Question; dropping social and mental stats - been done?

[Tobias]

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).

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Brennan Taylor]

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.

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.

[DannyK]

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.

[Blankshield]

I'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.

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.

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

[madelf]

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.

[Tony Irwin]

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?

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

[John Kim]

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.

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  http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/reviews/mylifewithmaster.html">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,

None 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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

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).

[mindwanders]

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.

[Stuart Parker]

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.

[Sean]

"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...

[jdagna]

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.

[NN]

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

[jdagna]

Surely 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::