Off topic, I've thought for a while that Perception has much more basis in being a static character stat than any of D&D's big six, which IRL vary widely over a person's lifetime for generally easily understood reasons, typically training, which is the realm of skills. Sharpness of the senses decreases over one's lifetime, but does not vacillate much or for long, hence: stat.

On topic, of course RPGs focus on combat with rules. 1) The appeal of RPGs is to pretend to do things you can't do in real life, among the most basic and lurid of which is to FIGHT to the DEATH with WEAPONS, and 2) given that it is life and death you want to be able to adjudicate it most fairly, hence the rules focus.

Quote from: Imp;695749Off topic, I've thought for a while that Perception has much more basis in being a static character stat than any of D&D's big six, which IRL vary widely over a person's lifetime for generally easily understood reasons, typically training, which is the realm of skills. Sharpness of the senses decreases over one's lifetime, but does not vacillate much or for long, hence: stat.

On topic, of course RPGs focus on combat with rules. 1) The appeal of RPGs is to pretend to do things you can't do in real life, among the most basic and lurid of which is to FIGHT to the DEATH with WEAPONS, and 2) given that it is life and death you want to be able to adjudicate it most fairly, hence the rules focus.

I hate perception as a separate stat, since perception =/= sensory acuity, it's what sense you make of the information your senses are giving you. I think it should be tied to either an attribute, or better, a skill. For example, I have pretty good vision, but since I've never played football (American), even after years of watching I still can't see what the various linemen are doing while the announcers can. On the other hand, I have played soccer, and I will react to things that could happen but don't, since I can perceive possibilities in play, which people who don't know the game as well miss.


I'll third jibbajabba as well; I think the non-physical stats in D&D would be better if they represented things in-world that a players actual abilities can't influence, e.g. how strong the player is doesn't help their PC lift a log, so STR makes sense as an attribute, while how smart a player is can help their PC navigate the world.

It is true that perception is not entirely a matter of innate ability, but I would argue that when perception is used in an RPG it is very often used to detect things a character has never encountered in his life and thus is more in the realm of ability, and to an extent demeanor (innate level of cautiousness/ paranoia). "What's that sound? It gives me the creeps," etc. Activities like understanding a football play as it develops, or more in the medieval RPG-realm, detecting a sword attack en route, or identifying tracks on the ground, are usually tied to skills or classes that pertain to those specific endeavors.

Quote from: apparition13;695641All I remember is fighting duels during lunch. What were the social climbing rules?

The social climbing rules are easy to miss - they only make up thirty-eight pages of the forty-three pages of rules in the rule book.

Seriously, dueling is three pages and four tables in a forty-eight page book. The rest is the social rules. Did you ever even look at the rule book?

Quote from: S'mon;695642They need to give some indication of what they're saying before I can set a DC for the roll, though - no "I diplomatise him".

Ex-fuckin'-zactly.

Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.

They already are.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat?  If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?

There does seem to be a fairly common "double standard." I personally don't like "you can't think of that" interventions in either case, since to me they tend to rob the game of some fun, but there can be exceptions at the extremes of out-of-character behavior.

I'm more inclined to go the other way, letting ability scores give a chance of the player getting additional clues (which leaves actual choice of action in the player's hands).

Quote from: jibbajibba;695645In this case why not alter the non physical stats to be something that only relates to how they interact with the game world.

Pendragon has only Size, Dexterity, Strength, Constitution and Appearance. Note the absence of an intelligence score. Willpower comes in with specific personality Traits and Passions, while perception is a matter of skills (chiefly Awareness, Heraldry and Recognize).

"CHAINMAIL is, first and foremost, a GAME.  Therefore, player decisions are paramount."

The OD&D combat system makes perfect sense if you are a CHAINMAIL player.  Positioning, movement, and timing are LEARNABLE SKILLS that the PLAYER!!! may learn.  NOT THE CHARACTER.  In D&D you don't roll a "Make Tactical Decision" roll, you fucking DO it.

And the negotiation and interaction rules make PERFECT SENSE IF YOU ARE A DIPLOMACY PLAYER!  The referee determines the NPC initial attitude, and then you ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, just like you actually move to flank the goblins.  Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill.  And it also says that NPC attitude will change based on how the conversation goes, so there is your 'social combat resolution.'  Just like Diplomacy.

And Gary, and Dave, and all Gary's players, and all Dave's players, were all avid Diplomacy players.

Quote from: Old Geezer;695804Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill.

It depends on how it's used, which can be just like the use of OD&D's 2d6 reaction toss. When I got into RuneQuest back in the day, the actual conduct of the game was not radically changed by having a "skill system," any more than we forgot how to deal with traps and such when we got the Thief class in D&D Supplement I. It's just another way to organize the same kind of data, geared to easy notation of differences among figures.

Quote from: Old Geezer;695804"CHAINMAIL is, first and foremost, a GAME.  Therefore, player decisions are paramount."

The OD&D combat system makes perfect sense if you are a CHAINMAIL player.  Positioning, movement, and timing are LEARNABLE SKILLS that the PLAYER!!! may learn.  NOT THE CHARACTER.  In D&D you don't roll a "Make Tactical Decision" roll, you fucking DO it.

And the negotiation and interaction rules make PERFECT SENSE IF YOU ARE A DIPLOMACY PLAYER!  The referee determines the NPC initial attitude, and then you ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE, just like you actually move to flank the goblins.  Having a "BLUFF" or "INTIMIDATE" roll would be counter to the idea of PLAYER skill.  And it also says that NPC attitude will change based on how the conversation goes, so there is your 'social combat resolution.'  Just like Diplomacy.

And Gary, and Dave, and all Gary's players, and all Dave's players, were all avid Diplomacy players.

But RPGs have developed in different directions and this RPG as sports or effectively projecting yourself into the game world isn't what a lot of players are after.
Some players want to have PCs that are more like Prince Charming than they are. Some players want to play characters that are more liek SunTzu than they are. Its a natural development of RPGs.

Quote from: Imp;695775It is true that perception is not entirely a matter of innate ability, but I would argue that when perception is used in an RPG it is very often used to detect things a character has never encountered in his life and thus is more in the realm of ability, and to an extent demeanor (innate level of cautiousness/ paranoia). "What's that sound? It gives me the creeps," etc. Activities like understanding a football play as it develops, or more in the medieval RPG-realm, detecting a sword attack en route, or identifying tracks on the ground, are usually tied to skills or classes that pertain to those specific endeavors.

I have made Perception the stat and then have various skills based on it.

So Interrogation uses perception as its base stat as does Observation, Art, Tracking, Weather Sense,  Appraisal etc etc
Obviously you can use it raw to cover all these skills with a lower chance.

Quote from: Ravenswing;695615Just out of curiosity, how often do you do this in areas pertaining to combat?  If the player is showing tactical acumen and forethought, do you look at his sheet, muse that he has neither military experience nor a Tactics skill, and has an IQ of 8 to boot, and nerf his combat decisions?

If necessary. If the player is using advanced tacticals with a character that is low on Intelligence and/or Wisdom, and doesnt have any indicators that they could be making these calls then I will point out they are falling out of character and need to rethink. Sometimes the other players will beat me to it and call them out on it.
Or I may let them go with the tactical choice. And then just adjust the enemies tactics to something unexpected. The character simply made a wrong call, was guessing, bluffing, etc.
Or I could let it succeed and leave the players and characters wondering WHY it succeeded. Where did that moment of insight come from? Luck? Supernatural intervention? I could spin a whole campaign off from something like that.

Usually though the tactical thinking players are playing tactical thinking characters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;695867Some players want to have PCs that are more like Prince Charming than they are. Some players want to play characters that are more liek SunTzu than they are. Its a natural development of RPGs.

I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill.  Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.

So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.

Quote from: Old Geezer;696132I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill.  Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.

So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.

Warfare in Amber Diceless seems the obvious counter-example.  (Possibly also the exception that proves the rule).

Rogue Trader has a Command skill that we've been forced to use at several points during the current campaign. It's both your "presence" and your ability to give orders that are actually helpful, so yeah, Sun Tzu and Price Charming combined, and all in a system where the only player-facing feature is a die roll.

I don't blame the GM though. A lot of our time is spend outside of squad-level combat. Rogue Trader has an awkward setup where ideally, you're like the Star Trek TNG crew, where the most senior, valuable members of the crew are undertaking the most dangerous missions, but little mechanically incentivized reason to play that way (the GM can and does reward ballsiness when appropriate, at least).

Quote from: Old Geezer;696132I have never, ever seen a "Tactical Genius" skill.  Some games have 'tactician' skills but they are very, very weak compared to the usual implementations of "diplomacy," "bluff," "intimidate," etc.

So there is much support for a player wanting to play a character who speaks better than he does, but virtually none for the player who wants her character to be able to win battles through tactical brilliance.

Plenty of games have Leadership & Tactics and I don't know of any skill based games that have a mass combat system where there aren't skills that influence your success in mass combats.