QuoteBut I could see a campaign, yes even in D&D, that did not focus on orc killing, but on political intrigue. Would Intelligence or Charisma be a dump stat for that game? In fact, I could see someone saying "I'll put my 8 in Strength since this is going to be a less combat intensive campaign." This becomes more difficult to nail down when you expand the scope beyond D&D to more generic systems. The more types of play supported, the less you can point to any one (or two) stat(s) and claim "dump" without the context of the campaign.

This is a great example.

Let's say one of the characters has Str 8 and Chr 16 because his player wants to focus on the politics.  Another character has Str 16 and Chr 8 because he wants to focus on combat.  However, the 2nd player has a change of heart and really gets into the politics.  In fact, he (as a player) is much better at it than the the other player.

So the Chr 8 character's player is better at politics and negotiation than the Chr 16 character's player.

To what extent could the GM say:  "Sure, that was a great speech / plan / offer... But Krogg the Barbarian isn't as well spoken as you are... so it doesn't sound quite as good as you put it."

Contrasting this... If having a high Strength character is acceptable wish fulfillment for a player, couldn't someone who is very shy (maybe with a stutter) not be able to play a Chr 17 Bard who is very well spoken and outgoing?  If that player did some awkward attempt at an in-character speech or negotiation, couldn't the in game effect be that it was the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V?

Quote from: blakkieWhat, I am goading you by.....apparently making you ignore that middle paragraph that you *snip*ed out? :insane:  Or is it your theory that reading the whole post is a bad idea?

You know, I have to say, it did make me :insane:

Because in the first paragraph, you used the *wink wink, nudge nudge* we all know the dump stats.  I inferred from this that there are objective dump stats - abilities that have no mechanical importance to the game.

And then in the following paragraph, you mention Shadowrun, and other system you play, where the rule encourage role playing character knowledge.  To me, at least, this is different than a specific mechanical consequence of those abilities. It would seem that these are stats that can be dumped if the GM doesn't encourage use.

At least, that's the way I took it.  My apologies if I misunderstood.

I guess I'm saying there are games, like you point to 3.5 D&D, that have a specific mechanical consequence of dumping in a stat.  It's not something the GM can encourage or ignore except through the focus of the campaign. The consequence of dumping in a specific stat may not have much bearing because of the nature of the campaign, but the mechanical consequence exists regardless.

My response was an attempt to draw a distinction between those stats that have a specific mechanical consequence and those that, whether through GM or rule encouragement, are role-playing aids.

I don't know if that makes any sense, or if I am :insane:

Quote from: StuartTo what extent could the GM say:  "Sure, that was a great speech / plan / offer... But Krogg the Barbarian isn't as well spoken as you are... so it doesn't sound quite as good as you put it."

Contrasting this... If having a high Strength character is acceptable wish fulfillment for a player, couldn't someone who is very shy (maybe with a stutter) not be able to play a Chr 17 Bard who is very well spoken and outgoing?  If that player did some awkward attempt at an in-character speech or negotiation, couldn't the in game effect be that it was the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V?

Hey! Maybe I'm not crazy!

By our very existence, it's more difficult to play up.  What I mean is that if I have a Charisma of 7 and my character has a Charisma of 16, IMHO it's more difficult to manage as a GM. At least, the narrative will have to be augmented in some way.  So if the roll of the dice indicates I wow the crowd, the GM may have to help the player determine how it was done.

The reverse is easier if it's a mechanical resolution.  The dice indicate failure, so the player can role-play down to the level of failure.

Quote from: James J SkachYou know, I have to say, it did make me :insane:

Because in the first paragraph, you used the *wink wink, nudge nudge* we all know the dump stats.  I inferred from this that there are objective dump stats - abilities that have no mechanical importance to the game.

If I had the time I'd go through that RPG.net thread, the one I've actually read, with the motivational posters and find that picture of GWBush smiling with the text under it "INT: Not everyone uses CHA as their dump stat." :cool:  But I was talking more about dump stats in general, not just the specific ones. The term "dump stat" is pretty well known, no?

QuoteAnd then in the following paragraph, you mention Shadowrun, and other system you play, where the rule encourage role playing character knowledge.  To me, at least, this is different than a specific mechanical consequence of those abilities. It would seem that these are stats that can be dumped if the GM doesn't encourage use.

Soooooo, it wasn't the whole paragraph that you missed. Just the last sentence?

Quote.... Or at least the GM does what they have to to play up knowledge skills.

Ok, so maybe "knowledge skills" is confusing for you as it was really about any and all abilities based on the stats in question (see my post in the external link for examples in SR where I talk about the Logic Attribute used for "puzzle" solving). Not just "Knowledge Skills" in the D&D 3e sense.

QuoteThe consequence of dumping in a specific stat may not have much bearing because of the nature of the campaign, but the mechanical consequence exists regardless.

Sure it "exists", but it's like the noise from the lonely tree in the forrest. It's existance/non-existance has no tangible meaning. Even when it has some tangible meaning of sorts, that can be largely mutted by the strength (or lack of) of the pertaining rules that the stats are used for within the game.....and I'm going to stop mid-thought because something just came up and I've got to take care of it.....

QuoteTo what extent could the GM say: "Sure, that was a great speech / plan / offer... But Krogg the Barbarian isn't as well spoken as you are... so it doesn't sound quite as good as you put it."

Every single time. "Very nice speech, make your skill check." I generally give bonuses for roleplaying (or penalties for not doing it). If you roleplay the character well, you get a plus (+1 - +3). If you just say "I diplomacize him" you get a penalty (-1 - -3).

QuoteContrasting this... If having a high Strength character is acceptable wish fulfillment for a player, couldn't someone who is very shy (maybe with a stutter) not be able to play a Chr 17 Bard who is very well spoken and outgoing? If that player did some awkward attempt at an in-character speech or negotiation, couldn't the in game effect be that it was the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V?

Definitely (unless he botches his skill check).

Yes, that makes sense.

What about this:

Player1: "I tell that stupid lady that gave us the quest to shut her stinkin' pie-hole."
Player2: "Wait, what?  No!  Dammit Steve, don't be an ass."
Player3: "You tool, you're going to get us all killed!"
GM:  "Hmm.  I think Thorold the Wise should make a wisdom check."
Player1: *ROLL*
GM: "Yup, he's got a wisdom of 17, so that's a success.  Thorold furls his brow, and clenches his teeth, but realizes it would be very unwise to say something like that to the High Sorceress Queen of the known world."

?

I'd let them make the check and tell them it's not a very wise thing to do, but it's completely up to them if they want to do it anyway. However, if they're the type that would do it just to screw everyone over they're likely to not get an invite back and the situation might be "it was just a dream"ed away.

As far as mental and other stats go. I try to run games that use a multitude of required skills and abilities, I try to make the enire character sheet worthwhile.
 
For knowledge in oWoD, I liked the dicepool rule. If your dicepool was higher than the Difficulty for the roll, than you automatically succeeded (in non stressful situations). So if the knowledge check was basic enough (and you were a reasonably smart character). In nWod I only have them make rolls for significant actions.
 
In D&D, your characters knowledge is represented by skills. If they have enough ranks (or enough of a stat bonus) they automatically know. If they they're curious about more arcane knowledge, make them roll, I wouldn't allow OOC knowledge to be played on.
 
As far as Charisma goes, no matter how good, entertaining, or charismatic thier their Role-Playing is, I always call for a roll in significant social actions, applying a bonus modifier for a good argument or good roleplaying, since social actions require more than just a good speech to make an impact. Maybe their character smells bad, or has something in his teeth, or a harsh lisp, things the role-player doesn't.
 
Since willpower is *mostly* just a part of WoD (and certain games would not benefit from it's inclusion). I'll address it as such. I only required Willpower rolls for significant actions, i.e. hurting or killing oneself, killing somone else outside of self defense or frenzy, to resist passing out etc. Of course they could SPEND a willpower to automatically succeed.
 
As far as players *lacking* the abilities mentioned. Players are allowed to ask for a roll at any time in my games. It applies to pretty much everything but Meta-Game puzzles. They have to figure those out by themselves. There's no bonuses, and it's a lot less fun, but totally allowed.

I agree with the people saying that rolling for social situations is good--for much the same reasons others have said.  Why let the weakling play Thogg the Hulking Barbarian, but disallow the shy guy to play Casanova the Suave Bard, if he's trying his best?  And the 'but it's roleplaying, not rollplaying' statement you see at times (though not here so far) is a logical fallacy: both are playing a role.  Both simply use stats and dice to shore up the fact they aren't as good as their characters.

It provides a sense of equity.

Also, from a 'game balance' point of view, it provides something of a release.  I've been in games where 'roleplay is everything, rolling is disallowed', and you often end up with people with poor-to-no social skills in game giving great speeches, and the guy who spent points is no better than they, /and/ they're better in-game.

Somewhat disjointed, but my point of view.  Take what you will.

-Confessor

My version: roll influences role-play, not the other way round.

That way, you know the mechanical advantage/disadvantage to the PC and can bear it in mind when you respond as NPC

If you roleplay first you can end up with vast logical inconsistencies etc.

Also, it means the Roleplay is arguably more important.

V.