Eliminate all 'mental' stats from the game.

[bilbous]

So how can you account for the self-deluded boor who thinks he is the life of the party? He will expect to have legions of followers because in real life his daddies money buys a lot of sycophants. Like it or not people will always make judgments about the other people in game and character stats are purely for game mechanics. All the stats in the game could be replaced with other unrelated stats and all it would change is the way the game system gets designed. For example you could make the base stats Luck, Fortitude and Wit. All the skills would then be affected by whichever of these three stats was deemed to be relevant by the game designers.

If you doubt that the stats are for game mechanics try using your native charisma to get Harnquist to give you a free sword or a better price for your gold. It can't be done. It may eventually be implemented but that would be an advance in the game mechanics. You will never be able to successfully model human behavior with a few numbers. You must be able to suspend your disbelief at some point and do the best you can.

[Seytra]

No PMs, I could care less, if you have anything to say say it out here in the open or don't say it at all.

This is rather disappointing, to say the very least. I must say that you have just forfeited a great deal of respect and credibility with this statement.
Just so you know, I consider a PM a very polite and appropriate form of discussing things that involve merely two people, and are of no concern to anyone else. This is the case here.
You, OTOH, have stated that you are not interested in having a possible misunderstanding cleared up, and instead seem only interested in public bashing.

WRT the actual topic, I might as well add this:
As bilbous' post hints at, people in PS actually play two games: one which revolves around stats, and is hampered by their limited accuracy and required fairness and progression system, which exist solely for the purpose of preventing godmoding and, just like in any other RPG, they are doing a poor job at best (instead of instant maxedness, players need some time to get maxed, and afterwards their claims are backed up, making matters worse since noone can tell them to "tone it down" anymore: after all, they "earned" it.).
Anyway, the stats-based game involves the game mechanics and also the NPCs. It is more like a strategic simulation than anything else.
The other game is one about social interaction, which is as far removed from stats and items as it gets. Indeed it has similarities to a chatroom, but it also is more.
I do not see where you get the notion that IRC might be more appealing to "storytellers" than PS. PS appeals by being visual. It therefore removes the need for pages of text describing everything, and instead simply displays it (as one of the developers summed it up pretty well: "We don't need to tell a player that a barrel is a barrel."). This speeds things up, and removes abstraction. It also provides means of interaction other than text: emotes have animations and indeed can do without a system message. By being graphical, it also provokes more creativity in interacting with the world, although it limits it because of the engine. Still, it is much more efficient and pleasing to just augment the engine by using text, than having to do everything in text.

As has been argued all the time, both games in PS appeal to players. However, if the stat-based game's appeal overshadows the social games's appeal, then PS is not a good option for a player, because it has less to offer in that respect and will always limit this in order to not hamper the social game.

You also speak of challenges. The most enjoyable ones are those that require some thinking. It would be no fun if the system would do that for you. All RPGs I know of rely on the player's mental abilities for that, and only fall back to stats when an unbiased vote is required. If this were not so, then the quests would state what you have to do and say instead of letting you figure that out.

Leave the player at the door. You do not go out for a part ona play and then play yourself. Try and have some separation between you and your character.

It is perfectly valid to play yourself. The only thing you must do is to separate yourself from your character when it comes to what you know and what you don't know. Edit: and also in what others do to your char and not to you, though this distinction is invalid if the other player is a jerk and merely hides behind the character. /Edit

I agree that none here are ever going to be actors on the big or little screen but at the very least they can try, and if they just can't simple limitations based on the stats will help them along, ie strength vs what armor your character can wear.

Acting is so far removed from RP that it rightfully has a different name. The restrictions exist in order to prevent godmoding, which is however limited to things people do. A player can godmod their INT and CHA and WIL as much as they like, if others don't agree with it, or they can't pull it off, then the others ignore it. If you want to help people along, then you must not only limit, but also augment. Unless you can do that, you mustn't limit, either.

If you start taking out stats because they don't agree with how you want to play your character, then all the stats should go. The stats limit how a player structures their characters and defines how the character will interact in the game envrionment, no matter how brillant or strong the player might be in real life.

Yes, it is a crutch, not a panacea. If the crutch can be replaced by something better, then that is preferrable. I do not see need to go out of one's way to try to remove the mental stats, but it would be possible. In the end, it doesn't matter, since the game would still need to be based around something for the game mechanics to work. This is going to stay until there is an AI that deserves it's name (and in that case we are going to have a way bigger problem than the rift between game mechanics and RP).

As I said, people would simply set their mental stats to a level that allows them proper interaction with others. I am even convinced that, should this be implemented, the CC would issue a big fat warning like "WARNING! If you lower your INT any further, you will not be able to interact properly with others!".
Thus, I really don't see how enforcing INT on speech is going to improve RP. The only thing it is going to do is make people turn away from PS, and the rest will simply set their INT to a minimally usable level. This would then be nothing else than a minimum value. I might even say that only the worst PLs and PvPers, and a select few already good RPers, would use INT lower than the minimum level: the PLs and PvPers because they "communicate" by beating others up, and the RPers for the experience. I daresay, though, that this wouldn't be their main character. All in all, RPing still needs to be fun to the players, and if it would become a chore through added realism, then realism must be sacrificed.

[Under the moon]

I see now that it is rather pointless to continue addressing a person who could care less. So this is the last post I make to Source.

No enhancements, just detraction. It would be the coincidence if both the high INT character and your low INT character spoke at the same level but like the retard in RL playing that high INT character so too is your character in the game a retard and the detractions are there to keep that realisty in line. Your character never learnt to read or write and a hase a very basic vocabulary, why do you get to elevate his INT by yours, that goes against the role you chose to play, in this case of a retard. AND this is realistic.

Ok… not sure if I understood much of that. So, you are saying that we should limit the playing ability of an intelligent player until his character is smart enough. Horrid thought. But then you contradict yourself by saying a ‘retard’ in real life can also not (tries to decipher this part) play a high INT character because they are a ‘retard’. Excuse me, but THAT IS imparting real life personality and mental abilities onto a character in the game. If you have ‘detractions’ for players who do have the mental skills to play a smarter character, then you -must- also have enhancements for ‘retards’ who do not. What, are you going to require a test in Creation to gauge the limit of the player’s intelligence so that the character can not go beyond that? Ridiculous. Get rid of the stat, get rid of the problem.

BTW, you can get Internet reception in the woods? where?? I want to move there! the whole notion of Ted Kazinski in a one bedroom shack in the middle of nowhere with nobody around for miles had that one negative going for it  that all correspondace with the outside world was done through a manual typewriter, not worth the move, I'll stay a Urban Hermit. BUT if you know of a desolate woods someplace with excellant telecom reception, both in and out, satialite just wont cut it, Please spill the beans.

I live out in the country. I have Satellite. It works fine. Bigfoot could be playing PS, for all you know.

Leave the player at the door. You do not go out for a part ona play and then play yourself. Try and have some separation between you and your character. I agree that none here are ever going to be actors on the big or little screen but at the very least they can try, and if they just can't simple limitations based on the stats will help them along, ie strength vs what armor your character can wear.

Roleplaying is not acting. You missed the sarcasm. Acting is assuming a prewritten role that you can not step out of. Roleplaying is the free flowing playing of a person -you- create. I still do not understand why you keep bringing up strength. RPGs are mental games. You want to play strength, go outside.

If you start taking out stats because they don't agree with how you want to play your character, then all the stats should go. The stats limit how a player structures their characters and defines how the character will interact in the game envrionment, no matter how brillant or strong the player might be in real life

Wrong. As I have said before, a weak person can play a strong character ingame. An unintelligent player can -not- play a intelligent character.

I have to ask this. Do you, Unnamed_Source, look at your stats and play by exactly what they say? Will you stop training INT once your character reaches your real life IQ? Do you ever stop to think if your character is charismatic enough to be talking to the other characters around you in the way you do? Do you await the day when the server gives you a warning for using words that are ‘too big’ for your stupid character to know? Answer carefully, or be named hypocrite... Also, expect no PMs.

Feline Prince has hit the nail on the head on both accounts. Mental knowledge is not the same as personality traits. Knowledge, you can code. Your character will know how to do ‘this’ and do it, even if you can not. Personality, you can not code. Even if your character has the highest INT stat in the entire game, the player’s own intelligence is going to dictate how smart that character really acts.

bilbous, you once again prove my point. The self-deluded boor who thinks he is the life of the party is going to be treated exactly like a self-deluded boor who thinks he is the life of the party. It does not matter if he think he is. If he can not play that personality in the game, it just is not going to happen, no matter what stats you have.

Sure, you could get a better price for a sword if your character has higher CHA stat. But the instant you step out of the NPC tab, that CHA stat does not mean squat to other players. That is why the faction system should be used to judge if an NPC is influenced by you. If you have higher standing with an NPC, then he will be more likely to give you better deals or more information. If not, then you will be lucky if he answers you. That is basically how it works with other players. No more is needed.

Seytra, once again, a very well written post. I see you made many of the same points I did (but posted while I was still writing).

To clarify how I play to those whom do care: I do like physical stats, as they are how you interact with the physical ‘world’. I do like magic stats, as they allow you to do interesting things. I like skills, as that is what you teach your character to advance them. I do not like mental stats, as players can ‘max’ their character’s skills beyond their ability to play. I like leveling… in other games, and if the character I am playing has the personallity to want to get better in skills. In PS, the leveling system sucks, to be blunt. I like creating characters… but not using Creation in PS, as it is horrid, controlling, unrealistic, and limited. I like doing quests that allow me to stay in character. I do not like PS’s single player RPG type quests. I do not just “stand around talking” in PS. In my RPs, I actually do play to, and use the physical stats my character has, and try to get other to ‘roll’ by theirs as well. I like fighting in RPGs, but do not fight in PS because I can not stand the leveling system, or the form of Dash-n-slash, three-point-turn combat. I have never ‘RPed’ a fight, as those are skills my character knows, and should be controlled by game mechanics. I dislike RPing in IRC or a chatroom, and do not even like MUDS or Text based games. I want to see the world.

The list could go on in great detail, but there are likely more people that do not care than do, and that belongs in General anyways.

* Under the moon bows out.

Edit* I would like to clearify something I wrote about quests. It is the single player nature of the quests in the multi-player world that I do not like, not the quests themselves. In a single player game, the quests I tried out would rock.

[Unnamed_Source]

This is rather disappointing, to say the very least. I must say that you have just forfeited a great deal of respect and credibility with this statement.

This is another issue I could care less about, your opinion of me, as last I checked this is NOT the Unnamed_source forum but indeed it is the Planshift Forum.  I come here to discuss things  about the game and nothing else, so stick to the subject. If you can't share it with in the public arena, I really don't want to hear of it either.

Just so you know, I consider a PM a very polite and appropriate form of discussing things that involve merely two people, and are of no concern to anyone else. This is the case here.

Oh no, that's where your are wrong, that is certainly not the case here. And my statement holds true, I don't care what where you come from, I don't care what you do, and I don't care what you had for lunch. I come here to discuss about the game nothing else, So stick to the subject. The only thing I use PMs for it to test things out before posting them on the board, mainly for the game issue questions.

You, OTOH, have stated that you are not interested in having a possible misunderstanding cleared up, and instead seem only interested in public bashing.

This is a debate about the game, the two of use aren't the ones deciding on how to code this VR, so what is the point it taking this private? None, since only the ideas that come onto this forum may possibly make it onto the game, how will a private conversation make that goal? That staement also made it clear, what ever conceived misunderstanding the other party may have with me, they should keep to themselves, cause I wouldnt bother to have one with them, there is not point to that.

I do not see where you get the notion that IRC might be more appealing to "storytellers" than PS.

As you said it your self, what "storyteller" covet is a plavce to chat, a chatroom. What you might not be aware of, is there are VR chatrooms, an IRC with avatars. But the point of the statement was it's a chatroom, nothing more nothing less, that this kind of "storytellers" want. Yes, a VR chatroom, with nothing else to get in the way of their chats(or what they call RP).

As has been argued all the time, both games in PS appeal to players. However, if the stat-based game's appeal overshadows the social games's appeal, then PS is not a good option for a player, because it has less to offer in that respect and will always limit this in order to not hamper the social game.

The social game will happen no matter what the code imposes, the only thing that will kill it is making PS a stand alone console game. By make it a little difficult to chat, you will get rid of those that do nothing but sit on their butts and type all day long, but like those that like to kill thing that can't wear Medium armor straight off the bat, so too do the the chatters have to give a little effort to get what they want out of the game.

You also speak of challenges. The most enjoyable ones are those that require some thinking. It would be no fun if the system would do that for you. All RPGs I know of rely on the player's mental abilities for that, and only fall back to stats when an unbiased vote is required.

Right, and if before you could get to those challanges the game checked to see if your character could solve them, THEN allow you the player to see the puzzle. Hay that works.

It is perfectly valid to play yourself.

Oh wait, I misjudged you, you're an elf in real life.. Oh wait, no, a dwarf, NO! wrong again, a giant smurf... Oh no, pointed ears and fur, you're a human sized cat.

The only thing you must do is to separate yourself from your character when it comes to what you know and what you don't know.

Correction: you must seperate what your CHARACTER knows and what your CHARACTER doesn't know. Keep the Player out of the equation.

[/quote]

Acting is so far removed from RP that it rightfully has a different name.

OH no, that statement contradicts itself, how to Play a Role is a quintessential part of acting, or rather good acting. ie Play a Role = Role Play, one and the same.

The restrictions exist in order to prevent godmoding, which is however limited to things people do. A player can godmod their INT and CHA and WIL as much as they like, if others don't agree with it, or they can't pull it off, then the others ignore it.

True but also the one lacking the will to "godmod" will suffer the same fate or his buddies can ignore his character low intelligence and all the deficiencies tha come along with it, like speach impediments.

If you want to help people along, then you must not only limit, but also augment. Unless you can do that, you mustn't limit, either.

The augment is the end result, you work hard at getting your character to the stage you want it at and you'll enjoy the benefits that come along at that lofty goal. The "limits" are there as a separation between the haves and have nots, or in this case those that bothered to mold their character to what ever they wanted to role play and those that would rather live with the deficiencies that come along with low stats no skills and what ever else they think is bothersome.

As I said, people would simply set their mental stats to a level that allows them proper interaction with others. I am even convinced that, should this be implemented, the CC would issue a big fat warning like "WARNING! If you lower your INT any further, you will not be able to interact properly with others!".

You can lower your stats? I did not know that. All the same, whether you raise or happen to lower them, you still have to contend with the consequences. Lower your strength and you won't be able to wear that spiffy chainmail and have to resort to wearing that drab brown leather, but that is a decision you made for that character and you got to live with how that character looks. Same for the other stats, what ever their deficiencies might be.

Thus, I really don't see how enforcing INT on speech is going to improve RP.

It will improve as it enforces the notion that the games populace did not come out of a cookie cutter, that the room is not full of perfect super heros but there are others in the mix, old, young; smart, dumb; strong. weak. It enforces the ambiance of the game, as it is the stage onto which the Role Play is played out. Those others in the mix that are dumb will have to contend with a speach impediment. And thus add themselves to the ambiance.

The only thing it is going to do is make people turn away from PS, and the rest will simply set their INT to a minimally usable level.

Those that turn away, turn away because they cannot Play the Role, that chat is all the seek and thus since the game no longer makes chatting an easy task, yes they will leave. If they takr it upon themselves to gain but the minimum amount to chat, they would other wise miss out on all the other aspects of the game, all the same, since all they are willing to do is set minimal standards in order to chat, which is still the only activity they would be doing if there were no requirement.

Is that all you think PS is, a VR 3D chatroom?

the PLs and PvPers because they "communicate" by beating others up,

Actually the Power Levelers like to show off their goods, a reward from attaining high levels. In order to show off they need communication skills otehr than grunts and two sylibal words. The PKer like to taunt their victims after the kill, unless the two are using some chatroom, that is usually done in game and thus like the PowerLeveler if they want satisfaction they must learn to communicate through words.

All in all, RPing still needs to be fun to the players, and if it would become a chore through added realism, then realism must be sacrificed.

If it's free of challanges, it will be a bore right off the bat.If you make the chores fun and rewarding, they won't seem like work at all.

***I tried editing this post to include the comments by Under the moon but it reached past the 20000 character limit. My next post may seem out of context.

[Unnamed_Source]

I see now that it is rather pointless to continue addressing a person who could care less. So this is the last post I make to Source.

Oh so you really don't care about then game then, cause that is all I am here (in the forum) to discuss about. Now I wonder why you even post here if all you think is that it's pointless to discuss the game (in the forum). And mind you this is an open and very much public forum. PMs here are about as usefull as an unwriten idea.

Ok… not sure if I understood much of that. So, you are saying that we should limit the playing ability of an intelligent player until his character is smart enough. Horrid thought.

But why Horrid? is it because you HAVE TO adjust the levels of the character you are playing to suffice what ever critaria you may have towards this Role your are trying Playing. That you cannot just start playing this character right from the starting line with out a little work. If it's so Horrid, then all the stats should go, and why stop there, skill levels get in the way too of your "RP".

But then you contradict yourself by saying a ‘retard’ in real life can also not (tries to decipher this part) play a high INT character because they are a ‘retard’. Excuse me, but THAT IS imparting real life personality and mental abilities onto a character in the game.

Right, and because I'm a rocket scientist in real life I can then have the right to embue my intellegience onto a character so he can build an A-bomb and rack up the most PP in one push of a button.. Are you for real? I am sorry but to douse your illusions here. Even if the retard cannot play to the abilities of the Mensa player, that should not dectract from the character if the retard leveled his character int level to mirror the invers of the RL reality. The Mensa player is not the one in the game, his dumb character is, so the Mensas dumb character will suffer while retards character will propser in the game. On a social level, heck, that retard could be a jerk that cusses at everyone, still the game allows him to, while the Mensa that didn't bother to mold his character doesn't. Why, because its part of the game. and last I heard this IS a game and not a chatroom.

If you have ‘detractions’ for players who do have the mental skills to play a smarter character, then you -must- also have enhancements for ‘retards’ who do not. What, are you going to require a test in Creation to gauge the limit of the player’s intelligence so that the character can not go beyond that? Ridiculous. Get rid of the stat, get rid of the problem.

Everyone starts out wiht the same detractions, the enhancements come from leveling the stats. That is as far as any game can go. It's a harsh life that not eveyone can meet your standards of "RP" but the stats balance the game and starts eveyone with an even hand. Add race profiles to the mix and not everyone will be the combination Master wizard/fighter/thief. Add detractions and not all the races will excell at every thing. Get rid of this stat and you will make every character equal in this reguard. Every character is neither stupid nor smart but the same. The settings teams is sure gonna love this. Heckm why have different races, if they are all the same?

I live out in the country. I have Satellite. It works fine. Bigfoot could be playing PS, for all you know.

It is only a one way street with satilite, up loads you have to connect via a 56K modem, if you can even get the 56K. If bigfoot doesn't have a telephone connection, Bigfoot wil not be able to play PS. Again, Ted didn't have squat but a crummy old type writer and that is the cloest thing you can have for a modern day hermit. Plus I don't even want to hear the phone ring, just a T1 up and down speed in a log cabin.

Roleplaying is not acting. You missed the sarcasm. Acting is assuming a prewritten role that you can not step out of. Roleplaying is the free flowing playing of a person -you- create.

You have never witnessed improv?, There are plays where all the actors do is improvise, a setting is given to them and the ACT. Anyway, all the stats in this case, is your limited script, it is not giving you the dialog but it is giving you the setting from which you must Act/Role Play.

I still do not understand why you keep bringing up strength. RPGs are mental games. You want to play strength, go outside.

  Because my strength example is one of the few examples that are coded and everyone has been able to  come accross in the game. Please if you can think of some other stat requirement example, do share and help get me out of this rut

Wrong. As I have said before, a weak person can play a strong character ingame. An unintelligent player can -not- play a intelligent character.

Maybe, but neither should an player play intelligence with an unintelligent character. The stats determin that for the character, not the player, that is as far as the game is concerned and to my knowledge "RP" is part of the game. If the player cannot RP, so be it, the character on the other hand is not role playing, he is the role play or part of it anyway. If the character cannot step up to the performance the player wishes cause of the limit of the characters stats, then the player should not step in to compensate, that is not playing the character, that is playing as the player, which is not part of the role play.

When I am playing with you, I am not playing with some human on the other side of the planet, I am playing with a Kran, dumb witted Kran. And I expect nothing more than that from our conversations, Unfortunately you seem to like playing Intelligent Kransm that go against the settings of this realm and hopefully with time, code will prevent you from using your Kran for philosophical debates.

Now I have my other friend here, his character is an elf, A high intelligence elf at that. how do I know, cause he told me and because he is able to get through those difficult Intelligence checks. Now I know through our conversations that this guy is a complete imbecile in real life, but I can look past tht since my character adventuring with the intelliegent elf in PS and not the human imbecile some where on earth. Just as I can look past the issue with the charismatic devil, being a quadriplegic in RL makes waiting on his player to type ot a simple phrase a seem like forever. But the guy is sufficient enough in his macros to lead the 20 of us around with out a hitch. Unlike you that didn't train his Charisma and there for cannot even lead one of us around.

I have to ask this. Do you, Unnamed_Source, look at your stats and play by exactly what they say? Will you stop training INT once your character reaches your real life IQ? Do you ever stop to think if your character is charismatic enough to be talking to the other characters around you in the way you do? Do you await the day when the server gives you a warning for using words that are ‘too big’ for your stupid character to know? Answer carefully, or be named hypocrite

No body does, there are no rules or code to govern such actions, if the code for the strength requirement to wear medium armor was not in, do you think people would question that their low strength wouldn't be enough to wear it, No they'd wear it all the same, hence the low Int examples I gave should hold just as true. The low Int character should not be able to comprehend as much as the player can, yet everyone treats their characters like they themsleves are in the shoes, no matter the stats. Till, that is, when code steps in and makes it the rule. And Yes, I love my low Charisma cause I can talk the shit to everyone and it fits with his persona, guess what race he's not. As far as leading a bunch of NPC/PC around, till it is coded in that I can't, I will, just like everyone else. Now as long as intelligence keep not interfering the way it does, it will remain low, but once it is coded that I can't raise my smithing skills cause the character could not comprehend the next lesson, I will be the first to become the class genious. That and I'll then be able to keep on speaking with others in my rough and mean manner but now in full sentences.

... Also, expect no PMs.

Thanks, that's all that I'm asking

Feline Prince has hit the nail on the head on both accounts. Mental knowledge is not the same as personality traits. Knowledge, you can code. Your character will know how to do ‘this’ and do it, even if you can not. Personality, you can not code. Even if your character has the highest INT stat in the entire game, the player’s own intelligence is going to dictate how smart that character really acts.

No, the players own intelligence show the POTENTIAL of the character can be.

bilbous, you once again prove my point. The self-deluded boor who thinks he is the life of the party is going to be treated exactly like a self-deluded boor who thinks he is the life of the party. It does not matter if he think he is. If he can not play that personality in the game, it just is not going to happen, no matter what stats you have.

AND like wise, though you may hate to hear it, if your characters stats measure up to be the same boor, no matter how high in society the player may be. the character will still be a boor and through the code this should be reflected.

Sure, you could get a better price for a sword if your character has higher CHA stat. But the instant you step out of the NPC tab, that CHA stat does not mean squat to other players. That is why the faction system should be used to judge if an NPC is influenced by you. If you have higher standing with an NPC, then he will be more likely to give you better deals or more information. If not, then you will be lucky if he answers you. That is basically how it works with other players. No more is needed.

How would you come to getting a high level of asteem from a faction in order to get the deal or info? through quests, quests that should idealy be given to those that the NPC finds pleasing, hence where the charisma steps in. Like wise if your character is forced to speak 3 monosylible words per caridge return, show an ugly avatar, and let out a fart/belch every once in a while, others around you would be less likely to interact with you. Unfortunately those aspects would have to be forced because nobody will willfully act out that part. And that is how the stats would work in RP if everyone would play the part. Unfortunately no one does, they will even look past all the deficits and interact with the character like they were "normal" becuase they are playing with their buddy, the player, and not the character. Though it would bring atmosphere to the game and to what ever strangers there might be around.

To clarify how I play to those whom do care

Hay now, as long as you are ready to bare it all and lay it down for all to see, I'll give you my time. But don't confuse this with PMs, cause I will sooner delete, than read it. Unless it goes on to improving the game, I don't care and most PMs do diddley towards that goal. SO unless this is a solution to some bug or some such, I personally don't want it in my message box.

:  I do not like mental stats, as players can ‘max’ their character’s skills beyond their ability to play. ...  I like fighting in RPGs, but do not fight in PS because I can not stand the leveling system, or the form of Dash-n-slash, three-point-turn combat.

A bit of a contradiction there, you do not like the player influencing the character beyond the players ability. But you hate a fighting style that gives way for players with a better connection, macros and the players DEXTERITY to manuver mouse faster than you.. REALLY NOW?? You can't have it both ways, either we can fully engage as the player or be limited as the character. Come on now, in the one hand is the players influence of the character movement in battle and in the other is the players influence of the characters comprhensive smarts, they're exactly the same. Now either the player is fully immersed in the game and we get rid of the notion of a character and call them avatars, with no stats or anything that would impose a restriction on the player OR we have to reinforce the character so that the player is forced to play the game through the character. There is so little we can imbue to our characters but even that little bit detracts from the environment of the game as a whole.

Remove these stats and you will have smart Krans and high society dwarves in the end game, basically humans(race??) in costume. You will give everyone the equal chance to be what ever they are in RL, As the Player and Out of Character.

Might as well remove agility since the main use is succumbed by the quick action of keyboard and mouse by the player during fights.

While we're at it, might as well get rid of Will, since its an exostential part of intelligence and charisma, with a bit of endurance but its the inner soul  and mental type fortitude, borrowing from Intelligence and charaisma and it can be replaced by the player.

That leaves Endurance and Strength.

who's to say, me staying up 24/7 doesn't influence my characters endurance? heck he is running every where while most are asleep. yank endurance..

Strength.. lets see what can I come up with to get rid of that...

OR,
Keep them and then make sure people adhere to them.

But I' have come to the realization that I'm never going to convince you what's IC and what's OOC, So lets leave it at, I'm right and your wrong and leave it there...

[Feline Prince]

Please try to sum up your points instead of nit picking through others posts. We as the player in a Role Playing game should get to chose the personality of the role we play and not the computer because a computer can't simulate things that detailed and we don't want it to because then it just becomes a film if we don't have any input. Which would happen if the personality was controlled by the computer because its the personality which defines what decisions a character makes. The personality is defined by how intelligent, charismatic and wilful a character is among other things obviously but these are the things the system tries to represent. You still seem to be getting knowledge and intelligence mixed up but I can't think of an eloquent way to  describe the difference to you at this moment.

In regards to the PM argument, I feel you are being quite rude. It is useful to describe things to a particular person who doesn't quite understand something without taking the discussion on an off topic tangent as has happened here because of your abrupt rejection of UtM's offer to send you one. <- thats the sort of thing i would have sent in a PM if you accepted them.

[bilbous]

If you look at the history of role playing games, the stats system was always there for players to interact with the game masters environment. The players were equal to each other to the extent that no one player had more influence over the course of action than any other unless it was specifically built into the scenario's premise. Thus the paladin with the 18 charisma did not always get to order the magic-user with the 6 charisma around.

I think part of the problem here is that the purist Role Players have dropped the game component. Role Playing is something you do in an acting class or a psychologists sofa. A role playing game is something you do with your friends and isn't really the same thing. You are not trying to impress the teacher and get good marks or come to some understanding of your situation or that of others, you are trying to have fun within the strictures of the setting and the game mechanics and none of it is any more important than that.

I do not know how much this has to do with the rest of the discussion but it is an extension of what I have been saying all along. It may be inappropriate for the social skills to be reflected in interpersonal arrangements but the stats are all just for game mechanic purposes. It isn't perfect but that is the way it is.

If you were the brightest person sitting around a table with your friends and your character had low intelligence, would you not supply the answer to the riddle none of your friends could solve in order to prevent the ultimate destruction of the party? If you would I wouldn't want to be at the table with you. Even dumb people have brilliant ideas occasionally. The nature and context may not be the same but that is besides the point.

[Under the moon]

Bilbous, with pen and paper RPGs, you have a small group of players interacting with one live game master. They are skilled in the art of roleplaying, and can stay in the strict rules of roll imposed personality stats. If they try to go outside that, the game master can say, "No, I am not sure your character would think of that.", and they can debate if it is possible. Online RPGs have a completely different playerbase. The great majority can not stay in the character of preset personality stats, and will not enjoy being force into it. If there was a Humor stat, how many folks could adjust the way they play to coincide with the level of humor their character has? How many would -want- to? If the same set of strict personality rules from PnP RPGs were imposed on PS, this game would fail very fast.

If we have intelligence and charisma stats that should impose limits on a player, then why are there not bravery, arrogance, humor, honor, kindness, and all the other personality traits?

If everyone in the game could abide by, and -enjoy- limits based on personality traits, then I would not be opposed to it at all. The fact is, most people can not, and even fewer would enjoy it. I do not play a game to ‘work’. I play for enjoyment. I would bet most people play for the same reason.

I am not sure by the wording of your example, bilbous, if you would not sit at the same table with me if I let everybody perish or not. In a tabletop game, I would let everyone perish if my character could not know the answer, but I did. In an online RPG, that depends on what character I am playing, and what _I_ chose to let them know. Example: Hyuken was the holder of a stone that could have saved many people much misery for several weeks. I knew exactly what had to be done to use that stone. Hyuken just thought it was a pretty stone. Jagk, however, knew exactly how to use it, but would not tell anyone until he was paid well. In both cases, everyone would have perished if they did not figure it out. But I do not have the ‘hero’ complex that makes me want to solve everything, like is so common in other players. I just play the role and personality that I create, and leave the physical stats up to the code.

Unnamed_Source, you once again assume you know me and what I consider ‘RP’, and once again prove you don’t know a damn thing about either, as well as other things.

You do not seem to have the intelligence to comprehend that most people do not have the ability to play personally traits that they do not posses. You say smart people should be forced to talk ‘retarded’ if their character is ‘retarded’. So, why are you not saying a ‘retarded’ player should not be forced to talk in an intelligent way if their character is maxed in INT?

(non-English speaking) Player says: Who nows whut you can do MXed INT wit this stat?

System message: You are not roleplaying your INT stat correctly. Please use larger words and more appropriate syntax. Non-compliance will auto-ban you.

Why are you not saying a dumb player should not be forced to know the answer to a riddle, or know just what to say to an NPC?

NPC: What is the answer to this riddle?

Player: I am not sure.

System message: Stay in character. Your INT stat says you are smart enough to figure out this riddle. Answer correctly in the next ten seconds, or be banned.

Why are you not saying a dumb player should be forced to figure his way out of the maze faster?

System message: You are not escaping this maze as fast as your INT says you should be able to. Please solve it faster and stay in character, or you will be banned. --the RP Nazis

It is only a one way street with satilite, up loads you have to connect via a 56K modem, if you can even get the 56K. If bigfoot doesn't have a telephone connection, Bigfoot wil not be able to play PS. Again, Ted didn't have squat but a crummy old type writer and that is the cloest thing you can have for a modern day hermit. Plus I don't even want to hear the phone ring, just a T1 up and down speed in a log cabin.

I live out in the country. I have satellite. I don’t have a phone of any kind hooked up to my PC in any form, size, or shape. I could even completely disconnect myself from the power grid if I wished to do so. Level up your INT and figure that one out. Ignorance is not a virtue.

You have never witnessed improv?, There are plays where all the actors do is improvise, a setting is given to them and the ACT. Anyway, all the stats in this case, is your limited script, it is not giving you the dialog but it is giving you the setting from which you must Act/Role Play.

Since when is improv limited by the supposed personality of the role a person takes? Improv is only the personalities that a person can act out and assume. Without prompting, a stupid person can not improv a smart person.

“A bit of a contradiction there,”

No contradiction. It is just you falsely assuming you think you know what I am talking about. I like combat styles where your character and camera view can stay focused on your foe as you circle them. I like games that you have to use cunning to find and expose your foe’s weak points. Then, I like to use my own keyboard dexterity to run in at the proper time and place to strike the properly trained move while dodging the opposing attacks, then trying to avoid the imminent counterattack. I do -not- like PS’s click-and-run-mindlessly-at-your-foe while hoping-the-server-gives-you-a-good-hit-roll and your-timing-is-right-for-the-lag then back-off-and-do-a-three-point-turn-to-to-keep-your-foe-in-view rinse-and-repeat style of combat. Completely unrealistic, boring, and without any variations. Magic may be better, but I never bothered to try it. OOC for my characters to want to learn magic, you see.

But, that is what I would have said in the PM I offered, so your ignorance is your own fault once again, as is the following.

Remove these stats and you will have smart Krans and high society dwarves in the end game, basically humans…

Kran are said to be “They are not one of most intelligent races of Yliakum, but they tend to be loyal and firm in their beliefs.”

Where does it say in that that no Kran are intelligent? For that matter, I know plenty of humans who are not the most intelligent. Player characters are meant to be the exception to the rule, not the standard. We are playing the ‘heroes’ of the game, and thus have the ability to excel above and beyond ‘normal’ NPCs. As to your thinking Dwarves can not be ‘high societly’, I do not know where you are pulling this information out of, as it is not in the Settings, but it must not smell like roses there.

But I' have come to the realization that I'm never going to convince you what's IC and what's OOC, So lets leave it at, I'm right and your wrong and leave it there...

* Under the moon chuckles.

Others would beg to differ. The only thing you have ‘proved’ here is that you are an RP nazi who is unwilling to accept any way to RP that does not fit in with your own. You are not right, because of the simple fact that it will never be your way in this particular game, and has more of a chance to be more like I have suggested.

[Induane]

*Note: I started writing this then fell asleep at the keyboard, was migrated to bed by my wife, then came back to see it was still unsubmitted so it may seem a bit out of place.

This is another issue I could care less about, your opinion of me, as last I checked this is NOT the Unnamed_source forum but indeed it is the PlaneShift Forum.  I come here to discuss things  about the game and nothing else, so stick to the subject. If you can't share it with in the public arena, I really don't want to hear of it either.

Oh no, that's where your are wrong, that is certainly not the case here. And my statement holds true, I don't care what where you come from, I don't care what you do, and I don't care what you had for lunch.

I don't mean to derail the conversation but I found these statements so appalling and offensive that I was compelled to post.  I would have taken care of posting this in PM's but those are apparently unwanted.  PMs are INTENDED for personal chatter between two persons that isn't necessarily something that should be discussed in the public arena.  I occasionally send messages to various forum leaders to voice a concern I have about a particular action.  I do this because the point is not to flame them or embarrass them but to try to make a point in a venue that is more private and thus less subject to feeling like a personal attack because it is simply not a public complaint.  For instance, I once ran across a thread with a question that had been asked many times.  In a unique case, I happened to have a possible solution come to me but was unable to post because the thread had been locked.  The moderator had in my personal opinion used harsher rhetoric than was necessary as well when the  thread was closed.  Here I had two options.  I could have 1.) Posted a new public thread publicly criticizing the moderator, putting them on the defensive and getting nothing done, or 2.) Sent a polite PM stating I thought the rhetoric was harsh for the situation and requested that they add my possible solution to the post.  My PM was well received, there were no attacks, no one left with hurt feelings and the problem was for all intents and purposes, resolved. 

You see, when a difference of opinion becomes overly personal our own biases really jump to center stage and we become more defensive.  For this reason it is sometimes prudent to resolve portions of a discussion or difference of opinion in something like a PM. 

And as for the 2nd quote especially, I really feel that either you simply posted that in a heated and poorly thought out manner as we all do occasionally, or that the statement is possibly an indication of ignorance or at least a lack of intention to consider another point of view.

When engaged in a discussion such as this it is prudent to try to perceive it from various perspectives.  And when you are debating someone, knowing their perspective is paramount to putting forth a worthy argument.  If you do not and instead simply react to what they say without considering their own perspective then you will be missing parts of the puzzle and won't have the ability to make as strong a case if you are still certain you are correct.  Knowing the perspective of the person you are debating can be used offensively as a way of strengthening your own arguments, or as an attempt to smooth some of your own biases so that you can objectively look at the opinions presented and rationalize the decision instead of reacting emotionally which is more common.

In any case the background of people playing the game IS a relevant part of the subject.  Such glimpses into the persona's of players is important because the game cannot cater to the needs of any one individual and if you won't look at a problem through the eyes of different people, particularly ones who are willing to spend time explaining their personal parallax then everything you say must be completely one sided and as such not worth nearly as much to a discussion.  Idealogs follow an extreme form of confirmation bias which makes them useless in rational discussion as they will never consider the fact that they could be wrong.  We all do this to a degree but many take it to an extreme level.  People who do this will often find that rational people don't give the opinion of such people much weight.  I think the dialog between UtM. Seytra, Feline Prince, and Bilbous is all well done.  They discuss without insulting or making wild assumptions about things they know nothing about such as a persons internet connection or what they care about.  They have different points of view and different perspectives and are discussing them in a rational and respectable manner.  When UtM counters one of Bilbous' points for instance, he does not return with anger, personal attacks, or declare that he doesn't care about UtM's point of view.  He responds with different points.   This is how discussions should be.

P.S.  As far as satellite goes, most if not all broadband satellite companies now completely use 2 way satellite streams.  The satellite stream is beamed from your satellite and received in the same dish.   This was true in 2002 when I had "DirecWay".  This was 5 years ago.  They had quit offering the version where the upstream went through the phone back in 2000 though.  I'm sure the obsolescence of that old system with the combined satellite and phone was obsoleted at different rates in different places but that said, even the two way satellites are old technology.   Its a silly thing to nitpick, particularly when your knowledge of the subject is outdated and flawed.  Its a sign that you continue to assume you are correct despite evidence to the contrary.  Give it up.  Its ok to be wrong sometimes.  We all are.

[Draklar]

Bilbous, with pen and paper RPGs, you have a small group of players interacting with one live game master. They are skilled in the art of roleplaying, and can stay in the strict rules of roll imposed personality stats. If they try to go outside that, the game master can say, "No, I am not sure your character would think of that.", and they can debate if it is possible. Online RPGs have a completely different playerbase. The great majority can not stay in the character of preset personality stats, and will not enjoy being force into it. If there was a Humor stat, how many folks could adjust the way they play to coincide with the level of humor their character has? How many would -want- to? If the same set of strict personality rules from PnP RPGs were imposed on PS, this game would fail very fast.

If we have intelligence and charisma stats that should impose limits on a player, then why are there not bravery, arrogance, humor, honor, kindness, and all the other personality traits?

If everyone in the game could abide by, and -enjoy- limits based on personality traits, then I would not be opposed to it at all. The fact is, most people can not, and even fewer would enjoy it. I do not play a game to ‘work’. I play for enjoyment. I would bet most people play for the same reason.

Right, Planeshift players wouldn't enjoy p&p elements in the game. That's true. But does that mean Planeshift would fail? I don't know where you get these fairy tales from :P

Did Planeshift fail after switching from MB to CB? I think it would be ignorance to state communities between those two didn't change drastically. MB was a 3D chat with crystal-hunt feature. CB is a game. They attract different people. Most MB'ers aren't even around anymore.

Planeshift was never, isn't and most likely will never be a role-playing game. Massively Multiplayer Online Socialising Game with elements of adventure and character development. That's what it is. It attracts socialisers, not role-players. People who will be outraged over the idea that their characters may have only one life, or that they may be forced to accustom themselves to their characters, not their characters to themselves.

That's also why people are reluctant to abide by their characters' stats. They won't want to work with what they are given. They will want to shape it into something completely different. Perk of doing otherwise belongs to role-players, and those seem awfully out of place as PS isn't a role-playing game. And here's the problem. PS has elements of character development, which is drawn from the role-playing games, yet at the same time it has socialising elements drawn from the MMO games. As you already noticed, those two elements don't work well together as it is in Planeshift at the moment. But unlike what you seem to believe, there is more than one way to get out of this problem.

One is what you said, eliminate the conflict by eliminating some aspects of character development. By all means, that may be a good move. It would push PS even further from a role-playing game and into a socialising one (more freedom in creating personalities, communicating with others the way you want to -- in this form acting differently to how you do in the real life isn't role-playing; it's a basic aspect of internet chatting, just pushed a bit further), but that doesn't pose a problem, since as I said, PS isn't even a role-playing game. So it's all good so long as you're not going to whine that PS playerbase isn't top shelf when it comes to role-playing.

Another way is to introduce p&p elements, so that there's actual reason for the stats. This on the other hand would push PS away from socialising game and towards a role-playing one. Obviously the current playerbase wouldn't fancy this turn of events, but to assume no one would be fine with character-enforcement?

I'll give you example of one change I introduced as a GM to a player's character.
Basically after many mind-warping hardships and influences from dark sources, a noble'ish elf character couldn't take the pressure anymore and simply snapped. He began losing his mind whenever he was reached by a stressful situation. Eventually he started going amok. At first the player wasn't all okay about that. He wasn't all too happy when I told him to roll Will Power in the most uncomfortable situations.
But then he got accustomed to it. First he began asking whether he can roll for amok on his own. Later he started taking that insane face expression and silently preparing to roll the dice (and if any player noticed that, there was immidiate "he's going nuts!" alert, which often led to comical "in-game" situations -- especially if it happened while another character was going all diplomatic with an NPC). In the end he got so used to it, that he role-played his character's struggle with amok without even rolling the dice.

That's what, in my opinion, makes good role-playing. Role-playing isn't happening when you decide Romeo shouldn't die and leave the entire audience in the theatre wondering what the hell just happened, while you simply left the scene.

I would say you people should just jump down from your trees and quit slinging poop at one another. Both sides make some good points, but neither wants to accept that.

P.S. Psh, allowing players to debate with GM what they can and what they cannot? Sign of a weak GM. If I say no, it's a no. They may pout but in the end no one has any problems with that :P

[bilbous]

P.S. Psh, allowing players to debate with GM what they can and what they cannot? Sign of a weak GM. If I say no, it's a no. They may pout but in the end no one has any problems with that

From a P&P standpoint I disagree with this statement. The GM does have the final word but one who is completely arbitrary and cannot allow himself to be persuaded on occasion will find himself with sub-standard players as the game is for all participants and not just the GM. Besides Rules Lawyering can be more fun than some adventures.

From a PS standpoint I also disagree because there is a dispute resolution system in place, Again the GM team has the final say ultimately but there is a method of appeal before that happens.

[Feline Prince]

The GMs have no power over RP and what your character can and can't do at all in Planeshift. GMs are there to smack the backs of hands of people who say naughty things and/or abuse the game in an ooc way.

[Draklar]

P.S. Psh, allowing players to debate with GM what they can and what they cannot? Sign of a weak GM. If I say no, it's a no. They may pout but in the end no one has any problems with that :P

From a P&P standpoint I disagree with this statement. The GM does have the final word but one who is completely arbitrary and cannot allow himself to be persuaded on occasion will find himself with sub-standard players as the game is for all participants and not just the GM. Besides Rules Lawyering can be more fun than some adventures.

That would again be a sign of a weak GM. Over the years I've gained enough trust and respect for my GMing among my players to have them shut up if I say no. They usually know they want to do something stupid and are just trying to find out how far they can get away with it :P
The "debates" usually look something like that:
GM: Okay, make a roll if you succeeded.
Player grins and prepares to roll.
GM (before the dice stop): You failed.
Player: What?! But why?!
GM stares at the player.
Player: But...
GM stares some more.
Player: ...okay

Arguments over idiotic stuff aren't good for the flow of the plot.
The unwritten #1 rule of role-playing games states "Game Master is always right." How harsh this may sound, it means GM can bend the rules, cheat and so on and so forth so long as it is done for the good of the game. Another thing to remember is that GM is creating the scenario. It's a good etiquette from the players to respect his work and not bother him too much. Of course, if GM becomes unjust and overly cruel, the players may leave. But so far no one was upset over the way I GM (rather quite the contrary) and I had no one leave. In fact, the better GMs I know don't tend to step back from their decisions. It's usually the lower standard ones that do.

More on topic I find it weird how you approach the case where player refuses to solve a riddle because of the character. In my group it's quite common to have characters get others into trouble just because of their personalities and no one really has any problems with that.

[Under the moon]

Draklar, you have many good points, but I disagree with some of them. First and foremost, this statement: "But unlike what you seem to believe, there is more than one way to get out of this problem."

I know there are many ways to solve this dilemma, and have even thought of many more ways to do it. I even agree with a lot of what Source has said. But in the end, with all options weighed, I came down on the side of eliminating the stats at the heart of the problem. I’ll explain the reasons why.

First, PS is meant to be a game for everyone (or, as many people as possible), and spanning many demographics. Right now the game teeters towards the fighting/leveling crowd because of the implemented features. No right minded roleplayer would even attempt to take the leveling/training/questing features literally in their playing of a role. What they do base their play on is the stats, which PS has aplenty, though little use for most of them. They also crave a larger, changing story to react to. PS will have this. Socializers just like to talk to people, and ‘develop’ their characters' relationships with other people, so they can go into pretty much any game that has a friendly atmosphere. Levelers/hackers just like to kill things, and there happens to be many things to kill in the game. So, as it is, there is a base structure for all those types of players. The trick is to enlarge each of them without cutting out the other types of players.

Option one: Keep the intelligence and charisma stats, and add all the other personality stats I stated in another post (humor, bravery, and such). Then, enforce them strictly. I would not be opposed to, and would actually prefer this one if you got to chose your own personality stats upon creation, within reason. Events in the game would change your hardcoded personality stats as you went. This would then become strictly a roleplaying game, more like one worldwide tabletop. However, the Socializers and Levelers would not be able to handle such a thing. And Creation would have to be monumentally more indepth and flexable.

Option two: Keep the stats exactly as they are, and gameplay exactly as it is. Continue to keep the unrealistic separation between player and NPC reactions to personality, and the confusion it brings. Not much more to say about that. Roleplayers are turned off because no one can stick to the unenforced mental stats. Levelers don’t care, as it just gives them something else to level up, and Socializers would just continue to talk, oblivious to the existence of the stats in the first place. Though I am a roleplayer type, and -strictly- follow the physical stats, I generally ignore the mental type stats, as I find Creation to be horrid and limited.

Option three: Get rid of the mental/personality stats, as I suggested. Socializers never used them in the first place. Levelers really would not miss them. Roleplayers -good roleplayers- will self regulate, with self imposed mental and personality stats. Also, improve the ‘physical’ feel in the world, so that the other stats do have use, such as kicking down a door, or smelling something on the air. Then, create a fighting system even roleplayers would not be opposed to. Of course, this leaves out the 'players' that run around 'wearing' five-hundred pound armor, and casting super spells, but do you really need them?

Of course, there are many other options, but this seems to be the best way of doing things without giving a good part of the player base the cold shoulder.

That's what, in my opinion, makes good role-playing. Role-playing isn't happening when you decide Romeo shouldn't die and leave the entire audience in the theatre wondering what the hell just happened, while you simply left the scene.

It is not up to roleplay to decide what happens due to your actions. That is player prescripting. It is, however, roleplying to decide what your character thinks about it. Whether it is by coded personality, or by your own choice, it is still roleplaying. If you were -acting- the role of Romeo, then of course you have to die. However, if you were roleplaying the role of Romeo, then perhaps the choice of action does not end in death. If I am sitting across the table with you as the GM, and you tell me my character suddenly gets melodramatic and kills himself because that is what is supposed to happen in that part of the story, I would laugh in your face and mutiny the game (read that as kick you out and take over). There are such things as bad GMs. When it comes to personality traits and enforcement, computers are the worst of them.

[Draklar]

No, if you don't kill yourself, then you aren't role-playing Romeo. The character has specified personality, which in the scenario will lead him to the suicide. There's nothing you can change about that. If you do, it's sticking out of the role. Also, acting and roleplaying are synonyms. The distinction you make has absolutely no support... The term "roleplay" was borrowed from the theatre along with many of its elements. It is the 'G' in RPG that introduces the possibility of choice. RP remains the same. To play out certain personality. Theatrical plays are easier in this aspect that you know exactly how the character should act. In RPG roleplays are easier in this aspect that you can step out of your character's role all you want and usually no one will notice.

The art of GMing is to have an ability to influence how players role-play their characters without even saying anything about it. Often done through proper NPC-to-PC communication as well as doing several neat "dirty" tricks. This was often ignored in computer role-playing games, which effectively led to decay of the role-playing genre. Yet still, there are some computer games out there that not only manage to borrow some typical p&p methods, but also introduce methods previously unknown in the tabletop communities. That's where the game design becomes art as well.

Option three: Get rid of the mental/personality stats, as I suggested. Socializers never used them in the first place. Levelers really would not miss them. Roleplayers -good roleplayers- will self regulate, with self imposed mental and personality stats. Also, improve the ‘physical’ feel in the world, so that the other stats do have use, such as kicking down a door, or smelling something on the air. Then, create a fighting system even roleplayers would not be opposed to. Of course, this leaves out the 'players' that run around 'wearing' five-hundred pound armor, and casting super spells, but do you really need them?

Right, self-regulate. Why exactly should they play game where they have to self-regulate? Obviously if the game forces them to do that, it's not aimed at the role-players. They can self-regulate in Counter-Strike, irc, pong or chess, but I think they would much rather play a game that provides solid role-playing features (and I'm not talking about features like clothes, animations and other stuff meant to give an illusion of a role-playing game). Effectively game that encourages role-playing, ergo one that has a solid role-playing community. The option you propose isn't providing solution any better from the other ones. Or wait, isn't it the worst solution? Socialisers never used those, power-levelers wouldn't miss them, role-players now have to self-regulate... Okay, so who exactly takes an advantage from this option? And who stands against the stats?
To create a game that will please both role-players and socialisers is an extremely difficult task. It's not going to be settled by such moves as "eliminating all mental stats."