D&D 5E The Misrepresentation of Charisma

[GMMichael]

Charisma is misrepresented as beauty because that's the simplest, most objective way to view the ability. And if you'll take the leap with me, the stereotypical gamer isn't exactly gifted in recognizing other things that would fall under Charisma: leadership, compassion, or reputation.

This always annoys me, especially at tables that discourage murderhoboing. I mean, if you don't want us to kill everything in our way, why do we earn nothing for exploration, investigation, socializing and so forth? This was one thing I really liked about 4E encounter design, XP was not awarded based on what you killed, but how you solved the encounter. Bypassing it entirely through cleverness and guile was worth exactly as much XP as killing the room and looting the bodies.

I have a suspicion that the 5th-ed DMG provides numbers for exploration, investigation, and socializing. Or guidelines anyway. But yes, it seems uncommon for a DM to say "you get 100 XP for swaying the local lord's opinion." Probably a good argument for not using XP; just let those PCs level up when they've passed a storyline milestone.

 

[Sunseeker]

I have a suspicion that the 5th-ed DMG provides numbers for exploration, investigation, and socializing. Or guidelines anyway. But yes, it seems uncommon for a DM to say "you get 100 XP for swaying the local lord's opinion." Probably a good argument for not using XP; just let those PCs level up when they've passed a storyline milestone.

That's what I've always done in my own games, but I've played in two big campaigns over the past few years where the DM actively encouraged role-played and social solutions, but then gave us jack all (loot, XP or otherwise) for resolving the situation in such a manner. So "we" (the party) just went around beating everything up and killing people, we got lots of XP, lots of loot and the situation was resolved and our reputations were no worse for wear. We spent months (of real time) not leveling though attempting social solutions and them jumped like 3-4 levels in a few sessions once we started murderhoboing.

 

[Henry]

Ah, okay. When you said "most players" earlier I didn't realize you meant "most players at your table." I thought you were speaking to what you thought was all of the player base across D&D.

Nope, the "most players" I was referring to were the players that [MENTION=80982]pdzoch[/MENTION] was referring to when he spoke of devaluing CHA over CON, and I don't blame players who do if the games they are playing in do not value CHA over other stats. While my experience isn't all-encompassing or anything silly like that, it's pretty varied, covering game groups over several states, as well as convention games and examples freely given on forums all over the Internet, and in most cases I've experienced or have been related to me, it does seem that a good CON and Primary stat is a safer bet than favoring CHA for the sake of interaction.

Have you ever fought an encounter with (a) creature(s) immune, or highly resistant to, magic? What a waste having that wizard in the party, am I right?

Not analogous at all, since as was pointed out, a wizard is not useless in an encounter with a creature resistant to magic, and secondly, I have experienced plenty of games with tons of creatures the DM wouldn't let you reason with, but uncommonly experienced a game with tons of creatures resistant to magic.

Also, I didn't say I found charsima focused characters a waste as you seem to imply - in fact I pretty much gave an example of the exact opposite instance. Some people I've met however DO consider it a waste, and they're usually the same people who've rarely had DMs introduce many social encounters.

 

[Prism]

This always annoys me, especially at tables that discourage murderhoboing. I mean, if you don't want us to kill everything in our way, why do we earn nothing for exploration, investigation, socializing and so forth? This was one thing I really liked about 4E encounter design, XP was not awarded based on what you killed, but how you solved the encounter. Bypassing it entirely through cleverness and guile was worth exactly as much XP as killing the room and looting the bodies.

The 5e DMG does suggest that you reward for non combat as well as combat options but has no real framework for how much to award

 

[Sunseeker]

The 5e DMG does suggest that you reward for non combat as well as combat options but has no real framework for how much to award

And that's been a lingering problem ever since the game grew out of "kill the monsters and take their stuff".

 

[Maxperson]

(1) Consider evolutionary theory. Beautiful plumes, nice hair, etc., are all designed to showcase health for potential mates. That is why beauty exists, from a Darwinian perspective.
(2) Consider how beauty products try to counterfeit beauty by counterfeiting glowing health. Glossy hair, unblemished skin, long lashes.

Olaf sounds strong, but is he really healthy? If he is, he's probably fairly physically attractive. (D&D elides some nuances of Constitution of course, just as it elides some nuances of Strength, which in reality is not just one uniform metric for all Strength-related tasks.) If his Charisma is low he may manage to make himself unpleasant in other ways.

I've seen a lot of really healthy average and ugly people.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, first I should point out that I avoid games with "sex appeal" - different strokes for different folks, I guess.*

Second, the issue of "charisma" was originally muddled in D&D/1e, when it was often used as a synonym for physical attractiveness. Incorrectly, yes, but widely. The attempt to correct it with comeliness was a disaster and never really adopted.

Third, I find that physical attractiveness tends to be based on cultural norms. There are times when people can be unhealthy and be physically attractive.

Finally, I just find it easier and better to let players decide on what their character looks like.



*I've never needed sex appeal to kill an orc, and I never will.

1e came up with a solution. Comeliness for the win!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I've seen a lot of really healthy average and ugly people.

I rarely see any beautiful-but-unhealthy people. Guess that makes our anecdotes even, huh?

 

[Morrus]

I rarely see any beautiful-but-unhealthy people. Guess that makes our anecdotes even, huh?

Grab a magazine - any magazine - and look at all the unhealthily underweight models.

It it seems odd that somebody could be part of modern society and be blissfully unaware of this.

 

[Maxperson]

Grab a magazine - any magazine - and look at all the unhealthily underweight models.

I was about to say that. A lot of actresses and wealthy women as well.