Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Hussar]

Nonsense.

I find the argument that it is powergaming to play an Alexander the Great style fighter in 3e D&D with a decent fighter build instead of as a more powerful cleric or druid with pretty much any build to be faulty.

Diplomacy excellence mechanically as a nonresource allocation is simply a matter of whether a class has diplomacy as a class skill and how important charisma is to the class.

It is trivial for a paladin or a bard to be excellent at diplomacy without significant investment or sacrifice.

Rogues, clerics, druids, and monks, can be decent with no significant sacrifice because diplomacy is a class skill.

Fighters, barbarians, rangers, wizards, and sorcerers are poor at it as a default but can become mediocre by investing a bunch in their cross-class skill.

Should an Alexander the Great fighter, a Conan style barbarian, an Aragorn style ranger, or a Merlin or Gandalf type wizard or sorcerer, have to sacrifice and invest character power resources (ability point buy and feats) away from their class competencies to roleplay those character concepts correctly?

Is it preferential they play clerics and druids instead to effectuate these concepts so that they are powerful at combat and mechanically easily get high diplomacy modifiers? And not powergame or roleplay incorrectly.

Should fighters ideally be instead ars magica grogs, rangers be silent trackers, and wizards never be scheming advisors or meddle in matters of state?

Or, alternatively, choose systems which don't shoehorn classes so strongly into specific roles. In 4e, forex, a diplomatic fighter costs you exactly one feat out of your 15 (I think that's how many you get in 4e). So, it's not exactly a huge expediture of resources to gain that.

3e is a lot more difficult in that the classes are a lot more strongly walled in by the skill/feat system. But, again, certainly doable. The fighter takes the feat that gives him Diplomacy as a class skill and he's off to the races. No fuss no foul.

My problem is with the character, any character, who never bothers to spend any character resources and then expects to be treated as if he was much better than the character actually is.

-----------

Funny how the "stat up this character" example gets entirely sidestepped. I didn't ask if it was point buy or a PC. Immaterial. Doesn't matter one whit.

Would you, or would you not give James Bond a 10 Cha? Yes or no?

The question is not, "Would you give him an 18 Cha", that's not the question. It's, "WOULD YOU GIVE JAMES BOND A 10 CHA, why or why not?"

The fact that everyone dodged the question pretty much proves my point I think. Portrayal of the character matters. A 10 Cha James Bond breaks immersion because the character is not portrayed as such. A 10 Int Einstein breaks immersion because we certainly wouldn't expect one of the greatest minds of all time to have an average Intelligence.

So, explain to me why you think that your 10 Cha character with no social skills should succeed at social encounters as often as the character with a 14 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy.

 

[billd91]

Would you, or would you not give James Bond a 10 Cha? Yes or no?

The question is not, "Would you give him an 18 Cha", that's not the question. It's, "WOULD YOU GIVE JAMES BOND A 10 CHA, why or why not?"

If I'm basing 007 on the books rather than the movies, I'm piling most of my stat resources into Constitution. It seems to be his single greatest quality - the ability to endure the tons of trouble Fleming put him through.
Ultimately, it will depend on what sorts of resources I have to spend and which incarnation 007 I'm shooting for.

 

[S'mon]

Funny how the "stat up this character" example gets entirely sidestepped. I didn't ask if it was point buy or a PC. Immaterial. Doesn't matter one whit.

And we just told you IT DOES MATTER TO US.

LIKE I SAID, how I stat a character varies depending on whether I'm statting an NPC or statting a PC, whether I'm constrained by point buy (or default array) resources, and the kind of game I am statting him for.

THERE IS NO Platonic Ideal stat array for 'James Bond'. Get that into your head.

Edit: I'd probably give James Bond at least a CHA 12. Happy?

 

[S'mon]

If I'm basing 007 on the books rather than the movies, I'm piling most of my stat resources into Constitution. It seems to be his single greatest quality - the ability to endure the tons of trouble Fleming put him through.
Ultimately, it will depend on what sorts of resources I have to spend and which incarnation 007 I'm shooting for.

Exactly. There is no ideal stat array, and I'd stat Daniel Craig James Bond different from Sean Connery James Bond, or Ian Fleming's Bond-as-written. Then I would work within the limits of my resources and my goals in statting the character.

 

[Voadam]

Or, alternatively, choose systems which don't shoehorn classes so strongly into specific roles.

Yes if you like to roleplay these concepts with the classes that don't support them in 3e without investing heavily one alternative is to not play 3e D&D.

In 4e, forex, a diplomatic fighter costs you exactly one feat out of your 15 (I think that's how many you get in 4e). So, it's not exactly a huge expediture of resources to gain that.

In 4e you get two feats at first level if you are human, one if you are non human. You don't get 15 feats total until level 24. 22 if you are human. So not exactly a huge resource expenditure for an epic 20+ level character.

If you use the PHII you can do it easily at first level with a background (A mechanical option not in the PHI or the essentials books).

3e is a lot more difficult in that the classes are a lot more strongly walled in by the skill/feat system. But, again, certainly doable. The fighter takes the feat that gives him Diplomacy as a class skill and he's off to the races. No fuss no foul.

What feat is that? Its not in any WotC 3e book I'm aware of. I'm sure there is a netbook of feats with it though.

My problem is with the character, any character, who never bothers to spend any character resources and then expects to be treated as if he was much better than the character actually is.

-----------

Funny how the "stat up this character" example gets entirely sidestepped. I didn't ask if it was point buy or a PC. Immaterial. Doesn't matter one whit.

Would you, or would you not give James Bond a 10 Cha? Yes or no?

The question is not, "Would you give him an 18 Cha", that's not the question. It's, "WOULD YOU GIVE JAMES BOND A 10 CHA, why or why not?"

The fact that everyone dodged the question pretty much proves my point I think. Portrayal of the character matters. A 10 Cha James Bond breaks immersion because the character is not portrayed as such. A 10 Int Einstein breaks immersion because we certainly wouldn't expect one of the greatest minds of all time to have an average Intelligence.

So, explain to me why you think that your 10 Cha character with no social skills should succeed at social encounters as often as the character with a 14 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy.

10 int Einstein in 3e D&D? Well lets look at it. How many different 3e skills did Einstein have? How high a level wizard spell did he ever cast? Why is the stat on the sheet important again?

Can a low skill character in 3e with an average int be roleplayed like Einstein? Would a cleric who is an Einstein style genius about divine magic work as an 18 wisdom and a 10 int mechanically? Give him some crazy hair and I'm fine with it.

If James Bond is an NPC the PCs never know his charisma score, they only know how the DM portrays him. The only 3e mechanical effect I can think of that a PC would interact with would be if Bond tried a feint on them and made a charisma modified bluff check. What comes across is whether the DM does a decent Sean Connery accent with quips and innuendo.

Roleplaying as a James Bond PC with 10 charisma. Perhaps he wants a ton of skills and plays a high int, high dex, high con rogue. Maybe he even chooses to be dwarvish for the accent and hirsute manliness. "Bond. Durin Bond. On Her Royal Majesty the Queen Under the Mountain's Service."

I can see it working.

I can see enjoying these character concepts in a game I run as either PCs or NPCs.

 

[Janx]

Exactly. There is no ideal stat array, and I'd stat Daniel Craig James Bond different from Sean Connery James Bond, or Ian Fleming's Bond-as-written. Then I would work within the limits of my resources and my goals in statting the character.

This is a more excellent point than may be realized.

How many different players have held the role of James Bond.

Each had similar traits, but there were distinct differences as well. Not just visually, but style, charm, and demeanor.

The Daniel Craig version struck me as the most dramatic change. the guy is more shooty and less talky.

So given the same character sheet, each player brings a different approach. As such, the character is up to the actor, not anybody else (well, the casting director chooses the actor, but hopefully you get my point)

 

[Mallus]

Or, thirdly, I can choose to play with people who actually value characterization and we're all happy.

So do I. It's what my group values most -- strong characterization drives all our campaigns, regardless of system.

But we all share the belief characterization is more than just trying to figure out what a WIS of 9 or CHA of 13 means in terms of behavior. We treat characterizing our PCs no differently than if we were writing them for page or screen.

So the numbers aren't first and foremost in our minds -- they're secondary considerations, at best. In fact, we're pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum. You could game with us and absolutely nail your performance of a WIS 12, but if your PC isn't interestingly played beyond that, we'd consider it poor role-playing.

Because we define good role-playing as "playing an interesting fictional character".

And not "playing in way that conforms to a non-existent set of standards related to the mental ability scores".

Hey, if you don't care that the character sheet does not reflect your character, more power to you.

It's more fair to say that 1) I believe it's up to each player to decide how their sheet relates to their character, and 2) there is never going to be complete agreement between the the two -- and that's a good thing.

It's not the way I play and I have no qualms about thinking that it's a very poor way of playing.

Sure. That's fine-- just don't think you care about characterization while I don't.

 

[Hussar]

Of course number aren't the only thing that matter. Heck, the really might not be the first, second or even third thing that matters. Everything on that character sheet matters. Otherwise, why is it there?

And, for me, that's what it comes down to. Why does your character have this element (whatever this element is) if you're not bothering to portray it? Again, you chose to have this as part of your character. Nobody chose it for you.

So, if you want to be X, why would you not create a character that fits X? Why would you create a character that is miles away from X (again, whatever X happens to be) if you want to play X?

That's where I'm not following you Mallus. If you value strong characterization, then why would you create a character that is orthogonal to your concept of that character? If you want to be a strong guy, why would you give your character a 10 Str? If you want to be Charisma dude, why do you have a 6 Cha?

Now, if you want to play against type, you're the failed strong guy, or the guy who just thinks he's charismatic and is oblivious to the actual reactions of those around him, fine, that's certainly an interesting concept as well.

But why would you expect the DM/GM to give you a free pass when your character sheet doesn't reflect your concept?

 

[pemerton]

If you value strong characterization, then why would you create a character that is orthogonal to your concept of that character? If you want to be a strong guy, why would you give your character a 10 Str? If you want to be Charisma dude, why do you have a 6 Cha?

I think that one answer to this was given upthread.

In D&D, especially (but not only) 4e, a PC without a strong primary stat is significantly weakened in the core play of the game. If that primary stat is not a mental stat, then of necessity the PC - if strong in core play - is going to be weaker in one or more of the mental stats.

This means, that if one wants to play a strong-in-core but non-primary-mental-stat PC, and one wants to be able to play that PC as witty, clever, charming, etc, one has to accept a certain looseness between mental stats and roleplay.

Now it might be objected that the same argument goes through for a strong-in-core but non-primary-physical stat PC. But the two cases are not parallel: playing D&D is not generally an opportunity to be strong, healthy, quick etc, but it clearly is an opportunity to be witty, clever, charming, etc. Having my PC be weak or slow is a penalty purely to action resolution. But if my low-mental-stat PC has to be played without cleverness, wit or charm than that is also a penalty not just to action resolution but a burden on my participaition in the social activity of the game.

My own preferred "solution" to this mental stat issue is the one I mentioned way upthread - structure investigations, social encounters etc in such a way that skill checks, preferably mulitple skill checks, are needed (which the weaker-statted PC will be less likely to succeed at) and then build consequences and complications around the results of those skill checks. This then will yield an in-play difference between the PCs with and without CHA and social skills without requiring the 8 or 10 INT/CHA PC to play in "Thog is a dumb a-hole" mode.

For me this is a practical issue, not just a theoretical one - I have a 10 CHA but Diplomacy-trained wizard, an 8 INT ranger-cleric and an 8 INT fighter-cleric in my game. The method I describe above absolutely yields a difference in play between the various PCs based on their social and knowledge skills, without requiring anyone to play in a way that vitiates the expression of personal wit, cleverness or charm.

EDIT TO ADD: One way of thinking of this approach is that it tends to treat mental stats and skills as player resources rather than PC traits/resources - investing in these doesn't necessarily change the character of the PC as expressed via roleplaying, but rather increases the prospects of the player succeeding when s/he has his/her PC engage a situation by deploying cleverness, wit or charm.

 

[Mallus]

Of course number aren't the only thing that matter. Heck, the really might not be the first, second or even third thing that matters.

Repeat this like a mantra when and if you read my posts on this subject!

Everything on that character sheet matters. Otherwise, why is it there?

Is this a rhetorical question? Because it's been answered -- the stats do whatever the system declares they do, which, if we're talking about games like D&D, means, practically-speaking, very little when it comes to PC characterization.

Why does your character have this element (whatever this element is) if you're not bothering to portray it? Again, you chose to have this as part of your character. Nobody chose it for you.

Why do you insist you know how to portray a PC better than their players? In the absence of any real guidelines/criteria, or even agreement on what the stats represent, or if they're more of an average or a mean, mathematically-speaking. That's the question I'm interested in.

Why should a DM weigh in on that?

So, if you want to be X, why would you not create a character that fits X?

This assumes the given system models X well. This is a bad assumption. Better to accept a less then 1-to-1 mapping between the character and the mechanics used to represent them in the game space. The advantage to this approach should be obvious: flexibility.

That's where I'm not following you Mallus. If you value strong characterization, then why would you create a character that is orthogonal to your concept of that character?

The simple answer is I don't. It's just that I don't pretend there are clear, definitive relationships between certain mechanics and characterization ie, I have no problem with an INT 10 character being exceptional tactician... there is nothing unrealistic about non-geniuses excelling in a specific area, AFAIC.

Again, since I think of "strong characterization" in the literary sense -- the mechanics/numbers simply aren't that important.

For example, my current Pathfinder character is a mean, laconic, charmless warrior woman who dislikes both lying and command of others. She has a CHA of 22. Why does she have that? As an Oracle, CHA is her caster stat. But it doesn't dictate how I characterize her -- that's simply fiction I'm writing, based more on the cultural/historical fluff from the campaign setting than her superhuman CHA score.

If you want to be Charisma dude, why do you have a 6 Cha?

You're making the assumption a PC needs to be "the charisma dude" in order to be an effective leader/persuader/negotiator.

This is absurd -- from a real-world perspective. Do you really need examples? Okay, here's an easy one for free - Nixon!

But why would you expect the DM/GM to give you a free pass when your character sheet doesn't reflect your concept?

It's funny how you're labeling clever play as a "free pass". This comes back to the question: how many system resources does a player have to spend before they can have/use a good idea?