So, I just roll the dice to see if my character can lift the gates?

If I was a charismatic seducer in real life I wouldn't be playing these fucking games.

>the game is dice and nothing else

But the DM decides whom you attack and why? Eh, I guess it might be a weird incentive to work out. When you're done you find out who you were playing and whether he beat someone else's guy.

>We've tried everything

Who said anything about actions being determined by your character sheet?

The actions you take come from you as a player. The sheet merely governs success or failure.

Crossfit in exchange for people telling you stories. Huh.

OP's greentext was about a player asking the DM to determine his player's actions for him based on the high Intelligence score on his character sheet. At that point the sheet is doing everything and the player is doing nothing.

"Wow look at the muscles on that guy, I bet he has a level 20 D&D character!"

>i hit him with my sword
>roll the dice

>i trick him into letting us through
>no you cant do that you fucking autist REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

People can't read minds. Idea rolls exist for a reason.

Nope. The players action is 'solve the problem through intelligence'.

The players sheet has a high intelligence score, so they have a reasonable chance of the action being successful.

If we're talking "I roll to see if my wizard can figure out the complex formula in the alchemist's journal" then fine, that's perfectly within reason for a Int check. If we're talking "I roll to see if my wizard can figure out what the BBEG's master plan is from the clues we've gathered thus far" then go fuck yourself. Your character has his own stats and abilities but it's still you playing them and you gotta use your head. Otherwise why even play if you're just going to let the dice do everything?

I mean, where's the line, though? I might say "My character completes the quest using intelligence."

The line is 'is the result of the roll interesting/does it drive the story forward?'

The party sitting around with their thumbs in their asses while the GM waits for them to figure out their clever puzzle is boring and shitty. Give them a chance to figure it out, then allow some rolls to get past it with potential minor downsides to keep the game moving. Killing the pace so you can feel smug and self-satisfied at befuddling your players just makes you a shitter.

>He isn't a wizard in real life

It's bullshit, user. Because at the table you DO use high INT or WIS: for example, to check out clues in a room where someone was mureded.
Or high CAR to persuade someone.

So do you apply the same standards to combat?

>Your character has his own stats and abilities
>but it's still you playing them
You don't use your own stats to determine what your character can or can't do. That's not how it works, you dumb grognard.

I agree with you for the most part, but I feel "solve the problem with intelligence" is crossing the line. Describe what your character is doing like "I think through all of the information once again in an attempt to have an epiphany." Then, instead of just telling them they got across, drop a hint on how they're supposed to do it.

This. Also if the players have been at it for a long time and are stuck the DM should throw them some bone in the interest of keeping the game moving/fun. "Guess what I'm thinking" is the worst way to GM

>"Guess what I'm thinking" is the worst way to GM

But then how will the players appreciate my intricate, completely original story?

If actions that vague are acceptable player input, then once again, you don't need a player there. You can just assume that all the characters are trying to solve whatever problem is at hand using their best stats.

A problem with only one possible solution is bad adventure design in the first place. Nobody wants a tabletop version of those old point-and-click or guess-the-verb adventure games.

I have, and know GMs who also have players roll relevant mental attributes for a hint to the situation if they are truly stuck, or historical rolls for tales of others who were in a similar position.
Simple, doesn't solve shit for players but reminds them they're characters know shit.

Sure, but if the players can't think of any solution that works, let them make an Idea roll. It may seem like a simple problem to the GM because he has all the information, but perhaps the players forgot the "Blanket of Woven Dildoes" they picked up last session also levitates. Or maybe they just forgot to just check for a bridge somewhere. But give them a clue one way or another instead of holding the game up.

And what happens when someone says "I roll my maxed ranks in Tactical Knowledge to win the battle"?

It's not "Hey GM solve it for me", you mong.

It's "Hey, GM, could you give me a clue how to defeat this big scary thing". There is still player input, just with limited cooperation with GM.

Has anyone considered striking a middle-ground where a DM just gives the high INT/WIS character hints and information the character should know to lead the player along? I don't know what game OP is playing, but page 178 of the D&E 5E PHB suggests a character be able to make a Wisdom check to "get a gut feeling about what course of action to follow."

Ok, no more puzzles. The Wizard with +8 Int just rolls to solve all of them.

Also the Druid can roll Wis to see if he can predict where the plot is going, also know who the secret BBEG is, and who has plot armor.

"Win the battle" assumes a prolonged interaction with multiple rolls.

"Lift the gate" is a singular feat of strength.

The second is okay to roll. The first is okay to roll, but instead of insta-win it gives your character important clues or lets you aid allies or give them tactical advantage.

So basically TACTICAL GENIUS type of player would be able to nonmagically buff his teammates, giving them advantages/bonuses on rolls and penalties to enemy.

>no more puzzles
Good. Or rather, "no more puzzles you have to figure out out of character" is good. As for your ridiculous second statement, yeah, roll if you insist, but the DC is far beyond what you could ever hope to have.

This.

This is the best course of action.

But nobody will listen to you because shitposting, being contrarian and assuming extreme positions is more fun.

Well
In the end
whats the issue with this?

The reason is that the player contributing more than rolling dice is the difference between a game worth remembering or not. Save the charisma rolls for of screen stuff or when something said could have good or bad consequences, but actually talking things though is what makes it a role playing game

>it is great when a potato plays the Einstein character
>it is great when someone who hasn't even seen a medical drama and just came out of a cave plays the group doctor
>it is great when the empty chair plays Face for our runners
>it is great when the CoD kid takes the leadership trait and thinks it makes him bullet proof
You picked the wrong slope of the bell-curve, friendo.

This is a problem that I've been toying around, trying to find a solution to on my off hours.

The main core of the problem is that there's a clear divide between personal and physical stats, and how it affects the game between player and character. A player cannot directly manifest his physical strength or dexterity on the game world itself. He might be able to cheat outside of the game by threatening the GM, but other than that, his physical stats exist ONLY inside of the world of the game and determines how he physically interacts with it.

The problem with the personal stats is that they are in fact directly influenced by the mental facilities of the player in question. A jock could roll an 18 in Int, Wis, and Cha, but his character will wind up sounding like a "bro" douchebag dumbass who can't solve the simplest problem. Likewise, you could have some math nerd who plays too much stratego roll up a 3 in all personal stats, but he's still going to solve whatever riddle you throw at him. If his social engineering or acting is good enough, he might pretend that he doesn't know, but it's hard to convey this through the medium of a game played by basement dwelling neckbeards.

Solution:
Change Int, Wis, and Cha into Magic, Spirit, Magnetism.
Magic is how affluent you are with magical forces.
Spirit is how affluent you are with spiritual forces.
Magnetism affects how NPCs initially react to you, something that is beyond your real control. An NPC might look at you and decide you're a bad person if your magnetism is too low. Someone with high magnetism might be able to get a crowd to quiet down quickly to listen to what he says. Someone with low magnetism might say something, but his posture and outward appearance/look might change the perception of how the NPC takes it.

This opens up avenues for gameplay that are based on player actions as opposed to "roll it" while creating a very clear divide on which stat influences what in the space of the game world.

>the DC is far beyond what you could ever hope to have
I remember a post about characters with absurdly high WIS, in the 40s or 50s. Their intuition was beyond anything any mere mortal could ever hope to achieve, and, conceivably, they would be able to predict the course of events well into the future. The GM simulated this by allowing them to retroactively change their actions subject to a roll with an absurdly high DC ("I already knew he was going to pretend to die and even make a mock funeral complete with his apparently dead body and a mock coffin with an in-built teleport, so I have already located the coffinmaker he contracted and slipped in an antimagic field generator so he will suffocate for real).

>Completely misses the point

You present this like it's an inherently ridiculous idea, but what's wrong with this? If the high-INT Wizard is dealing with an in-game, in-universe logic puzzle, then he most certainly should be able to call on his logical prowess to overcome it if the Wizard's player can't.

And while you presented the second one as some ridiculous "slippery slope," there's actually nothing wrong the Druid rolling their WIS for insight into people's motives and goals, either. The Druid is wise as a fact of the game world, and should definitely be able to call upon this for acts of in-world wisdom. This should definitely include being able to identify hidden elements of the villain's plot if the roll is high enough. Sorry if that spoils your special twist, but the Druid is probably more clever and perceptive than you OR the player. So is your villain, for that matter, which is why the DC should probably be set accordingly.

Ultimately the only reason why you present these things as inherently ridiculous is because you've made fallacious assumptions about how a game is "supposed" to work. Ideally, a high INT character should bypass your puzzles and a high WIS character should see through your NPCs plots.

You're right, the player should have to go lift a heavy gate too

>assuming that tactical knowledge always wins

If being a GM teaches you anything, it's that someone can foil your best-laid plans entirely by accident, and they probably will. A roll like that would tell you what maneuvers are common for that situation, but it won't help you if your opponent happens to do the wrong thing or if you're simply outmatched.

>push-ups to attack
>not playing whack-a-mole for tohit
>not hitting one of those strength testers to determine damage

Wow who would have thought that people want to pretend to be what they aren't in real life. Guess that's why everyone plays fat autistic neckbeards right?

Reminding players of facts their characters would definitely know might be called for if you're forgiving of absentminded players. But never, ever call for rolling dice as the only way to get them out of a jam. If something MUST happen, for whatever reason (and this is a mark of bad adventure design, but it does happen,) do not leave it up to the dice! Just have it happen. If it's up to the dice, there should be a way forward no matter what the dice end up rolling. Even if it means a tpk, that's a way forward for the plot, in a sense. If there's a chance the players won't come up with a certain idea, let there be negative consequences that aren't just "they remain stuck in a dead end."

>CAR

This made me laugh more than it should have.

>You present this like it's an inherently ridiculous idea, but what's wrong with this? If the high-INT Wizard is dealing with an in-game, in-universe logic puzzle, then he most certainly should be able to call on his logical prowess to overcome it if the Wizard's player can't.

It's kinda funny that the most iconic puzzle I can think of in books is NOT one I could reasonably expect players to figure out themselves if left at it.

Speak Friend and Enter.

It's relying on players somehow knowing the Elven word for friend and thinking that it's the correct phrase to get into DWARVEN mines. While it makes sense retroactively, I don't know how many players would get it in a reasonable timeframe.

I just allow them to make appropriate mental/social checks and give them tidbits of advice or hints based on the result.

Often I will make these checks for them with concealed rolls.

This is stupid.

You are stupid.

Explain.

>And while you presented the second one as some ridiculous "slippery slope," there's actually nothing wrong the Druid rolling their WIS for insight into people's motives and goals, either. The Druid is wise as a fact of the game world, and should definitely be able to call upon this for acts of in-world wisdom. This should definitely include being able to identify hidden elements of the villain's plot if the roll is high enough. Sorry if that spoils your special twist, but the Druid is probably more clever and perceptive than you OR the player. So is your villain, for that matter, which is why the DC should probably be set accordingly.
One REALLY important thing when DMing is to remember that insight and intuition can also be wrong. I don't mean to suggest "fuck you you passed the check but here's a lie" because that's bullcrap. But if a player is trying to intuit something, they shouldn't know the roll and they shouldn't know if they passed or failed. And if they fail, they don't get "you fail to be intuitive", they should be getting "you're starting to think the barkeep is lying about where the invisible golem lies in ambush" instead of a more accurate "you're starting to think the barkeep is lying about there being an invisible golem". Or a real botch could lead to telling the player something even more wrong.

>>Well, I'm out of ideas. Hey GM, can I roll to see if my wizard can figure something out?

Intelligence =/= Creativity

Someone put this post in a fucking frame.

This is literally what the knowledge skill is for.
>Hey DM I'm confused. What do I know about chasms?
>DM: Roll Knowledge(Large Holes)
>25!
>DM: You are aware that large holes can be crossed by creating a bridge.
>Well we do have these large planks of wood around...

>Letting them RP as their IRL weakness is the same as denying them any agency

Nice reductio ad absurdum. Roll to see how hard you cry.

/thread

Well yeah, the players come up with an idea of how to do something, the GM tells them how it goes. The GM can't tell them what they do and how they do it. Then you're just reading a really weird choose your own adventure book.

Well you would listen to someone with a nice car wouldn't you?

Posting for relevance

I meant you're still the agent of their actions. You can play a hyper-atractive, smooth talking, bluff master of a bard but I'm still gonna need the PLAYER to tell me what he bluffs with.

It doesn't have to be some Fletch-tier shit, just give me something decent and then roll to see how well it works. It's more fun than "I bluff him into thinking I'm captain of the guard......22". ROLEplay it a bit and I'll cut you plenty of slack for not actually being very good at bluffing.

Also, Grognard? First time I've ever been called that

>"I bluff him into thinking I'm captain of the guard"
>the player then rolls and sees if it works
This is good enough. You can add more detail if you want, but you don't have to.

One of the big problems here is the action itself. Combat is integrated into the rules itself, as is checks related to it.

Meanwhile, social and mental problems often have little to no mechanical interaction, and are based almost entirely around player interaction.

i don't know if there's a social solution to this, but as far as puzzles and mental tests are involved, the solution is to make the puzzle exist as an actual encounter, with rules and interaction. That way, a character can exert their stats on a problem without reducing it to a single die roll, and if the system is robust enough, leave room for clever strategies and choices.

INT, WIS, and CHA determine more on your character sheet than what you've boiled them down to. Depending on edition you now have things like Magic determining skills, Spiritual affluence granting AC, and Sorcerers throwing fireballs because they give off a good first impression.

The stats are meant to be vague approximations of mental acuities because they determine a lot of different effects.

I just figured people would want to escape from reality in a fantasy game, silly me

Escaping from reality isn't pretending your greatest weakness is now your greatest strength, as a matter of fact you would want to avoid your greatest weakness at all costs so as not to spoil your immersion. You aren't silly, just inexperienced with actual groups and intellectually dishonest in your rhetoric.

It's ok.

If you say you're against metagaming and then force your players to use their own skills to solve ingame problems, you're a hypocrite.

That's only a modern interpretation of them though, and one that could more easily be circumnavigated through any dozen of other options that other systems used that aren't married to the idea of an "Intelligence" stat.

You're right that this won't work in certain editions if you literally just transform and stick it in as I've written it, however, the core function of the system, as it is, is flawed. Building off of a flawed system in and of itself will draw in more flaws.

I personally believe that skill systems in and of themselves are flawed as well, but if you wanted to, say, use this system in 5e and wanted to keep the skill system in place, then you could instead tie it mechanically to the background and personality system (traits, flaws, ideals, and personality) mechanically. You can move the personality skills into straight up proficiency like a tool kit. You can also ad-hoc in a semi-skill system by giving all players a number of points to pump into a skill every so often and divorce stats from them (but 5e players are afraid of anything that sounds too much like 3rd, so that will probably not fly).

Honestly, these solutions probably won't work perfectly, but this is my bias against skill systems in general, as I honestly play games without them. But I think that there could be a solution if you really wanted to force it.

My main point is though that using INT, WIS, and CHA by themselves as-is is quite flawed to begin with.

If you're a DM and you make some sort of arbitrary gate that no one can get past unless they use one single convoluted result and just say "nope nope nope" every time the players try something that's not the one and only solution then you might just be a shitty DM that plays too many console games.

This is a fantastic way to clearly express the reasoning that vaguely forms each time this question comes up.

So you're not actually looking to propose a viable alternative you're just trying to make it into a different game.

Got it, opinion discarded.

>Implying research into different systems cannot help out with developing current systems better.

You're right. I'm not looking into making a viable alternative for YOUR game, I'm looking for a viable alternative to MY game, but if you want to stick your fingers into your ears and ignore the problems with your sinking ship, by all means.

So you start with a germane suggestion (have mental stats purely represent things that no player can do at the table, like magic, leaving mundane intelligence and social skills to be roleplayed by the player with no numbers behind them) and then go on to suggest a large number of clunky changes completely unrelated to your original point. You defend all this by vaguely accusing skill systems of being "flawed" without going into detail, with all the smugness of someone who wants to tell you how he doesn't own a TV.

Stop now before you dig yourself any deeper.

I can ask him how he explains *something unusual for guard captain*

>and then go on to suggest a large number of clunky changes completely unrelated to your original point.
You're right, but that was because I was defending myself from another user calling me stupid because he couldn't shoehorn it into a system that marries stats and skill systems together that makes it difficult to divorce without chunkiness. One that I freely admit that I have little interest in developing for.

The original point was that the original stat system is flawed because it uses two sets of stats that interact with the game in completely separate ways and influence player decisions in the real world.

>You defend all this by vaguely accusing skill systems of being "flawed" without going into detail
Because going into why the skill system is flawed is not pertinent information to the thread, and is a frequent occurring discussion amongst the RPG community. Had I expounded on the position, you would have accused me of rambling, or even worse, not read the essay I would have typed up into the browser going over things that many of us know.

If you want details, sure, I'll explain them, but I'm not going to volunteer pointless information to it without warrant.

>with all the smugness
If you think anything I've said so far is smug, you either have too much emotional investment in what you're playing, or you're stupid.

>Stop now before you dig yourself any deeper.
How about think for once in your life?

Dude, just give me a sentence or two.

"Don't you know who I am? I'm Captain Danson you fool!"

It's not asking much.

But then basically any high strength character is out the window 90%of the time since this hobby is mostly made up of flabby weebs

Severely underrated post.

>It's bad when an urban kid that's never had an opportunity to leave the city roleplays a nature-loving druid.
>It's bad when a skinny kid with health issues roleplays as a half-orc barbarian.
>It's bad when a chubby, clumsy lad that's overfed by his parents roleplays as an elven rogue.

Just accept that people are going to be interested in exploring things that they are not and taking the opportunity to try and be something other than themselves and with skills that they don't lack while they're delving in fantasy.
If you're that offended when someone's not able to properly imitate charisma when roleplaying as the party face or doesn't correctly describe their fighting technique when roleplaying as a fighter, then either cool down your autism and suspend your disbelief a little or find a hobby that you won't have to share with people that you find to be offensive.

Your beef with the idea of skill systems is already pointless information. It's not relevant to what we're talking about. That other user is simply wrong; you don't need to weaken your original argument and bring up lots of irrelevant information to try to gainsay him. It makes it look like you're looking for an excuse to bring up your pet grievances with D&D as though they made you an original thinker somehow.

That's the kind of people who I don't think should even consider roleplaying.

>being this triggered
>all that phone-posting word salad

Cool buzzwords.

>Your beef with the idea of skill systems is already pointless information. It's not relevant to what we're talking about.
Incorrect on it's basis. The original call out was because the system I propose did not specifically work with skill systems written as is. I must freely admit that I do not develop for such systems, and the reason for why is immediately relevant to this. And yes, I must acknowledge this fact because there are more systems than 3e, 4e, and 5e out there, many of which do not USE any skill system whatsoever.

>It makes it look like you're looking for an excuse to bring up your pet grievances with D&D as though they made you an original thinker somehow.
Obviously by the concession that many RPG communities openly discuss skill systems and their problems inherent means that I do not think this whatsoever.

Regardless, you're right that I do not have to gainsay him, but why would I sit on something I believe solves a problem that many people are having with a core system that is easily solved, and then not try to convince people of the benefits to divorcing all stats from player skill? That's what the thread is about, isn't it?

And as I said before, I do believe that a solution CAN be found in skill-based systems such as post-WotC D&D, but I admit I am not really qualified to do so because, again, I do not develop for them.

In summary: I presented a solution for a core system which works for a multitude of reasons. It is important to recognize there are problems with it working as-is in skill-based systems, but I am not qualified, nor interested, in making those systems work, which is a caveat emptor for people who are interested in the system.

>no earmarks of phone posting at all
Shitposting just makes you look like a retard.
This, basically. Hell, one of my players is fairly big, but plays exclusively skinny dudes for the exact reason of he wants to play something he won't be, and he knows that is why.

>"urban kid"
You are one to talk about buzzwords...

Would you rather use "city boy"?

>is so engulfed by the smartphone culture he can't tell phone posting anymore
Your player isn't fairly big, he is a fatass. Also, you are siding with a strawman formed of abductio ad absurdum, so don't go pointing the retard finger, retard.

>buzzwords
We know what you meant, but your guilt wont let you say it.

Intelligent wizard should be able to solve the puzzles. Wise druid should be able to predict future. What's the matter with that? I'll say more: on my games, you roll in social situations first, and then you roleplay out the results, not the other way around.

>Your player isn't fairly big, he is a fatass
Actually, no, he's 250 and 6'5".
He's technically obese, but he isn't fat, but thanks for playing.
>We know what you meant
In the real world, user, there are more than poor blacks and hispanics in major city sprawls that have never seen a mountain or rural area.
You are projecting like a motherfucker.

I'm saying that as someone that grew up in a city. One guy that I roleplayed with had never seen any animal larger than a dog. The most trees he had ever seen was in a park.

It's something I've got personal experience with.

>dude rollplaying haha just throw the bones man we dont need to think haha NAT 20 EPIC REDDIT KARMA INCOMING!

Just tie the noose OP, rollplayers are nothing more than glorified videogaming screen staring troglodytes without any insight into what has made this hobby enjoyable since it's inception. God forbid the GM put some fucking thought into the challenges he expects you to overcome. Why even bother having a GM at all? Might as well just pull your GM's pants down, and fuck him raw since you're already buttfucking everything he's worked on. Just take him to the side and bludgeon him to death and start throwing d20s across the room while pulling the story straight from your ass about how some wacky random thing just happened because you couldn't rub your braincells together to come up with a way across the chasm.

>boohoo hoo i cant figure out the puzzle GM can i roll the dice and expect metaknowledge to rain from the sky to save my dumb ass?