PDA

View Full Version : Low Charisma and highly communicative player



Jon_Dahl
2012-04-03, 04:05 AM
I have a big problem in my games.

The player who does most of the talking created a character with a very low Charisma and abysmal communicative skills.

However the PC still does a lot of talking. And I mean a lot. Of course when there's something related to Charisma-based skills, I make him roll and he fails 99% of the time, but most of the time no rolls are needed. He talks and everyone listens. And actually he makes sense and has great ideas.

But I feel that I'm letting Charisma to be a dump stat if you can still be a great leader and spokesman with any given Charisma-value, as long you avoid rolling dice.

What do you think? How would you handle this?

Totally Guy
2012-04-03, 04:22 AM
Is the behaviour itself the big problem or is there another problem that is happening because of that behaviour?

Comet
2012-04-03, 04:23 AM
Maybe let him suggest things for the more charismatic characters to say? Not optimal and requires a certain tolerance for metagaming and cooperation between the players but I think it could work well enough.

Geddoe
2012-04-03, 04:45 AM
He's mentally quick on his feet. So each time his character wants to attempt to persuade them, have him roll first then attempt to roleplay his speech based on his roll.

Most of the time, due to failure on his roll, it will be attempting to roleplay putting his foot in his mouth. Which can be funny and allows somebody who is playing the face to pick up the slack.

Mastikator
2012-04-03, 04:47 AM
If you want to offset it, tell the other players that the low cha character gives them bad vibes. And all NPCs automatically dislike him. Some people just don't get along well, the low cha high talkative sensible character is like that with everyone.

Or tell him to tone it down and get into character.

Badgerish
2012-04-03, 05:10 AM
Is this actually a problem? Are they bragging about gaming the system or hedging out other (more charismatic/trained) characters that want to talk?

1) consider the DCs. You say that he usually fails when you force a roll; When you are not forcing a roll, that usually means that the DC was too small to fail.
Think about the no-roll tasks that the low-cha character is succeeding on, really, what DC would you put on them? Would the character fail on a 1-2?

You don't NEED 14 Cha and training in diplomacy to convince someone of a reasonable truth. You don't need training in bluff when people are jumping to their own conclusions. You don't need training in intimidate when the target is alone, unarmed and already wounded.

2) encourage the player to change/grow their character into a more social one.

3) encourage roll first - RP the result

4) encourage the party to work together in social situations (both IC and OOC)


(I'm little defensive about this subject as I usually play low-cha characters and still end up doing a lot of the talking.
Why? because no one else wants to talk!)

sonofzeal
2012-04-03, 05:17 AM
I LARP, and at LARP metagaming is much easier. You can see people moving around out-of-game all the time. There's no real-world invisibility, so often you as a player are aware that a bunch of dudes dressed up like goblins with "out-of-game" headbands were walking up ahead of you, or even that there's one standing very close.

Thing is... at our LARP, you get more respect (and often more rewards) if you exaggerate your character's unawareness. Many of the best players will deliberately lower their guard if they see something metagame that tips them off. These sorts of willful sacrifices impress people, because they show you care more about maintaining immersion than about winning. It can be tough deliberately walking into an ambush you shouldn't be aware of but are, but that's the sort of thing that helps keep the suspension of disbelief alive for others.

So, reward roleplay, especially when it's detrimental to the characters. Low-cha characters could be arrogant or socially awkward, depending on personality type. Figure out with players what that low cha actually means for their characters, and let the players make that call, and then reward them when they play that up.

Don't penalize poor roleplay, that way lies madness. But reward the good.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-04-03, 08:16 AM
I just have to ask is his characters INT score decent or even good? If so I don't see much of an issue. He talks, he makes a lot of sense, but he doesn't have enough force of personality to make NPC's care.

As someone else suggested, have him suggest things for the other players to say or do OOC.

Maybe he's the socially awkward type that has great ideas but will suggest them to people he knows (the other characters) and have them do the important talking.

Ask the player if he wants to reroll his character into something that fits his play style better, since he's obviously having problems with the current one. Don't make it offensive, just ask if he's really, honestly having fun with what he has on his sheet now, and if not ask him if he wants to remake his character.

But in the end, yes you might want to both change how the npc's react to him, and talk to the player and tell him that he might want to tone it down a bit since he mechanically has a low-charisma character but he's playing it like a high charisma one, he doesn't need to stop talking, but he needs to stop playing it like all the talking will and should work.

Mike_G
2012-04-03, 10:39 AM
I would let it go.

It's great when players actually roleplay the interaction, instead of saying "I bluff the guard," <rolls dice> "Beat a 32."

Good ideas should be rewarded.

If he's a good roleplayer, have him work out a reason for his low Cha, and roleplay that aspect. Low Cha could be that his manner is too arrogant, or off-putting, or he might just be as exciting as cardboard. He has great ideas, but just isn't inspiring.

chaosgirl
2012-04-03, 11:40 AM
What do you think? How would you handle this?

The character has good ideas, and expresses them well, but he still gives off "Bad Vibes". People think hes lying to them. They dismiss what he says even if they ARE good ideas (happens all the time IRL). He makes social Faux pas that result in people only talking to other members of the party...

Dimers
2012-04-03, 11:43 AM
I use a combination of Comet's suggestion and Geddoe's. Any interaction starts with a skill roll. Then the player of the speaking character figures out, sometimes with help from the other players, how to roleplay that success or failure. Charismatic players help charismatic characters, and the whole group gets to come up with funny or dramatic reasons for bad rolls. The most fun is a roll that just barely succeeds or just barely fails, because then the dialogue comes alive the most, with complications that help and hinder the aim of the skill check. (Although, yes, critical failures are fun too. :smalltongue:)

The benefits of this include:
* There's a reason for the mechanics to exist and be used. Charisma isn't a dump stat. Just like in real life, characters with good social skills have a meaningful edge. Uncharismatic people can play charismatic characters. It's fair to everyone (at least, everyone who makes their character knowing this is the way it'll work).
* The group is more involved. Even if a single character is speaking for everyone, even if they're off by themselves, the whole group can play by offering suggestions. Players have more incentive to listen and less to surf the net and play games on their phones. They get to know each others' characters better. They're MORE more involved once they figure out that Aid Another (or the non-D&D equivalent) is valuable and introduces more 'angles' into the conversation.
* Realism, roleplay and fun are all supported. Realism is the whole point, except where Rule Of Funny overrides it, and it's all expressed through roleplay. Each player who wants more than rolling dice to overcome challenges should have a good time with this.
* Over a long enough period, players might actually glean useful information and become better speakers IRL by hearing examples of what works and what doesn't. I know I have -- I can express myself better and get people to react more the way I want than I could five or ten years ago, and I've felt that kind of insight settle in during RPG sessions.

denthor
2012-04-03, 11:48 AM
The in game character could be missing teeth, have broken nose allergies. What is his intelligent stat? Be of a mistrusted race 1/2 orc? Low Charisma can take many form annoying voice or tone.

Be rude when the player character meets resistance he walks away rather than state his point.

You have an intelligent player take him aside and say I want you to roleplay your stats. When he starts talking tell him to pick up his character sheet and say which stat are using now. Wisdom and intelligenes can be used brief consice statement.

Give him 25 words or less to make his point at that point cut him off and get on with the game if he objects tell you can not take all of our time.

TheDarkSaint
2012-04-04, 12:36 PM
A low Charisma could also be a low force of personality. People may just not take him seriously, thinking he's cute, too young, too old or just not well enough respected.

NPC's might listen to the low Cha guy, smile, then over at the high Cha guy and say "What do you think?"

They might steal his great ideas for their own if they don't respect him. Charisma is about having a commanding presence, having people willing to trust and follow you.

You might also incorporate his chatty behavior in to the Cha stat. Maybe NPC's think he talks too much. People can come across as insecure, which is a social turn off, by talking too much (he may not seem so at the table, but his character may come across like that)

Stegyre
2012-04-04, 12:54 PM
A low Charisma could also be a low force of personality. People may just not take him seriously, thinking he's cute, too young, too old or just not well enough respected.
Yes. Let me just add:

Cassandra -- the woman with the gift of prophecy but the curse that no one would believe her.

I would expect most NPCs would tend to ignore a talkative, low charisma PC. Surely, he cannot be saying anything worthwhile.

Mr.Moron
2012-04-04, 01:13 PM
Make so he's easily misinterpreted, or that people assume the worst about him.

For example, if he suggests some NPCs create a distraction for a tactically sound reasons perhaps they suggest he is only trying to get them killed to make things easier for him.

Basically just pick any reason (even if it's slightly stupid) that someone might not find his position agreeable and have them stick to it like a donkey covered cold molasses.

awa
2012-04-04, 11:23 PM
personally my favorite way of doing it is to assume that what ever comes out of the players mouth is paraphrasing what comes out of the characters mouth.
the player stutter's says umm a lot and meanders around the point. well if hes got 20 cha it came out as an eloquent speech.

player gives a beautiful romantic poem. if hes got a 4 cha he grabs his crotch and gives her a leer and a wink.

you wouldn't let a pc auto hit becuase he described his swing well you shouldn't let him win social encounters just with out of game skill. if he wanted to play a social character he should have played a social character, letting himavoid rolls just devalues any one who actually put points and skills their.

KillianHawkeye
2012-04-05, 08:35 AM
I'd have the NPCs do this:

They dismiss what he says even if they ARE good ideas (happens all the time IRL).

People will blatantly disregard a good idea for no other reason than they don't like the person who said it.

Or else do this:

They might steal his great ideas for their own if they don't respect him. Charisma is about having a commanding presence, having people willing to trust and follow you.

Have them pull the whole "Don't be a fool, that will never work! Wait, I just got a brilliant idea. We should do <player's idea>."






you wouldn't let a pc auto hit becuase he described his swing well you shouldn't let him win social encounters just with out of game skill. if he wanted to play a social character he should have played a social character, letting himavoid rolls just devalues any one who actually put points and skills their.

^ This is a great point.

Anteros
2012-04-05, 11:40 AM
Erm...as long as everyone is having fun...just let it go. If it's bothering another player that actually optimized for diplomacy or something, maybe talk to him then. The point of the game is to have fun after all. He's probably not going to have much fun if you tell him he can't talk.

Mewtarthio
2012-04-05, 02:10 PM
Eloquent speaking doesn't always make people listen to you. You don't need to hijack his character and declare that he's babbling; you can just have everyone ignore him. Picture that scene in The Two Towers when Pippin gives a speech at the Entmeet: He doesn't stutter or screw up his grammar or accidentally offend the Ents, but he still doesn't change anyone's mind.

inexorabletruth
2012-04-06, 04:50 AM
People with bad Charisma can have good ideas. Just as people with bad charisma can be Chatty Cathy's. The trick is to remind him to RP this appropriately.

I played a character once with low WIS and CHA, but I didn't want to play a surly beatstick, because I like getting in there and doing some RP. So what did I do? I gave him a terrible sense of humor. His character didn't have the good sense to tell when he was telling a "you had to be there" kind of anecdote until he'd already prattled on for several seconds about it. Think Ellis from Left 4 Dead 2. He told these awful cheeseball jokes too, and was actually quite beloved by the other players. Unfortunately, he as also very badly built and died a heroic death when he ended up being the first on the scene (Monk with Quick trait) in a battle on treacherous terrain, so no one else could come to his aid in time. The rest of the players missed him so much that they held a funeral for him with a pyre and everything! :smallbiggrin:

Here's some fun ways to play low CHA characters that I've tried. Maybe this will help him out some:
Low CHA, plus high INT = Why won't anyone listen to me? (The guy who always seems to have the right ideas, but no one is listening because he's either too aggressive or too beta.)
Low CHA, plus high WIS = Tell me what's on your mind. (The caring listener.)
Low CHA, plus low INT = Hulk SMASH (the party loving brute)
Low CHA, plus low WIS = Hey guys, listen to this. You're gonna love this. This one time... (the Ellis.)

Autolykos
2012-04-06, 08:53 AM
I'll second that Charisma doesn't determine what you say (or even how you say it), it determines how people react to it.
If his Charisma is low, people will ignore him, misunderstand him, react emotionally to rational arguments (or vice versa), be pissed at him for pointing out something obvious (or obviously wrong, depending on what they think of the matter), steal the credit for his ideas, etc. Since most nerds seem to have Charisma as a dump stat, they should probably know enough examples...
With high Charisma, they will interpret anything he says in a more favorable way, and listen to and think about his suggestions. Even if his ideas are completely retarded, they will carefully try to "fix" them as well as they can while still referring to them as his idea.

If the player really is that good at it, making him fight an uphill battle can't hurt as long as you keep it somewhat fair.

EDIT: An extreme example of Charisma making the actual content irrelevant would be: "Don't argue with idiots. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
I've seen it more than once that someone uses a completely moronic argument in a discussion, leaving his opponent too flabbergasted to point out how wrong it is (or at least doing it in an easily understandable and polite way) and making the idiot look like the "winner" to the (less informed) audience. Happens quite a lot in political debates, but providing specific examples would probably violate board rules.

brantaylor105
2012-04-06, 12:49 PM
First and foremost, you need to sit down with the player and discuss how his low Cha stat takes form in the game world.

Is he bad-looking, annoying voice, too young to take seriously, too old, etc. There is a huge host of reasons someone may have a low Cha stat. However, if the stat is low, there needs to be some sort of in-game justification for it.

Now personally, I hate skill rolls and I do my best to ignore them unless absolutely necessary. I feel as though they take away from the role-play aspect and add to the roll-play. So, instead of forcing him into very difficult to achieve rolls, force him into very difficult to achieve roles. So he may have a fantastic idea or a compelling argument, but he also HAS to have some justifiable reason for such a low Cha stat, so he has to overcome that in roleplay.

Think of it in real life. If a hobo walked up to you on the street and said the world was ending, you would ignore him. However, a politician could make the same argument and would be more easy to believe. Same as if it was a child or the elderly. As far as specifics, there are already some great examples in this thread, so I wont delve too much into that.

I guess my main point here is that he HAS to have some reason that his character has such low Cha, so you need to talk with the player and figure out what that is, then just let him try to overcome it via roleplay. I hope this helps.

RandomNPC
2012-04-06, 01:16 PM
I'm just going to echo what a lot of people said, and put my own twist on it.

Reward good ideas by lowering the DC by 1-5 points, but still make him roll those CHA based checks first. Basically make him roll, and if he misses by only a point or two, let him talk you into it with good ideas in his role-play.

Make NPCs disrespect him, or even have a few haughty nobles tell him to leave the area, and how dare he bother them. If slavery of some sort (even just poorly treated hired servitude) have some of them assume the party keeps him around as an extra set of hands and nothing more.

Let him know it's gotten to the point where you notice the difference, and talk to him about it.

Delwugor
2012-04-06, 02:29 PM
Him: "I have an idea. This will work. Or we could try. And another idea. I got just the answer".
Others: "YACK, yack, yack", "there he goes again, wish he'd shut up", "hmmm wonder what the dinner special at the inn is tonight."

Him: "I have a great idea. Do X Y Z".
Everyone does "Y Z X".
Him: "No no, X Y Z".
Everyone: "Oh sorry" does Z X Y

randomhero00
2012-04-06, 02:38 PM
CHA doesn't mean highly communicative...it means highly persuasive.

.....a total idiot could blather on all day with a CHA of 4.

Averis Vol
2012-04-06, 07:21 PM
i'm actually playing a really low charisma (7) zen archer in a pathfinder game. i talk a lot...like a lot but if i'm not insulting you i'm generally making an ass of myself talking about stuff i don't know or just being a general dunce. that being said my wisdom is ridiculous so i perceive things most of the rest of the group doesn't. but due to my low charisma i don't say anything and let them figure it out on their own.

Andreaz
2012-04-06, 09:11 PM
Is this actually a problem? Are they bragging about gaming the system or hedging out other (more charismatic/trained) characters that want to talk?

In a way yes, it is a problem. If the system handles it, and the group uses that bit of the system, then it's unfair to let one player bypass it because he's better than his sheet at it.
While this will be mostly with social stuff, it's just not fair to allow the character to "sneak" in points into his sheet via bypassing a low stat.

And that fairness is one I feel is worth preserving.

So either pass his ideas to the more social characters or have them fail anyway. His character doesn't have such a glibness. He'll stutter, or he'll pass the wrong vibe and send mixed signals, or people just won't like him. Those things tend to matter more than making sense in a debate anyway.

Sutremaine
2012-04-06, 10:12 PM
While this will be mostly with social stuff
Yeah, there's not so much of a problem with physically-gifted players getting bonuses when their characters are doing something physical.

Andreaz
2012-04-06, 10:19 PM
Yeah, there's not so much of a problem with physically-gifted players getting bonuses when their characters are doing something physical.

I'm not sure I get what you mean there, but yes, a physically built player stunting his way into playing STR 16 while his character is STR 9 is just as big a problem.

Sutremaine
2012-04-06, 10:31 PM
Just as great a problem, or just as common a problem? I meant that Charisma is the stat most commonly allowed to be overwritten by a player's own ability.

Andreaz
2012-04-06, 10:34 PM
Just as great a problem, or just as common a problem? I meant that Charisma is the stat most commonly allowed to be overwritten by a player's own ability.

Just as great. I thought that's what I meant with the "just as big" bit. It's not going to be more common because, well, RPGs are social games. Being better at a social variable is much more evident and usable.

He can RP all he wants. Doesn't make "cheating" his stat allocation okay.

Altair_the_Vexed
2012-04-07, 04:34 AM
I think the best solution to this has already been posted: roll the die, RP the result.

In addition to that, a house rule we always use at my table is letting characters make a DC 10 INT check to think of something suggested by another player.
This lets players whose characters are absent from the scene stay involved. It could help with your high-CHA player, if he thinks his ideas are important enough.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-07, 04:31 PM
There are two ways this could be a problem.

1. Mechanical: You're in a tightly-run point buy system, and the player has carefully neglected Charisma so as to maximize other stats, and the different investment strategy has created a noteworthy imbalance within the group. The other players perceive Charisma Carl's character as overpowered and over-capable, and wish you'd nerf him.

2. Social: Other players feel that because their character's charisma is higher, they should be allowed to spend more time talking. They feel that Charisma Carl is hogging the spotlight, and wish you'd do something to get him to shut up.

#1 I can't see having that big of an impact. A character with 18 str and 8 cha isn't really that significantly different than one with 16 str and 14 cha.

#2 seems unlikely if he's genuinely charismatic enough that the rest of the party usually listens to him and accepts his suggestions.

It seems to me that your game is moving along smoothly. If I encountered this situation, I would encourage Charisma Carl to adjust his stats accordingly just to appease my OCD, or maybe just plain raise his CHA a few points as a "Pleasant Addition To The Group" bonus. After all, if there's one thing I like to encourage at my D&D table, it's being sensible and well-spoken.

I'd definitely advise against suggestions from other posters like "Turn the group against him" and "Just have every NPC hate him" because those sound like things that could lead to hurt feelings and reduced fun all around. (Unless everyone concerned really enjoys bickering and backstabbing, which is a legitimate playstyle. But admittedly, one that's rarer and should never be assumed)

Othesemo
2012-04-07, 04:58 PM
Eh, this happens a bit at my table (not too much, since the PCs are usually pretty well off in the charisma department). Essentially, I just take actual dialogue as fluff- no matter what you say, it's possible for it to go wrong. Human behavior simply cannot be predicted to that degree. My players can say what they will (and I'll occasionally give out circumstance bonuses of +1 or +2 just to encourage good roleplaying), and then the die is rolled to see how well is goes. No matter how articulate they are, they can still fail.

Jay R
2012-04-07, 10:57 PM
I absolutely believe in role-playing bonuses. If he does a great job of explaining it to me, he might get up to a +3 on the roll, to help compensate for the -2 for his charisma. He then rolls based on both the CHA stat and the roleplaying.

If he fails the roll, I might say something like, "He seemed interested for a moment, but got distracted. You just couldn't hold his attention." If he makes it, even with his CHA penalty, I might say, "He looked like he was only listening out of politeness, until you mentioned your lifelong search. Then he got really interested."

Sajach
2012-04-08, 06:55 PM
I would just make him roll when he's giving ideas. Turn it into a house rule and make it so that he can't have charisma as a dump stat any more if he wants to be the spokes man.(I also might let him swap out a good stat for his charisma)
Check out my story settup in the home brews section.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-08, 07:53 PM
I would just make him roll when he's giving ideas

why why why why why why

Why should your character's ability dictate your players ability to contribute ideas to the party? I can understand NPC interaction, since there's already an ingame system devoted to mechanizing roleplay (But if no one in the party decided they wanted to build themselves a character that sacrificed other usefulness for the power to bluff and diplomacy I can't understand why you'd penalize the one person showing an interest) but even at the level of out-of-character "Hey phil? You're a wizard. Cast Fly and find out what's over there so we can find out what we're up again"

Callista
2012-04-08, 08:00 PM
That's problematic, yeah. Ideally, the player should be playing an uncharismatic character, and if he as a player has a high Charisma score and a lot of ranks in Perform(Role-Playing), then that low-CHA character can be engaging and interesting even though other characters in-game may find the character to be shy, awkward, unremarkable, backward, or socially maladroit. You remember Steve Urkel? Like that. High-CHA actor, low-CHA character, and lots of entertainment value.

Have you tried offering role-play XP to people who play their characters in interesting ways? Talk to this player, explain that he's not RPing his charisma penalty, explain that this doesn't mean he has to be quiet, just that he should role-play the failures as actual failures instead of overriding it with his own real-life people skills. Then give him a little bit of XP--not a lot, or you'll have people powergaming for it--for experimenting with role-playing social failure as well as social success.

I have this same problem with low-INT characters, because in real life I'm a nerdy, book-smart kind of person, and I like math and science, which is what INT in D&D covers. I have to bite my tongue a lot when I'm playing a character with average or lower INT because they just wouldn't think of what I can think of. To make up for it, I often suggest courses of action, out of character, to other players whose characters have the INT score to actually think of things of that sort. The charismatic player with the uncharismatic PC could do something similar, and you should probably suggest that to him so he knows you DO want his input into the game. And it would help the more reticent role-players to start experimenting a little more rather than riding along on your actively RP-ing player's coattails.

Andreaz
2012-04-09, 11:43 AM
why why why why why why

Why should your character's ability dictate your players ability to contribute ideas to the party? I can understand NPC interaction, since there's already an ingame system devoted to mechanizing roleplay (But if no one in the party decided they wanted to build themselves a character that sacrificed other usefulness for the power to bluff and diplomacy I can't understand why you'd penalize the one person showing an interest) but even at the level of out-of-character "Hey phil? You're a wizard. Cast Fly and find out what's over there so we can find out what we're up again"

It's not about stopping the player from being awesome. It's stopping him from bypassing the system the group agreed to use.
He can roleplay as awesomely he wants. His cha6 character with no social skills will still be horrible at convincing people.
It goes the other way too! Why should an awkward and silent player be unable to rely on the fact he built a CHA19 Bluff 12 character?

It also works for physical stats! I don't need to be a strongman to have a brutish halforc beheading people with his pinky. Nor should me STR12 mage carry the kind of loads I carry irl with relative ease.


"Not allowing the character to use his player skills as character skills" is only deterrent to roleplaying if ALL you know as roleplaying is "allowing the character to use his player skills as character skills".
Roll first, act it out later. Act it out first, roll later and work out just why all that eloquence was wasted on that 1d20 turning out a "2".


If you want to reward him with better odds because he was really eloquent, go ahead. But it's still within the limits of his character! And THAT also applies to physical things! If he's stunting his social actions, then so can he stunt his attacks and ambushes.


tl;dr: "character can't cheat the sheet through player skills means hampering fun" is a fallacy.

Eric Tolle
2012-04-09, 03:36 PM
why why why why why why

Why should your character's ability dictate your players ability to contribute ideas to the party?

It's because it's called a "role playing game", where you play a character role, not just a mechanical piece that "Contributes to the party". If he wants to play a low Charisma character, then he should play it as having low Charisma. If he wants to influence the game with the gift of gab, then he should play a character with high Charisma.

The Grue
2012-04-10, 04:43 AM
Good god the vitriol in this thread.

Look, it's as simple as this: Are your players having difficulty enjoying the campaign because of this player's actions? If yes, sit them down and hear their grievances in full, and then sit him down separately and present them on behalf of the others. If necessary sit back down with the other players and present his perspective. Rinse and repeat until compromise is reached. Or if your players are mature enough to discuss their issues without ganging up on him and starting a screaming match, sit everybody down and have them talk back and forth, but I'm assuming in this scenario that they're not, or the problem wouldn't have got bad enough to require an intervention.

If not and everybody's having fun, no problem.

If the party is having fun and you aren't, then I suggest you reexamine why you're GMing a campaign if you take issue with players playing in a way that they enjoy. This is not meant to be an accusation, but an observation that a readjustment of perspective may be necessary. You are not crafting a set of obstacles to try and outwit your players, you're the host of an elaborate imaginary world in which your players interact with things, and each other, for entertainment.

Also, I notice the OP hasn't posted in here since the thread's inception, so I'm probably going to get a response from some third party who disagrees with me rather than the person who originally raised the issue and sought advice. :/

Jay R
2012-04-10, 09:20 AM
Can a real-world person with average strength bend iron bars? Of course not. But if a STR 10 character tries it (in 2E), he has a 2% chance.

A low-level rogue can attempt to pick a pocket, and will attempt to get Circumstance Bonuses to offset his low ability. A low CON character can sometimes make a saving throw with a CON penalty.

This is no more improper than a 1st level character trying to hit somebody with his sword. He's not very good at it, but he certainly has the right to try.

There are low-STR people who try out for sports, and eventually get pretty good. Muggsy Bogues was a successful NBA player at 5 foot 3 inches tall. A low-DEX thief can attempt to pick a pocket despite the penalty; a low-STR fighter can attempt to fight, despite the penalty.

I certainly know low-CHA players who attempt to convince people. And sometimes it works.

CHA is his innate ability to convince others, not a measure of how often he tries. If a low-CHA character tries to convince others, he gets the minus from his CHA, and the benefits of his role-playing, added to his roll.

Andreaz
2012-04-10, 09:36 AM
CHA is his innate ability to convince others, not a measure of how often he tries. If a low-CHA character tries to convince others, he gets the minus from his CHA, and the benefits of his role-playing, added to his roll.

If a low-STR mage tries to bend tthe bars of the jail he's in, he gets the minus from his STR. Does he get the benefits of his role-playing to his roll?

Jon_Dahl
2012-04-10, 10:37 AM
Good god the vitriol in this thread.

Look, it's as simple as this: Are your players having difficulty enjoying the campaign because of this player's actions? If yes, sit them down and hear their grievances in full, and then sit him down separately and present them on behalf of the others. If necessary sit back down with the other players and present his perspective. Rinse and repeat until compromise is reached. Or if your players are mature enough to discuss their issues without ganging up on him and starting a screaming match, sit everybody down and have them talk back and forth, but I'm assuming in this scenario that they're not, or the problem wouldn't have got bad enough to require an intervention.

If not and everybody's having fun, no problem.

If the party is having fun and you aren't, then I suggest you reexamine why you're GMing a campaign if you take issue with players playing in a way that they enjoy. This is not meant to be an accusation, but an observation that a readjustment of perspective may be necessary. You are not crafting a set of obstacles to try and outwit your players, you're the host of an elaborate imaginary world in which your players interact with things, and each other, for entertainment.

Also, I notice the OP hasn't posted in here since the thread's inception, so I'm probably going to get a response from some third party who disagrees with me rather than the person who originally raised the issue and sought advice. :/

Sorry about that, honestly I was seeking for advice and I was quiet here just paying attention :smallsmile:
Everyone in my group is just ok with his playing style and they enjoy the game or at least they don't show their negative feelings. This is more of the fact that Charisma is an easy dumpstat. Every other stat always hurts you but Charisma is easy to dump.

Also you make the concept of "fun" perhaps a little bit overly simplistic, which is something that many people here do.
One extreme is that the game is so hard and deadly and unfriendly, that it's totally devoid of any fun.
The other extreme is that the game is so easy and ridiculous and unchallenging that it doesn't feel like an adventure at all.
I'm trying to find the middle road between these two and letting people to get away with dumping Charisma and still playing in the same way as the party paladin is counterintuitive IMO

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-10, 10:47 AM
Something I don't think you've mentioned is whether there is a dedicated charisma focused party member to do the talking. Is there? If so, what is this player saying? What's their character saying?

If there isn't somebody focused on that role, I'd have to ask if this person doesn't speak then who will? Few things are more annoying as a GM than having to flush an elaborate social encounter down the toilet because the players prefer talking with their weapons.

Jon_Dahl
2012-04-10, 11:16 AM
Something I don't think you've mentioned is whether there is a dedicated charisma focused party member to do the talking. Is there? If so, what is this player saying? What's their character saying?

If there isn't somebody focused on that role, I'd have to ask if this person doesn't speak then who will? Few things are more annoying as a GM than having to flush an elaborate social encounter down the toilet because the players prefer talking with their weapons.

There are two PCs that do most of the talking. The second one has Cha 12 but the player of that PC is less willing to force his opinions. So the player with Cha 6 PC has most of the spotlight but definitely not all of it.

What are they saying? I don't quite understand the question. They say lot of things in all sort of situations. I'd say they are refreshingly creative with their words and manage to surprise me every now and then.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-10, 11:21 AM
I'm more getting at whether the other player is ok with the situation. If so, then I don't see an issue.

What I meant by the other question was whether their character tends to support and agree with the other. If so, there's also really no issue. You might have them make checks with the benefit of assisting.

Overall, though, I don't think you have an issue besides a quiet table. You might want to nudge the more submissive player towards playing their character more forcefully, but failing appropriate diplomacy and bluff checks due to a poor charisma score is already penalty enough for the group. If they have a problem with the king deciding that the party's mouthpiece apparently inferred that his daughter was a whore and unleashing the knights on them, then so be it. Lack of optimization is often more interesting anyway.

Jay R
2012-04-11, 10:15 AM
CHA is his innate ability to convince others, not a measure of how often he tries. If a low-CHA character tries to convince others, he gets the minus from his CHA, and the benefits of his role-playing, added to his roll.

If a low-STR mage tries to bend tthe bars of the jail he's in, he gets the minus from his STR. Does he get the benefits of his role-playing to his roll?

Yes, of course, assuming he's role-playing something that affects STR actions. If he finds a way to use a pulley or a lever, then of course that improves his chances. Similarly, a clever argument improves CHA rolls.

Andreaz
2012-04-11, 11:38 AM
Yes, of course, assuming he's role-playing something that affects STR actions. If he finds a way to use a pulley or a lever, then of course that improves his chances. Similarly, a clever argument improves CHA rolls.

Then all is right in the world and God is in his Heaven because he is scared of our superior firepower.

Balain
2012-04-11, 12:07 PM
I think it's been said already. I would make him roll for every social encounter no ifs ands or buts. If he fails he fails.

I'm playing a game now. My character has horrid social skills. I often end up talking to npc and have to roll skill checks. I fail about 75% of the time making it even harder for the other characters to saw the npc.

awa
2012-04-11, 07:51 PM
the thing that always bugs me is if the player has a 6 charisma and talks nicely and confidently and coherently then hes role playing his role playing poorly.

just like i would be annoyed at a 6 int character trying to build Greek fire becuase he knows the real world ingredients.

keep in mind that an ogre has 7 charisma so he is less skilled at speaking then an ogre.

and the example of using a lever to pry open bars fails becuase a low strength character could do that. a low charisma character can't speak eloquently they have low charisma.

of course these are all just my opinions I think these two links from the same comic sum it up nicely
http://dndorks.com/comics/2%2f27%2f2006.aspx
http://dndorks.com/comics/3_1_2006.aspx

edit although personally i don't like rolling for every social encounter becuase it slows down the game way to much which is even more disruptive to role playing.

Andreaz
2012-04-11, 10:48 PM
and the example of using a lever to pry open bars fails becuase a low strength character could do that. a low charisma character can't speak eloquently they have low charisma. Or he can, but he sounds like an ass the whole time!
:p WHY the speech didn't work is not as important as the fact it didn't work, conforming to the character's weak skill.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-12, 07:32 AM
keep in mind that an ogre has 7 charisma so he is less skilled at speaking then an ogre.

I think you're attaching far too much to stats and neglecting a lot of situational aspects. Bear in mind, the modifier for both the ogre and the character is the same, -2. Furthermore, an average human has a 10, so they're only getting a bonus of +0. An ogre would probably incur some sort of racial penalty if he were interacting with humans depending on the nature of the society's relationship with ogres.

I really liked Rich's house rule for the Diplomacy skill which changed it completely, but gave the DM a quick and easy means to set a DC which scales as the game goes on. I haven't seen it used in game yet, but I have little trouble believing it would simplify things greatly so that social encounters aren't simply decided by DM fiat to figure out how big a penalty or bonus to give. Should the players fail those checks then so be it, it may simply be that the group will need to bribe commoners on the street just to find out where the mayor's house is.

Man on Fire
2012-04-12, 08:16 AM
I have a big problem in my games.

The player who does most of the talking created a character with a very low Charisma and abysmal communicative skills.

However the PC still does a lot of talking. And I mean a lot. Of course when there's something related to Charisma-based skills, I make him roll and he fails 99% of the time, but most of the time no rolls are needed. He talks and everyone listens. And actually he makes sense and has great ideas.

But I feel that I'm letting Charisma to be a dump stat if you can still be a great leader and spokesman with any given Charisma-value, as long you avoid rolling dice.

What do you think? How would you handle this?

Just let the guy do the talking, dices are there only for help. If you have to roll, give him huge bonuses on roleplay. This guy came here to do reoleplayig, you need to reward him for it.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-12, 09:33 AM
I disagree strongly, MoF. Giving players large bonuses simply to make the player succeed disincentivizes players to expend feats, levels, and skill points to get good at these in-game activities. If I play a rogue and know the DM gives large bonuses for social situations, I know that there's really no need to expend my skill points on Diplomacy. I can simply pour those points into skills like tumble or balance, essentially any skill that will improve my combat efficiency.

However, the game has much more to it than just fighting and players using just the core classes probably shouldn't be the best at everything, otherwise why bother with 11 different base classes?

That said, I always strongly encourage DMs to award XP for playing the game. Completing story arcs, good roleplaying, adventuring, AND combat should all be causes to grant XP. It irks me greatly that by the rules as written players can only improve their diplomatic talents by going out back and slaughtering some goblins regardless of whether they just brokered a peace accord between two warring villages the day before.

killem2
2012-04-12, 09:48 AM
A low charismatic person can talk just fine, he may just not have the best manners. Like walking right up to someone in a conversation, stinks a bit, grabby like uncomfortable touching of the shoulders.

Belching with out excusing themselves, disgusting, and overall not even aware it is a problem.

Low charisma does not mean shy :P




Also the dm, could just let them try to talk, and roll for the interaction with a DC, then when it fails tell him, he's what happens.

Jay R
2012-04-12, 11:05 AM
the thing that always bugs me is if the player has a 6 charisma and talks nicely and confidently and coherently then hes role playing his role playing poorly.

just like i would be annoyed at a 6 int character trying to build Greek fire becuase he knows the real world ingredients.

keep in mind that an ogre has 7 charisma so he is less skilled at speaking then an ogre.

and the example of using a lever to pry open bars fails becuase a low strength character could do that. a low charisma character can't speak eloquently they have low charisma.

Obviously, you think low Charisma is far more all-encompassing than I do.

First consider the real world. Every day, weaker people try to carry heavy burdens, unintelligent people have to solve problems, undexterous people try to thread needles, low-Con people try to stay healthy, unwise people try to make judgments, and yes, low-CHA people try to persuade.

And often they succeed. Fitfully, awkwardly and unimpressively, they succeed. Despite their handicaps, they sometimes succeed.

A low-CHA character who never tried to persuade anyone would be acting as no low-CHA peron in the real world acts, and would therefore be role-playing badly. A low-CHA person who tries to persuade despite having an unprepossessing personality is role-playing well, because that's what people really do.

Having a low CHA is a penalty, not a veto, on persuasion skills. And how much is that penalty?

Let's look at 2E and 3.5E, since those are the two books I have here. Out of eleven people chosen randomly, one should be roughly CHA 3-6, and one should be CHA 15-18 (20 chances out of 216). So let's compare CHA 6 with CHA 15. That should represent a typical difference between the most persuasive and the least persuasive person in a group of a dozen or so.

In 2E, CHA 6 has a -2 reaction penalty, while CHA 15 has a +3 adjustment.
in 3.5E, CHA has a -2 Modifier and CHA 15 has a +2 modifier.

What does that mean? It's a difference of 4 or 5 on a d20, so the difference between CHA 6 and CHA 15 will mean the difference between success and failure only 20% to 25% of the time.

That's all. 20% to 25%.

That's a real difference, but it's not a big enough difference to never try it, and it's certainly not a big enough difference to accuse somebody of role-playing badly if he attempts persuasion.

I admit I have a personal stake here. I have a speech impediment, and have nonetheless become a successful bard in the SCA. I also have low-average strength and dexterity, and have become a successful fighter.

Would I be a better fighter with more physical abilities? Certainly. Would I be a better bard with an impressive sounding voice? Sure. But I've won tourneys and competitions. I promise you that somebody with a funny voice can speak eloquently. It's just harder.

Lord Tyger
2012-04-12, 11:10 AM
I've been thinking about Diplomacy- if you want, you can combine player and statistics. I see one of two ways, although they can be combined. One, the usual, make them roll all attempts to convince people of things. Two, combine Diplomacy and Sense Motive- a good roll gives you a sense of the person, what they care about, how you might best convince them, then the player can talk based on that. Lower rolls would give less information, or, if low enough, faulty information.

MDR
2012-04-12, 11:24 AM
I have a big problem in my games.

The player who does most of the talking created a character with a very low Charisma and abysmal communicative skills.

However the PC still does a lot of talking. And I mean a lot. Of course when there's something related to Charisma-based skills, I make him roll and he fails 99% of the time, but most of the time no rolls are needed. He talks and everyone listens. And actually he makes sense and has great ideas.

But I feel that I'm letting Charisma to be a dump stat if you can still be a great leader and spokesman with any given Charisma-value, as long you avoid rolling dice.

What do you think? How would you handle this?

I would say that there is a difference between what the player says and how his character would say it. Tell the player that his character tries to say everything the player just said, but due to his low CHA score was either too shy to get all the words out, too rude and laced the words with vulgarities, or too awkward in his presentation and couldn't get the ideas across.

Tukka
2012-04-12, 02:18 PM
I don't see a big problem with this scenario. Here's how I'd play it.

I would ask the player if it would be acceptable to assume that all of the character is always taking 10 on Diplomacy checks unless the player specifically announces that he'd like to roll a Diplomacy check before making a proposal or presenting an idea to NPCs.

If the player has a Cha of like 6 with no other bonuses or penalties, that means his routine Diplomacy check result is 8 -- which isn't very good, but also should not be automatically considered to be some sort of embarrassing display. Proposals that are clearly beneficial to friends, allies and some neutral parties will tend to succeed, otherwise the NPCs may be initially dismissive, ignore or misconstrue the idea, or make a counter-proposal.

If the PC's idea is really good, then a more charismatic member of the party will hopefully be willing to take the idea and present it in a more appealing fashion. Perhaps if the uncharismatic PC's take check is just slightly too low, the NPC's reaction would be indifferent (like the NPCs didn't even notice the suggestion was made, because they were fixated on something else), and a simple vote of confidence/reiteration of the idea by a more charismatic PC or two would get probably get the job done. So one of the other PCs says, "Hey wait, I think that's a pretty good idea" and slightly rephrases the original PC's suggestion. That's an aid another check. If the whole party gets behind him, that original 8 check result probably turns into something like a 12 or 14.

If that's still not good enough, then the proposal would have to be altered in some way (not necessarily dramatically), and ideally would be re-presented by somebody better social skills and a totally new check.

This way, the clever character who's a social liability could still brainstorm in front of NPCs and not be overly penalized for it, so long as the other PCs get behind his ideas. If the other PCs don't go along with his ideas, then it's fair to let his ideas fall by the wayside as a result of his character's lack of social skill.

Jay R
2012-04-12, 03:42 PM
I disagree strongly, MoF. Giving players large bonuses simply to make the player succeed disincentivizes players to expend feats, levels, and skill points to get good at these in-game activities. If I play a rogue and know the DM gives large bonuses for social situations, I know that there's really no need to expend my skill points on Diplomacy. I can simply pour those points into skills like tumble or balance, essentially any skill that will improve my combat efficiency.

Don't be silly. That assumes that you will never need a Diplomacy roll enhanced by role-playing bonuses.

Giving bonuses for attacking from behind doesn't disincentivize players from wanting magic swords, and for the same reasons, situational bonuses for skills do not disincentivize learning those skills.

Besides, a competent DM will not give large bonuses for all social situations, just for those in which you have an excellent social advantage or really outdo yourself.

The brute fact remains: low-STR characters sometimes succeed at STR-based checks, and low-CHA characters sometimes succeed at CHA-based checks. In both cases, they should do the best they can with the resources available to them, and then roll the dice.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-12, 04:07 PM
You misunderstood my statements, Jay R. I was responding against the notion of flippantly giving huge bonuses simply because his character does all the talking. Handing out large bonuses because you as the DM don't want to deal with the issue of a low charisma character with a loud mouth simply reinforces the notion that success and failure in diplomacy situations is just up to DM fiat.

I really liked Rich Burlew's proposed revision to the diplomacy skill because it takes explicit steps to get away from the DM fiat means of resolving social situations.

There may frequently be situations where it's appropriate to give a +2, but handing out a +10 bonus like it's nothing (what I'd consider a huge bonus) is not something a DM should make a habit of.

Man on Fire
2012-04-12, 04:41 PM
You misunderstood my statements, Jay R. I was responding against the notion of flippantly giving huge bonuses simply because his character does all the talking. Handing out large bonuses because you as the DM don't want to deal with the issue of a low charisma character with a loud mouth simply reinforces the notion that success and failure in diplomacy situations is just up to DM fiat.

Then if you really want to force a guy to play a character with lwo charismayou should also force everybody else for not playing according to their charisma. Guys who have higher charisma than this guy but never try to roleplay and just roll everything should get negative modificators to all rolls...no, you just shouldn't even allow them to roll withour roleplaying. That would be the only just way to come out of this situation.

And suggest the guy to make high charisma character next.

Andreaz
2012-04-12, 05:04 PM
Then if you really want to force a guy to play a character with lwo charismayou should also force everybody else for not playing according to their charisma. Yes.
Guys who have higher charisma than this guy but never try to roleplay and just roll everything should get negative modificators to all rollsIffy. Handing out penalties due to player capacity is dangerous. There's disadvantage enough in not wanting or not knowing how to play certain interactions.
...no, you just shouldn't even allow them to roll withour roleplaying. That would be the only just way to come out of this situation.It is just, but I say it goes too far. Rewarding players for good game is fun. Penalizing them for bad game is not.
Note: "good" and "bad" here represent the general eloquence and creativity of the player.
Penalizing a player because he didn't want or couldn't play to your expectations is harsh. The former is solved by putting him in the mood. The latter is way too deep-seated in most personalities that you can't "require" it in a game without poking wounds that don't deserve poking.
And suggest the guy to make high charisma character next.Yes.

Emmerask
2012-04-12, 05:11 PM
There are two PCs that do most of the talking. The second one has Cha 12 but the player of that PC is less willing to force his opinions. So the player with Cha 6 PC has most of the spotlight but definitely not all of it.

I thought maybe cha 8 but 6 ?
He is pretty much lucky if not being killed outright as a monstrous creature by any village mob.

With cha 6 he is just a walking insult to anyone in any social situation, and people should react accordingly.

I mean think about the least likable, least attractive, least persuasive human on the entire planet and he is pretty much worse by quite a lot.

Roleplaying is good and fine but you have to roleplay the character you have created and not some other one you would like to play.

So my advice would be to talk to him and tell him that this just wont fly and allow him to redistribute his stats to have atleast 10 cha if he wants to continue roleplaying the way he does.

Man on Fire
2012-04-12, 05:29 PM
It is just, but I say it goes too far. Rewarding players for good game is fun. Penalizing them for bad game is not.
Note: "good" and "bad" here represent the general eloquence and creativity of the player.
Penalizing a player because he didn't want or couldn't play to your expectations is harsh. The former is solved by putting him in the mood. The latter is way too deep-seated in most personalities that you can't "require" it in a game without poking wounds that don't deserve poking.

There is a difference between not being able to roleplay up to the exceptations and not roleplaying at all. We play RPGs to roleplay, if somebody is trying to get all social interactions done by rolls, then he should play a board game. If the players are okay with letting low charisma guy do all the talking despite that by giving their characters high charisma they took that part of team responsibilities on themselves, they are lazy. I'm not talking about good roleplay, not everybody is an actor, but at least something to show you give a damn. That's why I think charisma rolls without roleplay should be forbidden.

My buddy and his friends have one shy guy in ther gaming group. By forcing him to roleplay they managed to make him more talktive - in fact, currently he can handle interactions with NPCs on a quite good level, even talking hsi way out of bad situation without any rolls.

Andreaz
2012-04-12, 05:33 PM
There is a difference between not being able to roleplay up to the exceptations and not roleplaying at all. We play RPGs to roleplay, if somebody is trying to get all social interactions done by rolls, then he should play a board game. If the players are okay with letting low charisma guy do all the talking despite that by giving their characters high charisma they took that part of team responsibilities on themselves, they are lazy. I'm not talking about good roleplay, not everybody is an actor, but at least something to show you give a damn. That's why I think charisma rolls without roleplay should be forbidden.

My buddy and his friends have one shy guy in ther gaming group. By forcing him to roleplay they managed to make him more talktive - in fact, currently he can handle interactions with NPCs on a quite good level, even talking hsi way out of bad situation without any rolls.

Yes, I mentioned that there: Solve it outside the game. Punishing him won't help unless he's the kind of person who responds well and positively with offense. Most people don't.

So after and before the game you pull him to the side and ask him what's wrong. Tell him that you don't like the way he's being lazy. Ask him to step it up. Ask him what you can do to facilitate him stepping it up.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-12, 05:36 PM
There is a difference between not being able to roleplay up to the exceptations and not roleplaying at all. We play RPGs to roleplay, if somebody is trying to get all social interactions done by rolls, then he should play a board game. If the players are okay with letting low charisma guy do all the talking despite that by giving their characters high charisma they took that part of team responsibilities on themselves, they are lazy. I'm not talking about good roleplay, not everybody is an actor, but at least something to show you give a damn. That's why I think charisma rolls without roleplay should be forbidden.

My buddy and his friends have one shy guy in ther gaming group. By forcing him to roleplay they managed to make him more talktive - in fact, currently he can handle interactions with NPCs on a quite good level, even talking hsi way out of bad situation without any rolls.

Here's the counter point I have to throw at you. The game has rules designed explicitly to handle social encounters and diplomatic interactions. By not rolling, you are considering those rules unimportant or at least unnecessary. If you wish to play at your table that way, it's fine, but you should make sure all your players understand that beforehand.

If I'm playing a Bard or Pally or Rogue or any other typical face for the party, I don't want to waste skill points or feats improving stats and skills for social encounters when those improvements won't ever see any feasible meaning.

I've seen very good games run where in the players knew there'd be little to no rolling going on and it's fine, mostly because the players were aware of how things would be before hand. I'm not sure why the DM in question decided to use a d20 rules system for that since about 95% of the rules go out the window when you do that, but whatever.

A game I'm currently playing in, I am a Maenad Telepath and have thus far been one of the most devastating party members. Not because I can manifest powers, but because I have managed to talk the party out of several sketchy situations, gotten an enemy to lower their guard, got some free gear, and helped coordinate a snatch and grab, all without doing one point of damage. I can do all of that because I didn't make charisma my dump stat. If those social encounters could've been resolved without me maxing out my ranks in bluff, diplomacy, sense motive and even burning some feats to push them even further, I would not be nearly as useful. My only purpose being to fire off an energy ray for a pittance of damage.

Emmerask
2012-04-12, 05:48 PM
I donīt quite get how anyone can say that if he is using good roleplaying then thats okay...

Its pretty bad roleplaying if you play like a cha 16 character when you actually only have 6, so if I where the dm I would not give any bonuspoints for that roleplaying because its extremely bad roleplaying in fact.

Sutremaine
2012-04-12, 06:18 PM
I thought maybe cha 8 but 6 ?
He is pretty much lucky if not being killed outright as a monstrous creature by any village mob.
...It's only a -1.

(edit: compared to the 8)

Man on Fire
2012-04-12, 07:46 PM
By not rolling,

I said "No rolling Charisma checks without roleplaying first" no "No rolling Charisma checks at all".

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-12, 08:29 PM
...in fact, currently he can handle interactions with NPCs on a quite good level, even talking hsi way out of bad situation without any rolls.

To clarify, this is what I have an issue with. Not the rest. There should be no talking your way out of a bad situation without any rolls. The diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills exist for that reason. Sorry if I misinterpreted its intent, but a literal reading says you're allowing players to get out of bad situations without making applicable skill checks.

Man on Fire
2012-04-12, 09:06 PM
To clarify, this is what I have an issue with. Not the rest. There should be no talking your way out of a bad situation without any rolls. The diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills exist for that reason. Sorry if I misinterpreted its intent, but a literal reading says you're allowing players to get out of bad situations without making applicable skill checks.

1) Not me, these are my buddy's player party, they're from different city and I never played with them. And they aren't playing even D&D anyway.
2) In fact, I don't know if situation my buddy told me even involved any checks or not, I just assumed it didn't, because it was described like "dude did a what would be a fatal mistake in etiquete while talking to important NPC but immiediately managed to turn things around and make it sound okay". I don't think situation like this requires any rolls and I don't know if guy in question rolled anything or not, but I assume he didn't.
3) Sometimes, when the roleplay is good, you can forget the check, just like you can forget it when character has high skill you would check. These games aren't all about rolling the dice, you know?

AsDeR
2012-04-12, 09:40 PM
I was THAT GUY once xD
Got a Dwarf with 4 cha and still the team voice.
But My DM wasn't pleasured with it so it said "From now on if your speech is of importance and you flourish it too much you will roll CHA, and that roll will modify the speech itself"

It ended up being very funny as I, for example, met a king and said "Good is the day I can see such a high presence before me!" then rolled a 5 or 6 and the DM said " You try to salute the king that way but you end up saying "Yo king, good to see you" :smallbiggrin: It was hilarious.

Man on Fire
2012-04-13, 05:06 AM
I was THAT GUY once xD
Got a Dwarf with 4 cha and still the team voice.
But My DM wasn't pleasured with it so it said "From now on if your speech is of importance and you flourish it too much you will roll CHA, and that roll will modify the speech itself"

It ended up being very funny as I, for example, met a king and said "Good is the day I can see such a high presence before me!" then rolled a 5 or 6 and the DM said " You try to salute the king that way but you end up saying "Yo king, good to see you" :smallbiggrin: It was hilarious.

That's stupid. GM cannot modify what your character said - you decide how your character act and behave. He entered into integral part of character's personality because of a stupid roll - he could have punished you on several ways but that, that is unforgivable. GM has no right to tell players how they characters act or what they do, unless they're mind controlled.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-13, 07:59 AM
1) Not me, these are my buddy's player party, they're from different city and I never played with them. And they aren't playing even D&D anyway.
2) In fact, I don't know if situation my buddy told me even involved any checks or not, I just assumed it didn't, because it was described like "dude did a what would be a fatal mistake in etiquete while talking to important NPC but immiediately managed to turn things around and make it sound okay". I don't think situation like this requires any rolls and I don't know if guy in question rolled anything or not, but I assume he didn't.
3) Sometimes, when the roleplay is good, you can forget the check, just like you can forget it when character has high skill you would check. These games aren't all about rolling the dice, you know?

You should've been forthcoming about that beforehand, it was clear I had been discussing the 3.x system, I was right to assume you were.

As for the DM changing what he says, meh he still said what the player said, he just said it very uneloquently. He had poor charisma, no social skill development, and rolled poorly in a social situation, it's no surprise that the NPCs aren't impressed.

randomhero00
2012-04-13, 08:17 AM
OP I'd say just count yourself lucky you have a good roleplayer.

Besides, it isn't that unrealistic. Not that this is your group per se, but this is an example of a low cha person leading in real life...think of bullies and their followers on the playgrounds running around and messing with other kids. The bully may be the leader, and talk a lot, and decide what to do, but that doesn't mean people actually like him.

Aasimar
2012-04-13, 08:32 AM
Check out any character ever played by Richard Kind (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454236/), or at least his minor roles in Scrubs and Stargate Sg-1

He's very good at playing characters that have 'that annoying way about them', even when he is saying something that makes sense, even when he is being earnest, some combination of his voice, his looks and his demeanor just makes you want to punch his face in.

Even when you 'know' he's right, your baser brain 'wants' him to be wrong, so you can make fun of him for it.

I think your 'charismatic player' should realize that a character with charisma under 8 basically comes off as this or worse, even when he's right and has good ideas.

Emmerask
2012-04-13, 08:46 AM
That's stupid. GM cannot modify what your character said - you decide how your character act and behave. He entered into integral part of character's personality because of a stupid roll - he could have punished you on several ways but that, that is unforgivable. GM has no right to tell players how they characters act or what they do, unless they're mind controlled.

No, the player only decides how they intend that the character behaves.
If I as a player say that my character is going to climb that tree that only means I intend to climb that tree if that really happens depends on the climb check I make.
For speaking with the king (or any important person) it would have been generally better to roll the charisma check before the talking so that the player can adjust for that beforehand, but anyway he said what he intended to say but the rolls decided that he said some stupid "insulting" stuff...


OP I'd say just count yourself lucky you have a good roleplayer.

Besides, it isn't that unrealistic. Not that this is your group per se, but this is an example of a low cha person leading in real life...think of bullies and their followers on the playgrounds running around and messing with other kids. The bully may be the leader, and talk a lot, and decide what to do, but that doesn't mean people actually like him.

Again its not good roleplaying, for good roleplaying you play the ROLE you created. He plays some 16+ charisma dude when he has only 6 which is BAD roleplaying and a ton of metagaming on top.
Secondly if charisma would only encompass likability maybe but charisma is much more, force of personality, likability, looks etc.
What you describe is still a high charisma person, only the focus is not on likability, people donīt like that person but due to his force of personality they still gravitate to him and do what he says.

Man on Fire
2012-04-13, 09:53 AM
No, the player only decides how they intend that the character behaves.
If I as a player say that my character is going to climb that tree that only means I intend to climb that tree if that really happens depends on the climb check I make.
For speaking with the king (or any important person) it would have been generally better to roll the charisma check before the talking so that the player can adjust for that beforehand, but anyway he said what he intended to say but the rolls decided that he said some stupid "insulting" stuff...


And that is just wrong. That's the line that, once crossed, turns the game into S&M session where players are the subs and dices are the doms. These games aren't about beign a slave to the dice and statistics. By that logic player with low wisdom must always play Naruto. By that logic when you manage to cut the rope and make the chandelier fall on the opponent GM can say "Your character has low int and is too dumb to think about that". What your character says is an integral part of your character, something you decide about. You know your character, you know what they would or wouldn't say. No matter what happens, no matter how low the rolls are, GM cannot force character to behave against player's intentions. He could have punished him in various ways, like having him fart loudly in front of the king, but change what the character says is unacceptable. There are some lines neither GM or rolls should cross and what the character says is one of them. It's railroading, it's enslaving the players to the statistic and it makes dice roll you not the opposite!


You should've been forthcoming about that beforehand, it was clear I had been discussing the 3.x system, I was right to assume you were.


Is that really important? Every system has some sort of Charisma equivalent.

Emmerask
2012-04-13, 10:09 AM
So in your game I could make a cha 1 character and still talk eloquently and be loved by all?

Man on Fire
2012-04-13, 10:15 AM
I don't GM D&D, when I GM is usually Savage Worlds where Chaisma is an ability that isn't determined by point buy and it's basic level is 0 and can be modified by feats and flaws.

Person_Man
2012-04-13, 10:45 AM
For what it's worth, I know plenty of smart people in real life who talk all of the time but clearly have low Charisma. When they try to convince people of things or lie or intimidate others, they almost always fail. But that doesn't stop them from talking constantly, and it doesn't stop them from assuming leadership roles within a group, office, or family. and it doesn't prevent them from having friends or other relationships. They're just socially awkward or inept, and they choose to compensate for it by talking too much instead of being shy.

So from my perspective, it's perfectly valid to play such a character in a game as well.

Jay R
2012-04-13, 10:51 AM
You misunderstood my statements, Jay R. I was responding against the notion of flippantly giving huge bonuses simply because his character does all the talking.

Oh. Well, I agree that bad DMing is a problem; it just wasn't the topic, which was people who want to use skills they have a -2 on. They should be allowed to, and they should get situational bonuses when appropriate.

If you don't disagree with that, then you misunderstood that as much as I misunderstood you.


To clarify, this is what I have an issue with. Not the rest. There should be no talking your way out of a bad situation without any rolls. The diplomacy/bluff/intimidate skills exist for that reason. Sorry if I misinterpreted its intent, but a literal reading says you're allowing players to get out of bad situations without making applicable skill checks.

Now here we actually disagree. That's overly simplistic. Some situations can end because the crucial fact comes out. You do not have to roll to get a good reaction from the king when you say, "We've rescued your daughter. She's safe and asleep in the next room."

How about, "Here's the proof that the murderer is Ferd."

Consider "The drinks are on me."

There are lots of bad situations you can get out of without rolling the dice, and lots that you can't. Refusing to see the difference is simplistic DMing, no matter which direction you make the error in.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-13, 01:09 PM
Now here we actually disagree. That's overly simplistic. Some situations can end because the crucial fact comes out. You do not have to roll to get a good reaction from the king when you say, "We've rescued your daughter. She's safe and asleep in the next room."

How about, "Here's the proof that the murderer is Ferd."

Consider "The drinks are on me."

There are lots of bad situations you can get out of without rolling the dice, and lots that you can't. Refusing to see the difference is simplistic DMing, no matter which direction you make the error in.

I actually agree on some of those situations. Those actually are likely situations where you probably should give a large bonus that it's pretty much impossible to fail. Sure the barbarian in the king's court is not dressed for the occasion, he's uncouth and vulgar, but he's provided damning and irrefutable proof that the grand vizier has been plotting to overthrow the throne for quite some time and it's hard to ignore that. It's probably made even more convincing by the room having the impression that the barbarian's not smart enough to effectively frame the vizier on his own. You're really not throwing out the rules for those situations, you're just giving bonuses that make rolling pointless.

I was envisioning situation wherein the town guard is breaking up a bar fight and the party's face is trying to get them to look the other way in regards to the group. Or trying to intimidate a mugger into leaving you alone. Things of that nature.

randomhero00
2012-04-13, 01:17 PM
Again its not good roleplaying, for good roleplaying you play the ROLE you created. He plays some 16+ charisma dude when he has only 6 which is BAD roleplaying and a ton of metagaming on top.
Secondly if charisma would only encompass likability maybe but charisma is much more, force of personality, likability, looks etc.
What you describe is still a high charisma person, only the focus is not on likability, people donīt like that person but due to his force of personality they still gravitate to him and do what he says.

I totally disagree. His gang follows him out of fear/safety, not force of personality. There is no way a (literal) snot-nosed bully is cha 16. No bullies like that have grown up to be famous politicians like JFK.

Jay R
2012-04-13, 02:01 PM
I totally disagree. His gang follows him out of fear/safety, not force of personality.

... which is to say that he convinces people to follow him by role-playing, despite his low charisma.

QuidEst
2012-04-13, 03:31 PM
My two cp, unrelated to much of the discussion.

If the guy's very communicative, he might enjoy the challenge of trying to have his character say things that are perfectly innocent, but inadvertently offensive in the given situation. So while he has great things to say, he steps on everybody's toes in the process. That's a player-end solution, of course. XP

Man on Fire
2012-04-13, 08:25 PM
I was THAT GUY once xD
Got a Dwarf with 4 cha and still the team voice.
But My DM wasn't pleasured with it so it said "From now on if your speech is of importance and you flourish it too much you will roll CHA, and that roll will modify the speech itself"

It ended up being very funny as I, for example, met a king and said "Good is the day I can see such a high presence before me!" then rolled a 5 or 6 and the DM said " You try to salute the king that way but you end up saying "Yo king, good to see you" :smallbiggrin: It was hilarious.

I told this one to my friend. He asked me to tell you to tell your DM that he confuses low charisma with low intelligence.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-13, 11:00 PM
I disagree strongly, MoF. Giving players large bonuses simply to make the player succeed disincentivizes players to expend feats, levels, and skill points to get good at these in-game activities.


I feel like that's another feature of the Party vs Characters argument that we saw in another thread. If a player chooses to create Mr. Social, then that's his choice and the DM should prepare social encounters that challenge Mr. Social without overwhelming him.

If no one plays a charismatic character, then the DM is left with choices.

He can create very few or very easy social encounters so that even blithering imbeciles can succeed

He can create the same difficult social encounters and disregard the fact that no one is capable of dealing with them, meaning that the party is routinely ignored, manipulated, and abused because they're incapable of making themselves understood

He can create the same difficult social encounters and give the players roleplaying bonuses, so that they can succeed if they're quick witted and entertaining.

The first option feels like it could be funny for a short period of time but ultimately unsatisfying to a DM and party that are going to tire of hacknslash. The second option sounds incredibly irritating and unfun. So you're left with roleplaying bonuses.

As for the idea of "Incentivising" certain build types, I feel like that's counterproductive to fun. There's no reason to say "Whoa whoa whoa. The game isn't as good without a bard. We've got a bard shortage, there's a real problem." You are, after all, playing a game. Setting a bard quota and taking measures to see that it gets met doesn't really make life better for anyone. If no one wants to play a bard, then you need to adapt your game to make sense without a bard.

Man on Fire
2012-04-14, 05:56 AM
Nobody thought about Talking to the player? You know, taking him on the side and asking him to somehow reflect his low charisma score in roleplay or cook some way to reflect it that can still make him highly talktive?

And when we're around that, talktive people can have low charisma too, there are people who are shy and nervous around others so they start talking like crazy - if the player with low charisma wants to talk, tell him to talk even more than he already does.

Other way around it - lets DM and player assume that his character has some speech defect or quirk. I'm not asking the player to releplay that, because it would be f*****g annoying, but just to assume that and let everybody know? That way he can still have low charisma and talk a lot and still get bonuses from roleplay and everybody be still sane.

And even people with what would be an equivalent of low charisma in real life can be very convincing, like in this joke:

A preist in one city had very low founds and church in state of permament decline, so to raise the founds for it's rennovation, he decided to sell large number of Bibles he had stored in a magazine.
He called his five most trusted parishoners, gave each a backpack full of Bibles and send to sell it to the people. Then a stutter walks in and says "D-d-d-dear f-f-f-father, I-I-I t-t-t-to w-w-w-want t-t-t-to s-s-s-s-ell t-t-t-the B-b-b-b-b-bible." Preist didn't had how to deny him that, so he gave him a backpack and send him go.
Five parishoners comes back, haven't sell a single Bible. "Everybody told us they have no momeny", they say. Then stutter comes back and yells "F-f-f-f-father! I-I-I h-h-h-have s-s-s-s-sold e-e-e-everything! G-g-g-gimme a-a-a-another b-b-b-backpack a-a-a-and I-I-I-I w-w-w-will s-s-s-sell t-t-t-that t-t-t-too!"
So the preist gives him another backpack, then another and then next one. After the stutter comes back, having sould his fourth backpack worth of Bibles, presit ask him "My dear son, how do you do that?"
"T-t-t-that i-i-i-i-s v-v-v-very s-s-s-simple, F-f-f-father. F-f-f-first I-I-I k-k-k-knock t-t-t-to t-t-t-the d-d-d-door a-a-a-and w-w-w-when t-t-t-they o-o-o-pen m-m-me, I-I-I s-s-s-say "I-I-I s-s-s-sell t-t-the B-b-b-bible, w-w-w-will y-y-y-you b-b-b-buy i-i-i-i-t n-n-n-n-now, o-o-or d-d-d-d-do I-I-I-I h-h-h-have t-t-t-to r-r-r-r-read i-i-i-it t-t-t-to y-y-y-y-you?

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-14, 07:43 PM
I feel like that's another feature of the Party vs Characters argument that we saw in another thread. If a player chooses to create Mr. Social, then that's his choice and the DM should prepare social encounters that challenge Mr. Social without overwhelming him.

If no one plays a charismatic character, then the DM is left with choices.

He can create very few or very easy social encounters so that even blithering imbeciles can succeed

He can create the same difficult social encounters and disregard the fact that no one is capable of dealing with them, meaning that the party is routinely ignored, manipulated, and abused because they're incapable of making themselves understood

He can create the same difficult social encounters and give the players roleplaying bonuses, so that they can succeed if they're quick witted and entertaining.

The first option feels like it could be funny for a short period of time but ultimately unsatisfying to a DM and party that are going to tire of hacknslash. The second option sounds incredibly irritating and unfun. So you're left with roleplaying bonuses.

As for the idea of "Incentivising" certain build types, I feel like that's counterproductive to fun. There's no reason to say "Whoa whoa whoa. The game isn't as good without a bard. We've got a bard shortage, there's a real problem." You are, after all, playing a game. Setting a bard quota and taking measures to see that it gets met doesn't really make life better for anyone. If no one wants to play a bard, then you need to adapt your game to make sense without a bard.

The problem I see with what you're proposing is that it's not exactly hard to address. If the arcane caster simply takes spells like Charm Person or Suggestion, you could handle social encounters fairly easy that way. If the Cleric decides to put at least a couple of skill points into diplomacy that will also help.

Really the issue I have is that since no one has any social skills, they need to see a negative consequence due to it, otherwise it reinforces the notion that charisma is always a good dump stat. This can manifest in many ways: you can't haggle at all when selling your swag; the mayor sees your point about needing extra funds to support your plan, but he won't be providing them; you can never convince the town watch that the other guy started this bar fight and thus end up in jail regardless of your innocence. These are somewhat penalties, but they're also adventure hooks. The DM should use them.

Mike_G
2012-04-14, 09:53 PM
Really the issue I have is that since no one has any social skills, they need to see a negative consequence due to it, otherwise it reinforces the notion that charisma is always a good dump stat.


See, I just don't care. I don't insist that a low Int PC can't have a good idea, or a low Wis character can't decide not to do something stupid.

I let the players roleplay the way they want to, say things the way they want their characters to say them.

I'm here for the fun and adventure, not to maek anyone "see a negative consequence."

If you try an outrageous bluff, I'll make you roll, and your skill points and Cha will matter, but if you, the player come up with a brilliant line of BS, I'll reward it.




This can manifest in many ways: you can't haggle at all when selling your swag; the mayor sees your point about needing extra funds to support your plan, but he won't be providing them; you can never convince the town watch that the other guy started this bar fight and thus end up in jail regardless of your innocence. These are somewhat penalties, but they're also adventure hooks. The DM should use them.

And they're good adventure hooks. Use them to your heart's content.

But if somebody at my table says something brilliant, I'm never going to punish him and tell him act stupider.

And I'll throttle anyone who uses a word like "disincentivizing" in my presence.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-15, 12:40 AM
otherwise it reinforces the notion that charisma is always a good dump stat.

What do you have against this? Do you feel like it's abusing a loophole, or is a thematic issue? You could simply tell your players that as the protagonist heroes, they should all have high charisma scores because that's the kind of story you like to tell.


The difficulty I have here is that "Oh man, I need to punish my players because they all built the same weakness into their characters!" supports a DM vs Players mentality that just doesn't need to be present in most games. I mean, if you're into Players Vs DM and have elaborate dungeon crawls and constantly kill off PCs that's fine, but most games are mostly about organized storytelling rather than escalating tactical challenges.

Mostly the problem I have is with the idea that the party needs to coordinate, meaning that the first guy to make a character has complete freedom, the second nigh-complete, and the last no choice but to plug the holes. "Sorry Steve, you're going to play a high charisma cleric because we need talking and hitpoints."

Jay R
2012-04-15, 08:58 AM
The problem I see with what you're proposing is that it's not exactly hard to address. If the arcane caster simply takes spells like Charm Person or Suggestion, you could handle social encounters fairly easy that way. If the Cleric decides to put at least a couple of skill points into diplomacy that will also help.

Using spells to control people isn't handling the social situation; it's avoiding the social situation. The social situation is role-playing.


Really the issue I have is that since no one has any social skills, they need to see a negative consequence due to it, otherwise it reinforces the notion that charisma is always a good dump stat.

Wow, The differences between us are far greater than I believed at first. I'm not willing to reinforce the notion that such a thing as a "dump stat" exists. That's anti-roleplay min-maxing.


This can manifest in many ways: you can't haggle at all when selling your swag; the mayor sees your point about needing extra funds to support your plan, but he won't be providing them; you can never convince the town watch that the other guy started this bar fight and thus end up in jail regardless of your innocence. These are somewhat penalties, but they're also adventure hooks. The DM should use them.

But you clearly intend them as penalties, and they are not in accord with the rules.

The penalty for a CHA 6 is a -2 to all CHA roles. Any attempt to give it any other penalty is changing the rules. Most specifically, there is no rule saying certain PCs cannot attempt CHA-based checks.

If a STR-6 character in my game tries a STR-based check, he can try it, with any situational bonus he can work out, and with a -2 to his STR roll.

If a WIS-6 character in my game tries a WIS-based check, he can try it, with any situational bonus he can work out, and with a -2 to his WIS roll.

And, yes, if a CHA-6 character in my game tries a CHA-based check, he can try it, with any situational bonus he can work out, and with a -2 to his CHA roll. Anything else is breaking the rules to cheat him.

In my games, anybody can try any actions their race and class can attempt, using their actual bonuses and penalties.

Aasimar
2012-04-15, 09:36 AM
I feel like that's another feature of the Party vs Characters argument that we saw in another thread. If a player chooses to create Mr. Social, then that's his choice and the DM should prepare social encounters that challenge Mr. Social without overwhelming him.

If no one plays a charismatic character, then the DM is left with choices.

He can create very few or very easy social encounters so that even blithering imbeciles can succeed

He can create the same difficult social encounters and disregard the fact that no one is capable of dealing with them, meaning that the party is routinely ignored, manipulated, and abused because they're incapable of making themselves understood

He can create the same difficult social encounters and give the players roleplaying bonuses, so that they can succeed if they're quick witted and entertaining.

The first option feels like it could be funny for a short period of time but ultimately unsatisfying to a DM and party that are going to tire of hacknslash. The second option sounds incredibly irritating and unfun. So you're left with roleplaying bonuses.

As for the idea of "Incentivising" certain build types, I feel like that's counterproductive to fun. There's no reason to say "Whoa whoa whoa. The game isn't as good without a bard. We've got a bard shortage, there's a real problem." You are, after all, playing a game. Setting a bard quota and taking measures to see that it gets met doesn't really make life better for anyone. If no one wants to play a bard, then you need to adapt your game to make sense without a bard.

Just like a party who doesn't have any competent spellcasters or fighters shouldn't go about looking for dragons to fight, a party who doesn't have any competent face-men shouldn't be going to court to try to persuade the king and his advisors.

True, the GM with the incompetent fighting party will wind up 'dumbing things down' for them, but probably through just making sure they are fighting goblins instead of orcs, ogres instead of giants and wyverns instead of dragons.

Likewise, the GM with the socially inept party might scale things to their level, but probably more through having them interact with small town mayors, tribal chieftains and well intentioned good guys, instead of making the Eternal Emperor of the Celestial Court and his divine bureaucracy act like they just rolled off the train from hicksville.

Bahamut Omega
2012-04-15, 04:33 PM
There are tangible penalties and benefits to having a very high or very low ability score for any score. High strength lets you lug a lot, hit harder and more often. High dex means you usually go first, you avoid attacks well, and your reflex and agility based skills are better. High con, high hit points and fort saves. High intelligence, higher arcane spell DCs, good knowledge checks and more skill points which are always useful. High wisdom, high divine spell DCs, high will saves, better specific skill checks. Lastly, high charisma gets you high arcane spell DCs, and high skill checks for pretty much all social interaction skills.

If you opt to ignore rolling diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks simply because the player said something you think is clever, you eliminate the biggest reason for a player to bother improving those skills. Succeeding at social situations should have tangible benefits. Likewise, failing them should have tangible penalties, after all, the other ability scores all do. It's up to you how severe those penalties are, but if there are none, why bother getting better at it?

I'm quite done discussing this, it's dragged on for a week. If you don't care for or understand my point of view, so be it, but I'm done explaining/repeating why it matters.

Mike_G
2012-04-15, 07:50 PM
There are tangible penalties and benefits to having a very high or very low ability score for any score. High strength lets you lug a lot, hit harder and more often. High dex means you usually go first, you avoid attacks well, and your reflex and agility based skills are better. High con, high hit points and fort saves. High intelligence, higher arcane spell DCs, good knowledge checks and more skill points which are always useful. High wisdom, high divine spell DCs, high will saves, better specific skill checks. Lastly, high charisma gets you high arcane spell DCs, and high skill checks for pretty much all social interaction skills.

If you opt to ignore rolling diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks simply because the player said something you think is clever, you eliminate the biggest reason for a player to bother improving those skills. Succeeding at social situations should have tangible benefits. Likewise, failing them should have tangible penalties, after all, the other ability scores all do. It's up to you how severe those penalties are, but if there are none, why bother getting better at it?

I'm quite done discussing this, it's dragged on for a week. If you don't care for or understand my point of view, so be it, but I'm done explaining/repeating why it matters.

Why it matters to you.

Despite the common internet belief to the contrary, someone can completely understand your side of an argument and just not agree with it.

Sure, letting people get roleplaying modifiers to some skill rolls by using their actual brains --thus allowing them to put skill points elsewhere-- has an effect on how characters get built. In effect it lets a guy who can spin a good tale devote fewer resources to social skill ranks.

But, punishing a guy who has great ideas because he didn't spend his point on a high Int or Cha or put his skill ranks in Bluff or Diplomacy by not granting a circumstance bonus for a great line of BS has an effect, by removing the incentive to actually say fun/witty/brilliant stuff at the table in favor of "I convince him we're on his side. Beat a 37."

Some of us think encouraging good ideas and memorable in game dialogue is a worthwhile tradeoff.

Aasimar
2012-04-15, 08:23 PM
That's a valid argument.

But it's also a valid point of view to not want to punish people who just don't have that sort of charisma in real life.

Taken to one extreme, it might feel like saying . "If you are clever and witty, you can dump charisma and put your points elsewhere, if you are shy and withdrawn, you better put them there." essentially giving players the allowance to boost their non-charisma stats with points that would've gone into charisma stats, if they weren't so socially able themselves.

What it boils down to, in my view, is the 'Don't be a ****' clause of any game table.

I'm pretty funny, outgoing and clever, I like playing my PC's that way.

This is why I never dump charisma or int below a certain threshold (12-13 minimum) because I don't intend to hold myself back, and I don't want to put the GM in a position of having to compensate for it.

Mahrke
2012-04-15, 08:46 PM
But it's also a valid point of view to not want to punish people who just don't have that sort of charisma in real life.


'Punishing' and 'Not getting a reward' are not the same thing. If you enter, say, a pie-eating contest, and you get third place, while the guy who is better at eating pie gets 1st place, and a reward of $20, that doesn't mean you've been punished.

In the same regard, if you have a quiet, or socially awkward player at the table, and the social butterfly is able to get by with a diplomacy check that their character couldn't make alone, just because they are a smooth talker, that isn't the quiet character getting punished.

But let's take that logic to an extreme. If you don't think low cha characters should be able to use their real-life social skills to an advantage, you really need to apply that unilaterally to mental skills, don't you? If you give a riddle to the group, characters below a certain threshold of INT shouldn't be able to try and solve it, and the character with an 18 should be able to just say 'my character is smart enough, what is the answer?'

Or wisdom. Why should players with a good memory be able to use that to remember key details, when wisdom is the ability score assosciated with memory? Sure, the -player- might remember that Lady Redshadow had one blue, and one green eye, just the suspicious barmaid they met today...but if he has an 8 wisdom, he shouldn't benefit from his good memory as a player, right?

Where do you draw the line?

Mike_G
2012-04-15, 09:11 PM
That's a valid argument.

But it's also a valid point of view to not want to punish people who just don't have that sort of charisma in real life.

Taken to one extreme, it might feel like saying . "If you are clever and witty, you can dump charisma and put your points elsewhere, if you are shy and withdrawn, you better put them there." essentially giving players the allowance to boost their non-charisma stats with points that would've gone into charisma stats, if they weren't so socially able themselves.

What it boils down to, in my view, is the 'Don't be a ****' clause of any game table.

I'm pretty funny, outgoing and clever, I like playing my PC's that way.

This is why I never dump charisma or int below a certain threshold (12-13 minimum) because I don't intend to hold myself back, and I don't want to put the GM in a position of having to compensate for it.

I never questioned the validity of his argument.

I just prefer to positively reinforce actually being funny and clever at the table, since I can enjoy that. I can't enjoy "Boo-ya! 57 on my Diplomacy roll. I convince the Emperor to marry his daughter to me then abdicate." So I really don't care if you put all your points in social skills. Great, you can make rolls.

We can't actually stab one another at the table to play out combat, so we rely on rolls. We can play out social interaction, so we don't absolutely have to rely on rolls, and doing so feels a little stale and bland. Trying to hammer them both into the same ruleset is really apples and oranges.

I also agree with Mahrke's point that the far end of this scale is not allowing the low Int guy to solve a riddle, or allowing a 25 Int PC to just ask for the solution, since his player can't be expected to think of it, but the character would.

If you are playing a character, you will bring your own mental abilities to the table. That's unavoidable. I'm not going to discourage it.

Jay R
2012-04-15, 10:25 PM
There are tangible penalties and benefits to having a very high or very low ability score for any score....

Yes. Those penalties and benefits are listed in the rules. And the penalties listed in the rules do not include not being allowed to find situational bonuses. They do not include "you can't haggle at all when selling your swag; the mayor sees your point about needing extra funds to support your plan, but he won't be providing them; you can never convince the town watch that the other guy started this bar fight." All of that is simply opposed to the rules, that sim,ply apply a flat penalty to the roll.


If you opt to ignore rolling diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks....

Nobody's suggesting this, as we have tried to tell you at length. I wrote "And, yes, if a CHA-6 character in my game tries a CHA-based check, he can try it, with any situational bonus he can work out, and with a -2 to his CHA roll." That's not opting to ignore rolling, even if you spend a week trying to convince yourself it is.


If you opt to ignore rolling diplomacy/bluff/intimidate checks simply because the player said something you think is clever, you eliminate the biggest reason for a player to bother improving those skills.

The biggest problem with this argument is that people in that situation mostly don't think that way. I'm one of the people who can fairly often come up with a clever plan that gets extra bonuses. That's (part of) why I prefer to play a high-INT, high-CHA character - to combine the characteristic bonuses with the situational bonuses.

Gloves of Dexterity don't eliminate the biggest reason for a player to want a high DEX; usually the person with the gloves already has the highest DEX in the party. Gauntlets of Ogre Strength don't eliminate the biggest reason for a player to want a high STR, and for the same reason, CHA bonuses don't eliminate the biggest reason for a player to want a high CHA.


It's up to you how severe those penalties are, but if there are none, why bother getting better at it?

Nobody has suggested that they shouldn't have the penalties. Our disagreement is that we think the penalties should be the ones listed in the book, and you think they should be "you can't haggle at all when selling your swag; the mayor sees your point about needing extra funds to support your plan, but he won't be providing them; you can never convince the town watch that the other guy started this bar fight."


I'm quite done discussing this, it's dragged on for a week. If you don't care for or understand my point of view, so be it, but I'm done explaining/repeating why it matters.

Fine; that's certainly your choice.

I think I do understand your point of view; I've even quoted it. But you have not yet addressed mine, and the point of view of most of the people disagreeing with you.

If you decide to continue, please discuss the issues we disagree on, instead of something else.