Smart vs. Intelligence and Combatless Roleplaying Sessions

[DonTadow]

In other words, the incentive is to make Charisma a dump stat and show off your theatrics in game despite the character's low charisma, which indicates an inability to influence others.

NO, I think what he's saying is that the a character should role play his character however he wishes. Just because your charisma is a 6 or 8 doesnt make you some horrible monstrositiy, it just puts you at slightly below average when people engage you. It doesnt mean you can't try. I'd love to create a character whom has a low charisma but speaks like an elgant bard, he just always comes across the wrong way to people.

If i was to apply this to real life, ai know a lot of people whom speak very well and can be very diplomatic, but they come across the wrong way to people (my boss for instance). I'd say her charisma is a 6 despite the fact that she is very elequoent with her speech

 

[ThirdWizard]

NO, I think what he's saying is that the a character should role play his character however he wishes. Just because your charisma is a 6 or 8 doesnt make you some horrible monstrositiy, it just puts you at slightly below average when people engage you.

Hmm... I have to ask. If he doesn't use charisma based skills, how is a low charisma a disadvantage when dealing with people?

 

[Voadam]

In other words, the incentive is to make Charisma a dump stat and show off your theatrics in game despite the character's low charisma, which indicates an inability to influence others.

Not in the situation proposed where influencing others is handled solely through 1st person player interactions.

Charisma would then be as mechanical a stat as Intelligence or Strength. Which can also be dump stats for characters not mechanically designed to use them. Paladins and sorcerers would not find an incentive to make Charisma a dump stat.

Other stats can become dump stats as well if the character is not going to mechanically use them, such as warriors with int and mages with str.

 

[DamionW]

The incentives are to actually first person roleplay interactions, not to design characters mechanically a certain way. This also means that mechanics will not be a limitation on roleplaying. The incentive from having roleplay determine interactions and not mechanics and dice is to encourage first person roleplaying and have players deal with the reactions to their roleplaying.

Voadam, I do understand your position and you make it very clear to your players that you don't want them choosing a character concept whose attitudes and speech they can't actually portray through roleplaying. That's a fine way to play, but it inherently limits player's options. If I were to estimate my DnD abilities in real life (a cheesy proposition in itself, but bear with me for the discussion), my personal CHA ability would probably be limited to a 12 or 13 at best. I know this just like I know I can't bench press 250 lbs or run faster than a 6 minute mile in my current state of fitness. These are just my limitations. Now if the portrayal of my fictional character in the game is limited by my own charisma as I speak, there is no incentive to choose a character concept that is persuasive on the level of 15+ CHA because I can't reach that oratory ability on a regular basis each session. So I am incentivized to choose characters that have <13 CHA because at least then it will be in my realm of portrayal and its limitations.

So where do the great leaders in your campaign world come from? Are all of the Churchill's and Ghandi's and Elvis's all limited to yourself as NPCs and only the other players who you feel have the sufficient vocabulary to portray them? Those all are very interesting, potent archetypes to include in your plotline, but they can seem cutoff to players such as myself with limited oratory and persuasive capabilities. I understand your desires and your DMing style, but it just seems ruthless in a game of fiction to make some character concepts which exceed the player's limitations (stronger characters, faster characters, characters with fictional magical and psychic abilities), but certain other limitations impose a glass ceiling. That just drains the fun of it from me, but to each their own.

 

[Voadam]

DaimonW, mechanics are a limitation as well.

If the DM says you are doing dice roll in order for stat generation then your pre-concept may not work either if you get a low charisma.

Not all concepts are mechanically viable for certain games. An archmage and a jedi knight are not viable character concepts in a 1st level straight D&D game even though there are mechanics that could portray those characters in a D&D game.

The effectiveness of your master liar with optimized bluff under RAW is going to be limited by whether he is first level or 20th. Also the bluff skill has built in limits of its own on what it can accomplish on a successful check.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Charisma would then be as mechanical a stat as Intelligence or Strength. Which can also be dump stats for characters not mechanically designed to use them. Paladins and sorcerers would not find an incentive to make Charisma a dump stat.

All ability scores have something going for them beyond paricular classes.
Skill points and Knowlege skills are attached to Int. Increasing Int has an affect on non-wizards.
Strength handles encumberance and attack/damage rolls. Both of these will come up at some point.
Con is Fort saves and hp.
Dex is attack rolls, Reflex saves, and AC, and skill checks.
Wisdom is Will saves and skill checks.
Charisma is only skills.

So, from my perspective, at least, you arn't wasting points to build a character concept, because there is always a mechanical return of some kind. If I want to build a smart fighter, then I know he at least has extra skill points and can go down the Expertise line. If I want to build a Dexterous wizard, I know he'll have a higher reflex save, AC, and ranged attack rolls. If I want to build a charismatic barbarian, I know I'm at least getting bonuses to diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate.

 

[DamionW]

DaimonW, mechanics are a limitation as well.

If the DM says you are doing dice roll in order for stat generation then your pre-concept may not work either if you get a low charisma.

Not all concepts are mechanically viable for certain games. An archmage and a jedi knight are not viable character concepts in a 1st level straight D&D game even though there are mechanics that could portray those characters in a D&D game.

The effectiveness of your master liar with optimized bluff under RAW is going to be limited by whether he is first level or 20th. Also the bluff skill has built in limits of its own on what it can accomplish on a successful check.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm asking. Through whatever method, the ability exists in RPGs for characters that can chop their enemies in half, shoot fire from their fingers, or climb up a vertical brick walls. These characters can be played by people regardless of their abilities in real life. Now in any fantasy world, be it Star Wars or Iron Kingdoms, or whatever, there will be leaders and charismatic people. I used Ghandi and Churchill as examples of people in real life who through their words are able to sway and influence many people because of their force of personality. If all interactions are limited to what you can physically speak to each other at the table, it seems unless you personally have the charisma of Ghandi or Churchill, you will never be able to reach that type of character concept at any level. If you do have someone of that influence at your table, you're very lucky, but if not, what then? So my question is where do the leader-type or persuasive type characters fit into your campaign world? Can any player choose that, or if their portrayal attempts fall flat of that poignancy, will they never reach that level of influence?

 

[Voadam]

All ability scores have something going for them beyond paricular classes.
Skill points and Knowlege skills are attached to Int. Increasing Int has an affect on non-wizards.
Strength handles encumberance and attack/damage rolls. Both of these will come up at some point.
Con is Fort saves and hp.
Dex is attack rolls, Reflex saves, and AC, and skill checks.
Wisdom is Will saves and skill checks.
Charisma is only skills.

So, from my perspective, at least, you arn't wasting points to build a character concept, because there is always a mechanical return of some kind. If I want to build a smart fighter, then I know he at least has extra skill points and can go down the Expertise line. If I want to build a Dexterous wizard, I know he'll have a higher reflex save, AC, and ranged attack rolls. If I want to build a charismatic barbarian, I know I'm at least getting bonuses to diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate.

Charisma skills do handle a little more than social interactions.

Bluff = feint.

Intimidate has that combat effect scare mechanic.

Not much more but it is there.

The difference between how much a wizard gains from extra carrying or how well he swims is not that significant from how good a barbarian is at feinting. Str has more mechanics than charisma. A difference in amount, not kind.

 

[Voadam]

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm asking. Through whatever method, the ability exists in RPGs for characters that can chop their enemies in half, shoot fire from their fingers, or climb up a vertical brick walls. These characters can be played by people regardless of their abilities in real life. Now in any fantasy world, be it Star Wars or Iron Kingdoms, or whatever, there will be leaders and charismatic people. I used Ghandi and Churchill as examples of people in real life who through their words are able to sway and influence many people because of their force of personality. If all interactions are limited to what you can physically speak to each other at the table, it seems unless you personally have the charisma of Ghandi or Churchill, you will never be able to reach that type of character concept at any level. If you do have someone of that influence at your table, you're very lucky, but if not, what then? So my question is where do the leader-type or persuasive type characters fit into your campaign world? Can any player choose that, or if their portrayal attempts fall flat of that poignancy, will they never reach that level of influence?

A player says he wants to play a character like Ender Wiggins from Ender's Game, a master tactician, but in D&D.

His ability to execute this character concept will depend on the player's tactical skill. The player's tactical brilliance will be limited by the player's tactical skills.

A DM could institute a skill or int check mechanic and give hints but then that depends on the DM's tactical abilities being better than the player's for this to be an aid. Alternatively the DM could have a mechanic where the tactician simply wins on succesful checks and the DM describes how it happens.

However, in a game where these house rule mechanics are not implemented, the character's tactical success and brilliance is limited by the player's tactical skill.

 

[DamionW]

That's a fair analogy, but it still doesn't directly answer my question. Leaders and exceptionally charismatic individuals make for a flavorful addition to a plotline. Do you include these types of characters in your game world? If so, how? Are they limited to NPCs if the players can't achieve that level? If they are NPCs, do you play them out yourself, or are they limited to "off camera" scenes?

Or, let me switch questions here. How does the Leadership feat work in your games? Is it off limits to PCs? If they do have access to it, do they automatically gain their cohorts/followers, or do they need to RP out the exchanges with them? If they don't RP it out, why does that mechanic work as is but not other mechanics that depend on the character's charisma? I'm asking because I am still trying to understand the advantages of a RP-only resolution mechanism...