Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5749073" data-attributes="member: 8835">This is a good question, sort of the inverse direction I've put things.  Bear in mind, I've been advocating a hypocritical position.  I do play my lower CHA PCs differently than my high CHA PCs.If I was making a Bond style PC, I would probably give him better than average CHA.  I might not put an 18 in it.But I also accept that somebody else might make an 8 CHA PC that acts like Bond.  The difference is, every pick-up line will require a skill check and that'll mean he likely fail and come across as cheesy/sleazy, rather than suave and debonair like Bond.For me, the skill system takes care of the charisma mis-match problem.  Just roll checks on everything.  In fact, these threads may have convinced me to not give circumstantial bonuses for well-spoken speeches, so as to not artificially inflate the PCs skill from the player's.For GMs who like to encourage role playing (and thus speaking/acting in character), giving out an XP bonus might be better practice than giving out a skill check bonus.  If you act "in character" during an encounter, get some extra XP.  But you can't player-charisma-tize the encounter to success where your PC-charisma would fail.A reason for that, as I think [MENTION=2209]Voadam[/MENTION] said in one of these threads, is that of 2 low CHA PCs, a player who correctly RP's his PC as a jerk would get his base CHA penalty on the check AND the GM would naturally interpret things against him (or apply a situational performance penalty).  Whereas the player who only rolled, never roleplayed would just get the CHA modifer, and never have a performance penalty applied.There would be a perverse effect, where "correctly" role-playing your PC as low CHA would result in more failures and problems, than just roll-playing your PC with the same low CHA.  That's a disincentive to role-play (to play in character).</blockquote>

Verification