D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Clint_L]

I should add that I am very biased in this discussion because I teach high school students. We work so hard to try to prevent teenagers, especially girls, being fixated on their body image and physical appearance. It causes a lot of harm to so many kids. I don't want D&D Club reinforcing the message that girls get all the time, namely that the most important thing about them is how they look.

 

[Scott Christian]

I can only answer for myself. Why? Because beauty isn't an obvious part of the definition of charisma. (It's not even a small part of charisma by any definition that I've encountered.) And beauty doesn't greatly affect the associated skills. Those two points seem to be your major assumptions that support your case, but I just don't agree with them.

That is absolutely fair. If you don't think beauty helps persuade people or helps performers perform, then there is nothing to argue. I see things differently. But, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Scott Christian]

It can already be part of the game world. So now I am wondering what the entire purpose of this thread is. To try to make it so people at other tables are forced to consider something that you happen to like? Like, you want it specially mentioned to affirm your preferences or something?

I will be honest, I don't use it. Personalities, especially the ones codified on paper such as personality traits, ideals, flaws and bonds are much more important to play. That said, I am merely stating that OneD&D should add it to the definition because it makes sense. It would literally follow all the other abilities' examples. And it would represent the lore. And as I stated earlier, maybe the D&D realm has a universal appeal, one in which species doesn't matter.

 

[Scott Christian]

I should add that I am very biased in this discussion because I teach high school students. We work so hard to try to prevent teenagers, especially girls, being fixated on their body image and physical appearance. It causes a lot of harm to so many kids. I don't want D&D Club reinforcing the message that girls get all the time, namely that the most important thing about them is how they look.

And I am right there with you. It's a good point to bring up. But there is the alternative point of view: the one that is never considered pretty by her peers gets to be what she considers pretty. Just like the kid that weighs 110 pounds and has 9 inch arms gets to be his Hulk Hogan style barbarian.
But if it caused any harm to self image, then I would be for changing it and negating my claim. I might shift it to something like "universal appeal." But if that caused any consternation, then I would be against it as well.

All that said, I don't think it would cause anything. As someone who has run D&D for high schoolers for years and years, I have never seen conflict like this based on the game. I have never even seen the game amplify it, like so many suggest. What I have seen is a student upset at another student because their paying too much attention to the other girl at the table. I have seen a student fall out of friendship with his long-time pal and then bring the feud to their table. But never a student made fun of due to their abilities, internalized it, and then feeling bad. But I get it. My experiences aren't the world's.

 

[Lorithen]

I know... I know... We've been down this road before. But please hear me out: Charisma should include beauty. Right now it's "confidence, eloquence, leadership" and "... your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality." Beauty needs to be included. Here's why.

In our homebrew game, Charisma is defined as "a measure of persuasiveness, force of will, personal magnetism, and physical attractiveness". Willpower has come into play on a few occasions and there is a "willpower adjustment" table in our rulebook, which states: "Spells that involve charming, dominating or other forms of mind control are affected by the Charisma of both the caster and the target, as indicated by the 'Willpower Adjustment' below."

But re looks: "Within reason, and keeping in mind the Charisma score, players are free to determine what their character looks like. However, as Charisma is made up of a balance between personality and physical looks, improvements to one must to some extent adversely affect the other.

 

[Starfox]

Our rule is that your appearance depends on which Hollywood actor is playing your part - and 95% of them are gorgeous. Charisma is how the role is written.

Except now in Savage Worlds Pathfinder, there are attribute-based merits.

 

[Charlaquin]

You keep bringing this up like folks dumping and pumping is a big problem. I dont think you'll find many folks to agree with that. Also, this single change does nothing to stop people from trying it anyways.

I think it’s a more relevant problem for @Lanefan than it is for most. He’s pretty open about the fact that he and his players take a very no-holds-barred approach. When the expectation is that the players can and should use every advantage they can get, it makes more sense to explicitly disallow dumping a stat and then playing the character as if they had a high score in that stat (assuming that the group wants ability scores to have an effect on characterization).

 

[James Gasik]

I think it’s a more relevant problem for @Lanefan than it is for most. He’s pretty open about the fact that he and his players take a very no-holds-barred approach. When the expectation is that the players can and should use every advantage they can get, it makes more sense to explicitly disallow dumping a stat and then playing the character as if they had a high score in that stat (assuming that the group wants ability scores to have an affect on characterization).

I have a real hard time with the mental ability scores. Like, sure, it makes sense that you shouldn't roleplay your character being articulate with a low Charisma, or a capable tactician with low Intelligence- and yet, there's no clear threshold of exactly how charismatic or intelligent or wise one needs to be to roleplay their character in a certain fashion.

Worse yet, pop culture is full of characters who are woefully handicapped in some areas, but then have surprising competence in others- a classic example is the shonen protagonist who is totally lacking in book smarts and may even come off as an idiot, but then becomes hyper-competent with regards to strategy in combat.

Given that the 5e system doesn't give some ability scores much to do outside of skill checks, there's no real way to police this sort of thing. Saying "sorry, you can't be Hannibal Barca, you only have Intelligence 12" is completely arbitrary- how much Int does one need to invest to claim to be a mighty general?

Worse, even if one did make an 18 intelligence warrior, the system doesn't give intelligence any real way to benefit a character in combat; they can be no more intelligent or savvy than their player is.

Even when we do have rules for the use of ability checks, like with social rolls, there's still the classic paradox of the charming, articulate player and the introverted shy player- you still get DM's who insist that social rolls be roleplayed (because, I mean, it is a roleplaying game), and are leery of "allowing" a low energy Charisma roll to succeed on the merits.

In short, it's easy to say that someone is playing above ability of their character, and demand higher ability scores, but in some areas, players are not given much leeway if their characters are more capable than they themselves are.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a real hard time with the mental ability scores. Like, sure, it makes sense that you shouldn't roleplay your character being articulate with a low Charisma, or a capable tactician with low Intelligence- and yet, there's no clear threshold of exactly how charismatic or intelligent or wise one needs to be to roleplay their character in a certain fashion.

Worse yet, pop culture is full of characters who are woefully handicapped in some areas, but then have surprising competence in others- a classic example is the shonen protagonist who is totally lacking in book smarts and may even come off as an idiot, but then becomes hyper-competent with regards to strategy in combat.

Given that the 5e system doesn't give some ability scores much to do outside of skill checks, there's no real way to police this sort of thing. Saying "sorry, you can't be Hannibal Barca, you only have Intelligence 12" is completely arbitrary- how much Int does one need to invest to claim to be a mighty general?

Worse, even if one did make an 18 intelligence warrior, the system doesn't give intelligence any real way to benefit a character in combat; they can be no more intelligent or savvy than their player is.

Yeah… People are so much more complicated than numbered scores in “intelligence,” “wisdom,” and “charisma” (all pretty nebulously defined terms to begin with) could possibly express, so there’s no objective way to determine what playing “too smart/wise/charismatic” for a given score even looks like. And that’s before getting into questions of how to play a character who’s “more intelligent/wise/charismatic” than you.

Even when we do have rules for the use of ability checks, like with social rolls, there's still the classic paradox of the charming, articulate player and the introverted shy player- you still get DM's who insist that social rolls be roleplayed (because, I mean, it is a roleplaying game), and are leery of "allowing" a low energy Charisma roll to succeed on the merits.

In short, it's easy to say that someone is playing above ability of their character, and demand higher ability scores, but in some areas, players are not given much leeway if their characters are more capable than they themselves are.

Personally, my experience has only been improved by just deciding not to worry about this. I don’t require players to describe their high-strength characters as muscle-bound, nor do I feel any need to stop players with low-strength characters from doing so; it would be a double-standard to tell a player how they can or can’t roleplay based on their mental stats in my opinion. Worst thing that could happen is a player tries to talk like Sherlock Holmes and still regularly fails their Investigation checks or whatever, no big deal.

 

[Scott Christian]

I should add that I am very biased in this discussion because I teach high school students. We work so hard to try to prevent teenagers, especially girls, being fixated on their body image and physical appearance. It causes a lot of harm to so many kids. I don't want D&D Club reinforcing the message that girls get all the time, namely that the most important thing about them is how they look.

I would like to add a subjective. An alternative, maybe a broader view if you will.

Here are the women of Critical Role:

Three women, and I think we can say they, unified, they are good looking.
Now look at the PHB:

My point is: if you think one word... one word in a rulebook that only half the people read in going to make an impact on mental health, then...