Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?

[malraux]

I've always liked the BRP/Cthulhu/Chaosium answer to this. Charisma as such is divided into two stats. The first is appearance; the second is Power, as in will power. In that sort of system, your success at influencing people, either magically or mundanely, is tied to Pow. In addition, your natural luckiness is also a function of your power. Charismatic characters end up being luckier.

 

[Akaiku]

Charisma is often a dump stat because people think that the 'roleplaying' should decide how a conversation turns, and not the stats.
I say that as long as combat isn't figured in the same way, neither should social interactions.

The characters' stats should matter. (Or else play a game where there are no such stats.)

2 problems here. One, you can't usually ask the gm to make up a plan because you OOC are terrible at it but you IC have 30 int. So what happens is that someone who has the roleplaying to back up stats wins but someone who has the stats and no roleplaying doesn't.

Second, how many people do you need to be a diplomat? The answer is usually one of the pc's. If one pc does the social interaction and is good at it casue they are the social spec pc, why exactly should any other character bother? Str is a dump stat for most 3.5 casters, after all. If your job is to kill things and take their stuff, why exactly does how commanding your presence is matter?

Or, alternativly, you can make charasma how pretty you are and plenty of people will take it JUST for that. Extend it to cool and more will take it. Emphasize that people without high charasma will NEVER be recognized as cool or pretty by anyone regardless of merit.

 

[Ariosto]

In the original D&D game, Charisma was perhaps the second most important score (after Hit Points). Besides providing modifiers to NPC reactions, it limited the number of "henchmen" one could have and affected their morale and loyalty. As henchmen could gain experience levels, they were quite valuable assets if carefully cultivated.

If memory serves, that held true (by the books) in every TSR edition. Players did themselves (and DMs did Charisma) a disservice by neglecting that aspect of the game. If it was dropped from the rules in 3E, then the new designers can take some blame for making Charisma a "dump stat".

In Traveller, Social Standing sometimes serves a Charisma-like function. However, "dumping" is not relevant when scores are randomly generated rather than assigned by the player. There is also the twist that a low score might in some circumstances (to which adventurers are prone) be more advantageous than being an aristocrat. (Those do not include getting a commission in the Navy, though!)

In RuneQuest (old editions, anyhow), Charisma not only has a leadership component (less defined than in D&D) but is useful in such important matters as obtaining training. An interesting note is that the score can rise and fall depending on the success or failure of ventures.

That general idea seems to me quite good. As an indication of prestige, Charisma can have great appeal for players. Just knowing that his other stats make a character Hal the Hero -- for all that to the public he's a "zero" -- may not be as "cool" as getting acknowledgment, respect, deference, or even adulation.

Charisma could have additional value if it governs not only influencing others but also resisting persuasion. That goes, though, against the general rule that players have free rein to choose their characters' responses.

I think the bottom line is that it really depends on how important interpersonal relationships are in the game. If the player-characters are all loners and social outcasts, then it might be as well to "dump" the rating from the game altogether.

 

[Janx]

I overcame the dump stat thing (in 3e) by forcing my players to make charisma checks in about every social interaction.

As soon as they wanted something out of somebody, or wanted to buy/sell something extraordinary - a charisma check. (Often I allowed a Diplomacy check instead, if I deemed it suitable.)

By really showing that a lower charisma meant that people liked you less I got my players to stop dumping charisma.

You're not wrong here. Basically make more checks that use charisma, and the stat will matter.

Charisma is often a dump stat because people think that the 'roleplaying' should decide how a conversation turns, and not the stats.
I say that as long as combat isn't figured in the same way, neither should social interactions.

Here I disagree. A smart tactics player will do better in combat (with the same game stats) then a stupid player. Their real world skill affects the game, not by numbers, but by how the maneuver and avoid doing stupid things.

Real world persuasiveness is the same thing, except for social interactions, instead of combat interactions. It manipulates the game, beyond the numbers. It's just the way things work.

 

[Janx]

In the original D&D game, Charisma was perhaps the second most important score (after Hit Points). Besides providing modifiers to NPC reactions, it limited the number of "henchmen" one could have and affected their morale and loyalty. As henchmen could gain experience levels, they were quite valuable assets if carefully cultivated.

Charisma has been a dump stat for as long as D&D existed. It was a dump stat, because if you rolled a low number, you could stick it in Charisma and at least be decent in your chosen class. Only an idiot would roll a 4 for a stat, and stick it in Dex, just so he could get a 15 charisma for a fighter. A charming fighter who got hit a lot isn't one that's going to reach 10th level to get henchmen.


Ultimately, nobody wants low scores, but if you roll one, sticking it in Charisma had the least impact on your PC. That's why it's a dump stat.

 

[Ariosto]

In the original game, there was no "dumping" for the same reason as in Traveller. Even with the importance later given to other scores, and even with free distribution, I would give a fighter's charisma priority over intelligence or wisdom. Why one would wait until 10th level to recruit henchmen is beyond me.

 

[Clavis]

In early D&D, Charisma was not a "dump stat" because there where no "dump stats"; abilities were rolled in order and you played what your scores indicated. The game didn't demand that all characters have super-human abilities in every category.

Charisma is a vital ability for low-level characters in old-school D&D, because it governs monster reactions and the ability to control henchmen. Low Level characters in older editions survive by not trying to fight everything, and by hiring retainers to help them in combat. As has been said before, D&D was not originally so much about killing things and taking their stuff, as about exploring the unknown and bringing home treasure. Monsters were simply obstacles to getting treasure, as shown by the fact that PCs received far more XP from bringing home treasure than they did from killing monsters. Talking your way out of difficult situations was usually a far better tactic than trying to kill everything.

 

[Barastrondo]

2 problems here. One, you can't usually ask the gm to make up a plan because you OOC are terrible at it but you IC have 30 int. So what happens is that someone who has the roleplaying to back up stats wins but someone who has the stats and no roleplaying doesn't.

You can ask him for hints, though, at the very least. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case.

That said, I've rarely seen players who are really uninterested in clever planning pick the high Int characters — for them, mental skills tend to be a dump stat so that they aren't forced to labor over the plans. Similarly, players who tend to be interested in social interactions above and beyond "The entire party needs to talk NPC X into Activity Y" don't shaft Charisma.

Second, how many people do you need to be a diplomat? The answer is usually one of the pc's. If one pc does the social interaction and is good at it casue they are the social spec pc, why exactly should any other character bother? Str is a dump stat for most 3.5 casters, after all. If your job is to kill things and take their stuff, why exactly does how commanding your presence is matter?

Man, that depends on the game so much and so hard. I can off the top of my head think of all kinds of situations where one person being the party diplomat isn't going to always help. What if the wizard needs to make a good impression on the local Elementalist College and the other wizards aren't going to let the bard make his case for him? What if the military insists on asking the party warriors for their opinion instead of the charmer? And if there are five party members and five incredibly hot singles hanging out in the bar, the party diplomat might not mind going off for a sixsome all the time if it's easier for him to do that than to try and talk a lady into giving Gruntax the Noisome some pity-loving.

I see some players make Charisma a dump stat now and again, but the way I encourage people to consider Charisma isn't mechanical: I just provide NPCs that are more interested in particular characters than the entire party. Potential mentors, lovers, allies, contacts, etc. — if there's a lone gnoll in the party, for instance, then I'm going to want to drop in at least one or two gnollish NPCs who would have story hooks, potential training, camaraderie or other useful things that they'd be wililng to share with another gnoll. Clerics and paladins have other members of their faith. Fighters might have mercenary or military contacts. Thieves' guilds. Fire-cults. All kinds of ideas. The party diplomat can get stuff for the party, but you get a little extra out of the world if you are willing to speak up for yourself.

If players genuinely aren't that interested in interaction with personal contacts, no worries. Generally they are, though, because that's what my groups tend to get out of gaming. A well-realized NPC with some neat things to offer goes a lot farther, in my experience, than any hard-and-fast mechanic to encourage players to interact with the world.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Someone upthread mentioned the basic problem with Charisma ... the player's actual charisma will, during game play, almost always mean more than the character's Charisma.

This is also true of Intelligence and Wisdom, but the effect there is mitigated. A high-Intelligence or high-Wisdom character benefits from the "committee effect," which allows the player(s) to more closely emulate the character's score. The slow pace of game-turns when compared to game-time also helps. Going the other way, I've found that DMs -- including me -- are more apt to notice and shut down someone overplaying his or her character's low Intelligence or Wisdom scores.

I try -- but it is difficult, and I fail at it a lot -- to make NPCs react appropriately -- or even exaggeratedly -- to a character with a notable Charisma. If I could improve at that (a lot), that would help, as long as I make it very well known that it's going to occur in the game. (No surprises for players used to relying on their own charisma, rather than their character's.)

In game mechanics -- 3.5 -- I have a point-buy system that gives Charisma a break. (In short, 156 points; Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence cost 2.25 per increment; Constitution and Wisdom cost 2; Charisma costs 1.75.)

You could also try doubling -- maybe even tripling -- any Charisma penalty to skills, but that seems like it would have quite a few unforeseen implications.

 

[Jack7]

LL, I like a lot of these ideas. The ones offered so far.

In my setting Charisma is fundamental to Clerical characters. For sentence Charisma helps to determine how powerful the Charis, which are similar to the Charisms in the Medieval Player's Handbook. Similar, but not the same. For instance Charisma helps determine how influential a Cleric will be when trying to influence others, either emotionally, or reasonably (in debate) or how effective their homilies or preachings or speeches will be in influencing others. Charisma also helps clerics when practicing Thaumaturgy (miracle working) and Paladins when executing their powers, like Lay on Hands. In other words Charisma helps to solidify and amplify Faith based acts and initiatives. Anytime one party or individual has to have "faith" in what someone else is doing then charisma helps to amplify this "I have faith in you" proposition. Prayers become more effective, miracles more pronounced and obvious, effects more outstanding.

Likewise, although we don't use Charisma as Willpower, Charisma can amplify Willpower because it can help increase self-confidence in the character in the same way it can create faith in another.

In the clerical sense and in the faith sense then this is much more like the Koine (Greek) usage of the term. Charisma being a psychological or soul attribute of the character, rather than merely a social or behavioral one.

Charisma is also fundamental to Bards and to Agents and Scouts (Rogues) because of their jobs, for much the same reasons. Bards depend upon moving and convincing others, Agents and Scouts must instill faith in their proposals and work, and so charisma is considered a "type of genius" in these circumstances. Certain individuals and characters have the "genius of being charismatic" which goes far beyond being popular or social and into the realm of "deeply influential." Charisma can be used to win converts to your cause and to gain allies to asset you with your objectives. (And when you win a convert you can often reply upon their material as well as emotional support. Even if only in secret.)

Charisma is also extremely helpful for the human Wizard in my setting. The human Wizard is not a magic-user but rather a proto-scientist, alchemist, and inventor. Because he is usually "far ahead of his time" he often has to use charisma to help him convince others that his experiments, knowledge base, inventions, ideas, theories, and so forth are viable and workable.

Another use for Charisma is in ease of rising in rank. By this I do not mean charisma assists at the outset with social rank, but one with high charisma is more likely to rise in power and rank (I am not speaking about level) within a given organization. For instance suppose one is playing a Soldier. A soldier with high charisma and a good career record is more likely to rise in rank than one with poor charisma and a good service record. If they were equal in other respects then the Soldier with the good charisma is more likely to rise in rank faster. The same for a Cleric within his church, or anyone in any organization that relies upon social and political interaction. The "charismatic cleric" (and charismatic could imply far more than just "socially popular") is far more likely to rise to the level of Bishop or Arch-Bishop than the far less charismatic or retiring cleric. Then again if one rises far enough within certain organizations (the Church, the Army, the Government, etc.) then what usually follows is a de facto if not an outright public rise in actual social status and class. (By that I mean a rise in "Real Class," going from commoner to nobleman or important administrator or officer.) So in our setting charisma doesn't necessarily affect how you start out but can be extremely useful in how far you rise and what you eventually become (outside the mere rise in level for your professional class).

So charisma can have different and profession-specific effects, as well as more general effects, depending upon the situation and the given character.

Charisma in our setting is also a racial issue. Some races have more charismatic effects upon other races, and some races are just generally more charismatic than others, and all that implies.

We also use it to imply general good fortune in some circumstances.

And finally charisma can be very helpful to any class or profession when it comes to "leadership ability." Leadership is an important component of our setting. And charisma can be used to amplify or augment leadership ability and effects. (Or suppress the leadership ability of others. Individuals can engage in influence and charisma duels.)

Admittedly though my setting is different from many settings in the way it approaches these matters because the intention is to make the setting far more like the real world of that time period than most, including things like Social Class and Culture being far more important than just a sort of generalized backdrop. I intend players to exploit their setting for advantage in the same way people can exploit the real world for advantage. Therefore things like rising in rank or becoming a representative of an organization are very important to character success.

But I do very much agree with those above who implied that it depends upon how the setting is structured as to how well any particular ability or capability can be exploited. How you structure attributes to act, react, or interact within the setting will determine how successful or important nay particular attribute is, or can become.

Don't know if my ideas helped you or not but good luck with your efforts.