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

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Tobias wrote: 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?

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

John Kim wrote: 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.

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.

Blankshield wrote: 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.

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?

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

DannyK wrote: 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.

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.

Tobias wrote: 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.

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?

Tobias wrote: 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?

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).

Noon wrote: 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?

Noon wrote: 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).