Should charismatic players have an advantage?

[prosfilaes]

Now, are you trying to say that Hercules shouldn't get a bit of latitude when he talks to someone? That a +15 diplomacy check to reflect the fact that he's freaking Hercules is out of line and completely unbelievable?

Besides what I've already mentioned, Hercules being famous is not necessarily a good thing. The guy had anger issues; someone who had heard about Hercules may well promise him anything as long as it will give the person time to get away before Hercules loses his temper and crushes the person's skull in. And Hercules was the son of a god; he may have got some pretty heightened responses before he did anything (=before he gained levels).

 

[Hussar]

Besides what I've already mentioned, Hercules being famous is not necessarily a good thing. The guy had anger issues; someone who had heard about Hercules may well promise him anything as long as it will give the person time to get away before Hercules loses his temper and crushes the person's skull in. And Hercules was the son of a god; he may have got some pretty heightened responses before he did anything (=before he gained levels).

Fantastic. It worked. I don't have any ranks in diplomacy, have no particular Cha score, yet, I managed to get someone to do what I wanted. I win.

Note, that we're talking about 30th level characters here. By the definition in 4e, these characters are on the same level as Hercules. They're quite possibly demigods in their own right.

Somehow I doubt Hercules ever really had to gain levels.

And, Jameson Courage, I can appreciate what you're saying. But, my response would be this- if it actually came up in the game that my 30th level character is talking to a hermit that has never heard of me, then I'll worry about consistency.

In other words, sure, we can fabricate corner cases until the cows come home but it doesn't really mean anything. Besides, how do you know that the hermit has never heard of my character? I rolled my diplomacy, I scored a success, that means he's heard of me. Or, conversely, I rolled diplomacy, scored a fail (after all, +15 isn't going to guarantee me success in 4e) and he's never heard of me. Easy peasy, no contradiction.

The contradiction only comes in if you have decided beforehand that the hermit has never heard of me and ruled by fiat. Once you've done that, well, we're not actually playing the same game anymore are we?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Your roll on Diplomacy does not dictate the internal consistency of the setting (in my game), it dictates how your character interacts with the internal consistency of the setting (in my game). So, rolling your Diplomacy successfully means you've convinced him, but it does not mean that he's heard of you. There's no "Fame" skill. Equating "Fame" with Diplomacy is houseruling, and is closer to "not playing the game" then what I advocated (not that it's wrong). As always, though, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

There's no "Fame" skill. Equating "Fame" with Diplomacy is houseruling, and is closer to "not playing the game" then what I advocated (not that it's wrong).

I think it's clearly a house rule, with no support in the text. In 4e you get better at stuff - all stuff - as you go up levels, fame is irrelevant to the +1/2 level mod unless you choose to houserule it as that for some reason.

 

[LurkAway]

Yeah, LurkAway, threads go on and on and on when people cherry pick definitions and quotes and then try to make a point.

Now, are you trying to say that Hercules shouldn't get a bit of latitude when he talks to someone? That a +15 diplomacy check to reflect the fact that he's freaking Hercules is out of line and completely unbelievable?

I was just trying to point out that I think it is almost futile to discuss an issue, including Hercules and the bigger picture of whether high-level PCs should get a universal flat bonus to diplomacy, if the end result is someone saying "Meh, you can spin however you like". That is, instead of meeting the opponent halfway, it's just a strategy of backpedal and retrench original position. I wouldn't feel motivated to argue about Hercules if you will inevitably say "meh" and spin it your way. (If you meant otherwise, I apologize for misunderstanding, but I'm going by the definition of 'meh' as an expression of apathy, indifference, or boredom)

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, LurkAway, threads go on and on and on when people cherry pick definitions and quotes and then try to make a point.

Please don't try to blame the other guy when you yourself refuse to let go.

 

[Mallus]

Now, of course player contribution matters.

Then it follows that sometimes, a problem will be solved primarily because of the player's attributes, and not their characters. And this is true in all avenues of play, not just social situations.

A PC might be envisioned as a mighty warrior, veteran of many campaigns, and tactical genius. The mechanics can partially reflect that, but the player still needs to make sound tactical decisions during a combat scene, and if they don't, there's an unavoidable disconnect. So it goes.

Should a DM step in and prevent a STR 18 fighter from being a stupid and ineffectual combatant (the rules certainly don't). If so, for the life of me, I don't see why they should step in and prevent a CHA 18 character from being an ineffective face or negotiator. Or the reverse...

Combat resolution will have many, many choice points allowing that a decently intelligent character might outperform a more intelligent character. Skill resolution, OTOH, is binary. It's pass fail. There really is only one choice point.

Why are you assuming social encounters are unavoidably binary? That's not a good reading of any of the rules I'm familiar with.

A properly run social encounter should have as many decision points as combat, if not more, reflecting the give and take of natural conversation.

I think you can make an argument that there's traditionally been a dearth of good, thorough examples of this in the rules, but I'm not aware of any DM's advice saying social skill resolution should be resolved as single roll pass/fail.

What is being said is that the genius character should do things that the very intelligent character can't.

And they can. But the mechanical definitions say nothing about what the character will choose to do at a critical moment. The choice resides with the player. And if player choice matters, then you have to accept the genius PC might do something dumb, and the sub-genius PC might do something extraordinarily effective.

The untrained Cha 10 character can talk until he's blue in the face, but, he's going to have a MUCH more difficult time influencing people's reactions than the Cha 18 fully trained diplomatic character. The player's words shouldn't play into this.

The CHA 10 PC should have a harder time, but when you go on to say the player's words shouldn't factor into the outcome, you are explicitly stating the player's contribution don't matter.

Or am I missing something obvious?

A better example, Mallus, would be a 10 Int Wizard and an 18 Int Wizard. Now, should the 10 Int wizard be regularly more effective than the 18 Int Wizard?

Are talking a 3e/Pathfinder INT 10 Wizard, who's limited to 0-level spells, or a AD&D Magic-User who can learn up to 5th level spells ? Let's assume AD&D -- it's what I'm running now.

Yes. It's fine for an INT 10 Magic-User to regularly be more effective than an INT 18 one. Depending on how each player decides to use their PC's spells. The game doesn't, well it shouldn't, play itself.

While I'm at it, let me ask you this, re: playing the character that's on the sheet...

How do you play a PC whose mental faculties far exceed your own correctly? I've asked this before and never gotten a good answer. To my mind, the only solution is to willingly accept the disconnect between the player's mental/social abilities and their characters.

Your average gamer will not have the wisdom of Christ or the charm of Casanova, or in the case of some lucky rolls or a generous point-buy, both the wisdom of Christ and the charm of Casanova. It's a given the player's words/choices will not accurately represent the character described by those stats. Again, so it goes.

I suppose you could get around this problem by reducing the importance of player contributions (and leave success entirely up to the character and mechanics)... but the game-y part of the game would suffer for it. I'm all for considering D&D as a kind of collaborative fiction writing exercise coupled with performance... but it's also a game of problem-solving (well, for a sizable number of gamers).

To resort to that last refuge of scoundrels, analogy: it's not much fun watching the New York Times crossword puzzle solve itself.

 

[Umbran]

How do you play a PC whose mental faculties far exceed your own correctly? I've asked this before and never gotten a good answer.

Never gotten a good answer, or never gotten an answer you liked?

The basic answer I know of is simple - with help from the GM.

Players need help from the GM anyway. Characters live in the fictional world their entire fictional lives. Players see that world for only a few hours a week, and then only through a GM's descriptions.

So, to simulate a character with greater mental faculties, the GM gives that player more information, hints, or clues ("Roll an Intelligence check. You make it? Well, then you also realize that....") and let the player make choices based on that better information.

 

[Hussar]

I was reading the "Merit and Flaws" thread and it hit me why I hate the idea of ignoring stats.

If I play in a system which has mechanical flaws, and I, as the player, choose to completely ignore my flaw, that makes me a bad player. If my character has the flaw, "Terrified of spiders" and I walk up to the Spider Demon and smack it with my sword without the slightest penalty or role playing, everyone would agree that that's bad role playing.

But, if my character has no Cha and no training in diplomacy, yet I the player completely ignore that and have my character make erudite, convincing, well spoken arguments and win over the NPC, somehow I'm a good role player?

How does that work?

Having no Cha and no skills means that your character has a flaw. Ignoring a flaw is bad role playing.

That's why I don't like people ignoring their character sheets.

 

[LurkAway]

If I play in a system which has mechanical flaws, and I, as the player, choose to completely ignore my flaw, that makes me a bad player. If my character has the flaw, "Terrified of spiders" and I walk up to the Spider Demon and smack it with my sword without the slightest penalty or role playing, everyone would agree that that's bad role playing.

But, if my character has no Cha and no training in diplomacy, yet I the player completely ignore that and have my character make erudite, convincing, well spoken arguments and win over the NPC, somehow I'm a good role player?

I concede it's a good point, but the first thing that pops to my mind is that Cha is abstracted and arguably too simplified to use as anything but a rough guideline (a high Cha doesn't allow for a charming seductive girl who is nevertheless terrified at Public Speaking, just to take one example), whereas 'terrified of spiders' is pretty damn specific.

OTOH, terror can take many forms. Crippling fear can render you helpless and prone, but it can also cause you to lash at the target irrationally. So even with a specific directive, there's still some leeway. And with Cha, there's way more leeway.

The ultimate point, I think, is that stats are a roleplaying aid, not a hindrance and not a fascist ruling. There's a bit of give and take between them, for a game of imagination.

I kinda wish ability scores were more nuanced, like hit points, or the mechanical weight of ability scores were lighter on the ruleset, so that these issues wouldn't come up so much.