PDA

View Full Version : Charisma, Leadership, Seduction, Deception, Attractiveness: How to Split up Charisma?



Mr. Mask
2015-11-10, 04:59 PM
Charisma threads have popped up occasionally, asking whether attractiveness and charisma are linked. I figure we should pose a deeper question: Should elements like likeability or leadership or deception be rolled into one thing? What if you have someone who is physically attractive, but he lacks personality and confidence--he won't be a skilled manipulator, and people aren't likely to like him. Though someone entranced by his appearance might be more swayed to his arguments (at least till they get sick of him). Or you might have a really charismatic leader who is too stupid and noble to deceive people. Or someone distressingly despicable who is nevertheless great at tricking people into doing what they want.

Now, in DnD, skills sort of cover this. You might have low Charisma, but high ranks in Bluff. And it makes sense someone with a strong Charisma will be better at lying, as people like and trust them more. So, maybe that is the best way to do it?


I expect there are systems with alternate methods. Have any preferences? Ideas of your own for how this could be handled?

Arbane
2015-11-10, 06:14 PM
While Wolf's Storyteller system splits up social attributes into Charisma, Manipulation, and Appearance.

There's plenty of other ways to do it.

Talion
2015-11-10, 06:37 PM
Out of all of the listed items, the one that is truly the most problematic is "Attractiveness". It's the odd one out from a purely mechanical standpoint, but there's one other factor. Attractiveness is entirely subjective to the person in question. An orc is unlikely to consider the same standard of beauty expected of an elf, and an elf won't often be held to the beauty standards of a dwarf, and so on. Does it have a purpose? To a degree, yes, particularly in regards to, specifically, seduction. However, with a whole world of magic and cosmetics out there, it's honestly pretty negligible. Attractiveness, on its own, would require an extremely convoluted system for a modicum of value.

The other issue lies in the inherent lack of use for Charisma in many groups. If we look at it from a D&D 3.5 perspective, it is useful for:

1. Spells for 2 core classes.
2. As a largely negligible bonus to a small number of skills.
3. A handful of random class abilities, of varying use, primarily in classes that are already struggling with their Multi-Attribute Dependency.

It does not govern a save (though my group contests this heavily). It doesn't improve accuracy or evasion. Most of its valuable options require hard lining towards things such as the Leadership feat, which can still be nerfed by an uncooperative DM.

This ties into an inherent problem with most Charisma systems: Players who are, themselves, charismatic often get away with dumping the stat and just wowing their group with their natural power, while those who are not naturally charismatic in person must invest in the skills and related bonuses and still come up with a means to portray that bonus. However, this is a PLAYER issue more than a mechanics issue.

As such, the perspective my group uses for Charisma is functionally as follows:

1. It doesn't say how 'attractive' you are.
2. It doesn't measure how LIKABLE you are. That's based on your character's ACTIONS.
3. It DOES measure how much PRESENCE you have (people's inclination to PAY ATTENTION to you).
4. It DOES measure how your actual ability with social skills.
5. If you don't invest in it, you don't get to use it to your real life degree.

Icewraith
2015-11-10, 06:55 PM
One thing I'm considering is charisma is still mostly the social stat (leadership, deception, persuasion), but attractiveness is roll 2d6 for individual npc interactions. The first die (1=STR, 2=DEX, etc) is the stat that npc finds most attractive and the second die the second most attractive stat. In 5e, a character an NPC finds particularly attractive- say stat1+stat2>28, has advantage on social rolls with that npc when attraction would be relevant.

If stat 1 + stat 2< 20, disadvantage on the same rolls.

To maintain the traditional edge CHA based characters have in the attraction/seduction department, CHA may always be substituted for stat 2. A DC 12 insight check reveals NPC's stat 2. A DC 18 insight check reveals stat 1. DC 22 reveals both. Advantage if the NPC is attracted to the character.

For seduction, it depends. Seduction is probably a DC 20 check, but the player picks the stat and proficiency they will attempt to seduce with. Character has advantage if the NPC finds them very attractive or the relevant stat or proficiency aligns with the NPC's stat 1. Character has disadvantage if the NPC finds them unattractive, or if neither stat nor proficiency aligns with NPC's Stat 1+ Stat 2.

Note that defaulting stat 2 to charisma and using persuasion, deception, or perform never results in disadvantage. Using proficiency in a musical instrument counts as both CHA and DEX. Athletics' uses for distance running and swimming make it the only skill that will count for both STR and CON. Using Intimidation directly for seduction will get you booted from my game. (You could however, use it to ward off other suitors and impress the NPC.) Maintaining cordial relations with an NPC the PC used deception on for seduction is a DC 20 check with disadvantage if the NPC discovers the deception.

There should be a way to simplify this down to one stat, but written as-is that results in CHA-based characters having auto-advantage on all rolls related to attractiveness, which is a bit too strong (as it is now, they basically have auto-advantage on 1/6th). As written, the system favors athletes and musicians, people who actually pay attention to the other person, but still allows PCs with narrower focuses to meet NPCs that find them attractive. Casanova under this system is a Charisma 20 Halfling (minimize natural 1s) Bard with Athletics, Insight, at least one instrument proficiency, Persuasion, the Lucky feat, and no negative stat modifiers. Deception and Stealth would also be important.

ben-zayb
2015-11-10, 07:24 PM
While Wolf's Storyteller system splits up social attributes into Charisma, Manipulation, and Appearance.

There's plenty of other ways to do it.I felt their Storytelling System got it right with Presence (social power), Manipulation (social finesse), and Composure (social resistance).

Strigon
2015-11-10, 09:32 PM
Personally, I just fluff it as this:
A character with a high Charisma can have any or all of the aforementioned qualities. What that character ends up putting skills into is what determines which one(s) he has.

For example, a very manipulative character would have high charisma and many points into deception, or whatever it's called in your favourite game/edition. Thus, you get a character who is very good at deceiving others, and since he knows how people think and react to him, he also has some natural ability for the other charisma-related skills. However, since it isn't exactly his area of expertise, he's naturally not as good at the other skills - sure, he can lie and flatter his way into a lady's heart, but put him next to a sweet-talking Bard and he'll go home alone every time.

goto124
2015-11-10, 09:41 PM
If a char's charisma/etc is different from the player's, how do you prevent the immersion-breaking that results? For example, the char is supposed to be convincing, but the player doesn't bring up any reasons that make sense to the GM.

LudicSavant
2015-11-10, 11:54 PM
My advice? Don't obsess over abstract stat values on a character sheet because of what they're named. The only thing that matters is their observable in-game effect. The fact that you can make DC 30 bluff checks matters in defining who your character is and what she is capable of. Whether you got a +1 or -1 to that bluff check from Charisma... really doesn't matter much.

Roleplay output values, visible in-world... not input values, visible on a character sheet.

In other words, avoid the pitfall being lampooned in this OotS comic:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

To put it another way...

You don't need to have a stat named "Charisma" to build a character that can inspire and lead their party with White Raven maneuvers, or manipulate people with high social skill rolls, any more than you need a class named "Samurai" to make a character who is a samurai.

It makes absolutely no sense for a player to look at a character sheet and say "You can't roleplay that character as charismatic, they only have an 8 Charisma" when they're hitting DC 30 Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Gather Information checks, and using abilities like White Raven maneuvers to lead and inspire their allies.

Same goes for other stats. It's entirely possible to have an 8 constitution yet have hundreds of hp and an impregnable Fortitude Save. It's also entirely possible to have an 18 constitution and be flimsy.

Are you going to look at that person using black lotus extract as toothpaste and walking through cloudkills without so much as wrinkling their nose and insist that they must be roleplayed as having a weak stomach?

Why, then, would anyone think that they had to determine just how attractive they're allowed to describe themselves as based primarily on their Charisma score? :smallconfused:

goto124
2015-11-10, 11:57 PM
I mean stuff like 'no you can't diplomance the king into giving you his secrets'.

LudicSavant
2015-11-11, 12:00 AM
I mean stuff like 'no you can't diplomance the king into giving you his secrets'.

My post was not replying to yours, but to the general thread topic. Sorry if that was unclear.

Slipperychicken
2015-11-11, 12:33 AM
I'd rather skip over the issue by making it a circumstantial modifier. If a PC's looks are helpful or harmful for what he's trying to do, then his skill roll is adjusted accordingly.


Some examples: A model might get an edge convincing authorities to give her slack, but she may have a harder time convincing them that she knows what she's doing (as her stunning looks may be wrongly associated with stupidity). A body-builder would have an easier time scaring someone off physically, but would face extra suspicion, and a penalty convincing people that he wasn't responsible for physical violence. A frail nerd might get a bonus convincing people that he's harmless or knowledgeable, but would be less physically intimidating.

Obviously, a person's clothes, accessories, and condition would also help determine whether the character's looks are helpful or not. Being dressed appropriately for the job makes a huge difference. Businessmen might be more willing to believe your sales pitch if you're wearing a good suit. Holding a weapon can make you seem more scary, but might not send the right message if you take it out during a date.

Closet_Skeleton
2015-11-11, 05:53 AM
My advice? Don't obsess over abstract stat values on a character sheet because of what they're named. The only thing that matters is their observable in-game effect.

If you want to completely ignore the spirit of the game. You might as well go around doing evil stuff with lawful good on your character sheet because "you only took that alignment to qualify for a purely mechanical prestige class".

If you don't want stats to affect your roleplaying there are plenty of statless systems for you to enjoy. Otherwise you might as well be playing two games at once.

There's a lot of different ways you can roleplay your stats. A charismatic character might be amiable and friendly or able to inspire people while remaining aloof. A uncharismatic character might be creepy and offputting or beautiful but antisocial.


It makes absolutely no sense for a player to look at a character sheet and say "You can't roleplay that character as charismatic, they only have an 8 Charisma" when they're hitting DC 30 Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Gather Information checks, and using abilities like White Raven maneuvers to lead and inspire their allies.

It makes perfect sense because a Charisma 18 character with those same skills would be better at them.

Your charisma 8 leader is not charismatic, he's skilled enough that his charisma does not matter much or perhaps so successful that his legend can inspire people despite the man himself always disappointing those who meet him. He probably spends a lot of time practising his speeches in the mirror and researching psychological tricks, to me that's better roleplaying than "I passed the DC so I'm charismatic".


Are you going to look at that person using black lotus extract as toothpaste and walking through cloudkills without so much as wrinkling their nose and insist that they must be roleplayed as having a weak stomach?

They're not someone with a weak stomach, they're someone who was born weak and then overcame it with training.

If you like refluffing stuff there's no reason to assume that someone with a good fortitude save is biologically good at fighting off poisons or that someone with lots of hp can take more swords to the chest than a normal person. HP are supposed to be more about luck than toughness and a high fortitude save might mean that he regularly takes antidotes and has inoculated himself against a lot of diseases.

Mr. Mask
2015-11-11, 07:33 AM
So, attractiveness is sort of interesting mechanically.

You're essentially gambling on appeal to a certain demographic. You make yourself a body builder to intimidate thugs and earn respect with other body-builders. Or hideously ugly to appeal to goblins and bugbears.

It should also be wondered about partial effectiveness. A cat isn't exactly good looking in a human sense, but its appearance and nature is still very appealing to many. So a cat person might have a good attractiveness score, just because everyone likes cats.

There's also the question of how you use your looks. Are you actively trying to seduce the target, imply possible benefits for helping you? Or are you simply trying to convince them of your noble countenance to make them more trusting and forthcoming?


An interesting idea would be to split appearance into a few types, where different groups like different types. Some folkloric monsters might like whatever is ugly, with trolls having what are essentially ugliness competitions (in the vein of this folklore, they might well be called ugliness competitions, too). Some like strong, rugged, hard appearances. Many like the look of fluffy, animal creatures. Others prefer soft, smooth, rounded appearances. And then there are things like sleek, alien, inhuman architecture or machines.

From this, you could try to stat appearances based off these qualities. A tiger would be rugged, but also fluffy. A troll would be strong and rugged, but also ugly. A well-decomposed zombie would just be ugly. People who grow beards are somewhat fluffy.


This idea seems pretty amusing to me. Not sure it'd work, but I'd be interested to see it elaborated.

goto124
2015-11-11, 08:23 AM
"So a cat person might have a good attractiveness score"

I dunno, I figured a cat person would have an effectively infinite attractiveness score with humans :smalltongue:

Tobtor
2015-11-11, 08:31 AM
1. It doesn't say how 'attractive' you are.
2. It doesn't measure how LIKABLE you are. That's based on your character's ACTIONS.
3. It DOES measure how much PRESENCE you have (people's inclination to PAY ATTENTION to you).
4. It DOES measure how your actual ability with social skills.
5. If you don't invest in it, you don't get to use it to your real life degree.

I agree that this is partly true of what i would consider "charisma", but even if the developers of DnD state it is something along those lines, they made a system where it is not:
half orcs have a charisma penalty (at least ibn 3rdedition). Why? I cannot see any other reason than: Because they are unattractive (or at least "unlikeable"). I cant see why half-orcs shouldnt have a strong "presence". The skills/abilities tied to it includes intimidation.

It becomes even more clear if Orcs proper is taken into account. Nothing of in the deescription of the race give any hints at them not being "strong leaders" (to their own kind, DnD is a human centric system) or having a weak "presence", but still they have a very low charisma. You could argue it was poor social skills, but it dosnt hold up any more than likebility, since to another orc, the brutish dominance IS good social skills (like it is in a pack of wild animals). Or would we really say Orcs don't have forcefull personalities?

Thus the charisma (in DnD) is like other stats a blend/bundle of different advantages/features, including how attractive likeable you are.

I prefer systems where cha is divided, so cha is really just how much impact you get (presence or force of personality), and your ability with social skills and appearance is covered by other things. I have met many people who are quite charming, polite etc, and have a great gift of social relations (naturally, suggesting high cha in DnD) but does not posses a natural knack for leadership or presence (indicating that they should have low cha). Thus Cha is sort of an average of different abilities.

In GURPS (which apart froom DnD 3rd is the game I have played most), charisma is an advantage and not a stat. Appearance is a different advantage/disadvantage. They might affect some of the same things (persuasion for instance), while not other things, and not equally. For instance some people might react negative to very beautiful people (same gender could see them as rivals). "ugly" people with high cha could be seen as a strong leaders in combat situations (menacing), so ugliness does not need to count against your skill here. It could be more difficult to disguise or remain discretely in the background if you are either very unattractive or very attractive (both very "noticeable" traits). Thus depending on the social situation appearance and charisma can be played differently. Social skills is then based on skills, and can have bonuses for cha or appearance (or other things) depending on situation/skill.

Instead of a negative charisma you can give the Orcs a bad reputation among the other races, in most situation giving the same negative influence on social interaction (a -2 or -3 or whatever to the rolls).

Airk
2015-11-11, 10:05 AM
Isn't this why we have skill systems? This seems like a solved problem to me.

LudicSavant
2015-11-11, 12:18 PM
If you want to completely ignore the spirit of the game.

Quite to the contrary, I feel that that is precisely what you are doing. I feel that you are laboring under the illusion that a particular form of metagaming is "the spirit of the game," that certain mechanic names (rather than mechanic effects) must be paired with certain flavor, and thus creatively restricting yourself.

It's a common cognitive bias, and every single time in over 20 years of roleplaying I've seen someone get over it they've become a better storyteller, without exception.


You might as well go around doing evil stuff with lawful good on your character sheet because "you only took that alignment to qualify for a purely mechanical prestige class".

This doesn't follow at all from anything that I said. The results of a Detect Evil spell are a visible in-world effect that need to have an explanation. It's something that's very clearly evident in the game world without looking directly at a character sheet.

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Everything that manifests in-world must have an in-world explanation. So, if you have the ability to convince the king of anything, that needs an explanation. If you ping Evil on a Detect Evil test, that needs an explanation. If you have a bonus to social skill checks, that matters. Whether you got your +3 to social skill checks from an attribute or from a feat, that doesn't matter unless you're metagaming and looking at a person's sheet instead of in-world effects.

On the other hand, the following is not something that can be deduced from any in-world information:



Your charisma 8 leader is not charismatic, he's skilled enough that his charisma does not matter much

They're not someone with a weak stomach, they're someone who was born weak and then overcame it with training.

"Your character isn't really strong/charismatic/smart/agile/etc, they overcame their weakness with training." This just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you overcame your weakness, you are strong. Whether you got to be strong through strength training or just by being born with prodigious genes is irrelevant to whether or not you are strong, right now.

If someone is able to charm the king into accepting any deal, that is the definition of charismatic. If someone is able to brush their teeth with black lotus extract, that is the definition of having an iron constitution. If someone is able to bend steel bars or lift an elephant, that is the definition of having herculean strength.

The thing that you don't seem to get is that attributes don't correlate directly to the things they're named after. For example, two characters with the same Strength score might actually have different carrying capacities. One of the most common instances of this is size difference. A Small creature can only bench press 3/4s as much as a Medium one with the same Strength score. A Large creature can lift twice as much as a Medium creature with the same strength score. If someone just looked at Strength and said "well they both have 10 strength, they must be able to bench press the same amount" that person would be factually wrong. It's entirely possible, just with rules in the 3.5e PHB, to have one character with 10 Strength be able to lift over 190x as much as another character with 10 Strength. That's... that's a pretty significant gap.

Telling a player that is mechanically capable of charming anyone into doing anything (without the aid of magic or anything of the sort) that their character cannot be described as charming is not "good roleplaying" any more than it's "good roleplaying" to say that a person who can lift an elephant over their head is not, in fact, stronger than a person who cannot lift an elephant over their head.



They're not someone with a weak stomach, they're someone who was born weak and then overcame it with training. That explanation is just as wholly unnecessary as the ones lampooned in this comic:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

I would argue that your contention that you can't be described as being born with a strong stomach if your character now has an 8 Con is just as silly—and disconnected from roleplaying—as saying that a character can't be described as having been a member of the samurai caste without having a class named "Samurai" on their sheet. It's the exact same fallacy: The idea that you must possess a certain mechanic name on your sheet in order to have a certain flavor or in-world effect.

Not only is it unnecessary, it also doesn't make much sense in the first place. You have an 8 Constitution now. Why does that restrict you to the backstory "you were born with a weak stomach?" Even if we said that your character was weak now, there are all kinds of backstory options. Maybe your character was born strong as an ox, but was weakened by a debilitating illness in a bad winter. Maybe your character was an athlete when they were younger, but really let themselves go and is now weak and flabby. There's no mechanical progression to represent that change over time, and there doesn't need to be. The only thing that the mechanics need to represent is who you are now. How you got there, you can describe however you want. To say otherwise is to make backstories like the ones I just suggested impossible, because the game mechanics don't model things like losing physical attributes over time (or any of a thousand other possible backstories).

Constitution isn't the only mechanic that can represent your ability to have a strong stomach, or toughness, or physical endurance. Heck, there are even feats named Strong Stomach, Toughness, and Endurance which make you better at those things without actually changing your Constitution at all.

Free yourself from metagaming associations and you will find your ability to flavor characters improve.

Telonius
2015-11-11, 01:08 PM
Personally, I tend to ignore the "attractiveness" component to Charisma. There really aren't all that many situations (in typical gameplay) where it would have that big of a mechanical impact. In the rare case that it does, I might give a circumstance bonus or penalty. Otherwise it just doesn't have much to do with the things that Charisma is supposed to encompass.

For non-typical gameplay, this is actually one of the things that (imo) BoEF got right: they had a separate stat for physical attractiveness, independent of Charisma. (I believe it was called "Comeliness," but I'm at work and not about to check the source material on a company computer). If I were to find myself in a campaign where those situations came up often enough to really make a difference, I'd probably use the rules there.

Milodiah
2015-11-11, 01:20 PM
So, GURPS kinda handles it in a way that's not blankety and abstracted. Social situations all tend to have a hugely-cumulative reaction modifier. It factors in the Charisma advantage, which is just the nebulous sociability. It also factors in the advantage for having a good speaking voice if you're talking, the advantage/disadvantage for your appearance if they can see you, any prejudices they may have for you (wealth or lack thereof, race, class, reputation, etc), any modifiers given by skill rolls you've made, etc. etc.

GURPS does tend to handle situations like that in general though, making a big ol' list of factors and then boiling it down to a composite number rather than just starting off with the composite number. It makes things seem more logical, but can tend to drag if the players aren't extremely nimble when it comes to going through the process. It also helps to maintain believability because it notes that a lot of these things don't go across cultural lines, especially not species lines in a sci-fi/fantasy setting. The race that communicates entirely through psionics and gesturing doesn't care about your fine speaking voice, and the eyeless tentacular mass race can't tell one human from another without a lot of exposure, let alone recognize one as attractive and one as ugly by our standards.

LudicSavant
2015-11-11, 01:40 PM
If you like refluffing stuff

It's not even an issue of refluffing stuff. It's just an issue of understanding, accurately, what the mechanics do and do not represent. It's a question of looking at what the mechanics do inside of the game world instead of bringing in all of your outside assumptions to create arbitrary restrictions for your writing.

If someone thinks that a person's strength score is the only really relevant thing to how strong they are, ignoring factors such as that it's possible for a character with the same strength score as another to bench press over 190x the weight of a character with the exact same strength score, then they just have a warped idea of how those attributes relate to flavor.

In the case of the 190x weight example, that's straight from the PHB rules for 3.5e, and does not involve any skill, feats, or training.


Isn't this why we have skill systems? This seems like a solved problem to me.

For sure. I'll expand on this point further: It's why we have multiple mechanical levers for building characters. We have class features, racial features, feats, skills, skill tricks, maneuvers, attributes, backgrounds, traits, flaws, advantages, keys, archetypes, fates, schools, whatever set of mechanics for whatever system.

Don't try to extrapolate everything from one component of one equation. You gotta look at the other things that go into a character sheet, too.

So, for example, if you want to make a character who is an inspiring leader, you don't want to stop at just raising your Charisma stat, because that on its own isn't going to do much. You want to get leadership skills or feats or inspiring auras or white raven maneuvers or something, too, because that's what's really going to sell your character as a leader. And some inspiring roleplaying, of course! :smallsmile:



You're essentially gambling on appeal to a certain demographic. You make yourself a body builder to intimidate thugs and earn respect with other body-builders. Or hideously ugly to appeal to goblins and bugbears.

It should also be wondered about partial effectiveness. A cat isn't exactly good looking in a human sense, but its appearance and nature is still very appealing to many. So a cat person might have a good attractiveness score, just because everyone likes cats.

There's also the question of how you use your looks. Are you actively trying to seduce the target, imply possible benefits for helping you? Or are you simply trying to convince them of your noble countenance to make them more trusting and forthcoming?


An interesting idea would be to split appearance into a few types, where different groups like different types. Some folkloric monsters might like whatever is ugly, with trolls having what are essentially ugliness competitions (in the vein of this folklore, they might well be called ugliness competitions, too). Some like strong, rugged, hard appearances. Many like the look of fluffy, animal creatures. Others prefer soft, smooth, rounded appearances. And then there are things like sleek, alien, inhuman architecture or machines.

From this, you could try to stat appearances based off these qualities. A tiger would be rugged, but also fluffy. A troll would be strong and rugged, but also ugly. A well-decomposed zombie would just be ugly. People who grow beards are somewhat fluffy.

This idea seems pretty amusing to me. Not sure it'd work, but I'd be interested to see it elaborated.

I think the important thing to avoid would be to represent Comeliness or Appearance or what-have-you as some universally applicable stat, pushing the rather absurd idea that beauty is something you possess rather than something that is in the eye of the beholder.

If beauty is worth representing at all, I think it'd be most appropriate as a set of circumstance modifiers. This is how I've sometimes seen it represented in D&D. For example, I remember various modules for 3.5e mentioning various appearance-based modifiers for social interactions with various NPCs. Things like "he likes redheads: +2" or "you look like a foreigner and do not dress according to our customs: -5." Each of these were specific to a given NPC and situation.

Conceivably, any appearance could be beneficial or detrimental to some situation or other. Being drop dead gorgeous to humans of the opposite sex might help you to seduce a mark... or make it harder for you to be taken seriously as an intellectual, or inspire jealousy, or make people think you didn't have to earn what you have. If people look at your horribly burned face and flinch, you might have trouble getting into the noble gala, but you might also be more successful at garnering sympathy or intimidating people. I don't think this requires a complex system of types and subtypes. It can be as simple as just telling your PCs: If you look the part, you get a circumstance bonus. If you don't look the part, you get a circumstance penalty.

Icewraith
2015-11-11, 06:12 PM
Attractiveness is terrible as a stat, because it's only beneficial during roleplay. It basically un-falsifies the Stormwind fallacy.

Instead I think it's better to determine which existing stats an npc values and go from there. Doing so randomly instead of having everything revolve completely around charisma results in more evenly distributed table time.

Tobtor
2015-11-12, 03:29 AM
Attractiveness is terrible as a stat, because it's only beneficial during roleplay.

Well... normally what I do with my character is role-playing... it is called role-playing games you know. I agree in a Warhammer battle game I don't care if any of my figures are attractive (as a stat).

In a very combat oriented game, out of combat stuff tends to be downplayed. But several skills and feats in DnD (and most other games) also primarily have out of combat uses.

The question is what sort of game you play. In a combat game requiring high degrees of optimization I agree attractiveness doesn't matter, it does however if the game have a lot of social interaction.


It's not even an issue of refluffing stuff. It's just an issue of understanding, accurately, what the mechanics do and do not represent. It's a question of looking at what the mechanics do inside of the game world instead of bringing in all of your outside assumptions to create arbitrary restrictions for your writing.


If it is claimed that charisma isn't a part of your "talent" for all the charisma based stuff, then it is re-fluffing it. Yes some of it can be modified with feats (which we could also say is talent). But saying that skills isn't acquired through training would be re-fluffing your. character.But I agree that in DnD charisma ius only one part of being what we could call a "charismatic" person. It reflects the basic natural "talent" within that sphere. A high charisma means that with very little effort you will get good at social stuff. The half-orc warrior really have to sacrifice a lot to be as good as the halfling bard at leadership and intimidation. This is because Charisma is a mix of different aspects, both attractiveness (bad for the orc) some semi-magical force (powering the bards magic), and the ability to interact socially. Its hard to make a character that really excels in on aspect, but not in the others. A sorcerer or bard is ALWAYS good at persuading people and will get positive reactions etc (at least better than average).

If attractiveness, force of personality and social talent is split up, you get a different dynamic. I dont know what the OP intends, but to me it seems he wants input on how to make such divisions, not discuss whether charisma is a good game mechanic in DnD.

LudicSavant
2015-11-12, 04:58 AM
It reflects the basic natural "talent" within that sphere.

Attributes do not just reflect a natural talent you're born with, completely separated from any training, nurture, etc. If they did, you couldn't change them mid-game.


If it is claimed that charisma isn't a part of your "talent" for all the charisma based stuff, then it is re-fluffing it.

That's not what I said at all. The Charisma stat is indeed a part of your talent, but my entire point was that it's only a part.

If an attribute wasn't merely an abstract component part of various other formulas, then it would be really odd that you can have a 10 Strength character who can lift 192x as much as another 10 Strength character. Obviously, the characters are actually not equally strong. Clearly, factors besides their Strength scores factor here (in this case, one's a Fine biped, the other's a Colossal quadruped).

If you look at a character with 10 Charisma and a character with 12 Charisma, that doesn't actually tell you much about them... not even which one of them is more charming for a straight up raw Charisma check (since things besides just Charisma can influence those). If you look at a character and see that they have +10 to raw charisma checks or +30 social checks or can make someone immune to fear just by talking to them, that tells you something much more significant than the fact that they have 10 or 12 or whatever amount of Charisma.

My point is simply thus: Look at the big picture, don't just zero in on one part of the equation. Look at the actual outputs of the equations and what the character is actually able to do in-world.

Tobtor
2015-11-12, 05:54 AM
Attributes do not just reflect a natural talent you're born with, completely separated from any training, etc. If they did, you couldn't change them mid-game.

I agree, but nis still your basic talent within that sphere, as it is used in test for anything you havnt trained as such, and is applied as bonuses to everything within that field. A character with 18 in charisma will, even if untrained, be better at persuasion than someone with 6 in charisma that has put a couple of skill points into it. Thus skill-points (and feats) show specialised training within a field, while charisma is a broad talent within that field.


My point is that if the only variable you know is the attribute, you can't actually tell much about the character. If you look at a character with 10 Charisma and a character with 12 Charisma, that doesn't actually tell you much about them... not even which one of them is more charming for a straight up raw Charisma check (since things besides just Charisma can influence those).

Agreed 10 and 12 isn't much of a difference. Taking a 8 charisma and compare to a 18 charisma is another matter. In a group situation a half-orc barbarian will likely never invest in leadership, persuasion, intimidation and bluff if the group also contain a bard/sorcerer.


My point is simply thus: Look at the big picture, don't just zero in on one part of the equation. Look at the actual outputs of the equations and what the character is actually able to do in-world.

I agree, but it doesn't change that charisma covers several things, that might better be divided. Attractiveness and likeability DOES help in reaction situations that would otherwise be neutral (research have shown that above average looking persons get milder punishment in courts), but I really doubt it help for intimidation attempts. So splitting it up in "appearance/first impressions", "raw personality/force", and "social knack", allow more diverse characters. Characters who excelle at one part but not in others (which can be done but is very difficult as the DnD system is, as a high Cha gives bonuses across the board).

LudicSavant
2015-11-12, 06:06 AM
I agree, but it doesn't change that charisma covers several things, that might better be divided. It already is divided.

Edit: I'd also like to point to something Airk said (in another thread on the same topic):


I don't get it. Why do you need to "chart that"? Do you "chart" "blonde" or "red head"? How about "really big muscles" vs "Lean and wiry" vs "Going to fat"?

And in this thread:


Isn't this why we have skill systems? This seems like a solved problem to me.

Tobtor
2015-11-12, 08:33 AM
It already is divided.


No it isnt. There are variouos modifers to it (like skills or feats), but the 18 cha sorcerer will be better at all those things than the 6 cha Orc. I have many character concepts that doesn't work (at least at lower lvls, yes with various prestige classes and feats etc it might be achieevabel at lvl 15-20).

I already commented on the second quote about skills by Airk. The thing is skill-points reflect dedicated training in one small area, and most characters doesn't have the skill points to deal with a 6cha. If you do a lvl 4 half-orc mercenary with 8 cha and he needs to be good at intimidation and eleadership, you spend all the points and he still isn't that good. If I want to do a lvl one halflingthat everyone things is "ohh so cute" and instantly likeable and who is good at singing (perform skill) I will give him a high Cha (lets say 16), but that means he is naturally be good at intimidation (about as good as the lvl 4 half orc above) and even leadership, even if I want the character not to be (lets say he is uncomfortable leading and is in no way intimidating). I can of course play not to be, but mechanically speaking he is good.

The first Airk qutoe:

I don't get it. Why do you need to "chart that"? Do you "chart" "blonde" or "red head"? How about "really big muscles" vs "Lean and wiry" vs "Going to fat"?

Yes, I am going to stat some of that (or at least note it). At least if it has in game mechanical affects, which I think attractiveness has as well as the separation between the ability to do well in small talk and having a forceful personality. Normally "blonde" and "red" hair don't mean anything, but if I played in a world where blondes were second class citizens with no rights, I think that being a blond might actually be worth noting statting. Similar being fat (heavy) might also have in-game consequences, like running speed, who can carry you etc. Both things nice to stat. Some systems (like GURPS but I have seen others) lets you count that in (if desired).

In most context however these are small differences (red versus blonde, lean versus bulky) that doesn't really matter, but something like being "likable" contra unlikable HAS affects on your rolls, since it already IS included in charisma. So it is ALREADY a stat (or rather part of a stat). You could with equal right ask why include charisma as a stat in the first place. Couldn't it be part of int/wis? Sure it could, since int is how well you analyse situations and you could base skills such as leadership on that, as well as perform, while wis is (also) how good you understand people and situations, and other skills could be based on that.
Any system statting people are arbitrary and will cause weird issues.

The OP didn't claim that everyone should play DnD differently, but wanted to discus (as I understood it) the various aspects "we" combine in charisma, and if there could be arguments for dividing them into different spheres. If playing a pure mechanical world where its all about "defeating the game" it doesn't matter. But as I, and many others, feel that it is difficult to do a diverse enough character from the start with the cha as it is now, it might be a good idea (especially if you mainly play low lvl games where a lot of the cheese doesn't come into play, the characters he suggested are hard to stat).

SimonMoon6
2015-11-13, 03:21 PM
The DC Heroes RPG splits up Charisma into three pieces:

Influence. This is the charisma version of dexterity, how easy it is to "hit" or "dodge" a charisma-based skill roll. Effectively, it translates (imho) to something like how noticeable your character is, meaning that characters who make a lot of noise (even if they're saying stupid things) would have a high influence as would people who have a very distinct appearance (good or bad) or people who are in other ways simply inspirational. (The "dodging" part I attribute to, well, how likely a person is to let various kinds of comments (sweet talking or intimidating words) simply slide past them without notice.

Aura. This is the charisma version of strength, how much "damage" a person does when using a charisma-based skill roll, meaning how likely they are to influence people, once they've got their attention. A person could have a low influence and high aura, to represent someone who you might not listen to at first, but once you do listen to them, you realize how much sense they make. A person could have a high influence and low aura to represent someone you can't help listening to (such as certain politicians I won't name) but whose statements are so stupid that you can't take them seriously (unless you are particularly gullible or easily influenced). Someone with both a high influence and aura would be good at both grabbing someone's attention *and* holding it.

Spirit. This is the charisma version of constitution, how hard it is for a character to be overwhelmed by a charisma-based skill roll. This can represent sheer stubbornness or even a mercurial personality who doesn't take anything seriously.

And as far as appearance goes? Attractiveness is an advantage that gives a flat +1 bonus (effectively affecting the influence part of the charisma skill roll, again emphasizing that influence represents "noticeability").

Raimun
2015-11-13, 05:45 PM
I was once the party face with Charisma of 7. Even though there was Charisma-based caster in the party. And pretty much everyone else had a higher Charisma.

It's all about what a man can do and what a man can't do.

Morty
2015-11-13, 06:11 PM
How you do it is having more variables influence your chance at succeeding at the task than just the attribute. I really don't know why so many people put such emphasis on them, as if they were the sole, or main, measure of a character's aptitude. They are, in some systems that use them. But those tend to be fairly rules-light, anyway. In other systems, "innate" attributes (as opposed to learned skills) are just one source of numbers among several. What's the big deal?

LudicSavant
2015-11-13, 08:53 PM
How you do it is having more variables influence your chance at succeeding at the task than just the attribute. I really don't know why so many people put such emphasis on them, as if they were the sole, or main, measure of a character's aptitude.

So much this.

Tobtor
2015-11-15, 10:12 AM
I was once the party face with Charisma of 7. Even though there was Charisma-based caster in the party. And pretty much everyone else had a higher Charisma.

It's all about what a man can do and what a man can't do.

What lvl? At lvl 1-5 it seem (too me) pretty hard to pull off. A 18 cha character will have +4 to all the relevant skills, you will have a penalty... meaning multiple skill points into every skill.

But roughly speaking the quetsion of this thread was not (as I see it) IF it could be possible to do a "face-character " with low cha, but about thoughts about different ways of dividing the cha stat. As I said you can divide a stat-system up (and you can also make systems without central stats) the way you like it, and this thread was to discuss a multitude of ways of treating it, and not yet another debate about whetehr cha in DnD is good or not. For some characters I amn sure cha in DnD works well, but I think it is also clear that different systems and ways of dealing with a stat can have DIFFERENT advantages.

SimonMoon6 post a very different version of how charisma can work. IS it better or worse than the DnD-way? Well is certainly different and allows for another type of interaction and will generate different types of characters.

Icewraith
2015-11-17, 06:21 PM
Well... normally what I do with my character is role-playing... it is called role-playing games you know. I agree in a Warhammer battle game I don't care if any of my figures are attractive (as a stat).

In a very combat oriented game, out of combat stuff tends to be downplayed. But several skills and feats in DnD (and most other games) also primarily have out of combat uses.

The question is what sort of game you play. In a combat game requiring high degrees of optimization I agree attractiveness doesn't matter, it does however if the game have a lot of social interaction.



If it is claimed that charisma isn't a part of your "talent" for all the charisma based stuff, then it is re-fluffing it. Yes some of it can be modified with feats (which we could also say is talent). But saying that skills isn't acquired through training would be re-fluffing your. character.But I agree that in DnD charisma ius only one part of being what we could call a "charismatic" person. It reflects the basic natural "talent" within that sphere. A high charisma means that with very little effort you will get good at social stuff. The half-orc warrior really have to sacrifice a lot to be as good as the halfling bard at leadership and intimidation. This is because Charisma is a mix of different aspects, both attractiveness (bad for the orc) some semi-magical force (powering the bards magic), and the ability to interact socially. Its hard to make a character that really excels in on aspect, but not in the others. A sorcerer or bard is ALWAYS good at persuading people and will get positive reactions etc (at least better than average).

If attractiveness, force of personality and social talent is split up, you get a different dynamic. I dont know what the OP intends, but to me it seems he wants input on how to make such divisions, not discuss whether charisma is a good game mechanic in DnD.

Let me specify- it only comes up during certain types of role play, and it mechanically penalizes people who want to play characters that are attractive. Now if you want to be the party face and the party Lothario you need to sink two high scores into roleplay stats whereas before you only needed to sink one. Most of the time, the single "roleplay stat" still enhances your character's survivability because your spell DCs are determined by CHA, and there are still the occasional attacks that require CHA-based saves to resist if you're not a CHA-based spellcaster, plus the normal party face skills that are CHA based. There are no built-in mechanical attacks or defenses for your homebrew stat. If you're assigning scores, and your character's attractiveness is important to you, suddenly attractiveness is competing for the stat you'd usually assign to CON, i.e. "ability to survive getting hit by a sword" or DEX (AC for light and medium armor, plus initiative and many ranged attacks, and resisting most aoe spells. If you assign a lower score to DEX than you would otherwise to have a high attractiveness, by making your character prettier you're making them more susceptible to things like dragonfire and disintegration. Even worse, to get a REALLY high attractiveness you'd need to devote an ASI or two to max it out.

Now, if you're doing something like point buy for normal stats and rolling homebrew stats, that's a bit better, because your homebrew stat isn't competing for resources with the normal stats used to mechanically affect gameplay in combat. However, that also robs the player of control over their character (I want to play a sexy elf sorceress!... *roll* okay, I'm playing an ugly elf sorceress? Yay?), which is kind of the point of point buy. It's also a great way to put off new players (see previous sentence).

If you want a way to measure a character's physical attractiveness you can always just use CON or an average of the three Physical scores. High CON characters resist disease better and have higher endurance than low CON characters, both of which factor heavily into personal appearance. Plus, everyone wants it as their second or third stat anyways.

So if a character's attractiveness isn't already baked into the system and balanced around being there, simply tacking on an attractiveness stat that uses the same resources has a number of mechanical drawbacks for your players and results in additional bookkeeping.

goto124
2015-11-17, 08:24 PM
It practically enforces Stormwind Fallacy. You can't have someone who's good at both combat and social interactions. "I could've convinced the king to help us for [valid reasons], but I don't have enough Charisma/Convinceness/blah because I spent the points on Constitution to have HP to survive/Sword skill to be able to fight/etc?"

Cue the party made of four combat unsocial beasts, with one bard who maxxed out all the social stats and skills. Thank goodness Charisma powers spells as well, allowing the bard to be a buffer and/or controller during combat. Instead of the bard player playing the ranger's animal companion during battles.

Though... you could have separate pools of points for 'combat' and 'social interaction'.

Raimun
2015-11-17, 08:44 PM
What lvl? At lvl 1-5 it seem (too me) pretty hard to pull off. A 18 cha character will have +4 to all the relevant skills, you will have a penalty... meaning multiple skill points into every skill.

Since the 1st level. Suffice to say, I didn't go about it the traditional way. Everything beyond that is a trade secret.



But roughly speaking the quetsion of this thread was not (as I see it) IF it could be possible to do a "face-character " with low cha, but about thoughts about different ways of dividing the cha stat.

The point of the "CHA 7-Party Face"-story is that while this character lacked charisma, leadership qualities and (most likely) seductive attractiveness, he was very convincing, both with deception and persuasion, because he had the uncanny knack to make reasonable and well thought arguments. I should have probably elaborated like this but I was kind of in a hurry when I first wrote about this.

Thing is, your Charisma-score isn't the only thing that determines your success while interacting with NPCs in RPGs.

LudicSavant
2015-11-17, 08:46 PM
What lvl? At lvl 1-5 it seem (too me) pretty hard to pull off.

It really isn't.