Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Mort]

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 think your example is way to one sided here. As others have pointed out, why is the second guy even at the table? Why not just frame the question as, one player is more charismatic than the others (they're not trolls just not as charismatic) should he have an advantage?

But to try and address the actual question:

The charismatic player already has an advantage because of the social interaction with the DM and players. Both the DM and players are more likely to listen to him and his ideas. The story is more likely to proceed in the direction he wants it to go etc.

To then, in a game with a social interaction mechanic, give the player a mechanical advantage as well is just unfair.

Social interaction mechanics exist so a player without a silver tongue can play a character with a silver tongue. If (as has been said above) I'm playing the 20 CHA bard with maxed out social skills but the guy with the 6 CHA barbarian with maxed physical skills and no social skills to speak of, is the one always doing the talking (and succeeding!) I'm going to feel gyped and wonder what the point of me taking all those social skills was. Especially considering, in a fight, the Barbarian is likely to be more effective too!

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?[/QUOTE]

I think your example is way to one sided here. As others have pointed out, why is the second guy even at the table? Why not just frame the question as, one player is more charismatic than the others (they're not trolls just not as[ charismatic) should he have an advantage?

But to try and address the actual question:
The charismatic player already has an advantage because of the social interaction with the DM and players. Both the DM and players are more likely to listen to him and his ideas. The story is more likely to proceed in the direction he wants it to go etc.
To then, in a game with a social interaction mechanic, give the player a mechanical advantage as well is just unfair.
Social interaction mechanics exist so a player without a silver tongue can play a character with a silver tongue. If (as has been said above) I'm playing the 20 CHA bard with maxed out social skills but the guy with the 6 CHA barbarian with maxed physical skills and no social skills to speak of, is the one always doing the talking (and succeeding!) I'm going to wonder what the point of me taking all those social skills was. Especially considering, in a fight, the Barbarian is likely to be more effective too.

Those lucky people blessed with charisma should have an in-game advantage, yes.

In the same way, those lucky people blessed with strength should have an in-game advantage in the form of damage bonuses.

And anyone able to hold their breath for more than 90 seconds should gain an additional 10% hit points for their character.

DM: The iron bars of the cell door prevent you from getting out.
Player: Good thing, I Hrothgar am the strongest man in this land. I bend and break the bars like the toothpicks they are!
DM: *throws Iron bar to player* ok bend this bar and that’ll determine the bonus I give you in breaking/bending the bars of the cell door.
Player: wait, what ?!?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Those lucky people blessed with charisma should have an in-game advantage, yes.

In the same way, those lucky people blessed with strength should have an in-game advantage in the form of damage bonuses.

And anyone able to hold their breath for more than 90 seconds should gain an additional 10% hit points for their character.

So only the character sheet matters?

People will tend to put the most effort into things that are the most rewarding to do. Why should a highly intelligent, charismatic player share these traits with the group if they have no impact on play. Just kick back and phone in the roleplaying because it does not ultimately matter.

I like to reward players for giving it all they got, however much that happens to be.

 

[Mort]

So only the character sheet matters?

People will tend to put the most effort into things that are the most rewarding to do. Why should a highly intelligent, charismatic player share these traits with the group if they have no impact on play. Just kick back and phone in the roleplaying because it does not ultimately matter.

I like to reward players for giving it all they got, however much that happens to be.

What if you're playing a game with a social mechanic task resolution (3e and 4e both have one). The "charismatic" player has an 8 charisma and did not train any social skills. Yet he always seems to dominate every social interaction (the player always seems to know just what to say in any given situation), are you going to reward that?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Role-playing games, like many games, are a social activity, so yes, it is fine for charismatic players to have an 'advantage.'

Furthermore, because RPGs are a mental and social activity, the prowess of the players in these categories should permit them better chances to succeed, regardless of the character's mental and social attributes. Intelligence and Charisma have their place for defining certain mechanical rules interactions (number of spells known, chance to learn spell, number of henchmen, morale of henchmen and hirelings, etc) but not as 'saving throw vs. puzzle' or 'saving throw vs. social interaction,' for example.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe you're playing at a Convention?

Fair question. At the local Gamedays, I haven't seen any such folks, and I don't play much at lager cons. But, see below.

It seems to me that we are walking a tightrope between overly mechanical play, where you roll dice for everything, and freeform play, where people can't fall back on the dice, but high charisma players can dominate.

But we don't have to. There's a simple middle ground.

You've got a mechanic for social interactions (usually in the skill system). Use it. If the player role plays well you give them a bonus. And, you measure "role plays well" not against the other players, or against some "objective" of charisma, but relative to the player's own ability. If he's thinking about it and putting in effort, you give him the bonus.

Like a runner trying to beat his own best time, he's in a competition with himself, not anyone else.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I can assure you that this is not the case.

 

[the Jester]

Should they? Not really.

However, almost certainly, they will have an advantage.

The charismatic player is better able to describe his intent, for one thing. He's also more likely to get the dm's attention when he needs it. He's more likely to be able to wheedle things from other players or the dm. Heck, there are probably a hundred ways in which natural charisma helps a player at the table, but the majority of them are (or should be) out of game.

Even getting someone else to bring a beer back from the fridge is easier for this guy than for Mr. Black Hole of Conversation.

 

[S'mon]

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?

I would adjudicate it as:

On the facts you give, witty player probably succeeds in his aim, no check needed. If the guards had particularly good reason to be suspicious - say a red-gowned lady in these parts is incredibly unlikely, plus he is a well-known wanted criminal not in disguise - he might still have to make a Bluff check, with around a +5 bonus, +10 if the gold in the purse is a substantial amount.

You would have to make a Bluff check, with DC determined by circumstances. The amount of gold in the purse would again affect the DC, if you're handing it over - if your plan was to attack with surprise as they examined the purse, you'd probably succeed without a check, unless these guards don't care about money. Note that 'your' performance, as described, is if anything still above average, and would typically have a good chance to succeed IMCs.

 

[S'mon]

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.

*frown* Surely if the DM is that biased, he'll be biased in other ways, giving the wizard cool magic items, positions of power, story-spotlight time, etc?

 

[Mort]

I would adjudicate it as:

On the facts you give, witty player probably succeeds in his aim, no check needed. If the guards had particularly good reason to be suspicious - say a red-gowned lady in these parts is incredibly unlikely, plus he is a well-known wanted criminal not in disguise - he might still have to make a Bluff check, with around a +5 bonus, +10 if the gold in the purse is a substantial amount.

Other than good faith (which is important, but we are talking hypotheticals here), what's to prevent the above player from completely dumping his CHA (let's assume nothing else in his build requires it) and not bothering to pump his social skills, Thereby gaining a significant mechanical advantage?