Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6207941" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, I outlined my own take on this extensively in the post just prior to yours, but the question of whether a player's "own natural talent should not translate into an advantage for the character" depends on what you mean by that, precisely because of what you have just said:Precisely.  Any problem solving encounter - how to climb a slippery flowstone, how to open a trapped chest, who to navigate a mazelike dungeon - is ultimately dependent on what actions the character takes.  Talking through a social dialogue is simply another series of choices.  And what the character says is determined by what the player animates the character to say.   Consider your example:Exactly.  This is the heart of the matter.   You will have players that are so socially ineffectual that they continually say things like, "I want to kill you." to the king and who are abrasive, offensive, and insulting when they mean to be otherwise.   Such players will have difficulty running socially effective characters not because of their own lack of charisma, but because of their own anti-social choices they are making when they animate their character.   Likewise, you could have a player whose character is on paper a tremendous combatant, but I can't stop such a player from making massively ineffectual and rash tactical decisions, or simply from being tactically passive.  I've had players who repeatedly essentially skip combat rounds, taking no action or no action of consequence because they are too afraid of making a mistake.   On paper the character is effective.  In practice the character is not nearly as effective as it could be.  If the player lacks tactical skill, and charges into ambushes, allows himself to become surrounded, is passive when he should be active and active when he should be passive, hides when he should attack and attacks when he should flee, what am I the DM to do - point out that his character is supposed to be a great tactician and play the character for him?  Or make an intelligence check before each combat round and give advice on the results of that, which amounts to much the same thing?  No amount of on paper intelligence and wisdom can turn a character into an intelligent and wise character if the player animating the character makes foolish decisions.   It can make a character knowledgeable and perceptive despite the player's lack of knowledge and perceptiveness, but it can't keep the player from doing entirely stupid things.   High combat skills can allow a character to succeed despite tactical understanding by the player, but it can't replace it.In the same manner, no amount of diplomacy or savoir-faire skill on a character sheet can make a tactless, aggressive player who prefers to solve problems with a battle axe diplomatic.  So, when we say that a character's charisma can replace a player's charisma, it depends entirely on what you mean by that.  A character can be magnetic, attractive, and desirable even if the player is unattractive and has odious personal habits.  A character can be smooth, confident, and to some extent glib even if the player panics, is awkward and stutters.   Diplomacy skill on the character sheet can do all these things.   But it can't make the character make good choices.  To a certain extent, a character's high social skills and likeability can mitigate the effect of those bad choices - an NPC may tolerate frankness, nosiness, rudeness, and tactlessness from a high charisma PC in a way they never would from a low charisma PC.   But at some point, the player's decisions simply overrule any thing that is on the character sheet.The reverse is also true.   While a highly intelligent and perceptive individual may have an easier time playing someone clueless and stupid than the reverse, it's still ultimately impossible for a smart player to play a truly stupid character because that awareness is always there biasing the choices.</blockquote>

Verification