Eliminating charisma

[Laman Stahros]

Ahh yes! I agree that the concept has been around that long, but I just don't remember the terminolgy bring thrown around so much. Also, I was always playing with hard core DM's who made us keep our stats in the order we rolled them so I guess we didn't have the "dump" option. The only thing we eventually got him to do was to let us "buy" better stats, by spending 2 points in 1 ability score to raise another ability score 1 point. Geez, I DO sound like a geezer! Next I'll be telling people we used parchment paper for our character sheets, real bones for dice, and chicken blood and feathers for writing instruments!

<Geezes up>
Well, we didn't have the internet infecting our gaming discussions either.
>Geezes down<



I haven't seen a lot of "dump stating" in 3e, but I haven't seen most of the complaints about 3e that I hear about here on ENWorld. In my XP, point buy kills the "dump stat" problem for the most part.

On topic, if Gort has players that can handle the changes he (or she) is talking about, then good luck and have fun. I just couldn't do it. I have never had a group last for more than 3 years (I was in the US Navy for 20 years) and I had too many players that would have disappeared into the woodwork if I had done something like this.

 

[The Levitator]

I would actually like to give point buy a try some time and suggested it for our latest campaign that just started. But my players won't budge. They don't mind the imbalance of ability scores (for the chance of the equivalent of a 60+ pointbuy), because they say that they trust in me that I will balance things out with items or something cool for the low-statted players. Silly wabbits!

 

[Sigurd]

As to talking the Devil out of eating the party's souls, that shouldn't be up to a simple mechanical solution, anyway. That should be pure roleplaying, except, maybe, for the characters' initial reaction to so powerful and terrifying a personage--just to set the mood.

That puts the DM in the unenviable position of having to adjudicate every social interaction according to what? Personal Like? Favouratism? 'She's my girlfriend?'

You can do it but I dont think the 'solution' is better than problem. Are you giving up on Sorcerers? Removing charm and bluff? If I say "my character tries to seduce X" are you going to want intimate details to asses success?

In my books, charisma is a very happy abstraction.


But, Go for it and let me know how it works out. I'll count the adjectives and flowery speech in your reply to know it worked for sure .

 

[lottrbacchus]

In my game charisma covers luck. Game use example- character wants to buy a specific uncommon item, or find a shop that just happens to be open late today, etc; all that gets resolved with a charisma check.

 

[Drowbane]

This sounds like alot of work for a minor peev.

Let us know how it works.

 

[hong]

That puts the DM in the unenviable position of having to adjudicate every social interaction according to what? Personal Like? Favouratism? 'She's my girlfriend?'

"How well you bullsht the DM".

Which can actually be a lot of fun, with accomplished (and funny) bullsht artists.

 

[Agamemnon]

Uh, I'm not saying "never solve problems by talking and interaction", I'm saying, "the rules for talking and interaction are quite poor, let's simply replace them with roleplaying".

Personally, I'm in the school of thought that likes to replace poor rules with good rules instead of no rules. Mostly because it takes strain off the DM. D&D is rules-based in most respects, so to me it makes sense to continue using rule mechanics for social skills as well.

 

[Sigurd]

"How well you bullsht the DM".

Which can actually be a lot of fun, with accomplished (and funny) bullsht artists.

The DM can always hand wave the rules in a particular instance, or ask for any detail. What a DM has great trouble doing is reversing himself or defending what his players see as a bad call if he does not have a clear rational ie... a rule structure.


S

 

[hong]

The DM can always hand wave the rules in a particular instance, or ask for any detail. What a DM has great trouble doing is reversing himself or defending what his players see as a bad call if he does not have a clear rational ie... a rule structure.


S

Pish tosh. That just means the DM lacks ranks in bullshtting the players.

 

[Gort]

Are you giving up on Sorcerers?

In the original post it states that sorcerers are the same except they base their spellcasting on wisdom.

Removing charm and bluff?

They're based on how the player roleplays now. Come up with a decent bluff, and you can bluff.

If I say "my character tries to seduce X" are you going to want intimate details to asses success?

Do you often say that? In years of playing and DMing I've never seen anyone seriously use seduction. I'd imagine it would come over as a bit creepy. But to answer your actual question, I'd want a framework of how you'd go about it, and based on whether X actually likes your character (based on previous roleplaying) and the character of X, I'd come up with an answer.

I have a question for you in return - do you actually use the diplomacy rules as written, or do you just let your players roll, and if they do well, you come up with the result? Because that's the way I've seen it done in 90% of cases, since the rules break quite badly once people begin gaining levels.