Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[JamesonCourage]

You account for wind direction and intensity at any given moment, including sporadic gusts?

Yes.

That's remarkably thorough! It's more Gygaxian than Gygax! I assume a chart is involved... do you consult it as a standard practice, or only for dramatic moments?

I do not consult a chart.

(note pemerton did say "gust of wind" and not "sustained winds"... also note, the more exhaustively the GM claims to model the physical worlds their games are set in, the more they open themselves up the criticism their attempts at said modeling are grossly incomplete and/or inaccurate).

Your criticism is mostly amusing to me. I only have to run the game as believable to my players.

You know that saying, "truth is stranger than fiction"? I've found that to be true. In the pursuit of keeping my players immersed, I've erased most sporadic events, such as greatly convenient gusts of wind as ways to justify die rolls. I'd much rather think, "okay, the PC is heading over to jump to the rocks on the other side of the cliff. What's the wind like? Is it howling between the rocks, pushing on him as he goes through? Would it help or hurt him, or just be present but not really affect his movement? Will it be different when he hits the other side, or is it different from the wind pushing on him now?" I can take all of this into account in about 3-5 seconds, and decide before the die is rolled.

It may "open me up to criticism" from you or others, but really, it makes basically no difference to me. Complain/critique away. As always, play what you like

I think your method of claiming that you factor in every thing BEFORE a die roll is not how most humans work. Hence the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

You seriously know if there will be a gust of wind (which itself is a burst event) at the exact right or wrong time a jump is made?

As a person? Of course I don't know. As a player? Of course I don't know. As a GM? It's my job to know, and I decide they roll.

To then be able to say if said burst happens and what is its impact on the DC?

As opposed to what just about everybody else does which is to let the d20 be rolled, and then claim some random event like a gust of wind is what accounted for the random result.

I don't do this. Sorry if that's too irregular, I guess.

Otherwise, assuming you have such perfect control and calculation of all factors, there really is no need to roll the die. Just add up all these modifiers you are in perfect control and knowledge of determine if they succeed.

The Jump check still has other things I can take into account. How close to the ledge was their footing? Did they overstep/understep where they needed to? Did they gauge the distance correctly? These are things purely within the realms of skill of the PC with which the roll was made. I do not need to bring the outside world into account to justify the die roll (that is, there will be no gust of wind, there will be no spontaneously loose dirt where there wasn't before, or the like).

Your claim strikes me as the same as the NPC taking the best route debate. That you have such perfect and total knowledge of every pixel, every object, every molecule and its motion that the die roll can't represent the abstractness of this knowledge because it contradicts your perfect and absolute knowledge.

I've taken all the outside factors into play before the roll. Obviously the roll is necessary to determine how well the PC performed, as I've indicated.

Whethere you are truly capable of these feat, only you can say. The rest of us are operating under the Heisenberg Uncertainty Princinple as it applies to running an RPG. We cannot absolutely know or even think of every factor that actually impacts a situation. Such as the moisture level in the ground, the exact wear pattern on the shoe, the exact footfall position as the running approaches the precipice and makes his launch. Exactly how many millimeters from the edge was he? What was the relative position of his last foot to pebble #24609? If his foot overlayed it, what impact did it have on his launch? What was the air flow at each moment during the entire run, jump and land sequence?

Hopefully you can see that saying, "slick ground, -2 on the check" before someone rolls is taking into account current conditions before the check. Then, things within PC control will be decided on the die roll, such as the placement of his foot, gauging the distance, and the like. When I run my game, I usually omit Convenient Gusts Of Wind and the like, as they tend to hurt immersion. Instead, I'll factor for things like wind conditions before the jump is made.

This is the kind of stuff rolling the dice abstracts. No human can practically manage all that data in a realtime game setting. Just roll the damn die and if the results are particularly extreme, make up some reason that supports it as needed.

Works for a lot of people. It's how a lot of people I've played with run their game. I don't, and I think my group prefers me running their game for a reason, of which immersion is one. To that end, I'll stick to my techniques, thanks. Yours aren't wrong, and I'd have fun playing in that game. My players would, too. Just not as much fun as the way I do it. Simply, our mileage has varied.

Why is this such a big deal? Determinism vs. non-determinism. With perfect vision and information, we can calculate how EVERYTHING will turn out. There is no randomness. However, we do not have perfect vision, information or even execution. Thus, what we attempt to do has a wider variance in outcome. That's what appears random to us, the observer.

If you've truly thought of everything, there is no die roll.

For the abstraction of how well the PC performs, within his own capabilities. That's what I use it for. I don't say, "you rolled low, so something messed you up." I say, "you rolled low, here's how you messed up." You may not like it, and that's fine. You don't have to. I'm not saying you need to play the way I do.

I am, however, saying that your assertion about my gaming style is inaccurate. As always, play what you like

 

[LurkAway]

You know that saying, "truth is stranger than fiction"? I've found that to be true. In the pursuit of keeping my players immersed, I've erased most sporadic events, such as greatly convenient gusts of wind as ways to justify die rolls. I'd much rather think, "okay, the PC is heading over to jump to the rocks on the other side of the cliff. What's the wind like? Is it howling between the rocks, pushing on him as he goes through? Would it help or hurt him, or just be present but not really affect his movement? Will it be different when he hits the other side, or is it different from the wind pushing on him now?" I can take all of this into account in about 3-5 seconds, and decide before the die is rolled.

It wouldn't occur to me think of windy conditions before making a jump, I think you're more on the ball for accounting for various in-game details.

I can imagine a player rolling a 20, the DM narrates that a gust of wind carries them far than usual, and the player blinks and wonders where that sudden gust of wind came from. In real-life, when something pops out of nowhere, it's called a surprise. In dream logic, something can come out of nowhere and that seems normal, but it's a dream. I can see how some ad hoc narratives can throw players out of immersion. (for me, a gust of wind probably wouldn't do that, but it depends on the location).

I can imagine a 4E encounter that featured strong winds and offered +2 circumstance bonus when jumping in one direction and -2 when jumping against the wind. Why not?

I can imagine a scenario where it's described as a windy day on a mountain, and if the player succeeds on a jump, it's narrated as the wind being in his favor, and if it's a failure, narrated as the wind switching directions. If the player is clever, they'll try to time their jump to when the wind is working with them (and maybe get a bonus). Thus you allow the die roll to account for external factors, but you don't ruin immersion with a jack-in-the-box narrative.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I can imagine a 4E encounter that featured strong winds and offered +2 circumstance bonus when jumping in one direction and -2 when jumping against the wind. Why not?

Yeah, if there's already a strong wind, I'd factor it into the checks depending on the strength and direction you're jumping (compared to the direction of the wind). Your modifiers above seem appropriate in many circumstances.

I can imagine a scenario where it's described as a windy day on a mountain, and if the player succeeds on a jump, it's narrated as the wind being in his favor, and if it's a failure, narrated as the wind switching directions. If the player is clever, they'll try to time their jump to when the wind is working with them (and maybe get a bonus). Thus you allow the die roll to account for external factors, but you don't ruin immersion with a jack-in-the-box narrative.

If I describe heavy winds that might change direction, and if the player specifically waited until the wind blew the direction they wanted to jump, I'd probably just give them the bonus. I might roll to see if it suddenly changed, but I'd have to have described the wind as extremely erratic for that to be the case, and they'd still get it the majority of the time.

Glad you see where I'm coming from, at least. As always, play what you like

 

[prosfilaes]

Of those 2 extremes, which players tend to suceed/get what they want in your games? Which ones tend to have more troubles?

Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be, or that we should make it worse.

While I'm sure the social skills were added to standardize handling of social outcomes, I don't think the designers intended them as some sort of handicapping system so the social moron can run with the rest of us.

And yet the designers must have intended to let the weakling, the clumsy and the asthmatic run with the rest of us. If you can't lift a sword in full plate mail, is it some sort of handicapping system if your character can?

D&D is not some kind of therepuetic tool for rehabilitating the maladjusted into the rest of society.

No, it's more for keeping the maladjusted safely away from the rest of society for at least one night a week. Play with whomever you like, but treating someone you play with as a "social moron" or "maladjusted" seems beneath the pale.

 

[Janx]

Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be, or that we should make it worse.

Nobody's burning crosses in the yards of social cripples. And last time I checked, they can still vote. You don't need to make this a "Save the unSocials!" campaign.

And yet the designers must have intended to let the weakling, the clumsy and the asthmatic run with the rest of us. If you can't lift a sword in full plate mail, is it some sort of handicapping system if your character can?

Once again, using my unique direct insight into the thought process of Gary and Dave, I'm pretty sure they didn't invent the attribute system as a means of balancing and handicapping PCs compared to their respective players. They were simply modelling attributes they felt defined a character for the game. Wizards tend to be weak, but smart. Fighters tend to be dumb but strong. They wanted scores to model that.

While they recognized that the rules obviously defined abilities the player may not exist, I don't think they read much more into it than that.

No, it's more for keeping the maladjusted safely away from the rest of society for at least one night a week. Play with whomever you like, but treating someone you play with as a "social moron" or "maladjusted" seems beneath the pale.

I don't know or play with anyone so unable to speak for their character that they can't represent their PC as being polite when speaking to a nobleman in character as "My lord, we would be happy to assist you in this quest." Everybody I know can speak more diplomatically when representing a higher CHA PC, and more thuggishly when playing a lower CHA PC.

There's no great social trauma they are trying to overcome where even a single sentence uttered in character is frightening to them or so awkward that the GM cannot get the gist of their intent of delivery and expression.

In short, if there are indeed true social morons out there, I do not intend to suround myself with them.

If someone else thinks they can use D&D as a tool to help them, great. But don't presume the game was designed for that purpose. Its just a game.

 

[prosfilaes]

Nobody's burning crosses in the yards of social cripples. And last time I checked, they can still vote. You don't need to make this a "Save the unSocials!" campaign.

When you start throwing around words like cripple and moron, you head that direction.

If someone else thinks they can use D&D as a tool to help them, great. But don't presume the game was designed for that purpose. Its just a game.

I don't see anyone here thinking of D&D as a tool to help them. But "just games" can be more or less fun for people depending on how you handle issues just like this.

 

[Hussar]

Something that no one has so far addressed is why do charismatic players get to ignore their character sheet? Why is it a good thing that someone with a good gift of the gab can ignore the weaknesses of the character that he or she made?

Do you also allow players to do maximum damage or automatically kill opponents if they describe it really well? Can my character sprout wings and fly if I make it sound really cool? Can I automatically do anything else covered by the rules just because I can say it really well?

Why are social interaction mechanics treated differently?

 

[Janx]

Something that no one has so far addressed is why do charismatic players get to ignore their character sheet? Why is it a good thing that someone with a good gift of the gab can ignore the weaknesses of the character that he or she made?

Do you also allow players to do maximum damage or automatically kill opponents if they describe it really well? Can my character sprout wings and fly if I make it sound really cool? Can I automatically do anything else covered by the rules just because I can say it really well?

Why are social interaction mechanics treated differently?

It's a good question. But I think the answer is because of all the fuzzy stuff we been saying here.

STR is easily managed by the number. You do or do not get a +5 to your attack and damage. You do or you do not open the door. The player's strength has no impact on the character's strength.

INT might convey some numerical bonuses, but in terms of defining how smart the PC is, it still relies heavily on the player's brains.

CHA is equally fuzzy. There may be rules on how many henchmen I get, or some impact to social skill checks, but like intelligence it still relies heavily on how the player portrays it.

WIS is the same thing. Your PC might have a high score, but if played by an impulsive person who never makes a smart move and always falls for every trick, then you don't have parity.

That's the point. You can't easily align the attribute rules to the player's ability because its not something the game can fully contain or restrain.

 

[prosfilaes]

CHA is equally fuzzy. There may be rules on how many henchmen I get, or some impact to social skill checks, but like intelligence it still relies heavily on how the player portrays it.

[...]

That's the point. You can't easily align the attribute rules to the player's ability because its not something the game can fully contain or restrain.

Of all the mental attributes, Charisma is the easiest to handle. Politeness is complex; even armed with a universal translator, none of us could walk before a nobleman in Faerun, Golarion, or medieval France and come across as anything but an ignorant foreigner at best. The correct titles and how to phrase requests are just two of the issues that can trip up the foreigner.

"My lord, we would be happy to assist you in this quest." could in real life be more offensive then "Dude, we will follow to the end of the earth." The second may not win you points for decorum, but the second could be taken as an insult for calling him "my lord" instead of the appropriate, and higher rank, "your grace" and for using "we" and "you" in a way that put the two of you on the same level.

Not to mention that politeness is not just words. Whether you shake hands (and with whom), whether you look people in the eye, and how close you stand are all issues that mess people up cross-culturally in the real world. Not to mention that a fighter whose tunic is stained equal parts orc blood and lunch isn't going to get a good reception no matter what he says.

In game? If a Charisma 4 character says "My lord, we would be happy to assist you in this quest", then both the exact wording in translation and the intonation, combined with the fact he tried to shake hands with people he had no business touching, makes people respond badly. If a Charisma 18 character says the same thing, he did the right things, used the right title and the right general phrasing to make people respond well.

 

[Janx]

In game? If a Charisma 4 character says "My lord, we would be happy to assist you in this quest", then both the exact wording in translation and the intonation, combined with the fact he tried to shake hands with people he had no business touching, makes people respond badly. If a Charisma 18 character says the same thing, he did the right things, used the right title and the right general phrasing to make people respond well.

good points. your basically saying translate the stance of what the player says the PC does, and roll for it to represent the actuality.

The trick is, making sure you consistently require a roll for darn near everything.

that's the trick with the fuzzy attributes, systemizing every action the attribute would impact. With the physical attributes, you get that for free as my personal strength or dexterity has no way of creeping into the game.