One way I've seen a low charisma played is in the character's sense of humor. A low Cha PC might have no real sense of humor or might consider "your mom" jokes to be the pinnacle of humor or might have a braying donkey laugh. A more normal Cha (8-12) lends itself to a pretty standard repertoire of a few good jokes. High Cha lends itself to a very natural sense of comedic timing, a natural charm, the ability to defuse a situation with humor, etc.
But really, there are many ways to play high/low charisma. Not many high Cha people pick their noses in public, for example. And there's always a naturally creepy smile to consider. Or the guy who always smells like cheese, even right after a bath.
|
This is an interesting thread. Something like this actually came up recently in game concerning my character. He's an ogrekin dwarf with a charisma of 8. Now the fact that he is hidiously deformed (hunchback, an over-large lumpy head, disgusting boils, etc) makes things difficult for him, role-playing wise; few business want anything to do with him, a gods forbid he show up to a posh social event (he wouldn't be invited, but as a high level thief, he likes to crash these gatherings).
The issue we've been trying to deal with is balancing his inherent low charisma with his absurdly high social skills; Hulgrym Half-dwarven is, despite his ogre blood, excellent in the social area (high ranks in bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and intimidate).
I guess my question would be, how do you balance characters who have a low charisma, but lots of ranks in the social skills? I can understand wanting the player character to feel the concequences for "dumping" his charisma, but where do skills come into play? If a character has high ranks in diplomacy but only a 5 in charisma, how does it play out?
The Roman Emperor Claudius had a clubbed foot, stammered and was deaf in one ear. He overcame these disabilities to be an effective conquerer and administrator. He took a personal interest in law, presided at public trials, and issued up to twenty edicts a day.
Sounds like your guy has worked very hard to overcome his physical appearance.
...I don't use this to get the role playing. They do that on their own. But u can't expect a player with a 5 cha (yes a 5, not a +5, 5 is his actual ability score) to walk into every place and get what he needs and not piss people off all the time. Its just like dumping int or str. When it comes to carrying capacity and melee, low str makes u suffer. When it comes to int based skills and such, a low int makes u suffer.
When it comes to social interaction and role playing, a low cha makes u suffer. A lot of people will play their characters as if they have a normal cha, but when ur in the negatives, this isn't normal, but they role play it anyways. I've only seen a few people with a low cha role play a low cha character correctly in social encounters. they need to be reminded that although they are role playing that their character is not good at it, or he brings a negative vibe that is counter productive to his goals.
Perhaps i misunderstood, but I thought the purpose of the thread was how to get low charisma characters to not hide behind the talkers and roleplay. Is that not case?
Because yes they shouldn't be as good or even competant at things in social situations. They cant sweet talk guards, or charm wenches. But being socially inept doesnt mean merchants try to cheat your or random bar maids pour drinks on your head without some kind of conversation. There is a difference between reminding a player of a limitation and penalyzing him for something associated with his character.
If a player is talking it up more then you think his charisma should allow the way to explain it to them is not to suddenly have every NPC suddenly take a disliking to them. Take them aside or talk to them away from the table and explain yourself. People have different views on what things mean. Some people (not unjustly) separate roll from role. They may believe that a low charisma only applies to actual checks, and not what and how you say things. If you think
For regular conversation I would not worry about it, but if they need something then have them roll a social check. They want to chat up an NPC to get information as an example. If they are just making conversation with an NPC I see no point to punish them for a conversation that would not get them any benefits. You could also have NPC's make up excuses to walk away, and if asked why say something along the lines of "PC X is creepy or gives bad vibes".
Nuke them from orbit... it's the only way to make sure.
Aha! Another subscriber to my 'Charisma check to not have God smite you' plan, I see.
Anyways, one thing I like doing when faced with a character that has low charisma is to ask the player why the character is uncharismatic. For instance, I have a former ship captain who is uncharismatic because he is smelly and enjoys getting piss-drunk and making catcalls at women. His backstory is that his ship got tired of dealing with him being so smelly and piss-drunk and marooned him, and he ended up in the campaign.
Then there is another character, who is a perfectly fine-looking young lad (possibly even moderately good looking) but his 7 wisdom coupled with a 7 charisma gives him 20 ranks in Knowledge (Exactly the wrong thing to say), and no filter to avoid saying it. Case in point, while talking to a certain rabble-rousing bard in Kingmaker, he commented 'You know, your chins ripple when you talk. It's like an ocean,' and his response when faced with the death of the party cleric was 'But... but I just finished splitting the loot!' He's a nice guy, but you can see how he fails utterly in any social situation.
If you ask the player why it is their character has a low CHA score, you'd be surprised what they can come up with... and if they make sure to stick to it and play it out?
That's roleplayin', laddie.
|
I just want to point something out.
If you put out roleplaying penalties for having low Cha, without allowing people the chance to adjust their stat plans, you will unfairly punish those who had dumped Cha.
Those players will be encouraged to have their characters stay in their rooms during social encounters. You will have discouraged some players from playing the game outside of combat.
Something to think about.
I just want to point something out.
If you put out roleplaying penalties for having low Cha, without allowing people the chance to adjust their stat plans, you will unfairly punish those who had dumped Cha.
Those players will be encouraged to have their characters stay in their rooms during social encounters. You will have discouraged some players from playing the game outside of combat.
Something to think about.
Ffft. Or I could just tell them before they roll their stats.
If they're informed beforehand and they still whine then I get to laugh at them.
In my experience, when informed the players who choose to dump charisma go with it more often. The standard example:
player: I rolled these stats! They're the best!
GM: You rolled an 18. And a 7...
player: I've never rolled an 18 before! And I can put the 7 in charisma because (player goes on long backstory explaining why character would have 7 charisma)
GM: I get to make you roleplay this, yanno.
player: sure!
GM: approved.
At least that's my usual experience. But then I have awesome players like that.
Still, if you're gonna make charisma-dumped PCs roleplay it, the GM could warn them first. Then the PCs might not dump charisma. Or they might have a lot of fun roleplaying the same things they might have whined about if they didn't have prior warning. It's the difference between "aww, man, why do bar fights always happen around me?!" to "okay, I've got my ale, my turkey leg, now let's start some entertainment!"
The Roman Emperor Claudius had a clubbed foot, stammered and was deaf in one ear. He overcame these disabilities to be an effective conquerer and administrator. He took a personal interest in law, presided at public trials, and issued up to twenty edicts a day.
Sounds like your guy has worked very hard to overcome his physical appearance.
Yes and no. I actually upped his social skills so that people won't realize he's actually intelligent; people tend to underestimate him because they think he's just a knuckle-dragging thug without a mind. He plays that role most of the time, only unveiling his cunning when it is to his advantage.
I just want to point something out.
If you put out roleplaying penalties for having low Cha, without allowing people the chance to adjust their stat plans, you will unfairly punish those who had dumped Cha.
Those players will be encouraged to have their characters stay in their rooms during social encounters. You will have discouraged some players from playing the game outside of combat.
Something to think about.
I take issue with the word "unfairly"
This is a roleplaying game. if you put a 5 in your charisma, you should be ready to play it out. Now a lot of GMs don't call people out on it, so it is a "safe" dump stat. That has a lot more to do with people's individual table culture then anything rules based. It's illegal to drive over the speed limit, but people do it all the time. Sometimes when you do it to much, or in the wrong spot, you get a ticket. CHA enforcement is like that sometimes.
I have more sympathy for people who roll crummy sets of stats and are forced to run lower CHA then they would like. But for point buy min/maxers who dumped CHA so they could have a massive STR, they knew the price when they made the character. If every game they had been in before was a hack-n-slash and the GM switched gears to a political intrigue campaign with no warning, that would be worth shouting about.
In the ideal game, everyone can do something in every scene, while the spotlight rotates on who gets to shine. CHA dumping leads to "we sit this one out and let the face deal with this part" which is not fun. It is a price people are willing to pay for a little more to hit/damage for the combat side of things though. By forcing people to act in every scene, it keeps everyone involved in the game and (hopefully) having fun. Wether as carrot or a stick works better is up to the GM and his group, and you should let people know that this is your plan before they flush their charisma. But (IMHO) should make for a better time overall for everyone.
YMMV of course...
I have more sympathy for people who roll crummy sets of stats and are forced to run lower CHA then they would like. But for point buy min/maxers who dumped CHA so they could have a massive STR, they knew the price when they made the character.
That they wouldn't be party face? A Fighter was NEVER going to be party face. What do you do to Sorcerers with low Intelligence? Wizards with low strength?
That they wouldn't be party face? A Fighter was NEVER going to be party face. What do you do to Sorcerers with low Intelligence? Wizards with low strength?
I have more sympathy for people who roll crummy sets of stats and are forced to run lower CHA then they would like. But for point buy min/maxers who dumped CHA so they could have a massive STR, they knew the price when they made the character.
Strength and intelligence have more mechanical penalties that impact the characters constantly.
Low INT sorcerers pay for it with a lack of skill points and crummy skill checks. If someone wants to play a dumb one, that's fine, but their KS:arcana and spellcraft checks are going to suffer. Both those skill are key to their job (IMHO) Yes there are others who can fill those rolls but I alway try to cover them with my sorcerers.There is a limit to how low you can dump your strength before even mundane gear encumbers you. Not everything can live in your haversack or be schlepped around by the fighter. And that's before worrying about STR damage/drains, which are not uncommon.
Negative stats are a penalty. Some come up more often then others.
The best person for the role doesn't always fill it. We've had fighters be the party face before. Not because he had a lot of skills or CHA, but because he was outgoing and wanted to talk. We would have been better off mechanically with someone with a better skill check doing the talking, but the fighter was the one stepped up and said "hello!"
I don't use this to get the role playing. They do that on their own. But u can't expect a player with a 5 cha (yes a 5, not a +5, 5 is his actual ability score) to walk into every place and get what he needs and not piss people off all the time.Good thing that is what skill rolls are for.
If I ran a low charisma character in most of your games, I would run a complete jerk-ess - not because I have low Charisma, but because how most of the "roll-players" insist on treating a character with low charisma out of spite. Oh, the innkeeper tells me to stay in the stable because I have low charisma? I threaten him with my sword and start breaking stuff. I get accused of a crime just because I walk around town with low charisma? I start committing crimes - I'll be damned if I'm going to jail just for DM fiat.
Please play in my games. Q.Q
*cheers for Cartigan*
Strength and intelligence have more mechanical penalties that impact the characters constantly.
No, they don't.
Who was going to make the Wizard the packmule? Or the guy kicking in doors? No one. Sure, he might not climb, jump, or swim very well but I guess it's a good thing, then, that he is a Wizard.Intelligence even less so. Sure, the Sorcerer may have less skill points and not be very good at identifying the the anatomy of dragons, but so what? The Sorcerer gets 9 class skills. 2 are role-playing skills. One is pretty much useless (and stupid) unless he is a dragon sorcerer. 3 more are based off his casting stat. Oh, and Pathfinder has it such that you can only have max skill points = your level so having only 1 skill point to spread isn't much of a hindrance any more. I guess he would be bad at identifying items with Detect Magic.
There is a limit to how low you can dump your strength before even mundane gear encumbers you. Not everything can live in your haversack or be schlepped around by the fighter.
You mean the armor and weapons the Wizard doesn't wear?
And that's before worrying about STR damage/drains, which are not uncommon.
Sure, I suppose if the Wizard is dumb enough to walk within range of something that can do that without any protection..
The best person for the role doesn't always fill it. We've had fighters be the party face before. Not because he had a lot of skills or CHA, but because he was outgoing and wanted to talk. We would have been better off mechanically with someone with a better skill check doing the talking, but the fighter was the one stepped up and said "hello!"
So you weren't forcing characters to role-playing their characters correctly with arbitrary penalties?!
If you feel the characters are cheesing out their characters and taking a 5 charisma to get higher physical stats tell them "You have to take a min charisma of 8". Its your game, your story, and to create the best experience dont let people run over you with cheeseness!
Psst, to get 5 Charisma, you need a race that takes a -2 penalty to Charisma. So you are going to force Dwarves to have 10 Charisma base? Bye bye Dwarven players.
Personally, I have always felt that players taken an 8 or a 7 in an attribute so they get extra points to pump up their main stats is pretty cheesy, even power gaming if the gm isn't going to allow the low stat to come up in game. If a player has a low stat and you don't challenge him in that stat, he got a few points for free with no down side. That's MY OPINION!
On to other things. A character is just like a real person just in that world. Low str means you can't carry as much. There must have been a time before you met the party in which you had to carry things, and I'm sorry, if my character has a high str, idc, I ain't carrying the wizards waterskin cause he's too weak to carry it himself (gotta have #omething to create water in for drinking purposes).
A low int? Everyone at some point in their life, in game or in the real world, no matter how dumb is faced with using what int he has to answer questions, solve problems, etc.
A low wis? This is all too common in our society with the lack of common sense.
As for a low cha, no one in their life, no matter how ugly or socially inept, or both, spends their whole lives not talking to people (even the hunchback of notre dame came down and interacted eventually). Especially when they first get involved with a group. Does the group just "get over" the fact of his low cha? Does this low cha make some situations harder for the group as a whole? Does the party even wanna approach him to ask him for help? Or if they do, does he piss them off so much with his attitude that they say "f#$* it!"?
These things need to be roleplayed. That's my opinion. But the fact is that this thread is not about how to screw over a player due to his low cha, its how to challenge that player to show a little bit more depth to his character, to make the character feel more real. This thread did say role playing in the title, which means less mechanics and more story line based conversations and situations that the character will face eventually (even if you had a pinch of realism in your games, such as you have to walk with two feet on the ground, this will happen, whether you role play it out or not. All of our characters go to the bathroom eventually but just cause we don't role play that out doesn't mean it doesn't happen).
I take the same viewpoint in the "rule" "never split the party." BULL S%$*! Ill go where I want in town. Why do I always have to be around someone? Maybe I, just like real people, get tired of being round my friends for once and want a little bit of me time. I mean I did just spend a month crawling with them in the mud with no showers. They smell. I wanna get away and relax for a bit without them. A character with a low cha might himself want to do this more often, or the other players want to get away from him for a while due to his low cha. Now guess what? The low cha character is alone and if he wants something, he has to go get it himself. That doesn't mean he has to talk to everyone, and that everyone he talks to will treat him like s*%$. But ignoring the fact that eventually that WILL happen is just bad story. He will eventually piss someone off, whether on purpose or not, and whether he's aware of it or not.
So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?
So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?
Force them to use the social skills instead of straight no-roll role-playing when they interact with stuff. They get penalties that way.
Strength and intelligence have more mechanical penalties that impact the characters constantly.No, they don't.
Who was going to make the Wizard the packmule? Or the guy kicking in doors? No one. Sure, he might not climb, jump, or swim very well but I guess it's a good thing, then, that he is a Wizard.Intelligence even less so. Sure, the Sorcerer may have less skill points and not be very good at identifying the the anatomy of dragons, but so what? The Sorcerer gets 9 class skills. 2 are role-playing skills. One is pretty much useless (and stupid) unless he is a dragon sorcerer. 3 more are based off his casting stat. Oh, and Pathfinder has it such that you can only have max skill points = your level so having only 1 skill point to spread isn't much of a hindrance any more. I guess he would be bad at identifying items with Detect Magic.
There is a limit to how low you can dump your strength before even mundane gear encumbers you. Not everything can live in your haversack or be schlepped around by the fighter.You mean the armor and weapons the Wizard doesn't wear?
And that's before worrying about STR damage/drains, which are not uncommon.Sure, I suppose if the Wizard is dumb enough to walk within range of something that can do that without any protection..
The best person for the role doesn't always fill it. We've had fighters be the party face before. Not because he had a lot of skills or CHA, but because he was outgoing and wanted to talk. We would have been better off mechanically with someone with a better skill check doing the talking, but the fighter was the one stepped up and said "hello!"So you weren't forcing characters to role-playing their characters correctly with arbitrary penalties?!
With an 8 strength you can carry 26lbs worth of stuff before being encumbered. Most staffs/rods are 5lbs, your haversack is another 5. Boots/bracers/etc are a pound or so each. Spell component pouch is another 2. It adds up if you track it, and with a low strength, you don't have a lot of wiggle room. This assumes a medium size. Most magic item weights don't scale down for small users, so they get hit hard. Under ideal conditions it won't impact you that much, but most adventurers don't live in a perfect world.
Sometimes it's fun for the outgoing fighter with no social skills to do the talking. It keeps things interesting at any rate. As for "arbitrary" penalties, CHA penalties are not arbitrary, they are set numbers on your character sheet. Sometimes the wizard has to use his CMD, even though it sucks. Sometimes the thug has to use his CHA. A game that focus on nothing but your strengths would be a boring one, IMHO, but YMMV.
Everyones game is different. The goal is to have fun and play. As long as you are doing that, it's all good.
So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?Force them to use the social skills instead of straight no-roll role-playing when they interact with stuff. They get penalties that way.
Pretty much this.
So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?Force them to use the social skills instead of straight no-roll role-playing when they interact with stuff. They get penalties that way.
I do utilize this. I'm looking more for certain situations. Ways in which you can get that player more involved, whether he's alone or with the group.
I do utilize this. I'm looking more for certain situations. Ways in which you can get that player more involved, whether he's alone or with the group.So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?Force them to use the social skills instead of straight no-roll role-playing when they interact with stuff. They get penalties that way.
Why would the uncharismatic character do that? Are we going to encourage bad role-playing now? What is the player's fluff for bad charisma?
Way back when I can't remember when... (maybe 1st ed.) Charisma was also refered to as also manifestation of some parts of one's "Karma".
It still is referred to as a link to "energy chaneling" and undead "life force".
We usualy apply it as being (amongst other social difficulty) a "Bad groove" people get from those characters. Many of us had such real-life situation when you meet someone who doesn't look menacing, repelling, infected, evil or over-expressive but just somehow feels "wrong" when you meet him/her.
If time is invested in talking to them or being around them for a while you can sometimes see that their O.K. or not.
That, to me, can be used to interestingly cover some Low-Charisma Role-Playing issues.
Why would the uncharismatic character do that? Are we going to encourage bad role-playing now? What is the player's fluff for bad charisma?I do utilize this. I'm looking more for certain situations. Ways in which you can get that player more involved, whether he's alone or with the group.So back to the point of this thread, what are some ways in which other gms challenge their players with low cha?Force them to use the social skills instead of straight no-roll role-playing when they interact with stuff. They get penalties that way.
You obviously didn't see my example of even the hunchback of notre dame came down and interacted even with his bad cha. Just as some people on these threads will still post even if they have bad cha because they feel like they have something important to say. They want to get their opinions out just as much as anyone else. Not bad role playing. Realistic role playing. There's a difference.
Something mentioned earlier that bears repeating is that a person with low charisma will likely spend a lot of time with others of equally low charisma. This means, that played properly by both the DM and the player, the low charisma can serve as both a positive and a negative. A positive if the party has to deal with those who tend to be distrustful of anyone looking too "shiny" and a negative if forced to deal with the king. A person with average charisma will likely simply overlook someone with a 5, but someone with an 18 would actively scorn and manipulate the person with a 5. The key is that ultimately what is important is not the charisma itself, but the difference between the charismas involved. The greater the difference, the greater the disadvantage suffered by the person with less control of the situation.
If you put out roleplaying penalties for having low Cha, without allowing people the chance to adjust their stat plans, you will unfairly punish those who had dumped Cha.
True. If Cha actually has some use, people should be aware of that before choosing stats, or get the chance to retcon it.
You will have discouraged some players from playing the game outside of combat.
Well, discouraged them from doing social stuff. Much like most wizards are discouraged from entering bodybuilding competitions or hauling trains around with their teeth.
The thing is, EVERYONE dumps Cha, because it's not a stat. The rules as written pretty much clearly state, "Cha is for bards, sorcerers, and paladins. Every member of every other class is stupid if they don't dump this as low as possible." That's HORRIBLE game design. You don't make an auto-dump stat but then pretend like it's a real stat. That's arbitrary, dishonest, and just downright stupid. It shouldn't even be called "Charisma," if used as written. It should be called "Sissy Stat That Must Never Be Above 7."
If that's what we're after, which most people seem enthusiastically to be, then remove Cha from the stat array. There will be five stats: Str, Dex, Con, Int, and Personality. The sixth stat ("The ability formerly known as Charisma") will be renamed Free Dump.
Done.
Alternatively, retain Charisma, but make it actually do something that a small handful of skill points can't do ten times better.
One or the other, though.
If that's what we're after, which most people seem enthusiastically to be, then remove Cha from the stat array. There will be five stats: Str, Dex, Con, Int, and Personality. The sixth stat ("The ability formerly known as Charisma") will be renamed Free Dump.
Done.
Alternatively, retain Charisma, but make it actually do something that a small handful of skill points can't do ten times better.
One or the other, though.
While I can honestly say that I just don't see the need for some of your more extreme corrections, this is one I can get behind. Make it useful, or rework the base attribute so that it can be made useful.
You obviously didn't see my example of even the hunchback of notre dame came down and interacted even with his bad cha.
1) He didn't have bad Charisma. He was ugly.
2) I don't think citing works of fiction really make your point. Works of fiction have "plot directive" which generally cause characters to play against type because it's good for the story. Which is the only reason Quasimodo ever came down - "plot directive." His hideousness and deafness - which I presume you are relaying as bad charisma - led him to stay in the church and bell tower.
Well low charisma characters are easier going and more easily convinced to go along with things. A Fighter with 7 Charisma is easier to lead than a Fighter with 13 Charisma; perhaps because the 13 Charisma guy is a stubborn jerk, or too strong willed to want to help you, or something.
But any way you slice it, a pair of 7 charisma characters have no penalties socializing with each other (their penalty applies to both their rolls AND their DCs), while a low charisma character has a harder time influencing a high charisma character, while a high charisma character can more easily influence the low charisma character.
So apparently being a mean nasty ugly low down dirty sack of 7 charisma also makes you more ready to help someone out in their time of need, look the other way when you ask them nicely, or are more likely to give you directions when asked.
I though that was worth pointing out.
What's ALSO worth pointing out is that Charisma modifies social interactions. Even appearances simply modify the skill checks involved (wearing common clothing with nobles is a -2, wearing parade armor is a +2, etc). A 7 Charisma isn't really even very low. You'll make 10% less good first impressions, unless you work at overcoming your social hangups (such as learning not to put your foot in your mouth, or learning to relate to people better). A Dwarf Fighter with a 5 Charisma and has a -3 to Diplomacy and Intimidate, but by putting 1 rank in each per level, he starts with a +1 Intimidate and a -2 Diplomacy. By 3rd level, he's at +3 Intimidate, +0 Diplomacy.
What's also worth pointing out, is that adjusting starting attitudes arbitrarily based on Charisma is stupid. You're already getting penalized in these areas for having a low Charisma, so upping the base DC of things is overkill. Likewise, the reverse is also stupid. If you have an 18 Charisma, you're already getting a +4 to all social based checks, so automatically starting people at Helpful is dumb.
Charisma serves a purpose in the game. It mildly affects everyone, and strongly affects some. What I mean by mildly is a Fighter does not get much for having a high charisma, but he doesn't lose much for having a low one. A Paladin however feels differently. It's also a solid balancing feature. Imagine if you will if Paladins got divine grace and smite evil off STRENGTH instead of the relatively mild Charisma. Whoo-boy, Paladins would be Narshty!
Really, it pains me to see so much spite in my fellow hobbyists, and of all the things, it's about someone else having a -2 instead of a +0. Tsk.
But any way you slice it, a pair of 7 charisma characters have no penalties socializing with each other (their penalty applies to both their rolls AND their DCs), while a low charisma character has a harder time influencing a high charisma character, while a high charisma character can more easily influence the low charisma character.
Actually, get rid of the last sentence and you get rid of many of the problems with charisma. The person with the most power in the current situation can more easily influence the person with less power. Sending a paladin into the slums to gather information is going to be about as effective as sending a raw sailor to the royal court to gather information. Both stand out like a sore thumb and are going to have a very hard time doing anything. I suggested this in the other charisma thread, but it bears repeating. The greater the difference in the charismas involved, the greater hardship of the person who doesn't fit in and who doesn't have control of the situation. A paladin or noble can suffer from high charisma just as much as a 5 charisma can suffer from low charisma.
You obviously didn't see my example of even the hunchback of notre dame came down and interacted even with his bad cha.1) He didn't have bad Charisma. He was ugly.
2) I don't think citing works of fiction really make your point. Works of fiction have "plot directive" which generally cause characters to play against type because it's good for the story. Which is the only reason Quasimodo ever came down - "plot directive." His hideousness and deafness - which I presume you are relaying as bad charisma - led him to stay in the church and bell tower.
1. It is a story, just like campaigns. My campaigns, as well as storys, have plot directives. I refuse to believe that before he met the group, a person with a low cha just never talked to anybody. AT ALL. That's not realistic in my book. Play the game how you wanna play, ill play it my way.
2. If you are always with your group and never talking since you have a low cha, you aren't adding any depth to either your character or the game. Boring.
3. Cha can mean a lot of things; ugly, socially inept, bad vibe, etc.
Like I said, this thread is about situations to help gms. Don't like it, don't post. I didn't start this thread to argue, I started it because it seemed that other people wanted a thread like this, not to argue about if its right or not. That's a case by case basis depending on your groups/gm.
Also, getting rid of cha isn't an option in my book. Bought the game and its supplements. Its already written, so that's that. I'm only cool with this idea if they said that PF 2.0 was coming out.
1. It is a story, just like campaigns. My campaigns, as well as storys, have plot directives. I refuse to believe that before he met the group, a person with a low cha just never talked to anybody. AT ALL. That's not realistic in my book. Play the game how you wanna play, ill play it my way.
It was a story about having Quasimodo interact with other people. Well about the cathedral actually, but that's neither here nor there. at any rate, it was part of the plot to have him interact with people. I'm sure there are some APs where all the players have to go around interacting with some one, but I doubt "Make every player interact with X person or the plot doesn't advance" is very common.
And perhaps he talked to very few people at all before joining the party - and then continued that. Or he recognizes the fact that one person in the party has a way with words and its much better to let THAT person do the talking in sticky situations.
2. If you are always with your group and never talking since you have a low cha, you aren't adding any depth to either your character or the game. Boring.
Ok, so we are encouraging bad role-playing because at least bad role-playing is active role-playing. Fine, as long as we admit that.
1. It is a story, just like campaigns. My campaigns, as well as storys, have plot directives. I refuse to believe that before he met the group, a person with a low cha just never talked to anybody. AT ALL. That's not realistic in my book. Play the game how you wanna play, ill play it my way.It was a story about having Quasimodo interact with other people. Well about the cathedral actually, but that's neither here nor there. at any rate, it was part of the plot to have him interact with people. I'm sure there are some APs where all the players have to go around interacting with some one, but I doubt "Make every player interact with X person or the plot doesn't advance" is very common.
And perhaps he talked to very few people at all before joining the party - and then continued that. Or he recognizes the fact that one person in the party has a way with words and its much better to let THAT person do the talking in sticky situations.
2. If you are always with your group and never talking since you have a low cha, you aren't adding any depth to either your character or the game. Boring.Ok, so we are encouraging bad role-playing because at least bad role-playing is active role-playing. Fine, as long as we admit that.
Just because he has a low cha and role plays doesn't mean its bad. But he would at some point or another say something to someone, just as people do all the time when a subject comes up. This is just life. People do it all the time. Just because it would be better that a character doesn't talk doesn't mean he's not going to. Just as if you walk into a hostile area, it would be better if you went in stealthily, but not everyone is going to.
I'm encouraging role playing. The player actually talking and his skill at role playing is what makes the ecounter, not necessarily the role playing at that time, good or bad. I'm not encouraging bad role playing. I'm encouraging role playing.
But I'm done arguing with you about this. We can agree to disagree. Like I said twice before, this thread is about situations the gms can use for their games in which to challenge these players. This thread has gotten derailed too much and I'm trying to get it back on course. If you don't like it, don't post. Not trying to be mean or rude, just stating the fact behind why I started this thread. Every player and gm has their own style and viewpoints. If you're ok with letting players take bad charisma and not having any in game effects to the storyline outside of skill checks, that's on you.
But for those of us that want the opposite, please post some examples to help other gms out. Thanks.
If you're ok with letting players take bad charisma and not having any in game effects to the storyline outside of skill checks, that's on you.
If you don't want people arguing with you, you shouldn't imply not houseruling penalties to low charisma characters is playing the game the wrong way.
Yes, it is on me to not arbitrarily foist upon characters specifically negative situations simply because I don't like how they built their character.
But for those of us that want the opposite, please post some examples to help other gms out. Thanks.
Since I can't POSSIBLY agree that penalizing characters because they chose the wrong dump stat is the "correct" way to DM, I can posit no example for doing so. I am attempting to "help other GMs out" by encouraging them not to screw over players arbitrarily and out of spite.
If you're ok with letting players take bad charisma and not having any in game effects to the storyline outside of skill checks, that's on you.If you don't want people arguing with you, you shouldn't imply not houseruling penalties to low charisma characters is playing the game the wrong way.
Yes, it is on me to not arbitrarily foist upon characters specifically negative situations simply because I don't like how they built their character.
Not one time have I ever said anything against houseruling. Reread all my post and you will see that's true. I'm all for houseruling. But you keep arguing with me about if this is right or not, which derails the thread and I have asked several times to get back to the basic point of this thread, which you have ignored. I'm not here to argue. I'm trying to get ideas which you aren't helping me with.
One last time. This thread is about situations gms can use to include these people in the role playing aspect of the game.
Fnipernackle it seems that A way for GM's to get to this would be to have the player declare a "descriptor" for each +/- 1 in stat modifiers a character has up to 5 per attribute. These things should help the player develop the personality or character not necessiarily provide a direct mechanical bonus ( If you want to give a character wiht the strong grip descriptor a +1 to CMD vs disarms or STR checks to hold onto a falling character thats totally up to the DM). If you wish to reward actively RP'ing to the descriptors (XP, boons, whatever) make sure you have the list of character descriptors available to reference if you are handing out goodies for thier usage. By the same vein if the player dosent then I dont see a problem with hindering them (XP loss, penalize the roll whatever). To be clear this shoulld be used for all 6 stats not just CHA
By all means make sure that the players are aware of what this means benefits and penalties and allow them to retcon if they so desire.
I am attempting to "help other GMs out" by encouraging them not to screw over players arbitrarily and out of spite.
I agree with this. The Charisma rules tell all players (except those playing bards, sorcerers, or paladins), in no uncertain terms, that they should dump it. You can't blame them for doing so. That's like penalizing players for calculating their AC.
I understand the rage against the Charisma rules. They really suck. But we need to address that problem at the source, not take out our frustration on the players.
By all means make sure that the players are aware of what this means benefits and penalties and allow them to retcon if they so desire.
Yes. If Cha gets a use, everyone should get to re-do their stats in that light. But uses for Cha should be mechanical, not merely descriptive, or we aren't fixing anything.
An example from a totally different game system (Rouge Trader) that can still be used:
Our Face was invited to a high stakes poker game at a high class exclusive joint. He goes in, does the society thing, finds out who the players are, gets some plot threads, etc. The normal "bard/face" thing.
Meanwhile outside the closed doors the bodyguards/thugs/etc. were milling about, waiting for the high class snobs to finish with their thing and hoping our guy didn't bet the ship on a hand of cards. And sizing each other up, gleaning clues, and picking up OTHER plot points and adventure hooks. Totally separate from the information being exchanged by the social guys inside. But just as important to advancing the game. Collectively that group of thugs had less charisma then a bilge rat, but among their peers, that wasn't such a big deal.
It's an example of "everyone does something in the scene" Yes, the Face was doing the heavy lifting and getting his time in the spotlight, but even the thugs were helping advance the plot.
Sometimes the ugly guy sleeping in the stables can get some clues by looking at the horses/tack of other people staying in the inn...
If you're ok with letting players take bad charisma and not having any in game effects to the storyline outside of skill checks, that's on you.If you don't want people arguing with you, you shouldn't imply not houseruling penalties to low charisma characters is playing the game the wrong way.
Yes, it is on me to not arbitrarily foist upon characters specifically negative situations simply because I don't like how they built their character.
Not one time have I ever said anything against houseruling. Reread all my post and you will see that's true. I'm all for houseruling. But you keep arguing with me about if this is right or not, which derails the thread and I have asked several times to get back to the basic point of this thread, which you have ignored. I'm not here to argue. I'm trying to get ideas which you aren't helping me with.
One last time. This thread is about situations gms can use to include these people in the role playing aspect of the game.
Fine, let's discuss role-playing.
You can't make players role-play. Especially not in D&D/Pathfinder. That's the long and short of it. You can try and encourage it, but some one with low Charisma is rarely going to be some one interest in talking to people anyway. Before or after they join the party. Either the character is gruff and has no intention of talking to you. Or is snooty and considers you beneath him. Or smells and no one wants to talk to him so he has poor social skills. Or is small and scrawny and no one takes him seriously. These people are not going to try and bargain with anyone for one reason or other that represents their low charisma. Or if they are, it not going to be any sort of bargaining that you will get from the Bard or the table diva. If a player doesn't want to role-play, you can't make him. If a player wants to role-play a low charisma character correctly, you are not going to get the result you want. Some times you have to accept everything isn't going to go your way.
Maybe you could separate the character from the party and it would behoove them to talk to people to get back, but there is NO guarantee that will work because, to paraphrase, no DM has struck it rich underestimating the absurdity of player solutions.
It seems people have me all messed up. I do reward players for roleplaying. I don't force them to role play, I encourage it.
Here is an example of what I'm looking for. Said player has a 5 cha, and goes out shopping on his own, not being forced to do it. I don't force my players to do anything. He talks to shop owners and merchants but the situation doesn't call for a skill roll, and when the player talks, he talks or acts as if he has a cha of 10, not 5. What do I do?
Do I have the merchant look at him or interact with him differently? Do I have him ignore the player? Or do I just ignore the fact that the player took a 5 cha to get some extra point for his character (which I'm not ok with)?
I'm not trying to screw people over. I don't do that. I'm trying to get some ideas. Does no one else feel like this or want ideas on this? Have other gms who have dealt with this that have similar viewpoints have any guidance for me?
By all means make sure that the players are aware of what this means benefits and penalties and allow them to retcon if they so desire.Yes. If Cha gets a use, everyone should get to re-do their stats in that light. But uses for Cha should be mechanical, not merely descriptive, or we aren't fixing anything.
I wouldnt disagree at all Its why I am campigning in the game i am playing in to use your attribute rules (wis for ranged, dex for thrown, cha for will saves)
And As I mentioned way upthread i would replace the term and its description with something that had nothing to do with apperance but was based solely on manipulation, personality, presence and was called something along those lines.
However, comma, for folks who are unwilling to go to those lengths i presented a descriptive mechanic to try out.
I don't think it's so much about making them roleplay - they may very well do that already. And if they don't, then this wouldn't be an issue in the first place; either the player or GM is in the wrong game.
The idea is to roleplay in a way that at least seems slightly representative of your stats.
I always treat Charisma as the characters' means of expressing their selves, whether it be the seductive human, gnome spy, or big scary half-orc. Appearance, personality - it shouldn't be about making people like you, but rather having the ability to influence them. "Personal magnetism" doesn't always have to be a good thing.
A GM should never "punish" a low CHA score, but it is not unrealistic for situations to be presented in which a silver tongue or frightening countenance would make things a whole lot easier. Such situations may not cater to a character that dumped Charisma.
It seems people have me all messed up. I do reward players for roleplaying. I don't force them to role play, I encourage it.
Here is an example of what I'm looking for. Said player has a 5 cha, and goes out shopping on his own, not being forced to do it. I don't force my players to do anything. He talks to shop owners and merchants but the situation doesn't call for a skill roll, and when the player talks, he talks or acts as if he has a cha of 10, not 5. What do I do?
Do I have the merchant look at him or interact with him differently? Do I have him ignore the player? Or do I just ignore the fact that the player took a 5 cha to get some extra point for his character (which I'm not ok with)?
I'm not trying to screw people over. I don't do that. I'm trying to get some ideas. Does no one else feel like this or want ideas on this? Have other gms who have dealt with this that have similar viewpoints have any guidance for me?
How does a 10 Cha act? How does a 5 Cha act? Does the shopkeeper not serve people with 5 Cha regardless of the fact they are going to buy stuff? Why isn't a skill roll involved? You want an effect for socializing with low Charisma but not rolls (rolls being how ability scores are factored into the game). I imagine the shopkeeper would be at worst indifferent - I assume he gets lots of weirdos in his store. If the Dwarf is buying lanterns, who cares? If he wants to look for special items (not mundane magical stuff, unless the store doesn't normally sell magic), have him roll a Diplomacy check to see if he can convince the shopkeeper to reveal that he has any.
Or do I just ignore the fact that the player took a 5 cha to get some extra point for his character (which I'm not ok with)?
Yes.
I give up. Idk y I try. I'm not trying to punish anyone but I feel that a negative cha affects your role play even though there are skills to also help with that aspect. I'm not going to ignore it so that they can power game, but nor am I going to exploit it. Do what you want but I'm done being told constantly that I'm wrong when I have played for so long and been successful with my thinking. Thanks for those who did help me, I will use what few good things I have gotten from this thread and utilize them.
Maybe now ill go read the other thread and see if people are saying that you shouldn't use cha draining effects on low cha characters cause its not fair. Whatever.
I actually try to help and you get yourself in a huff. I discussed how a shopkeeper would act and what you could do to benefit a person with high charisma vs some one with low charisma. I asked questions. I can't know what your expectations are unless you tell me, and since you haven't, I don't know. How is Cha X supposed to act, according to you? Is the game role-playing heavy? Are all the players big role-players? This is all relevant information to providing relevant suggestions. You can give some one a dump truck full of square pegs but they are worthless if he only has round holes.
The only reasonable conclusion is you want some one to agree with you on arbitrarily punishing players for choices they make that you don't like. Well you are crying on the wrong shoulder, friend.
The only real way to prevent Charisma/Social skill dumping on the part of the non-face characters is to both incentivize Charisma through various mechanical benefits and by forcing all the PCs to interact with social situations rather than just hide behind the skirts of the character with the best social skill + ability score modifier.
Unlike combat mode or even exploration mode there really is no problem with dividing the group in social settings. Yes it requires more multi-tasking but social skill use isn't too roll intense so you can probably have the bard doing some social thing, while the fighter is doing something else.
If the PCs with miserable Charisma and social skill ranks can't ever get anything done on their own then they quickly learn to alter their behavior.
Basically don't allow social encounters with the party to be entirely dictated by one spokesman. Limit that sort of thing to trying to convince the whole town to take up arms against the BBEG not make the Bard roll for every social interaction in town.
Giving people social subplots such as romance angles is a good way of encouraging positive social behavior. If the dwarf fighter never gets dates while the Bard is always surrounded by doting suitors then I find that eventually you can chip away at the tendency of people to play stoic loners every game.
Maybe now ill go read the other thread and see if people are saying that you shouldn't use cha draining effects on low cha characters cause its not fair. Whatever.
Well that WOULD be metagaming...
All we know is there is a Dwarf Fighter with 5 Charisma in a shop.
We know nothing about the shopkeep. Nothing MORE about the Dwarven Fighter. Nothing about the player.
I'm not crying on anyones shoulder or wanting people to agree with me. I'm asking for help and options. SITUATIONS in which to challenge these people and get an idea of their attitude. For example "have the player interact with npcs more" and similar is what I'm looking for.
What I've gotten from this thread is "ignore it and make them role a skill check." Not helping me in the SITUATIONS I'm looking for.
The 5 cha player is a major example. Idk much about his persona as I haven't gotten much. The reason I'm bringing him up is as an example of a low cha character that idk anything about and how to bring his character more into the light of the game.
My games are role play heavy. There is interaction on everyones part. There is splitting the party.
A low cha can represent a number of things that make the character less appealing to society; ugly, gruff, rude, an a!++&$+, etc. That's my take on it. Now if you can help me out with role playing examples that I can tailor and add in, like invitations to a ball the nobles are putting on where the character will be separate from the group and will have to role play on his own. I'm not looking for a forceful way to role play, I'm asking for examples.
How does player X think Charisma 5 should be role-played?
If you are running a game you are making up, just make something up. They go to a ball. They are interviewed about a crime. They interview individually about a job. Some one goes shopping. The problem with instigating scenarios is that it is basically impossible to predict what the PCs will do.
A low charisma doesn't have to be intentionally rude and crude. The character could be blissfully unaware that everything they say makes people cringe and often tries to segue the topic into one of their own interest that nobody else wants to talk about and frankly finds quite disturbing at times.
In the example I gave a few posts above this one, the character Gruthel (half-orc thief, Cha 2, Wis 7) was played almost animal-like. But as rude as his behavior seemed, it was not so intentional as impulsive, and even compulsive. Gruthel was blissfully unaware of social decorum, thus was rude by default.
So the two can co-exist, as well.