I was just reading the thread about using CHA based skills against PCs, and it got me to thinking - do we even need charisma as a stat?
I remember when I was younger we once played a game where everyone chose their own charisma score, because we reasoned that having to roll randomly for something like that didn't make sense - you may as well roll to see what hair colour you have or what your personality traits are. This was back when CHA was your looks plus your likeability, none of this "strength of personality" jazz that it includes today.
So what I'm thinking is, everything CHA based should be handled purely in role-playing, the way you choose what your PC looks like, what their voice sounds like, etc. If it has no solid game effect then it won't unbalance anything and won't be prone to munchkin abuse. The most a player can do is say "but my guy is good with people, he's a smooth talker" and if the DM doesn't want to let it work that time they can just say "this guy is just too suspicious." Why roll? It would make the game much more role-playing and problem solving oriented if you couldn't just roll your way out of situations that you should really be thinking or talking your way out of. Why not just use dice mechanics for combat and magic, where it's really needed? I think the sense of the DM and players working together to create a story would be much more palpable if one or the other couldn't just use a heavily modified dice roll to change the storyline.
Also the facet of CHA that controls spell casting for sorcerors and paladins etc I've always thought took a huge chunk out of what WIS is meant to represent. Force of personality should be WIS in my opinion, which would make WIS more useful than it currently is.
So what do you think? I know D&D without CHA is unlikely to happen for historical reasons, but hypothetically speaking, do you think the game would be better off without it?
The whole point of stats... Any stats, is to step into the skin of a character that is different from yourself. All of these stats have mechanical game effects which one can take advantage of, or not, as both player and DM.
Physical stats are easy. They drive a lionshare of the combat advantages just as they always have.
Mental stats, however, have seen something of an overhaul over time. Now each mental stat has at least one spellcasting class dependant on it. Monster spell like abilities and even some supernatural abilities are based on Charisma. There are even classes which offer mechanical advantages in combat for your mental stats; AC bonuses based on all three, smite abilities, undead turning, and the list goes on.
The goal was, I think, to make these stats more attractive so that folks felt comfortable investing in them over Str, Con, and Dex. So people who wanted to play less physical characters wouldn't feel as though their combat options were quite so limiting. In the end, everyone should respect the stats one has on a sheet.
The DM needs to account for them, and offer opportunities to use them. The other players need to understand that Bob is smart and Fred is likeable, and give them more consideration when Bob and Fred are trying to get the party to see things as they do by using logic and pure chutzpah.
So yes, Charisma is necessary. Every bit as necessary as any other stat in the game.
Remember the Comeliness attribute from second edition? That was hard to apply in game terms, unless the mission at hand was trying to pick up in ye olde bar.
There are plenty of games in which charisma doesn't exist--I love the Diablo games--but those games tend to focus on rollplay rather than roleplay. Theoretically, a roleplay-heavy d&d game could be run without charisma but it would require a bit of game revision on your part.
|
The whole point of stats... Any stats, is to step into the skin of a character that is different from yourself. All of these stats have mechanical game effects which one can take advantage of, or not, as both player and DM.
Exactly. I've know many players who were wallflowers or just plain socially awkward, yet the Charisma stat (and its related skills) allowed their character to do things they couldn't. Granted, it's more fun if they make the attempt to roleplay a Diplomacy roll, but frankly, not everyone has those verbal skills or can think on their feet. I'm sure as heck not a glib-tongued bard, but I might enjoy playing one. The Cha-based skills allow us to have a mechanical fall-back when the *player* is tongue-tied.
To address another point of the original poster: Charisma is not Wisdom, and we shouldn't ever drop one for the other. You may be incredibly insightful, yet poor at winning people over. For instance, I've known priests whose understanding of their faith may be hard to top and who fully live their faith, but their sermons are dry and boring. Contrast that with televangelists, whose Charisma scores are obviously high enough to convince people to send them money, yet themselves engage in behaviors that denote poor wisdom and contradict what they preach. The attributes are not the same (but I'll give you I do wonder why turning undead involves Charisma rather than actual piety/Wisdom).
Theoretically, a roleplay-heavy d&d game could be run without charisma but it would require a bit of game revision on your part.
Hmmm. What I'm saying is that I think removing Charisma as a stat would make the game MORE suited to roleplaying. Conversations between PC's and NPC's would be much more natural, all you have to do is imagine how your PC would behave, what they would say, and then say it.
I remember the campaign we played where everyone chose their own Charisma. I think one person (the player of a paladin)chose CHA 17. Everyone else chose to be average, and one guy chose CHA 6 because he thought it would be fun to be hideously ugly. Everyone then played to those stats.
I am not planning on removing CHA, this is all a hypothetical. As Xellan said, it is now too tied up in the game to remove, but I think that the fact that it is tied into everything makes D&D much more of a roll playing game than it needs to be. I just honestly think that how likeable your PC is shouldn't be a stat anymore than what colour their eyes are.
So what if say, everyone chooses to be hot? A team of attractive witty heroes (perhaps with one silent type, or one particularly fast talker) describes most action, sci-fi or fantasy media. They are heroes after all. I think having some things unquantified would make the game more immediate and organic, and I reckon how likeable someone is doesn't need to be measured with a stat.
I think of it like this: Someone says their PC is lawful good, but they keep flouting authority. The DM can say "I'm changing you to chaotic good, because that's clearly what is fun to you." Or they can ruin the player's fun by constantly saying "you can't do that, a LG person doesn't behave that way."
It is very frustrating for a player to try to roleplay a witty action hero for example and be told that their CHA score isn't high enough or they didn't put enough ranks into bluff. The thing is you can choose your alignment, but you aren't allowed to choose your CHA or whether or not the social skills are class skills for you, and it seems to me that these things affect the way a character behaves and interacts with others as much as if not more than their alignment.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I just don't see the point in having the role-playing portion of the game governed by rules, it just seems odd and robotic to me. Surely we don't need rules for everything?
To address another point of the original poster: Charisma is not Wisdom, and we shouldn't ever drop one for the other. You may be incredibly insightful, yet poor at winning people over. For instance, I've known priests whose understanding of their faith may be hard to top and who fully live their faith, but their sermons are dry and boring. Contrast that with televangelists, whose Charisma scores are obviously high enough to convince people to send them money, yet themselves engage in behaviors that denote poor wisdom and contradict what they preach. The attributes are not the same (but I'll give you I do wonder why turning undead involves Charisma rather than actual piety/Wisdom).
I'm not saying Charisma IS Wisdom, I'm saying that "force of personality/willpower" seems to me to fit better under the umbrella of Wisdom, which is supposedly about enlightenment and mental strength and not just piety. It seems to me that they took a personal attribute that used to be quite logically covered by the Wisdom stat and changed it to CHA just to make CHA more useful in the game. Sure, making a compelling speech is CHA, not WIS, but intuitively channelling magical energy? That sounds like WIS to me.
|
I see your point, BUT, channeling magic energy can be seen as a charismatic action also. The act of "being charming" is a charismatic ploy wherein one makes ones self so likeable as to almost seem to cast a spell over the intended recipient.
And...there is precedent for the idea of the use of magic being an extremely foolish endeavor, divorced from the conventional wisdom of "not fooling around with forces one does not truly understand."
|
I play the game to be something different from who I am. I can't juggle 5 knives. I can't lift 350lbs over my head. I wouldn't be able to memorize 20+ spells in a short amount of time. I can't shrug off the effects of rattlesnake poison(although I have never tried;)). I haven't made the best decisions in life all the time, and I am not the most Charismatic person. Without charisma and the checks involved with it, I would never play a charismatic character. Sure, I roleplay well, but I sometimes have a problem talking/charming/smoozing the public at large (no, not you Fakey!!). Should I never be allowed to play a smooth talking bard because my own personal skills may be lacking? OK, next time someone wants to play a musclebound fighter tell them to don 75-100lbs of equipment and take a walk around town.
The stats are there to allow us to play characters with abilities we may not posess IRL. I like being able to play a frail wizard, but if you make me roleplay and memorize a bunch of "spells" to play him then I can't. If you make me roleplay talking my way out of the city lock-up on my personal skill, I can't. I wouldn't be smooth enough. But I could outline what MY CHARACTER would say and make an adjusted roll to try it. Just like I make an adjusted roll to hit that guardsman with my axe.
It isn't fair to penalize players for wanting to play something outside their normal, real, personas.
FH
|
|
It isn't fair to penalize players for wanting to play something outside their normal, real, personas.FH
Conversely, seeing some dungeonmasters(and no disrespect to anybody intended)it's kinda hard to simulate, much less imagine onesself schmoozing a delicate elven princess whilst talking to a roit burly manlyman.
The stats are there to allow us to play characters with abilities we may not posess IRL. I like being able to play a frail wizard, but if you make me roleplay and memorize a bunch of "spells" to play him then I can't. If you make me roleplay talking my way out of the city lock-up on my personal skill, I can't. I wouldn't be smooth enough. But I could outline what MY CHARACTER would say and make an adjusted roll to try it. Just like I make an adjusted roll to hit that guardsman with my axe.
It isn't fair to penalize players for wanting to play something outside their normal, real, personas.
FH
I see what you mean FH but I don't think Charisma is the same as those other things you mentioned. It is more like alignment, it is to do with non-combat behaviour. That's why we have suspension of disbelief, so you CAN just outline what your PC would say and then the DM and other players react to it as if you were that person, not yourself. You aren't really trying to fast-talk a guard, you are pretending to fast-talk the DM who is pretending to be a guard. If everyone plays along it's simple.
I don't think I'm getting myself across so I'll try another tack :) If there was no CHA stat then you would create and roleplay PC's personality the same way a writer creates and writes a character; You'd simply imagine how you would behave if you were that person, and behave that way. Of course the PC's behaviour will be influenced by your own personality, how could it not be? No writer can ever truly step outside themselves. But as you get more practiced it will be influenced less and less, just as a good writer can be very different from their characters. To imagine you're someone else is as close to being them as anyone can ever get anyway, so why is the stat needed? All it does is randomly restrict the kind of person you're allowed to imagine you are.
That's why role-playing's fun, you can act differently. If you make an effort to act like a charming bard then that should be enough, and that's what roleplaying's all about, that's why it's fun.
If someone is too shy to even make an effort to act the way their character is meant to and instead they just say "I bluff the guard, I have a high CHA and 12 ranks of Bluff, let's roll the dice" then that's fine, but I'm not sure if that's a role-playing game. It sounds like a war game to me. The player isn't role-playing their character. They're controlling it like a remote controlled robot. Combat and magic are different precisely because they aren't social situations. You can't roleplay a fight (at least not while sittig round a table) so you simulate it with dice. You CAN role-play a conversation, so why do you need to simulate it with dice?
What I'm saying is that when you play an RPG you are pretending to be someone else like a writer does, not actually trying to become the character in real life. No-one expects writers to actually BE all of their characters. Tolkein was not (to the best of my knowledge!) a Dragon. It's the same with RPG's, you can play a charming PC without being charming, and being charming shouldn't be expected of you, just that you pretend to be charming. The effort is enough and all anyone should expect. If your character has been characterized as a charming bard all I as a DM would require you to do would be make an effort to outline what you would say to the guard. I then decide whether he would believe you, taking into account your character's personality, and roleplay the result back at you.
I guess the way I see it is if CHA was removed it wouldn't penalize shy players for choosing to play charismatic PC's, it would make charismatic PC's a roleplaying challenge for shy players, just like an uncharismatic PC would be a challenge to a charismatic player.
Conversely, seeing some dungeonmasters(and no disrespect to anybody intended)it's kinda hard to simulate, much less imagine onesself schmoozing a delicate elven princess whilst talking to a roit burly manlyman.
Amen to that, brother.
|
|
The stats are there to allow us to play characters with abilities we may not posess IRL. I like being able to play a frail wizard, but if you make me roleplay and memorize a bunch of "spells" to play him then I can't. If you make me roleplay talking my way out of the city lock-up on my personal skill, I can't. I wouldn't be smooth enough. But I could outline what MY CHARACTER would say and make an adjusted roll to try it. Just like I make an adjusted roll to hit that guardsman with my axe.
It isn't fair to penalize players for wanting to play something outside their normal, real, personas.
FH
I see what you mean FH but I don't think Charisma is the same as those other things you mentioned. It is more like alignment, it is to do with non-combat behaviour. That's why we have suspension of disbelief, so you CAN just outline what your PC would say and then the DM and other players react to it as if you were that person, not yourself. You aren't really trying to fast-talk a guard, you are pretending to fast-talk the DM who is pretending to be a guard. If everyone plays along it's simple.
I don't think I'm getting myself across so I'll try another tack :) If there was no CHA stat then you would create and roleplay PC's personality the same way a writer creates and writes a character; You'd simply imagine how you would behave if you were that person, and behave that way. Of course the PC's behaviour will be influenced by your own personality, how could it not be? No writer can ever truly step outside themselves. But as you get more practiced it will be influenced less and less, just as a good writer can be very different from their characters. To imagine you're someone else is as close to being them as anyone can ever get anyway, so why is the stat needed? All it does is randomly restrict the kind of person you're allowed to imagine you are.
That's why role-playing's fun, you can act differently. If you make an effort to act like a charming bard then...
Yes, but!!!! What if the DM decides you didn't smooze enough, or the persuasion wasn't up to snuff, or that I couldn't convey what I was trying to accomplish in an eloquent enough manner to allow the other players and DM to fully understand what I had (brilliantly) in mind.
I DO roleplay combat. I dodge, weave, hack and and stagger back. I still like the mechanic involved because it removes alot of the "grey" area and the areas open to individual interpretation. If you had a stellar idea but could not get the DM to visualize it then it's "sorry, your idea sucked and the guard sees through your pathetic attempt at being Diplomatic". I like having a mechanic to use either as back-up or due to "writers' block". You said "If everyone plays along it's simple." and I agree......sort of. If you have that perfectly in sync group that meshes together without any problems while roleplaying then great. Most people need a more structured setting in which to exchange ideas and opinions.Your Idea may work for your group, but I think you would find yourself and your group in a minority in this manner.
FH
|
|
I see what you mean FH but I don't think Charisma is the same as those other things you mentioned. It is more like alignment, it is to do with non-combat behaviour.
Alignment is a personality trait that has more to do with one's general outlook and philosophy of life. Charisma is an attribute, like strength, because it can be actively used to change one's environment, it is a measure of ones natural ability to do so. In a combat heavy game it is (usually) kind of a back seat ability, if you will. But run a game with a lot of political intrigue (which I never really have) and it can be exceedingly more powerful than physical power.
I also see what you're saying; if you want to play a charismatic character, that's your business. I neither agree nor disagree; having it be a character choice can be dangerous if everybody decides, "I want to be Prince Charming." If everyone is responsible with it, I suppose it wouldn't be too bad. I see where it could be an exploitable loophole, though.(edit) and fakey's immediate point above makes sense too. You get rid of cops 'n' robbers-type arguments of "I shot you...no you didn't I shot you first...you're a big cheater."
To imagine you're someone else is as close to being them as anyone can ever get anyway, so why is the stat needed? All it does is randomly restrict the kind of person you're allowed to imagine you are.That's why role-playing's fun, you can act differently. If you make an effort to act like a charming bard then...
Why is the stat needed?
I am introverted and shy. I cannot dominate a conversation. I find it difficult to disagree with someone, especially to their face. I take a -10 to intimidate because of some early life experiences.
I want to and like to play bards. It allows me to explore places I could never go in real life. I can be a suave, articulate, and sexy character.
Without the cha stat roleplaying would be like:
ME: I go up to the good looking girl and say, "Um hi... um can I buy you a beer or something?"
DM: She tells you, "Bugger off!" and slaps you.
ME: I just wanna get laid. Can you let me hook up with the hot chick just once? I really am the swashbuckling hero.
DM: She knows you are a geek.
With the cha stat:
ME: I go up to the good looking girl and use diplomacy to make her like me. I rolled a 16 +8 is 24. I say to her, "Um hi... um can I buy you a beer or something?"
DM: She smiles and says, "That would be nice."
ME: "After you finish that beer, you wanna go back to my room for some dessert?"
DM: She likes you, but you need at least 30 to get some on the first date. "Why don't we just talk for a while?"
ME: "OK, what do you want to talk about?"
DM: You spend d4 hours (rolls a 3) making small talk. You get no useful information.
With charisma, I can be a social outcast and still have fun playing bards. I like the challenge of devising elaborate plans that rely on social skills to overcome in game obstacles. If I could do this in real life, I would be a US representative (until I had enough experience to become a lobbyist.)
Nobody asks you to prove you deserve an 18 str by lifting uber heavy stuff, why should you have to talk like Jessy Jackson to get the benefits of an 18 cha.
Yes, but!!!! What if the DM decides you didn't smooze enough, or the persuasion wasn't up to snuff, or that I couldn't convey what I was trying to accomplish in an eloquent enough manner to allow the other players and DM to fully understand what I had (brilliantly) in mind.
I DO roleplay combat. I dodge, weave, hack and and stagger back. I still like the mechanic involved because it removes alot of the "grey" area and the areas open to individual interpretation. If you had a stellar idea but could not get the DM to visualize it then it's "sorry, your idea sucked and the guard sees through your pathetic attempt at being Diplomatic". I like having a mechanic to use either as back-up or due to "writers' block". You said "If everyone plays along it's simple." and I agree......sort of. If you have that perfectly in sync group that meshes together without any problems while roleplaying then great. Most people need a more structured setting in which to exchange ideas and opinions.Your Idea may work for your group, but I think you would find yourself and your group in a minority in this manner.
FH
I suppose you're right. If you were playing with a group you didn't know too well, or were in a competition or something, you DO need rules for everything or things go pear-shaped pretty quick. My attitude probably comes from the fact that I've never played with anyone but close friends. We all felt comfortable around each other before we even started playing the game and we played solely to relax and have fun, never really taking it too seriously.
I've never played in a game where someone tried to gain an advantage over everyone else or abuse a loophole, because if anyone had tried that then everyone else would have pressured them out of it. Different groups have different styles I guess.
You know, I've DMd for about 12 years and I've never once used a dice roll to determine initial attitudes in an encounter. It's always seemed to just flow naturally from the situation.
Wise Meerkat: You've just described the one situation where I sometimes DO use the Charisma attribute to resolve a role-playing situation, mainly because I don't relish pretending to flirt with my friends or (worse) my sister!
If the player just wants their character to pick up for no real reason then I see no harm in saying "you successfully pick up a barmaid and arrange to meet her after work." No dice needed. Just like if the PC's are walking along and one of them suddenly says "I want to go for a swim in the river." I'm not going to make them roll a Swim check, I'm going to shrug and ask what everyone else does while Regnar the Barbarian goes for a swim.
If it advances the story (eg the charismatic thief PC is trying to charm the merchant's daughter to get into his mansion)then I'll use Bluff to work out seductions. But only because it's embarrasing for everyone involved to play it out, and the game shouldn't make people uncomfortable for no reason.
But trying to Bluff a guard to let you into the palace is not embarrassing or awkward for the player or DM; it should be fun. If you don't find stuff like that fun then why would you want to play a Charismatic PC?
I was just reading the thread about using CHA based skills against PCs, and it got me to thinking - do we even need charisma as a stat?
Well generally speaking I like the stat. In part I like it because it tells me something about my character and my character is not me. My current character is dumb as a box of rocks but very charismatic he and the rest of the party get into all sorts of amusing trouble in Arcana Evolved.
That said I feel that in the current system Charisma has been handled badly both in terms of interesting Charisma related feats and in terms of its basic mechanics. In many ways I would rather do without then with what we currently have but would much prefer to have a viable charisma stat then no stat at all.
|
|
If you don't find stuff like that fun then why would you want to play a Charismatic PC?
Because people like to pretend that they are something in a game that they may never be in real life. I am a physically strong, dexterous guy with a heavy martial arts background. I have no desire to play a monk. I practically was one. I want to play something other then what I am or could easily be. I like playing druids and rogues and other non-combat oriented classes. I understand that you think that groups SHOULD be able to just roleplay out those encounters but some of us don't have the ability to do it, either because of group style or our own lacking characteristics. Diplomacy as a skill is cool, the rules of use may need some tweaking and I think Rich Burlew has a good take on it here: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html ,
but axing the stat is not the answer.FH
Diplomacy as a skill is cool, the rules of use may need some tweaking and I think Rich Burlew has a good take on it here: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html ,
but axing the stat is not the answer.FH
Fair enough, as I said it was always hypothetical. It's just in my games it's never really made much sense that you aren't allowed to choose your relative level of charisma. Obviously in other groups it is as necessary as all of the other stats. I just worry that it removes role-playing, I mean fair enough to say "this dice roll represents a sword swing" but to say "this dice roll represents an important conversation," that just seems to me to be wierdly abstract since we are all essentially sitting around talking anyway.
Oh well, must be a personal thing. Forget I said anything... :)
EDIT: I think maybe instead of Charisma as a stat, there should just be the social skills like Bluff and Diplomacy available as class skills to everyone (modified by INT,) with maybe a feat that adds to them like "smooth talker" or something.
Well - I have a number of thoughts on this - I'll spare you and keep it to a few.
First Charisma is probably the most important characteristic in real life and the "strength of personality jazz" is much better description than looks.
Also charisma isn't necessarily "charm" or "charming" especially in the context of the game.
It your ability to intimidate, negotiate, will magic to work for you, deceive others, and commond the respect and attention of others to lead them. In a fantasy game (or real life those sound like pretty important abilities. And really don't tie into intelligence or wisdom all that well.
It isn't looks or (necessarily) being charming either - think of most legal or business negotiations, it is about your abiltiy to organize and articulate your point, the manner in which you present, hold the attention, and win the trust of those you are pitching to.
If anything, I would argue that charisma is an under developed component of the game rather than an unnecessary one.
This was back when CHA was your looks plus your likeability, none of this "strength of personality" jazz that it includes today.
I'm sorry, when was that exactly?
From my 1st ed. DMG (page 15): "Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism."
Well - I have a number of thoughts on this - I'll spare you and keep it to a few.
First Charisma is probably the most important characteristic in real life and the "strength of personality jazz" is much better description than looks.
Also charisma isn't necessarily "charm" or "charming" especially in the context of the game.
It your ability to intimidate, negotiate, will magic to work for you, deceive others, and commond the respect and attention of others to lead them. In a fantasy game (or real life those sound like pretty important abilities. And really don't tie into intelligence or wisdom all that well.
It isn't looks or (necessarily) being charming either - think of most legal or business negotiations, it is about your abiltiy to organize and articulate your point, the manner in which you present, hold the attention, and win the trust of those you are pitching to.
If anything, I would argue that charisma is an under developed component of the game rather than an unnecessary one.
I see your point. But if Charisma alludes to willpower and magnetism them I am now confused as to what Wisdom is! If Wisdom is enlightenment and intuition, I find it very difficult to imagine a person who is enlightened, calm, centred, and wise who is not also charismatic. Everyone likes the Dalai Lama ;)
Perhaps Wisdom is the unecessary attribute? All it seems to be is a measurement of divine spell power, as if you think of the circumstances where a Will save is called for Charisma could apply just as easily as Wisdom for the modifier. I can imagine a charismatic person who is not wise, but I can't imagine a wise person who is not charismatic.
Maybe I think too much about this stuff, but it just seems to me that something is not right with the non-physical stats. They are too vaguely defined and I get the feeling that one of them is superfluous. I used to be clear on exactly what WIS and CHA were but now they seem to overlap.
This was back when CHA was your looks plus your likeability, none of this "strength of personality" jazz that it includes today.I'm sorry, when was that exactly?
From my 1st ed. DMG (page 15): "Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism."
I'm not sure that "personal magnetism" is the same thing as force of personality or willpower. Personal magnetism won't allow you to channel magical power intuitively through your body, it is just a euphemism for "likeability." Or at least that's how I read it back when I was a kid in the days of 1st Ed :)
I see your point. But if Charisma alludes to willpower and magnetism them I am now confused as to what Wisdom is! If Wisdom is enlightenment and intuition, I find it very difficult to imagine a person who is enlightened, calm, centred, and wise who is not also charismatic. Everyone likes the Dalai Lama ;)
Well not the Chinese. But there are lots of people who are wise who are not particularly charismatic (most I would imagine - wisdom is actually pretty unpopular). Of course you don't often hear from the uncharismatic wise, because they don't have the charisma to get themselves heard. Some of them write - but I think thhere is an aspect of charisma to good writing as well - though it may not translate into personal interactions - but I digress - sorry.
Perhaps Wisdom is the unecessary attribute? All it seems to be is a measurement of divine spell power, as if you think of the circumstances where a Will save is called for Charisma could apply just as easily as Wisdom for the modifier. I can imagine a charismatic person who is not wise, but I can't imagine a wise person who is not charismatic.
Wisdom (in the game) to me is part willpower, that is the strength of the mind and spirit to resist and endure in adversity, as well as judgement. I agree the lines between wisdom and charisma are at times vague.
The thing to remember is that, of necessity, there is a distinction to develop a game mechanic - not to create insight and understanding into the integration of different aspects of spirit and mind in the whole of an individuals personality. Its just a model - all models are simplications of more complex systems.
My issue with wisdom is that it is hardest stat to roleplay if it is significantly different from the players own.
Maybe I think too much about this stuff, but it just seems to me that something is not right with the non-physical stats. They are too vaguely defined and I get the feeling that one of them is superfluous. I used to be clear on exactly what WIS and CHA were but now they seem to overlap.
All of the stats overlap - where do strength and constitution not overlap - the amount you can lift, how many times, for how long, how fast can you run how long, how long to recover, those all components of both stats. Take it even further to develop strength/constitution requires discipline in diet, rest, fluid intake, technique, and the abiltiy to push yourself outside your comfort zone - activities that require willpower, judgement, discipline, understanding, and knowledge.
Again, the stats are model, 6 characteristics to paint a picture of a complete individual - for 6 stats I think they do a really good job! From those six stats you tell an amazing amount about a character. But its still just a model and as a model imperfect.
By the way I like the idea of a cleric that uses charisma instead of wisdom as his spell casting stat - I pitched it to my DM once and he said no (which was fine - too, ended up playing a fighter) but it could make sense - though to balance it out you would need to do something about turning - its unbalancing to have all the cler abilities based on a single stat.
My two cents
Well, those mental stats are all a bit vaguely defined...problem-solving often goes to INT even if sometimes it is a definite WIS situation...and some people find folks with high INT, or WIS, or STR/DEX/CON attractive...
Personally I wouldn't mind having my players to pick their own CHA score, or indeed any score. If they are good players, they can be relied to do that without going all minmaxing rollgamers.
While I enjoy playing out the conversations, having a score in CHA (and that diplomacy/bluff/whatever) is useful to see exactly how convincing the character was in the conversation. Was his body language, voice, word choices and output etc. in synch with the message he was trying to push?
Also it is useful to have a simple stat for rather minor social events (extracting a piece of information from a stranger or group of strangers, when the actual conversations played out would take from 15 minutes to several hours...).
Stats are always problematic and it should be kept in mind that they are game mechanics. Personally I have rather fine manual dexterity but as far as whole body goes, I am rather stiff...so is my dex high or low? Also I am rather shy and awkward with strangers but with people I know I can be really convincing (I usually like to play high CHA characters and sometimes have trouble playing low CHAs...), so is my CHA high or low? Best way to handle reality would be to get rid of all game mechanics but that brings a whole new amount of trouble...
|
|
I'm not saying Charisma IS Wisdom, I'm saying that "force of personality/willpower" seems to me to fit better under the umbrella of Wisdom, which is supposedly about enlightenment and mental strength and not just piety. It seems to me that they took a personal attribute that used to be quite logically covered by the Wisdom stat and changed it to CHA just to make CHA more useful in the game.
I see your point.
However, history is full of characters very charismatic, with a medium / low / or very low wisdom or intelligence (and even comeliness).
Think about leaders during the world war two ...
Charisma is not only about force of personnality or willpower.
It may cover leadership, fascination, easyness to create relationships / make people talk ...
The six stats of D&D can´t reflect reality adequately, neither can the whole rules (and they don´t even try to). The stats should be viewed as a convention to reflect abilities assumed to be present in every living creature in a very generic way, and there are several gray areas where they overlap. So, any attempt to equate the game stats with real life abilities has inherent errors. (e.g. speed of reaction is assumed to be a function of dexterity in-game, but I would say it has a lot to with mental abilities as well in real life. I have rather quick reactions, but am not too dextrous otherwise).
So, it is best to view the stats only in their in-game context, where they have defined functions I´m not going to repeat here. IMHO, it is not possible to reflect a real person adequately with game stats, even if it is done time and again.
Charisma is necessary in the game-rule context, as the stat has its defined functions within the game (like modifing certain skills), and leaving the stat out of the game would change it considerably.
It is of course preferably if a player can act out the aspects of his character dealing with social interaction, but the charisma stat is a rules convention for this if the difference between player and character is too big, or other circumstances prevent playing it explicitly.
No one complains if you play a wizard with genius intelligence and aren´t a genius yourself as well.
So, yes, Charisma is necessary.
Stefan
As I ran the Red Hand of Doom I finally understood the idea of social abilities and social skills. They are not ment to replace roleplaying in the vein of "I have a high cha and a +12 to diplomacy, I roll."
In the Red Hand, most of the 'social' encounters are let your group roleplay out this encounter then have them roll a diplomacy check to determine how they are recieved.
Yes, just as I say I am going to draw my longsword and swing at the orc, roll dice.
I say, "Greetings to your people, We come in peace.", roll dice.
Both those descriptions are shorter on purpose and could be longer, I know plenty of people that had at one times made attempts at describing combat and combat actions before rolling, just as a diplomacy check could take five minutes before the roll is ever made.
Theoretically, a roleplay-heavy d&d game could be run without charisma but it would require a bit of game revision on your part.
TS is spot on here. I would suggest that the mechanic of rolling most charisma based skills to determine outcomes does not encourage Role Playing to the level that the origional poster is looking for. Check out other systems and integrate those rules that make for the best mode of playing for your group.
As ever,
ACE
TS is spot on here. I would suggest that the mechanic of rolling most charisma based skills to determine outcomes does not encourage Role Playing to the level that the origional poster is looking for. Check out other systems and integrate those rules that make for the best mode of playing for your group.
As ever,
ACE
I disagree if you remove the charisma mechanics - it falls upon the DM to assess the player's level of effort and skill in the role-play rather than the character's ability to produce the result - I guess thats an okay way to do things but its not D&D. (the same is true of intelligence how many times has a low intelligence character played a reasonably intelligent gamer performed as if had at least the players level of intelligence - how many highly intelligent characters played by slower gamers do things that are incredibly stupid - the ability score allows the other players and the DM to keep things in trim with regard to intelligence - the same is true of charisma - or any score) Also, I don't know how you roleplay the modifiers to spell casting, I can be charming, but I am generally not intimidating, and to the best of my knowledge in spite of success as a sales rep and my experience as a public speaker - I don't know how many bonus spells I get or how effectively I turn undead - an assigned charisma score settles those issues. Further there are often cases in in heaving roleplaying campaigns where the result is opposed and roleplay isn't enough to determine the outcome. It also complicates determining outcomes if a player is absent for session or expediting a scenario that people would rather move past. Its a very useful mechanic and has been deeply integrated int othe game - It is my opinion working around it would result in a lot of bickering and wasted time.
|
A lot of good points here. I really think that Fakey is right on the money here. Basically, we roleplay (largely) to be something we are not in real life. I have roleplayed with middleschoolers who (overall) have very low wisdom since they haven't lived very long, but have played characters with high wisdom -- and their characters have made some decisions that were definitely not "wise". I have played with some people who are dumb as rocks who would have difficulty with a word search puzzle play high intelligence characters -- with the dumb barbarian in the background saying "uh...I think that your character would probably do this...". My point is that we don't really ask people to "role-play" other non-physical attributes. Why should we with Charisma?
I think that there were enough other posts on why Charisma is important.
As a side thought and/or by-product -- I think that trying to get people to roleplay the non-physical attributes could be a good way to get them to improve them. The middleschooler who made a really poor choice will (hopefully) think better of it next time. You could help coach a person who is trying to roleplay a high charisma and say "try coming up with something other than 'you want a beer or something?'." My point is that it could be a way to build up some players' real life skills.
Just a few thoughts.
If you want to get down to it, the only way to truly roleplay is to get rid of all the stats.
In my experience, Charisma-based rolls were always prefaced with the DM (usually me) saying, "What do you do/say?"
The player then either spoke the words he intended for the NPC to hear, and then rolled their attempt.
Remember, Charisma is the base stat - not the item the PC should be rolling flat-out. There's usually Diplomacy or Bluff or somesuch attached to it. If they wanted to, they could put ranks in it, but likely, it's still at base, unless they are a Charisma-based class. So, it's likely a +0 to the roll.
In that case, then, it truly is "luck."
The die roll, as I see it when it comes to Charisma-based checks represents the following:
Did what the PC say match the player's intentions? Was there some unknown body language put into the discussion that affected the individual they are speaking to?
The player can't and shouldn't be forced to accurately reflect their player if they have nothing in common with their character. That's the point (as has been made). The stats and die rolls reflect "Fate" or "Luck" or whatever random force is at work in the world and thus, even your player's best-laid out argument could be botched by a roll of a 1, even if you gave him a +5 to the roll (which isn't likely, since the most you're supposed to give to a roll is +2 per the DMG).
Regarding personal stats?
I too, had a negative set of experiences when I was young, but as soon as I graduated High School and moved into the "real" world, I realized that none of the stereotypes that I had been labeled with were known by anyone I met, and BLAMMO - my personality changed. I opened up. I became more forceful. I now have a Charisma in the 14 - 15 range because of that and the training I have received. I have a high Intelligence and am quite gifted with wordplay (or so I'm told) and can usually talk myself out of a bad situation.
Thus, I see myself this way - 14 Int, 9 Wis (I'm constantly needing to use my wordplay skills to get out of trouble) and a 14-15 Cha. Physical stats are all 12 or less.
What do I play?
Females.
Why?
Because no matter what, I can't BE one. I could train to be a wizard if I studied hard and wizardry was real. I have enough faith that I could become a Cleric if I wanted to and my god chose me. I could be a Bard (and probably am a non-magical version of one, since I'm always telling stories and have been the DM for 90% of the games I've ever played).
I play a female to get as far from myself as possible. That female might have a high charisma (and usually does, since that is the type of female I'm attracted to), but the rest of her stats are usually varied based on whatever class the character is.
Charisma is a stat you can't get rid of. Players don't always have forceful personalities as has been mentioned. The stat covers those situations. Yes, D&D is a role-playing game and conversations can be roleplayed. But if a timid player plays a powerful sorceror, he'll need those die rolls to make his character seem as powerful as he should be - he shouldn't be penalized in-game for his in-life situation. That's why it's a GAME.
Oh, and one last bit - you CAN choose your Charisma if you're using the Point Buy system....
I'm not sure that "personal magnetism" is the same thing as force of personality or willpower. Personal magnetism won't allow you to channel magical power intuitively through your body, it is just a euphemism for "likeability." Or at least that's how I read it back when I was a kid in the days of 1st Ed :)This was back when CHA was your looks plus your likeability, none of this "strength of personality" jazz that it includes today.I'm sorry, when was that exactly?
From my 1st ed. DMG (page 15): "Charisma is a combination of physical appearance, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism."
All right, I just couldn't restrain myself any more and had to cut to the bottom to post. If I ended up repeating someone, I apologize in advance.
1. Referring to an earlier post, flaunting authority is not chaotic. Rebelling against it is.
2. Wisdom and Charisma- VERY VERY different. Wisdom and Intelligence are the ones that it sometimes becomes murky where one ends and the other begins. These are "passive" abilities that represent learned mental faculties. Intelligence is logic, memory, and "book smarts." If it's something Stephen Hawking would know, it's Int. Wisdom is common sense, "street smarts," ability to analyze social situations and human feelings as others do math and science. It is intuition and understanding, being able to know why the person you are talking to is saying what they are saying. t is listening between the lines for what is and isn't said, and knowing enough about people to then get a sense of who it is you are dealing with. Thus, Sense Motive is Wisdom-based.
Charisma is your force of being. It is a measure of how much the world around you is changed simply by you being there. It's not just phyiscal appearance; that actually has little to do with it at all. Again, politicians. Most of them aren't going to drop the jaw of any eligible singles out there looking for a good time. However, their actual experience and intuition isn't that big of a factor, either. What wins votes in today's America (and I some posters here aren't, but I'm guessing it's the same where you are) is public appeal. Charisma. As far as the magic thing, your force of will is so strong that you bend reality to how you see fit.
Charmisma is an active stat, something you use to affect a change. Wisdom is passive, something you use to respond to a change. A bit of your confusion may come from the Will saving throw. This uses Wisdom, but actually, Charisma may be better suited to it. I believe it uses Wisdom for two reasons: A) The game designers felt that being able to intuit and see beneath the surface of what your foe is doing would give you more ability to resist his mind-affecting magics, and B) they wanted clerics (and druids) to have the best Will saves.
3. As you said, you were a kid when you read "personal magnetism" back in those days. Kids don't always understand everything, and thus it may be necessary to re-examine your philosophy here.
4. Charisma as mana for paladins? They use Wisdom to cast.
5. For all the reasons that so many people have outlined above, Charisma is best defined as something similar to the other stats, both physical and mental, and it is necessary to have it as a stat to incorporate and facilitate a fair, balanced game experience and allow people to do things they could never do themselves. Alignment is an outlook that can be played differently regardless of all the stats of a character. It wouldn't be fair to tell a player that they have to take "these" types of decisions, or view the world "this" way. And physical characteristics, such as eye and hair color, are also variables within Charmisma. Two people can look very similar in general description, but the way they hold and present themselves, the inflections in their voice and the words they use, can be radically different.
6. Charisma can get confusing because it can be hard to pin down and define. Many people who haven't given it much thought (and that's not intended as an insult to anyone) simply leave it as "looks," but it goes so much farther than that. Charisma is a measure of the mastery of all the small nuances of human social interaction, which are so detailed that even we can't pin them down, despite picking up and noticing them all the time. If anything, Charisma is the MOST "magical" of all the stats, simply because it's so hard to quantify. You can look like the innards of a dumpster and still be charismatic. Then again, you can turn heads the world over, but when you open your mouth, they all look the other way again. All is possible under Charisma.
7. I agree- if anything, this is an under-developed stat.
EDIT
8. You can choose your charisma in rolling stats, too, as much as you can choose any other stat for your character. If it requires a sacrifice of some other ability score, but you really want that charisma, so be it.
9. Whatever works for your group, go with it. If you think you can pull it off without problems, give it a shot!
|
|
Interesting discussion! I have a few points that haven't really been brought up yet... even with a "set" Charisma stat, I think the system is still flexible enough to allow you to choose HOW to roleplay your character's "force of personality". Maybe a high CHA person has excellent etiquette, so they can interact with people without offending them. Or your high CHA character reminds people of their mother/home, making them feel comfortable and accepting (or intimidated and freaked out!). Maybe they're simply good at "pushing the right buttons", due to studying what motivates people. Or they could just be so dang hot that people just drool and nod their heads to whatever arguments are put forth. (Of course, a character with a spectacularly high CHA score can probably do all of these things based on what approach would work best in a particular situation).
So, in summary, I don't think that having a stat and rolling for CHA-based checks is limiting to roleplay. It just gives you a base to work from.
If you step beyond D&D, there are lots of systems that have done without charisma or an equivalent. In fact, Pendragon has no "mental" stats at all-- no equivalent to Int, Wis, or Cha. It is strong on the roleplay it to do it end of the scale. (It's very different-- it even has "behavior limiting" abilites (passions) that constrain your roleplaying. They can be a tough sell to "do what you want within your alignment" D&D folks.)
Playing Beyond Ability is a great article about making good use of Charisma and similar stats.
Well, by this line of reason, one would nto require intelligence eiter, because that's somethign you have or you don't. How can you be more intelligent than you are?
A defense for Charisma:
I have played with guys who are, fo rthe most part, goobers. They are the stereotypical nerd, with not many social skills, and not being very attractive. Yet, they know how, for example, a smarmy bard should act. Although they may not be particularly believeable at it, they are roleplaying it, and if I held them to their own personal charisma they'd be screwed. They are doing their best to play the part, and are hitting all the main points. So their character's Charisma overides it.
Also, if I am talking to a person in-game, and I try to convince them, there shoudl be a bonus if I am out-going, good-looking, or inspiring- and charisma gives this.
Honestly, the problem with Charisma is in it's misuse. I've known many guys to use Charisma as a dump stat then act as charming as possible. They may be doing it well, but their character has their own charisma, and so the NPCs may see it differently. A guy with low charisma can still be roleplayed- but oneshoudl consider what such a low charisma really entails. A savage warrior with no social refinements can be fun, funny, and good at roleplaying, but have a low charisma.
A lot of good points here. I really think that Fakey is right on the money here. Basically, we roleplay (largely) to be something we are not in real life.
Quoted for truth, Bill. I'd suggest there is a significant difference between Role Playing and dice throwing, however. Rolling a d20 and adding a modifyer takes the place of effective interactive tabletop communication. It does not simulate it. This is perfectally fine for the D&D 3.x system because all aspects of the game mechanics can be boiled down to rolling dice. There are many, MANY different kinds of game systems out there that strip away those dice rolls OR have integrated conversational mechanics that involve dice rolling. For the most part this places the onus on not just the DM, but all the players involved in the game to effectively stimulate Role Playing.
What i am describing is a different game than D&D 3.x, but you can cut and paste whatever mechanics make sense to you from other systems to build the kind of game that the group wants to play.
As ever,
ACE
If you want to get down to it, the only way to truly roleplay is to get rid of all the stats.
Heh, exactly. This is a different game than D&D 3.x though...just to be clear. If you are looking to beef up the Role Playing aspect of the game, the group should either modify the existing rules for 3.x and integrate them with that system OR try playing a different game that encourages such play in the game mechanics.
As ever,
ACE
|
|
I'd suggest there is a significant difference between Role Playing and dice throwing, however.
Very true. And sometimes we forget this or ignore it at our leisure. I just think that often times ability gets in the way of true role-playing and I hate to see someone penalized for their “real life” lack in a stat.
|
|
I'd suggest there is a significant difference between Role Playing and dice throwing, however.Very true. And sometimes we forget this or ignore it at our leisure. I just think that often times ability gets in the way of true role-playing and I hate to see someone penalized for their “real life” lack in a stat.
Amen to that, Bill.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Amen to that, Bill.I'd suggest there is a significant difference between Role Playing and dice throwing, however.Very true. And sometimes we forget this or ignore it at our leisure. I just think that often times ability gets in the way of true role-playing and I hate to see someone penalized for their “real life” lack in a stat.
My favorite personal quote came when one of my players (who had a very LOW charisma) was playing a character with very high charisma and was attempting to flirt with some woman at a bar (Vampire: The Masquerade if you care). He started out by roleplaying the scene very awkwardly, stammering and generally being a dork until finally I said to him "Jared... roll the dice and end my pain." His roll failed and he got slapped. Karmic.
I see your point. But if Charisma alludes to willpower and magnetism them I am now confused as to what Wisdom is! If Wisdom is enlightenment and intuition, I find it very difficult to imagine a person who is enlightened, calm, centred, and wise who is not also charismatic. Everyone likes the Dalai Lama ;)
As a counter example think of the Martial Arts Master in Kill Bill. The guy was not at all charismatic but he was clearly wise. What made our heroine special in this circumstance was that she was able to see through the atrociously low charisma to the wisdom beyond and was able to persevere.
My issue with wisdom is that it is hardest stat to roleplay if it is significantly different from the players own.
Might be somewhat true if it is very high (Same problem occures with intelligence - hard to play a guy with Godlike intelligence if you don't have God like intelligence). But it is pretty easy to play if you use it as a major dump stat. Just don't consider consiquences when making descisions for your character. Whatever the first thing that comes to your mind is your action. Don't bother considering alternitives (you as a player will of course come up with alternitives - ignore all of them and go with the first). I love playing low wisdom characters.
My favorite personal quote came when one of my players (who had a very LOW charisma) was playing a character with very high charisma and was attempting to flirt with some woman at a bar (Vampire: The Masquerade if you care). He started out by roleplaying the scene very awkwardly, stammering and generally being a dork until finally I said to him "Jared... roll the dice and end my pain." His roll failed and he got slapped. Karmic.
And I quote from a Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. game long, long ago. "Yo, b--tch! Ya gonna sit on my twinkie or what!?"
Said in response to the player's -15 attempt at Seduction.
You rolled a d10 and added your stat. If you rolled a 1, you rolled again and SUBTRACTED that number. His roll was so bad that the player went with it and came up with the worst possible thing to say...
The dice CAN lead to great Role-Playing, if your players are willing to just roll with it!
Syrinx
Might be somewhat true if it is very high (Same problem occures with intelligence - hard to play a guy with Godlike intelligence if you don't have God like intelligence). But it is pretty easy to play if you use it as a major dump stat. Just don't consider consiquences when making descisions for your character. Whatever the first thing that comes to your mind is your action. Don't bother considering alternitives (you as a player will of course come up with alternitives - ignore all of them and go with the first). I love playing low wisdom characters.
My issue with wisdom is that it is hardest stat to roleplay if it is significantly different from the players own.
Just before Sexi Golem moved off to attend Purdue a week or two ago, we ran a two-session theives guild campaign. I played a gnome rogue with a whopping 7 Wisdom. It was great fun. I'd keep getting presented with situations and blurt out one of the dumbest courses of action I could take. Generally a bastion of planning and intelligent actions, my party members would always look at me, ask why in the Hell I was doing that, and I'd just point to the character sheet and say "7 Wisdom."
We also had a dwarven rogue (going for assassin, never got there) with 5 Charisma. He was neutral evil. We decided that he was friendly enough, just had absolutely no problem resorting to lethal force anytime the situation arose. He was also quite talkative, but completely awkward. He would just blurt out whatever random thing came to his mind at any given time. He also never bathed.
Ah, it was short-lived, but fun!
I find charisma is necessary because I may want to play a bard, or even a suave fighter, but in real life I'm generally regarded as a prick. (that's not true, I'm just giving an example)
I don't know the first thing about composing music, tambre, and my singing sure sucks. But my bard, with 16 charisma and ranks in perform can sure wow a crowd.
I can talk to women with no problem but when it comes to haggling I'm on the losing end. Enter my charismatic character and, with only a quick roll of the d20, has negotiated a decent contract for a +1 sword.