Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Umbran]

So you actually discriminate against the more skilled player? Interesting.

I think that making each player work against his or her own baseline as being as absolutely fair as I can be. I'm making sure everyone at the table is challenged. Nobody can rest on their laurels, so to speak.

Or, perhaps more accurately, I don't discriminate against the skilled player. I discriminate against the player who is not engaged with the game, and not making an effort.

 

[Mort]

So you actually discriminate against the more skilled player? Interesting. I think there's definitely a cultural shift going on. I'm reminded a little bit of this story.

Couple of observations:

1) D&D is not chess. For many people the goal is not to "win" as such but to engage in the setting to the greatest possible degree - I think both Umbran and Pemerton touched on this effectively.

2) Is the player really more skilled? If the player's charisma on the character sheet is 8 but he's playing it like 18 - he's not playing skillfully, he's not playing the character he made. Wouldn't the skilled player be able to suppress his natural charisma, or at the least play it down to the level the character is supposed to be?

I tend to filter the player's comments and actions through the stats and rolls of the character when deciding the situation (to account for the very real phenomenon of 2 people - saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same situation, where one is taken as witty and brilliant and the other taken as a crass buffoon). An exaggerated example:

Suave the Bard (Cha 20, Diplomacy +15):

Player (addressing countess Famina and rolling a 30 on diplomacy): Hey there.

DM as countess Famina: My goodness, you’re such a cad! You must come to my next ball where I can introduce you to my marriageable daughter.


Krug the Barbarian (Cha 8, Diplomacy -1):

Player (addressing the countess Famina and rolling 14 on diplomacy): Hey there.

DM as countess Famina: Away from me you unwashed ruffian. One more word and I shall call the guard!

 

[Squire James]

What I do is let the charismatic/intelligent players suggest courses of action, and the character that is actually best at it is the one who really did it. For instance, if a smart player with a 8 Int character solves a difficult logic problem, I let the solution stand but The Wizard Did It. That's not always possible to pull off properly, but I tell the players ahead of time that I'm doing this, and they are pretty open to the idea.

 

[S'mon]

2) Is the player really more skilled? If the player's charisma on the character sheet is 8 but he's playing it like 18 - he's not playing skillfully, he's not playing the character he made.

Replace 'more skilled' with 'higher ability' if you prefer.

Re wanting to win - certainly as GM I assume the players are playing PCs who want to survive and succeed, and that the players are using their own resources of smarts, charm, guts, inventiveness etc to contribute to that goal. This is why fudging is controversial - players want to be challenged; some players will not tolerate a GM who they see is fudging to keep their PCs alive. And the reason is that it removes the challenge from the game.

Of course some groups do play RPGs purely as 'shared story creation', with no challenge/Gamist element. I don't think that is a very common mode of play for D&D though.

 

[Umbran]

Re wanting to win - certainly as GM I assume the players are playing PCs who want to survive and succeed, and that the players are using their own resources of smarts, charm, guts, inventiveness etc to contribute to that goal.

And, if they're doing that, they'll get the bonus. So, I don't see anyone being discriminated against.

This is why fudging is controversial - players want to be challenged; some players will not tolerate a GM who they see is fudging to keep their PCs alive. And the reason is that it removes the challenge from the game.

That's a separate issue, though. No fudging is going on here. Bonus is based on player effort. How is that not challenging the player?

 

[Elf Witch]

I had this issue in my game. I have a naturally charismatic player and one who is not.

It is not that the non charismatic player is not trying he loves gaming, engages with the world and is very involved he just is very easily tongue tied and under pressure stutters.

He wanted to play a swashbuckling bard so I let him and he put major ranks in his social skills and I let him roll to see the outcome.

The other player was continually butting in and giving these great speeches which while entertaining were also not consistent for his 10 CHR character.

The player trying to play the bard was getting very frustrated and I didn't blame him one bit.

So I told the other player to tone it down that he was not role playing well that if he saw his character has being more charismatic than what was on his sheet we needed to change some things.

So no I don't believe that the more charismatic player should get advantages over other players. They do get some because of their charisma they are more likely to get their way with the other players because of it if they play a high CHR character they tend to do well because I do give bonuses to social rolls on how well you made the speech.

But I have an issue with highly CHR players using CHR as a dump stat and still playing their character as highly charismatic in my game that will lose you XP for poor role playing.

 

[S'mon]

And, if they're doing that, they'll get the bonus. So, I don't see anyone being discriminated against.

That's a separate issue, though. No fudging is going on here. Bonus is based on player effort. How is that not challenging the player?

You clearly are challenging the players. You are setting a higher bar for better players, a lower bar for weaker players, so they are all challenged the same. Like I said, it's reminiscent of Harrison Bergeron. And the culture in general does seem to be shifting towards this conception of fair - eg I saw recently that a disabled paralympic sprinter is to be allowed to compete in the regular non-disabled olympic sprint - but he gets to use prosthetic legs to help him; the non-disabled sprinters aren't allowed prosthetic aids. He wouldn't get too far without his mechanical legs. Likewise your weaker players are assisted by a lower roleplaying bar, your stronger players are handicapped by a higher difficulty setting, so that they are all 'equal'.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to filter the player's comments and actions through the stats and rolls of the character when deciding the situation (to account for the very real phenomenon of 2 people - saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same situation, where one is taken as witty and brilliant and the other taken as a crass buffoon). An exaggerated example:

Suave the Bard (Cha 20, Diplomacy +15):

Player (addressing countess Famina and rolling a 30 on diplomacy): Hey there.

DM as countess Famina: My goodness, you’re such a cad! You must come to my next ball where I can introduce you to my marriageable daughter.

Krug the Barbarian (Cha 8, Diplomacy -1):

Player (addressing the countess Famina and rolling 14 on diplomacy): Hey there.

DM as countess Famina: Away from me you unwashed ruffian. One more word and I shall call the guard!

I have a question on this, for Mort and other GMs. Say I want to play a charismatic barbarian Fighter, an REH-Conan type, in a game like 4e which strongly penalises investing resources away from core competency, which for Fighter is STR-based fighting ability. I'm prepared to roleplay the PC as fairly charismatic - eg I'll put effort into coming up with good one-liners.
How much resources should I have to invest in interpersonal skills before you'll let my words stand?

Is CHA 12 enough? Anything more than that will really start to hurt my combat effectiveness.
Intimidate training is not a problem - can I apply that skill to a wide range of situations? Do I need to invest in getting Diplomacy before I can talk suavely? What if I have Diplomacy training + CHA 10?

 

[S'mon]

But I have an issue with highly CHR players using CHR as a dump stat and still playing their character as highly charismatic in my game that will lose you XP for poor role playing.

Hi Elf Witch - see my question to Mort above. How much resources should I have to invest in CHA before I'm allowed to give cool speeches etc? Is my 3e Fighter doomed to be a tongue-tied oaf if he wants to be any good at fighting?

Edit: I tend to set the cut-off at '12'. If a player has put a 12 in a stat, that means their PC is above-average in that area, and they are free to roleplay the character as such. If they have a 10, they are average, and 8 is below-average.

 

[S'mon]

I had this issue in my game. I have a naturally charismatic player and one who is not.

It is not that the non charismatic player is not trying he loves gaming, engages with the world and is very involved he just is very easily tongue tied and under pressure stutters.

He wanted to play a swashbuckling bard so I let him and he put major ranks in his social skills and I let him roll to see the outcome.

Did his play of the Bard give pleasure to the rest of you? From your description it sounds like the stuttering player might not actually be low-CHA, despite his difficulty with expressing himself. I suspect he's actually a likeable fellow, and seeing him engage with the world successfully brought you some joy?

Edit: I guess I think of very low CHA in 1e terms, as being actually repulsive ('cat piss man'), whereas 3e describes it as force of personality, and gives high CHA to ghouls! So in 3e terms a person who is likeable but very shy might have low CHA.