Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[delericho]

Should the charismatic player have an advantage in in-game task resolution, especially at character-interaction stuff?

Doesn't really matter if he should, he will have an advantage. Can't be helped.

However, should he have an unfair advantage, being allowed to use his native talent to bypass the mechanics of the game? No. You wouldn't give a PC a damage bonuse because the player is strong.

I wonder what Gygax would have thought of this "Players should not be rewarded for using their native wits/charm/wisdom" meme?

Gygax would probably point out that he had more sense than to include Diplomacy, Knowledge and Insight skills in the game, and thus didn't include mechanics for the high-Int/Wis/Cha player to bypass.

 

[pemerton]

I answered "yes", but I wouldn't generally give the charming/persuasive player mechanical benefits (our group doesn't normally use the "eloquent speech" approach to modifying social skill checks).

But a charismatic player is almost certainly going to play a greater role in shaping the direction of play, in getting in on the action not only when his/her PC is in the spotlight but when others' are too, and generally bending the game (and the group) to his/her will. And this will become an advantage in action resolution to the extent that fictional positioning matters, and the charismatic player has a greater influence over the content of the fiction and the way the other participants relate to it.

And, in my view, provided it is not done to the active exclusion of others, that's as the game should be. It's a social game, and I play it for a shared aesthetic experience. People with personality contribute to that.

Maybe you're playing at a Convention?

Depending on how the convention game is run, the sort of advantages I'm talking about may or may not come into play. The more tightly scripted and operationally focused the scenario, the fewer of those sorts of advantages the charismatic player will have, I think.

 

[S'mon]

However, should he have an unfair advantage, being allowed to use his native talent to bypass the mechanics of the game? No. You wouldn't give a PC a damage bonuse because the player is strong....

...Gygax would probably point out that he had more sense than to include Diplomacy, Knowledge and Insight skills in the game, and thus didn't include mechanics for the high-Int/Wis/Cha player to bypass.

So character interaction mechanics are (a) a bad thing but (b) should be complied with, to the exclusion of player ability?

 

[Doug McCrae]

One player is likable, charming, a joy to be around. He roleplays his character superbly. Everybody likes him. The GM likes him.

Another player is a charisma black hole. He will not speak in-character. Fellow players merely tolerate him. He sucks a lot of the fun and energy out of the room, just by being there.

Should the charismatic player have an advantage in in-game task resolution, especially at character-interaction stuff?

I don't understand the question. There's no should here, there's only is. The first player will always receive massive advantages, and the second massive disadvantages, because that's human nature.

The main disadvantage, it seems to me, is as Umbran says - the second player would never get invited to a game in the first place, and, if he somehow managed it, would be kicked after the first session if he was genuinely this appalling.

Also, this is why we should all be playing Villains & Vigilantes. The players play themselves, but with superpowers, and are assigned all their initial pre-superpower stats such as strength, intelligence, and constitution by the GM.

 

[broghammerj]

I used to see this scenario all the time. We had one guy we played with who was generally likable, intelligent, could think quickly on his feet, and could speak at the same speed as his stream of consciousness. Take an example of our rogues getting surprised by town guards.

Guard: "Halt who goes there?"

Witty player with 12 CHA, "It is me Horatio Gevenue. I was sleeping in my room when I heard the screams of a young women. I saw some ruffians outside my window, quickly drew my sword, and grabbed this lantern. I've recovered her purse of coins and chased them off. She is of exquisite beauty and in a gown of red. She has taken shelter in the inn up the street where you will find her there. If you could please return this to my lady whilst I retire for the evening."

versus

My with a 17 CHA, "Yeah so I heard some scuffle outside and chased some guys off. They dropped this woman's purse. She ran up the street to the inn. Mind if I head home now?" (Think Han Solo in the detention center type delivery)

How do you ajudicate that? Does the witty player have to make a bluff or diplomacy check? He's certainly more entertaining to the group. Yet the less witty me has a better chance of making the check despite my inability to deliver a great speech. Our group tended to have to make the check regardless of delivery style but obviously enjoyed the entertainment of the witty player. This is similar analogy as to why my fighter can bench press 350 lbs while I can do about 75 lbs in real life. The rules have to allow compensation for the players inadequacy. Now if we both had the same charisma score then the tendency would be to let the witty player do the talking.

 

[delericho]

So character interaction mechanics are (a) a bad thing but (b) should be complied with, to the exclusion of player ability?

If character interaction mechanics are part of the game, then they should be used. It really sucks being the Bard and watching as the dump-Cha no-Diplomacy Wizard gets to stamp all over the social sphere just because he happens to be bestest buds with the DM.

Whether character interaction mechanics themselves are a bad thing or not is a matter of taste. Gygax, it would appear, felt they were.

 

[OnlineDM]

I voted for the "limited circumstances" option.

I put my views on this issue together in detail in this post quite recently.

Basically, if a player does some awesome role playing, then I'll give them a bonus or potentially success without needing to roll dice (if it's really impressive). If a player lacks charisma but is having their character make a speech, I'll let the die roll determine the result.

So, bonuses for doing a great job with the role-playing side of things, but no penalty for failing to do a great job at the role-playing side of things. And I limit the frequency scope of the bonuses - the high-charisma player with the low-Charisma character can get an occasional benefit, but only rarely.

 

[FireLance]

I don't think it's a coincidence that this issue was apparently triggered by a discussion on the recent Legends and Lore by Monte Cook on going outside of the rules. Frankly, the main effect of a charismatic player will not be expressed mechanically, via a bonus to checks. It will be in persuading the DM that the rules need not apply because an issue can be resolved outside of them, whether it is making a speech that the DM feels obviates the need for a Charisma-based check, or somehow convincing the DM of the reasonableness of their schemes.

The best case scenario is as described in the OP: the charismatic player enhances the game, and even if his character gets a bit more screen time, XP or treasure, or manages to get around the challenges in the game more easily than the DM expected, the other players and the DM don't really mind. The worst case scenario is when the player is only really persuasive with respect to the DM, and this causes the other players to doubt the DM's impartiality. The DM's wife/girlfriend is probably the archetypical example of this sort. In a way, a charismatic player is probably "beating" the game in the same way the archetypical "DM's wife/girlfriend" supposably does - it's just that it doesn't seem that way because everyone else likes him, too.

 

[chaochou]

I think it's sound practice for a game to reward the behaviour the group enjoys.

So, my preference would often be to reward people bringing something to the game - be it a grand speech, a persuasive argument, a cool seduction - because I tend to game in groups which value those things.

Sometimes little details in those speeches give the GM and players more material to work with later, new ideas.

So maybe that's worth a bonus die, or a +2 or a reduced target number, whatever looks like a modest boost given the system.

The other thing I try hard to do when I GM is not base my decision on some notional 'objective' merit of the speaker - I'm not even sure there is objective merit; after all oratory, persuasion, seduction, diplomacy are as much emotional devices as logical ones.

What I think you can do, assuming you know the players, is decide whether they are trying to make the game more enjoyable. In our group making an effort is just fine.

 

[billd91]

I'll give mechanical bonuses (usually +2 or +4) any time a player comes up with a particularly good idea or approach in interpersonal skill checks and that includes giving a good off the cuff speech. Does this mean I endorse giving naturally charismatic or clever players an advantage - in the sense that I reward the way they contribute to good and enjoyable and player-involved play, yes.