Charisma in the D&D Game (article)

[Darklone]

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.

I see it as kinda balancing factor. Guys who focus on simple brutal force have to accept social penalties.

It's a simple: You can't have it all.

At Life action RPGs there has been a similar problem rather often: The best fighters played mages sind they knew they could win fights without extra abilities. How do you want to balance that?

 

[rounser]

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

But I don't want a good CHA. I see the possibility to be able to control the way I roleplay my PC - without a forced distribution of numbers getting in the way - except when it comes to game mechanics that actually need to be quantified. And no, I don't think social skills qualify as "needing to be quantified".

Under D&D, that would mean ditching the mental stats or replacing them with "Magical aptitude" equivalents (Arcane Magic Aptitude, Divine Magic Aptitude, Sorcerous Magic Aptitude) that don't map directly to the mental and social ability of the character. Doing so would also break the skill and saving throw systems and so isn't really practical without a redesign from the ground up, but that's because the game is built around them.

I see no problem with STR, DEX or CON, or scores which represent such things as aptitude with magic, because they need to be quantified for mechanical reasons that cannot be resolved by roleplaying. Under D&D as writ, certain character types (e.g. a fighter who is being roleplayed as an excellent leader) would force the three physical stats or two other mental stats to go down to compensate for the personality a player chooses for a character. Once again, a minor gripe with the system (and not worth the effort in house ruling away because of the overhaul it represents), but, I think, a valid one.

 

[rounser]

It's a simple: You can't have it all.

Indeed. Under the current system, if I want an optimised fighter in the physical department, I have to tend towards either dumb, foolish and socially incompetent - pick any one, or all three - and I have to roleplay the character that way, regardless of whether it's fun for myself as a player, or not. Too bad - all top notch 3E fighters are that way. If you want to roleplay a personality that way, 3E rules restrictions are such that you will have to compromise your physical or other mental scores. I'm suggesting that if you take the numbers out of the social and mental sides to roleplaying a character, that restriction is no longer needed, and what comes out of my mouth when I roleplay can no longer be deemed "munchkin" if I have high STR as well.

What you seem to be ignoring is that it doesn't have to be the way it is with regard to mental scores - remove the numbers which define the mental abilities and replace them with magical aptitude scores, and you can put control over personality back in the hands of the roleplayers, instead of choosing an either/or between mental aptitude to affect what you can say as a roleplayer, and physical aptitude to add to the dice results in combat. That's an artifact of the system alright, but that doesn't make it the best or only way, and I can see another which has potential...

...but not worth the effort to convert to, and is not something that I feel very strongly about. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[LostSoul]

Nothing wrong with that.

(Re: "You can't do that.")

I object to a DM telling a player that he can't even try something. That's why the DM should just let him roll it out.

 

[Darklone]

Yup and I wanted to explain why I see a reason to keep the numbers. If you drop them you get superheroes. Strong, agile, healthy, and good personality.

IMHO: Those characters suck. After decades of playing I can say that I am sick of players that want to go that way.

I have no problems with playing a fighter with Str 14, dex/con 12 and cha 14. You don't always need 18s. You only need them for neverending hack&slash sessions some guys call roleplay.

 

[rounser]

Yup and I wanted to explain why I see a reason to keep the numbers. If you drop them you get superheroes. Strong, agile, healthy, and good personality.

Suppose there are 3 other ability scores which need attention for your skills, saves, magic ability and combat ability not to suck, and your stated problem disappears. My suggestion of another way it could be done doesn't involve simply removing INT, WIS and CHA, but replacing them with scores that don't map directly onto mental ability.

IMHO: Those characters suck. After decades of playing I can say that I am sick of players that want to go that way.

I assure you that players will still play their half orc barbarians under such a system as dumb and socially incompetent if that amuses them - and it does. You don't need a number carrot to force such roleplaying behaviour - for most players, it will happen naturally, and what's more, they get to choose without interference. Who knows, it might even lead to better roleplaying...

Suppose said half orc is quite stupid and foolish most of the time, but on occasion has moments of startling insight and wisdom that disappear as quickly as they come. Under a quantified INT/WIS system, such a character might be objected to, or be difficult to represent. See also the discussion on the ambiguity of charisma earlier in this thread for why the numbers are such a blunt tool when applied to roleplaying in the true sense of the word.

I have no problems with playing a fighter with Str 14, dex/con 12 and cha 14. You don't always need 18s. You only need them for neverending hack&slash sessions some guys call roleplay.

Put an 18 into the CHA, then come back and tell me about your fighter's effectiveness. That you had to compromise to have a decent strength and dex/con is an artifact of the system, and helps prove my point somewhat.

Again, I don't really care that much, and like the system as is - it's just a minor annoyance.

 

[Al]

LostSoul: Perhaps, but the line has to be drawn. If not, it can be very abusive indeed. If a low Int character is formulating master strategems, a low Wis character making incredibly insightful and useful comments and a low Cha character persuading the party to follow him then something is clearly amiss. If the character is circumvented his own ability scores then DM intervention is probably required.

rounser: Whilst I see where you are coming from, the reverse does not appear to apply.

Firstly, I would contradict your rather specious point about the DM disallowing intelligent characters to do stupid things. Not only do intelligent people in real life actually do stupid things, but some DMs (all the ones I've played with for one) allow an Int check to remember something if the player has forgotten; or a Wis check to prevent a foolish player from doing something moronic with his character.

However, my substantive point is this: if you 'unquantify' Int, Wis and Cha, the general effect is that the more intelligent and exploitative players will simply play tanks and then use their ultra-high mental abilities to turn their character into a one-man party. It also smacks of player elitism: the whole point is that in theory all characters should be roughly equal. Experienced roleplayers will tend to dominate any situation, but by forcing them to justify this with high mental scores you divert away some of their prowess. Worse, it means that a player with a low charisma or whatever is constrained to a character with a low charisma. If you believe that player choice is the ultimate aim, you have contradicted your own argument. The hallmark of a *good* roleplayer, as opposed to a mediocre roleplayer, is the ability to take decisions which are in character even if the player knows that they are detrimental. If that includes actually roleplaying out a low charisma score, then so be it. It just stings of hypocrisy to use charisma as a 'dump stat' and then promptly ignore it. The mental stats are the more abstract and part of their impact is on roleplaying- to ignore that is to nullify them. If you really wish for your characters to be charismatic, intelligent or wise, put a high score in the appropriate ability and take a hit to your combat prowess: it is exploitation, bordering on cheating. to simply dump a 6 in intelligence and roleplay a mastermind.

 

[rounser]

...if you 'unquantify' Int, Wis and Cha, the general effect is that the more intelligent and exploitative players will simply play tanks and then use their ultra-high mental abilities to turn their character into a one-man party. It also smacks of player elitism: the whole point is that in theory all characters should be roughly equal. Experienced roleplayers will tend to dominate any situation, but by forcing them to justify this with high mental scores you divert away some of their prowess. Worse, it means that a player with a low charisma or whatever is constrained to a character with a low charisma.

I'm not sure that there are too many gamers with 18 INT or CHA around, so I cannot comment on the extent of what you're suggesting, but I do agree that there are discrepancies between the abilities of players.

You do have a point. But, consider a different style of play of D&D, one in which solving puzzles and problems is presented as a sort of game-within-a-game unto itself. You can see this in adventures such as the Challenge of Champions, or plots with mysteries or secrets for the players to find out, or the puzzles and riddles in general. The players and DM have a choice - they can either approach the puzzle with the intellect of the player, or that of the character. This is the important point: I am yet to see a player who could solve the puzzle OOC back away from solving the puzzle in-game because his stats suggested that he was too dumb for that. I'm sure it happens, probably regularly in some groups, but I haven't seen it personally, yet.

Now, apply this to social situations and plot deciphering. How far are you willing to go in compromising your enjoyment of the game with regards to intellectual challenge to serve the needs of not necessarily how you see your character, but what that '8' on the character sheet implies? And where do you know when to stop? You may think you're playing as dumb as an 8, but you could be playing a 6, or even a 3 - there's not much sense of scale. Then add your DM and the other players, and their take on what an '8' intelligence means. This matters even with the DC system, because a raised suspicion of exploitation may result in a call for a roll from your DM to "act that smartly", and therefore the possibility of failure (or not).

If you believe that player choice is the ultimate aim, you have contradicted your own argument. The hallmark of a *good* roleplayer, as opposed to a mediocre roleplayer, is the ability to take decisions which are in character even if the player knows that they are detrimental.

I know this is heresy, but I can see a scenario in which some players might not want to go the whole hog on being a good roleplayer if that's what it implies - taking away problem solving or meeting social challenges. Are such players always doomed to play characters like The Face from A-Team if they derive their enjoyment in this way? If so, you're argument implies what you claim mine does - compromising player choice whilst claiming to enforce it.

If that includes actually roleplaying out a low charisma score, then so be it. It just stings of hypocrisy to use charisma as a 'dump stat' and then promptly ignore it.

Now hold on a sec, that is most certainly not what I'm suggesting. Read above for the suggestions on the suggestions on a variant system which do not imply that.

The mental stats are the more abstract and part of their impact is on roleplaying- to ignore that is to nullify them.

If you replace them with non-mentally mapped, game mechanic-affecting ability scores to take their place, they are no longer there to ignore, nor get nullified. You are still operating from the status quo set of rules assumptions by saying this, and that's not what my argument is referring to.

If you really wish for your characters to be charismatic, intelligent or wise, put a high score in the appropriate ability and take a hit to your combat prowess: it is exploitation, bordering on cheating. to simply dump a 6 in intelligence and roleplay a mastermind.

Once again, under 3E as writ. If you replace these ability scores with ones that don't map onto mental requirements in PCs, your scenario no longer applies and you can roleplay that character how you damn well want to - without accusations of powergaming.

You claim that you understand my argument and that the reverse is not true - I think you may have just proved otherwise...!

 

[evileeyore]

to rounser concerning not figuring out the puzzles:


I've actually done just that. Had the answer to the puzzle but decided that my INT 6, Wis 8, CHA 8 Barabarian couldn't have figured it out. It wasn't a D&D game but the stats are about appropriate. In fact noone in the game figured out the answer to to the puzzle. Eventually (after about an hour) the DM looked at me and said 'Okay, I know you figured so just go ahead and tell everyone else, so a smarter character can have the idea and solve it'. I replied that we should all make INT checks and whoever makes the best check will get told. The DM thought that was a great idea until everyone failed thier characters INT checks. Repeatedly. So I refused to tell them the solution to open the door to the buried temple, and had my character just rip it from its hinges. I rolled really well and the DM decided to fudge the DC down a bit to allow it. From that day on I have refused to make a character of low INT, WIS, and CHA.. I will however allow a single 'dump' stat, but not two. And I roleplay the dumped stat.

And I am sorry but you arguing from faulty logic. You state that if you create 3 new stats that govern the controll of say arcane magic, divine magic, and everything else (ie: turning, etc),; that it isn't munchkinhauser to dump them, then play the ùber fighter with a great intelligence, rapier wit, and dazzling charm. Ba-pssschhhht! Then you should also arbitrarily create 3 new stats that adjust lifting power, agility and acrobatics, and HP and endurance, so you can roleplay a buff, strong, tough guy who sucks at combat, has no HP, and is actually a klutz based on these new stats... I understand that I am overstating things a bit however, what you want is Amber, not D&D. Not saying anything bad about Amber (In fact I want my Amber books back Mr Restrepo!! Not that he'll ever read this... *sigh*)


to ùìéè äîáåê concerning intimidate:

Simple answer, they are shaken and thusly suffer a -2 to most rolls that deal with the NPC. Longer solution: I came up with an escalating chart based losely of the Diplomacy/NPC reactions chart in the DMG but replaced reactions with the fear effects. IE: the first time the character is Intimidated he is shaken and at -2 to fight the NPC. The second time (and requireing a coorepondingly higher DC) he is frightened and will back away until he can calm down and is at a -2 to fight if cornered, etc all the way up to panicked in which they flee and cower if cornered (a really rough DC and requiring multiple successful Intimidates at progressively higher DCs with no failures). It was designed to be of use in an upcomong scenario for my DM in which a character has to fight a higher level Gladiator whose Intimidate is pretty high and plans to occasionally stop fighting and scare the crap out of his opponent for the amusement of the crowd.

 

[rounser]

And I am sorry but you arguing from faulty logic. You state that if you create 3 new stats that govern the controll of say arcane magic, divine magic, and everything else (ei: turning, etc),; that it isn't metagaming to dump them, then play the ùber fighter with a great intelligence, rapier wit, and dazzling charm. Ba-pssschhhht!

"Ba-pssschhhht!" yourself. You can build in other penalties for making them "dump stats" for fighter types that don't involve dictating character personality like INT, WIS and CHA do. I haven't gone into any detail over what they might be, because I haven't paid much thought to it - but assuming that they'd automatically be made with bad game design principles - simply because it serves your argument, as it appears here - seems pretty convenient.

Once again, common designerthink agrees that balancing combat ability with roleplaying penalties is bad game design, so balancing pluses to hit with stupidity is poor form.

Then you should also arbitrarily create 3 new stats that adjust melee attack and damage, AC and ranged combat, and HP and endurance, so you can roleplay a buff, strong, tough guy who sucks at combat, has no HP, and is actually a klutz based on these new stats...

You'd be right, IMO....if it weren't for the solid relationship between physical attributes and physical effects, and the more or less arbitrary relationship between magical aptitude and the different mental stats.

As the sorceror proves, the relationship between intelligence and arcane magic is arbitrary. The relationship between dodging and dexterity is not so easily divorceable. I can easily imagine a dumb wizard - a savant who is skilled at his spellbooks, but unable to rationalise in real life situations - or alternatively, you can disassociate the ability to use magic from intelligence and make it an "innate" gift of some sort, which seems to be common in fantasy novels. I cannot rationalise a character with big muscles and low strength, unless he has some kind of disease, so your point doesn't really stand, IMO, unless you're overly adverse to killing the "all Wizards must be smart in order to be decent casters" sacred cow (and related ones).

I understand that I am overstating things a bit however, what you want is Amber, not D&D.

No, I don't want Amber - it's quite different to D&D, neh? I know what I'm referring to - D&D without stats that map to character's mental ability. And again, I don't necessarily want it, but I can see the potential for it.