D&D 5E How to model a party of cinematically charismatic heroes?

[iserith]

Lol I know we disagree on things but seriously what the heck?

I mean why are you playing a game where the stats are designed to do exactly that if you're just going to say "naw none of this matters". No I'm being totally serious here.

This completely diminishes even bothering to bring a character to the table. You're essentially saying that if a player is good enough, they could never have to actually play D&D at your table.

The ability scores come into play when I judge the approach to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful chance of failure. The mechanics then come into play and we get to see how the low Charisma score impacts the character's chance of success. Player skill matters in my view. When the player falls short of automatic success (or failure), the character's relevant mechanics will help determine the result.

You seem to suggest that describing what you want to do isn't "actually" part of playing the game of D&D. That can't be right, so please clarify your meaning if you would be so kind.

 

[Dausuul]

My suggestion: Each PC chooses one social skill and gets proficiency + Expertise in that skill.

Thus, for example, a PC modeled on Darth Vader might have a generally poor Charisma, but could still have a suitably high Intimidation score.

 

[Quartz]

Keep 'em coming, folks.

 

[GMMichael]

This completely diminishes even bothering to bring a character to the table. You're essentially saying that if a player is good enough, they could never have to actually play D&D at your table.

Yeah, I'm saying that too, if by "never actually play D&D" you mean "not bring a character sheet." Think about it. Isn't the "role" in RPG supposed to be on the character sheet? If the player can play that role without the character sheet, or the dice, who needs 'em? (Insert Vin Diesel here.)
[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], not sure if you were disagreeing, because the role-playing IS the approach, right?

 

[Sunseeker]

The ability scores come into play when I judge the approach to have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful chance of failure. The mechanics then come into play and we get to see how the low Charisma score impacts the character's chance of success. Player skill matters in my view. When the player falls short of automatic success (or failure), the character's relevant mechanics will help determine the result.

You seem to suggest that describing what you want to do isn't "actually" part of playing the game of D&D. That can't be right, so please clarify your meaning if you would be so kind.

It isn't. Yeah I know I sound crazy right? But lets face it, it isn't. It's a standard part of every role-playing game. Nothing about it is uniquely D&D (in the way that say the 6 stats or the skill system is). It's just role-playing. You don't need D&D to role-play. And before you go there, no, role-playing in a D&D-styled fantasy setting by itsself isn't playing D&D either. D&D is a system of rules. If you remove the system of rules from whatever you are playing, then you're not playing D&D.

I guess what cheeses me off about your approach, and yes, it does actually piss me off a bit, is that you're basically punishing anyone who isn't a good role-player. You're telling them "You didn't say the magic words." or "You didn't convince me personally well enough." so now their approach has uncertainty. Meanwhile the guy with the silver tongue gets to essentially skate through your game without risk because he's simply a more skilled wordsmith than other players? That's terrible.

Yeah, I'm saying that too, if by "never actually play D&D" you mean "not bring a character sheet." Think about it. Isn't the "role" in RPG supposed to be on the character sheet? If the player can play that role without the character sheet, or the dice, who needs 'em? (Insert Vin Diesel here.)


[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], not sure if you were disagreeing, because the role-playing IS the approach, right?

If a player's skillful use of language can bypass the mechanics of the game, then no, you are not playing D&D because D&D is the mechanics. You might be playing a fantasy role-playing game. You might even have similar classes and events, but if a skilled wordsmith can bypass throwing the dice, you're not playing D&D. In the same way that you wouldn't be playing any other game if you bypassed the game part of it.


Role-playing is part of any TTRPG. But it alone does not D&D make.

 

[iserith]

It isn't. Yeah I know I sound crazy right? But lets face it, it isn't. It's a standard part of every role-playing game. Nothing about it is uniquely D&D (in the way that say the 6 stats or the skill system is). It's just role-playing. You don't need D&D to role-play. And before you go there, no, role-playing in a D&D-styled fantasy setting by itsself isn't playing D&D either. D&D is a system of rules. If you remove the system of rules from whatever you are playing, then you're not playing D&D.

Yes, we agree that you do sound crazy. I certainly didn't suggest removing mechanics from the game. See "The Middle Path" in the DMG, pages 236-237.

I guess what cheeses me off about your approach, and yes, it does actually piss me off a bit, is that you're basically punishing anyone who isn't a good role-player. You're telling them "You didn't say the magic words." or "You didn't convince me personally well enough." so now their approach has uncertainty. Meanwhile the guy with the silver tongue gets to essentially skate through your game without risk because he's simply a more skilled wordsmith than other players? That's terrible.

I don't see why you'd have any emotional reaction at all to how someone else runs their games, but it does explain a lot of your posts on enworld.

As I have said in multiple threads now, a player is tasked with describing what he or she wants to do. That means stating an approach to a goal. Stating the approach to the goal is roleplaying now matter how you communicate it. Therefore, if you are skillful at coming up with effective approaches to goals such that you end up rolling less than other people at the table, yes, you may be more successful over time. That's okay in my view. Player skill should matter in a game as as I see it and putting one's character in the best possible fictional position to achieve success is smart play (to the extent smart play is seen as achieving more successes than failures).

However, the way one presents a goal and approach to the DM is unimportant to adjudication. The player may use an active or descriptive approach to roleplaying or some combination of the two. If the long, inspiring speech by one player (active approach) still just effectively boils down to the simple statement of goal and approach by another player (descriptive approach), they have the same chance of success. So, no, being a "wordsmith" or a thespian or the like doesn't give you any particular advantage.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I'm saying that too, if by "never actually play D&D" you mean "not bring a character sheet." Think about it. Isn't the "role" in RPG supposed to be on the character sheet? If the player can play that role without the character sheet, or the dice, who needs 'em? (Insert Vin Diesel here.)

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], not sure if you were disagreeing, because the role-playing IS the approach, right?

Describing what you want to do, be it via active or descriptive approaches, is roleplaying.

I don't advocate not bringing a character sheet to the game. The character will likely have features and abilities that will be needed to achieve success more often such as the personal characteristics which allow the player to earn Inspiration.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes, we agree that you do sound crazy. I certainly didn't suggest removing mechanics from the game. See "The Middle Path" in the DMG, pages 236-237.

Your arguments are your own, either make them, or don't. Don't tell me to go read a book to make your argument for you. If you feel that section explains your stance on things well, you should be reasonably well-versed at integrating its words into your argument.

I don't see why you'd have any emotional reaction at all to how someone else runs their games, but it does explain a lot of your posts on enworld.

I can do without the personal attacks thank you.

As I have said in multiple threads now, a player is tasked with describing what he or she wants to do. That means stating an approach to a goal. Stating the approach to the goal is roleplaying now matter how you communicate it. Therefore, if you are skillful at coming up with effective approaches to goals such that you end up rolling less than other people at the table, yes, you may be more successful over time. That's okay in my view. Player skill should matter in a game as as I see it and putting one's character in the best possible fictional position to achieve success is smart play (to the extent smart play is seen as achieving more successes than failures).

However, the way one presents a goal and approach to the DM is unimportant to adjudication. The player may use an active or descriptive approach to roleplaying or some combination of the two. If the long, inspiring speech by one player (active approach) still just effectively boils down to the simple statement of goal and approach by another player (descriptive approach), they have the same chance of success. So, no, being a "wordsmith" or a thespian or the like doesn't give you any particular advantage.

One of these statements must be false, because they are contradictory.
How can you on the one hand reward better roleplay, which is by nature improved via superior wordsmithery, and on the other hand say that superior wordsmithery has no effect on the challenge at hand? If a player can talk their character into auto success via good roleplay, then logically the inverse is also true, people who role-play poorly are more likely to face challenges, and thus, fail them.

Player skill should matter in a game context. Player skill should not be a battle of wits between players who are smart, and players who want to play smart characters. By placing the player skill in front of the character skill, you are essentially telling people that not-so-smart players should not play smart characters, since you will disregard their character's capability in favor of the players.

 

[Stalker0]

If a player's skillful use of language can bypass the mechanics of the game, then no, you are not playing D&D because D&D is the mechanics. You might be playing a fantasy role-playing game. You might even have similar classes and events, but if a skilled wordsmith can bypass throwing the dice, you're not playing D&D.

This in summary has been the problem with Charisma since the inception of the game, and is a debate that will never end as long as the stat exists. On the one hand, your right. Mechanics exist for a reason, and you want to allow a person with low social skills to play a smooth-talker character. Just as you would have a weakling to play a super strong fighter. Further, a character shouldn't "have their cake and eat it too" with an 8 charisma but amazing speeches.

On the other, role-playing is talking. And there are people that are just better at it than others. If a player gives a dramatic epic speech, many DMs want to reward that....stats be damned.


This debate has no victor; it will continue until all of us our dead, cold, and in the ground.

 

[iserith]

Your arguments are your own, either make them, or don't. Don't tell me to go read a book to make your argument for you. If you feel that section explains your stance on things well, you should be reasonably well-versed at integrating its words into your argument.

And I have. Many times in many threads. I even use a lot of the same words and phrases from the Basic Rules and DMG. But it seems possible that an emotional response to an approach suggested by the DMG may be interfering with your ability to understand the argument. I present the DMG reference in hopes that someone else saying the same thing may be better received.

I can do without the personal attacks thank you.

It's not a personal attack. Your admission does, in fact, explain a lot of the posts you've made on these forums. It's useful information for all of us to know you have emotional reactions to how people you don't play D&D with run their games. It informs us how to interact with you going forward. Thank you.

One of these statements must be false, because they are contradictory.
How can you on the one hand reward better roleplay, which is by nature improved via superior wordsmithery, and on the other hand say that superior wordsmithery has no effect on the challenge at hand? If a player can talk their character into auto success via good roleplay, then logically the inverse is also true, people who role-play poorly are more likely to face challenges, and thus, fail them.

Player skill should matter in a game context. Player skill should not be a battle of wits between players who are smart, and players who want to play smart characters. By placing the player skill in front of the character skill, you are essentially telling people that not-so-smart players should not play smart characters, since you will disregard their character's capability in favor of the players.

As I said already, someone who is good at paying attention and coming up with a good approach may be more successful over time than someone who is not good at that, especially if the former player stacks the deck in his or her favor by using an approach that speaks to the character's best bonuses and skills. But how one communicates the approach to the goal is unimportant as it applies to adjudication. It's not a vocabulary or acting contest, after all.