Should strong players have an advantage?

[Hassassin]

Ah, but see, you and others keep telling me that the actual scores shouldn't count. That the player should be able to play whatever they want without any mechanical references.

I'm not of that opinion. If you are playing a low Int character and consider yourself to be significantly more intelligent than the character, then you should feel free to correct down. If you have average Int in character and aren't Mensa-level IRL, there is in my opinion no need to adjust.

That is, I think the difference has to be pretty large before adjusting makes sense, much less becomes something I'd enforce.

Yet, even you have a problem thinking that an average individual has a 10 Str or Con.

No, I know an average human in the game world has Str/Con 10, because that's the definition. That just has nothing to do with real world Str/Con.

Now you see where I'm coming from. I don't buy that that character with a 10 Cha and no actual social skills has any real chance of success in difficult social encounters.

No I don't, actually. I see what you are saying, but I don't quite get it. (Sorry, may well be my fault.)

Do you mean: 1) that characters with average Cha shouldn't be able to succeed in difficult social encounters, 2) that according to some rules they don't, or 3) that a real-world average Cha person doesn't?

If the first, fine, that's your opinion and there's nothing much to discuss. If the second, ok, which rules and and could you give an example? If the third, that has nothing to do with Cha 10, since that isn't (doesn't have to be) the real world average.

 

[jasper]

they do. If I don't given their favorite magic item; They give me wedgies!

 

[Hussar]

In real world charisma alone doesn't really break all social barriers. You need to have skills too, and knowledge. And sometimes also right contacts, money, gender or even looks/age.

Where real call of success comes from those elements you might even be better off by having only avarage charisma. People don't like charismatic person who is much under their social status/radar. In your own country you might get over that by enough stories and outright lies. Which is bluff/diplomacy skill ranks I think, and some knowledges to boot.

There is reason why foreign actors learn to do locally preferable accents.

Even D&D is skill-based game, not just stat-based. I think you are putting too much value on stats 18 at D&D3.x is only +4 to skill, which is huge but not really that much, especially if you have skill unranked.

In fantasy context people might get annoyed by charismatic slave/peon/wondering adventurer (troublemaker). Depending how exactly it plays out it might be your spouse's bit too warm looks for this one. Or too hard to ignore voiced opinions you don't share. Socially charismatic people draw blood. But some of them lack other social sensibility. They don't or won't turn it down when it would serve them better.

Charismatic people can also be stupid and they can (often) have equally stupid followers. Or replace "stupid" with likeminded. Some charismatic people just have very radical opinions.

If you use your social advantage all the time you will end up using it in wrong place. In game terms you might not even roll low, it's just all these situational modifiers.

Human is social creature, I don't think we were so less complicated back in a day.

Oh, hey, I totally agree here. If you spend the character resources to be diplomatic, then, your stat is far less important. If you have a 10 Cha but 15 ranks in diplomacy, then fine, your character is pretty darn likeable. Maybe not that naturally likeable, but he's learned to say the right thing and present himself well.

Great, play that character.

My issue is when the player spends no character resources not just stats, but none at all, and then expects to be as successful as the guy who did spend the character resources.

 

[Dausuul]

Oh, hey, I totally agree here. If you spend the character resources to be diplomatic, then, your stat is far less important. If you have a 10 Cha but 15 ranks in diplomacy, then fine, your character is pretty darn likeable. Maybe not that naturally likeable, but he's learned to say the right thing and present himself well.

Great, play that character.

My issue is when the player spends no character resources not just stats, but none at all, and then expects to be as successful as the guy who did spend the character resources.

If you have a -2 in Knowledge (Arcana), and expect your character to know just as much about matters mystical as the wizard who's got a +18? Not gonna happen. The reason it's not gonna happen? Someday the DM is going to call for a Knowledge (Arcana) check, and you're going to get a small number and the wizard is going to get a big number, and the DM is going to tell the wizard a bunch of stuff and not tell you squat.

None of this requires you to "roleplay your stats" or dumb down your character. You can claim, in-character, to be vastly knowledgeable about the arcane, but you won't be able to back up that claim with in-game abilities. This is perfectly fine. The world is full of people who claim vast knowledge in areas where they are, in fact, ignorant as hell. (In fact, studies indicate that the more ignorant you are, the less likely you are to know you're ignorant.)

Likewise, we have social skills to handle low Charisma/high Charisma questions. The issue under discussion is whether players should have to go beyond the mechanical impact of the skill/attribute system, and dumb down their tactics to portray low Intelligence, or act obnoxious to portray low Charisma, or do... unwise... things... to portray low Wisdom.