Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[S'mon]

In the Olympics, there's no reward for running fast if you're competing in the long jump.

...actually...

This is a good example of what I'm talking about - fast running certainly does contribute to success at the long jump, but other factors also come into play.

 

[S'mon]

I only read the OP and the first few and last few posts, so sorry if this has already been discussed.

The OP says of our hero: "One player is likable, charming, a joy to be around. He roleplays his character superbly. Everybody likes him. The GM likes him."

In my experience, this combination, specifically the conjunction of the bolded part on the one hand and everything else on the other, rarely occurs.

Many people in our hobby, including some otherwise very smart folks who really should know better, conflate "role-playing" with "acting". My experience with players who have a high real-life CHA, or at least a significantly more forceful personality than the DM (which seems to do most of the things CHA does in-game), is that they will often do a magnificent job of acting... in the role of a character who differs significantly from the one written down on their character sheet. In particular, the character they play invariably has a much higher CHA than the one they're supposed to be playing.

These people are doing plenty of acting, but no role-playing whatsoever, and they are a pox on the hobby.

You seem to be running simulation; I'm running a game with a simulation element. The character stats & skills IMCs are resources for play, not restrictions on play. The rules-free background is more important as guide to how the PC 'should' act, as I said - but I'm really far more interested in how the PC is actually played. That's what defines the character, not numbers. The numbers (in point buy) are allocated according to a resource-scarcity Gamist paradigm, not a "this is what I would like to simulate" paradigm. Hence 'game balance'.

 

[Kerranin]

On the point of charismatic players having an advantage, we humans are social animals, anyone who is charismatic will intrinsically have an advantage in a social situation. (Which RPGs should generally be) It is then just a question of whether that charismatic individual uses this for the good of everyone or for their own benefit.

This is just a personal viewpoint, but I would favour anyone who attempts to involve the group, or does things to try to draw the group to act together.

I think charismatic players will almost always have an advantage, it is then up to the GM to limit that advantage if they feel it necessary. (if it becomes divisive or limits the opportunities of others)

 

[Mort]

I think these two issues are related.

First, I have to say basically all my GMing experience has been with "good faith" players. Basically, I don't have players who try to "cheat" by building PCs who are mechancially weak at task X, and then trying to end-run around the action resolution mechanics for X.

But there are ways of not cheating, and playing with good faith, which don't require the charismatic or invested player, who has a PC with a low CHA/social skills, to check his/her charisma and energy at the door.

In my own case, this is mostly handled by making the situation more complex than simply "does the PC give a sincere and convincing speech".

In my sesssion yesterday, for example, the PCs had to break the news to the Baron of the city where they are staying that his niece, who was missing and whom they had been searching for, was in fact a necromancer whom they had caught red handed dealing with the undead. They brought her back to him as a prisoner. She was then sent off to take a bath, but told not to leave the building, while the PCs finished negotiating with the baron - but being a GM ever-ready to dissapoint my players, I decided that she sucked the life out of her ladies-in-waiting, teleported out the window, killed two more guards and tried to flee across the river. She ended up being killed by the drow sorcerer getting a lucky shot with his longbow. The PCs then had to report back to the baron that his niece was dead, killed in the attempt to apprehend her after she committed multiple murders (besides the ladies and the guards, she also sucked the life out of the boat pilot in an attempt to survive the PCs' attacks).

In this scenario, the general pattern of the social interactions with the baron was determined by player ability, not PC stats - the charismatic players get to set the tone for the conversations with the baron, responses to his responses, etc. But the way the baron dealt with the news that was being given to him depended upon the die rolls - the PCs with good Diplomacy were able to break news to him in a way that was gentle (relative to the circumstances) and didn't crush him, whereas those with poor skills were obviously overburdening him with bad news. And when this became apparent to the players, they adapted, letting the more comforting PCs take over the scene while the more dominant, but less skilled, pulled their PCs back a bit, and threw their energy into other things.

I also find that by making even charismatic players make social checks - so they get to play a big role in framing the fiction, but still have to roll dice to see how it pans out - you overcome the "problem" of players only ever rolling for their good skills. The dwarf fighter in my game rolls plenty of social skill checks, even though his bonus is only +7 (14th level, 11 CHA). And when he fails - as he often does - it doesn't mean "You make a fool of yourself as you try to charm but spit in their faces instead". Rather, he doesn't achieve his intent - in the above example, the Baron takes the news badly rather than accepting it, for example. (This is my understanding of Burning Wheel's "intent and task" approach to action resolution - set a skill appropriate to the task, but resolve failure having principal regard to the intent.)

That's exactly what I'm going for (and do in my campaign)- the PCs have a chance to say what they like - and it does matter, a lot. BUT the PCs words are filtered through their characters stats and bonuses and their words will be taken very differently depending on the results. Such as in the above case (which I am totally stealing btw, have a great use for the baron's daughter is secretly a necromancer plot) one PC talking to the baron will elicit a teary conversation with hugs at the end and another PC (using the exact same words) might end up ejected from the castle or even arrested!

 

[Mallus]

Let's ask a related question: "Should an experienced player have an advantage?".

Picture the start of a new campaign. Player #1 has years of play experiences with the game. Player #2 has none. However, both their characters are 1st level adventurers; total neophytes, tyros, n00bs.

Should the experienced player pretend to forget everything they've learned about playing the game? And I'm not just talking about knowledge of the mechanics/rules/metagame stuff, I'm talking about all the play skills they've acquired over the years -- which, naturally, have been learned by the player and not by their brand-new character. Does "good roleplaying" entail making the same rookie mistakes campaign after campaign, while cannily refusing to learn from your experiences (all in the name of proper role-playing, of course)?

Is D&D the rare game where learning how to play it means you're playing it wrong (each time you start a new PC)?

 

[The Shaman]

And I'm saying that that's at best a thing.

And so am I.

I'm not arguing for or against complexity, nor am I arguing for or against tactical proficiency. They exist in roleplaying games, and people who are better tacticians in games which reward tactical thinking or master whatever degree of complexity a game possesses will perform better than those don't. Likewise, roleplaying gaming is a social activity, and a charismatic gamer will have an advantage.

'People who are better at something are better at that thing,' isn't any less true for being a tautology.

You're rebutting an argument I didn't make, so go ahead and grind your little hatchet if you like; I don't need to be a part of this conversation.

 

[Mallus]

Many people in our hobby, including some otherwise very smart folks who really should know better, conflate "role-playing" with "acting".

That's probably because they're frequently the same thing.

My experience with players who have a high real-life CHA, or at least a significantly more forceful personality than the DM (which seems to do most of the things CHA does in-game), is that they will often do a magnificent job of acting... in the role of a character who differs significantly from the one written down on their character sheet.

IMHO, a good character is more than what's written down on the sheet.

These people are doing plenty of acting, but no role-playing whatsoever, and they are a pox on the hobby.

Those people are probably operating under a slightly different definition of "role-playing" (hint: they are several popular ones). They're no more a pox on the hobby than you --with your own specific tastes/preferences-- are.

 

[Henry]

I apologize if I missed this in the thread, but the example being as loaded as it appears is misleading in my opinion. I, for one, would not choose to play with someone who "sucks all the energy out of the room" - I game for my sense of fun.

If there were two players at a table I'm DMing, and one is less charismatic in real life, then though in real life I'm probably paying a little more attention to the personable one and having more fun playing off of what he or she is doing (my human flaw), I do try to keep their PCs in mind, and I don't give a dramatically different outcome assuming their characters' skill sets are similar. If the first player is playing a paladin, and the second a bard, and both are loaded out with diplomacy, bluff, etc. I would treat their roll results the same way. Only difference is I might give the first person a +2 to their result if they gave some stirring speech or bit of roleplaying -- but no more than that.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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?

Specifically about character-interaction, that's like asking if tall people should have an advantage when playing basketball. They do have an advantage, and it would suck a lot of the fun out of the game to equalize things for everyone, kind of like requiring pro basketball players to use wheelchairs so that they're closer to the same height.

 

[Morrus]

Specifically about character-interaction, that's like asking if tall people should have an advantage when playing basketball. They do have an advantage, and it would suck a lot of the fun out of the game to equalize things for everyone, kind of like requiring pro basketball players to use wheelchairs so that they're closer to the same height.

Yes, but a tall basketball player doesn't walk into the game with the intention of playing the role of a short basketball player.

Basketball players "play" themselves. RPG players "play" someone else.