Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Janx]

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

That's your disagreement? That you always apply the stat mechanically. That's not so dramatically different than what I said.

It's still functionally the same thing. You apply STR to everything you can, and you apply CHA to everything you can automatically through general NPC interactions.

My point was that I can see how that would work to enforce a charisma score through-out the game.

If we both had higher charisma scores, perhaps the other could have freakin seen what the other was trying to do.

My advice is, when you see somebody is TRYING your idea on for size, don't nitpick the piss out of it.

 

[Voadam]

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?

Do you also allow players to do maximum damage or automatically kill opponents if they describe it really well? Can my character sprout wings and fly if I make it sound really cool? Can I automatically do anything else covered by the rules just because I can say it really well?

Why are social interaction mechanics treated differently?

If a character describes doing something I often won't call for a roll at all, I'll ad hoc adjudicate it. If there is something to figure out I often give no roll at all. In combat there is a ton of rolling and hard mechanics. If I want to run an abstract skill challenge type of thing I'll call for rolls of some kind and often end up ad hoccing DCs and results.

I could care less how a player plays his alignment. If alignment has a mechanical effect like in unholy blight I'll look at the character sheet, otherwise I could generally care less how he matches what is on his sheet. Most everybody has their own views of what the different alignments are about and how their actions map to different alignments. I have no interest in bending others to my views on alignment as a DM.


Mental stats and social skills and alignment are not the primary consideration in roleplaying a player character. These are generally vague categories with a few hard mechanics. I'd much rather a player play his character the way he wants to than try to emulate numbers or boxes checked on a sheet. When the hard mechanics come up I'm fine using them but using ability scores and skill ranks as defining how to roleplay serves only to limit appropriate roleplay to no real benefit IMO. I'd much rather the player focus on how he conceives of his character and interacting in ways that are fun for him and the group.

If a player likes to roleplay being a smart and charismatic hero in D&D I don't want him to be limited to classes that mechanically use int and/or charisma to make a mechanically effective character. If he wants to roleplay as a wise and charismatic good guy like Hercules from the old Legendary Journeys show that is a fine roleplay concept regardless of what class he picks or what level he is.

I see no benefit in voluntarily limiting engaging roleplay to high charisma characters. I want as much of that as I can get across the board from every player regardless of what class they play. If someone is playing a foolish or mentally slow or shy character I want it to be because they think it will be fun to portray such a character, not because they like martial characters, dislike vancian magic, and chose to make a high strength and con fighter in a point buy 3e/PF game.

 

[Janx]

[MENTION=2209]Voadam[/MENTION] hit the nail on the head with what I been saying.

I'll use one of my PCs as an example here. Some time ago in another thread. It was my half-orc barbarian of awesome stats and 8 CHA (eventually I raised it to 10). Obviously the CHA was my dump stat, but I did spend in-game resources to improve it and eventually even got Leadership so I got a henchman.

The way I played the PC was initially modeled after Tyler Mane's Sabretooth from the X-men. Except not evil. Not good either. The campaign was set in the arctic, so I played him as a tough man of few words from a tribe of Orcs known as the Blackspears. I tended to boss the other PCs around (we had a metagame rule to never take to an extreme, so my PC would begrduglingly go along with other players wants). I never proposed any complex plans or even really participated in planning exercises. I was never diplomatic in anything I said. Usually shouting things like "Woman! Heal Me! in the middle of combat.

the Intimidate skill, by the RAW was worthless for my PC, as it never actually worked (never rolled high enough when I needed it). Despite the fact that I was playing the most intimidating thing at the table. I remember this point coming up in the other (old) thread and somebody commented that my PC wasn't really intimidating and effectively I was envisioning him wrong.

My internal response to that is "Who the $@#%$ are you to tell me how to play my character?!" Remeber that, because I think that's the theme that Voadam may be hitting on (which I've been hinting at from other angles).

My fellow player tended to dabble in King Making with my PC. So when an orcan tribe showed up outside the bar we were in, he went outside and brokered an honor duel. WHile he was explaining the details to me, the NPC was buffing himself. I then stepped out, killed him in 1 round, turned around and went back into the bar. KingMaker then declared "All Hail Rau!" and the tribe worshipped me.

The relevance being, I got to play off of my fellow player's better CHA in dealing with NPCs (just like any party letting the Face do the talking).

I ultimately got ahold of a crown of leadership and had spent a point on CHA (if I recall it started as a 7, I bumped it to at least help with Intimidation, and such). The PC was ultimately leader of all the orcs of the equivalent of Alaska. As a party, we ruled all of Alaska.

As a player, I interpretted the low stat in a way that didn't totally cripple him (I didn't want to play a stuttering slob). But I also took deliberate care to not get into my usual speech making and smooth handling of people that my more social PCs do.

But by rising in power socially, getting a henchman (spent a feat on it), did I somehow violate the limits of a CHA7-10 PC?

Remember that point I made a few miles up in considering your answer.

 

[Mort]

If a character describes doing something I often won't call for a roll at all, I'll ad hoc adjudicate it. If there is something to figure out I often give no roll at all. In combat there is a ton of rolling and hard mechanics. If I want to run an abstract skill challenge type of thing I'll call for rolls of some kind and often end up ad hoccing DCs and results.

I could care less how a player plays his alignment. If alignment has a mechanical effect like in unholy blight I'll look at the character sheet, otherwise I could generally care less how he matches what is on his sheet. Most everybody has their own views of what the different alignments are about and how their actions map to different alignments. I have no interest in bending others to my views on alignment as a DM.

As I said (much earlier in the thread from what I recall), this is great if stated up front, but can be a problem if it's not.

2 people sit in front of you, one who knows the way you run and one who does not.

The one who knows the way you run is likely going to give short shrift to INT and CHA unless his concept mechanically demands it because he knows it won't matter much (from what you just stated in your post).

The other one, wanting to play an intelligent or charismatic character will sacrifice to get one of those stats up and maybe sacrifice valuable skill points - only to realize at the table that it was a waste to do so.

Mental stats and social skills and alignment are not the primary consideration in roleplaying a player character. These are generally vague categories with a few hard mechanics. I'd much rather a player play his character the way he wants to than try to emulate numbers or boxes checked on a sheet. When the hard mechanics come up I'm fine using them but using ability scores and skill ranks as defining how to roleplay serves only to limit appropriate roleplay to no real benefit IMO. I'd much rather the player focus on how he conceives of his character and interacting in ways that are fun for him and the group.

I have a problem here. If you stat you're character one way, but play him in a way totally different - are you roleplaying the character? If you give your character an 8 INT but play him as god's gift to problem solving -is this really roleplaying the character?

If a player likes to roleplay being a smart and charismatic hero in D&D I don't want him to be limited to classes that mechanically use int and/or charisma to make a mechanically effective character. If he wants to roleplay as a wise and charismatic good guy like Hercules from the old Legendary Journeys show that is a fine roleplay concept regardless of what class he picks or what level he is.
I see no benefit in voluntarily limiting engaging roleplay to high charisma characters. I want as much of that as I can get across the board from every player regardless of what class they play. If someone is playing a foolish or mentally slow or shy character I want it to be because they think it will be fun to portray such a character, not because they like martial characters, dislike vancian magic, and chose to make a high strength and con fighter in a point buy 3e/PF game.

Part of the fun of roleplaying (for me, anyway) is fit into the selected(or assigned) role. If that's not partially defined by my mental stats, why even have them?

Notice btw, I'm not even saying the player is necessarily constrained. The player can play the character how he likes, but the stats determined how he is received by the world, the NPCs etc.

For example, if a player playing his CHA 8 character is playing the smooth negotiator I'm not going to be nearly as liberal with his words and reactions to them as if he had a CHA of 18 or even 12.

Or if an INT 8 character is trying to play god's gift to problem solving I'm not going to be as forgiving of mistakes as if he had an int of 18 or again 12.

Also, There are other solutions, rather than ignoring the stat for the "character you want to play":

Allow players to assign their stats (not point buy, literally assign). This way players get the stats they want and the characters they want to play. While this may seem subject to abuse, IME players are much more conservative than you would think, and yet get the character they want.

If that's too drastic - have a bonus skill or two. Someone wants to be good at diplomacy? they're trained in the skill for essentially free - etc.

 

[Voadam]

As I said (much earlier in the thread from what I recall), this is great if stated up front, but can be a problem if it's not.

2 people sit in front of you, one who knows the way you run and one who does not.

The one who knows the way you run is likely going to give short shrift to INT and CHA unless his concept mechanically demands it because he knows it won't matter much (from what you just stated in your post).

The other one, wanting to play an intelligent or charismatic character will sacrifice to get one of those stats up and maybe sacrifice valuable skill points - only to realize at the table that it was a waste to do so.

The reverse is a bigger problem IMO.

Three players want to roleplay fighters who interact well with NPCs.

One plays a paladin to have high charisma be used by his class and be close to a fighter. Dissapointed he's not playing a fighter.

One plays a fighter and bumps his charisma and sacrifices physicals without getting the charisma magic the paladin gets. Dissapointed he's not as competent and effective at being a fighter or as a level x character as the balanced paladin and he's not as good mechanically as the paladin at his social stuff (cross-class diplomacy).

One plays a fighter and does not bump his charisma but goes with the low attractiveness, high persuasion composite charisma concept. Dissapointed because the DM tells him he's playing his character wrong.

 

[Voadam]

Notice btw, I'm not even saying the player is necessarily constrained. The player can play the character how he likes, but the stats determined how he is received by the world, the NPCs etc.

For example, if a player playing his CHA 8 character is playing the smooth negotiator I'm not going to be nearly as liberal with his words and reactions to them as if he had a CHA of 18 or even 12.

Or if an INT 8 character is trying to play god's gift to problem solving I'm not going to be as forgiving of mistakes as if he had an int of 18 or again 12.

For me that's preferable to telling a PC he's playing his character wrong.

It won't encourage them to roleplay their character the way the stats "say" though.

A low charisma PC who plays his character as gruff and rude will be doubly penalized by both what he says and how the NPCs overreact to him. A low Charisma PC who goes all out in charming someone might succeed despite the reaction penalty.

This will simply encourage PCs who enjoy interacting well with NPCs to play high charisma classes and be balanced with normal characters, play non charisma classes and pump up their mechanically not used charisma at the cost of their othcombat effectiveness, or give up on interacting well with NPCs and play characters who are combat balanced but have poor interaction roleplaying with NPCs.

 

[Janx]

For me that's preferable to telling a PC he's playing his character wrong.

It won't encourage them to roleplay their character the way the stats "say" though.

A low charisma PC who plays his character as gruff and rude will be doubly penalized by both what he says and how the NPCs overreact to him. A low Charisma PC who goes all out in charming someone might succeed despite the reaction penalty.

This will simply encourage PCs who enjoy interacting well with NPCs to play high charisma classes and be balanced with normal characters, play non charisma classes and pump up their mechanically not used charisma at the cost of their othcombat effectiveness, or give up on interacting well with NPCs and play characters who are combat balanced but have poor interaction roleplaying with NPCs.

This is an excellent point and terible consequence.

If I role-play my PC's low CHA with un-charismatic behavior I'll be doubly penalized in game by inate social reaction to my behavior, rather than any die-roll determination.

Whereas, the guy who's cheating and trying to be all Rico Suave all the time, may still hit a sucess.

 

[pemerton]

I see no benefit in voluntarily limiting engaging roleplay to high charisma characters. I want as much of that as I can get across the board from every player regardless of what class they play.

Just a short comment - it is possible to engagingly roleplay a buffoonish or incompetent character, provided that this is done in the appropriate mix of first person dialogue and amusing third person description of the PCs antics.

This sort of roleplaying does give rise to social contract issues, I think - in traditional D&D play, and even most of the time in 4e, I think, such a PC is basically a liability for the rest of the party. But other systems can make a difference here, by rewarding different aspects of play.

 

[S'mon]

Just a short comment - it is possible to engagingly roleplay a buffoonish or incompetent character, provided that this is done in the appropriate mix of first person dialogue and amusing third person description of the PCs antics.

I once saw a player use his half-orc assassin's CHA 3 as a weapon in a 1e/OSRIC game - he was so repulsive, whenever he approached them (disguised as a fawning beggar), NPCs would ostentatiously ignore him, letting him get close and stab them!

It took a good deal of roleplaying skill to pull off successfully, but he did it. He basically used counter-psychology where the NPCs, disliking him, did the opposite of what he appeared to be wanting them to do, thus actually doing just what he wanted them to do...

 

[Hussar]

For me that's preferable to telling a PC he's playing his character wrong.

It won't encourage them to roleplay their character the way the stats "say" though.

A low charisma PC who plays his character as gruff and rude will be doubly penalized by both what he says and how the NPCs overreact to him. A low Charisma PC who goes all out in charming someone might succeed despite the reaction penalty.

This will simply encourage PCs who enjoy interacting well with NPCs to play high charisma classes and be balanced with normal characters, play non charisma classes and pump up their mechanically not used charisma at the cost of their othcombat effectiveness, or give up on interacting well with NPCs and play characters who are combat balanced but have poor interaction roleplaying with NPCs.

Why are the NPC's overreacting to him? He's playing the stats that are on his sheet. The reactions he gets should be in keeping with what he's playing. There's no double jeopardy here. The low Cha character makes some social gaffe and the NPC's react appropriately.

You don't then whack an extra penalty onto the rolls because of what he's doing. If the character is being properly characterized, then that's already taken care of.

If you want to play a "face" character, then have the stats to back that up. Don't be B A Barracus and then act like Face and then get pissed off when the DM tells you you're not playing the character in front of you.

And, yup, that means if you want your fighter to be the "face" he's not going to deal as much damage as the fighter player who dumpstats his Cha. That's the price you pay. You want this advantage, you PAY for that advantage. There should never be any free lunches.

Sorry, no, you don't get to be the unstoppable juggernaut AND the face guy in the point buy game. Pick one and play it.

You want to be the real tactical fighter guy, put that 13 or 14 in Int and away you go. You want to be really suave, start training in Diplomacy and possibly toss a feat or two in their to bring up your score, thus overcoming your flat Cha score.

There's a million ways to do it. The way not to do it is to dump stat Cha, never spend any character resources on diplomacy or any other social skill and then expect the DM to give you a free pass just because you talk pretty.