This is no more work than any other campaign where the DM is interested in the role-play side:-
* What's your character like?
* What is it that makes your PC's Charisma equal 7?
I have to disagree. I don't ask the players "what makes your PC's Charisma equal 7?" That should become apparent by how the players RP their characters.
Having to keep track of why John's PC's Charisma 7 is actually more like a Charisma 15 for attractiveness, but his "ability to lead" is really a 3 is a book keeping disaster. Now expand that to all six stats, and to the other four players, and it sounds like an absolute nightmare.
From a sheer organizational point, it would seem to make far more sense to just house-rule in sub-stats and allow those to be on the sheet. That way if you want a player to be able to customize their character to that fine of a degree, the mechanics will match the story line of the character.
Rather than having to keep track of shadow stats, and having those shadow stats not even affect the mechanics of the game, you can bring them out in the open and have them serve a legitimate purpose.
|
This is no more work than any other campaign where the DM is interested in the role-play side:-
* What's your character like?
* What is it that makes your PC's Charisma equal 7?
I have to disagree. I don't ask the players "what makes your PC's Charisma equal 7?" That should become apparent by how the players RP their characters.
Having to keep track of why John's PC's Charisma 7 is actually more like a Charisma 15 for attractiveness, but his "ability to lead" is really a 3 is a book keeping disaster. Now expand that to all six stats, and to the other four players, and it sounds like an absolute nightmare.
From a sheer organizational point, it would seem to make far more sense to just house-rule in sub-stats and allow those to be on the sheet. That way if you want a player to be able to customize their character to that fine of a degree, the mechanics will match the story line of the character.
Rather than having to keep track of shadow stats, and having those shadow stats not even affect the mechanics of the game, you can bring them out in the open and have them serve a legitimate purpose.
It's the other way round.
You don't need to keep track of sub-stats; this is just a shorthand for our debate.
In play, you simply get to know your characters. When the campaign starts the players describe their characters; that's as true for you as it is for me.
If a player describes his PC as good-looking and you know his PC has 7 Charisma (and you have reviewed everyone's character sheet!), then you know what to do.
It's really no different in practice for DMs on both sides of this debate. Your side is just imagining problems, to be honest. : )
You don't need to keep track of sub-stats; this is just a shorthand for our debate.
So you know by memory what all of your player's character's stats are, and their associated sub-stats (not the numbers, but the player's descriptions)? My memory is definitely not that good.
If a player describes his PC as good-looking and you know his PC has 7 Charisma (and you have reviewed everyone's character sheet!), then you know what to do.
No, I really don't. If the PC with a 7 Charisma is described as good-looking, does that mean his appearance is like a 12? 14? 16? And then how do I imagine the other aspects of Charisma being affected? If the 7 Charisma is actually a 13 appearance, then do I assume that personality, personal magnetism and ability to lead are all 5's? Or could it be 13 Appearance, 9 Personality, and 3 Personal Magnetism and 3 Ability to Lead?
How do I even arbitrate when Personality should be the driving factor rather than Personal Magnetism? I know for mechanical rolls they'd all be treated the same, the way you do it, but what about for those non-roll times when you're ad-hocing?
|
|
You don't need to keep track of sub-stats; this is just a shorthand for our debate.So you know by memory what all of your player's character's stats are, and their associated sub-stats (not the numbers, but the player's descriptions)? My memory is definitely not that good.
If a player describes his PC as good-looking and you know his PC has 7 Charisma (and you have reviewed everyone's character sheet!), then you know what to do.No, I really don't. If the PC with a 7 Charisma is described as good-looking, does that mean his appearance is like a 12? 14? 16? And then how do I imagine the other aspects of Charisma being affected? If the 7 Charisma is actually a 13 appearance, then do I assume that personality, personal magnetism and ability to lead are all 5's? Or could it be 13 Appearance, 9 Personality, and 3 Personal Magnetism and 3 Ability to Lead?
How do I even arbitrate when Personality should be the driving factor rather than Personal Magnetism? I know for mechanical rolls they'd all be treated the same, the way you do it, but what about for those non-roll times when you're ad-hocing?
You don't need to know specific scores for imaginary sub-stats.
You just need to combine the players description of his PC with what you know of the PC's game mechanics.
This is no different for either of us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to know specific scores for imaginary sub-stats.
You just need to combine the players description of his PC with what you know of the PC's game mechanics.
It sounds like it is not well-defined and open to a lot of interpretation.
I'll stick with low stat = not good at that stat. Much simpler.
|
|
It sounds like it is not well-defined and open to a lot of interpretation.You don't need to know specific scores for imaginary sub-stats.
You just need to combine the players description of his PC with what you know of the PC's game mechanics.
You mean...pure role-playing?
I'll stick with low stat = not good at that stat. Much simpler.
I'm not sure that ignoring the nuances of character for the sake of simplicity is compatible with the stated aim of greater role-playing verisimilitude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I think the premise of the problem is what actually helps produce the problem in the first place.
Person A: I want you to do something, but I can't completely explain it.
Person B: Okay... am I doing it correctly?
Person A: No.
Person B: How about now?
Person A: No, do it more, but different.
I don't think for one moment that mundane tasks such as you describe are all automatically DC 10.
I think that this is a totally arbitrary DC, chosen specifically so that those with a stat of 9 or less cannot 'take 10' to pass it; essentially an arbitrary punishment for having a low stat, beyond those mandated in the game itself.
Not every sticky door is DC 10. Not every crowd requires DC 10 to navigate. Thinking about flanking isn't DC 10. Some of these things should have variable DCs (some DC 5, some DC 15, for example) and some should not require a check at all (like a fighter thinking about flanking).
I forget where I saw it, but there was a list of what the Difficulty Checks represent. 5 is super easy, 10 is average, 15 is difficult, 20 is challenging etc... (5 super easy - What I'd attribute to a regular door, thus my reasoning for a DC10 for a stuck door). Of course not all croweded bars will be DC10 but some of them might if it's crowded enough. Those were examples. Not everything is standardized and requires a GM to make decisions and yes a lot of the time those decisions are arbitrary. Man does anybody remembering GMing BEFORE 3rd edition? 3e has created a LOT of players who become... outraged because a GM uses shock gasp discretion.
Either way there are a lot of checks that *could* be called but are hand waved because it would bog down gameplay.
Thinking about flanking isn't DC10 but doing something and instructing others to do such is different. I would *never* tell the fighter he can't flank unless he makes some sort of check that's absurd. He's a fighter it's pretty much instinct to flank. When he wants to start discussing tactical advice with npcs though... that's a little different. He need make a DC10 profession soldier check perhaps. Something anyone even with no ranks could do as long as they aren't too dull
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean...pure role-playing?
No. Role playing is the act of bringing your character to life. If we are playing free form with no rules or restrictions, then you can RP any kind of character you like.
However, when we play a game with rules, then we have to make our RP fit in with the rules. By allowing various sub-stats without any mechanical consideration, we wind up with very strange outcomes. As a player we have to hope the GM understands the nuances of our character in the way that we do.
As a GM, we have to hope we remember each of our player's character's stats and their sub-stats in order to made sure we're arbitrating correctly. Then, when it comes to a mechanical roll, we just ignore what their sub-stats are and apply the default modifier.
That is adding layers of confusion onto an already confusing situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: So your Cha 7 character is good looking?
Player1: Yeah, but a rude jerk.
GM: Okay, how good looking would you rate your character? gibbering mouther (Cha 12) level? green hag (Cha 14) level? or derro (Cha 16) level?
Player1: Ah... Nevermind, he is fugly. As fugly as an eagle (Cha 7).
GM: Damn, that is pretty fugly, okay then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to keep track of sub-stats; this is just a shorthand for our debate.So you know by memory what all of your player's character's stats are, and their associated sub-stats (not the numbers, but the player's descriptions)? My memory is definitely not that good.
If a player describes his PC as good-looking and you know his PC has 7 Charisma (and you have reviewed everyone's character sheet!), then you know what to do.No, I really don't. If the PC with a 7 Charisma is described as good-looking, does that mean his appearance is like a 12? 14? 16? And then how do I imagine the other aspects of Charisma being affected? If the 7 Charisma is actually a 13 appearance, then do I assume that personality, personal magnetism and ability to lead are all 5's? Or could it be 13 Appearance, 9 Personality, and 3 Personal Magnetism and 3 Ability to Lead?
How do I even arbitrate when Personality should be the driving factor rather than Personal Magnetism? I know for mechanical rolls they'd all be treated the same, the way you do it, but what about for those non-roll times when you're ad-hocing?
This seems like a lot of overanalyzing. Good looking, but kind of a jerk = 7 or ugly but a good leader = 7...
Does it REALLY matter? Why do you want to know if his appearance is a 12, 14, or 16? As a DM what are you planning on doing with that number?
Unless there is a beauty contest where everything is based SOLELY on the looks... then the 'just looks' number shouldn't factor in. Any time a diplomacy/bluff/etc. situation comes up... The appearance gets mixed right in there with the personal magnetism and drops that score right back to where it is on the sheet.
Nobody is championing the idea of giving a low charisma bonuses on seduction rolls JUST because the player claims to be good looking. The rules are the rules... But he can still roll well and charm the farmers daughter if he's lucky. i.e. if his personality doesn't get in the way.
I wouldn't want a new sheet printed up with 12 new stats just to throw numbers around to explain what can be said the opening night of the game. I certainly wouldn't want to have to split up every bonus I get for items, spells, and what not and decide where and how my charisma went up... Sometimes it's just making more trouble than it's needed.
I just don't want to show with a picture of my character and have someone say "Yeah right... that's Elf is WAY too good looking for your 8 charisma..."
"But... it's the only picture I could find using a crossbow...."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the difficulty came from, at least on a few of these threads that preceded this, that a player was lowering stats for the purpose of raising other stats but then was disinclined to believe in the slightest that his sub-par stats were in any way less than average.
This is different than the character believing he is a ladies man or the World's Smartest Man or whatever role playing device they are using to explain their RPing attitude in relation to their scores. Instead, this is adamantly not believing that the lower score is somehow a problem/deficit.
This has been debated as "well, they are already getting a penalty in the numbers, so they shouldn't HAVE to role play the negative as well." Which, ok, I suppose you could go that route. I tend not to see anyone with exceptional scores going that route, however -- if they have high stats they are eager to tell you how smart/fast/strong/wise/pretty they are. That, for me, is where the disconnect comes. If you don't want to be below average or have a difficulty, then do not take one. If you have one, it would be nice to acknowledge it and role play it rather than come up with (in many examples) a paper-thin excuse of why your 5 Intelligence girl is a master of all trades, super smart and highly perceptive, they just test poorly or whatever.
As far as the very tired and beaten argument that X critter has a high Charisma so they must be pretty .. well. I can only assume people are doing it for comedy sake. Pull Comeliness out or Attractiveness and let Charisma deal with the other portions of the stat given that a large number of posters seem to think that they are disconnected from each other anyway.
|
|
when we play a game with rules, then we have to make our RP fit in with the rules. By allowing various sub-stats without any mechanical consideration, we wind up with very strange outcomes. As a player we have to hope the GM understands the nuances of our character in the way that we do.
We're not actually allowing sub-stats. We're just acknowledging that when the rules say that 'Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance' that those qualities, taken as a whole, result in the Charisma score. You're pretending that the rules say that the player has no choice but to imagine that every single one of the qualities measured by the Charisma stat is equal to every other, requiring charismatic individuals (like Adolf H) to be beautiful, and poor leaders to be ugly.
Not only is this idea simply not 'The Rules', it runs completely counter to the stated aim of greater role-playing verisimilitude.
As a GM, we have to hope we remember each of our player's character's stats and their sub-stats in order to made sure we're arbitrating correctly. Then, when it comes to a mechanical roll, we just ignore what their sub-stats are and apply the default modifier.
That is adding layers of confusion onto an already confusing situation.
There are no actual sub-stats. The player describes his PC, and the DM takes that into account (along with actual game mechanics) when running the game. This is no different for DMs on this side of the debate than it is for DMs on your side of the debate.
|
|
I think the difficulty came from, at least on a few of these threads that preceded this, that a player was lowering stats for the purpose of raising other stats but then was disinclined to believe in the slightest that his sub-par stats were in any way less than average.
This is different than the character believing he is a ladies man or the World's Smartest Man or whatever role playing device they are using to explain their RPing attitude in relation to their scores. Instead, this is adamantly not believing that the lower score is somehow a problem/deficit.
He can believe what he likes, But the DM runs the NPCs. The player cannot get an advantage that the DM doesn't give him.
When I see a good-looking woman IRL I try to find out if I like her. Some beauties seem 'warm' and some seem 'cold'. Humans are really highly evolved to subconsciously pick up information like this. If the player claims his Cha 7 PC is beautiful, let him! It's still a cold beauty and NPCs will react as the DM directs. NPCs will assume he's shallow, she's stupid (dumb blonde stereotype), he looks cruel or arrogant, she seems stuck-up and unapproachable.
Meanwhile, this PC's twin looks exactly the same but has Cha 16. Now she looks warm and approachable, he looks like a down-to earth cool guy, she looks like someone I'd like to get to know, he looks interesting.
Then the twins interact with the NPCs, using actual Cha scores and skills.
It's really not a complex or arduous process. It's the same role-playing as you've done for years. Those who dump stats aren't a problem unless you let them; stop letting them be a problem. You don't need to deprive them of agency in order to do stop them being a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a lot of overanalyzing.
Well we're talking about a game that largely takes place in our heads. I envision one thing, and the players envision another thing. The goal is to get those two visions as closely aligned as possible.
If the player thinks their character is actually one way (but the stats don't support that), and I think the character is another way (what the stats reflect), then we have a disconnect.
Does it REALLY matter? Why do you want to know if his appearance is a 12, 14, or 16? As a DM what are you planning on doing with that number?
I'm looking for consistency in the game world. If a character has a 7 Charisma but describes his character as incredibly attractive, then we have a disconnect. The player is going to be expecting the game world to react to his character's attractiveness in a realistic fashion.
Unless there is a beauty contest where everything is based SOLELY on the looks... then the 'just looks' number shouldn't factor in.
Okay, but that kind of thing does come up. And keep in mind we're talking just about Charisma. What about a character that wants his Strength appearance not to match his Strength stat? He's a really muscled character even though he has a 7 Strength. It just doesn't add up and adds to the disconnect.
Nobody is championing the idea of giving a low charisma bonuses on seduction rolls JUST because the player claims to be good looking.
I understand that, but I dislike the idea. If a character is incredibly attractive, that SHOULD affect seduction rolls in my opinion. Having two characters both described as incredibly attractive, but one has a Charisma of 7, I have to try to remember which one is the "real" attractive one, and which one is just saying he's attractive. That's all kinds of confusing.
I just don't want to show with a picture of my character and have someone say "Yeah right... that's Elf is WAY too good looking for your 8 charisma..."
On that I can totally agree with you. I've no interest in trying to assign a Charisma score to a picture. Regardless if the picture is Kate Beckinsale or Carrot Top, if the Charisma stat is a 5, the NPCs are going to view the character as unattractive.
This has been debated as "well, they are already getting a penalty in the numbers, so they shouldn't HAVE to role play the negative as well." Which, ok, I suppose you could go that route. I tend not to see anyone with exceptional scores going that route, however -- if they have high stats they are eager to tell you how smart/fast/strong/wise/pretty they are.
That is definitely part of it. How exactly do you role play negative personal magnetism? Or, If a character has a 5 Charisma but role plays a great personality, are they RPing it wrong?
Appearance is the easiest to understand how to RP of the elements that make up Charisma. Having a character who has a positive appearance with a negative Charisma, and then explains it away as their ability to lead is poor seems like they're turning a negative into a positive, and then hiding the negative.
I think the difficulty came from, at least on a few of these threads that preceded this, that a player was lowering stats for the purpose of raising other stats but then was disinclined to believe in the slightest that his sub-par stats were in any way less than average.
This is different than the character believing he is a ladies man or the World's Smartest Man or whatever role playing device they are using to explain their RPing attitude in relation to their scores. Instead, this is adamantly not believing that the lower score is somehow a problem/deficit.
He can believe what he likes, But the DM runs the NPCs. The player cannot get an advantage that the DM doesn't give him.
...
It's really not a complex or arduous process. It's the same role-playing as you've done for years. Those who dump stats aren't a problem unless you let them; stop letting them be a problem. You don't need to deprive them of agency in order to do stop them being a problem.
I agree with you, up to a point. There are a number of players that are more Charismatic, shall we say, in real life than their GMs and they use this sort of thing to get their way. And there are some folks that consider this a problem because they are unwilling to rock the boat or say no to their friends.
But yes, it is as much a problem as you let it be. Usually, at least at games I've run, a simple "Remind me what your stat is again?" heads off a lot of silliness as players are reminded that the stat does matter in the game as much as the RP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so they shouldn't HAVE to role play the negative as well." Which, ok, I suppose you could go that route. I tend not to see anyone with exceptional scores going that route, however -- if they have high stats they are eager to tell you how smart/fast/strong/wise/pretty they are. That, for me, is where the disconnect comes. If you don't want to be below average or have a difficulty, then do not take one. If you have one, it would be nice to acknowledge it and role play it rather than come up with (in many examples) a paper-thin excuse of why your 5 Intelligence girl is a master of all trades, super smart and highly perceptive, they just test poorly or whatever.
This is an interesting direction... In my mind at least, my personal definition of 'RP' is to do and say what my character would do if he were real...
YMMV, but that's usually one of the benchmarks I use.
Now... I HAVE seen real people brag about how strong, smart or pretty they are...
I have rarely seen anyone constantly spout out about how dumb and unattractive they are. They act like they are the same as everyone else... but when put to the test that's when they fail. If they want to hit on a girl out fo their league... they give it a shot. If they see a puzzle or riddle they wrack their brains to figure it out... and fail.
All of which the 'This has been debated as "well, they are already getting a penalty in the numbers,' concept comes back into play. If I'm a genius... then I want to get my shot at rolling. I don't want my RPing to get in the way of my much smarter character's success.... but if my character is dumb... he still gets a chance to fail that roll.
What would people consider 'in character' Roleplaying of ugly be?
I've always been a fan of the 'don't say no... assign a difficulty check' philosophy :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody remember this commercial? And example of low charisma vs. high charisma. LOL
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Appearance is the easiest to understand how to RP of the elements that make up Charisma. Having a character who has a positive appearance with a negative Charisma, and then explains it away as their ability to lead is poor seems like they're turning a negative into a positive, and then hiding the negative.
It seems like you're focusing on how a player might describe their character in a vacuum.
Why not instead require players to roll skills/stats when they interact with the world (just like a roll of Strength to lift/push something, a roll of Charisma to change someone's mind or request a favor). Then get them to RP the results. If a player dumps Cha and puts zero points in Diplomacy, they're not going to make a lot of friends out of NPC's. So don't let them go around and get them for free, make them roll.
When they get lucky, let them RP their success.
When they get a typical, low result, encourage them to RP that too.
I'll let you in on a secret... it's almost like the game is designed with this in mind.
It doesn't matter how the player might describe their character at creation, they now have to describe them in the context of their failed Charisma roll.
For mental abilities, I homebrew the following for "average humans" (adult/age-of-maturity mental stats of 10 [Int, Wis, Cha]):
From about 3-5 years old, all mental stats are 3.
From about 6-pre-puberty, all mental stats are 5.
From puberty to pre-maturity, all mental stats are 7.
At maturity, all mental stats are 10.
At middle age, all mental stats are 11*.
At old age, all mental stats are 12*.
At venerable age, all mental stats are 13*.
* assuming no age related degenerative diseases.
So then setting to Pathfinder ages, where "adulthood" is 15 years old, then...
Age 03: Mental Attributes 3.
Age 04-05: Mental Attributes 4.
Age 06-08: Mental Attributes 5.
Age 09-11: Mental Attributes 6.
Age 12: Mental Attributes 7.
Age 13: Mental Attributes 8.
Age 14: Mental Attributes 9.
Age 15-34: Mental Attributes 10.
Age 35-52: Mental Attributes 11.
Age 53-69: Mental Attributes 12.
Age 70+: Mental Attributes 13.
Which gives a rough frame of reference so if a player dump-stats Cha to 8, then I say "your character has the force of personality of a 13 year old...overly self-centered and generally lacking in empathy...a mini-semi-sociopath." Etc.
I will never force anybody to roleplay their stats... but the world will react accordingly. I know some people give "bonuses" to diplomacy/intimidat/bluff for really good RP, but I'm not willing to do that. Some people want to play the charismatic individual without actually being charismativ themselves, so I will reward those who did the mechanical investment.
|
|
I will never force anybody to roleplay their stats... but the world will react accordingly. I know some people give "bonuses" to diplomacy/intimidat/bluff for really good RP, but I'm not willing to do that. Some people want to play the charismatic individual without actually being charismativ themselves, so I will reward those who did the mechanical investment.
I agree with you about not giving modifiers for role-play, because that means the player is using his score instead of his PC's score.
But modifiers for other things are okay. A gift? +2 bonus. You shagged his sister? Penalty of -2!
In a treaty negotiation it's hard to ignore the actual offer on the table when it comes to the skill roll. If you give them what they ask for that's going to be a huge bonus. If you offer them less than they started with, that's going to be a huge penalty....assuming you ask for a roll at all in these extreme circumstances.
Hi everyone.
Meet Johnny Bravo
Ladies man extraordinaire. In all likelihood, also a 7 Charisma.He believes he is the strongest man in the world. He often fails to back this statement up.
We all know people who claim to be smarter, better looking, etc then they really are.
The problem is that not everything in d&d is reduced to a skill roll. Some groups assume certain things can be done by normal people. We will call these DC 10 ability checks and assume that everyone "takes 10". Maybe the door to the inn was built poorly and sticks a little bit. Maybe your Strength 6 wizard has trouble opening the door and is laughed at by any witnesses/potential romantic interests. (Open/Close is your friend). I think any time a character plays a stat below 10, they are going to notice some mundane things in normal life that most people don't have trouble with. Maybe maneuvering through a crowded bar is a DC 10 dexterity check. Nobody really has trouble because nobody needs roll as taking 10 is just what is natural. Not so when someone has, say, an 8 dexterity. Maybe he stumbles and bumps into a drunk and when he tries to make a diplomacy check with his 6 cha, he fails and starts a bar fight.
If you were playing such a character would you really be annoyed at the GM when he incorporated such things?
If you are going to play a character with a low stat, expect the GM to start being strict on what he enforces via ability and skill checks more often. Maybe telling a group of NPCs to "go here and flank here" etc... is no longer something you just "do" but instead a profession soldier check of DC10. Something nobody had a problem with in a normal game where everyone had an int of 10 or higher. In comes a 6 int fighter who wants to give tactics advice to NPCs, the GM calls for a roll, and is told that he is double punishing the 6 int...
Very good ideas.
I will never force anybody to roleplay their stats... but the world will react accordingly. I know some people give "bonuses" to diplomacy/intimidat/bluff for really good RP, but I'm not willing to do that. Some people want to play the charismatic individual without actually being charismativ themselves, so I will reward those who did the mechanical investment.I agree with you about not giving modifiers for role-play, because that means the player is using his score instead of his PC's score.
But modifiers for other things are okay. A gift? +2 bonus. You shagged his sister? Penalty of -2!
In a treaty negotiation it's hard to ignore the actual offer on the table when it comes to the skill roll. If you give them what they ask for that's going to be a huge bonus. If you offer them less than they started with, that's going to be a huge penalty....assuming you ask for a roll at all in these extreme circumstances.
In my mind you have to offer a gift or something in negotiations to even get them to consider (ie. be allowed to roll). Walking into the King's court and asking he go to war with a stirring speech will impress people with your oratory skills, but it won't convince them of your casus belli.
Heck, most kings you probably have to give a gift to even be allowed to enter and give a speech.
|
|
I will never force anybody to roleplay their stats... but the world will react accordingly. I know some people give "bonuses" to diplomacy/intimidat/bluff for really good RP, but I'm not willing to do that. Some people want to play the charismatic individual without actually being charismativ themselves, so I will reward those who did the mechanical investment.I agree with you about not giving modifiers for role-play, because that means the player is using his score instead of his PC's score.
But modifiers for other things are okay. A gift? +2 bonus. You shagged his sister? Penalty of -2!
In a treaty negotiation it's hard to ignore the actual offer on the table when it comes to the skill roll. If you give them what they ask for that's going to be a huge bonus. If you offer them less than they started with, that's going to be a huge penalty....assuming you ask for a roll at all in these extreme circumstances.
In my mind you have to offer a gift or something in negotiations to even get them to consider (ie. be allowed to roll). Walking into the King's court and asking he go to war with a stirring speech will impress people with your oratory skills, but it won't convince them of your casus belli.
Heck, most kings you probably have to give a gift to even be allowed to enter and give a speech.
Oh, no doubt!
The suggestions above are meant to illustrate that not all modifiers are wrong, not to limit how the DM can adjudicate personal interactions.
a character's physical cosmetic features should be based off an amalgamation of their physical stats because physical cosmetic features are physical. charisma is purely mental.
if Charisma was a matter of how attractive a character looked, then darn, Night Hags must be Smoking Hot, and Cthulu even more Smoking Hot than a Nymph or succubus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are ogres attractive because of their fantastic str though? It is after all a physical stat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as far as I see it, players can set mental scores to 8 and roleplay it like they had and 18, but the DM is going to say... "roll for diplomacy"
the pc with an actual 18 is going to get higher than the pc with 8.
PC with 8 cha. "We will help you." as the player says this confidentially Dm "Roll for diplomacy." This person will almost always fail even if person does know how to talk to people because his/her character doesn't.
PC with 18 cha. "We will help you.' as the player says this very choppy and not with confidence. DM "Roll for diplomacy." This person will almost always succeed if even he doesn't know how to talk to people because his character does.
You can use your imagination to say that characters just said it differently than the player. Even though the player said it choppy with no confidence, you can just say the character said it with confidence.
Otherwise, you are punishing the not so smart players, those who really don't know how to socialize or solve problems. And people who do know are almost forced to play classes who use that as a main stat. Seriously if someone wants to play a wizard but doesn't know how to communicate or solve problems, their skills and their character says otherwise even if the player didn't. The character did it differently than what the player did. By inflicting penalties you are interfering with a characters free will of choice of character.
I would hate a DM who did that to me, because I would never be able to any class that uses Cha effectively, mainly because I'm quiet and I don't always know what to say. I would quit knowing I couldn't play the class I want to without punishment. If a DM would punish me for having less Cha than the character, then I would leave.
Years ago I noticed something in regards to gaming, the actually charismatic players have such an advantage.
Intelligent, focused and charismatic, damn, they are the power behind whole groups of players. Nigh unstoppable unless a dm opts to gank them (out of jealousy?).
Are ogres attractive because of their fantastic str though? It is after all a physical stat.
what i mean, is not that ogres are attractive, but they look like they are pretty muscular.
attractiveness shouldn't have a stat attached, but a characters physical developments, such as visible muscle or even appearant physical health, should be based on the appropriate physical stat
but a 20 strength ogre, you can't deny, shows a measure of their ogre strength. it doesn't make them attractive, just shows, they are strong and strong ogre women, like strong ogre men
it doesn't mean the ogre is smoking hot by standards other than those of an ogre.
If a dm was really throwing in a lot of effort, and working on emotional attachments and relationships, then a lot of heroes would attract attention based on how incredible their abilities and achievements are.
Yes, even the cha 7 fighter could get the girls or the guys.
If a dm was really throwing in a lot of effort, and working on emotional attachments and relationships, then a lot of heroes would attract attention based on how incredible their abilities and achievements are.
Yes, even the cha 7 fighter could get the girls or the guys.
i would prefer a working stat independant relationship system more than a simple "Cha Check" or a Halfheartedly analyzed "Comeliness Stat". something based on the standards of the individual you are trying to please, something based on a lot more than merely "Roll a Cha Check" "Roll a Comeliness/Appearance Check" or "Roll a Cha based skill check"
not neccessarily something complicated, but something with freedom on how to interpret whom your trying to attract and how you attract them, with rooms to elaborate on their standards based on their personality, that while simple and freeform, takes more than a mere "Stat Check" or "Skill Check"
I've seen it run entirely independent of dice, or with a roll only rarely at some key points, and I've seen it run as a seduction check (using bluff) with wildly varying DCs.
Also was in a game when two players were throwing their low seduction checks at the town bicycle, where you could win so easily. At least everyone could have a laugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen it run entirely independent of dice, or with a roll only rarely at some key points, and I've seen it run as a seduction check (using bluff) with wildly varying DCs.
Also was in a game when two players were throwing their low seduction checks at the town bicycle, where you could win so easily. At least everyone could have a laugh.
seduction shouldn't need rolls. i agree. unless you want to do the fort save against fatigue, but it should be off screen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
as far as I see it, players can set mental scores to 8 and roleplay it like they had and 18, but the DM is going to say... "roll for diplomacy"
the pc with an actual 18 is going to get higher than the pc with 8.
Not sure if you've followed the whole thread (this point has been mentioned before.) The question however, becomes "is that good for roleplay?"
Some people take the stance that a GM should never tell the players how to RP their characters. I take the stance that it is the GM's responsibility to make sure everyone's RP is within the bounds of their character.
In my game world, RP actually means something. It can actually have an affect on the world before any dice come into play. If I write up an NPC and part of his personality is that he will target the weakest-looking PC in the group, then I would normally look at the strength stat of the PCs and see who he targets.
However, if the player of a PC with a Strength 5 has declared that his PC is muscle-bound, then that throws the system for a loop. No longer can I rely on the score on the sheet, I have to ask each player to describe what their score represents.
So as a GM I enforce Strength 5 = you look incredibly weak. In all my years of playing, I've never had someone with a low stat really argue that it is a positive for their character. I've had some try to not RP their negative side, but that of course is then up to the GM to make sure it comes into play.
Otherwise, you are punishing the not so smart players, those who really don't know how to socialize or solve problems.
How you handle a player's intelligence versus a character's intelligence is going to be a tricky situation. I don't want to say "Here is a riddle, roll intelligence checks, DC 15, ok you solved the riddle." That's not much fun.
So I take more of the "here is the riddle, if you have an Intelligence of 12, you get clue #1, if you have an Intelligence of 15, you get clue #1 and #2, if you have an Intelligence of 18 or higher, you get clue #1, #2, and #3.
Is this punishing players who choose to play dumb characters? I don't think so. Is it possible that a player of a dumb PC can figure it out before the other players, even with their clues? Sure, but it is rare, and we chalk it up to dumb luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with riddles though, if they aren't solvable with an in-game roll, you are explicitly relying on the player's intelligence, not the PC's Intelligence. Clues can certainly make it easier, but unless someone practices solving riddles, it's often quite random whether someone can solve it or not.
I think it's fine to engage the player's brain, particularly through problem solving, but then to hold them to an in-game standard while doing it is bogus IMO. The problem is purely something of your own creation and double standards.
When you purposely engage the player's mind, know and accept you are doing that. If you find that unacceptable for certain purposes, then you should use in game mechanics to resolve it.
How you handle a player's intelligence versus a character's intelligence is going to be a tricky situation. I don't want to say "Here is a riddle, roll intelligence checks, DC 15, ok you solved the riddle." That's not much fun.
So I take more of the "here is the riddle, if you have an Intelligence of 12, you get clue #1, if you have an Intelligence of 15, you get clue #1 and #2, if you have...
Out of curiosity.... How many clues do you give before the answer is obvious?
Most riddles by nature don't need many hints. The answeres are fairly obvious in hindsight. I can't really think of any I've sat through that a hint is less then giving the answer.
Soooo same difference as far as i can tell.
Can you give me an example of a riddle and its 3 hints that wouldn't be the same as 'roll a check, here's the answer...'
No sarcasm, I'm actually curious about this.
Can you give me an example of a riddle and its 3 hints that wouldn't be the same as 'roll a check, here's the answer...'
Sure, here is one from a past session:
PC group enters a complex and uncovers a large statue of a dragon. On the statue is runed words spelling out the riddle. At the bottom, it then says "Those who answer correctly shall be rewarded greatly, those who answer falsely will perish."
Riddle:
Known to all of our kind,
it's strike kins the arrow.
Hint #1
Hint #2
Hint #3
"Riddle": What do I have in my pocket?
"Riddle": What do I have in my pocket?
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
The candlestick Professor Plum reverse-pickpocketed onto you after he was done with that sordid business in the library?