Hello fellow Jackers and Jillers!
I hope you are all safe and well. For those of you with some time to waste, I wanted to see if I have found a good analogy for what I see as the difference between stats and playstyle interpretation - or to put this another way, why IQ and ST can be both roll played and role played.
First off, let me start this by saying that everybody can play their own game however they want! I am not the RPG Police, though I do own a pair of Aviator Sunglasses and handcuffs, but that is all I will say on that matter thank you!
So with that cleared up, I wanted to focus on a common analogy I hear on the show. I can't quote it exactly, but it has the essence of rolling for a conversation is different than rolling for combat or puzzles in a game. It is often stated that a person with good tactics has an advantage over a person with poor, with the implication that it would negate their characters ability in combat, and this is different than being a poor conversationalist or puzzle-worker.
Frankly, I don't see any difference between the 3 examples. If a person has poor tactical skill and plays a barbarian, they are able to use the extra hit points and combat ability to fight their way out of things that no mage could. For example, a barbarian (1st level) charging into 3 orcs with his.her axe has a much better chance than the mage (1st level) charging in with his/her dagger. Both are the same poor tactical choice, but one has a much better chance of survival despite making it. Imagine a different situation where a PC walks up to the King, spits in his food, looks him in the eye, and tells him that he/she is going to gut him on the spot. Does a single skill roll result in the King cheering the PC on in his/her task? Of course not - but it may result in a series of rolls where the PC has to either backpedal, ask for aid, or otherwise come up with an explanation on how to get out of the situation - much like the Barbarian has to make several attack rolls, and not just sit there and get stabbed a lot, Puzzles can be very similar, with clues (as discussed on the show) offered for various skill rolls to help speed things along. Which brings up the point of why doesn't the GM mention to the Barbarian that charging into the dragons mouth unarmed and slathered in butter is probably not the best way to try to kill it?
I'm not quite done with my thought process on this, so I wanted to turn it out to see what others think. Am I late to the game and this was already cleared up? Am I missing something obvious here? What are your thoughts?