Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[S'mon]

I can see BA Baracus and Face both having high CHA, or even both having low CHA. The difference would be that Face has Diplomacy trained, BA has Intimidate trained!

Hannibal would be the one who clearly has high CHA.

 

[Hussar]

Even if that's so S'mon, it doesn't counter my point. If your character is high Cha and focused in intimidate, the player doesn't get to become all suave and debonair just because intimidate is the wrong skill to use at this point.

Conversely, Face being all scary isn't true to the character. That's not what Face does. There's a very good reason Christopher Walken doesn't play Face in the movie.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zW1LwGwpmw&t=4m40s]Animaniacs - The Party - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I was considering creating a new thread, but I play it safe and ask it here:

During our last session two PCs disagreed with each other.
Player A is a well-spoken and charismatic individual. He wanted to have dialog to resolve the issue.
Player B is a quiet guy who enjoys a good evening of dice-rolling. He said "let's roll opposing diplomacy-rolls. If you win, obviously you have made your point and my character will back down".
Player A looked like Player B had just pooped on him and he insulted Player B by saying that he simply doesn't know roleplaying. Player B took this in stride (which is a quality that highly admire him!).

What do you think about this?

Personally, I like to keep the game moving. Some things make great subjects for conversation but something it's nice to instantly resolve situation and move on. I think that since Player B didn't feel like talking about the subject (which was silly anyway IMO) he did great by bypassing the whole subject which probably saved a whole lot of gaming time.

And also...
... I have noticed that during gaming I usually look at the charismatic players and communicate with them... So in other words I may seem that favor them and give them advantage. But it's not true. At least this is what I tell to myself. Honestly, I like the quiet dice-roller a lot and respect his way. He's the only one who doesn't make a mess of my adventures! He plays an orc-killing ranger and during previous sessions I've thrown in entire clans of orcs so...

 

[Janx]

I was considering creating a new thread, but I play it safe and ask it here:

During our last session two PCs disagreed with each other.
Player A is a well-spoken and charismatic individual. He wanted to have dialog to resolve the issue.
Player B is a quiet guy who enjoys a good evening of dice-rolling. He said "let's roll opposing diplomacy-rolls. If you win, obviously you have made your point and my character will back down".
Player A looked like Player B had just pooped on him and he insulted Player B by saying that he simply doesn't know roleplaying. Player B took this in stride (which is a quality that highly admire him!).
..

There was another thread a while back about making social skill checks against PCs. And one reason I don't use them is that you get subversive resistance against any outcome the player disagrees with.

Player A most likely would not want to accept the outcome of a skill check that forces him to follow a path he disagrees with. And he may try to subvert that (so he can say "See, I told you this way wouldn't work!")

 

[Voadam]

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.

Nonsense.

You want to play a 3e point buy decent tank who interacts suavely by the mechanics?

Play a fighter and you are hard pressed to do it. Charisma is not useful to your class abilities and diplomacy is cross class. Even with short changing your useful abilities you will still have a fairly poor diplomacy. Spending more combat resources to gain skill focus will help at low levels but you will still fall behind classes with it as a class skill as you level. Sacrificed combat stuff to get subpar face stuff.

So the tank with decent diplomacy does not work? You have to sacrifice to get slightly subpar tanking with mediocre diplomacy?

Not so if you play a paladin. Tank combat class. Points dumped/pooured into charisma powers class combat abilities of both offense and defense. Diplomacy is a class skill. High charisma, max diplomacy with a normal combat build. If you want to spend your feats on skill focus you can do so as well and trounce the fighter concept diplomat's diplomacy at every level.

So you want to be suave mechanically? Intelligent? Look at the classes and how much they mechanically support that roleplay archetype style. Some will, some won't. Want to go against the grain and be competent at it while playing classes that don't support it mechanically? You can, but it will cost you and you will still be poorer at it than others can easily in your party while they do so without cost.

 

[Mallus]

If you want to play a "face" character, then have the stats to back that up.

Sure... however, there's more to being a successful negotiator than merely being charming. For example: Henry Kissinger.

Stats and social skills model the character's superficial charm and social graces. But they say nothing of the caliber of their arguments. That stuff is left to the player.

I've come around to the idea AD&D gets this exactly right: CHA sets the initial reaction to a PC. But everything after that depends on what the player actually says and does. High CHA is definitely advantage, in everything from haggling with a shopkeeper to parleying with a hungry ogre, but there's still space for clever play (from the real, live players) to affect the outcome.

You want to be the real tactical fighter guy, put that 13 or 14 in Int and away you go.

Or declare you're INT 9 fighter is savvy in the ways of small-unit tactics but otherwise not very learned nor intellectual. The mental stats in D&D very broad and nebulously defined, and there's ample evidence they're not meant to reflect uniform ability ie a CHA 10 can be physically beautiful and an INT 10 PC can be quite smart about some things.

Face it, there are no guidelines establishing what sort of tactics an INT 9, or 14, or even 18 PC is capable of. None. Any criteria you use is going to be arbitrary. So you can wade into these waters, pulling more determinations of what ideas and speeches PCs with varying mental stats are capable of out of your posterior, or you can, wisely, like Bartleby, choose not to.

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.

Again, in many situations, persuading people and engaging in successful negotiations is more than merely "talking pretty". "Talking pretty" is certainly an advantage, but it's not the sole determinant -- in fact, in certain circumstances, it's not an important one.

 

[Argyle King]

Part of what I said in the insight thread also applies to here for my opinion...


That being said, I personally feel that part of the problem with this issue is the way that stats interact with classes in D&D. If you're playing a class which needs an ability, you are prompted to place a higher score in that ability. So, in that regard, I think stats in D&D have less meaning than they would in some other games. When I play D&D, I often don't place as much importance on the character sheet as I do when I play other games.


In games which handle abilities differently, don't have class & level in the same way that D&D does, and promote more meaning being given to stats, I believe a player should be more mindful of their character. I have no problem with a player having a spark of insight, and I really don't even have a problem with a mentally challenged (a character with Int 6, Wis 6, and Cha 6 would possibly be considered disabled) character having insight into a problem. However, I would find it hard to believe that the guy functioning at far below average mental faculties would be constantly dreaming up masterful battlefield tactics and things of that nature on a regular basis.

...Unless, he had skills or some other advantages which made that an exception. Examples I'm familiar with would be two characters I'm playing. While my GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Knight does not have the intelligence of the party Wizard, I have the Born War Leader talent which gives me a bonus to skills such as tactics, strategy, and etc. In the case of an upcoming Heroes Unlimited game, my character is far below average mentally; however, I have a psionic ability which allows me to have an innate understanding of machines; as such, while my character has a 3rd Grade education, he's capable of building robots.


http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...should-insightful-players-have-advantage.html

 

[Hussar]

Nonsense.

You want to play a 3e point buy decent tank who interacts suavely by the mechanics?

Play a fighter and you are hard pressed to do it. Charisma is not useful to your class abilities and diplomacy is cross class. Even with short changing your useful abilities you will still have a fairly poor diplomacy. Spending more combat resources to gain skill focus will help at low levels but you will still fall behind classes with it as a class skill as you level. Sacrificed combat stuff to get subpar face stuff.

So the tank with decent diplomacy does not work? You have to sacrifice to get slightly subpar tanking with mediocre diplomacy?

Not so if you play a paladin. Tank combat class. Points dumped/pooured into charisma powers class combat abilities of both offense and defense. Diplomacy is a class skill. High charisma, max diplomacy with a normal combat build. If you want to spend your feats on skill focus you can do so as well and trounce the fighter concept diplomat's diplomacy at every level.

So you want to be suave mechanically? Intelligent? Look at the classes and how much they mechanically support that roleplay archetype style. Some will, some won't. Want to go against the grain and be competent at it while playing classes that don't support it mechanically? You can, but it will cost you and you will still be poorer at it than others can easily in your party while they do so without cost.

I totally and 100% agree with this. Why would you think otherwise. Your character concept is completely backed up by your character sheet. Perfect synergy and we're all happy.

My problem is the guy who completely ignores it, dumpstats and never puts anything towards making that character actually mechanically fit the concept and then bitches and whines that the mean old DM won't let him ignore his weaknesses.

To me, it's no different than the 8 Str guy walking around with 300 pounds of gear. Sorry, no. You want to carry that? Make a character that is capable of doing so.

Face it, there are no guidelines establishing what sort of tactics an INT 9, or 14, or even 18 PC is capable of. None. Any criteria you use is going to be arbitrary. So you can wade into these waters, pulling more determinations of what ideas and speeches PCs with varying mental stats are capable of out of your posterior, or you can, wisely, like Bartleby, choose not to.

Or, thirdly, I can choose to play with people who actually value characterization and we're all happy. Hey, if you don't care that the character sheet does not reflect your character, more power to you. That's fine. It's not the way I play and I have no qualms about thinking that it's a very poor way of playing.

But, apparently, lots of people have no problems with it. I prefer to have the character sheet matter, or to play systems which do not define these capabilities (as you say, AD&D doesn't to a large extent, so, no harm no foul).

But, if you play a system which DOES define these things and then choose not to spend any character resources achieving these abilities, then don't pretend that you're somehow "above" all that. It's ballocks. It's powergaming pure and simple. You are taking a weakness, spending the character resources in an area that makes you more powerful, and then ignoring the weakness because it would be inconvenient.

That's the textbook definition of power gamer as far as I'm concerned.

 

[The Shaman]

The mental stats in D&D very broad and nebulously defined, and there's ample evidence they're not meant to reflect uniform ability ie a CHA 10 can be physically beautiful and an INT 10 PC can be quite smart about some things.

Spot on, [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION].

This is one of the reasons I let the stats handle what the rules say they are supposed to handle, and leave everything else to the player.

 

[Argyle King]

The mental stats in D&D very broad and nebulously defined, and there's ample evidence they're not meant to reflect uniform ability ie a CHA 10 can be physically beautiful and an INT 10 PC can be quite smart about some things.

Which is all well and good if we're strictly speaking of D&D. There are other rpgs. Some of them defined things differently; in a more coherent and meaningful way.

Face it, there are no guidelines establishing what sort of tactics an INT 9, or 14, or even 18 PC is capable of. None. Any criteria you use is going to be arbitrary. So you can wade into these waters, pulling more determinations of what ideas and speeches PCs with varying mental stats are capable of out of your posterior, or you can, wisely, like Bartleby, choose not to.

.

I feel as though you're trying to argue that (in rpg terms) Forest Gump and Steven Hawking would be equally capable of solving an equation. ...or at least saying there's no feasible way for a gaming group to come to a consensus concerning what the difference in capability would be between the two in terms of rpg statistics.

If that's the case, I disagree. Like Hussar, I prefer for the character sheet to actually mean something. That in no way means I feel a player should be chained to the sheet and have no ability to go outside of it. However, I do feel that giving yourself a weakness so you can place a strength somewhere else and then ignoring the weakness for your own benefit is somewhat unfair.

As I've said in the multitude of other threads about similar topics, I have no problem with a player solving something. I also have no problem with the meathead PC occasionally having insight into a problem. It happens. However, I do expect at least some minimal amount of effort to give meaning to the blocks used to create a character.

As per my previous post here, I'm aware that the way D&D defines stats does not have as much meaning as other games may. When playing D&D, I accept that as part of the playstyle. But, if I'm being asked about my preferences overall, I strongly prefer the pieces of a character to mean something other than just numbers on a page which can be ignored when it benefits the player to do so.