HE JUST CANT PLAY LOW CHARISMA (PathFinder) HELP ASAP DMING TONIGHT

[Reingar]

Hello everyone,

I'm in need of your wisdom for a problem i have with a player in terms of how he should play a low charisma character.
He is playing a 1lvl wizard (illusion school) and he has 9 charisma but it is impossible for him to rp that stat.
Let me give you an example.
They were sitting in the local inn to discuss about what their next target when suddenly the innkeeper came and told them that it is an honor that they chose this inn and that everything is paid for them. The party was very happy until he came from the toilet and bluff them saying he secretly owns this place and he is the reason they drink and stay for free and of course everybody failed the check when someone is trolling and totaly believed it.
He managed to do that by using the spell disguise self to make him look like the mayor and bluffed the inkeeper that he pays for everything that his party will take. But thats not the end he treated shots everybody including the inkeeper and made them drunk just to have fun.

I keep telling him to play a sorcerer since he only likes pure spellcasters but he refuses. I know him irl and believe me that he is the definition of 18 charisma. He is a f@!#$@ Bard not a Wizard or fighter or anything else.

Since i am not a very experienced dm and dont want to ruin the fun ( it was hilarious btw) i ask you shall i accept that kind of rp or let him play like that ignoring the rules.

Sorry for the looooooooong post.

A desperate DM.

[weckar]

I... honestly don't see the problem. So his Charisma is a single point below the average. He likes to have fun with people. He used skill ranks (and skill rank boosters) to overcome his natural handicap.

I don't see the issue. Just because you're not naturally good at something, doesn't mean you don't like to do it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'd like to ask you a question: does any player seem to have a problem with this? As in, is he stealing the thunder of a player who actually invested in a high charisma character so he could do stuff like this, but who doesn't get a chance because the wizard got to it first?

And a second question: The parts where he's basically forcing the other players to believe stuff or do stuff, have you considered just not letting him do that? A lot of GM's treat social skill rolls as something to be used when interacting with NPC's. A roll decides how the butler react after you punch him in the face and call his dog a mother, but if someone punches you in the face you decide how to react to that, because you know your character better than the dice do. After all, you're allowing the wizard player to control his own character...

[Chronikoce]

Well 9 is only slightly below average (human average is 10 charisma). An 18 in any stat is nearly inhuman, it's unlikely your friend is anywhere near that irl.

As for the scenario in question, you said he used a spell to disguise himself as the mayor (did he roll a disguise check?) and then lied quite a bit (did he make several bluff checks?).

Is that normal behavior for the mayor he was impersonating? If not, then I'd imagine people would get suspicious really fast. Second, he "bought" rounds of drinks for everyone while pretending to be the mayor. That sounds like the sort of thing where word gets out into the street and more people start showing up (which increases the chance that someone make a sense motive check to notice the lies).

My thinking is I would have let him roleplay his character but I'd be enforcing the rules for bluff, disguise, sense motive.

[Vhaidara]

Yeah, stats are far from everything. Having a high Charisma just means that social stuff is more natural to the character. Ranks represent practice/experience, and rolling high represents being a lucky bastard. Hell, especially at low levels, that last one is by FAR the most important of the three.

Additionally, these actions will have consequences. Your wizard just impersonated the mayor, and the innkeeper now expects the mayor to pay for the party's expenses. How is the mayor going to react to that when the innkeeper tries to collect his money?

[Venger]

Your character's ability scores do not impose restrictions on how you're allowed to roleplay them.

[Reingar]

Thank you for your fast response. The session ended there so i havent taken action for the impersonation so far.
He treated everyone since everything was free for the party and not by being the mayor.
Our Cleric is having fun as well but since he has high charisma (15) and want to lead the party he told him out of game that he cant do that kind of actions and be the face of the party with that score.

We dont have a problem with his rp because we know he doesn't do it on purpose and its his nature to act like that and thats why i try to persuade him to play a high charisma class. He always create a character with 8-9 cha just for the spare points.
Truth is im suprised that many of you actually find his action ok stat-wise as long as he got the skill check pass.
So if my BSF start making molotov by combining alcohol and fire it would be ok too? Wouldnt that be metagaming?
The true question is how i can convince him to start playing classes like Sorceror,bard,Ninja because if he did it he would really shine.

I know that 18 cha is inhuman i just wanted to emphasize that he is a socialcoholic.

[TheIronGolem]

Your character's ability scores do not impose restrictions on how you're allowed to roleplay them.

Very much this. There's no such thing as "playing low Charisma".

If you think your player is getting too much influence over NPC's with his real-life social skills, you probably need to be calling for more skill checks in-game and playing the NPC's reactions according to those rolls. There, his low CHA will be the disadvantage that it's supposed to be. Just make sure you play fair by basing reactions on the actual roll results and not some vindictive desire to punish him for playing against your conception of what low CHA is "supposed" to look like.

[DeTess]

Thank you for your fast response. The session ended there so i havent taken action for the impersonation so far.
He treated everyone since everything was free for the party and not by being the mayor.
Our Cleric is having fun as well but since he has high charisma (15) and want to lead the party he told him out of game that he cant do that kind of actions and be the face of the party with that score.

We dont have a problem with his rp because we know he doesn't do it on purpose and its his nature to act like that and thats why i try to persuade him to play a high charisma class. He always create a character with 8-9 cha just for the spare points.
Truth is im suprised that many of you actually find his action ok stat-wise as long as he got the skill check pass.
So if my BSF start making molotov by combining alcohol and fire it would be ok too? Wouldnt that be metagaming?
The true question is how i can convince him to start playing classes like Sorceror,bard,Ninja because if he did it he would really shine.

I know that 18 cha is inhuman i just wanted to emphasize that he is a socialcoholic.

If your BSF has either a decent intelligence or ranks in craft (alchemy), I'd be completely fine with it. Same thing here, if he has low Charisma, but ranks in bluff/diplomacy/etc. it means that he's actually worked to get good at it.

Regarding your cleric: is he actually attempting to be the party leader and face, or is he just saying 'I have a 15 in this stat, so I should be the boss'? If he's doing the second option, then I would be completely fine with the 8-9 cha character taking a leadership position if he is actually taking it.

[Venger]

Thank you for your fast response. The session ended there so i havent taken action for the impersonation so far.
He treated everyone since everything was free for the party and not by being the mayor.
Our Cleric is having fun as well but since he has high charisma (15) and want to lead the party he told him out of game that he cant do that kind of actions and be the face of the party with that score.

We dont have a problem with his rp because we know he doesn't do it on purpose and its his nature to act like that and thats why i try to persuade him to play a high charisma class. He always create a character with 8-9 cha just for the spare points.
Truth is im suprised that many of you actually find his action ok stat-wise as long as he got the skill check pass.
So if my BSF start making molotov by combining alcohol and fire it would be ok too? Wouldnt that be metagaming?
The true question is how i can convince him to start playing classes like Sorceror,bard,Ninja because if he did it he would really shine.

I know that 18 cha is inhuman i just wanted to emphasize that he is a socialcoholic.

Again, your cleric player is wrong. Ability scores don't have a raw restriction of how you're allowed to roleplay.

Just because someone is outgoing ooc doesn't mean you ought to restrict them to social classes or cha-focused characters in the game. everyone dumps cha if you don't cast off it, that's just a normal part of playing D&D.

yes we do because this is the entire reason the skill system exists.

yes, that's okay, no it's not metagaming. this unrelated example which you expected us to agree with sounds like you've already made up your mind about how to enforce this player's roleplay regardless of the actual rules.

if your conclusion was already to try to browbeat this player into social classes (what is ninja doing on this list) then what advice are you looking for? aside from agreed-upon restrictions before you set up the game (e.g. no t1s, this is a low op game, etc) people ought to be able to play the classes they like rather than the gm assigning them based on ooc characteristics. aside from just telling him "i will only let you play x, y, and z classes," there's no way to force a player to choose certain classes.

[Reingar]

If i start calling checks every time he unconsciously sweat talk and be diplomatic he will not have a good time guys.
Its not about stats but more about unleashing his potential. Dont get me wrong, im not here to enforce my belief to my friend but to find a solution for awakening his bard within.

[Swaoeaeieu]

i agree with the fine folks here saying 9 charisma does not mean you cant be a party-man if he actually put the skillpoints into it.
do remember that if he bluffs the party they all get sense motives to see through it, as do all the npc's

a player can play his character however he wants to, the stats just show if you are good at it or not. A detective with 5 int would be weird. but a 9 isnt that low and charisma is a weird to define stat anyway.

so in your case i dont see much of a problem.

[Venger]

If i start calling checks every time he unconsciously sweat talk and be diplomatic he will not have a good time guys.
Its not about stats but more about unleashing his potential. Dont get me wrong, im not here to enforce my belief to my friend but to find a solution for awakening his bard within.

so, if you don't want to impose more arbitrary checks, and aren't talking about forcing him to play a different class, what are you talking about?

[martixy]

Well 9 is only slightly below average (human average is 10 charisma). An 18 in any stat is nearly inhuman, it's unlikely your friend is anywhere near that irl.

My crusade continues...

18 isn't inhuman, 18 around the peak of natural human talent.

around = it can vary both ways
natural talent = without training

Actual peak human performance is about 22-24.
That's olympic athletes at the top of their game, outlier geniuses, skilled prodigies who have cultivated their natural talents to something that really is nearly inhuman.

[Geddy2112]

You have never seen a socially awkward person walk up to a group, totally ignoring social graces, and start spouting nonsense? 9 CHA is barely below average, but super low charisma might be totally withdrawn, or so blind to social norms they just start talking at you about how they indeed are the mayor.


Your character's ability scores do not impose restrictions on how you're allowed to roleplay them.

This. It goes the same for utterly superhuman scores. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent individual, but how and the heck do I have a chance to match my wizard's 22 intelligence? Anything over 20 is superhuman. A lot of the smartest people who have ever lived fall in around 18-20. 9 is almost average, and in a lot of situations barely noticeable. It is a -1 to rolls, which can matter but is just a -1.

There are several traits that allow you to use INT instead of CHA for social skills, and classes that do the same. It is not unheard of that somebody can just be so smart they can overcome their slightly offputting demeanor.

Also, consider the effect of training vs raw ability. A bard with 10 intelligence and 1 rank in a knowledge knows as much as a wizard with 18 intelligence and no ranks in the same knowledge. If the bard has 12 intelligence, he knows more.

If the cleric player wants to lead, then he should just start doing it. If the wizard wants to be social, he can too. They are not the same thing. Let him be zany, and when the wizard is done the cleric can come in and show who truly has commanding authority. Being the face is important, but it is not grounds to throw everyone else in the corner and make them shut up. Just because they have a low charisma and no ranks in social skills does not bar them from playing the social aspects of the game, the same that low int prevents somebody from being good at skills or a low strength barrs somebody from fighting in melee.

[martixy]

Anything over 20 is superhuman.

NO. Blasted character limit.


My crusade continues...

18 isn't inhuman, 18 around the peak of natural human talent.

around = it can vary both ways
natural talent = without training

Actual peak human performance is about 22-24.
That's olympic athletes at the top of their game, outlier geniuses, skilled prodigies who have cultivated their natural talents to something that really is nearly inhuman.

[Psyren]

Sounds like the issue here is that he is (IRL) naturally charismatic and so the group defers to him to do the talking even when he isn't playing a face character. Rightly so since he's apparently good at it.

The easiest solution is to just let him use a different stat for his face stuff, then he won't have to try and "downplay." I would have him take a trait like Student of Philosophy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/student-of-philosophy/) and play normally - that solves the problem for everybody.

[Reingar]

Martixy chill about the actual stat to life comparison it was a honest mistake (twice). OK you are right, snap out of it. <3

Venger dont you think that if i wanted to enforce my opinion i could easily do it? Ninjas cant dump cha thats why i mention it

I asked help because i thought i wouldnt be the only one who have someone acting out of character and i wanted to see how you dealt with that kind of situation. Is like having a friend who can paint like da Vinci but refuses to even draw a stickman. Would you try to make up his mind to at least try it?

[Grod_The_Giant]

You should allow him to play however he wants, and you should use the rules. That means calling for checks when they're required. You don't need to ask every thirty seconds, but if he's spinning lies, he needs to make a Bluff check to see if he's believable. If he's disguising himself, he needs to make a Disguise check to see if he's behaving correctly for the impersonation. Feel free to give bonuses for good roleplaying, but you shouldn't allow natural social grace to totally overwrite the rules.

Wizard with low Cha wants to lie? The Cha doesn't matter, and neither do his metagame social skills; roll Bluff. Fighter with a low Int wants to make a bomb? The Int doesn't matter, and neither does his metagame bomb-making knowledge; roll Craft.

EDIT:

I asked help because i thought i wouldnt be the only one who have someone acting out of character and i wanted to see how you dealt with that kind of situation. Is like having a friend who can paint like da Vinci but refuses to even draw a stickman. Would you try to make up his mind to at least try it?
The DM's job isn't to police their players' roleplaying, or to force them to take one role over another. If your friend wants to play a Wizard, let them play a Wizard. You can suggest other things, bring their attention to options they might not be aware of, but that's all.

[Geddy2112]

My crusade continues...

18 isn't inhuman, 18 around the peak of natural human talent.

around = it can vary both ways
natural talent = without training

Actual peak human performance is about 22-24.
That's olympic athletes at the top of their game, outlier geniuses, skilled prodigies who have cultivated their natural talents to something that really is nearly inhuman.

I said superhuman, not inhuman. It is certainly possible to break 20 and hit 22-24, but at this level it is superhuman compared to the rest of us. These people have Olympic medals, Nobel prizes, places named after them, and become names in the history books.

As far as the character playing "out of character". It is THEIR character, not yours. They can play it however the heck they want. As the DM it is not your job to tell them how to play their character, regardless of stats. They can do what they want, then you as the DM get to determine the consequences of the actions. Normally, we call for a roll as a neutral arbiter, with all of the bonuses and penalties to the check. If the results are painfully clear, there is no chance of success/failure, or the outcome does not matter, no roll is needed. The wizard lying about being the mayor is tough, but with a decent disguise not impossible. Roll and see what happens.

[Reingar]

Sounds like the issue here is that he is (IRL) naturally charismatic and so the group defers to him to do the talking even when he isn't playing a face character. Rightly so since he's apparently good at it.

Thats the actual problem, thank you Psyren.

[denthor]

Ok in my game charisma is the basis for luck. If you as a DM have a decision to make about say how good is the:

camp site

The detailed plan the party made how well do they coordinate.

Which gaurd is on duty with the orcs. Are the orcs getting drunk while on gaurd duty are they in fact asleep? Roll a d20 luck roll plus or minus cha modifier.

In this case it is not about fun it is about game mechanics he can do what he is doing but eventually it may catch up to him. Others have pointed out that the mayor will not pay this get the local law involved. They get to have trouble for interacting like this the inn keeper knows which party got what for free.

He can bar them from the inn what is his alignment? Lawful would be highly offended

Chaotic may laugh it off.

Neutral you got me once.

Good did not hurt me. Maybe some come back find this place to have a good time

Neutral you got me once. Your party pays in advance.

Evil. Pay triple everything is fine . Do not tell them he will pay 4 times to send people after them to kill them. LE especially. NE just for fun and clear the board of good people . CE I am in charge and money says so.

[RoboEmperor]

What's the problem here?

If he beats the opponent's Sense Motive with his pathetic Charisma, kudos for him.

If he pumps up his bluff as a wizard and beats the opponent's Sense Motive with his pathetic Charisma, kudos for him.

What's the problem here?

[martixy]

I think, you as the DM, have leave to make the world react in such a way as to mitigate some of that discrepancy. You can ask for relevant checks, have NPCs react
according to his character, not the human.

But even so, you can let him be his charismatic self during banter without breaking the game. And if he's actually making the checks, you've got nothing to worry about, it means he's specifically invested character resources to make sure there's less metagaming on his part.


I said superhuman, not inhuman.
Technically super means beyond. By definition no human can be superhuman.

[TheIronGolem]

I asked help because i thought i wouldnt be the only one who have someone acting out of character and i wanted to see how you dealt with that kind of situation.

You've not presented any evidence that this player is "acting out of character".


Is like having a friend who can paint like da Vinci but refuses to even draw a stickman. Would you try to make up his mind to at least try it?

No, I wouldn't. If my friend doesn't want to paint then I'm not going to try to make him, and I'm certainly not going to ask for advice on how to stop him from doing the woodworking he's expressed interest in. I'm his friend, not his life coach.

[Zanos]

Your character's ability scores do not impose restrictions on how you're allowed to roleplay them.
I don't exactly agree. An Intelligence 18 character should be roleplayed differently from an Intelligence 6 character, and having cripplingly weak strength means that your character shouldn't be roleplaying throwing around barroom tables. I agree in spirit that nearly any personality can exist with any ability scores, but ability scores affect your character's capabilities, which are a part of roleplay. A character with 20 in all mental stats probably should be a good deal more insightful than a character with 6 in all of them.

That said having 9 in a stat really isn't that low. It's within average range. And if you can overcome your natural penalties with training and magic, then more power to them. If they can make the check, they can make the check.

[Telonius]

The character is not naturally good at things that require charisma. "Not naturally good at" is not the same thing as "doomed to forever suck at." That's why there are skill ranks (representing training) and spells (which can make it so natural propensity doesn't matter in the slightest).

Regarding low charisma being the same thing as "not outgoing" - the two are usually seen as related, but they're not identical. He might be outgoing, but a bit abrasive.

In the case you outlined, it sounds like he got through one situation with a combination of magic and lucky rolls. That's totally fine! Every Disguise Self he uses on a guard is a Grease not being used on a monster. If he decides to take full-time face duties, he's going to have a lot more checks to make in the future, and not all of them will end that well.

[RoboEmperor]

having cripplingly weak strength means that your character shouldn't be roleplaying throwing around barroom tables.

This is incorrect. You don't roleplay this. You look up weight and throwing rules and calculate whether the character can do it.

Slow players can't roleplay a super computer, and introverted players can't roleplay a charismatic character, which is why dice exist. So the characters can do what the player can't yet wish to do. So logically speaking, how a player roleplays his character is completely irrelevant, because of dice rolls. If a perceptive player with 6 wis character pick up on something, you roll for it and roleplay accordingly to the die results.

[icefractal]

You know what stands out to me? The Cleric with Cha 15 thinking that makes him "party leader". Having a party leader is not usually a good idea. And to even possibly work, it has to be a person the /players/ want to follow, not based on some number on the character sheet.

It's the same principle as "Diplomacy doesn't work on other PCs" - the actual enjoyment and agency of the people at the table is more important than what a fictional character wants or would do.

In the cases I have seen it work, such as "captain of a ship", the real arrangement has been "We agree what we want to do OOC, then the captain orders it IC." Or in games like AW where social PVP is very much on the table and 'the party implodes' is an acceptable outcome.

[Psyren]

What's the problem here?

If he beats the opponent's Sense Motive with his pathetic Charisma, kudos for him.

If he pumps up his bluff as a wizard and beats the opponent's Sense Motive with his pathetic Charisma, kudos for him.

What's the problem here?


You've not presented any evidence that this player is "acting out of character".

I think the issue is that the player is much more charismatic than his character, and so his skillful social interactions are breaking immersion (at least, for the GM they are.) A similar situation to this is if you have the most clever/rules-savvy player playing a half-orc barbarian with 6 Int, but yet he's the one coming up with all the brilliant solutions to the puzzles, or planning all the party's strategy and tactics, etc.

Normally this would be easily solved by having all the "brainstorming" be OOC. So the savvy player (Bob) comes up with the solution, but someone else actually rolls the dice and says "My character is going to try what Bob was talking about."

The tricky part comes when Bob's idea involves something only Bob can do - such as the "Disguise Self" trick mentioned in the OP. He can't cast that on someone else, so the interaction by necessity has to be coming from Bob. And while it's certainly fair to just have Bob roll anyway and let the dice fall where they may, it can also feel disappointing if, due to his low modifier, a really great idea ends up being thrown out. But having it auto-succeed, or assigning a huge circumstance modifier, can feel lame too - especially when you then have to come up with different circumstance modifiers for each, well, circumstance, slowing down play.

This is why I personally feel the Trait/stat-swap solution is best.



In the cases I have seen it work, such as "captain of a ship", the real arrangement has been "We agree what we want to do OOC, then the captain orders it IC."

Indeed, this solves it 90% of the time, you just need a plan (such as the above) for the 10% when the "what we want to do" is something the captain cannot actually pull off himself.

EDIT:


Thats the actual problem, thank you Psyren.

No problem, let me know if any of the above is incorrect as well.

[Zanos]

If a perceptive player with 6 wis character pick up on something, you roll for it and roleplay accordingly to the die results.
Well, that's kinda my point. Your modifiers do affect your roleplay because dice are a part of roleplay.

[dascarletm]

If I'm getting this straight, we have an illusionist wizard with 9 Cha. The player is charismatic IRL, and that is translating to his character in-game. You don't want to ruin his fun by imposing dice rolls however.

I think you need to impose the dice rolls regardless. Don't call for them every time he says anything at all, only when it is important. The question I want answered, is how high are his social skill modifiers (with and without spell bonuses). If they are high due to skill ranks, good on him, otherwise he should fail. His character by all means can try to be charismatic, that doesn't mean he is.

Examples:

Player: "Hey tavern lady, *smooth-talk,* *smooth-talk.*"
GM: She smiles back at you, and brings you your ale. (No roll)
Player: I want to ask her on a date since she smiled at me.
GM: Roll a diplomacy.
At this point either he rolls well (a reasonable DC you set) and succeeds, or he doesn't and she declines. His personal gravitas may have made his proposal and flirting seem like something she would like, but you have to translate in your mind how the player delivered it, to the character. It is the same thing you would do if you had a player with low charisma playing a high charisma character, but in reverse.

For the mayor scene, I wouldn't have him roll except when he actually tries to get something. (the free drinks for example). This may reduce the player's fun somewhat, but it should increase the quality of the game. Hopefully he can find fun in failure. As an extreme example would you force a player to roll attacks if they found it more fun if every attack was a crit for them?

[lord_khaine]

Reading the original post it seems like he does indeed roll disguise and sense motive.
What seems to be the GM's problem, is that he is not acting like a shy introvert, hiding in a corner and only speaking when spoken to.
But instead takes charge, and generally act like the face/leader of the party.

[KillianHawkeye]

Honestly, the smartest guy in the room probably SHOULD be the leader of the party, even if his personality is a little rough around the edges. You don't need Charisma to be a leader (although it gives you a good head start).

[TheIronGolem]

Reading the original post it seems like he does indeed roll disguise and sense motive.
What seems to be the GM's problem, is that he is not acting like a shy introvert, hiding in a corner and only speaking when spoken to.
But instead takes charge, and generally act like the face/leader of the party.

Which, frankly, is the GM's problem. Going by what information we have, the only thing the player is doing "wrong" is defying the GM's rather narrow expectations of what a low-CHA character "should" act like.

[dascarletm]

Reading the original post it seems like he does indeed roll disguise and sense motive.
What seems to be the GM's problem, is that he is not acting like a shy introvert, hiding in a corner and only speaking when spoken to.
But instead takes charge, and generally act like the face/leader of the party.


Which, frankly, is the GM's problem. Going by what information we have, the only thing the player is doing "wrong" is defying the GM's rather narrow expectations of what a low-CHA character "should" act like.

I agree with TheIronGolem. It is as if the DM has never met a talkative low charisma person, in-fact I'd not relate charisma to intro/extroversion. The trope of charisma being tied to it is quite wrong. My wife for example was quite charismatic but introverted, and I know many non-charismatic extroverts. They have little to do with one another (besides outsider impressions).

[King of Nowhere]

I have a high charisma player playing a barbarian with a charisma of 5, and I eventually got over him being the face of the party. Several reasons for it:

1) the player is such a natural leader that his fellow players defer to him anyway
2) he is the most invested into the story, the one who pays more attention to clues and lore
3) he's the most skilled player, and so he generally comes up with the better ideas.

Fortunately, he's at least got above average int and wis, so it makes sort of sense for him to be that way. Regarding social interations, he should be terrible, but he has a few things working for him

1) he has invested a lot in intimidate, and he's incredibly scary. This is helped by the fact that I let him use str instead of cha for intimidate checks when he's realistically treatening immediate physical violence (I do it because it makes sense; if someone 2 mt high and with shoulders equally wide threatens to punch you in a dark alley, I don't care how stupid he sounds doing it, I'd feel very intimidated by his size alone. If he tried the same in the central square with plenty of witnessses and cops around, I'd just laugh in his face instead, because in that situation it's not realistic that he'd beat me up), but even without this houserule he maxed intimidate and got magic items to further buff it.
2) he talks sense. This is something that is often underestimated when discussing charisma. If you make a reasonable proposal, it doesn't matter how low your charisma is, the proposal will probably be accepted. And this player is a very good at playing with people by giving them what they want in a way that still lets him come out on top.

So this guy is either intimidating people who are within the reach of his arms, or he's offering proposals that are reasonable enough that they don't need diplomacy to pass.

In those cases when instead he'd need to use diplomacy, we just pretend that it was the diplomatic cleric who made the proposal. The cleric is fine with that.

Far more problematic, I noticed, was his skill to sweet-talk the DM. He persuaded me to let him find a lot of level-inappropriate magic items, and by the time I realized how badly it was skewing balance I had to lavish items on the rest of the party too in order to keep balance. And buff all their opponents.
So, let him be the face of the party, but be careful and don't let him get his way too often regarding loot, xp, and the direction of the plot. That's the best advice I can give.

EDIT:

I agree with TheIronGolem. It is as if the DM has never met a talkative low charisma person, in-fact I'd not relate charisma to intro/extroversion. The trope of charisma being tied to it is quite wrong. My wife for example was quite charismatic but introverted, and I know many non-charismatic extroverts. They have little to do with one another (besides outsider impressions).
Well, he probably met many, but he assumed they were high-charisma because they were talkative.
Actually the least charismatic person I know is vvery talkative, she tries to engage conversation with anyone, and she is incredibly boring and annoying. Unfortunately, she's low also on int and wis, so she doesn't take hints that her attempts at conversation aren't well received.

[Drakevarg]

Overall I'm going to say that the DM's point of view isn't wrong so much as it is insufficiently right.

I think it's true that natural geniuses shouldn't bring that to the table when they decide they want to play Oog the Barbarian with an INT of 6, and smooth talkers who could charm the pants off of every player at the table if they put their mind to it shouldn't do that if they decided to roll a churlish thug with a black hole where their Charisma score should be.

That said, a 9 in Charisma is hardly that. It's well within the normal range. And as other people have said, low CHA doesn't mean introvert and high CHA doesn't mean extrovert. What it means is that unlike in real life, when your charismatic friend's not-particularly-charismatic wizard tries to do the same sort of stuff that come naturally to the player, he sucks at it. This is why we have all these elaborately shaped slightly mathematical candies dice at the table. So let him try his social gadfly stuff. Just make him roll for it.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

If i start calling checks every time he unconsciously sweat talk and be diplomatic he will not have a good time guys.
Its not about stats but more about unleashing his potential. Dont get me wrong, im not here to enforce my belief to my friend but to find a solution for awakening his bard within.

If the only way for him to have fun is to ignore the rules and make Charisma skill ranks meaningless, then he won't have fun playing Pathfinder. Make him roll. The situation you desvribe is exactly why we have social skill checks rather than freeform "pure roleplay"

[Zanos]

Well, you really shouldn't be rolling diplomacy vs PCs anyway.

[PacMan2247]

If i start calling checks every time he unconsciously sweat talk and be diplomatic he will not have a good time guys.
Its not about stats but more about unleashing his potential. Dont get me wrong, im not here to enforce my belief to my friend but to find a solution for awakening his bard within.

Is this really what you meant to say? If someone is going to sweet talk an NPC into doing something they normally wouldn't, it's a Diplomacy roll. If someone's going to lie, it's Bluff opposed by the other character's Sense Motive. You don't have to make a skill check for every sentence, but there should be one for each objective. Opportunity costs exist everywhere in life; if he wants to play a character who can do a certain thing, he needs to build a character to do that thing, whether it's by taking levels toward a particular class feature or investing skill points or whatever.

More concerning in this post is the disconnect it suggests between not enforcing your belief and trying to coerce your friend to play a character you think they should play. The DM controls everything in the world that isn't a PC. Let the players control their characters.

[Chronikoce]

My crusade continues...

18 isn't inhuman, 18 around the peak of natural human talent.

around = it can vary both ways
natural talent = without training

Actual peak human performance is about 22-24.
That's olympic athletes at the top of their game, outlier geniuses, skilled prodigies who have cultivated their natural talents to something that really is nearly inhuman.

Could you read before responding? I said nearly inhuman in my original post for a reason.

-Edit-
To clarify, I said nearly inhuman. You quoted me saying nearly inhuman, then you proceeded to tell me how it was just nearly inhuman.

[Esprit15]

Low charisma, as has been established by many others, is 1) not much different than 10 charisma in this instance, and b) representative of so many things that it is honestly quite doable so long as mechanically the consequences follow the actions. If he lies and succeeds, someone is successfully swindled. If they lie and fail, maybe the obvious smirk on his face gives away the trick. If he botched a diplomacy roll, he most likely was too boisterous for people, or took the wrong tone, or any number of things that a more charismatic person would have done with more finess.

A current game I'm playing in, with a CHA 8 snow elf, the character is simply gruff and straightforward. They can be charming if they need to, but normally they don't really want to bother. The instance you mentioned sounds like a time when maybe the character was so inclined, whether for amusement or simply to show off. If it really bothers you though, just talk to the dude. You'll make way more progress there than venting to us here.

[Kobold Esq]

The "leader" versus "face" dichotomy is interesting. Think the A-Team, comparing Hannibal and Face. The brains of the operation doesn't need to be the social skills person. The social interaction should be governed by the appropriate game mechanic rolls (bluff/diplomacy/sense motive/etc).

My longest running character was a ridiculously smart elven loremaster/archmage. She was the leader of the party in the sense that she came up with the plans, knew all the lore, suggested battle strategy, etc, and most of the players deferred to my suggestions. (it helps that I was one of the biggest min-maxers and "rules afficiandos" in our group, so the DM let the eventual 25+ Int and crazy knowledge skills allow for some metagaming on my part now and then). But at the end of the day, she was an arrogant, short tempered ******* of a wizard. You would not want her negotiating with the enemy for the release of hostages, or sweet talking the dragon into letting us escape with the MacGuffin. But she was smart enough to recognize her limitations, so she'd let our pixie rogue be the pretty face.

Who "leads" the party is really a purely player/player issue. It has very little to do with what is written on paper. Now who the party chooses to represent them when in negotiations, that is entirely different.

[ATHATH]

I'm curious- What thought process lead you to use an all-caps, clickbait-esque title while all of the other threads here, well, didn't?

[EldritchWeaver]

I'm curious- What thought process lead you to use an all-caps, clickbait-esque title while all of the other threads here, well, didn't?

"I need to get answers as soon as possible!" would be my guess. Which doesn't take into account that such a title without caps is still interesting for the forum-natives.

[Reingar]

Thank you all for responding. Indeed i needed a fast answer because as i said i would play tonight with the guys. I also thought i could change later the title but with zero success ;).

I want to make some things clear because i guess many of you consider me selfish for trying to help my friend play something that in my opinion suits him.

1st. Im not going to force him to play his stat or even deny him playing ooc. DnD for me is be whatever you want and sometimes you are that 1 in a milion prodigy child that his name will never be forgotten or sometimes you are Boromir (no explanation needed).

2nd. After all the responses yesterday i decided to give him a cool scar in the face in order to justify his charisma score without having to make a fuzz. Did i make a right call?
Depending of your answer his scar will be permanent or heal completely after a couple of weeks.

3rd. Can i ask about the alignments here or i shall make a new post?

[Shark Uppercut]

I decided to give him a cool scar in the face in order to justify his charisma score without having to make a fuzz. Did i make a right call?
Depending of your answer his scar will be permanent or heal completely after a couple of weeks.

No, because he's an Illusionist and anytime that his scar would make a difference, he would cover it up, in-character, with makeup or magic.
Out-of-character, illusion magic generally gives +10 Disguise which makes the -1 Cha unnoticeable. I do hope he found a way to make Disguise a class skill, there's probably an archetype that does.

Also because it's his character, not yours.


3rd. Can i ask about the alignments here or i shall make a new post?
Dear god not again.
Your choice, but if you post here 50% of the responses will be people who only read the first post, about the guy with 9 Charisma.
If it helps,
1) Make the Paladin do the honorable thing.
2) Make the Cleric do what their god would do.
3) If the book says an item, spell or monster is chaotic/lawful/good/evil/neutral, it probably is.
4) Ignore everything else, including alignment restrictions, and let the town guard take care of it in-game.

[lord_khaine]

2nd. After all the responses yesterday i decided to give him a cool scar in the face in order to justify his charisma score without having to make a fuzz. Did i make a right call?
Depending of your answer his scar will be permanent or heal completely after a couple of weeks.

Im honestly not certain.
But instead i will ask you, Why do you need to justify his Charisma score in the first place?
Charisma is not the same as apperance.

And also, when it comes to talking with people, what then is the actual gameplay difference between someone with 12 in Charisma, and 0 diplomacy ranks.
Compared to someone with 9 in Charisma, and 2 diplomacy rank?

Or asked another way, why do you want to try and create a difference between those two people, when they are equally good at speaking with people?
They are just a demonstration of natural talent and practice arriving at the same destination.

I mean, there are also people in real life for whom it comes naturally to speak with others. And there are people who have to practice doing so, because their job demands it. But that still dont mean the latter group cant get good at it.

[RoboEmperor]

2nd. After all the responses yesterday i decided to give him a cool scar in the face in order to justify his charisma score without having to make a fuzz. Did i make a right call?
Depending of your answer his scar will be permanent or heal completely after a couple of weeks.

Why does he need a scar? I think you don't understand d&d's charisma all that well.

Charisma is offensive willpower, a person's ability to enforce their will on others. Anything that forces the target to do your bidding is a naked charisma check (Charm, Planar Binding, two Rods of Construct Control fighting over a golem, etc.)

So if he is putting in effort to overcome his low charisma through spells and skill points, then he is a non-natural, non-prodigy, no-talent individual trying to overcome his weakness through hard work, practice, and magic, but in the end, all this stuff will fail when its pure charisma v.s. pure charisma.

If a super charismatic player rolls badly and fails the check, you just say the NPC really doesn't like the vibe of the PC and all his sweet talking falls on deaf ears.

I really don't understand your obsession with this. Why does he need a scar?

[Grod_The_Giant]

2nd. After all the responses yesterday i decided to give him a cool scar in the face in order to justify his charisma score without having to make a fuzz. Did i make a right call?
Depending of your answer his scar will be permanent or heal completely after a couple of weeks.
You don't need to do anything to "justify" his score, but especially don't do this. You can ask the player if he'd like to include that as part of his character, but you shouldn't just maim the guy to make yourself feel better. As has been mentioned many times, 9 Cha is a perfectly normal score, and needs no special explanation or excuse.

Actually, have you talked to the player about your concerns? Because that usually works better than random advice from the internet, even from a group as beautiful and clever as us.


Also, I think Psyren's suggestion of stat-swaps is a good one. Pathfinder makes it pretty easy to use Int or Wis for social stats instead of Cha. Student of Philosophy (Diplomacy to persuade, Bluff to lie), Bruising Intellect (Intimidate), and Clever Wordplay (one Cha skill of your choice) are great traits for that; the Orator feat does something similar (use Linguistics to lie, change a creature's attitude, or force cooperation); a dip in Investigator (Empiricist) offers even more Int-based stuff (gather information and Sense Motive, along with a few more top-tier skills). It'll make the player more effective at the role he clearly enjoys, and it'll hopefully make you more comfortable with him doing so.

[CharonsHelper]

If [Charisma = Appearance] then there wouldn't be so many horrible monsters with high Charisma in the bestiary.

[Zanos]

I hate to break the CJ but:


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness.

So while appearance isn't the entirety of Charisma it is part of it.

That said:
1. A cool scar would probably increase Charisma.
2. 9 Charisma is entirely within average range.

[Kobold Esq]

3rd. Can i ask about the alignments here or i shall make a new post?

Without knowing what your specific question will be: for player alignment, I let them pick their original alignment, but if they repeatedly act egregiously outside of it, I may secretly change their alignment. They may think they are still CN, but if they keep remorselessly committing evil acts, they may be surprised to find out that they are now showing up on detect evil.

Also since this comes up a lot: in my mind, lawful means orderly. It involves planning, self discipline, etc. It does not necessarily mean law abiding or honorable.

Many of the political operators in Game of Thrones would qualify as lawful in my mind. Someone like Littlefinger, despite all his talk about chaos, is a schemer and a planner, with defined goals and objectives. That screams lawful to me, despite his regular backstabbing.

[Sheogoroth]

Wat?

"I know him IRL and believe me he is the definition of 18 charisma."

Yeah... it's a Roleplaying game... It would be weird to force someone to play a fantasy personification of themselves.

Any snarkiness aside and, as I think others mentioned, Ability scores represent inherent talent, not ability. That's like telling someone because they aren't inherently good at school, they should never do their homework and play sports instead.

[Drakevarg]

Many of the political operators in Game of Thrones would qualify as lawful in my mind. Someone like Littlefinger, despite all his talk about chaos, is a schemer and a planner, with defined goals and objectives. That screams lawful to me, despite his regular backstabbing.

I'd argue having defined goals does not a lawful character make. Or the Chaotic Good freedom fighter would be obligated to randomly stop is fight against tyranny to start a bake sale or something. Littlefinger would be chaotic simply because he doesn't really have standards he lives by. He wants X, so he does whatever seems most likely to get him X. The only thing that makes him seem lawful is that he lives in a lawful system and knows how to game it.

[Zanos]

I'd argue having defined goals does not a lawful character make. Or the Chaotic Good freedom fighter would be obligated to randomly stop is fight against tyranny to start a bake sale or something. Littlefinger would be chaotic simply because he doesn't really have standards he lives by. He wants X, so he does whatever seems most likely to get him X. The only thing that makes him seem lawful is that he lives in a lawful system and knows how to game it.
LF's Neutral Evil. He uses whatever means are effective to accumulate more power. He never breaks oaths due to some sort of contempt for such concepts, and he never keeps them because he has respect for such concepts. Littlefinger does whatever is best for Littlefinger and everyone else can burn.

[Kobold Esq]

Or the Chaotic Good freedom fighter would be obligated to randomly stop is fight against tyranny to start a bake sale or something.

Chaotic doesn't mean crazy or stupid. It may mean impulsive, brash, or lacking forethought. The lawful freedom fighter may organize a slave revolt over the course of months or years of planning. The chaotic freedom fighter may lead a haphazard guerilla warfare campaign against essentially targets of opportunity, just to make the enemy "pay," with no other larger goal in mind. The lawful planner really wants the guerilla fighter to stop antagonizing the enemy, since he is drawing too much heat on them, but the chaotic guy says "that's dumb, let's kill some loyalist scum!"

Again, these are not the ONLY ways alignments can play. I just don't think law means needing honor or codes, and chaotic doesn't necessarily mean crazy and random.

[Drakevarg]

Chaotic doesn't mean crazy or stupid. It may mean impulsive, brash, or lacking forethought. The lawful freedom fighter may organize a slave revolt over the course of months or years of planning. The chaotic freedom fighter may lead a haphazard guerilla warfare campaign against essentially targets of opportunity, just to make the enemy "pay," with no other larger goal in mind. The lawful planner really wants the guerilla fighter to stop antagonizing the enemy, since he is drawing too much heat on them, but the chaotic guy says "that's dumb, let's kill some loyalist scum!"

Again, these are not the ONLY ways alignments can play. I just don't think law means needing honor or codes, and chaotic doesn't necessarily mean crazy and random.

But you DO seem to think that Chaotic means incapable of long-term planning.

[AMFV]

Honestly if he's playing a Wizard or somesuch, where Charisma isn't a factor, adjust his character's charisma to fit his. I mean it's not going to matter that much. Then give everybody else a a stat boost in some meaningless stat for their character (at their choice). That will make things more interesting since everybody will have a high stat that's typically a dump and that can make things far more intresting.

[Reingar]

So the scar was healed and since we ignore the fact that his ingame character wouldnt bother to do all that
i told him to play a mini solo session in order to take for free the Student of Philosophy
and i will give the other players 1 trait free for balance issues.

I asked you about the alignment because except the cleric (with paladins soul) nobody want to play a pure good alignment
by the excuse that we kill in every battle or that they want to use unethical means sometime in order to get the job done.
They feel restricted despite the fact i keep telling them that "you are heroes guys, you never do something that is evil
and for gods sake you keep helping this village from the start".

I know rp its difficult when you play like being in a video game, they never run, drop their weapons
or even respect authorities or the gods. Shall i let them play like that again or shall i change their alignment
without them knowing?

ps. Nobody gave me a good way to convince him to try play a high charisma. Online class test, benefits, etc etc

[Swaoeaeieu]

ps. Nobody gave me a good way to convince him to try play a high charisma. Online class test, benefits, etc etc

i think no one gave you good ways to convince him to play something else because most dont think you should do that.
the dm does not decide what kind of character his players play. Ofcourse you can give guidelines or ban classes, talk to them about what kind of campaign etc etc. but in the end, when you player wants to play the wizard instead of a bard, you dont get to force him otherwise.

Shy people get to play mighty heroes, charismatic people get to play nerdy wizards. The dice will decide if he is actually good at charismatic activities, and the gameworld will teach him people dont like being led to believe the mayor is paying for drinks when in reality the barkeep gets no money at all and will be telling the authorities this group of adventurers scammed him for a lot of cash.

[weckar]

Plus, some people like to play classes/races against type: Wizards don't have to be bookish nerds. Bards don't have to be social butterflies. Barbarians can be perfectly reasonable people.

As in real life: sometimes your abilities just don't align with your interests.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Plus, some people like to play classes/races against type: Wizards don't have to be bookish nerds. Bards don't have to be social butterflies. Barbarians can be perfectly reasonable people.

As in real life: sometimes your abilities just don't align with your interests.

And just because you're not good at something doesn't mean you're not trying to do it anyway. If the wizard gets away with more than he should in social encounters despite rolling the dice, the DC's are probably too low, at least for how the OP thinks the world should work. In that way this thread is like saying "I've got an elf wizard with strength 9 in the party who keeps lifting heavy objects, he just can't play physically weak!"

[Shark Uppercut]

They feel restricted despite the fact i keep telling them that "you are heroes guys, you never do something that is evil
What's the most evil thing they've done?



they never run, drop their weapons
or even respect authorities. Shall i let them play like that again or shall i change their alignment
without them knowing?

So what?
If they win every fight, running is pointless. If they're never arrested, they never need to drop their weapons.
If they don't respect the authorities, have the authorities react appropriately.



or respect the gods
If the cleric doesn't respect his god, strip his powers. If the party doesn't respect 'gods' as a whole, they have a harder time buying supplies at temples. Otherwise, so what?

It seems like you're trying to make the party conform to a story you're imagining, and they are acting differently that that. Ignore the story, let the party interact with the world.

[Reingar]

I never said they did something evil i said none wants to be labed as good despite the fact that anything they actually do is for good cause. As far as the most evil thing if you can count it as evil is killing thugs but that depends they point of view.
In my eyes they had no choice since its self-defence and Dark ages isnt known as a friendly time period to live.


I asked you about the alignment because except the cleric (with paladins soul) nobody want to play a pure good alignment
Never said anything about the cleric as you can see .

The wiz(b)ard "problem" i already stated that i'll go along with your advice and leave this guy play as his want since i never said that i dont want him to have fun and that just in my eyes he would be a awesome sorcerer.
Thats why i want to find a way to motivate him to try and not force him to do.

For the people that may in my mind be a little agressive with my "SELFISH" request. (If you are not one of them dont bother see it or even answer that.
Many people maybe some of you too tend to low/max stats by the excuse 8-9 stat is not that low, my character " wants to get past his fear/inability " and thats why he does X. Its ok to do that once in a while just to have a strong hero but doing that repeatedly imho its better to go play a lan rpg.
Finally of course i need a reason for someone having a low stat or playing a good hellknight without losing his powers.
Humans need a reason even for the most irrelevant thing. Thats how we survived and evolved. That is what differentiate us from animals. Thats why you actually opened the spoiler tag even if you are not one of them.

[Tohsaka Rin]

You keep posting a lot in this thread, about trying to get the players to do what you want, instead of what they want.

...Have you considered that maybe you should find a different group to DM for, or have someone else in the group be DM?

[Reingar]

You keep posting a lot in this thread, about trying to get the players to do what you want, instead of what they want.

...Have you considered that maybe you should find a different group to DM for, or have someone else in the group be DM?

Read the spoiler dude, just read the spoiler.

And for once more its not only about what i think but also what the books write.
Maybe i'll need again psyren to translate my words again.

[denthor]

They want to play some form of neutral. There are 5 types. Your group only wants to play three.

Lawful NEUTRAL the judge splits treasure evenly write every thing down so no can twist or say that this should go to them because it is the most expensive item and I roled better. Will fight to get the person that can use it best.

Neutral think animal will attack anything that is threatening. With intelligence they will switch sides because evil must be represented so you can not wipe out all evil in the area. We need some law but let people have as much freedom as needed to function on there own. Slow drift to evil.

Chaotic Neutral your friend that started this thread in my opinion. What gets me what I want the quickest way? Who does it hurt? Who cares I get what I want when I want it. May do good deeds may not extract the last copper for the smallest of deeds. May not kill for profit(contract ) that would be an assassin. Will keep his word for gold.
Will not go out of his way to protect anything unless he us in love with it(person,town,waterfall).

May be an enforcer to collect debts provided he gets a cut. Bounty hunter.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Read the spoiler dude, just read the spoiler.

I did read the spoiler. I'm seeing a lot of what you personally want, but not a lot of thinking about why your players like what they like.

Have you thought about asking them why they're playing the way they are, with what they've rolled up? I don't mean in the middle of the game, but in a casual, one-on-one setting.

Maybe they have reasons for what they do.

[Deadline]

@Reingar - I'm confused, why is it you don't call for bluff, diplomacy, or disguise checks for social actions that matter? If you just let your players talk their way through things, ignoring skills & stats, why are you having a hard time with this player doing exactly that? I feel like I've missed something important, so if you wouldn't mind re-treading old ground to help me understand, I'd appreciate it.

And to follow up, people saying that a 9 isn't far off from average aren't wrong. There's remarkably little difference between a 10 charisma person with 4 ranks in bluff and a 9 charisma person with 4 ranks in bluff. Also, Charisma isn't just a measure of physical attractiveness, it's force of personality and how they present themselves as well. You can have an incredibly beautiful character, who is also incredibly obnoxious, with a Charisma of 9. You can also have an ugly as heck character who silences a room just with his presence with a Charisma of 18. It's ... just not as clear cut as you seem to be trying to make it. This is backed up by the numerous horrifyingly ugly creatures in the Monster Manuals who have sky-high charisma.

As far as "encouraging the player to play a Charisma focused class", everyone has already given you the two best pieces of advice you are likely to find:

1. Talk to the player OOC and tell him that you are having a really hard time reconciling your opinion of what Charisma 9 means with his behavior. Ask if he would be willing to try something else out in order to help you have more fun.

Or

2. Adjust your opinion on what Charisma means, focus on the NPCs and game world, use the rules for important interactions, and let your players do the one thing they can do, control and play their characters.

[Gnaeus]

ps. Nobody gave me a good way to convince him to try play a high charisma. Online class test, benefits, etc etc

Ok. Every time someone attempts a social interaction, require a Low-mid DC charisma check. Somewhere between 10 and 12. Failure means you have screwed up your goal. You accidentally said something really rude, or in the wrong way, or said something totally out of character for the person you are impersonating, like swearing by the wrong God. Allow people to take 10 on the check, so a charismatic character never fails.

[Chronikoce]

The wiz(b)ard "problem" i already stated that i'll go along with your advice and leave this guy play as his want since i never said that i dont want him to have fun and that just in my eyes he would be a awesome sorcerer.
Thats why i want to find a way to motivate him to try and not force him to do.


I fully understand what you are trying to do and I still have the same response, you aren't going to convince someone to play another class if he doesn't want to play it. The real question here is: WHY doesn't he want to play a sorcerer?

Does he dislike the Sorcerer casting mechanic (delay spells by 1 level and spontaneous casting)?

--Solution: Houserule the wizard to have a variant that casts off of Charisma instead of int.

Now if he just wants to play a highly intelligent character with access to tons of knowledge skills while also being a primary spellcaster then you aren't really ever going to convince him to play Bard or Sorcerer. Bards have weaker casting and won't satisfy someone who wants to be a primary caster. Sorcerer has an awful selection of class skills so there is no reason to play that.

-- Consider This --
You don't currently rigidly enforce bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, & disguise. In a game like this, why would anyone want to play a bard who specializes in those skills? If the skills aren't required because the player can just use their own personality 100% of the time then there is no reason to build a specialist of this sort. From a gaming perspective the only reason to build a character who specializes in social skills is if the social rules are actually going to be used.

*My Solution to social skills*
My players roleplay interactions and also have to roll all social skill checks. A good bit of roleplaying gives a small bonus on the skill check (usually +1 or +2). I try to avoid using negative modifiers unless they say something really really stupid.

This lets the social players get small bonuses to their social rolls but doesn't force people who aren't good at roleplaying to try and become eloquent.

[AMFV]

Read the spoiler dude, just read the spoiler.

And for once more its not only about what i think but also what the books write.
Maybe i'll need again psyren to translate my words again.

So again, just adjust his charisma to what it actually is in play, and then give everybody else some kind of equivalent boost. Problem solved.

[dascarletm]

I wouldn't change his charisma, or anything. It would probably be the most interesting and fair situation for everyone to let his character try to be smooth, and have him fail by the dice. I personally think that a smart, but slightly non-charismatic wizard that thinks he is a great speaker/talker would be hilarious.

[Psyren]

Shy people get to play mighty heroes, charismatic people get to play nerdy wizards. The dice will decide if he is actually good at charismatic activities, and the gameworld will teach him people dont like being led to believe the mayor is paying for drinks when in reality the barkeep gets no money at all and will be telling the authorities this group of adventurers scammed him for a lot of cash.

At the same time it can be dissatisfying if the players (or player in this case) comes up with a really cool idea or persuasive argument and then the dice work against him/them. The obvious solution is not to roll, but then that is contradicted by the other advice in this thread to just roll. When the roll fails, you're forced to either fudge (if the failure was not too obvious) or to come up with some reason why the perfectly plausible suggestion didn't work, even if you yourself as the GM liked it.


At the risk of repeating myself, the issue as I see it is:
- The player's personality makes him a good face.
- He has chosen to play a character with stats that make him not be a good (traditional) face.
- No one else is stepping up to the plate, so to keep the game moving the player is doing what he does best despite the dissonance it creates for the character.

Again, in my mind, the easy solution is for him to just be a non-traditional face, by letting his character use the stats he's invested in to do what he's naturally good at. That is more or less the reason why traits like Student of Philosophy, Cunning Liar, Clever Wordplay etc. were designed in the first place, to fill such a basic need.

The other easy solution is to have the ACTUAL face roll first, then if the roll is good, turn to the charismatic player and say "explain this" - whereas if the roll fails, his hands are tied. This is less organic in actual play but it does make stats matter more.

[edathompson2]

You should really listen to everyone telling you not to try to control your players. Most of the people responding are VERY experienced DMs.

We've all been in your shoes. We look back and think "Man, I was a knucklehead".

Spend less time on "Everything should make sense" and more time on "Let's make sure ALL the players have fun".

[AMFV]

I wouldn't change his charisma, or anything. It would probably be the most interesting and fair situation for everyone to let his character try to be smooth, and have him fail by the dice. I personally think that a smart, but slightly non-charismatic wizard that thinks he is a great speaker/talker would be hilarious.

Well a lot of the significance of that depends on if there is another face in the party. Typically groups do not have a dedicated face. So I don't see that as being particularly likely. Also having somebody who is good at something in real life repeatedly fail at that thing in a game is likely to incredibly frustrating for him. Like he's likely to walk over that sort of thing, or just have no fun at all. Which is an important note.

Honestly, I don't see why changing the stat would be a big problem, unless it winds up with him overriding the party face, but if there is no dedicated face, it's no real problem, he doesn't get really any benefits (I mean slightly more resistant to Ghost's) from his Charisma, so it shouldn't matter that much, and if you do something nice for everybody at the table in similar fashion, it's unlikely to engender any issues. Again unless we're talking the party face being replaced.

Also Psyren does have a few good suggestions involving feats, although I might consider making one of them a bonus feat, rather than requiring him to alter his build, and buffing everybody else in turn, since it's not that big a buff, as these things go.

[Deadline]

Spend less time on "Everything should make sense" and more time on "Let's make sure ALL the players have fun".

Yes, but remember that the DM is one of those players who is supposed to be having fun. And it sounds like the OP is having a rough time with his current mindset. That's why the suggestions given are encouraging introspection, changing mindset, or talking to the player OOC to explain the issue and see if they can both come up with a solution that works for everyone.

[Psyren]

Also Psyren does have a few good suggestions involving feats, although I might consider making one of them a bonus feat, rather than requiring him to alter his build, and buffing everybody else in turn, since it's not that big a buff, as these things go.

Those are traits actually, not feats - in PF you get up to two traits for free, so the player won't have to change his build at all.


Yes, but remember that the DM is one of those players who is supposed to be having fun.

This gets overlooked around here way more than it should. Tempted to sig it.

[AMFV]

Those are traits actually, not feats - in PF you get up to two traits for free, so the player won't have to change his build at all.


I wasn't actually sure that it was Pathfinder, but yes in that case that's a pretty elegant solution to this problem.



This gets overlooked around here way more than it should. Tempted to sig it.

Seconded, although I don't tend to sig this. Which is why I suggested the option that's I think similar to your suggestion, to move reality so that the game fits better with what the DM is wanting without taking anything from the player.

[Psyren]

I wasn't actually sure that it was Pathfinder, but yes in that case that's a pretty elegant solution to this problem.

Pathfinder is in the thread title :smallbiggrin:

[Gnaeus]

Well a lot of the significance of that depends on if there is another face in the party. Typically groups do not have a dedicated face. So I don't see that as being particularly likely. Also having somebody who is good at something in real life repeatedly fail at that thing in a game is likely to incredibly frustrating for him. Like he's likely to walk over that sort of thing, or just have no fun at all. Which is an important note.

Honestly, I don't see why changing the stat would be a big problem, unless it winds up with him overriding the party face, but if there is no dedicated face, it's no real problem, he doesn't get really any benefits (I mean slightly more resistant to Ghost's) from his Charisma, so it shouldn't matter that much, and if you do something nice for everybody at the table in similar fashion, it's unlikely to engender any issues. Again unless we're talking the party face being replaced.

Also Psyren does have a few good suggestions involving feats, although I might consider making one of them a bonus feat, rather than requiring him to alter his build, and buffing everybody else in turn, since it's not that big a buff, as these things go.

Sounds to me like the cleric was under the impression that HE was the face. Not sure if he actually bothered pumping diplomacy, but given that it doesn't seem to be relevant in this game I'm not sure I blame him.

[AMFV]

Pathfinder is in the thread title :smallbiggrin:

Has that always been there? I must have missed it amongst the all-caps.

[Sheogoroth]

I did read the spoiler. I'm seeing a lot of what you personally want, but not a lot of thinking about why your players like what they like.

Have you thought about asking them why they're playing the way they are, with what they've rolled up? I don't mean in the middle of the game, but in a casual, one-on-one setting.

Maybe they have reasons for what they do.

Don't you just hate it when you go to post something and then realize that someone else exactly echoes your sentiments, so all you can really do is quote them?

But (to OP), I let my players play whatever they want, and if they've got a low charisma score and want to make social checks, I'm more than happy to let them live and die on probability and foresight! And it's hard to imagine anyone really having more fun playing a game about decision making when someone else critiques the only decision that's entirely theirs- what kind of character they make.

[Zanos]

But you DO seem to think that Chaotic means incapable of long-term planning.
I wouldn't say that, but I would say that a Chaotic person is less likely to incorporate rigid long term plans into their strategy, and is probably more likely to improvise or abandon the plan, for better or worse. A "just as planned" character archetype that revolves heavily around predicting other people's actions is probably not of a Chaotic diposition.

[edathompson2]

Yes, but remember that the DM is one of those players who is supposed to be having fun. And it sounds like the OP is having a rough time with his current mindset. That's why the suggestions given are encouraging introspection, changing mindset, or talking to the player OOC to explain the issue and see if they can both come up with a solution that works for everyone.

So you're suggesting on coming to a way that everyone has fun? Cool. Sounds good.

[Deadline]

So you're suggesting on coming to a way that everyone has fun? Cool. Sounds good.

Yep, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just adding a piece that is easy to forget when providing the advice that you did. You offered solid advice. :smallsmile:

[Reingar]

And it's hard to imagine anyone really having more fun playing a game about decision making when someone else critiques the only decision that's entirely theirs- what kind of character they make.

Thats not entirely true. If i tell them only core races play they are obligated to follow that. Nothing its entirely in our hands dude. Nature proves it every single day. And dont get me wrong, its not about abuse of power but more like misfeasance.
I really considered all the options that many of you gave me and i even followed some.

Have you ever played a co-op game that its really fun to play but because of one decision you lost the game? If your friend told you that a different option would be better in the current game or try a role that you think is out of your comfort zone would you give it a try? If yes then you are not as stubborn as my friend.

I opened this thread because sometimes when our close friends/family advice us we tend to rebel without cause feeling they dont respect the choice we made. But if we hear something similar from a stranger we tend to think that option even if we dont agree. I just wanted someone to see through my eyes and tell me what he would say if he wanted to suggest to his friend to try something different.

Last but not least i never said i dont use the social checks and im here because i already talked to him/them.

[DeTess]

I opened this thread because sometimes when our close friends/family advice us we tend to rebel without cause feeling they dont respect the choice we made. But if we hear something similar from a stranger we tend to think that option even if we dont agree. I just wanted someone to see through my eyes and tell me what he would say if he wanted to suggest to his friend to try something different.



So, putting limits (like 'core only') on the group is fine. Putting limits on only one player (you're only allowed to play charisma based characters, while all the others can pick all classes) is not fine.

So, if my DM where to approach me and say "I'm sure you like playing that barbarian, but you're far too smart for your character's 9 intelligence. Maybe play a wizard?" I would say something along the lines of "Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm here to play a Barbarian. If I wanted to play a wizard, I'd have picked a wizard."

[Reingar]

So, putting limits (like 'core only') on the group is fine. Putting limits on only one player (you're only allowed to play charisma based characters, while all the others can pick all classes) is not fine.

So, if my DM where to approach me and say "I'm sure you like playing that barbarian, but you're far too smart for your character's 9 intelligence. Maybe play a wizard?" I would say something along the lines of "Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm here to play a Barbarian. If I wanted to play a wizard, I'd have picked a wizard."

Of course you would and definitely he did aswell but please can you (by you i mean the reader) just answer the question i made and not mention the facts that I already gave?

We got it and its crystal clear: That i am WRONG that i insist and that he doesn't WANT to play a charisma based char but i didnt asked you if im right or wrong (if you want i'll open a new thread for that issue) but to write me how YOU would try to explain to him that he may enjoy doing that.

If you wouldnt try to __ (put w.e verb you want) him play a high charisma then RP the situation. Simple!

[AMFV]

Of course you would and definitely he did aswell but please can you (by you i mean the reader) just answer the question i made and not mention the facts that I already gave?

We got it and its crystal clear: That i am WRONG that i insist and that he doesn't WANT to play a charisma based char but i didnt asked you if im right or wrong (if you want i'll open a new thread for that issue) but to write me how YOU would try to explain to him that he may enjoy doing that.

If you wouldnt try to __ (put w.e verb you want) him play a high charisma then RP the situation. Simple!

Well if you've already talked to him about it, then that's probably all there is to it. Like I said, why not just bump his charisma, the only benefit he gets from that as a wizard is his diplomacy skills, that's it. Oh, and he's mildly harder for certain undead to kill. That's hardly game breaking. Or do as Psyren suggested and give him a trait that let's him use his int for certain social skills. Then you have a character that's fine at talking and he's still the character that guy wanted.

Generally, suggesting something like that is not going to go over well, you can't convince somebody to play something they don't want to. If you were like "Why don't you try a Sorcerer," and he's like "Na fam, I'm good" then that's it, he's not going to play a Sorcerer. Which is very different from a Wizard in flavor and tone and everything.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Of course you would and definitely he did aswell but please can you (by you i mean the reader) just answer the question i made and not mention the facts that I already gave?

We got it and its crystal clear: That i am WRONG that i insist and that he doesn't WANT to play a charisma based char but i didnt asked you if im right or wrong (if you want i'll open a new thread for that issue) but to write me how YOU would try to explain to him that he may enjoy doing that.

If you wouldnt try to __ (put w.e verb you want) him play a high charisma then RP the situation. Simple!

It's pretty clear that if you've been trying for a while to convince the player to do this, and he keeps saying he doesn't want to... Maybe the player just really, really doesn't want to do that?

Maybe just let it go, and focus on other aspects of the game? Because it's starting to sound (from everything you've been saying to the thread) like you're trying very hard to justify hounding the player about this so much.

You've already followed the steps the forum usually suggests for player/DM conflict: You calmly talked to the player a few times, without yelling, or freaking out, or bringing down the ban hammer.

At this point, my suggestion is to let this go, and stop bringing it up to the player. They've made their choice, and you should respect that. Hounding them about it might begin rubbing them the wrong way.

You're playing the game together to have fun. Part of that is compromising on things. Is this issue enough of a bother that you cannot continue playing the game without it being changed?

Because if it's that much of a problem, for your piece of mind, you might want to have someone else DM. If it's spoiling your fun, and they won't change, constantly exposing yourself to something that's just frustrating you isn't going to let you have fun with everyone, and it's not too healthy.

Frankly, if this is your biggest issue with your group, I'm kind of jealous. My group has had problem players. Like having to ask someone to leave the house problem players.

[weckar]

This is probably how this conversation should go:

DM:I think you may prefer to play this class/race/character because X, Y, and Z
Player: I don't think so, I like what I've got.
DM: Okay.

[RoboEmperor]

Seeing how he's grabbing utility spells, he probably hates the sorcerer's extremely limited spell selection and even more extremely slow spell acquisition. There is not a chance in the nine hells a low level sorcerer can afford to waste one of their spell slots on disguise self.

There is no way you're gonna make him voluntarily play sorcerer when hes got his mind set on casting a bunch of fun spells rather than optimized combat spells.

[TheIronGolem]

Of course you would and definitely he did aswell but please can you (by you i mean the reader) just answer the question i made and not mention the facts that I already gave?

We got it and its crystal clear: That i am WRONG that i insist and that he doesn't WANT to play a charisma based char but i didnt asked you if im right or wrong (if you want i'll open a new thread for that issue) but to write me how YOU would try to explain to him that he may enjoy doing that.

If you wouldnt try to __ (put w.e verb you want) him play a high charisma then RP the situation. Simple!

"Guys, don't worry about right and wrong or the established facts, just tell me how to manipulate my friend into doing what I want."

[Swaoeaeieu]

"Guys, don't worry about right and wrong or the established facts, just tell me how to manipulate my friend into doing what I want."

i think its more like ''Guys, i was asking about how to best jam a brick into my mouth. You people keep telling me not to do it, but that wasnt my question, so IF i were to jam a brick into my mouth, how do you think i should do it?''

Note i am not making fun of OP or anything, its just how the conversation looks while im lurking the forum...

[Psyren]

Has that always been there? I must have missed it amongst the all-caps.

Touché!


This is probably how this conversation should go:

(Fixed version)

DM: "Okay. For the sake of my own immersion (and potentially that of anyone else), I'm going to say you're using your much higher mental stat X to be a social badass instead of stat Y. In fact, there are some first-party traits that let you do exactly that. Don't worry, traits are already free, so this won't unbalance you. Everyone else, traits are in play, so you each can pick one too."


- The Wizard Player is happy because he can continue to roleplay his concept, and if dice rolls are called for, he has a greater than average chance of success.

- The other players are happy because they can keep deferring to Wiz in social situations, if there were any immersion concerns among them that weren't voiced those have now been resolved, and they all got a free trait or two to add to their own characters on top of it all.

- The GM is happy because the game is more plausible/immersive. He can also call for rolls in social situations without worrying about Wiz being disadvantaged by the dice relative to his good ideas.

Everybody wins.

[Reingar]

"Guys, don't worry about right and wrong or the established facts, just tell me how to manipulate my friend into doing what I want."

Im Devious, get over it.

[weckar]

(Fixed version)
I would agree, but the aim really seems to be to push a class, not traits. If it were just traits I would be the last one to make a fuss.

[Psyren]

I can't blame the guy for getting a little defensive when everyone is dogpiling him for not indulging the player's seeming inability to roleplay his stats. (Though I do agree that a 9 in said stat is hardly debilitating.)

Having said that, the onus is now on him to take the solutions offered or leave them.

[Thunder999]

What's the problem here, ability scores don't mean nearly as much as skill ranks, simply deciding you to put points into a class skill at level 1 gives the same bonus as having an 18 in the relevant stat, skill ranks and magical boosts from spells and items easily make up for a lower ability score.
Just make your player roll the relevant skill checks, bluff opposed by sense motive (roll sense motive separately for each person he lies to, at least one of them will probably roll well) whenever he lies, diplomacy when he's trying to be persuasive or make people like him, disguise checks opposed by perception to impersonate someone (disguise self is a nice +10 here, but the roll still very much matters) etc. either he's invested build resources into being good at those skills and will usually win which is fine, or eventually he's going to roll lower than whoever opposes him.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

What's the problem here, ability scores don't mean nearly as much as skill ranks, simply deciding you to put points into a class skill at level 1 gives the same bonus as having an 18 in the relevant stat, skill ranks and magical boosts from spells and items easily make up for a lower ability score.
Just make your player roll the relevant skill checks, bluff opposed by sense motive (roll sense motive separately for each person he lies to, at least one of them will probably roll well) whenever he lies, diplomacy when he's trying to be persuasive or make people like him, disguise checks opposed by perception to impersonate someone (disguise self is a nice +10 here, but the roll still very much matters) etc. either he's invested build resources into being good at those skills and will usually win which is fine, or eventually he's going to roll lower than whoever opposes him.
This is true. 18CHA with one rank in a non-class skill and 9CHA with one rank in a class skill have the same bonus. However...


Im Devious, get over it.
We aren't really discussing the pros and cons of stats vs skills here. We're in a thread created by the person who wrote this where they're asking for advice on how to manipulate someone for having badwrongfun in their game by not exclusively playing charismatic characters and still daring to try being the face despite the DM letting them get away without rolling anything, making their Charisma meaningless in the first place.

OP, you want some advice? Learn to read the writing on the wall. Your player doesn't want to be pigeonholed, no one here thinks doing so is a good idea. ​Drop it

[weckar]

This is true. 18CHA with one rank in a non-class skill and 9CHA with one rank in a class skill have the same bonus.

Walk me through this; +0 (-1 +1) and +4 (+4 +0) are the same bonus, how?

[Venger]

Walk me through this; +0 (-1 +1) and +4 (+4 +0) are the same bonus, how?

he's presumably talking about pathfinder

[weckar]

Gah of course, sorry. Earning that sigged quote once again.

[Venger]

Gah of course, sorry. Earning that sigged quote once again.

it happens, I don't play pathfinder either.

[Zanos]

DM: "Okay. For the sake of my own immersion (and potentially that of anyone else), I'm going to say you're using your much higher mental stat X to be a social badass instead of stat Y. In fact, there are some first-party traits that let you do exactly that. Don't worry, traits are already free, so this won't unbalance you. Everyone else, traits are in play, so you each can pick one too."
There's only one check, and anybody average can be socially awesome once in awhile. If his behavior was consistent and the DM continued to ask for similar DC checks for similar behavior, he would eventually average his results out to his ability.

[Psyren]

There's only one check, and anybody average can be socially awesome once in awhile. If his behavior was consistent and the DM continued to ask for similar DC checks for similar behavior, he would eventually average his results out to his ability.

The character's ability, sure. The issue is that this player can't help being the face, and the group seems to enjoy it. So I say, make him one.

[Esprit15]

The character's ability, sure. The issue is that this player can't help being the face, and the group seems to enjoy it. So I say, make him one.

From a purely IC perspective, ignoring what is optimal, what is wrong with the not particularly charismatic guy being the group face? If nobody else seems to be up to it, let them. The "leader" of the party need not actually be the most charismatic.

I think this thread is going in circles at this point.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Can we all agree that
1. If a character with low Charisma wants to try being social, let them roll
2. If a player is more charismatic than their character, make them roll
3. If a DM tries to force a player to switch to a Charisma-focused class because the player is more charismatic than their character, the DM is in the wrong
4. If the character's stats don't match what they want to do, the solution is either let them be bad or (if they want) retool them to work with it

If so, I think that covers most points being made

[Esprit15]

Can we all agree that
1. If a character with low Charisma wants to try being social, let them roll
2. If a player is more charismatic than their character, make them roll
3. If a DM tries to force a player to switch to a Charisma-focused class because the player is more charismatic than their character, the DM is in the wrong
4. If the character's stats don't match what they want to do, the solution is either let them be bad or (if they want) retool them to work with it

If so, I think that covers most points being made

Yeah, that about sums up the previous pages.

[Jarmen4u]

Im Devious, get over it.

I've read this entire thread twice. Everyone just leave. It's not worth it.

This guy just wants us to agree with him and give him some magical way to convince his charismatic friend to play a class that mechanically matches his IRL personality despite the player refusing previously.

The only possible solution I can offer to the OP that he hasn't tried yet is this:

OP: Hey <player> next time you roll up a character, you should play one that relies heavily on high charisma, since you're so charismatic IRL.
Player: Why should I?
OP: Because if you don't, I'm going to continue to be annoying and nag you about it every time you perform better at social interactions than my predetermined mental image of your character should be at.
There, problem solved. Just tell him why you're insisting so much and maybe he'll do it.

Considering how frustrated I got just from reading this thread, I can't imagine how annoyed the player must be. Hopefully he finds a better DM out there, he sounds like a cool guy.

[Reingar]

For the thread "rebels" that fight for my friend's FREEDOM OF CHOICE !!!! .

I asked something but instead of trying to actually help , you said in a loud crying voice he is a DECEIVER , an evil person who doesnt care about his friends choices or feelings. How dare he do that, this insolent fool. Burn the witch because he is having a different opinion/perception and all that for the "greater good".

And you know what's the reason you write posts that you object to w.e the OP say's











Exactly! You dont need one


For those who joined the Dark side
Me and my friend after showing this thread decided for this campaign to take the trait free to play a bard in the next campaign (OH NOES, Evil Won) .

I would like to thank the Super McAwesome Giantitp Resistance Force and the ones that tried to help me and actually did.

With Twisted Love
Darth Voldemort Prime.

[Psyren]

1) Glad I could help.

2) That attitude is not very endearing, even to those of us on the "dark side" who were trying to help within rules constraints.

Anyway, seems this is over and done.

[Tohsaka Rin]

With Twisted Love
Darth Voldemort Prime.

Lesson of the day: Don't go onto a forum full of people who play the same game as you do for years on end, asking for advice/help, and be surprised when they try to give you advice that was probably hard-learned for them to acquire.

Quite a few threads on the forum have contained painful/awkward/uncomfortable stories about many of us trying to 'fix' something that isn't a problem, that's led to some really bad days.

You can't really blame people for wanting to help you avoid bad times, and just get on with having a fun time gaming, can you? Most (if not all) of the advice was given in good faith, I hope you understand.

Feel free to come back for more help, should you need it in the future, we're mainly a friendly bunch, even if it seems at times some of us can appear overbearing.

[Jarmen4u]

For the thread "rebels" that fight for my friend's FREEDOM OF CHOICE !!!! .

I asked something but instead of trying to actually help , you said in a loud crying voice he is a DECEIVER , an evil person who doesnt care about his friends choices or feelings. How dare he do that, this insolent fool. Burn the witch because he is having a different opinion/perception and all that for the "greater good".

And you know what's the reason you write posts that you object to w.e the OP say's











Exactly! You dont need one


Mate, are you dense? this is a discussion forum, not an echo chamber. We're here to disagree and debate, not blindly +1 whatever drivel you have to say. Go to reddit for that crap. You asked for our opinions, we gave them to you. Playing the victim who got bullied by the big bad forum rebels only makes you look more foolish. I only hope your friend finds a better game soon so he doesn't have to deal with an overbearing edgelord DM who constantly nags him about how to play his character. Just so you know, he only agreed because he was tired of listening to you complain. :smallwink:


With Twisted Love
Darth Voldemort Prime.

Jeez, cringe much?

[Florian]

A bit late to the topic....

We don´t talk about LARP, so there´s a difference between player and character.
It´s kinda cheating if I compensate "rollplay" through "role play", just because I can. This is actually important if using PB values so you, as a player, have to invest into something to gain something out of it it return. This is a game, after all, and we do not tend to accept some "I hit harder" instead of taking the Power Attack feat, so we should not accept someone with good social skills as substitute for "Sociable" or "Deceiver". "You are not your character" is important here.