Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Croesus]

If you're referring to some sort of mechanical advantage, like bonuses and such, then my answer is no. Everyone uses the same rules.

If, on the other hand, it's not a mechanical issue, but something that's dependent on how well one roleplays, I agree with the others. A player who is good at a particular aspect of the game will do better, simply because they're better at it - in this case, roleplaying.

And if you're referring to the very human tendency to favor people we enjoy being around and not those we can't stand...

 

[Hand of Evil]

group dyamics - I think it is the role of the DM to challange ALL players so that each one has fun at the table. If you have a player that is NOT having fun, you are not involving them as part of the team. Does this mean special focus with some players over others, yes. Take to the time to work with the quite player.

 

[Mark CMG]

If he's sucking fun out of the room, he's probably doing stuff we don't enjoy (. . .)


As always, play what you like


(. . .)


As always, play what you like


__________________
As always, play what you like

I can't imagine such a situation.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I can't imagine such a situation.

That amused me (but can't XP yet).

 

[Mark CMG]

That amused me (but can't XP yet).

As always, XP when you can



(Make no mistake, I do agree with the sentiment or I wouldn't joke about the delivery. )

 

[Morrus]

Those lucky people blessed with charisma should have an in-game advantage, yes.

In the same way, those lucky people blessed with strength should have an in-game advantage in the form of damage bonuses.

And anyone able to hold their breath for more than 90 seconds should gain an additional 10% hit points for their character.

 

[SteveC]

Of course! I think the first person has an advantage in life in general, so I'd expect it to carry over into the game.

I do my best to be fair and impartial, but there's only so much a GM can do to compensate for player dynamics, so I'd expect that there would be a real advantage in the first case, whether I'd actively think about it or not.

 

[am181d]

Players with high REAL-LIFE charisma and low to average IN GAME charisma need to play in character.

Players of any charisma who do a good job role-playing RELATIVE TO THEIR ABILITY will get a circumstance bonus to their charisma-based skill check.

But in any game I run, the role-playing is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more important than the dice rolling and characters spend at least as much time out of combat as in.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

O

Another player is a charisma black hole. He will not speak in-character. Fellow players merely tolerate him. He sucks a lot of the fun and energy out of the room, just by being there.

Why is this guy even playing? Life is too short to game with s.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Charisma can be broadly defined. Given that, anyone who brings an interesting personality to the table and makes the game more fun is someone who should be rewarded. Anyone who is disruptive should be dealt with appropriately. Anyone who is shy should be gently encouraged to speak up and positively reinforced for doing so. It's a social game.

I'm not talking about a huge mechanical advantage, but maybe a break goes a PC's way, some NPC does something favorable for them, a new plot development for them, that sort of thing.