It's not snobbery to say that you don't enjoy it, and if you're running a game that's more like a LARP or improvisational theater and less like a miniatures battle, it's perfectly fine to tell people that.I talked with some players last night who said that they didn't like talking in character and they particularly got freaked out when people apart from the GM did funny voices. I said I did exactly both of those things, though I have gotten annoyed when some players did comic accents when we were trying to run a serious scene. Then again comic characters can be a problem for non-comedic plots.
To put it another way, if everyone wants story hour, that's fine. If everyone wants miniatures battle, that's fine too. Everyone has their cup of tea for the hobby and is free to say which one they prefer.
The reason I think it's snobbery is because it implies that one playing style is superior to another, after all they are called role playing games not roll playing games.
And when the phrase is used it is not generally used to indicate play style preference, but as a pejorative for people that don't play the "right" way.
Which considering we are talking about grown ups playing pretend games is pretty silly.
That's not one sided "optimizers" are just as likely to throw rocks.
Check the "Monks Suck" thread or the "Wizards are Gods" thread for examples of the two camps sniping each other. Some posters are more insulting than others.
Silly game? Easy Killer, people get offensive over their games, Irish Soccer.
Silly game? Easy Killer, people get offensive over their games, Irish Soccer.
Point taken. It's just a phrase that rubs me the wrong way, because our hobby is not growing, and any rock throwing isn't good for it.
Unlike Irish soccer there are not tons of would be fans waiting to join our ranks.
That's not one sided "optimizers" are just as likely to throw rocks.
Check the "Monks Suck" thread or the "Wizards are Gods" thread for examples of the two camps sniping each other. Some posters are more insulting than others.
Silly game? Easy Killer, people get offensive over their games, Irish Soccer.
English soccer... Western European soccer... Indian soccer...etc ;D
But yeah people (myself included) do take these things a bit too seriously... however I'm not going to tell someone they play incorrectly -- I might say their logic on their justifications is wrong -- but I won't tell them they can't play how they want regardless.
1. "dumping" in this context means (to me) saying that cha is less important than other stats in the game (or at least for your way of playing it). Choosing a low charisma becuase you want to play a socially inept character is *not* the same as dumping it, since the cha score then is an important part of your character.
2. building a combat-optimised character with no 'rp flavour' is to me a clear signal that the dice-rolling part of the game is more important than storytelling. Building a (non-optimised) character to match a rp concept is a clear signal that the storyline is more important to you than dealing an extra point of damage.
None of the Charisma supporters seem willing to answer this question.
WHY ON EARTH IS IT ONE OR THE OTHER?
What mystic, magical force is preventing an uncharismatic lump of min maxed cheese from also being a dynamic, interesting, and compelling character? Is a character in a story less likable to readers just because they're less likable to the other characters in the story? No. So why on earth does putting points into a bad stat suddenly mean your role playing is going to get better?
So why on earth does putting points into a bad stat suddenly mean your role playing is going to get better?
It doesn't.
Play the game, deal with the mod be it positive or negative, and things will work out just fine. At the end of the day, the numbers on the sheet and player choices determine success or failure.
WHY ON EARTH IS IT ONE OR THE OTHER?
What mystic, magical force is preventing an uncharismatic lump of min maxed cheese from also being a dynamic, interesting, and compelling character? Is a character in a story less likable to readers just because they're less likable to the other characters in the story? No. So why on earth does putting points into a bad stat suddenly mean your role playing is going to get better?
It isn't, any more than a non optimized character is in a combat heavy game makes you a bad player. If you play a combat only character and sleep though, text or read a book for the "Story" the RP gamers are going to get grumpy.
Same as a group of Optimizers with one guy that builds a [to the optimizers] subpar or average joe.
One guy is out of stepwith the group. It's a matter of play style, no one is playing wrong. However people tend to seek their own kind and shun outsiders. In school they have cliques same in gaming.
Mr. Fishy runs a game where Cha is important, because it affect social skills and RP with NPCs. The RAW covers a lot of ground but DM's discretion also mentained in RAW.
Different table, same book, different game.
Wizards who dump strength are all roll-players.
Actually I've never seen this because it's utterly rediculous, and because as soon as someone does say this someone will pipe in with how low strength means you can't carry things or can't make touch attacks or etc etc.
The only reason "dumping charisma is bad" exists is because, aside from a terrible attempt at social controlling there is no cost at doing so.
Maybe if D&D didn't reward overspecialization so much, maybe if stats weren't so critically important that it seriously points you to dump charisma, and maybe if charisma wasn't a dump stat in literally every other edition of D&D that has ever existed, you'd have a leg to stand on.
But you don't.
Maybe if charisma wasn't a dump stat in literally every other edition of D&D that has ever existed, you'd have a leg to stand on.
But you don't.
In 2nd Edition, both Intelligence and Charisma were dump stats for warrior types. Now, at least, it's only true for Charisma. (;
There has been some discussion about the effects of a low charisma score on a character in several threads. There has been calls for it's own thread, so here it is. Please note that the discussion has even been heated at times, so please pay extra attention to being polite, or skip this thread.
Charisma in Pathfinder has a lot falling under it: "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" It is perhaps the most intangible of all the stats but still a major defining attribute of a characters persona.
However Charisma score in game, has maybe the least impact in the actual rules mechanics, that is to say, dice rolls. If a class ability does not directly benefit from charisma, players may decide to 'dump' the charisma, in order to free points to boost stats that give more mechanical benefits. That is all fine and well, a chracter may have strenghts and weaknesses whereever the player wishes, but then sometimes, players attempt to minimize even those weaknesses in baseless, unbalanced ways.
Because charisma includes several aspects, players sometimes might suggest that if their character is better at some of those and worse at some of those it will balance out as a charisma score median of those. This might seem reasonable but when done in specific ways, it will end up giving undeserved advantages to the character, because the game system is not equipped to handle that.
Here is an example. A player might suggest that her low charisma character is in fact good looking and carries itself well but the low charisma is due to it being quiet, introverted and having a stutter. While these would propably fall under the charisma there is a problem. Whatever falls under charisma, I think most people would agree that it comprises of both visual and auditory output. In this example, the player has basically contributed the character's low charisma to auditory output. However, in character interaction, most rolls are done based on auditory output and the visual...
If it becomes an issue you could just do what they did in AD&D 2e: Skills and Powers and split the stat up into Appearance and Personality.
If they want a higher Appearance score then make them reduce the Personality score. Things like Diplomacy and Bluff would be affected by personality whereas things like NPC initial reactions may be based on the Appearance score.I would suggest that charisma based abilities still be based on the core ability score.
For example a Bard with a Charisma of 16 might decide that they want to be "prettier" at the expense of being personable so they drop Personality to 14 in order to raise Appearance to 18. This puts their bonuses to Bluff and Diplomacy at +2 while bonus to initial reactions from NPCs would be +4. Also bonuses to Intimidate (as long as the character doesn't speak) is +4. As soon as the character starts talking the bonus drops to +2.
The Bard's spell casting would still be based on the score of 16 since things like appearance and personality shouldn't have an affect on one's spellcasting ability.
I swear to god if I see appearance actually added in this game I am dropping Pathfinder completely. It is the dumbest, nerdiest, most embarrassingly fat and neckbeard-iest thing imaginable. It is not good. It is not good for the game, it is not good for the hobby.
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
In before TERRIBLE JOKES made about this.
Also, the key to helping charisma is to give it more benefits. Don't punish those who drop it, reward those who take it.
.
..
...
....
.....
It's called football...
...because 90% of the time you use your foot...
...to kick the ball.
We have no idea what logic system America's sporting naming convention was following.
Nor do we care.
::
Oh..
unless it's damnnit.
..but that's for girls.
Real men play Hurling!
::
Oh and yes, of course..
..finally..
Kindly come and 'av a go if you think you may or may not be 'ard enuff!
Misc chants.
|
I swear to god if I see appearance actually added in this game I am dropping Pathfinder completely. It is the dumbest, nerdiest, most embarrassingly fat and neckbeard-iest thing imaginable. It is not good. It is not good for the game, it is not good for the hobby.
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
In before TERRIBLE JOKES made about this.
Hell, prowl around the internet long enough and you may very well find pics.
I do not recommend this course of action, by the way, for those at home.
THAT SAID, "eye of the beholder" alone makes me rage at the concept of quantifiable beauty being implemented in core rules.
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
Well, hate to break it to you, but under Rule 34 you are incorrect.
|
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
Well, hate to break it to you, but under Rule 34 you are incorrect.
Who.. Why?
I mean, I could see this being a joke but so much detail was given to this I have to say that somewhere, someone is doing something you would never want to do, ever.More like NSFAWTRSOASOT:
(not suitable for anyone wanting to retain sanity or a sense of taste)
I mean, I could see this being a joke but so much detail was given to this I have to say that somewhere, someone is doing something you would never want to do, ever.
Hey I just report the news, as oddball as it might be :)
Hey nice tentacles on the purple squid trollop. What's a Mindflayers?
Thanks Shifty Mr. Fishy just found his Christmas Card picture.
I swear to god if I see appearance actually added in this game I am dropping Pathfinder completely. It is the dumbest, nerdiest, most embarrassingly fat and neckbeard-iest thing imaginable. It is not good. It is not good for the game, it is not good for the hobby.
Thanks Cirno if it weren't for you the rest of the gamers in the world might have to think for themsevlves. Appearence doesn't need to be added if appearance is something that you want house rule it.
Such rage over something so unimportant is ...
the dumbest, nerdiest, most embarrassingly fat and neckbeard-iest thing imaginable. It is not good. It is not good for the game, it is not good for the hobby.
stuff
I agree with Prof. Cirno, actually. Quantifying beauty as an in-game statistic is both limiting and, honestly, highly subjective - especially for roleplaying.
Ok, then leave it out of games you run. But you have no right to insult someone who disagrees with you. See the fat beard comment above.
To me, there's Raw Ability, and then there's Skill.
Raw Ability is what the stats represent. Sure, someone more intelligent than me can easily recall answers to a lot of topics. But if I spent my life, time, and money to studying a particular subject, I will know more than the genius IQ person who only knows what they remember about the subject.
One example is a player I DM that has a Dexterity of 6. Pretty damn clumsy. And he plays him as such. BUT, when you get him on a mount, his coordination and balance are almost unmatched. Why!? His character spent years training his body to become one with whatever steed he is mounted on, he has a Ride over +30 despite having Dexterity of 6. Will he ever be AS GOOD as someone of equal skill and higher Dexterity? No, but that's only because that other person has a better raw ability, better reflexes and balance naturally than skillfully than his character.
Another example is a player I DM that has a character with a Wisdom score of 8.
It's how you choose to RP it. I wouldn't recommend putting on any additional penalties. Sure, your Charisma 4 character is probably a real D-Bag to everything and everyone, and has severely low self-esteem he's trying to overcompensate for, has a low sense of ego, and does not really care about standing out. BUT if he puts the time to train himself into being more formal, sensitive, and empathize with people he chooses to (grudgingly) deal with. At times, he's still going to come off as grating (it is his personality, or lack thereof, still in effect, that is what the penalty represents!) but he's tempered it. At maximum ranks, he's never going to be as good as the guy with 18 Diplomacy (compared to a Charisma of 4, that's an extra +7 modifier), so more people will still flock to the 18 Charisma guy. But if the guy with 18 Charisma has no real negotiating skill other than his natural ability of having a strong presence to others around him, even a Charisma 4 character can show them up.
Does that help?
Ok, then leave it out of games you run. But you have no right to insult someone who disagrees with you. See the fat beard comment above.
Not to be insulting, but I don't think adding a seventh attribute, when the one we're talking about already doesn't have enough mechanical effect, improves the overall design of the game.
If I'm playing in a game I sure don't want to have to devote points from a PB to keep from looking like the elephant man, all the necking fat beards aside.
As for appearance concerning with Charisma, appearance CAN play a role, but it doesn't. I've seen genders put off by handsome/beautiful people because, despite their looks, they're real jerks, lack self-esteem or self-confidence, too shy, try to stay out of everyone's way for personal reasons, or they just don't have that "aura" about them that begs to be noticed.
A lot of women say they look for a guy with self-confidence and I personally know some rather average-looking to somewhat ugly men with very beautiful women just because they had the skill and talent to woo them over. I've seen women of average or uglier appearance do the same.
So Charisma is NOT entirely based on appearance. But appearance can play a factor. An ugly person probably has low Charisma because their ego and self-confidence has been severely damaged from being treated like a freak, whereas a person with great looks may have high Charisma because he's sorta had no choice but to get involved in social circles because others are attracted to him. But it's only one possible factor. As pointed out, illithids, undead, and devils or demons have high Charisma and yet they have some really horrifying appearances. Just look at the nalfeshnee!
But if I spent my life, time, and money to studying a particular subject, I will know more than the genius IQ person who only knows what they remember about the subject.
One of the marks of true genius is the ability to simply understand something, how it works, why it works etc. A true genius doesn't necessarily remember anything, they just know what to do. In game terms, after say 20 INT, that's where you are.
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
Well, hate to break it to you, but under Rule 34 you are incorrect.
Who.. Why?
I mean, I could see this being a joke but so much detail was given to this I have to say that somewhere, someone is doing something you would never want to do, ever.
More like NSFAWTRSOASOT:
(not suitable for anyone wanting to retain sanity or a sense of taste)
Arrrrrrr ... Sometimes you start to carve strange things into yer scrimshaw, when ye been out ta sea fer too long, yarrrr....
Edit Arrrrr ... fer example...
|
Also, the key to helping charisma is to give it more benefits. Don't punish those who drop it, reward those who take it.
Has anyone else notices that ProfessorCirno always take the "give the players more" side.
10 is average. If you take less than 10, you are below average. If you have a 7 Charisma, and the person next to you has a 17 Charisma, this should have an effect in how your DM runs the game.
As I said in another thread, Madeline Albright isn't a beauty, but she can put a lot of points into diplomacy. And Bela Lugosi probably had a really high intimidate check.
If you have a low charisma, it will effect initial impression. You then can overcome these with skill checks. Same goes for all of the other checks, with the possible exceptions of Strength and Con, since that can be played RAW most of the time.
If you have low Str, people may think you look weak,
If you have low Dex, you may appear clumsy to others.
If you have low Int, people think you are dumb.
If you have low Wis, you are more likely to make unwise choices
If you have low Con, people may think you look sickly.
If you have low Cha, your first impression is worse than others in your party. People may talk to the others first, people may avoid or dismiss you. You can overcome this with checks, like a fat kid with a great personality, but you start off at a disadvantage because...and this is the important part...you chose to give your character a low score in that category.
This is how you deal with Min/Maxers in the game. Let them, and then make them play the character as they made it. If they don't like it, then they can make an actual character next time, rather than trying to game the system.
But in my experience, min/maxers having low Charisma score isn't much of a stretch. <rimshot!>
If I'm playing in a game I sure don't want to have to devote points from a PB to keep from looking like the elephant man, all the necking fat beards aside.
Then don't. It's a house rule so play it or not. Also why would a RP only stat need to be added to the Point Buy as a stat? You assign a appearence number to your character as a RP aid or ignore it as you see fit. The RP heavy player can add it to their RP. Disinterested players can ignore it. No harm.
The people with the most interest in low charisma=low appearance seem to be players who play low charisma for optimization reasons.[Charisma is the weakest stat camp]
If you don't like the idea of appearance don't use it.
|
I understand the OP's arguement. It is like saying I am all buff and built like a bodybuilder with a Strength score of 8. I just do not know how to use it effectively.
Charisma is a hard stat to define. Looks definitley play a role in Charisma up to a point but the most Charismatic people in history have for the most part been male and they tend not to be lookers. People like Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon, Hannibal of Carthage and many others come to mind.
The problem with the skill system in any D20 role playing game is that you don't have to base your increasing skills on any actual in game experience. For example, I could be an elf who has always lived in the woods and neverbuilt any structures or forged any tools. After a level or two I can continue to raise ranks in engineering (knowledge) or a craft skill. There does not have to be a logical explanation for it. Same goes with diplomacy or bluff. I could raise it every level even if I have never been successful at it. In real life, most people would not keep trying a skill they were bad at, especially a social one, if they faced constant rejection. But PC's are meant to be special and break the mold so it is hard to enforce these kinds of rules.
It isn't, any more than a non optimized character is in a combat heavy game makes you a bad player.
There's a HUGE difference there. The non optimized CHARACTER is objectively worse than the other characters on some level (the combat level). If the player is deliberately not keeping up, then they're probably doing something wrong.
If you play a combat only character and sleep though, text or read a book for the "Story" the RP gamers are going to get grumpy. Same as a group of Optimizers with one guy that builds a [to the optimizers] subpar or average joe.
*Looks around for Gorden's fisherman* bad fishy. Bad. Bad. Fishy.
You can have a combat CHARACTER and still Role play as a PLAYER. There's no reason why Minmax the stuttering dwarf can't take as much interest in the campaign or NPC's as Ariana daughter of Llywen Son of Mialyn the half elf bard.
Role playing is NOT your CHARACTERS charisma. Role playing ability is NOT on the character sheet. Nothing you do to your character should determine how well it is role played.
One guy is out of stepwith the group. It's a matter of play style, no one is playing wrong. However people tend to seek their own kind and shun outsiders. In school they have cliques same in gaming.
Thats like saying you can either play chess or football. Why not both?
Mr. Fishy runs a game where Cha is important, because it affect social skills and RP with NPCs. The RAW covers a lot of ground but DM's discretion also maintained in RAW.
And what "discretion" would you use to keep someone with a low cha from lying or using diplomacy on NPCs? If you make it a charisma check you're not making things any better, even someone with an 8 charisma can get a 20 and wind up with an 18 while the sorcerer can flub and wind up with a 6.
Different table, same book, different game.
I know where the OP is coming from. I've been in games where people try and fudge reactions based on appearance.
"I try and flirt with him."
"Okay, roll bluff."
"Well, I don't really bluff, I just kind of hike up my skirt a bit."
"Okay, roll perform-acting."
"I'm not really acting."
"Oh, I see, you are actually trying to hook up with him: diplomacy."
"No, I'm just trying to use my looks to impress him."
"Okay, do a charisma check.... you revolt him."
"But I'm supposed to be really good looking!"
I think charisma is the most frequently ignored stat. And it goes both ways. I have had DMs have nearly every character react negatively to me because my was a rather strange bard character. Even with a 22 charisma, nearly everyone sneered when they first started talking to me. I was trying to explain that with a 22 charisma he should be charmingly eccentric, but nope, got treated as a freak. No diplomacy, just negative reaction from the start.
I swear to god if I see appearance actually added in this game I am dropping Pathfinder completely. It is the dumbest, nerdiest, most embarrassingly fat and neckbeard-iest thing imaginable. It is not good. It is not good for the game, it is not good for the hobby.
Characters can look however they damn well choose. Mindflayers have large charisma but you don't see fanboys fawning over finding them chained up to be rescued in dungeons.
In before TERRIBLE JOKES made about this.
Agreed.
I don't think it needs to be a part of the core rules. If someone feels like their group needs appearance quantified then just house rule it.
I know where the OP is coming from. I've been in games where people try and fudge reactions based on appearance.
"I try and flirt with him."
"Okay, roll bluff."
"Well, I don't really bluff, I just kind of hike up my skirt a bit."
"Okay, roll perform-acting."
"I'm not really acting."
"Oh, I see, you are actually trying to hook up with him: diplomacy."
"No, I'm just trying to use my looks to impress him."
"Okay, do a charisma check.... you revolt him."
"But I'm supposed to be really good looking!"I think charisma is the most frequently ignored stat. And it goes both ways. I have had DMs have nearly every character react negatively to me because my was a rather strange bard character. Even with a 22 charisma, nearly everyone sneered when they first started talking to me. I was trying to explain that with a 22 charisma he should be charmingly eccentric, but nope, got treated as a freak. No diplomacy, just negative reaction from the start.
See this I can understand -- There should be a roll and the player does need to understand that without something to help him he'll probably do poorly.
For example hiking up the skirt could be bad manners -- especially in public, the flirting might actually be insulting, and looks might be nice -- up until you forgot to brush your teeth or bath in the past week/ etc...
It shouldn't be "automatic revolt" -- after all the roll could go well -- but there should be a roll and the player needs to understand it's not going to be his best ever.
Now one thing to remember is that time spent and energy spent has a direct correlation on how a relationship goes -- after all people with low charismas can have good marriages -- but like all things it takes time, learning each other and getting past the superficial (or more accurately the flaws of each other).
For example I had an arcane trickster with low charisma once that ended up hooking up with an NPC for a good long term relationship. How? Time and effort. The AT took the time to show her his better side (this went badly at times too), eventually the NPC saw his better nature under his gruffness and anti-social attitudes (and short temper with stupid people) and his intelligence/grace in ways that others wouldn't.
Now it wasn't easy -- and he still pissed her off regularly -- but like the rest of his party she found things that made him worth keeping.
And that's role-playing.
The non optimized CHARACTER is objectively worse than the other characters on some level (the combat level). If the player is deliberately not keeping up, then they're probably doing something wrong.
So the nonoptimized guy is wrong? He's here of story hour, so he's wrong?
Can Mr. Fishy be the pot this time?
You can have a combat CHARACTER and still Role play as a PLAYER. There's no reason why Minmax the stuttering dwarf can't take as much interest in the campaign or NPC's as Ariana daughter of Llywen Son of Mialyn the half elf bard.
Then you would awake for the RP and involved. Mr. Fishy didn't say your stuttering dwarf couldn't RP. Mr. Fishy plays in a AP game with a Cha 5 dwarf, he's a great character. Low Cha=low RP was not mentioned, not participating was. Same if the group is optimized and you aren't.
Role playing is NOT your CHARACTERS charisma. Role playing ability is NOT on the character sheet. Nothing you do to your character should determine how well it is role played.
Agreed and undisputed. That said some optimizer build characters with little or no thought or consideration outside of combat. Not that their character is a ugly graceless toad [low cha] a sorcerer would have a high charisma but the player isn't interested in RPing so the RP players get upset same as a nonoptimized character in a optimizer heavy game, So someone is out of step with the group. It's a matter of play style, no one is playing wrong.
Thats like saying you can either play chess or football. Why not both?
Play as you wish. Niether is wrong. Different table, same book, different game. Mr. Fishy plays his game, you play your's.
Mr. Fishy runs a game where Cha is important, because it affect social skills and RP with NPCs. The RAW covers a lot of ground but DM's discretion is also maintained in RAW.
And what "discretion" would you use to keep someone with a low cha from lying or using diplomacy on NPCs? If you make it a charisma check you're not making things any better, even someone with an 8 charisma can get a 20 and wind up with an 18 while the sorcerer can flub and wind up with a 6.
So if you fail you fail? Ok Agreed.
You have a 18 str Mr. Fishy has a 7 str. Both of us have the same modifer to swim, same roll same result. A bad roll is a bad roll a good roll is good the difference is...as many posters have noted is that charisma is subjective. A 7 charisma doesn't mean your ugly, it does mean your under the curve on people skills. A low wisdom is a fool. A low intelligence is slow to learn.
The game gives penalties to low stats fewer skill points, weaker saves, less damage, but if the DM applies a RP bonus or penalty for the "weakest mechanical stat"... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
HOUSE RULE. If you don't like it don't play it, that includes RAW. In fact Mr. Fishy remember that being in the RAW.
Also, the key to helping charisma is to give it more benefits. Don't punish those who drop it, reward those who take it.Has anyone else notices that ProfessorCirno always take the "give the players more" side.
ProfessorCirno always takes the intelligent side.
If you give benefits for having high charisma, players will want to have high charisma. If you DM fiat them for having low charisma, players will still want to have low charisma, they'll just also get pissed at you for punishing them for it - especially when you're making up rules literally just to spite them for playing the game.
Fighters don't take high strength because they're scared of the nasty weight limits, they do it because high strength gives you a huge number of bonuses. Fighters don't drop charisma because they don't care about their social skills - that fighters can and will still put points into social skills tells you that's bunk - they do it because there's no benefit to having a high charisma. It's been the same in EVERY edition, and for every player - they look at the stats, see what they do, and realize "Ok so charisma doesn't do jack"
Basic psychology, man.
The non optimized CHARACTER is objectively worse than the other characters on some level (the combat level). If the player is deliberately not keeping up, then they're probably doing something wrong.
So the nonoptimized guy is wrong? He's here of story hour, so he's wrong?
Can Mr. Fishy be the pot this time?
What you don't seem to understand is that an unoptimized character is wrong in a combat heavy game. An un-roleplayed character is wrong in a roleplay heavy game, but the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In a roleplay heavy group the objective is to role play , not to succeed at a roll.
Then you would awake for the RP and involved. Mr. Fishy didn't say your stuttering dwarf couldn't RP. Mr. Fishy plays in a AP game with a Cha 5 dwarf, he's a great character. Low Cha=low RP was not mentioned, not participating was. Same if the group is optimized and you aren't.
Participation is a quality of the player, not of the character. Optimizing the character has nothing to do with participation. Your problem seems to be with the optimizerS not role playing. There's no reason why an unoptimizer is going to be better at role playing. Its possible to be good at both and bad at both.
Agreed and undisputed. That said some optimizer build characters with little or no thought or consideration outside of combat. Not that their character is a ugly graceless toad [low cha] a sorcerer would have a high charisma but the player isn't interested in RPing so the RP players get upset same as a nonoptimized character in a optimizer heavy game, So someone is out of step with the group. It's a matter of play style, no one is playing wrong.
But what on earth does that have to do with dumping charisma... you know, the topic at hand?
The game gives penalties to low stats fewer skill points, weaker saves, less damage, but if the DM applies a RP bonus or penalty for the "weakest mechanical stat"... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
HOUSE RULE. If you don't like it don't play it, that includes RAW. In fact Mr. Fishy remember that being in the RAW.
I don't mind having it as a house rule i just don't like when people try to say its not a house rule because house rules are in the raw.
Welll. In that case players could have their characters look and act regardless of charisma I suppose. But even by rollplaying charisma does affect without speech. Like in Intimidate, Perform or Disguise. Y'know, the intimidating stare, however cinematic, would get really old after awhile.
You mention Perform, so I guess you're thinking someone's gonna abuse the possibilities as a Mime. Regardless, I figure their low CHA will hurt them in the lively facial expression department...
Not only that. I ensure you good looks could aid someone at performing any instruments. As a matter of fact, I fell in love with my girlfriend looking at her play piano. I doubt my appreciation of her music would have been the same if she wasn't so damn cute.
I think that CHA embodies more than natural talent to interact, or good looks. It has some kind of aura about it; people with high charisma are simply magnetic.
About the beauty contest; I would make that person roll for a Perform(Dance) or maybe acrobatics with some maluses (from -5 to -10) because the judges find it too exotic, don't know. And oppose that check by the perform of other participants. He has chances to win, however, the others might be trained professionnals who know how to move the right way.
And finally, I am one to build a character out of roleplaying aspects before mechanics. SO yeah, when I put a negative INT to my barbarian, I'm not even going to participate in puzzles because thinking is for shamans and cowards. I might give them 5 minutes before I test out my reflexes past the army of traps. People should consider their Modifiers when roleplaying characters, be it INT, WIS, or CHA.
To everyone's liking, I suppose. Not everyone is good at that stuff.
Welll. In that case players could have their characters look and act regardless of charisma I suppose. But even by rollplaying charisma does affect without speech. Like in Intimidate, Perform or Disguise. Y'know, the intimidating stare, however cinematic, would get really old after awhile.
You mention Perform, so I guess you're thinking someone's gonna abuse the possibilities as a Mime. Regardless, I figure their low CHA will hurt them in the lively facial expression department...
Not only that. I ensure you good looks could aid someone at performing any instruments. As a matter of fact, I fell in love with my girlfriend looking at her play piano. I doubt my appreciation of her music would have been the same if she wasn't so damn cute.
I think that CHA embodies more than natural talent to interact, or good looks. It has some kind of aura about it; people with high charisma are simply magnetic.
About the beauty contest; I would make that person roll for a Perform(Dance) or maybe acrobatics with some maluses (from -5 to -10) because the judges find it too exotic, don't know. And oppose that check by the perform of other participants. He has chances to win, however, the others might be trained professionnals who know how to move the right way.
And finally, I am one to build a character out of roleplaying aspects before mechanics. SO yeah, when I put a negative INT to my barbarian, I'm not even going to participate in puzzles because thinking is for shamans and cowards. I might give them 5 minutes before I test out my reflexes past the army of traps. People should consider their Modifiers when roleplaying characters, be it INT, WIS, or CHA.
To everyone's liking, I suppose. Not everyone is good at that stuff.
It goes both ways, though.
There's certainly been people I've found significantly more attractive after seeing then sing, or play an instrument...or create an illustration or painting. And painting isn't a charisma roll ;p.
What you don't seem to understand is that an unoptimized character is wrong in a combat heavy game. An un-roleplayed character is wrong in a roleplay heavy game, but the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In a roleplay heavy group the objective is to role play , not to succeed at a roll.
OK Mr. Fishy understands now if you don't optimize your character is a crippled halfwit. Check.
Participation is a quality of the player, not of the character.
Agreed.
There's no reason why an unoptimizer is going to be better at role playing. Its possible to be good at both and bad at both.
Agreed
So Mr. Fishy is a opitimzer hated? Mr. Fishy will get a shirt printed. Mr. Fishy has no problem with a player making the strongest build available, it's called power gaming.
Some optimizers build characters with little or no thought or consideration outside of combat. Not that their character is a ugly graceless toad [low cha] a sorcerer would have a high charisma but the player isn't interested in RPing so the RP players get upset same as a nonoptimized character in a optimizer heavy game, So someone is out of step with the group. It's a matter of play style, no one is playing wrong.
But what on earth does that have to do with dumping charisma... you know, the topic at hand?
Good question, what does your opinion of Mr. Fishy's feels on optimize have to do with Charisma?
I don't mind having it as a house rule i just don't like when people try to say its not a house rule because house rules are in the raw.
Let Mr. Fishy educate you, one Mr. Fishy said no such thing, if that is what you read then Mr. Fishy was unclear. Two...
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.
The Game Master and players should always discuss any
rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how
the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the
final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared
experience, and all of the players should contribute their
thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
|
OK Mr. Fishy understands now if you don't optimize your character is a crippled halfwit. Check.
That was not what he said at all and you know it. I agree with both of you on many points, and am not sure you guys are actually opposed. But please stop misrepresenting each other. You're better than that.
Rewarding the behavior you want is a more powerful motivation than punishing the behavior you don't.But the more you give, the more power creep seeps in.
It doesn't have too. Some of what Mr. Fishy said earlier applies here.
While all the party might get the exp reward, and the gp/item reward you could give the player that role played better a title to go with it (especially if they are playing the type of character that would go for that). The title might just be an honorific -- or apply a bonus the whole party can use (like a discount on spells cast for them by the royal mage's guild) but it's given to the specific character.
This is a reward that doesn't bring in power creep but still is very much something a player could want.
Or the player might as the king for a specific reward instead of the one offered (provided the specific request is in line with everything that is being gotten) -- now instead of just being handed something the player gets choice. Which is a huge reward but doesn't mean he has more power (gp wise) than anyone else.
OK Mr. Fishy understands now if you don't optimize your character is a crippled halfwit. Check.
If you 50% optimize your character then your character is a crippled halfwit. If you 110% optimize your character you're a munchkin.
*shakes paw to fin on the agreements*
So Mr. Fishy is a opitimzer hate(r?)? Mr. Fishy will get a shirt printed. Mr. Fishy has no problem with a player making the strongest build available, it's called power gaming.
You had a few negative comments about the people that did so, seeming to assume that they would be bad role players.
If you play a combat only character and sleep though, text or read a book for the "Story" the RP gamers are going to get grumpy. Same as a group of Optimizers with one guy that builds a [to the optimizers] subpar or average joe.
Good question, what does your opinion of Mr. Fishy's feels on optimize have to do with Charisma?
It appears to me that your comments indicated that dumping charisma = power gaming= poor role playing.
I don't mind having it as a house rule i just don't like when people try to say its not a house rule because house rules are in the raw.
Let Mr. Fishy educate you, one Mr. Fishy said no such thing
but if the DM applies a RP bonus or penalty for the "weakest mechanical stat"... RELEASE THE HOUNDS!
if that is what you read then Mr. Fishy was unclear. Two...
..that calls it a house rule. Not an interpretation.
Oh wow the thread is still going :-)
Well, I propably won't have time to read up it all. Just dropped by to mention something that a friend pointed out in last friday's game(if no-one brought this up yet).
"Using Diplomacy to influence a creature’s
attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction"
So atleast we have RAW that diplomacy can't replace charisma as first impressions. :-)
So at least we have RAW that diplomacy can't replace charisma as first impressions. :-)
No one said it could...
@BigNorseWolf
Fair enough. Mr. Fishy agrees on many of your points. You misunderstood or Mr. Fishy was unclear but we seem to have cleared the troll chunks away and found a middle ground. Mr. Fishy likes Fluffy Crunch and you like Crunchy Fluffy. Same great taste different recipe. Let us go forth and RP Optimized characters.
>Puts "I Heart Poodles" sign on Big Norse Wolf<
What? Mr. Fishy is still a fish hole...do not judge Mr. Fishy.
This reminds me of a PC I DM'd a while ago named Thorgrim Madbeard. He was your typical min/maxer who knocked his Charisma down to a 7 or 6 but played the character as the parties leader and most effective negotiator. During a PC / NPC dialogue I waited for Thorgrim to finish speaking only to reply with a question.."did you just call me an A-hole?!!??!!" LOL