Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[Voadam]

I'll ask the same question I asked earlier; other than "good faith" (which is important, but we are dealing with hypotheticals here and there's not always good faith at say cons) what's to prevent me from using my CHA as a dump stat because I know ability as the player is what's important. Or on the flip side, under this approach, what's the benefit of me not dumping CHA (assuming no other mechanical issues) and not bothering with investing in social skills?

I would be fine with somebody dump statting Charisma and being talky and suave. RAW Charisma is a composite stat including many attributes, an ugly character can be persuasive and peg their Charisma as high or low and make it work. Cyrano de Bergerac comes to mind.

The only downside to dump statting charisma in my game for a non paladin/cleric/sorcerer is generally when I do ask for rolls or when the mechanics come into play, such as "You spend a day trying to track down Pious Pete. Make a gather info/diplomacy roll." or "Okay with your feint you have to make a bluff check." or "He's feinting you, what is your sense motive?"

Or another way - is it ok that the 10 CHA no social skills fighter is doing all the talking (because the player can) and the 18 CHA social skill maxed bard is standing back (because he knows the fighter's player is better at interactions)? Assuming this is a problem - how do you fix it?

I'm perfectly fine with that type of set up. If the bard player wants to talk he can. If he wants to not talk and be a combat support, jack of all trades, behind the scenes talker type character but not jump in the roleplay talking spotlight he can do that as well and I'm fine with it.

If the bard feels there is a problem of him not talking and somebody else doing so he can either step up and roleplay interactions with NPCs or talk to the other players. I am not going to tell the fighter PC he is playing badly and should stop roleplaying interactions with NPCs.

I try to engage each player in the game and encourage all players to interact with NPCs, not just the ones with mechanical social skills or high charismas.

 

[Voadam]

That's a true-by-campaign tradition (and also true-by-edition, as it's a lot more useful in 4e where they layered Will defense, skill challenges and a wider variety of Charisma-positive classes). In my experience it's far from universal. Anybody who's played D&D in a campaign that involves a decent amount of interaction with NPCs for politicking, intrigue or ally-building purposes for any length of time starts to figure out that you need at least someone in your party with good Charisma skills if you want to excel. And with only one CHA-positive person in the party, you're putting all your eggs in one basket. If it's a campaign that involves the players eventually establishing strongholds and becoming leaders, diplomacy's all the more likely to rear its head. I've seen several players walk into a campaign with the idea that Charisma is an effective dump stat, then rethink that philosophy as they watched social encounters with genuine stakes play out.

I'd say your generalization about political D&D campaigns is too broad. Earlier editions did not even have any charisma skills and there were and are plenty of politicking and intriguing campaigns using those rule sets. IME in a variety of games of various editions high charisma is not as important as the actual interactions and decisions made by PCs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

First, I am deliberately not taking guesses about the low Cha player's name. Although I have my suspicions.

I have a question on this, for Mort and other GMs. Say I want to play a charismatic barbarian Fighter, an REH-Conan type, in a game like 4e which strongly penalises investing resources away from core competency, which for Fighter is STR-based fighting ability. I'm prepared to roleplay the PC as fairly charismatic - eg I'll put effort into coming up with good one-liners.
How much resources should I have to invest in interpersonal skills before you'll let my words stand?

What do you mean by "your words stand"? The same words can have different impacts from different people. It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

Honestly, if a Cha-12 PC tried giving Mark Anthony's speech (or pick another bit of oratory) and had no training in social skills, I'm pretty sure my NPCs would call him a pretentious tosser and depending on the setting start fetching rotten fruit. A Cha-18 PC on the other hand could easily give such a speech and fire up the crowd. And the same pick-up line from two PCs will go differently with different charisma scores.

Is CHA 12 enough? Anything more than that will really start to hurt my combat effectiveness.

Really? I could probably find a 14 as an off-stat. On the other hand I'd struggle for a complete Conan package.

Intimidate training is not a problem - can I apply that skill to a wide range of situations? Do I need to invest in getting Diplomacy before I can talk suavely? What if I have Diplomacy training + CHA 10?

Depends what you are trying to do. Diplomacy is about presentation. Would probably work.

And my honest answer is that a genuinely high charisma player will have at least as much an advantage at the table as a high int player. Far more flexibility of what you can do and what you can convince everyone else is fun. I wouldn't knowingly stack in character rewards on top of this, but wouldn't expect charismatic black holes to come up with and run with the idea of dressing the PCs up as emissaries of Blipbloppool to distract the troglodytes. Or rounding up the NPCs to either burn the river or attack the merchant.

 

[S'mon]

First, I am deliberately not taking guesses about the low Cha player's name. Although I have my suspicions.

One of the two I've encountered was well before you met me - & before Judith met me, too. The other is well known to all of us.

Edit: As to who's *high* CHA... well there's a harder question! A player like Fraser who I played with in Phil's zombie game has a very dominant personality, he's more towards that end of the spectrum - but that's different from a very likeable guy like our own Steve/Kerranin, who will tend to facilitate others' enjoyment rather than take a dominant role himself.

 

[jeffh]

That's probably because they're frequently the same thing.

They are never the same thing. I'm not saying they need conflict, but acting out dialogue and such is neither necessary nor sufficient for playing in a way that's true to your character.

IMHO, a good character is more than what's written down on the sheet.

That's true, but has nothing to do with anything I said. Surely your character shouldn't deviate wildly from what's written there. Yes, the character is more than what's written on the sheet, but surely it has something to do with what's written on the sheet.

Let me put it another way. Would you (in a pre-4E context) allow a character with a 9 strength to (in the normal course of events, not as part of some unusual maneuver) claim a +3 strength bonus to his melee attacks and damage? If the answer is "no", which surely it is, why should the player with the 9 charisma character get to be as, if not more, charming and persuasive as one with a 16? If that's the kind of character he wants to play, that's the kind that should be written down in front of him, not some other.

Those people are probably operating under a slightly different definition of "role-playing" (hint: they are several popular ones). They're no more a pox on the hobby than you --with your own specific tastes/preferences-- are.

I define it as making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might base them on. My question to you is, can someone not be doing that and still be role-playing, by any reasonable definition?

 

[cattoy]

Absolutely, reward the silver tongued player.

There's a fundamentally solid reason for doing so. If you reward behavior, you'll tend to see more of it. If you reward socially skilled players, they'll be more likely to stick with the hobby. If you actively ignore their strengths, they'll be more likely to drop the hobby and spend their leisure time elsewhere.

It won't do the hobby very much good if the playerbase gets characterized, accurately, as socially uncomfortable introverts who live in their parents' basements. The more socially skilled players we have, the easier it will be to attract new players.

Might such a policy alienate players who lack social graces? Possibly. Maybe it will motivate them to work on some social skills? It shouldn't stop them from playing 'face' characters though. We have social mechanics built into many RPGs specifically to allow player inability to be overcome by character ability. No RPG asks for a player's bench press max when calculating damage nor 40 yard dash time when calculating movement. That's what LARPs are for.

 

[pemerton]

I define it as making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might base them on. My question to you is, can someone not be doing that and still be role-playing, by any reasonable definition?

From Ron Edwards:

Stance is defined as how a person arrives at decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions.

*In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

*In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

*In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
​

What you describe as roleplaying sounds like playing in Actor stance. Many games - including D&D - routinely use Author stance. For example, every time the PC party accepts a new member, or one PC helps another PC out with some hare-brained/illegal/immoral scheme, or etc etc, the player is typically in Author stance. Many games also feature Director stance - for example, the question comes up as to whether or not my PC can wiggle his/her ears, or has a brother or sister, or has brown or grey eyebrows, and I get to decide. I think many people would describe most if not all of this as part of playing a RPG.

From Eero Tuovinen:

Players can have different roles in a roleplaying game. Typical overarching categories are “player roles” and “GM roles”, which are fuzzy and historically determined expressions of natural language. One type of player role is when the game requires a player to be an advocate for a single player character – this advocacy thing is an exact theory term, unlike the fuzzy concept of “player role”. When a player is an advocate for a character in a roleplaying game, this means that his task in playing the game is to express his character’s personality, interests and agenda for the benefit of himself and other players. This means that the player tells the others what his character does, thinks and feels, and he’s doing his job well if the picture he paints of the character is clear and powerful, easy to relate to. . .

Character advocacy is . . . a common ideal in D&D, although I do admit that there are readings of the game text where advocacy is not present. Still, it is common to claim that the ideal of the game is that each player invents a player character who is a full personality, and then represents this character’s choices and actions in the game for the benefit of the group.​

Advocacy, in this sense, is quite consistent with Author stance. Just to give one example: if one characteristic of my PC is clumsy, then I might declare at a crucial moment that my guy fumbles the McGuffin, with mayhem and hilarity ensuing. This is not "making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation". Rather, it is "determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities" - in this case, my priority of portraying my PC as clumsy. But I think most people would still recognise this as roleplaying.

Advocacy in the specified sense is also compatible with at least certain versions of Director stance. Suppose, for example, that my PC is returning to his/her homeland after many years of travel. I (the player) state to the group that the people give me a tumultuous welcome. This is Director stance, but if the persona of my PC is "beloved leader ot the people", then this episode of Director stance play is quite consistent with advocating for my PC. And, again, I think many RPGers would recognise it as roleplaying - it's not "in character", but it is "getting into my character and expressing his/her persona through the fiction of the game".

 

[Desdichado]

I define it as making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might base them on. My question to you is, can someone not be doing that and still be role-playing, by any reasonable definition?

Was that meant to be a rhetorical question? Because the answer is, yeah, of course for most groups I've observed or participated with over the years.

 

[Voadam]

Let me put it another way. Would you (in a pre-4E context) allow a character with a 9 strength to (in the normal course of events, not as part of some unusual maneuver) claim a +3 strength bonus to his melee attacks and damage? If the answer is "no", which surely it is, why should the player with the 9 charisma character get to be as, if not more, charming and persuasive as one with a 16? If that's the kind of character he wants to play, that's the kind that should be written down in front of him, not some other.

The 16 charisma gets a +3 the 9 gets a -1 on charisma based checks. Charisma is a composite stat though.

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting. Charisma is most important for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to turn undead. Every creature has a Charisma score.

You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:

•Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks. These are the skills that have Charisma as their key ability.
•Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
•Turning checks for clerics and paladins attempting to turn zombies, vampires, and other undead.
Sorcerers and bards get bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a sorcerer or bard spell is 10 + the spell’s level.

A ghast for example, has a 16 charisma. They are not generally considered physically attractive. Consider "these creatures look just like their lesser kin" the ghouls who have a 12 charisma. I would generally consider both physically unattractive even though that is part of charisma and RAW they have above average charismas. The ghast may be unattractive but super able to lead and so generally run packs of ghouls.

The different aspects of Charisma don't have to be in sync. Charming people can be terrible leaders.

The 16 charisma could be devastatingly handsome/beautiful and not charming at all. The 9 can be super ugly and super persuasive.

There is no one right way to roleplay a 9 charisma character versus a 16.

The stat RAW is not that relevant to how you should play your character.

I define it as making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might base them on. My question to you is, can someone not be doing that and still be role-playing, by any reasonable definition?

You seem to be defining it as making decisions because they're the ones you believe the stats on the sheet would make in that situation, as opposed to other reasons such as the player's view of their own character.

 

[Mallus]

They are never the same thing.

I disagree. Vigorously, even.

... but acting out dialogue and such is neither necessary nor sufficient for playing in a way that's true to your character.

How do you determine what's "true to the character"? And who gets to determine that? (if not the player, through the act of actually playing the character, which can include speaking for them and coming up with their ideas).

The character doesn't exist until the player defines them. Sure, part of the definition is the mechanical stuff, but the rest of it, and to my mind the vastly more interesting part, is the definition that comes from real play, from the player making decisions and saying stuff.

Surely your character shouldn't deviate wildly from what's written there.

So you've never encountered a PC with the intellect of Einstein who did stupid things?

Or the a PC with the wisdom of Solomon who did unwise things (more on par with Solomon Grundy)?

Or a PC with the charisma of the young, slender Elvis who did things with all the savoir-faire of the pill-addled, fat, old, Elvis, slurring words out of a mouth stuffed with half-chewed deep-fried peanut butter sandwich?

Surely, if we were in the mood to give an honest account, when it comes to the mental stats, most players have no choice but to deviate wildly from what's written on their character sheets, because said players simply aren't among the smartest, wisest, and most charming individuals in the world.

Like their characters often are.

Which is why I accept a PC's stats invariably tell only part of the story. The other part is what the player brings to the table: their skills, natural abilities, and experiences, which sometimes exceed those of their characters, but most of the time, fall far short.

Yes, the character is more than what's written on the sheet, but surely it has something to do with what's written on the sheet.

Yes. Of course.

An example: I'm currently running AD&D. The PC's CHA scores affect their max. number of henchmen, loyalty base, and reaction adjustment (which I prior to any negotiation w/NPC's). That's all the system cares about, and that's fine by me.

But their CHA says nothing nothing about the qualities of their lies, the actual meat of their negotiations --which are less about charm and more about smarts/tactics, anyway-- and has no bearing on how they choose to characterize their PC's.

Even 3e/Pathfinder, with their more detailed social skills, don't really say a whole lot about how effective a character is in social situations, if you look closely at the skill descriptions. Bluff is good for short term lies ("these aren't the droids you're looking for") and Diplomacy affects overall attitudes (like AD&D's reaction rolls). There is plenty of room here for lower CHA characters to be effective in negotiations and longer-term acts of persuasion.

Would you (in a pre-4E context) allow a character with a 9 strength to (in the normal course of events, not as part of some unusual maneuver) claim a +3 strength bonus to his melee attacks and damage?

No.

However, if the player of the STR: 9 character decided to use a lever to help move a heavy object, I'd definitely grant them a bonus, if not let them succeed outright.

Which neatly illustrates my point. Character stats define raw ability, which can be modified by clever ideas from the player.

...why should the player with the 9 charisma character get to be as, if not more, charming and persuasive as one with a 16?

Because the player with the CHA: 9 chose better words to say.

Let's change the example a bit (I like doing this ). Player A is running a 7th level wizard with an 18 INT. Player B is running a 4th level wizard, A's less experienced former apprentice, with an INT of 15. Both have memorized comparable, effective spells.

I think we can agree, effectiveness-wise, Player A should be > Player B.

But during an encounter, Player B saves the the day by using their spells more effectively. Even though, on paper, Player A has the stronger PC.

Does Player A have the right to complain that they were overshadowed by Player B? Did Player B play poorly by playing smarter than Player A?

Mechanical (character) ability can only matter so much, if this is going to be a game where player contributions matter. Now we can debate exactly how much influence player ideas/words should have, and in what situations, but to deny their place, or label it bad role-playing, is, well... silly.

I define it as making decisions chiefly because they're the ones your character would make in that situation, as opposed to the many other reasons you might base them on.

How does a player determine an action is one their character (and not them) would make? Without actually making it. Therefore, making it, when push comes to shove, their decision. Something of a paradox, eh?

My question to you is, can someone not be doing that and still be role-playing, by any reasonable definition?

Yes.

Any decisions my characters make are the ones I choose. By definition. My reasons for each of them may vary. But all of them are 'true to the character', because I'm the guy who determines who the character is, and thus all of them constitute role-playing.

Your definition of role-playing is rooted in a denial of the inherent overlap between player and character. I can pretend I'm only making the choices my character would --and I often do!-- but its just that, a mini-game of pretend inside a larger game of pretend, which hardly provides a solid foundation for a definition of role-playing.