INT, WIS and CHA

[apparition13]

Unlike the three physical stats, the three mental ones are problematic. A player's actual strength, constitution or dexterity has no impact on a their character's strength, constitution or dexterity; this isn't the case with regards to intelligence, wisdom and charisma. It is easy for a 90 pound 13 year old to portray 18 strength character; it is not easy for a shy 13 year old to portray an 18 charisma 40 year old man or woman of the world. The problem is that the players intelligence, wisdom and charisma interacts with that of the character.

A typical solution is to roll the dice to determine the effects of social interaction, but that seems antithetical to the ODD playstyle. If you want to convince the guards to let you pass, you should play it out not rely on dice.

A simple option would simply be to drop them, but that leaves MUs and Clerics with no primary stats, so what I'm proposing is to replace them with stats that can be primary stats but that will not have the problem of overlapping with player ability; that can be clearly differentiated as character and not player abilities just like the physical stats.

Int can simply be replaced with something representing magical aptitude, though I'm unsure what else to call it. "Magic" is a possibility, but I'm unhappy with it.

Wis could be Faith or Piety or something along those lines, but I'm seeing it less as belief or behavior than potential to connect with divinity, so it's really something like divine spark or some-such. I hope that isn't too unclear; ctually, unfortunately it also lacks a clear name. (Actually, I suppose "divinity" could work.)

Cha is the real problem, since it isn't tied to a Class like Wis and Int are. Any suggestions, besides simply dropping it?

Brainstorming input, comments, reservations and so forth are all welcome.

[makofan]

About CHA:

I think one of the things that is missing from a lot of games nowadays is retainers/hirelings/flunkies. In my D&D, and old D&D I think, it was implicit that hiring men-at-arms and charming monsters was de rigeur. Thus, the Morale bonus and Reaction adjustnment work just fine as they are.

[Finarvyn]

We actually discussed some of this back in an ancient thread called Non Combat Statistics. I think that it's important to find good uses for all six of the stats and not just the three obvious combat ones, but sadly this often is a function of campaign style. If you have a highly social city campaign, for example, charisma will probably come into play more often than in a dungeon crawl.

[foster1941]

Think of Int as mnemonic, Wis as willpower, and Cha as personal magnetism. Int determines how many languages (and spells, if you're using Supp I) you can learn and may provide a bonus when the character is trying to remember some detail that the player has forgotten, but logical thinking, problem-solving ability, and tactical acumen come from the player. Wis can provide a saving throw bonus (fairly common house-rule) and is an aid to clerics (representing the strength and conviction of their faith), but judgment, perspective, and strategic thinking come from the player. Cha determines how well others naturally tend to like the character based on non-verbal cues, but how he uses (or overcomes) that is up to the player.

I've never had any problem combining the character's charisma score with the player's speaking ability -- the player says what he says and the Cha score determines whether the audience views it through a positive or negative filter: a high-Cha character with a shy or verbally inept player still comes off as humble and sincere (think Gary Cooper as Sgt. York) whereas a low-Cha character with a slick and eloquent player still comes off as cloying or shifty (think of a stereotypical bad used-car salesman). This isn't hard to manage in-game at all, at least with a GM who knows what he's doing.

[Geiger]

Jun 7, 2008 10:42:54 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

I've never had any problem combining the character's charisma score with the player's speaking ability -- the player says what he says and the Cha score determines whether the audience views it through a positive or negative filter: a high-Cha character with a shy or verbally inept player still comes off as humble and sincere (think Gary Cooper as Sgt. York) whereas a low-Cha character with a slick and eloquent player still comes off as cloying or shifty (think of a stereotypical bad used-car salesman). This isn't hard to manage in-game at all, at least with a GM who knows what he's doing.

This is so true in real life. I can think of many times when what I said sounded so much more better in my head, but after it comes out it clearly wasn't even close to what I intended to say!

[apparition13]

Jun 7, 2008 5:14:38 GMT -6 makofan said:

About CHA:

I think one of the things that is missing from a lot of games nowadays is retainers/hirelings/flunkies. In my D&D, and old D&D I think, it was implicit that hiring men-at-arms and charming monsters was de rigeur. Thus, the Morale bonus and Reaction adjustment work just fine as they are.

Why not just roleplay it, or if you want to do a check, give bonuses or penalties for character actions (what they do and say), possessions (are you wearing your parade armor?), qualities (...Baron of the Western Marches) and so forth? If the character has demonstrated concern for the hirelings, has treated them fairly, has lead them to success, has gotten them out jams before, why roll morale rather than just say they follow you? If they've been mistreated, haven't been paid, and have seen others thrown away as canon fodder, why roll rather than say they run away?

Jun 7, 2008 10:42:54 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Think of Int as mnemonic, Wis as willpower, and Cha as personal magnetism. Int determines how many languages (and spells, if you're using Supp I) you can learn and may provide a bonus when the character is trying to remember some detail that the player has forgotten, but logical thinking, problem-solving ability, and tactical acumen come from the player. Wis can provide a saving throw bonus (fairly common house-rule) and is an aid to clerics (representing the strength and conviction of their faith), but judgment, perspective, and strategic thinking come from the player. Cha determines how well others naturally tend to like the character based on non-verbal cues, but how he uses (or overcomes) that is up to the player.

What I may not have been communicating as clearly as I thought was that since the game effects of the three stats don't correspond to the standard usage of the words, maybe it would make sense to change the labels attached to those game effects so as to avoid "my character's smarter than that" or "I have an 18 charisma, I can seduce anyone I want" or "dude, you have a 6 intelligence, you can't come up with that plan". If Int means "that quality MUs have" rather than "IQ", why call it Int? If you change the labels to something that applies purely in game, then you avoid the player/character attribute dissonance.

Morale checks may make sense in Chainmail or Warhammer, do they make sense in ODD?

I've never had any problem combining the character's charisma score with the player's speaking ability -- the player says what he says and the Cha score determines whether the audience views it through a positive or negative filter: a high-Cha character with a shy or verbally inept player still comes off as humble and sincere (think Gary Cooper as Sgt. York) whereas a low-Cha character with a slick and eloquent player still comes off as cloying or shifty (think of a stereotypical bad used-car salesman). This isn't hard to manage in-game at all, at least with a GM who knows what he's doing.

Somewhat like good stuff/bad stuff from Amber, right? So (an exaggerated example) if the player makes a rousing speech before battle, "once more into the breach" or "we shall meet them on the beaches" for a character with a 6 Charisma it will hurt morale, while if the player says "umm, charge?" for a character with a 17 charisma it would get thunderous applause?

That's the disconnect I'm talking about. The player does something, but doesn't get the effect the action should to produce. Given that, why not change the label on the game effect to eliminate the disconnect?

I'm also not saying anyone should do this; it's just a topic I think is interesting and could make good discussion fodder.

[ffilz]

I like Trent's idea. The thought is the player expresses intent (just like he does in combat), but the dice determine effect. It still gets the players role playing (because they have to express their intent), but allows the scores to have meaning.

Of course that works great for charisma, less so for intelligence and wisdom. But, you can still make use of intelligence and wisdom that way if you want. Pick out the players intent from his stated action, and use intelligence or wisdom to determine success.

I think the real danger in not having attributes and dice and rules be meaningful is that all too often GM favoritism comes into play. Of course you can never eliminate GM favoritism, but you can set things up so that it's more constrained to the scope of the game and less to individual events in play.

Frank

[coffee]

Jun 8, 2008 22:59:37 GMT -6 ffilz said:

I think the real danger in not having attributes and dice and rules be meaningful is that all too often GM favoritism comes into play. Of course you can never eliminate GM favoritism, but you can set things up so that it's more constrained to the scope of the game and less to individual events in play.

Very true, Frank, very true.

I was in a game where there was a young guy. Smart, witty, funny, creative. Even though the DM was the guy that brought him in to the group, something about his bothered that DM. No matter what idea he had, even the really good ones, the DM wouldn't let them get by; he'd always dig up a way to slap that guy around. Contrast with me, for instance; I could come up with a plan almost as good, and it would go off without a hitch. (And the DM's wife could perform absolute miracles, but that's another rant altogether...)

So yes, favoritism is something we, as responsible DMs, have to be on the lookout for. Even if you don't like a player (and we've almost all had that sort, haven't we?), you need to reflect his stats in your game world.

(Of course, if he's that unlikeable, it usually doesn't matter what his stats are; ultimately he'll tick somebody off bad enough that his 16 charisma can't save him...)

[foster1941]

Jun 8, 2008 22:59:37 GMT -6 ffilz said:

Of course that works great for charisma, less so for intelligence and wisdom. But, you can still make use of intelligence and wisdom that way if you want. Pick out the players intent from his stated action, and use intelligence or wisdom to determine success.

The way I'd use Int in this way would be, for instance, if the character was trying to remember some detail (somebody's name, or the relationship between two NPCs, or if a set of glyphs are familiar, etc.) that the player had forgotten. If the character has a high Int score I will, as GM, either give the player hints or outright tell him the answer, but if he has a low Int score it's up to the player to remember things (which means a smart player could "game" having a dumb character, but since I don't allow players to choose where their stats go, and since there are other tangible benefits to having a good Int (languages, XP for mages) I don't see this as too big a problem -- another way around this is that if the player with the 6 Int character remembers something or figures out the puzzle, I might declare that in-game it must have actually been a higher-Int character who did so).

Wis is tougher because, unlike Int or Cha, it doesn't have any defined quantified in-game effect (except XP for clerics). Giving high Wis characters a bonus (and low-Wis characters a penalty) against mind-effecting spells (charm, delusion, etc.) is a common house rule (that of course became official in AD&D and Moldvay+ Classic D&D). I'll also occasionally use Wisdom to give hints or advice if a player with an ostensibly his-Wis character is about to do something that I as GM think is particularly foolish. The same thing about putting one player's words into another character's mouth mentioned above for Int might also apply here -- if a player with a Wis 4 character comes up with a good plan or makes a particularly cogent observation we'll "edit the mental scene" to put those words into the mouth of a higher-Wis character if possible & appropriate.

And, leaving all of this aside, there's the non-mechanical "gentlemen's agreement" that the player should generally at least make an attempt to portray his character in keeping with that character's stats -- with low stats, but with high ones too -- if you've got a high-Int character you should probably take more notes and try to pay attention and think logically about things; if you've got a high-Wis character you should try to look at the bigger picture and not act rashly, if you've got a high-Cha character you should make at least some attempt to behave in an engaging manner. Yeah, there's nothing mechanical to mandate or reward this, but it's just "understood" as part of the game, just like if you're playing an elf you should try to act at least a little "elfy," if you're playing a mage you should act at least a little "wizardy," and so on.

[ffilz]

I've always liked giving the players hints as a way to give benefit to high stats. One idea too to encourage role playing is to encourage players to give each other hints and help them role play. So if you have a somewhat foolish player running a high wisdom PC, the other players can suggest modifying his actions. The reverse could also be true for low stats (though I think it's worth discouraging disruptive role play of low stats - I have seen players cause all sorts of trouble and cause other PCs to die justified by "my PC has a 3 wisdom" - those are the same sorts of players who loved to play Kender...).

Frank

[apeloverage]

Tunnels & Trolls doesn't have Wisdom, but does have Luck.

If you define luck as the favour of the gods, it makes sense that a cleric should have a high amount of it.

Alternatively, you could define Wisdom as 'common sense', and apply it to such things as money management between games ('sorry, you drank away all the treasure last time' - which is also good genre-emulation).

[apeloverage]

In my play-by-post Basic game, I made Wisdom apply to everyone's XP - so it's mainly whether you learn from your experiences.

I also made high Intelligence give any character (except elves) a bonus (a chance of extra spells for magic-users and clerics, a thief skill for everyone else) - so it's mainly your ability to learn.

[sham]

This is an interesting thread. INT and WIS are more problematic than CHA in my opinion. CHA has real in-game use as mentioned by Makofan, and I do use reaction, morale and hireling rules quite a bit IMC.

In the past, I always assumed INT was IQ, problem solving and learning capacity, while WIS was knowledge, the quality of being well-read, and education.

In medieval times, the Clergy were the well-read scholars and typically the protectors of the written word.

In fantasy terms, and in D&D terms, I think people assume that Magic Users are the book worms. Instead I tend to think of them as those men capable of understanding, deciphering and utilizing complex magical formulae through superior IQ.

MU-Mathematicians
Clerics-Scholars

I love the suggested WIS as a blanket EXP bonus modifer, and I might just yoink that idea and tailor it for a future Solstice project. It certainly makes sense.

For the OD&D three-pronged crown I am always harping about, I like the fact that STR-INT-WIS don't do much of anything bonus wise except as a prime requisite. CON-DEX-CHA all do their own little thing, and really in the OD&D system, I think CHA is a vastly impactful ability relative to the other five.

In terms of role-play, INT and WIS are a bit tricky. I've used WIS as a roll-play tool before, to see if someone might recognize or gather a basic understanding of some ancient writing, or recognize the relevance of some strange historical passage or reference. INT as IQ is very difficult to apply in RP terms, though.

These are the kinds of threads that make me like this forum so much; just reading about how other referees handle these situations is great brain food.

[ffilz]

One danger of using wisdom as a blanket xp bonus is that it makes a single attribute very valuable. This is typically the problem with many newer game systems, one or two attributes are much more valuable than others.

Good point about the attributes either being a prime requisite or something that gives a bonus.

Frank

[apeloverage]

Jun 10, 2008 8:37:58 GMT -6 ffilz said:

One danger of using wisdom as a blanket xp bonus is that it makes a single attribute very valuable. This is typically the problem with many newer game systems, one or two attributes are much more valuable than others.

In my game Wis doesn't really do anything else, so it's intended to be balanced, especially since the chance of being killed before you get to 2nd level is very high.

The idea is to make Wis and Int have entirely 'off-stage' effects, so that characters can make good or bad decisions and it doesn't conflict with their stats.