Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[S'mon]

Players who can only feel special by comparing themselves favorably to other players are, in my experience, joy vacuums just as much as uncharismatic players are. I prefer not to encourage them.

I'm sure few charismatic, charming players would ever object to null-CHA players getting an unearned benefit*. However, I am not particularly charismatic nor charming, as you might have noticed. My primary concern is just to encourage the sort of table-play that I enjoy.

*In fact I suspect many of them are more like Morrus, who AIR is quite a high-CHA fellow - they would be more likely to object to the notion.

 

[Morrus]

*In fact I suspect many of them are more like Morrus, who AIR is quite a high-CHA fellow - they would be more likely to object to the notion.

You're thinking of Kevin. My Cha is definitely a dump stat!

 

[S'mon]

You're thinking of Kevin. My Cha is definitely a dump stat!

Piratecat may have CHA 20, but you're surely around a 14.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'm sure few charismatic, charming players would ever object to null-CHA players getting an unearned benefit*.

"Unearned" is a really hazy term. It's right up there with "player skill" for me -- I don't think two gamers use it to mean the same thing. You have the player at the table who talks the Baron down from starting a fight and prevents the group from drawing swords on him in his throne room: in some groups, that player has earned a bonus for defusing a situation, in others, that player is a buttinski who had no business "enforcing their vision" on the rest of the group. In one group, the player who tries to buy up lots of livestock and send them into the dungeon to set off traps is being clever and deserves a bonus -- in another, the same player is making the entire group exasperated and impatient, because herding pigs into suspected pit traps is not the game they signed up for.

The charismatic, charming players who don't object to a fellow player getting an "unearned" bonus may simply have a different standard of "earned," one that ties into the reasons that said fellow player is regularly invited over to game with them. It's pretty clear it can't be based on an objective standard.

My primary concern is just to encourage the sort of table-play that I enjoy.

Ayup, me too. I have a couple of dogs that can't enjoy a chew toy or a treat if they suspect that the other dog got a better deal, even if they got the exact same thing. Although it can be some cute behavior, I favor table environments where players aren't behaving in the same fashion.

 

[Mark CMG]

Piratecat may have CHA 20, but you're surely around a 14.

You missed a spot . .

 

[S'mon]

You have the player at the table who talks the Baron down from starting a fight and prevents the group from drawing swords on him in his throne room: in some groups, that player has earned a bonus for defusing a situation, in others, that player is a buttinski who had no business "enforcing their vision" on the rest of the group. In one group, the player who tries to buy up lots of livestock and send them into the dungeon to set off traps is being clever and deserves a bonus -- in another, the same player is making the entire group exasperated and impatient, because herding pigs into suspected pit traps is not the game they signed up for.

Your second groups (in both cases) are doing it wrong.

Obviously mileage varies, I doubt I'd enjoy your games, and vice versa. Main thing is we enjoy our own games.

 

[S'mon]

You missed a spot . .

I'm just brutally honest.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm just brutally honest.

Wis 18 = Teh yuo!

 

[Janx]

Yes, in the same way that a player who is a better tactical thinker has an advantage and a player who better understands the game rules has an advantage.

Yeah, somebody with actual skill that is applicable to the game will have an advantage over somebody who lacks it.

The GM isn't giving preferential treatment or game benefits, so much as the charming one is better able to maneuver the GM to his advantage socially.

If a player's a real jerk, I can't see any GM ruling in his favor unless the rules strictly declare it.

A convincing player, on the other hand, is more likely to better state his case and get what he wants.

 

[Hussar]

I'm a first level 4e non-human Fighter PC. I can take skill training - Diplomacy, or I can take Master of Arms and be +1 to hit with all weapons. I'm giving up combat effectiveness to be able to talk, in a game where various other classes get to talk for free.

No, you're giving up a grand total of +1 to hit in order to gain +5 to diplomacy. Considering you're a fighter using a weapon, you've likely got about a +10 (ish) to hit at first level. Gaining an extra +1 or losing that extra +1 is certainly not going to result in "giving up combat effectiveness".

I mean, your character that you posted, is a warlord who deliberately CHOSE not to have diplomacy as a trained skill. He certainly had that option. So, should he be allowed to ignore his character sheet and be as convincing as the player is to the DM despite the fact that the player deliberately chose to not reflect that mechanically?