Charisma in the D&D Game (article)

[bardolph]

I don't see the point in having a separate Comeliness score.

There's no benefit in having extra stats just for the sake of having more stats.

Yes, we can have people roll up their height, weight, shoe size, IQ, eye color, hair length, running speed, bone density, and tooth whiteness, but WHY?

If the CHA stat can be used to govern CHA-based skills, such as Gather Information, Disguise, Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate, and if a straight CHA roll can be used for a general "reaction roll," what more do you really need?

"really hot but bitchy on wednesdays" DOES NOT NEED TO BE REPRESENTED BY A SET OF NUMBERS. Just put it on your character sheet and act the part.

 

[shilsen]

I'm afraid I didn't make my point as clearly as I would have like to.

I would have thought that you would either say:

High charisma people find others react well to them, low charisma people find that others react poorly to them

- or -

High charisma people are good at influencing others, low charisma people are bad at influencing others.

i.e. comparing the high and low stats on the same scale. The original statement that jarred was the equivalent of saying "high charisma people find others react well to them, low charisma people are bad at influencing others" - comparisons that are based on different continuums (continua? I digress).

Originally posted by Pyske
I don't think that's identical, I think it's opposite.

When I read it, I assumed this was an intentional dichotomy. I thought it was intended to advocate that high charisma people still have to make an effort to get good reactions , while a low charisma person automatically gets poor reactions, and has to work to avoid doing so (i.e. low Cha, high Diplomacy).

Plane Sailing, actually I did get your point. I think my response wasn't clear enough. Pyske is correct. What I meant to point out through my choice of phrasing was that a high Cha character has a tendency to elicit good reactions, and can manipulate others' reactions to evoke the reactions he wants, whether appreciation (Diplomacy), fear (Intimidate), etc., but must actively make an effort to evoke the desired reaction. A low Cha character has no real choice in the matter, and invariably evokes poor reactions, unless he is capable of using a skill to avoid them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Plane Sailing, actually I did get your point. I think my response wasn't clear enough.

OK, I understand your point now. Thanks for clearing it up.

I think at the bottom line we must recognise that WotC HAVE done a good job of making Charisma more significant than it used to be - since it has real game mechanic benefits for sorcerers, paladins, clerics and bards - and has a slew of skills which are useful with it too.

As seekers after perfection it is only natural that we wonder what else might be/might have been done; the amount of discussion compared with, say, str, dex, con, int, wis suggests that there is still some room for clarification

Cheers

 

[rounser]

I was recently stopped at the game table by a statement that "What you're saying is very convincing - your Charisma is too low to do that!" when trying to cajole another PC to reveal information. As a player, it cramps my style, and reduces the fun of the game to comply with this request. Oh well...time to go play a bard, paladin or sorceror I guess.

 

[LostSoul]

I was recently stopped at the game table by a statement that "What you're saying is very convincing - your Charisma is too low to do that!" when trying to cajole another PC to reveal information.

I think it would be best if you rolled a check (Diplomacy or Intimidate) and added a +2 mod.

 

[LostSoul]

Re: What about (N)PCs affecting PCs?

I am curious how you handle this. How do you introduce Cha into interactions with the PCs (asside from what the article says)?

I only force characters to act a certain way if it's in fun. If the PC gets liqoured up, he's going to have to roll to see if he can resist the charms of the town whore. Something like that.

 

[rounser]

I think it would be best if you rolled a check (Diplomacy or Intimidate) and added a +2 mod.

Hmmm, I think our group has only applied such checks to NPCs in the past....and I never noticed. I'll see if I can set a precedent.

 

[Al]

I was recently stopped at the game table by a statement that "What you're saying is very convincing - your Charisma is too low to do that!" when trying to cajole another PC to reveal information. As a player, it cramps my style, and reduces the fun of the game to comply with this request. Oh well...time to go play a bard, paladin or sorceror I guess.

Nothing wrong with that. If you played an Int 6 character and started making genius-level observations about an elaborate plan to decoy the orcs with a series of co-ordinated feints, and your DM said that you were roleplaying badly, would you complain? The problem is a lot of advanced roleplayers slap a low score in Charisma and then completely disregard it from a roleplaying point of view. Since Charisma is the roleplaying stat, to not roleplay it is to ignore it. Claiming that your DM overruling your depiction of Charisma is no more 'cramping your style' than saying because you have Strength 4 you can't lift a horse is.

 

[rounser]

Nothing wrong with that. If you played an Int 6 character and started making genius-level observations about an elaborate plan to decoy the orcs with a series of co-ordinated feints, and your DM said that you were roleplaying badly, would you complain? The problem is a lot of advanced roleplayers slap a low score in Charisma and then completely disregard it from a roleplaying point of view. Since Charisma is the roleplaying stat, to not roleplay it is to ignore it. Claiming that your DM overruling your depiction of Charisma is no more 'cramping your style' than saying because you have Strength 4 you can't lift a horse is.

Two things:

1) There's a bit of a double standard with regards to what mental abilities receive such "you can't do that" attention, and whether they do because they're high and low, though. For example, I've never had a character stopped from doing something for having low WIS, nor ever seen anybody else have the same done to them - it's all been self imposed if it manifested at all. Likewise, few DMs seem to stop the game and say, "You can't do that, your INT is too high to do something that dumb" when the 18 INT PC's player does or says something stupid. As mentioned above, CHA gets special attention, because people want it to matter in particular, and I argue that sometimes that gets taken too far.

2) Comparing it to STR is apples and oranges - STR is easy to map to the game because it's applications are usually numerically quantifiable, and it doesn't directly affect roleplaying choices regarding the personality of your character - unless you're concerned with whether your character is a beefcake or not, and make that matter to the personality. You paint it as I want to have my cake and eat it - well, I think that it's more about annoyance that the game effectively punishes some roleplayers for playing a certain personality of character by lessening their more combat-related ability scores, effectively balancing combat penalties with roleplaying bonuses (and CHA, except for the odd skill like Bluff, or if you're a sorceror, doesn't go far in this respect). This is deemed bad game design elsewhere in 3E. I can envision a version of the system without quantification of any mental abilities, and no social skills - in other words, one that lets the players get on with the roleplaying, and leave the numbers to in-game physical tasks such as combat, casting spells, or sneaking. It's a minor gripe, but it is a weakness that I can see with the system nonetheless.

On a related note, I remember reading in a post by a designer on Monte Cook's boards that the social abilities are merely there to speed up the game when time consuming 1 on 1 player and DM interaction is going on (such as when attempting to gather information) so that the other players don't get bored. If this is the only reason they exist, apart from boosting the usefulness of CHA, I think that they can safely be disposed of under a variant D&D which is lacking in mentally mapped ability scores.

 

[Darklone]

Nicely said, Al. I agree completely. Players shouldn't set a bad CHA and roleplay a good one.

Another point: People often complained why e.g. halforcs with their good strength tend to be bad at intimidating.

I see it that way. Sure you know that guy is strong and dangerous. That does not mean he will make you anxious, rather you will be cautious or even aggressive if you think you can take him. You're a hero, aren't you?

OTOH the selfconfident wellclad villain that invites you for tea to explain his worldconquest plans to you while asking you why you think you could do anything to spoil his plans will probably impress our hero.

I use it this way. I roll Intimidate checks for the NPCs. If it's enough to impress the character, I tell him he thinks he would lose a confrontation.

Sadly I had more than one player who metagamed and got into a brawl since he insisted that would be the way his character reacts to threats. Well. He got bashed badly.