What IS Charisma?

[Grear Bylls]

So I recently wrote up a thread about rewriting the stats of one of my characters with low Charisma, to above average. This got me thinking: What is Charisma?

I played this character as a smug piece of **** who looked down on everyone, and knew he was better than them. He was very unlikeable. However, he was still the party face (even with MULTIPLE warlocks and a socially built rogue), as he had an immense force of personality. This personality was still easy to despise, but he had it for days, always refusing drinks from the people he saved because they weren't the "finest of wines" and announcing his arrival with a page and a fanfare of trumpets. He was constantly impressing his force of will and power upon people.

So thus, I raise this question: Does this character have an awful or great Charisma score?

[ErrantNonsense]

I’d say someone who has no social grace but gets their way through wielding their status like a blunt object is described best by low cha but expertise in intimidation.

[Tanarii]

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.

So low charisma would be someone with low confidence, ineloquent, particularly uncharming, and/or an un-commanding personality.

I'd suggest something like mousy without much 'presence', or someone that has a tendency to put their foot in their mouth a lot.

[Scripten]

I've always interpreted Charisma (with regard to ability checks) as your character's force of will, however it is that you represent that. In the case of a character that is unlikable, but nonetheless strong of personality and able to use that as a means by which to accomplish their goals, I'd consider them to have high Charisma. In one campaign I'm running, there's a Machiavellian pragmatist character who, while is never well-liked, still accomplishes his goals through force of personality. While he isn't smug in the same way OP describes, he is aloof in his mannerisms and often seems to be manipulative to those he interacts with.

[MaxWilson]

So I recently wrote up a thread about rewriting the stats of one of my characters with low Charisma, to above average. This got me thinking: What is Charisma?

I played this character as a smug piece of **** who looked down on everyone, and knew he was better than them. He was very unlikeable. However, he was still the party face (even with MULTIPLE warlocks and a socially built rogue), as he had an immense force of personality. This personality was still easy to despise, but he had it for days, always refusing drinks from the people he saved because they weren't the "finest of wines" and announcing his arrival with a page and a fanfare of trumpets. He was constantly impressing his force of will and power upon people.

So thus, I raise this question: Does this character have an awful or great Charisma score?

This part in bold confuses me. Everything else you describe seems like high Charisma, but the "despise" thing seems inconsistent with force of personality. So my question to you:

Was he easy to despise to his face, or just behind his back?

If the latter, then he doesn't have high Charisma, he has inconsistent (and perhaps suspension-of-disbelief-breaking) Charisma. If the latter then he probably does have high Charisma, but a bad reputation. (It's easy to think of public figures who fit this profile: charming, hard to say no to, but terrible reputations and not widely-respected in any lasting sense.)

You can be feared or you can be loved or you can even be hated, but if you're openly despised by those you're interacting with, you probably aren't exceptionally charismatic.

P.S. Incidentally, Charisma probably has a lot to do with timing as well as force of personality and body language. Knowing instinctively when people are vulnerable to persuasion (e.g. because you've just done them a favor and it would be awkward to say no) is as valuable or more valuable than command of logic and rhetoric or being liked, when it comes to making people do what you want. And it's easy to see how exploiting those moments of weakness could make you widely-disliked, and presumably you just don't care that you're disliked because you're still winning the game from your perspective because people aren't saying no.

[Mordaedil]

This guy has a ton of charisma, his personality is just that he's a ****.

[Greywander]

I'd say what your describing is a particular kind of high CHA. None of the ability scores represent one single thing, and you can have two characters that have high scores in the same ability, but for different reasons. Mechanically, it's treated the same, but for fluff and roleplay they can be entirely different ways of achieving similar results.

As someone else said, a low CHA character is likely to have low self esteem, be shy or mousy, lack confidence, and just generally have trouble getting people to pay attention to them. Or, maybe they can get people's attention just fine, but they then get stressed out because they're introverts and can't handle socializing. You could have a character who is very good-looking, normally a high CHA feature, but who is extremely shy, resulting in a mediocre score. They can get people's attention, but have trouble communicating. You can have a really likable character who just can't negotiate worth a damn, basically the opposite of what you're describing.

A high CHA character could also be an introvert who has developed their social skills and is reasonably confident in themselves. They generally don't take the lead in social situations, but they can get what they want when the do have to talk to someone. This turns things on it's head by taking a normally low CHA stereotype and giving it what it needs to cover for its weaknesses and actually be really effective when it wants to be.

So I'd say arrogance is definitely a valid way to play a high CHA character. And in a way, it is justified arrogance; he knows that when he opens his mouth people will do what he says, and he flaunts this. People might not like him, but they still do what he says. That said, he should also know when to reign it in and be nice, as high CHA implies being socially savvy enough not to make a faux pas.

In fact, what you've described sounds a bit like Donald Trump (kind of). I would say that both Obama and Trump are high Charisma, but they represent two very different methods of being charismatic. This isn't uncommon, either; a lot of politicians get elected because they are charismatic, not because they're qualified for the position or because their political agenda will benefit their constituents. But let's not let this thread devolve into a discussion of politics, I merely want to point out that politicians in general are a good place to look for real life examples of charismatic people, and can highlight the amount of variety in what charisma looks like.

"I can see your whole history in your eyes. You were born with nothing. So you've had to struggle and connive and claw your way to power. But true power, the divine right to rule, is something you're born with. The truth is: they don't know which one of us is going to be sitting down on that throne, and which of us is going to be bowing down. But I know, and you know."
"You've beaten me at my own game."
"Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player."

She might be totally nuts, but you can't deny that Azula had charisma.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As far as I'm concerned, Charisma is mostly confidence, force of personality, charm/eloquence, and the ability to impose your will on the world (that's why sorcery is Cha-based). Unless your character was putting on an act to cover terrible insecurities they hid inside, I'd suggest they should have had an above-average Charisma score.

[Lombra]

PHB, page 178.

The problem with mental stats is that they often are useless to roleplay since most of the time a player uses "his" intelligence, charisma and wisdom.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Agreed. It's almost impossible to convincingly roleplay a character with higher mental stats than the player.

[Lorsa]

Just look at the movie "Mean Girls" and you'll see that high charisma and has nothing to do with being well liked. Someone who is good at bullying people around can certainly have a high charisma score, even if everyone secretly hates their guts (yet somehow always follows their lead).

[Caesar]

What is love?! Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more...

[Lvl 2 Expert]

As all the others said, charisma is the broad and general ability to influence other sentient beings through your interactions with them. It's a blend of people skills, confidence, the impression they make and many more things, even looks are somewhere on the list. Someone who is strong of will and always forces their own decisions down other's throats probably has some charisma, which they use for intimidation and the odd spot of manipulation, but either they don't have enough of it to have found better ways to handle people and get much further, or they do have a gift and are wasting it because they just want to be a donkeybutt. A high charisma character that actually plays to their charisma will typically be likable in at least one way to some of the people. An effective arch villain manages to keep attracting new henchmen despite their horrible working conditions and the evil deeds they perform. They see this person with a vision and they just want to help them reach it. A high charisma sales person can sell you rubbish for too much money but you'll still come back because you honestly feel that you didn't get that bad of a deal and it wasn't their fault anyway. A high charisma thief leaves the vault empty and the lady of the manor sighing. If everyone in the world hates a character but puts up with it because it's a PC and the players are enjoying themselves they are either not high charisma or not using it well. A bully is more like average charisma typically.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There's an episode of That 70's Show which I feel really demonstrated Charisma.

Eric wants to prove that Casey is all wrong for Donna. His plan to do this is Fez will present him with a problem.
Fez: Rhonda won't let me get past second base, and I really want to explore further.

His advice, is something he knows Donna would approve of
Eric: Well, I don't know I think if you're patient, and you're respectful when Rhonda's ready, she'll, uh- she'll wave you over.

He correctly predicted Casey's advice would be awful.

Casey: Well, sometimes a seasoned lady like Rhonda she's gotten used to the usual order of things. So, I think the next time you're fooling around just, uh, skip second and go right to third.
Donna answers with approval.
Donna: Yeah, with Rhonda, you know, that just might work.

Eric: W-Wait, you like that?

Donna: Well, the words are wrong, but they sound so good coming out of his mouth.

Charisma doesn't let you craft a convincing argument, it lets you convince people despite it being a ****ty argument. If your charming enough you can figuratively piss on people and they call it gold.

[suplee215]

Charisma is less about the substance and more about the presentation. Their are plenty of ****ty people who are clearly out for themselves who can convince most of who is in a room that they are the best thing ever.

[ciarannihill]

I feel like mental/social stats in DnD are, somewhat by necessity, really condensed, if you wanted independent stats for everything each represented you'd end up with something like 12 total attributes. For example, Wisdom is both what we would classically think of as Wisdom -- worldview, enlightenment, etc - , but it's also street smarts, intuition, instinct and senses. Charisma is similar in that it's an amalgamation of several social aspects rolled into one, and roleplaying high Charisma can mean leaning into any combination of them: Ability to persuade or convince
Ability to command or hold attention
Ability to manipulate or inspire

Also sidebar question of my own, given how Sorcerer's work within the lore of DnD shouldn't they operate based on Wisdom instead of Charisma? I get Warlocks, Charisma allowing them to get a better pact or more out of it, but Sorcerers casting by instinct feels more Wisdom by DnD definitions... It would also help make Cha not the uber multiclass stat that it is...

[Ninja_Prawn]

Also sidebar question of my own, given how Sorcerer's work within the lore of DnD shouldn't they operate based on Wisdom instead of Charisma?

One of the things Charisma allows you to do is extend your will into the world and make it behave the way you want it to. All four of the skills tied to Cha are about influencing things, one way or another. So sorcery is kind of the logical extension of that - literally extending your will into the world and influencing it via actual magic.

That's how I interpret sorcery to work, anyway.

[BurgerBeast]

As a separate point that may inform this conversation, sometimes high scores never materialize because of character choices. Someone can have a high charisma score and just never use it, or to use it poorly.

Just because you have magnetism and are persuasive, doesn’t stop you from choosing not to persuade people, or being a d@#k because you want people to go away.

Just like all strong people are not necessarily spending their time honing their strength skills, for example. Some farmers are just really strong but never learned to fight.

[ciarannihill]

As a separate point that may inform this conversation, sometimes high scores never materialize because of character choices. Someone can have a high charisma score and just never use it, or to use it poorly.

Just because you have magnetism and are persuasive, doesn’t stop you from choosing not to persuade people, or being a d@#k because you want people to go away.

Just like all strong people are not necessarily spending their time honing their strength skills, for example. Some farmers are just really strong but never learned to fight.

I agree with basically all of this except:

being a d@#k because you want people to go away.

If your intention is to drive people away by being an *******, succeeding in doing so is making perfect use of your high Charisma. You convinced them to do something you intended.

Just saying...


@NinjaPrawn: That makes some sense, though it still feels a little like "Well we made then Charisma based...how do we justify it?" type logic to me personally, but what can you do I feel like that's kind of what happened.

[Tanarii]

PHB, page 178.

The problem with mental stats is that they often are useless to roleplay since most of the time a player uses "his" intelligence, charisma and wisdom.


Agreed. It's almost impossible to convincingly roleplay a character with higher mental stats than the player.
Utter nonsense.

Mental stats are just like physical stats. You make decisions roughly based on information they provide before a decision, and likely results if you have to make a check related to them to resolve declared intention & approach. You can roughly base a personality trait around a representation of them if you like as well. E.g. "I like being strong and breaking things" or "I'm uncomfortable in social situations", as long as you don't presume the results of ability checks that occur before or after decision making.

Ability scores surround player decision making (aka roleplaying), coming before and after it. Neither conflicts with the other or replaces the other.

[BurgerBeast]

Utter nonsense.

Mental stats are just like physical stats. You make decisions roughly based on information they provide before a decision, and likely results if you have to make a check related to them to resolve declared intention & approach. You can roughly base a personality trait around a representation of them if you like as well. E.g. "I like being strong and breaking things" or "I'm uncomfortable in social situations", as long as you don't presume the results of ability checks that occur before or after decision making.

Ability scores surround player decision making (aka roleplaying), coming before and after it. Neither conflicts with the other or replaces the other.

Really? Do you think someone with an 80 IQ can pretend to have a 140 IQ? Or am I missing something?

[ciarannihill]

Really? Do you think someone with an 80 IQ can pretend to have a 140 IQ? Or am I missing something?

Strictly speaking a high IQ doesn't change what actions you take, but how effectively you take them. A character having higher Int than the player might can be compensated with information provided by the DM to enable better decision making as well, for what it's worth.

Having said this, the best RPing IMO comes from people working around low stats as opposed to high ones. Sure a high Cha Bard convincing a baron to let the party go is interesting, but seeing the low Cha Half-Orc Barbarian do it will probably be much more memorable.

[Tanarii]

Really? Do you think someone with an 80 IQ can pretend to have a 140 IQ? Or am I missing something?
Irrelevant question, because Intelligence ability score is not IQ.

Do I think someone who isn't that smart can play a character with Intelligence 20? Easily. Higher Int provides more info to make better informed decisions with. And higher Int means you can be more confident of succeeding in Int checks to recall or deduce or figure things out in stressful situations, and base your decision making around that.

So yeah, making decisions (aka roleplaying) a character with a "higher" mental stat than you believe you have is fairly easy. The game assists you in doing it, influencing the decisions you make related to that ability score. Same with lower ones.

[BurgerBeast]

Strictly speaking a high IQ doesn't change what actions you take, but how effectively you take them.

This strikes me as flat out wrong. Intelligent people consider more and better options. The less intelligent person usually recognizes this after he sees it happen. “Oh, that’s pretty smart.” Or “why didn’t I think of that?”


A character having higher Int than the player might can be compensated with information provided by the DM to enable better decision making as well, for what it's worth.

This would seem to support my point. The DM is doing what a higher intelligence would do: provide more options. You need to be smart to come up with the options, but not quite as smart to recognize that they’re better.

But note that this still prevents the player from role playing a character who is smarter than the DM (because the DM can’t operate at that level).

[BurgerBeast]

Edited for typos.


Irrelevant question, because Intelligence ability score is not IQ.

I don’t need to claim that IQ and Int score are identical for the argument to hold. They are obviously related. For example, you can’t have an Int 20 and an IQ 80.

I’m surprised at your answer. IQ and what it represents are at least a part of what is represented by the Int score.


Do I think someone who isn't that smart can play a character with Intelligence 20? Easily.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by play. Of course someone can pick up the character sheet and start playing the game. I’m not arguing against that. But can they pretend to be smarter than they are? Well, I say that’s impossible.

If it were possible, then stupid people would just pretend to be smart and we’d have a society of geniuses.


Higher Int provides more info to make better informed decisions with.

But the information is the easy part. It’s the better decisions part that is hard, and requires more intelligence. Intelligent people make better decisions. So unless someone else is going to make the decisions, the player is limited by his intelligence, which is my point.


So yeah, making decisions (aka roleplaying) a character with a "higher" mental stat than you believe you have is fairly easy. The game assists you in doing it, influencing the decisions you make related to that ability score. Same with lower ones.

I guess we just disagree. Maybe we have different ideas about what IQ and Inteligence are.

[ciarannihill]

This strikes me as flat out wrong. Intelligent people consider more and better options. The less intelligent person usually recognizes this after he sees it happen. “Oh, that’s pretty smart.” Or “why didn’t I think of that?”

IQ isn't the same thing as Intelligence. In other words, it's not a representation of what information you have access to. IQ is how efficiently you go about processing information you have to achieve a goal you have (it's a bit more complicated, but that's the basic idea -- this is why IQ tests require you to enter your age and you don't grow your IQ as you age even though we all know you can grow more intelligent). What goals you decide to work towards is more determined by other processes than IQ, and these processes nearly always involve things such as emotions.

This is the big misconception about IQ -- that high IQ is a quantitative representation of all components of intelligence and decision making -- it's just not. You can't quantify that and have it hold up to any kind of scrutiny, you just can't.

[BurgerBeast]

IQ isn't the same thing as Intelligence. In other words, it's not a representation of what information you have access to. IQ is how efficiently you go about processing information you have to achieve a goal you have (it's a bit more complicated, but that's the basic idea). What goals you decide to work towards is more determined by other processes than IQ, and these processes nearly always involve things such as emotions.

Yeah we just view the score differently. I understand your view, at least generally. It seems consistent and workable. I just don’t prefer it.


This is the big misconception about IQ -- that high IQ is a quantitative representation of all components of intelligence and decision making -- it's just not. You can't quantify that and have it hold up to any kind of scrutiny, you just can't.

I think you’ve got this backward. It’s the attempts to break IQ down into components that have failed consistently. IQ is still the single best predictor of intelligence in all areas. Its the only predictor that still stands up to scrutiny. It’s a sad and disheartening truth. Psychologists’ attempts to break it down through multivariate analysis reliably fail.

[DMThac0]

Utter nonsense.

Mental stats are just like physical stats. You make decisions roughly based on information they provide before a decision, and likely results if you have to make a check related to them to resolve declared intention & approach. You can roughly base a personality trait around a representation of them if you like as well. E.g. "I like being strong and breaking things" or "I'm uncomfortable in social situations", as long as you don't presume the results of ability checks that occur before or after decision making.

Ability scores surround player decision making (aka roleplaying), coming before and after it. Neither conflicts with the other or replaces the other.

There is an inherent problem here: while what you say is true in theory, it is not true in practice.

---

DM: "The path is barred by a locked door and the rogues picks are broken, there seems to be no way through."
Player: "I roll strength to smash the door down."

The ability to perform the physical act of smashing down a door is referenced and resolved by a die roll and a statement of intent. There is no need for the player to actively attempt to perform the action.

---

DM: "The path is barred by a door, there is no handle, no lock, and no apparent hinges.
**Written on the door is: "I, the great Trolan, greatest mathmatician in all of Gnomish society bid you solve this equation to proceed. You are walking up a 500 meter high hill. The trail has an incline of 12 degrees. How far will you walk to get to the top?"

Player: "I roll intelligence to solve this."

In this instance the player knows that even though their character has a 18 intelligence they, as a player, have no clue how to solve this. They don't actively participate in solving the equation, instead using a declaration of intent and die roll.

---

DM: "The path is barred by an Ent, behind it is the door. Before it you see a legion of dryads and nymphs prepared to defend. The Elves stand before all of them, bows drawn and swords"

Player: "I roll wisdom and intellect to make a strategy to beat them in combat."

---

DM: "You stand before the dragon, it's massive form dropped to the ground so that it's eyes are level with yours."
Dragon: "What brings you to my lair, you do not intend to take one of my prizes do you?"

Player: "I roll a charisma to bluff the dragon."

---

Now in the first example we are all conditioned to go with that and not even blink an eye. There's no way we can, even when LARPing, expect average players to example a 20 strength and bust a steel door. There's no way we can expect average players to get up and parkour like their nimble rogue. We aren't going to have our players attempt to hold their breath while fighting 6 opponents inside a room full of tear gas.

However, we do expect that when a riddle is presented the players try to guess the answer. We expect them to come up with the tactics necessary to win in combat. We expect them to come up with the words to bluff their way out of a situation. When a player simply states that they'd like to roll one of the mental stats we have an immediate knee-jerk reaction that they're 'not role playing, they're roll playing'. There is this expectation that when we talk about what the character is doing mentally/socially that we are required to act it out, then the dice come in to play.

I'm not defending the stance, simply presenting it, mostly because I am at fault for it as much as anyone else.

[GlenSmash!]

So I recently wrote up a thread about rewriting the stats of one of my characters with low Charisma, to above average. This got me thinking: What is Charisma?

I played this character as a smug piece of **** who looked down on everyone, and knew he was better than them. He was very unlikeable. However, he was still the party face (even with MULTIPLE warlocks and a socially built rogue), as he had an immense force of personality. This personality was still easy to despise, but he had it for days, always refusing drinks from the people he saved because they weren't the "finest of wines" and announcing his arrival with a page and a fanfare of trumpets. He was constantly impressing his force of will and power upon people.

So thus, I raise this question: Does this character have an awful or great Charisma score?

Charisma is the ability to get people to do what you want. It's not like-ability, or good-looks, or any of the nonsense it sometimes gets associated with.

[Scripten]

-Snip-

This is mostly a case of encounter design problems and design-party mismatch. It's only a certain subsets of players who come into a D&D session wanting to play Sudoku, after all.

[BurgerBeast]

There is an inherent problem here: while what you say is true in theory, it is not true in practice.

(Snip)

Thank you for the examples. I agree with your assessment of example 1.

On examples 2 and 4, I think these are places where it is conceivable to allow the rolls. It’s not the way I play, but it allows for the treatment of mental skills in exactly the same way as Strength.

Example 3 is the deal breaker. Short of the DM hand-waving a whole battle and declaring a victory due to two successful checks (Intelligence and Wisdom), someone is going to have to come up with strategies and tactics and employ them. And if a player can’t do what his character ought to be able to do (and no other player or DM can do it for him), then it is impossible for this to happen in-game.

So the character is not functionally as smart as he is supposed to be. He’s limited to the intelligence of the smartest person at the table.

[DMThac0]

To the OP, since I never answered the question:

Charisma is the ability a person has to present their influence. Whether it be in word, as a politician or bard, in action, such as a general or hero, or in maipulation, such as arch-villains and mobsters.

A person can be very charismatic and no one likes them, Hannibal Lecter is a good example, as with many serial criminals. Cult leaders such as Reverand Jones can be considered charismatic, and evil. In a more modern sense think of movies and how you love to hate certain characters, the actor being charismatic enough to put on a portrayal that elicits an emotional response.

---


This is mostly a case of encounter design problems and design-party mismatch. It's only a certain subsets of players who come into a D&D session wanting to play Sudoku, after all.

Quite true, there are going to be mismatches when it comes to the dungeon crawlers and the puzzle DM, or the mystery and intrigue DM vs the political and romance players. That doesn't approach the idea that you can roll a strength check to break down a door and no one bats an eye, but you roll a wisdom check to solve mystery and the table looks at you like you're crazy.


Thank you for the examples. I agree with your assessment of example 1.

On examples 2 and 4, I think these are places where it is conceivable to allow the rolls. It’s not the way I play, but it allows for the treatment of mental skills in exactly the same way as Strength.

Example 3 is the deal breaker. Short of the DM hand-waving a whole battle and declaring a victory due to two successful checks (Intelligence and Wisdom), someone is going to have to come up with strategies and tactics and employ them. And if a player can’t do what his character ought to be able to do (and no other player or DM can do it for him), then it is impossible for this to happen in-game.

So the character is not functionally as smart as he is supposed to be. He’s limited to the intelligence of the smartest person at the table.

It's an interesting 'food for thought' thing. I am not out to say anyone is doing it wrong, just that there are expectations that people don't always notice have been put in place very subtly.

[Ganymede]

I played this character as a smug piece of **** who looked down on everyone, and knew he was better than them. He was very unlikeable. However, he was still the party face (even with MULTIPLE warlocks and a socially built rogue), as he had an immense force of personality. This personality was still easy to despise, but he had it for days, always refusing drinks from the people he saved because they weren't the "finest of wines" and announcing his arrival with a page and a fanfare of trumpets. He was constantly impressing his force of will and power upon people.

So thus, I raise this question: Does this character have an awful or great Charisma score?

The "Magnificent Bastard" is a legit charismatic trope. Your character likely qualifies as one.

[Scripten]

Quite true, there are going to be mismatches when it comes to the dungeon crawlers and the puzzle DM, or the mystery and intrigue DM vs the political and romance players. That doesn't approach the idea that you can roll a strength check to break down a door and no one bats an eye, but you roll a wisdom check to solve mystery and the table looks at you like you're crazy.


That's true, and I probably should have elaborated. My apologies there!

So what I was getting at revolves around the idea that every game (that is, the intersection of system, setting, encounter design, and DM) has certain constraints that the DM and players either explicitly or implicitly agree to. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to keep to D&D 5E, as we're in that subforum, after all.

Anyway, we have this game where the players are all coming together to solve challenges, which the DM is putting together and, at the very least, applying their personal touch to when running it. The DM expects to challenge the players in certain ways: some DMs aim to challenge their players mechanically, supplying challenges that are solved by clever uses of ability (skill) checks or by brute forcing them. Other DMs seek to challenge their players directly, with logic puzzles, math, etc. Neither way is "wrong", per se, but when a player tries to approach one style with a solution befitting the other, you run into that mismatch.

With D&D, Strength checks are an example of mechanical play where logic puzzles are direct challenges. I've also run "puzzles" that rely on Strength checks to accomplish goals, so the definition is murky, admittedly. The post you replied to was essentially approaching that concept. The best alternative analogy I can think of would be participating in a LARP combat via narration instead of sparring. (I don't LARP so I'm probably a little off-base with this.)

[DMThac0]

Anyway, we have this game where the players are all coming together to solve challenges, which the DM is putting together and, at the very least, applying their personal touch to when running it. The DM expects to challenge the players in certain ways: some DMs aim to challenge their players mechanically, supplying challenges that are solved by clever uses of ability (skill) checks or by brute forcing them. Other DMs seek to challenge their players directly, with logic puzzles, math, etc. Neither way is "wrong", per se, but when a player tries to approach one style with a solution befitting the other, you run into that mismatch.

This is the part that gets to be troublesome, I just had to ask a player to step away from a game due to that mismatch. He is a tried and true dungeon crawler, roll the die, solve the problem. His idea of challenge at the table is figuring how to hit harder, the concept of story and puzzle (beyond the DC to push/pull/smash) was almost foreign and quite boring to him. The rest of the table was/is more of the puzzles, story, and intrigue types. They are the type of people who find visiting an escape room to be a relaxing/fun time. Hand them an NPC who proposes a riddle, then give them a table prop to fiddle with and they're in heaven. (he's in a different game I run where he can squish things to his hearts content!)



With D&D, Strength checks are an example of mechanical play where logic puzzles are direct challenges. I've also run "puzzles" that rely on Strength checks to accomplish goals, so the definition is murky, admittedly. The post you replied to was essentially approaching that concept. The best alternative analogy I can think of would be participating in a LARP combat via narration instead of sparring. (I don't LARP so I'm probably a little off-base with this.)

It's not the most accurate analogy, but it definately presents the cognitive dissonance :smallsmile:

[Darth Ultron]

This strikes me as flat out wrong. Intelligent people consider more and better options. The less intelligent person usually recognizes this after he sees it happen. “Oh, that’s pretty smart.” Or “why didn’t I think of that?”


Except this is wrong as intelligence does not equal better. The smartest person ever can still not see something and/or do something dumb that any five year old could have told them not to do.


Charisma is the ability a person has to present their influence. This is really the best description of Charisma.



However, we do expect that when a riddle is presented the players try to guess the answer. We expect them to come up with the tactics necessary to win in combat. We expect them to come up with the words to bluff their way out of a situation. When a player simply states that they'd like to roll one of the mental stats we have an immediate knee-jerk reaction that they're 'not role playing, they're roll playing'. There is this expectation that when we talk about what the character is doing mentally/socially that we are required to act it out, then the dice come in to play.


I'm very much against Roll Playing. I simply don't get the idea of playing D&D like a classic board game.

Like sure, Bob can have his character roll a 30 and talk the dragon out of killing the party. And Bob can talk about how cool it was for him to...well....sit there and roll dice.

Or Bob could role play, even a tiny bit. Maybe come up with a real idea, and try and talk to the dragon for real. And later, if Bob succeeds, he can tell the real story of how he really saved the group for real.

[Telonius]

Charisma (like Intelligence) is kind of hard to parse, especially since some of the most obvious examples of it (getting people to like you, intimidating people, generally getting your way) are at least partially covered by skills. That does make sense; even in real life, you can be a generally low-charisma person, and learn how to be a good listener, debater, performer, or whatever other instance of applied charisma you can think of. You can learn how to orate, you can learn how to convince. You can even learn how to use body language to get your point across. All of those are learned skills, of which Charisma is a component. But charisma as an unchangeable character trait - or at least a trait that's hard to change without a lot of expense and work - is a lot harder to pin down. It's harder to quantify than Strength, since there are relatively few instances of flat Charisma checks. The one I can think of off the top of my head (Turn Undead) isn't one that most people would use very often in real life.

[DMThac0]

I'm very much against Roll Playing. I simply don't get the idea of playing D&D like a classic board game.

Like sure, Bob can have his character roll a 30 and talk the dragon out of killing the party. And Bob can talk about how cool it was for him to...well....sit there and roll dice.

Or Bob could role play, even a tiny bit. Maybe come up with a real idea, and try and talk to the dragon for real. And later, if Bob succeeds, he can tell the real story of how he really saved the group for real.

I'm in the same camp, however there is a strange problem when you have a player who's character has a 20 int, but they barely do basic algebra OOC. How can you expect them to live up to, and role play, that 20 int? The guy who can barely talk above a whisper and every time the possibility of confrontation appears they turtle up, how can you expect them to stand up in front of the party and string together a bardic tale of epicness? Where do we draw that line of expecting role play and allowing them to roll play when they can't feasibly pull of the mental acrobatics necessary.

[UrielAwakened]

Charisma is your force of personality. Has nothing to do with being well-liked, or attractive, or graceful socially.

If people are willing to follow you and do the things you tell them to do, you have high Charisma.

The Joker in The Dark Knight has huge charisma despite being verifiably insane and horribly scarred.

[Darth Ultron]

I'm in the same camp, however there is a strange problem when you have a player who's character has a 20 int, but they barely do basic algebra OOC. How can you expect them to live up to, and role play, that 20 int? The guy who can barely talk above a whisper and every time the possibility of confrontation appears they turtle up, how can you expect them to stand up in front of the party and string together a bardic tale of epicness? Where do we draw that line of expecting role play and allowing them to roll play when they can't feasibly pull of the mental acrobatics necessary.

Well, my answer is that you don't have people play characters they can't play. It's not that the player has to be a genius to play 20 int, but they have to be able to role play having it. It does mean some people can't play some characters, but that is true about a great many things.

Role Playing, is a lot like text book knowledge with no real world piratical skill or experience. You don't have to have the real ability and skill to make a convincing argument or charm a princess: you simply have to know how it is done. So you have to have the ability to know and say what a person would do to charm a princess, but you don't have to fully role play it out.

[BurgerBeast]

Except this is wrong as intelligence does not equal better. The smartest person ever can still not see something and/or do something dumb that any five year old could have told them not to do.

I don’t know how you can figure that intelligence is not better. Ask anyone if they want a kid with IQ 80 or IQ 100 or IQ 120. If they had the ability to choose, before conception, which one would they choose? We know what the answer is. IQ 120 is better and IQ 80 is worse than the others.

Also, your second point is not a refutation of mine. It’s just an addendum. The fact that you can point to exceptions does not refute a general claim, because it’s a general claim.

Smart people can say stupid things. Stupid people can outsmart smarter people in particular circumstances. But intelligence is a real thing and a smart person will generally be smarter than a stupid person.

[Mordaedil]

You do realize IQ isn't an actual reasonably measureable thing right? At best it represents how good you are at math problems and puzzles. It's not a matter of how much grey matter you are born with, you can't sort it out genetically. It's like arguing solving a rubix cube requires a level of intellect when it's just a matter of learning a pattern. You could teach a monkey to do it.

[Lorsa]

You do realize IQ isn't an actual reasonably measureable thing right? At best it represents how good you are at math problems and puzzles. It's not a matter of how much grey matter you are born with, you can't sort it out genetically. It's like arguing solving a rubix cube requires a level of intellect when it's just a matter of learning a pattern. You could teach a monkey to do it.

Technically, IQ is a measurable thing, it's just that it measures a very narrow type of problem solving ability, which in turn can not be generalized into what we commonly refer to as "intelligence".

[RSP]

Well, my answer is that you don't have people play characters they can't play. It's not that the player has to be a genius to play 20 int, but they have to be able to role play having it. It does mean some people can't play some characters, but that is true about a great many things.

Role Playing, is a lot like text book knowledge with no real world piratical skill or experience. You don't have to have the real ability and skill to make a convincing argument or charm a princess: you simply have to know how it is done. So you have to have the ability to know and say what a person would do to charm a princess, but you don't have to fully role play it out.

Isn’t the entire point of RPGs to play something you are not? I can, without a doubt, play a middle-aged guy who pays taxes, gets his car oil change done on time and has to drive thru traffic, however none of those things are what I want to do in a game in my free time.

The entire point of RPGs is to pretend to do what you can’t in real life. I can’t wield a two-handed sword to duel and defeat a barbairian warlord. I can’t explain what parries or feints would be used to expose his defense and get a killing blow in.

D&D recognizes this and so I don’t have to. Instead, to represent that the character I’m playing knows this stuff, I roll a d20, adjudged by my character’s Str score and my character’s prof mod, to see what my character’s ability in a physical duel is.

I don’t see why you’d expect a player to be able to “out-duel” an 20+ Int creature intelligence; by definition we can’t have that ability (20 being the absolute human cap in 5e, outside of certain magic).

[KorvinStarmast]

This guy has a ton of charisma, his personality is just that he's a ****. This was my answer, ninja'd.

For the OP: the character is far more interesting when it is play as more than the numbers on a character sheet.

[MaxWilson]

Technically, IQ is a measurable thing, it's just that it measures a very narrow type of problem solving ability, which in turn can not be generalized into what we commonly refer to as "intelligence".

Current research does not support that viewpoint.

IQ is known to correlate with success across a broad range of activities. If you go to a given profession and ask people to rank seven members of that profession from best to worst, those with high IQs will generally be ranked higher in effectiveness than those with low IQs. This is true for all professions, from computer programmers through sanitation workers and lumberjacks. That isn't to say there aren't other important factors as well (e.g. if you have high IQ but low empathy you might not make a good teacher, and if you stutter you might not make a good salesman), but (1) IQ still has an impact, and (2) often we don't have ways to measure those other factors.

[MaxWilson]

This strikes me as flat out wrong. Intelligent people consider more and better options. The less intelligent person usually recognizes this after he sees it happen. “Oh, that’s pretty smart.” Or “why didn’t I think of that?”

Yes, there's a correlation, but IQ and insight are not the same thing. Consider this quote about Einstein and van Neumann from a Nobel-prize-winning physicist who knew them both intimately:


I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jansci [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed.

But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jansci's brilliance, he never produced anything as original.

You've probably seen this in action. Higher-IQ people think quicker and learn quicker, in general, but there is something extra which some of them have which lets them generate new ideas and new options, and that something extra is not the same thing as IQ. I don't know what to call it, except "genius." Machiavelli said:


...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.

von Neumann had traits characteristic of a higher IQ than Einstein, but Einstein had more impact on the world and clearly had more genius.

[Shining Wrath]

In 5e, Charisma is the ability to change how creatures react to you. All the charisma based skills do this in one way or another, and the spells which have Charisma saving throws are almost all contests of force of personality.

If you view "the world" as analogous to a creature, Charisma can be a substitute for luck. If your force of personality is great enough, e.g., you'll find things you need in the first shop you go into, because probability bends to you.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, there's a correlation, but IQ and insight are not the same thing. Consider this quote about Einstein and van Neumann from a Nobel-prize-winning physicist who knew them both intimately:

I don’t think intelligence or IQ is the same thing as insight, so you’ll get no argument from me, there.

Re: Einstein and van Neumann:

Then it would appear to me that van Neumann was more intelligent (i.e. had a higher IQ) than Einstein.

The best explanation I have heard for the type of situation you describe is that both critical thinking and creativity are essentially attitudes (i.e. not abilities per se). It makes perfect sense that if Einstein spent more time working on particular problems, he could arrive at more profound insights. That seems obvious to me.

Our attitudes and motivations are going to affect where we spend our efforts and the experiences that follow. And ultimately it is experience (depth and breadth) that allow one to provide insights (i.e. expertise).

I’m not contesting that. I am only pointing out (and you seem to agree) that controlling for all other variables, a more intelligent person will outperform a less intelligent person.

The idea tha there is some intangible, or X factor, or whatever, which makes some people “naturals” in a field is nonsense in my opinion. A “natural” is someone who works his ass off, often in ways that are not obvious. In academic fields, it’s often just thinking deeply for sustained periods of time.

[dragoeniex]

Charisma is the ability to attract or influence others.

You can have a handful of characters demand a task of an NPC and get the same outcome, but to me, it's largely in how you color it. A PC gaining the favor via well-placed threats, bribery, flattery, logic, reverse psychology-- all these can be charismatic devices. It's your technique that makes the difference.

You can threaten to beat someone bloody or make perfectly reasonable arguments and still fall flat with either. An uncharismatic PC is, in theory, just not connecting well enough with whoever they're speaking to to get their point across.

With your example, OP, I'd probably go low charisma and take advantage of situations and/or teammates' skills to get what I asked for. Play up the angle of "customer throwing a fit and demanding to speak with your McDonald's manager may get their way but isn't especially charming." But you could also spin the condescension angle with knowing how to condescend and reason your way into speaking with higher ups.

Either would work fine. It's just a matter of how much you want to prioritize and play up the social effectiveness.

After all, at the end of the day, stats are what you make of them.