Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?

[Liquidlizard]

I've actually thought of omitting charisma as such, but then again, I've always thought of it as a nice stable stat, which is interesting for those who want to boost their social game and those who want to play bardic characters. So before discarding it, I've wondered whether I can't improve it somehow.

As one mentioned, one of the problems of charisma is that the party needs only one diplomat, whilst battles require full attention of every member. Thus even in a campaign, in which social and military action is evenly matched in amounts, there will be less charisma characters and more fighters/mages/agility based dudes.

 

[Akaiku]

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.

Thing with this is that 10 cha in DnD is average person.
10 is also dump stating in point buy, more or less.
Unless you have more or less punitive action in social encounters for people who don't invest heavily into navigating them, (Remember, skill points in social things are eating up your often low amount of them you get from being a non-social class like fighter or barbarian) any of those people SHOULD be able to accomplish things like that. If nobody with a cha 10 and no social skills could get a SO, the population of that race would likely die off, as 10 is average and non-experts aren't trainied in such things.

Also, charisma is a static scale. In character people's perceptions would realistically vary. Nobody would expect a gnoll barbarian to be a master of the spoken word. Similary, if charasma is the entirity of your reptuation, anyone who wants to be known for valor and skill would paradoxically have to be less good then the unknown person. People should be able to inspire through deeds as well as words, you know?

I mean, the aloof and unlikeable prettyboy with the sword is still, often enough, the greatest swordsman ever, known far and wide. He'd have poor charasma though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It should also be noted that you can use Charisma-based skills to get bonuses to attack rolls, AC, and damage in RCFG.


RC

 

[Vorpatril]

Like some of the posters above, I included luck/fate with charisma in my 3.5 games.

We used action points that added 1d6 per point spent. The character's charisma modifier determined how many action points could be used on a single roll.

Basically, a player with high charisma could 'nova' their action points to really make one roll count. Since we rolled for AC (vs. a static monster attack), high-CHA characters were able to avoid certain death a few times.

With just that one rule, I noticed some players agonizing over what to put in charisma, which was my intent.

Now in my 4e game, I don't have that rule anymore, but the lowest charisma in a 6 PC party is 14. They call her the "ugly one"...

 

[Barastrondo]

Thing with this is that 10 cha in DnD is average person.
10 is also dump stating in point buy, more or less.
Unless you have more or less punitive action in social encounters for people who don't invest heavily into navigating them, (Remember, skill points in social things are eating up your often low amount of them you get from being a non-social class like fighter or barbarian) any of those people SHOULD be able to accomplish things like that. If nobody with a cha 10 and no social skills could get a SO, the population of that race would likely die off, as 10 is average and non-experts aren't trainied in such things.

Sure, absolutely you can get average results. What I'm saying is that above-average results are desirable, and people will invest a bit in Charisma or social skills to get them. Often you can get more preferential treatment out of the guildmaster because you're charming or eloquent — that's not just a play bonus, that's absolutely realistic.

If you have an average Charisma and no social skills, I'm not saying that you can't find a hook-up in the bar, I'm saying that the incredibly hot person you're checking out is probably more likely to go home with the guy that is doing a better job of convincing her that she would have a good time with him. You have an average skill set, so on average you get average results. People with an above-average skill set tend to get above-average results, just as people with really good killing skills tend to kill more than people who are average combatants. If you want to encourage people to think of Charisma as the legitimate approach to getting things that they want that it should be (at least based on real-world human interaction), then put in a higher class of rewards to reward their effort.

Also, charisma is a static scale. In character people's perceptions would realistically vary. Nobody would expect a gnoll barbarian to be a master of the spoken word. Similary, if charasma is the entirity of your reptuation, anyone who wants to be known for valor and skill would paradoxically have to be less good then the unknown person. People should be able to inspire through deeds as well as words, you know?

I mean, the aloof and unlikeable prettyboy with the sword is still, often enough, the greatest swordsman ever, known far and wide. He'd have poor charasma though.

Sure, but to a certain degree dump-statting Charisma and then still hoping to be able to influence people to a high degree is not unlike dump-statting your Intelligence and then playing your character with your full measure of tactical savvy. Reputation is important, but it's a factor rather than the sum of the whole.

I tend to give the low-Cha types the respect and dread that they earn, but people with less fighting skill and higher social ability are absolutely able to get more out of a social situation or conflict. After all, they're paying for it by giving up some of their ability to get more out of a physical situation or conflict. If dump-statting Charisma and getting by on your reputation is all you want, that's great, you'll still be able to eat at nice restaurants and pick up friendly members of the preferred sex. But I'm still going to offer an extra level of social achievement for the people who are investing more in that side of their characters. It's only fair.

 

[Henrix]

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?

That is how it often works in RPGs, yes.

But that's not how it really works in real life.

If you have a bunch of jerks, and one of them is smoother than the others and comes forward to talk to you, you don't forget the others are there.


But, sure, if all you do is kill stuff and take their things, then charisma isn't a big help.
Unless, you know, you are interested in how people react to you in town, what rumours they spread, if you can pick up girls, if the marquis wants to hire you for an important job, or even keep you around as a guard, &c.

Remember - to be scary in an impressive way you need to have some sort of charisma.
Otherwise you're scary as a mean drunk is scary.

It is the DM's job to see to it that these effects are noticeable in the world.


And a way to get that message across to the players is to have them make charisma checks. If you have them make one charisma-based check for every ten strength- or dexterity-based checks you'll find they start taking notice of their 'dump stat'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A stat is a dump stat if it's use is not required in your game.

If you create a game where everything focuses on mystery and research, but little combat, strength is a dump stat. If you play a wizard, strength is a dump stat.
If everyone sits in heavy battle suits that make you impervious to physical harm, constitution becomes a dump stat.

You want to make a game matter, there need to be relevant mechanics to it. The biggest problem with Charisma is that people tend to spend more time in battle then in scenarios with "charisma"-related abilities. If you can't change this premise, you need to make Charisma matter there. Henchmen and Cohorts might be a way. Magic might be. Willpower might be. Heck, if you wanted, you could build a game system where charisma influences your general effectiveness in combat, since it means people fear attacking you due to your aura of authroity and confidence.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I'm always tempted to use Charisma as the "luck" stat, ie when the DM wants to randomly decide which player got the bad apple of the bunch, roll a Charisma check, and lowest number gets screwed. Charisma determines basically how much other people like you, I'd also make it so it determines how much the Universe likes you too.

AR

 

[Jack7]

It should also be noted that you can use Charisma-based skills to get bonuses to attack rolls, AC, and damage in RCFG.

What's the rationale(s) for that RC?
I think I know:

Heck, if you wanted, you could build a game system where charisma influences your general effectiveness in combat, since it means people fear attacking you due to your aura of authroity and confidence.

But just checking.

 

[Ariosto]

As has already been observed, there is no "dumping" issue when (as in all, or nearly so, of the early RPGs) scores are randomly generated.

In Chaosium's games, there's usually a significant resource-allocation aspect to initial set-up ... but characteristics and (especially) skills tend to improve with use. In Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, etc., someone who gets an improvement check for a social skill is not thereby giving up a check for a combat skill. (Each skill getting an appropriately significant use in an adventure gets one check, with no limit on how many skills can improve from experience.)

If the game system sets up a choice between "this" OR "that", then the valuations of players -- shaped by the consequences of those choices -- naturally shape outcomes. Example: I can play a wealthy and famous fighter, but to get the points for that I may have to take a disadvantage that leaves the character less capable than a poor and unknown one. If fame and fortune are less desirable assets from a game perspective, then expect PCs predominantly to lack them.

One way around that is to have separate pools of points. Here's what you get for "combat monster" building; there's what you spend on other stuff. There can be more (or other) divisions, if there are more (or other) aspects you want to balance in well-rounded characters.