the character a name.  Many systems blend the two:  Marvel Superheros comes to mind: Spiderman has Incredible (40) Strength.  Color and resolution effectiveness, tied together.

Funny, I'd been thinking about PC names recently. And for an actual step on up purpose. It'd struck me that every time I read a play account, I glazed over at the PC names. Who the hell cares about the name? I just look at the action because although I recognise the name as important, there is no attachment of worth to it for me (from my position as reader).

So I thought you could use certain combinations of letters or syllables to get set bonuses. Then I'd read these things and at the mention of their name I'd go 'ah, I see where your going with this guy' and this important element of color would impact me with it practical effect. Been meaning to write a post about how I atleast need some practical effect so as to appreciate color (to enjoy sim I need to get to that through gamism...I think, atleast).

The Daughter of Twilight Vampire LARP system removed social/intilectual stats from the game as it was assumed that your character would be as good at these things as you as a player was. The social contract for the game was kinda broken so a lot of players focused on what they could easily do under the rules (combat).

What really broke it however was the fact that it included various mind/emotion control powers. This meant that the rules didn't cover enough of what was being represented by the game and caused a lot of cludges and ill feeling.

I would say that need to design a rules system that fairly represents the things that you wish to use a visible resolution system for. In most LARP systems that's things like combat and kewl powers. If you remove the use of social or mental rules system then what you do is place an undescribed Drama based system into the game.

This can cause a lot of problems.

However, as long as the gm and designer know it's there, this can actually be used to highlight the importance of this aspect of the system and bring it more to the fore through it's absence rather than through the focus of apparent rules.

I'm currently working on a LARP system that tries to do this, but it's not ready for show yet.

I'm not sure I would categorize social and mental stats the same way for the purposes of this debate. If one were to draw a continuum from magic skills on the far end and social skills at the opposite pole, one could see physical stats near the magic end and mental stats near the social end.

I think social stats are a factor based on how I have observed play in games. Character thought and player thought always function differently -- players deduce things for their characters but rarely as their characters. With social stats, on the other hand, mechanics are often completely marginalized in play because the player speaks both for and as the character.

There are different levels of connection or overlap between the various parts player self and character self in sit-down gaming. My guess is that in live action play (thought I've never participated), the level of connection is a little more consistent; each element of play be it thought, social interaction or physical interaction is a hybrid of a mechanic and the physical self. But in tabletop gaming, the intellectual component of the self is the only fully hybridized one.

"just because people have intelligence or charisma, it doesn't mean you have to have it in your game"

I had this bad hallucination when I read this that in real life I was a D&D character, but if I wanted I could pretend that I wasn't and play games like PTA instead.

Sorry, keep going with the legitimate discussion...

A friend of mine had a homebrew they informally called "Switches, Levers and Doors" and was basically a verbal game of Sokoban or Zork where you moved through an area and tried things to see what they do.  I do consider it an RPG, as it could involve intelligent NPCs and it could be done as a group.  This game used no stats, skills or dice rolls at all, however (in keeping with the computer which caused you to fail until you did the right things in the right order - though a human GM gave you a lot more flexibility in coming up with alternate right things).

My first exposure to RPGs was with a group that basically modified D&D to work without mental or social stats.  Basically, they redefined Int as "ability to cast mage spells", Wis as "ability to cast cleric spells" and Cha as "ability to make a good visual impression".  Thus, you could have an idiot-savant mage (just good at casting spells, but dumb otherwise) and a genius fighter (he's just lousy at learning spells).  But, for the most part, they just played their characters as a drone - they were psychologically themselves, in a different body and world.  

Of course, this first exposure so turned me off to role-playing that it was three more years before I got curious enough to see what else was out there.

Surely what put you off was the "drone-ness", not the lack of mental and social stats?

Quote from: NNSurely what put you off was the "drone-ness", not the lack of mental and social stats?

It was a little of both.

I certainly did not like the fact that they were ascribing their own abilities to the characters (and using their own personalities was even worse).  My thought as a kid was "It's not really role-playing if you're playing yourself."  Many years of gaming allow me to draw some finer distinctions, but that's still a gut feeling.

However, I feel like a game's stats say what it values.  If a game doesn't care about social or mental aspects of characters, then what does it care about?  We certainly don't need more hack and slash.  Games that gives some other focus (Paladin, and others mentioned here) are just fine.  But if you've merely stripped the social and the mental out of a 'traditional' game (as happened in my example), then all you've got left is combat.  ::yawn::

Quote from: DannyKYears of playing White Wolf games has convinced me that a lot of people *like* the process of allocating points to dfferent stats, even if those stats don't make that much difference afterwards.  There must be some force other than tradition which keeps game designers using the same type of stats 30 years after the creation of D&D.

A friend of mine once observed "the more Intelligence you buy in this game, the less intelligent you must be" in a game where that particular stat wasn't worth a hang.

In White Wolf games, I would say that people like essentially-useless stats like Appearance because they allow them to have a mental benchmark: I have an image in my head of how beautiful Violet is. I know that Pinky is less beautiful but that Mungo is more beautiful and Sneed is about the same.

(Aside: I've always felt that White Wolf 2nd ed games -- and others! -- suffered terribly from the difference between "the character sheet is a descriptive document about your character" and "the character sheet is a list of the game play abilities you exert through your character." This difference usually manifested itself as me winding up with a lot of dots in Finance and Etiquette.)

The Cthulhu Lives! RPG guys (not Cthulhu Live) dispensed with the idea that your character had any capabilities at all that were not the same as yours. This document is in Ancient Greek? Find someone who speaks it. Saw a mysterious light in those rafters? Go on and climb up there. Possible in a LARP; less so in tabletop.

On reflection I think that physical vs. mental stats is a red herring. What we are really discussing is stance and character vs. player knowledge.

I dont see the point in presenting players with situations which they as players can solve (puzzles, riddles, exercises in deduction) and then 'overruling'  the players skill with their characters stats/skills.

For me, the purpose of social and mental stats (and skills) is to adjudicate those situations where the players have little or no knowledge.

Thank you for the interesting replies. I'll peruse the suggestions more closely. Universalis I've actually played, so I know how that works.

I don't think the physical vs. mental thing is a red herring. The issue is that there will likely be a mis-match between a player's physical, mental, and social skills/"values", and a character's.

During RPG tabletop play, the physical values of the player are generally totally irrelevant (LARP play is obviously different), so physical character stats are generally easily accepted by the players as necessary (Social Contract) and are accepted as part of the SIS. (And physical stat-only systems always leading to a lot of combat and being boring is not something that I agree with).

Mental and social skills often suffer from a mis-match between character and player as well, but tabletop RPG generally draws heavily on these qualities (for the player). Witness the statwise dumb fighter and the player who feels compelled on the one hand not to puzzle along with the others, and on the other hand is missing out on the fun. Witness countless gruf samurai with glib speech.

What I'd like to explore (and asked references for) is how to resolve the mismatch. One option is to ditch stats and mechanics for social and mental skills that the playgroup overrides anyway (PTA is an example, but they ditch physical as well, as Ron told us). Another is clearly seperating the mechanical effects of social/mental stats and how they support the goal of play. Another is to make the mismatch (if present) part of your Social Contract conversation.

I hadn't thought about it, but LARP suffers from the same 'problems' as tabletop, but enhanced by also having a possible physical mismatch. Solutions from LARP play might be translatable to tabletop games.

Anyone else have experience as well with physical-only games (or sublimated social/mental stat games) and the gameplay they lead to? (Board games or certain wargames come to mind as well, but I'd like to keep within the realms of RPG-esque games).

Also have a look at: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/kosher26nov04.html

It's about skills more than types of stats, but it's also about mismatch between player expectations, the game (focus) actually being played, etc.

Lots of this can be resolved with good design, clear goals and social contract. I'm trying to look at the power of removing social and mental character stats because of possible mismatches/player behaviour.

Quote from: TobiasMental and social skills often suffer from a mis-match between character and player as well, but tabletop RPG generally draws heavily on these qualities (for the player). Witness the statwise dumb fighter and the player who feels compelled on the one hand not to puzzle along with the others, and on the other hand is missing out on the fun. Witness countless gruf samurai with glib speech.

What I'd like to explore (and asked references for) is how to resolve the mismatch.

Although in Multiverser the character starts as a representation of the player, and thus presumably has identical stats in all areas, it is recognized that characters diverge from players. There are also other bases for recognizing moments when the difference between the player and the character may be relevant.

As an example, during the course of a four to six hour game session a character might spend a week during which he's trying to remember something he knows that he knows. In Multiverser, I'd give the player a check against his character's education level (an attribute) to see whether this is something he learned and remembers. After all, given a week to remember something, I can remember quite a bit more than I can in a few minutes.

If a character's intelligence is impaired, the player is forced to make checks if he thinks of something that might be beyond the ability of his character. Conversely, if the character's intelligence has been boosted, the player is permitted to make such checks to see whether his character can deduce something that is beyond him.

Note that few people object to perception checks in this regard. Multiverser uses intuition for this. Does the character realize that someone has just entered the room behind him? Does the character perceive that this person with whom he is talking is uncomfortable, and does he know what this means? These are all social and mental related, but they are also connected to sensory perceptions of the world. We're in a bind here. Do we rely on the skill of the referee to describe the situation such that an intuitive or observant player will realize from the description what is happening while one who is less so will miss it? We're not all Agatha Christie, able to place clues in plain sight without putting bright orange "this is a clue" labels on them. Using a roll to determine whether a character recognizes something in his surroundings or understands the meaning or intent of something is quite natural. Doing the same thing with mental and social situations is perfectly ordinary.

When my players attempt to persuade non-player characters of some course of action, I let them talk; I let them give their arguments, and I listen to them, and sometimes play out the responses of those with whom they are debating. In the end, though, I roll the dice. Before I roll them, I will sometimes state that there are bonuses (or penalties) based on the situation, including my assessment of the argument. If I think the reasons given are persuasive, I'll bonus the die roll. It's still dependent in part on the character's ability to make that argument persuasively. I might also give the NPCs will power checks to ignore the argument--people can be stubborn even when they know they are wrong.

The rules also specify that such rolls are made only when the referee believes there is question about the outcome. If Joe asks Mary to go for a cup of coffee and I know that Mary has been waiting for Joe to ask her out, unless there is reason to think that this is a really bad time, I'm going to have her say yes without rolling any kind of check. That's really in the same category as physical checks. I don't roll a strength check to see whether the character can lift a glass of grog unless there's some reason to think he's horribly debilitated. I only roll if the matter is in doubt.

I hope this is helpful.

--M. J. Young

It sounds like some clear mechanics and social contract (I get the vibe it's been communicated to the group and they know how to work things, as in "such rolls are only made when the referee believes there is question about the outcome").

How about dumb-as-nails-fighter syndrome, though? When a player figures out the response to a puzzle/tactical situation, but the character might not?

Quote from: TobiasHow about dumb-as-nails-fighter syndrome, though? When a player figures out the response to a puzzle/tactical situation, but the character might not?

That doesn't happen much in Multiverser, of course, because it's rare for a player's character to be worse than he is on such things. However, I've encountered it in OAD&D a number of times. I've noted that it's very difficult for players to handle characters whose non-physical attributes in these areas are significantly lower than their own. Believe it or not, the worst ones in my experience are highly charismatic players who roll low charismas and don't understand why they aren't the leaders or can't charm everyone they meet with their witty repartee. I usually manage to get them through it, though, mostly with an added leadership system in which experience and status integrate with charisma to control influence and particularly party leadership.

On the specific problem of the player who runs the fighter solving the problem the fighter could never solve, I think the OAD&D party style play provides a ready answer to this. I'm sure that nearly everyone who plays that sort of game allows everyone to help the dumb player with the brilliant wizard; this is the reverse of that problem. In both cases, the smart players are providing the answers at the table, but the smart characters are bringing them into the game. Thus if the smart player with the dumb fighter figures out the puzzle, I can give him an intelligence check to see if somehow this smart-as-rocks head basher ignorantly stumbled on something brilliant--but if he fails the check, it's simple enough for that player to give the solution to someone whose character is smart enough to have solved it, and let their character introduce the solution to the situation.

This works fine with the kind of step-on-up gamism of party play. The players are still giving credit to the guy who came up with the idea, while the idea is still used by the team to solve the problem. Since OAD&D gave equal experience awards except in very rare circumstances, it didn't matter which individual character solved a puzzle as long as the group solved it.

Does that help?

--M. J. Young

It does, for it allows a player to use his own abilities to its full extent, as well as keep the character as truthful as the game (system/setting/people) calls for.

Thanks.

I don't quite see what it brings to the game if the charismatic player or intelligent player have their personal contributions removed by the system. I mean, for them? What do they get out of it? I can't imagine a simulationist enjoying 'Ah, THIS is what its like to be stupid! AND unpleasant!' (that is, if there isn't any system support for bringing up interesting situations based on failed rolls...which is sort of like getting a reward for low stats).

Quote from: NoonI don't quite see what it brings to the game if the charismatic player or intelligent player have their personal contributions removed by the system. I mean, for them? What do they get out of it?

It seems like there is enjoyment to be gotten in the system working as it's designed -- "hey, look, my character only has 8 int and I'm not as helpful on the riddles as when I was playing Frob the Wizard!" -- even if this particular ramification of the rules makes things worse for the player. As a related thing, it may be that doing worse now is essentially a reminder of the guarantee that when the action moves into an area they're good at (say, strength or dexterity) they'll be better off than the other players. To some extent this seems like the same question as what it brings to the (simulationist) game when players miss on their attack rolls or fail their skill checks or whatever.

Quote from: NoonI don't quite see what it brings to the game if the charismatic player or intelligent player have their personal contributions removed by the system. I mean, for them? What do they get out of it? I can't imagine a simulationist enjoying 'Ah, THIS is what its like to be stupid! AND unpleasant!' (that is, if there isn't any system support for bringing up interesting situations based on failed rolls...which is sort of like getting a reward for low stats).

Was that question meant for me, Noon? Because I'm not advocating taking away personal contributions.

Let me know if I need to expand on something.

Tobias