Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Hussar]

It's a good question. But I think the answer is because of all the fuzzy stuff we been saying here.

STR is easily managed by the number. You do or do not get a +5 to your attack and damage. You do or you do not open the door. The player's strength has no impact on the character's strength.

INT might convey some numerical bonuses, but in terms of defining how smart the PC is, it still relies heavily on the player's brains.

CHA is equally fuzzy. There may be rules on how many henchmen I get, or some impact to social skill checks, but like intelligence it still relies heavily on how the player portrays it.

WIS is the same thing. Your PC might have a high score, but if played by an impulsive person who never makes a smart move and always falls for every trick, then you don't have parity.

That's the point. You can't easily align the attribute rules to the player's ability because its not something the game can fully contain or restrain.

But, that's my point. I shouldn't have to adjudicate this. The player, him/herself should be doing so. The player should be playing the character that was created, not ignoring any weaknesses simply because he can and the DM lets him.

In other words, it's always bad to not actually play your character. If your character has a 10 Cha and no ranks in diplomacy, then, as a player, that's what should be getting played. As DM's, we should never applaud players who ignore their character sheet.

The funny thing is, in any other part of the game, ignoring the character sheet is called cheating and we consider players who do this to be very, very poor players. Yet, we've seen numerous examples here of DM's who not only don't call out players who don't play the character that was created, but actually actively reward and applaud these players as bringing the goodness to the table.

 

[Barastrondo]

Something that no one has so far addressed is why do charismatic players get to ignore their character sheet? Why is it a good thing that someone with a good gift of the gab can ignore the weaknesses of the character that he or she made?

I don't think people have addressed it because it's usually not a situation, certainly not to the exaggerated examples of "sprout wings and fly, only socially." Charismatic players usually get an advantage because they have better social skills as players. Usually they don't get to rewrite the entire scene. Their advantages are very proportionate to the advantages other players get in other arenas.

To put it another way, I think the player who determines "this NPC is very proud, I need to take a tack that flatters him without obviously sucking up" and successfully negotiates a situation is comparable to the player who says "We know there are kobolds around, I'm going to test the floor there with my 10-foot pole." In some groups, being able to detect traps by describing what you're doing is "cheating" since you didn't pay for those skills: in other groups, that's the epitome of desired play.

Why are social interaction mechanics treated differently?

Are they? Do you perceive that the average charismatic player makes mindless skeletons flee by making a really impressive threatening speech? Do you find that it's common that a player with good social skills has a villain weeping in repentance before initiative is even rolled? I don't see that very often.

In my experience, charismatic players' advantage is more akin to other, completely approved "player skill" advantages. A charismatic player knows when to be charming and when to be stern; a tactical player knows when to flank an opponent and how best to avoid an opportunity attack. A genre-savvy player knows that he gets good results when he does something dashing in a swashbuckler; a math-talented player ekes more efficiency out of the same resources. These don't obviate die rolls: rather, they're skills at arranging a more profitable situation when the die roll comes.

 

[Hussar]

Well, honestly Barastrondo, I do see it a few times. I played in a couple of campaigns where the DM really favored "role play" over "that icky combat stuff". So, he insisted that we create 15 point buy characters. We were supposed to be Joe Averages. Yet, in play, two of the four players (I was the fifth) played their character's interactions WAY above the abilities of the character themselves. The 9 Int, 10 Cha character making lengthy speeches to NPC's, being very erudite and whatnot.

IOW, pretty much completely ignoring their character sheet and freeforming.

Now, I have nothing against freeforming. Nothing whatsoever. However, when I come to a game that isn't freeform and then the players in collusion with the DM play it freeform, I have a problem.

If the DM is totally upfront about it that your character sheet doesn't really matter and "the play's the thing", then fine. Free form RP ho!

But, I'm seeing lots of DM's in this thread pretty much saying the same thing as that DM that I had - the character sheet doesn't really matter when it comes to social interactions. If the player makes a great speech that is fun, the character sheet can go hang.

I have a problem with that. I think that that's very poor role playing. The player CHOSE to have a character that was not socially "ept" and then is ignoring that fact. It's no different than the 7 Int orc barbarian suddenly turning into Sun Tzu as soon as initiative is rolled.

 

[Janx]

Barrastrondo makes some good points about [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s concerns.

There are probably fewer instances of a player using his powers of speech to perform gaming miracles that a skill check would have refuted.

[MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION]' method would further ensure that, by the concept of translating my approach and intent to a skill check, rather than taking me literally that what and how I say it is absolutely how it happens (given that PCs are likely talking an imaginary language, that's a reasonable assumption that a high skill check result means I correctly use "Your Grace" in the right places, etc).

I might also challenge the implied assumption that a 10 CHA means we suck at social interactions. The average real person does not suck at social interactions. Therefore, the average person CAN handle being polite, having manners, and persuading others. It's also worth noting that each of us varies in the quality of our interactions. Sometimes I'm jerkier than I am right now. Other times, I am supremely diplomatic and persuasive and my words contribute to the Corporate Bottom Line (as in I get new business, calm down customers, sway opinions).

But still the point may be missed. As a GM or fellow player, you may NOT DETECT that I am using my brains or silver tongue. I had a friend who damn near killed his PC when he announced he was going to jump from one platform to another (with no indication of the distance between or our height). I am not such an idiot. None of my PCs, regardless of their INT will be played so stupidly as to make a fatally reckless move like that.

Absence of making stupid moves is not proof that I am playing my PC as smarter than his INT implies.

I may avoid proposing plans to the party, or even participate in the planning (just tell me who to hit).

In dealing with the Duke of Whatever, I may simply be silent during discussions with him. Or before the encouter, tell another PC to try not to piss him off so he'll pay us.

But I haven't actually done anything blatantly smarter or more charming than my stat says.

Additionally, if I'm feeling persuasive enough, as a player, I may convince the GM to consider my proposal, whereas the blunt one will simply be ignored. The person to person aspect is where the charismatic player has an advantage with the GM. And that's where the game rules offer no protection,because HUMAN INTERACTION has no protection from the ways of human interaction.

And to sort of rebutt "Why are social interaction mechanics treated differently?" one more time...

It's because in a way, you can't. There's too many fuzzy ways that me being smart or charming sneaks into game play, regardless of the rules. It therefore may be worth considering that the WIS/INT/CHA scores do not represent the aspects a player brings to the table, because they ultimately can't enforce it. Not like STR/DEX/CON do.

Therefore, it might be cleaner to just say:
INT/WIS/CHA impact the game elements as the rules indicate.

How clever, social, tactical or resourceful your PC is is wholly within the domain of the player.

So, you state what you say or do, and that IS how smart or charming your PC is. The outcome of any attempts are still dictated by pertinent skill checks and game rules (can't cast extra spells just because the player has a good memory).

And that is as easily explained by people I've known who thought they were smarter than their actions belied. Or would try to speak diplomatically or business-like, but as the words were delivered from their mouth, lacked the same impact as rendered from my own.

 

[Janx]

Well, honestly Barastrondo, I do see it a few times. I played in a couple of campaigns where the DM really favored "role play" over "that icky combat stuff". So, he insisted that we create 15 point buy characters. We were supposed to be Joe Averages. Yet, in play, two of the four players (I was the fifth) played their character's interactions WAY above the abilities of the character themselves. The 9 Int, 10 Cha character making lengthy speeches to NPC's, being very erudite and whatnot.

Skimming only lightly into politics (and not naming people), there have been candidates who have quite clearly demonstrated a lack of speaking or thinking ability on national TV. Yet those people have managed to have people rally to them and mount political campaigns to varying degrees of success.

Depending on our preferences, we might even argue quite vociferously as to the numeric value of their INT/WIS/CHA stats.

That we might not agree on something allegedly so concrete as stats as to a real person's performance in public speaking or interviews, speaks volumes to the amount of interpretation as to what a stat means and its portrayal.

As such, I could accept that an int 9, CHA 10 PC might give some speeches. And that some people might be moved by them. That might be what some die rolls are for. To see what side of the kool aid bowl the listener is drinking from.

 

[prosfilaes]

good points. your basically saying translate the stance of what the player says the PC does, and roll for it to represent the actuality.

I said nothing about rolling. Most things with strength are never rolled; if you can pick up 100 lbs, you just pick up 100 lbs. Unless you're making an extraspecial effort, there's no need to roll.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION], the XP function seems to be broken at the moment, but I agree with your posts 188 and 190. In a talking-based game, there's always going to be a difference between the implimentation of mental and of physical stats.

 

[Janx]

I said nothing about rolling. Most things with strength are never rolled; if you can pick up 100 lbs, you just pick up 100 lbs. Unless you're making an extraspecial effort, there's no need to roll.

I think you are quibbling where I am trying to see your point of view by rephrasing it.

encumbrance and dead lift ability comes into play and discussion far less frequently in-game than attack rolls and checks to open doors and things. So yes, rolling is quite often the final mechanic.


Furthermore, while 10 STR may indicate an exact amount you may carry, a 10 INT does not indicate an exact amount of how smart my character may act.


My point being, always enforcing a die-check for the fuzzy stuff as a translation of player intent to actual PC action may be one one way of enforcing the fuzzy stats #'s to the game. This is what I believe you intended as your method.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think you are quibbling where I am trying to see your point of view by rephrasing it.

If the person doesn't agree with your reprhasing, it probably missed the point. You don't roll; 95% of the time, it's a static filter. In Elf-town shopping while Chr 4 is like shopping while half-orc; you're always going to have a hard time. You only roll if the player decides to turn on the charm.

encumbrance and dead lift ability comes into play and discussion far less frequently in-game than attack rolls and checks to open doors and things.

Encumbrance is constantly in play. It's just not noticed, because you don't have to recalculate it or check it.

 

[Barastrondo]

Well, honestly Barastrondo, I do see it a few times. I played in a couple of campaigns where the DM really favored "role play" over "that icky combat stuff". So, he insisted that we create 15 point buy characters. We were supposed to be Joe Averages. Yet, in play, two of the four players (I was the fifth) played their character's interactions WAY above the abilities of the character themselves. The 9 Int, 10 Cha character making lengthy speeches to NPC's, being very erudite and whatnot.

I submit that this extreme is (a) not universal, and (b) when it does occur, not at all limited to Charisma-based skill. Many tactical players play their characters above their Intelligence scores; many long-term veterans use their pre-existing knowledge of how the world works rather than making the same mistakes with each new character.

Does it happen? I'll concede that it does. Do Charisma-based skills get more of a pass than tactical skills, genre savviness, experience with a game system or math skills? I don't believe they do. I think it's entirely on par with a low-Int character flanking well and taking his fellow players' out-of-character advice. And I think when things like this get a pass, it's because they add to the overall fun of the group: the charismatic player gets a pass because people like listening to him speak, and the tactical whiz gets a pass when he helps everyone overcome bad odds.

When those players don't get a pass is, I think, when they use their skills for their benefit alone. But I don't think it's tied to the stat that they're ignoring.