Why is Charisma always Dumped?

SilvercatMoonpaw · August 28, 2006, 03:02:19 PM

It's come to my attention that mental stats are so much harder to roleplay than physical stats, and the one time I tried to roleplay a low-Charisma person I just had no idea what I was doing. I actually think it's easier to understand how low Int or low Wis affects personality than it is to understand low Cha (and please, no one tell me how, because no matter how many times I read the explanation it still doesn't stick). I personally think it's difficult to not be yourself in terms of how outgoing or not you are, and I don't even think a stat should be tied to how polite one is.

For the latter let me put up an example: rude guy is going to suck at Diplomacy, but he is likely very scary and Intimidating. Yet intimidate is a (Cha) skill. For the first thing Ã¢,¬' how outgoing you are Ã¢,¬' that makes much more sense. However I think it's no fun to be told that you have to curb how much you like to speak because your stat doesn't reflect that.

Lmns Crn · August 28, 2006, 03:08:31 PM

Ah, I see. I really do have reading comprehension skills, I swear!

That elaboration makes your viewpoint make much more sense, but it's still not a houserule I'm likely to ascribe to. Combat is a lot faster and messier than our downright courteous initiative system and tidy square grid would lead a person to believe, and those sorts of split-second judgments strike me as improbable.

My idiosyncracies aside, it's hard to fake-out anybody who knows about fighting, regardless of how confidant you are. Anybody with enough cognitive ability to discern confidence from nervousness, and with much combat experience at all, is going to be able to tell the difference between a skilled (if perhaps low-Cha) warrior, and a tricky warrior-portraying-actor or an incredibly confident bungler. Base Attack Bonus would be a better gauge of dangerousness, assuming the observer has the slightest idea of what to look for.

QuoteHowever I think it's no fun to be told that you have to curb how much you like to speak because your stat doesn't reflect that.

anything[/i]-- Charisma moreso than most-- and anybody who tells you you're "doing it wrong" is committing a cardinal sin of gaming.

Epic Meepo · August 28, 2006, 05:17:35 PM

*shrugs* It was just a suggestion. But yes, I agree that no good DM should force you to alter your dialogue; it's possible to have impecable grammar and an expansive vocabulary but still fail to be likable (or intimidating).

Xeviat · August 28, 2006, 05:40:03 PM

The way to run talking encounters is to let the PCs talk it out, and then have them roll their diplomacy checks (with a penalty if they're rushed, as usual). To encourage good roleplaying, if the player brings up valid evidence or points, they'll get a bonus.

But players who can't act shouldn't be penalized any more than players who can't fight aren't penalized. Yeah, players who are into tactical combat will make better decisions, which is why players with better acting skills get circumstance bonuses if they use them well.

But in your standard hack and slash games, Intimidate is really the only reason a fighter or barbarian will put any ranks into charisma. But still, the lack of a non-skill function is frustrating. Perhaps just utilizing diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff more often would help without having to make any vast rules changes?

As Meepo pointed out, a high charisma warrior will appear more threatening than a low charisma warrior. But charisma has nothing to do with how you physically look, it has to do with how you physically appear. A corpse is going to look the same no matter the charisma the person had while alive; your "looks" are based on your physical stats (strong people are bigger and more muscled, high con people have less fat and are trimmer, and high dex people are tonned and more lithe).

I'm sure there's something somewhat passive for charisma. I once thought about giving all characters a "turning" ability vs. spirits; if you have a holy symbol of a good deity, you make charisma checks to hold spiritual undead at bay; iron could be used to hold a fey at bay ... But this wouldn't come up enough to make it matter.

So Action points are really the best thing I can come up with.

SDragon · August 30, 2006, 09:49:36 AM

Quote from: Epic Meepo*shrugs* It was just a suggestion. But yes, I agree that no good DM should force you to alter your dialogue; it's possible to have impecable grammar and an expansive vocabulary but still fail to be likable (or intimidating).

"i do say ol' chap, if you shan't drop your large lever-based bladed tool, i shall challenge you to a bout of fisticuffs- i do say, i am quite serious about this. i shall give you to the count of...."
*looks at shoulder*
"its just a fleshwound..."

Epic Meepo · August 30, 2006, 02:55:43 PM

Charisma Option #2: If you have a positive Charisma modifier, subtract your Charisma modifier from your number of negative levels before determining the penalties you suffer for having those negative levels.

Xeviat · August 30, 2006, 08:07:08 PM

Meepo, that's interesting too. I don't think it comes up often enough (just like my "poor man's turning"), but it's interesting non-the-less.

Hibou · August 30, 2006, 08:18:58 PM

One thought I had once for eliminating the problems of not being able to play the part of a character with any high mental stat, or deal with any mental-based checks in general, was to create a system that presented only physical attributes, or physical attributes and Mana (or an equivalent measure of magical potential). It'd certainly be difficult, but if a game master and his players handled it properly, the players and the game master could simply act however they wanted for a character. It might look like everyone's trying to play smart and persuasive people at first, but it seems to me that sooner or later distinctions will be made between who is the more charismatic, more wise, more knowledgable, etc.

CYMRO · August 30, 2006, 09:42:27 PM

While I personally don't dump charisma a lot because of the effect on Leadership, my big beef with the way the wotcees handle charisma is their refusal to divorce physical attractiveness from the definition. It lacks logic. A high charisma goblin is still an ugly mug(to other races), it just has great persuasiveness and force of personality.

Best just to dump the mental stats and, as WitchHunt said, let players roleplay those aspects.

So-Keher · August 30, 2006, 10:03:41 PM

I haven't read any of this but i love charaisma
how can you have a bard or paladin woithout at least a +2 Cha bonus. Blimey!

CYMRO · August 30, 2006, 11:20:20 PM

Quote from: So-KeherI haven't read any of this but i love charaisma
how can you have a bard or paladin woithout at least a +2 Cha bonus. Blimey!

Both bard and paladin are, in my experience, secondary picks for most players.
Most parties are happy to do without either of those characters.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Why is Charisma always Dumped?

SilvercatMoonpaw

Lmns Crn

Epic Meepo

Xeviat

SDragon

Epic Meepo

Xeviat

Hibou

CYMRO

So-Keher

CYMRO