Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Hussar]

There is no one right way to roleplay a 9 charisma character versus a 16.

The stat RAW is not that relevant to how you should play your character.

True, there is no one right way. But, there are more than a few wrong ways. And allowing the 9 Cha character's player to simply over look his character sheet because his player manages to be more convincing, is the same as letting the 9 Str character break down the door even though, mechanically, he cannot (it's wizard locked and the DC is greater than what he could achieve, even with tools).

Let's change the example a bit (I like doing this ). Player A is running a 7th level wizard with an 18 INT. Player B is running a 4th level wizard, A's less experienced former apprentice, with an INT of 15. Both have memorized comparable, effective spells.

I think we can agree, effectiveness-wise, Player A should be > Player B.

But during an encounter, Player B saves the the day by using their spells more effectively. Even though, on paper, Player A has the stronger PC.

Does Player A have the right to complain that they were overshadowed by Player B? Did Player B play poorly by playing smarter than Player A?

Mechanical (character) ability can only matter so much, if this is going to be a game where player contributions matter. Now we can debate exactly how much influence player ideas/words should have, and in what situations, but to deny their place, or label it bad role-playing, is, well... silly.

Now, of course player contribution matters. And, you're also outlining one of the weaknesses of D&D, namely combat resolution vs social or skill resolution. Combat resolution will have many, many choice points allowing that a decently intelligent character might outperform a more intelligent character. Skill resolution, OTOH, is binary. It's pass fail. There really is only one choice point.

And, that's also not an entirely fair comparison. You're comparing a very intelligent character to a genius. No one is saying that the very intelligent character should fail. What is being said is that the genius character should do things that the very intelligent character can't.

The untrained Cha 10 character can talk until he's blue in the face, but, he's going to have a MUCH more difficult time influencing people's reactions than the Cha 18 fully trained diplomatic character. The player's words shouldn't play into this. It's simply not fair.

A better example, Mallus, would be a 10 Int Wizard and an 18 Int Wizard. Now, should the 10 Int wizard be regularly more effective than the 18 Int Wizard?

 

[kitsune9]

It's kind of up to the GM. Each player has their own style and so long as it doesn't interfere with the game, it's okay with me. I have some players who will not win Thespian of the Year awards, but they chug along, pay attention, and express interest in the game, so that works for me.

 

[cattoy]

Simple solution:

Eloquent description of attempted use of social skill along with witty lines = +N to roll.

Unimaginative description of attempted use of social skill with no player input = -N to roll.

N should probably scale along with PC level. At first level, there isn't a lot of difference between the roll of someone who dumped CHA and someone who didn't, and only a few ranks difference.
At high levels, the difference can be huge.

Consequence: Silver-tongued player with dumpstat CHA character and no ranks in diplomacy might get away with fast talking a commoner or foot soldier early on. By the time the PCs are interacting with dragons, royalty, arch mages and the like, that PC will be useless at getting one over on the high level NPCs. And it is as it should be. If silver-tongued player wanted their PC to be good at talking their way into people's good graces or out of tricky situations, they should not have dumped CHA and maybe thought about putting ranks in diplomacy. This isn't a LARP.

 

[Hussar]

cattoy - I'd much rather just play with people where describing how they use a social skill is the baseline assumption. Penalizing someone because they don't dress up their table speech with extra verbiage is not the way to go IMO.

Actually, I gotta admit, I'm with JeffH on this one. Play the character in front of you. If the character has a 10 Cha and no diplomacy skill, PLAY THAT. To me, that's the heart of roleplaying right there. Playing the character that you created. If you want to play an eloquent character, then make one.

And effort certainly counts. Just try to play the character in front of you, not ignoring it for whatever you want to play. Like you said, cattoy, this isn't a LARP.

 

[cattoy]

"words are weapons, sharper than knives" goes the song.

If you don't have the right tools for the job, you roll at a penalty.

If you have masterwork tools, you get a bonus.

 

[S'mon]

N should probably scale along with PC level. At first level, there isn't a lot of difference between the roll of someone who dumped CHA and someone who didn't, and only a few ranks difference.
At high levels, the difference can be huge.

That's true in 3e, but not in 4e. In 4e a 30th level CHA 10 PC is rolling at +15 on his Diplomacy checks - better than a maxed-out 1st level Bard, who tops out around +12. In 3e the PC is still rolling at +0.

(@Husssar) Ergo, does 'playing the game in front of you' mean that the 4e player must play his PC as increasingly persuasive as he levels up, while the 3e player must play him as unpersuasive at all levels? Or do you ignore the actual modifier and just focus on the raw stat + any skill training?

My approach in 1e-3e was to use the raw stats as largely definional of the PC, but that doesn't work in 4e. 4e raw stats are so abstracted that I basically ignore them and only treat the actual die mods as meaningful. I no longer see them as definitional of anything in-universe.

Eg in 1e-3e I'd cap a female PC of normal physique at STR 16, because the STR stat defined your strength. I find in 4e the stats are basically meaningless - if you want to be a good Fighter you need STR 18-20; as far as I'm concerned you can describe that combat effectiveness however you want. Maybe you're really athletic. Maybe a goddess blessed you to be teh ultimat waryer. Likewise the other stats.

 

[Hussar]

(@Husssar) Ergo, does 'playing the game in front of you' mean that the 4e player must play his PC as increasingly persuasive as he levels up, while the 3e player must play him as unpersuasive at all levels? Or do you ignore the actual modifier and just focus on the raw stat + any skill training?

I'm not sure if he's increasingly persuasive, so much as his fame just buys him a lot of latitude.

I mean, if I walked up to you on the street and asked (politely) to use your cell phone, you'd probably say no, or at least give me a seriously hairy eyeball. But, if Michael Jordan walked up to you on the street and asked you (politely) to use your cell phone, I'm thinking you'd most likely hand it to him immediately.

The power of fame, as expressed by level in D&D, is pretty far reaching. So, while my character is still not particularly eloquent or diplomatic, the fact that I'm a 30th level demi-god, is going to buy me a whole boatload of goodwill.

I think that the 3e version is actually flawed. That 3e character SHOULD get mechanical bonuses based on his level. The 1/2 level increase to skills in 4e is one place where I do see a very clear improvement on the skill mechanics. It makes sense, at least to me, that my demi-god character would be one hell of a lot more intimidating (just to pick one skill) than a 1st level one. Or that people would believe my words (Bluff) more easily, simply because I'm on first name terms with dieties.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Charismatic players often have advantage, as do "better friends". It's not fair, but that's how it usually goes. That can be fun-sucking.

But what comes to charisma used to roleplay so that it entertains the group, sure it should have advantage, it would certainly call bonus to roll, or in some cases used instead of roll.

Hey, couple of games ago one really dull gamer suddenly came up with such a clever remark and action that he deserved it.

Sometimes dices just roll wrong. When they too often roll "right" we call them story-dices.

I have met these social black hole people and I got off from those groups fast. Though it has happened with regular group too, when someone is forced by "social vote" to play some sytem/theme he/she really dislike. Been there done that too. Sagotage that usually work. Other people start to think that theme/game to be unfun too.

Also our groups should not run survival/pvp games with me and certain other player in them unless they want to see some sociopathic creepo activity/anything to win. I like pvp and I am good at it. I also force co-operation in D&D because I think it should be social and party-friendly game most of the time. Slightly off-topic yeh.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure if he's increasingly persuasive, so much as his fame just buys him a lot of latitude.

I mean, if I walked up to you on the street and asked (politely) to use your cell phone, you'd probably say no, or at least give me a seriously hairy eyeball. But, if Michael Jordan walked up to you on the street and asked you (politely) to use your cell phone, I'm thinking you'd most likely hand it to him immediately.

The power of fame, as expressed by level in D&D, is pretty far reaching. So, while my character is still not particularly eloquent or diplomatic, the fact that I'm a 30th level demi-god, is going to buy me a whole boatload of goodwill.

I think that the 3e version is actually flawed. That 3e character SHOULD get mechanical bonuses based on his level. The 1/2 level increase to skills in 4e is one place where I do see a very clear improvement on the skill mechanics. It makes sense, at least to me, that my demi-god character would be one hell of a lot more intimidating (just to pick one skill) than a 1st level one. Or that people would believe my words (Bluff) more easily, simply because I'm on first name terms with dieties.

Where did this correlation between higher level and fame come from? A far as I know, nowhere at all is there any expectation that being any particular level has anything whatsoever to do with how well known you are, and it hasn't in decades.

 

[S'mon]

I mean, if I walked up to you on the street and asked (politely) to use your cell phone, you'd probably say no, or at least give me a seriously hairy eyeball. But, if Michael Jordan walked up to you on the street and asked you (politely) to use your cell phone, I'm thinking you'd most likely hand it to him immediately.

I have no idea what Michael Jordan looks like, so if I did give him my cell phone, it wouldn't be due to his fame. What about NPCs who don't recognise the PCs? Does the PC get +0 on his roll instead of +15 then?