D&D General The Charisma Conundrum

[pemerton]

What the player says in social situations matters, in the same way that it also matters in combat where you move and what powers you choose to use etc. Players must make decision in a game with their own brains, and those decisions should matter.

Agreed. The same logic applies to INT as a stat - it makes for poor game play, in my experience, if the player just asks the GM to tell them what their PC would think and choose based on the GM's interpretation of the PC's high INT!

Going along with the quote, and my previous paragraph, doesn't require abandoning mental stats (although that is obviously one option). It probably does require departing from the most obvious forms of simulationist resolution.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agreed. The same logic applies to INT as a stat - it makes for poor game play, in my experience, if the player just asks the GM to tell them what their PC would think and choose based on the GM's interpretation of the PC's high INT!

Going along with the quote, and my previous paragraph, doesn't require abandoning mental stats (although that is obviously one option). It probably does require departing from the most obvious forms of simulationist resolution.

Or at least thinking about what we are actually simulating here. With intelligence, I tend to treat it more like knowledge or learning. Then intelligence skills can give you access to facts regarding the situation, but it still is up to the player to figure out what to do with these facts.

 

[aco175]

Just saw this in the memes thread and thought it comes from 1e/2e DMG, but not sure. Thought it could add some to this thread.

It could be from an older book where things seem to have changed since then. The DM is no longer opposing the PCs and is more rooting for the PCs in today's style of play. There still should be some bar that players try for. They should be invested in the game to some extent.

 

[ezo]

Well, they got the first sentence right: "Poor play does not merit special consideration."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just saw this in the memes thread and thought it comes from 1e/2e DMG, but not sure. Thought it could add some to this thread.

View attachment 355236

It could be from an older book where things seem to have changed since then. The DM is no longer opposing the PCs and is more rooting for the PCs in today's style of play. There still should be some bar that players try for. They should be invested in the game to some extent.

Ah, what a lovely sentiment. "People will judge you if your players aren't playing the right way. So you'd better be super judgmental about how your players play--otherwise everyone will think you're a crap DM that nobody should play with!"

 

[el-remmen]

The OP strikes me as the kind of DM that does not want to ever grow, change or compromise. I know that is hard because I have been similar in the past (though never so unreasonable, I hope). But I can’t help but mostly see it as a kind of laziness. “I don’t want to do the work needed for us to find a middle ground where we all have fun.” (Though I am not convinced that BT is not a sock puppet with fictional scenarios)

 

[CreamCloud0]

Just saw this in the memes thread and thought it comes from 1e/2e DMG, but not sure. Thought it could add some to this thread.

View attachment 355236

It could be from an older book where things seem to have changed since then. The DM is no longer opposing the PCs and is more rooting for the PCs in today's style of play. There still should be some bar that players try for. They should be invested in the game to some extent.

the thing is, i believe this is referring to a different kind of 'poor play' than what OP is dealing with, a player that attempts poorly thought out schemes and bad tactics is not the same kind of 'poor player' than one who cannot easily articulate their goals or methods.

 

[ezo]

the thing is, i believe this is referring to a different kind of 'poor play' than what OP is dealing with, a player that attempts poorly thought out schemes and bad tactics is not the same kind of 'poor player' than one who cannot easily articulate their goals or methods.

Well, one part of this I actually do relate to is this:

Allowing [...] ignorant players to advance their character to high level reflects badly upon the game...

I don't expect players to be experts on the game, but I expect them to know the basics of how to play and what their PC can generally do. Being ignorant of those things slows down the game and hurts the enjoyment for others if it is a regular occurance.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The OP strikes me as the kind of DM that does not want to ever grow, change or compromise.

Bloodtide has explicitly stated in at least one of their other threads that they will never compromise. So I think you are pretty much on point with your assessment unfortunately.

 

[Umbran]

I think it now becomes his game and he has a style of DMing that seems to include a certain amount of roleplaying in order to make CHA checks. He does have the power/right to run the game he likes, we seem to have had several threads about this.

Yes, but with rights come responsibilities. The GM also has the obligation to communicate their desired playstyle to the group before play begins, and I'm not sure that happened - if the GM had clearly explained what they expected in social interaction, it is hard to believe Doug would have aimed at being the Face.

So all NPCs react badly to Doug's character, and when the rolls come up, he makes minuses for himself by his bad style of role play. And he has no interest in talking about it...or anything...and refuses to change.

As others have noted, the GM creates the penalties, not the player. You are making that choice here.

And, you seem pretty solidly set on how you feel roleplay has to happen, and how it impacts the mechanics - you don't seem eager to change for a compromise either.

So he "wants to play a Faceman", but the only way he can do it is a completely false way.

Correction - the only way you allow him to do it is a completely false way. It seems to be your requirements on how folks roleplay, and how that impacts mechanics, that leave him no other out. If that's not correct, here's an option for you:

Allow the player to describe the approach and desired result in a social interaction, rather than enact it personally. Just as, "I try to run the orc through with my sword," is generally an acceptable way for a character to declare a combat action, "I try to pretend I'm a minor official to get the guard to allow us to pass," should be acceptable.