|
I completely agree with this, and it's made more frustrating by the fact that Intimidate actually does work this way. It seems odd to me that Diplomacy doesn't.
Yeah, this is one of those instances where I disagree with the rules. Someone should be harder to change their attitude by Wis (willpower), not how likable they are.
I can see the arguement, but it is not a question of "is it wise" as much as a battle of each persons force of personality.
Winston Churchill and Adoplh Hitler walk into a room with one microphone, if you will.
I think MDT and Ashiel (and Wraithstrike) hit the nail on the head when it comes to stat dumping. Players need to roleplay what their efficiencies and deficiencies are but this should be based upon how the group feels how far certain stats go in extremes when dealing with bonuses and negatives. These are elements of roleplaying that are taken into consideration when making a character of any type.
A character with a low charisma isn't pigeon holed to being uncharismatic for the life of the character. If chosen by the player, over time the character can overcome the deficiency and go from front line soldier to four star general. Of course this does not happen at level 1 and it requires an investment of the player to change the path of the character.
When choosing to drop a specific stat the player is going to have hurdles during a game session. The weak wizard is not going to be able to kick down the 3 inch think wooden door when he is given a strength of 7 and that is his hinderance to deal with (nevermind encumberance from equipment). Likewise the 7 charisma fighter (barring supporting feats) will have a harder time intimidating the goblins because he doesn't know how to make himself as imposing as possible yet. Players need to be taking this into consideration when they make their characters and if they choose to accept that the character should be described appropriately.
What shouldn't be a surprise is when a player thinks they can just roleplay out of a hinderance. Even though the player behind the character can act intimidating, (threatening someone with their sword) that doesn't mean that the npc is instantly intimidated without the successful check being made by the character. Likewise, the GM (in my opinion) shouldn't be playing NPC conversations against a low charisma character as if he failed a diplomacy check unless a diplomacy check was actually failed.
Just my 2 cents.
I think MDT and Ashiel (and Wraithstrike) hit the nail on the head when it comes to stat dumping. Players need to roleplay what their efficiencies and deficiencies are but this should be based upon how the group feels how far certain stats go in extremes when dealing with bonuses and negatives. These are elements of roleplaying that are taken into consideration when making a character of any type.
A character with a low charisma isn't pigeon holed to being uncharismatic for the life of the character. If chosen by the player, over time the character can overcome the deficiency and go from front line soldier to four star general. Of course this does not happen at level 1 and it requires an investment of the player to change the path of the character.
When choosing to drop a specific stat the player is going to have hurdles during a game session. The weak wizard is not going to be able to kick down the 3 inch think wooden door when he is given a strength of 7 and that is his hinderance to deal with (nevermind encumberance from equipment). Likewise the 7 charisma fighter (barring supporting feats) will have a harder time intimidating the goblins because he doesn't know how to make himself as imposing as possible yet. Players need to be taking this into consideration when they make their characters and if they choose to accept that the character should be described appropriately.
What shouldn't be a surprise is when a player thinks they can just roleplay out of a hinderance. Even though the player behind the character can act intimidating, (threatening someone with their sword) that doesn't mean that the npc is instantly intimidated without the successful check being made by the character. Likewise, the GM (in my opinion) shouldn't be playing NPC conversations against a low charisma character as if he failed a diplomacy check unless a diplomacy check was actually failed.
Just my 2 cents.
*applauds from the sidelines*
I think MDT and Ashiel (and Wraithstrike) hit the nail on the head when it comes to stat dumping. Players need to roleplay what their efficiencies and deficiencies are but this should be based upon how the group feels how far certain stats go in extremes when dealing with bonuses and negatives. These are elements of roleplaying that are taken into consideration when making a character of any type.
Just my 2 cents.
LOL
I find it hilarious that Ashiel, Wraith and Myself are all in the same group of who hit it on the nail, considering we're all three taking different positions. :)
But you're right, that really is the nail in the problem. When it comes to role playing, every group has to come up with what they can live with. Us old schooler's take that to mean the GM sets up how he's interpreting it, makes sure the players are aware of it, and uses that consistently. Others take that to mean the group votes as a democracy. Neither is right or wrong, just make sure you are in a group you can live with.
I do kinda miss the game where it's more about how you play your character rather than what your stats, skills, and feats are.
Removed posts and their replies. Everybody needs to take a step back and have a cup of tea (or something stronger, if that's a preference) and remember that everybody has different play styles that may not agree with somebody else's.
As a DM, you need to challenge the characters accross all abilities they posses, whether combat related, skills, spells, etc. Players are not fools, so if the DM caters to one type of play, e.g. an emphasis on combat, then the play"ers" will follow.
I do kinda miss the game where it's more about how you play your character rather than what your stats, skills, and feats are.
Going by the discussion so far, many people would consider that cheating.
However, I more have a problem with when the statistics, skills and feats won't let me play the character I want too.
Which is why I don't care for 15 point buy, makes it hard to play the cool, collected master swordsman or the fact spewing, wise, terrifyingly powerful wizard.
|
However, I more have a problem with when the statistics, skills and feats won't let me play the character I want too.
Well, then play a storytelling game where there are no statistics except how you describe your characeter and jotted down abilities for reference.
If your PCs int is 7 then, he cannot be a smartass who knows something about everything, even i you would want him to. Also, if he has cha 7 he cannot be a suave ladies man.
NOTE: We are talking low levels where stats matter much more then on higher levels, for skills anyway.
|
|
However, I more have a problem with when the statistics, skills and feats won't let me play the character I want too.
Well, then play a storytelling game where there are no statistics except how you describe your characeter and jotted down abilities for reference.
If your PCs int is 7 then, he cannot be a smartass who knows something about everything, even i you would want him to. Also, if he has cha 7 he cannot be a suave ladies man.
NOTE: We are talking low levels where stats matter much more then on higher levels, for skills anyway.
Also, you don't always get to play exactly what you want to play unless you are willing to sacrifice elsewhere.
I do kinda miss the game where it's more about how you play your character rather than what your stats, skills, and feats are.Going by the discussion so far, many people would consider that cheating.
However, I more have a problem with when the statistics, skills and feats won't let me play the character I want too.
Which is why I don't care for 15 point buy, makes it hard to play the cool, collected master swordsman or the fact spewing, wise, terrifyingly powerful wizard.
You may find this interesting.
Well, then play a storytelling game where there are no statistics except how you describe your characeter and jotted down abilities for reference.
If your PCs int is 7 then, he cannot be a smartass who knows something about everything, even i you would want him to. Also, if he has cha 7 he cannot be a suave ladies man.
NOTE: We are talking low levels where stats matter much more then on higher levels, for skills anyway.
You may find this interesting.
I also find this interesting and, for the most part, I agree with you. However, I find I'm closer to Mr.Fishy in regards to skills. I think Siegfried's ranks in Diplomacy represent his conscious effort to learn etiquette to offset some other aspect of his personality that the average person finds, for whatever reason, mildly grating. Diplomacy takes a full minute of interaction before you get to make the roll (unless you're taking the penalties for the rough job), and sometimes you just won't hold an NPC's attention that long. Thinking of it in terms of a door-to-door salesman, CHA is what gets your foot in the door, but your Diplomacy (or Bluff roll if you're a bit of a cynic) is what makes the sale.
That is not to say that a GM should go out of his way to beat the fact that you put a 7 in CHA into your head every second of every session. I just think that you have to be prepared for the occasional interaction to go sour before you have the chance to improve it.
You may find this interesting.I also find this interesting and, for the most part, I agree with you. However, I find I'm closer to Mr.Fishy in regards to skills. I think Siegfried's ranks in Diplomacy represent his conscious effort to learn etiquette to offset some other aspect of his personality that the average person finds, for whatever reason, mildly grating. Diplomacy takes a full minute of interaction before you get to make the roll (unless you're taking the penalties for the rough job), and sometimes you just won't hold an NPC's attention that long. Thinking of it in terms of a door-to-door salesman, CHA is what gets your foot in the door, but your Diplomacy (or Bluff roll if you're a bit of a cynic) is what makes the sale.
That is not to say that a GM should go out of his way to beat the fact that you put a 7 in CHA into your head every second of every session. I just think that you have to be prepared for the occasional interaction to go sour before you have the chance to improve it.
Okay, so if 7 CHA makes you ugly or something, what happens when you start putting points into it? Do the scars go away when you gain a level? "I WAS ugly, but now after adventuring, I've become ruggedly handsome!"
|
|
Okay, so if 7 CHA makes you ugly or something, what happens when you start putting points into it? Do the scars go away when you gain a level? "I WAS ugly, but now after adventuring, I've become ruggedly handsome!"
Charisma isn't specifically about how pretty you are.
It is about how Charismatic you are.
You don't select Generals based on how sexy they are.
Okay, so if 7 CHA makes you ugly or something, what happens when you start putting points into it? Do the scars go away when you gain a level? "I WAS ugly, but now after adventuring, I've become ruggedly handsome!"
Charisma isn't specifically about how pretty you are.
It is about how Charismatic you are.
You don't select Generals based on how sexy they are.
You do if you're Emperor Hef.
On a serious note, yes, CHA can be appearance. But it's a lot more. I've known people with scars that were very personable and turned them into interesting stories to break the ice (like my cousin discussing how he got 6 really strange looking parallel scars on his back, involving a raft, a stream, and a barbed wire fence when he was 14).
As noted above, Diplomacy takes time, until you can make that check, your basic Charisma is your first impression (which is something I said repeatedly, and got called a hypocrite, a liar, a jerk, etc earlier in the thread and gave up on having a discussion amidst all the screaming and shouting and insulting).
I can see someone "pretty" have low cha. Vapid people with bad personalities that are a pain to be around. Who have no sense of expression beyond their usually spoiled and pampered lifestyles, never having to assert themselves in life.
I can see someone "pretty" have low cha. Vapid people with bad personalities that are a pain to be around. Who have no sense of expression beyond their usually spoiled and pampered lifestyles, never having to assert themselves in life.
Don't forget they carry around yappy little rat dogs.
Paris Hilton. :)
I also find this interesting and, for the most part, I agree with you. However, I find I'm closer to Mr.Fishy in regards to skills. I think Siegfried's ranks in Diplomacy represent his conscious effort to learn etiquette to offset some other aspect of his personality that the average person finds, for whatever reason, mildly grating. Diplomacy takes a full minute of interaction before you get to make the roll (unless you're taking the penalties for the rough job), and sometimes you just won't hold an NPC's attention that long. Thinking of it in terms of a door-to-door salesman, CHA is what gets your foot in the door, but your Diplomacy (or Bluff roll if you're a bit of a cynic) is what makes the sale.
You may find this interesting.
I guess it's a difference of view. Sigfried's ranks in Diplomacy could represent a conscious effort, or a subconscious improvement by being around people. That's kind of the point, y'know? Otherwise we'd need a million different rules governing how someone was advancing, and we'd need several different kinds of sub-stats for each ability score defining things like physical build, the condition of your internal organs and arteries, how wiry your frame is based on a combination of strength, dexterity, constitution or seventeen individual substats within each of those three primary systems. Where Charisma actually has several substats representing self-awareness, outgoing, stubbornness, beauty, leadership, personal magnetism, with the average being your total Charisma...or something.
Or we can accept that we have 6 scores for simplicity, and they represent our character mechanically. The meat and flesh of the skeleton is pretty much up to the creator of the character.
That is not to say that a GM should go out of his way to beat the fact that you put a 7 in CHA into your head every second of every session. I just think that you have to be prepared for the occasional interaction to go sour before you have the chance to improve it.
That's fine I guess, but it's not the way it works. There are no rules, or even suggested guidelines, implying that characters should treat your character differently because of a mental ability score. People do not immediately know you are a super genius because you have a 22 intelligence at 4th level; nor do they know that you know less than the average person (7 Int) and probably couldn't be able to tell you the name of the Duke of the next-area-over (can't take 10 on a DC 9-10 Knowledge check).
Likewise, why would people know that you have a 22 Wisdom and are amazingly perceptive? Or that you've got a 6 Wisdom (counting some ability damage) and are a tiny bit off of your rocker, before knowing you?
Charisma is the same. Every published source would suggest that such things are governed by Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive, Bluff, and so forth. Even items that modify your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) provide a +2 / -2 modifier to Diplomacy skill checks, as opposed to "Charisma based checks to see if they like or take you seriously" or some-such.
In short, the guy with a -2 Charisma is already naturally worse at this. Intentionally setting him up for further failure by making people innately more hostile towards him before interaction is not only double-penalizing him, but it's inventing ways to penalize him that aren't in the rules. As a GM, you could do that, but I feel it would be both in bad taste and also make little sense in context of reality (because let's face it, people shouldn't have to be level 4-8 to have a mild to moderate improvement in social interaction).
I can see someone "pretty" have low cha. Vapid people with bad personalities that are a pain to be around. Who have no sense of expression beyond their usually spoiled and pampered lifestyles, never having to assert themselves in life.Don't forget they carry around yappy little rat dogs.
Paris Hilton. :)
This is a great example of why Charisma=Pretty doesn't work. I personally think Paris Hilton is amazingly unattractive. Someone might put their 18 in Charisma because they want their character to look like Paris Hilton, while someone else thinks Paris Hilton is a 9, while oddly the Night Hag is making some bank $$$ modeling for playboy centerfolds.
Not that you can't have Charisma represent your beauty. If you want to say that the reason you get a +4 to social interactions is because you're captivatingly attractive, that seems just as valid as saying you have a commanding voice, or you're a very likable person, intimidating, etc.
I can see someone "pretty" have low cha. Vapid people with bad personalities that are a pain to be around. Who have no sense of expression beyond their usually spoiled and pampered lifestyles, never having to assert themselves in life.Don't forget they carry around yappy little rat dogs.
Paris Hilton. :)
This is a great example of why Charisma=Pretty doesn't work. I personally think Paris Hilton is amazingly unattractive. Someone might put their 18 in Charisma because they want their character to look like Paris Hilton, while someone else thinks Paris Hilton is a 9, while oddly the Night Hag is making some bank $$$ modeling for playboy centerfolds.
Not that you can't have Charisma represent your beauty. If you want to say that the reason you get a +4 to social interactions is because you're captivatingly attractive, that seems just as valid as saying you have a commanding voice, or you're a very likable person, intimidating, etc.
That was sort of the point. Charisma is a bunch of different stuff, and a lot of it is cultural subclues.
Appearance : Appearance is part of it, are you healthy or sickly looking? That's probably the first one people cue off of, even if nobody really thinks about it. For example, if you see someone with sores on their face who's gaunt you have a very negative reaction. That's biology kicking in making you want to stay away from someone that looks like they are obviously sick (they may not be, could be makeup for halloween, or it could be they were attacked by bees and are just skinny). Once you get past health, the next thing that get's noticed is usually hygiene. Now we're talking the bag lady vs a someone in clean clothes with a haircut. That goes back to biology too though, someone who's well maintained we find more attractive because they are more likely to be a good mate. Finally, sexual attractiveness kicks in. That's a lot more subjective, different people find different things attractive. Some people like tall stick figures (Paris), while others like heavy set and jiggly (Roseann Barr). Most people fall somewhere inbetween those two extremes. Clothes fall into this as well, people judge you by what you wear, how it looks, if it's well maintained, etc. Again, that's not something you can stop and make a check for. All you can do is prepare ahead of time.
Voice : Voice can be a big thing as well, we're programmed from birth to react to voices. A great example of this is Fran Dresher (sp?) from The Nanny. She's very attractive physically, but when she puts on her brooklyn act, her voice and especially her laugh is like nails on a chalkboard to most people.
Personality : How you treat other people is part of it as well. And a lot of this is non-vocal social cues, such things as eye contact, tilt of head, expression on face, how you hold your lips, etc. Even before you open your mouth to talk (which goes back to the argument of "I can just not talk", unfortunately, you are talking with body language, all the time). People keep forgetting that body language and social clues are often as important, if not more important, than anything else. If I walk up to and smile and ask you how your kids are doing, but my eyes don't make contact and the smile doesn't extend up to the eyes (and I've met people like this, especially sales people, who want to sell me things like cars or houses or tvs) then I get turned off because I don't feel they are being sincere. That's part of a diplomacy/sense motive check, obviously, but just watching someone walk around and how they look at or avoid people around them can give huge social clues. It's why people put into a room with random strangers tend to self select into similar groups, all without doing a lot of talking, they recognize subconscious visual clues.
Pheremones : These get overlooked a lot, but they really do affect people. Someone with weak pheremones has less of a presence than someone with powerful ones. It's been shown that people respond to human pheremones, it's that subtle 'Mmmph' that people have, and it's not something you can skill check, you either have it or you don't.
So yes, there are things you can control for, learn skills to compensate for (although as pointed out, the RAW are that you need a minute of work to make a diplomacy check, unless you take hefty penalties), but a lot you can't correct for short of magic (boosting the stat).
That was sort of the point. Charisma is a bunch of different stuff, and a lot of it is cultural subclues.
Which is why I said it was a great example. ☺
Though something tells me that certain charismatic leaders that were able to incite fanatical devotion and begin entire wars dedicated to an idealistic goal through the fury of their words, while looking kind of goofy probably weren't getting much of their power of the mobs with their sweet pheromones. :P
But if you wanted to spin it that way for your character, I'd be A-OK with that. "My character has an almost pleasant scent that affects people deeply" would be a pretty unique way of explaining your +2 Charisma modifier. ☺
That was sort of the point. Charisma is a bunch of different stuff, and a lot of it is cultural subclues.But if you wanted to spin it that way for your character, I'd be A-OK with that. "My character has an almost pleasant scent that affects people deeply" would be a pretty unique way of explaining your +2 Charisma modifier. ☺
LOL, Pheremones are scentless. :) They do cause specific neuroreceptors in the sinuses to fire (because they fit those receptors), but those don't connect to the portion of the brain that processes scent, if I remember correctly, they instead connect into the portion of the brain that drives libido, fight or flight, and a couple of other primitive systems.
It's why a heterosexual female's nostrils flare when she see's a guy she's attracted to. It's also why male's flare their nostrils when they see the guy their girlfriend just ogled. Way deep down in the human lizard brain, they're trying to guage the alpha rating of that male.
On a side note, I'd personally say that Wolverine from the X-Men has an unlisted power, Alpha Plus Pheremones, as every male or female that gets in range of him tend to have very primitive type reactions.
You learn something new every day. ^.^
EDIT: I always guessed it was pheromones that caused me to really appreciate the natural scent of some people.
|
|
That's why i don't use just charisma as the prettiness factor. Well, not the score actually. I added a seventh ability called looks. You roll a d6 and add your charisma modifier. If you roll a 1 and have 7 charisma, gods help you. -1 in looks is nosferatu ugly. On the other hand 11 (maximum at 1st lvl) is godlike beauty.
Charisma was originally intended to be a measure of how much non-magical influence a character had on other characters. It was explicitly stated in old rule books (and may be in the new ones too) that charisma is not beauty. You are welcome to role play a high charisma character as beautiful, but it is not required. Charisma is more about leadership skills than social skills. We call them "social skills" because they aren't "combat skills" but intimidation, bluff and diplomacy are completely appearance neutral. I know many people with "high charisma" who are not that attractive, and vice versa.
As far as how a low charisma person can increase their charisma, that is done all the time, and done successfully. Read self-help books like Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and if you actually use the techniques, you will be more influential.
I am a pretty average to low charisma person in real life, but I have learned how to interact with people when I need or want to (which isn't that often, frankly) and when I use those techniques I can fake charisma pretty well. I just prefer not to do it, because it's just not me. So if you want to role play your character gaining charisma, read HtWFaIP yourself and introduce some of those concepts into your character to demonstrate his/her growing charisma.
That's fine I guess, but it's not the way it works. There are no rules, or even suggested guidelines, implying that characters should treat your character differently because of a mental ability score. People do not immediately know you are a super genius because you have a 22 intelligence at 4th level; nor do they know that you know less than the average person (7 Int) and probably couldn't be able to tell you the name of the Duke of the next-area-over (can't take 10 on a DC 9-10 Knowledge check).
Likewise, why would people know that you have a 22 Wisdom and are amazingly perceptive? Or that you've got a 6 Wisdom (counting some ability damage) and are a tiny bit off of your rocker, before knowing you?Charisma is the same. Every published source would suggest that such things are governed by Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive, Bluff, and so forth. Even items that modify your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) provide a +2 / -2 modifier to Diplomacy skill checks, as opposed to "Charisma based checks to see if they like or take you seriously" or some-such.
In short, the guy with a -2 Charisma is already naturally worse at this. Intentionally setting him up for further failure by making people innately more hostile towards him before interaction is not only double-penalizing him, but it's inventing ways to penalize him that aren't in the rules. As a GM, you could do that, but I feel it would be both in bad taste and also make little sense in context of reality (because let's face it, people shouldn't have to be level 4-8 to have a mild to moderate improvement in social interaction).
This seems to be where you and I will never see eye to eye, so I'll just thank you for your time and hope to debate with you again. =)
This seems to be where you and I will never see eye to eye, so I'll just thank you for your time and hope to debate with you again. =)That's fine I guess, but it's not the way it works. There are no rules, or even suggested guidelines, implying that characters should treat your character differently because of a mental ability score. People do not immediately know you are a super genius because you have a 22 intelligence at 4th level; nor do they know that you know less than the average person (7 Int) and probably couldn't be able to tell you the name of the Duke of the next-area-over (can't take 10 on a DC 9-10 Knowledge check).
Likewise, why would people know that you have a 22 Wisdom and are amazingly perceptive? Or that you've got a 6 Wisdom (counting some ability damage) and are a tiny bit off of your rocker, before knowing you?Charisma is the same. Every published source would suggest that such things are governed by Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive, Bluff, and so forth. Even items that modify your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) provide a +2 / -2 modifier to Diplomacy skill checks, as opposed to "Charisma based checks to see if they like or take you seriously" or some-such.
In short, the guy with a -2 Charisma is already naturally worse at this. Intentionally setting him up for further failure by making people innately more hostile towards him before interaction is not only double-penalizing him, but it's inventing ways to penalize him that aren't in the rules. As a GM, you could do that, but I feel it would be both in bad taste and also make little sense in context of reality (because let's face it, people shouldn't have to be level 4-8 to have a mild to moderate improvement in social interaction).
We were debating? Cool then. :P
Charisma is the same. Every published source would suggest that such things are governed by Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive, Bluff, and so forth. Even items that modify your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) provide a +2 / -2 modifier to Diplomacy skill checks, as opposed to "Charisma based checks to see if they like or take you seriously" or some-such.
In short, the guy with a -2 Charisma is already naturally worse at this. Intentionally setting him up for further failure by making people innately more hostile towards him before interaction is not only double-penalizing him, but it's inventing ways to penalize him that aren't in the rules. As a GM, you could do that, but I feel it would be both in bad taste and also make little sense in context of reality (because let's face it, people shouldn't have to be level 4-8 to have a mild to moderate improvement in social interaction).
I see the value in this statement, but I can't agree with it entirely. RAW, this is correct, but I feel as though it's an area that the rules are too light. It reality it's absolutely true that there are people that make bad first impressions before even opening their mouths. The game in no way handles this case.
I feel as though it's a missing part of the rules. I feel, and I admit it's a houserule, as though initial attitude should be in some way governed by basic charisma. Perhaps in a much more mild way than indifferent to unfriendly. Maybe a 2 point swing instead of the full 5 points. But the fact is, some people make bad first impressions. Others are great with first impressions.
All of that interaction occurs through body language and bias. There is no way to handle this in the game short of GM fiat.
As for it taking to level 4-8 to get better at social interaction, it requires just as long to be able to carry just a little bit more equipment, which is a fault of the ability score boost system, rather than any other rules.
Charisma is the same. Every published source would suggest that such things are governed by Diplomacy checks, Sense Motive, Bluff, and so forth. Even items that modify your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) provide a +2 / -2 modifier to Diplomacy skill checks, as opposed to "Charisma based checks to see if they like or take you seriously" or some-such.
In short, the guy with a -2 Charisma is already naturally worse at this. Intentionally setting him up for further failure by making people innately more hostile towards him before interaction is not only double-penalizing him, but it's inventing ways to penalize him that aren't in the rules. As a GM, you could do that, but I feel it would be both in bad taste and also make little sense in context of reality (because let's face it, people shouldn't have to be level 4-8 to have a mild to moderate improvement in social interaction).
I see the value in this statement, but I can't agree with it entirely. RAW, this is correct, but I feel as though it's an area that the rules are too light. It reality it's absolutely true that there are people that make bad first impressions before even opening their mouths. The game in no way handles this case.
I feel as though it's a missing part of the rules. I feel, and I admit it's a houserule, as though initial attitude should be in some way governed by basic charisma. Perhaps in a much more mild way than indifferent to unfriendly. Maybe a 2 point swing instead of the full 5 points. But the fact is, some people make bad first impressions. Others are great with first impressions.
All of that interaction occurs through body language and bias. There is no way to handle this in the game short of GM fiat.
As for it taking to level 4-8 to get better at social interaction, it requires just as long to be able to carry just a little bit more equipment, which is a fault of the ability score boost system, rather than any other rules.
The thing is that not all people that have a low charisma have it on auto-detect. Some people seem perfectly normal until you interact with them, while others seem like the type you would not want to know until you get to know them.
Being able to make a sudden impression without trying is a small part of charisma.There really is no way to justify saying people that are unlikeable are always doing something unlikeable. Many men have approached a pretty woman, spoken to her, and wish we had not. If the auto-charisma detector was on we could've avoid that situation altogether.
If you don't want to drop the rock on your head, then don't pick it up. If you don't want people think you are an idiot, don't open your mouth. If realism is the excuse for the auto charisma issue then why can a low cha, high wis person notice they weakness and figure out how to cover it up?
As an example I am not a great "on the spot" speaker so I guess I would have low charisma so I keep my mouth shut until people have been given a chance to know me, and I can know them. Once people know me I often get invitations, and other other favorable actions granted in my favor.
My brother on the other hand can sell water to a whale so I guess he has good charisma.
My point is that if you are going to be realistic then be realistic, and let the other intelligence scores offset it if possible. Mental scores don't exist in a vacuum.
My point is that if you are going to be realistic then be realistic, and let the other intelligence scores offset it if possible. Mental scores don't exist in a vacuum.
Absolutely true. And part of the problem with the entire social system revolves around this.
Charisma is a very vague thing. Diplomacy (in reality) is not just your charisma, although it affects it. It can be wisdom or intelligence depending on the situation.
An example: I work with a number of engineers, some of these people do not have what would be defined as charisma. However, everyone knows to listen to them when they speak of their area of expertise and will follow what they say. This is Intelligence affecting a social situation. Sometimes these people can be smart enough to make others gush about how awesome they are.
Classically charismatic? No. Able to lead others through their intelligence? Yes.
It's very hard to define charismatic because it is based on thousands of little factors. Looks, personality, wit, sense of humor, compassion, even athletic ability can convey the sense of leadership and charisma. Everyone has a slightly different definition of charisma. I feel as though this is why their are so many threads about dumping charisma. It's by far the hardest ability to quantify, and unlike intelligence or strength it's hard to define or train.
Ideally there would be an elegant solution that would make charisma valuable on the same scale as strength or int, considering there is no skill to boost to up your carrying capacity or skills be level while their are skills that nearly completely offset negative charisma modifiers.
Memory: *insert long tirade of influence through station here*
Nothing to do with intelligence. You, and everyone who has an education past the elementary level, have heard of the experiment where people are told to give electric shocks to someone. We listen to authority, because we are raised to do so. In terms of engineering, the engineer is the voice of authority. You listen to him, because he knows better.
Wartybum the Unwashed Swordmaster might not be bedding the hottest ladies in town, but when the town is attacked, people will defer to his expertise when he says "Get behind me!"
Nothing to do with charisma.
Memory: *insert long tirade of influence through station here*
Nothing to do with intelligence. You, and everyone who has an education past the elementary level, have heard of the experiment where people are told to give electric shocks to someone. We listen to authority, because we are raised to do so. In terms of engineering, the engineer is the voice of authority. You listen to him, because he knows better.
Not always true. If it had to do with authority everyone would always listen to the lead engineer, which is often not the case. Sometimes it's the junior graphics engineer that is dizzyingly intelligent but is fresh out of college or doesn't want to lead people necessarily.
Station admittedly affects the way people interact as well, regardless of their charisma either way. The point I was trying to make is that charisma is not the only thing that affects social interaction. This may be best dealt with by nuking charisma as a mechanic at all, rather than building a more robust social system.
I was just trying to make the point that in general I find the social system to be weak. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and Sense Motive govern every social interaction unless the GM factors in rp (which of course comes with its own issues). I can think of a few times that our GM has had to think for a while before deciding what social skill I just used, or if any one of those skills covered it.
|
|
Memory: *insert long tirade of influence through station here*
Nothing to do with intelligence. You, and everyone who has an education past the elementary level, have heard of the experiment where people are told to give electric shocks to someone. We listen to authority, because we are raised to do so. In terms of engineering, the engineer is the voice of authority. You listen to him, because he knows better.
Not always true. If it had to do with authority everyone would always listen to the lead engineer, which is often not the case. Sometimes it's the junior graphics engineer that is dizzyingly intelligent but is fresh out of college or doesn't want to lead people necessarily.
Station admittedly affects the way people interact as well, regardless of their charisma either way. The point I was trying to make is that charisma is not the only thing that affects social interaction. This may be best dealt with by nuking charisma as a mechanic at all, rather than building a more robust social system.
I was just trying to make the point that in general I find the social system to be weak. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and Sense Motive govern every social interaction unless the GM factors in rp (which of course comes with its own issues). I can think of a few times that our GM has had to think for a while before deciding what social skill I just used, or if any one of those skills covered it.
Or people don't want to follow them.
The person you follow isn't based generally on logic, or being the smartest most capable person.
Jim Jones served the Kool Aid, and people drank because of Charisma, not his logic or wisdom.
Memory: *insert long tirade of influence through station here*
Nothing to do with intelligence. You, and everyone who has an education past the elementary level, have heard of the experiment where people are told to give electric shocks to someone. We listen to authority, because we are raised to do so. In terms of engineering, the engineer is the voice of authority. You listen to him, because he knows better.
Not always true. If it had to do with authority everyone would always listen to the lead engineer, which is often not the case. Sometimes it's the junior graphics engineer that is dizzyingly intelligent but is fresh out of college or doesn't want to lead people necessarily.
Station admittedly affects the way people interact as well, regardless of their charisma either way. The point I was trying to make is that charisma is not the only thing that affects social interaction. This may be best dealt with by nuking charisma as a mechanic at all, rather than building a more robust social system.
I was just trying to make the point that in general I find the social system to be weak. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate and Sense Motive govern every social interaction unless the GM factors in rp (which of course comes with its own issues). I can think of a few times that our GM has had to think for a while before deciding what social skill I just used, or if any one of those skills covered it.
Or people don't want to follow them.
The person you follow isn't based generally on logic, or being the smartest most capable person.
Jim Jones served the Kool Aid, and people drank because of Charisma, not his logic or wisdom.
Logic is subjective and I am sure he made some good arguments. Charisma alone can only get you so far. I might like someone, but if they start saying stupid things I am off the ship so to speak. I am also convinced that several followers were out in left field so having a low wisdom modifier is also a factor.
Real life does not follow the game. In real life it takes a combination of the three mental stats in many situations. In the game it only takes one.
I have basically decided that it's pointless. The rules do a fine job of actually emulating good social interactions if you let them. Honestly, listening to some of the complaints about Charisma is like listening to people say their should be modifiers based on the color of your shirt.
Well there have been studies that show that the color red attracts the attention of others, and makes you seem more prominent. The color black causes people to fear, and take notice. There should be an adjustment to starting attitudes based on the color of the clothes you're wearing.
At least, that's really what it sounds like from here. A lot of it seems to be over emphasizing certain limited aspects of social interaction that, frankly, the rules don't and were not designed for (and I think are better without). Do we really need a chart that specifies that your character must act a certain way, or be reacted to a certain way, based on the raw value of a number?
At this point, we might as well hook it up to a computer and allow it to detail all the variables, responses, and attributes. We can also factor in the predesignated scent of smell, how shaggy your hair is, and how yellow your teeth are, based on our raw value of 7-18. We can now enjoy complete independence from the creative process of the mind, and instead enjoy the absolute government of the almighty number.
Or, we could roll 1d20+3-2 and see if we did good, or not.
I'm kinda partial to the 2nd.
|
The best example of a low cha. I wold guess a 6 tops this guy was not good looking, crude, and MEAN. He was a first sgt. in the army. He was not a very nice person or good looking. He was the meanest person in the company there was little doubt in that. He like to joke around and gave every one a nick names like broccoli, scudpuffer, shits linger, and so on. This man did not lead by haven a high cha. He lead by being the first one out and the last one in. He lead by every one knowing you did not messed with him. There was more then one time when he pushed people past what they wold have done for any one else.
Now on his chest was more metals then I really care to count. He was in ranger battalion for 18 years. And generally some one that you did not want to mess with and expect to be in one piece after. In D&D he wold be a fighter with high levels in Intimidate, Knowledge History, and Profession Solder.
|
|
Logic is subjective and I am sure he made some good arguments. Charisma alone can only get you so far. I might like someone, but if they start saying stupid things I am off the ship so to speak. I am also convinced that several followers were out in left field so having a low wisdom modifier is also a factor.
Real life does not follow the game. In real life it takes a combination of the three mental stats in many situations. In the game it only takes one.
If you have time.
Charisma is what is at play when someone charges into battle yelling "Follow me or die here alone!"
It is the tiebreaker when logic and wisdom are equal, or when those factors aren't able to be vetted completely because you have to make a decision right here and right now.
The general doesn't sit down with each soldier and explain why you should follow a specific order. You follow because he is a leader.
Logic is subjective and I am sure he made some good arguments. Charisma alone can only get you so far. I might like someone, but if they start saying stupid things I am off the ship so to speak. I am also convinced that several followers were out in left field so having a low wisdom modifier is also a factor.
Real life does not follow the game. In real life it takes a combination of the three mental stats in many situations. In the game it only takes one.If you have time.
Charisma is what is at play when someone charges into battle yelling "Follow me or die here alone!"
It is the tiebreaker when logic and wisdom are equal, or when those factors aren't able to be vetted completely because you have to make a decision right here and right now.
The general doesn't sit down with each soldier and explain why you should follow a specific order. You follow because he is a leader.
If someone is followed because they are the leader then charisma is not a factor in real life. I had enough crappy leaders in the army to know that.
I do agree that charisma can be a tie breaker meaning it is equal to the others, not ahead of it.
|
|
Logic is subjective and I am sure he made some good arguments. Charisma alone can only get you so far. I might like someone, but if they start saying stupid things I am off the ship so to speak. I am also convinced that several followers were out in left field so having a low wisdom modifier is also a factor.
Real life does not follow the game. In real life it takes a combination of the three mental stats in many situations. In the game it only takes one.If you have time.
Charisma is what is at play when someone charges into battle yelling "Follow me or die here alone!"
It is the tiebreaker when logic and wisdom are equal, or when those factors aren't able to be vetted completely because you have to make a decision right here and right now.
The general doesn't sit down with each soldier and explain why you should follow a specific order. You follow because he is a leader.
If someone is followed because they are the leader then charisma is not a factor in real life. I had enough crappy leaders in the army to know that.
I do agree that charisma can be a tie breaker meaning it is equal to the others, not ahead of it.
There is the appointed leader, and the NCO everyone actually follows.
The leader isn't the person in charge, they are the person you follow.
In a sense, Nationalism is a manifestation of a nations charisma. You support your country even when it is wrong.
Logic is subjective and I am sure he made some good arguments. Charisma alone can only get you so far. I might like someone, but if they start saying stupid things I am off the ship so to speak. I am also convinced that several followers were out in left field so having a low wisdom modifier is also a factor.
Real life does not follow the game. In real life it takes a combination of the three mental stats in many situations. In the game it only takes one.If you have time.
Charisma is what is at play when someone charges into battle yelling "Follow me or die here alone!"
It is the tiebreaker when logic and wisdom are equal, or when those factors aren't able to be vetted completely because you have to make a decision right here and right now.
The general doesn't sit down with each soldier and explain why you should follow a specific order. You follow because he is a leader.
If someone is followed because they are the leader then charisma is not a factor in real life. I had enough crappy leaders in the army to know that.
I do agree that charisma can be a tie breaker meaning it is equal to the others, not ahead of it.
There is the appointed leader, and the NCO everyone actually follows.
The leader isn't the person in charge, they are the person you follow.
In a sense, Nationalism is a manifestation of a nations charisma. You support your country even when it is wrong.
You still have to follow the appointed leader's orders though or bad things happen, like article 15's or worse.
I think you were trying to differentiate between the leader everyone wants to follow and the one they have to follow.Charisma alone does not get you to far if the other mental stats offset it.
The person I want to follow into battle can be a jerk, but if knows what he is doing I can deal with it.
If you are likeable guy, as in I would actually hang out with you outside of work, but you don't have any soldiering skills don't expect a lot of cooperation.
A lot of people support their nation because it is not normally in their interest for their nation to be on the losing end. A lot of people are also more than willing to turn a blind eye to right and wrong or just not know something is wrong.
|
|
You still have to follow the appointed leader's orders though or bad things happen, like article 15's or worse.
I think you were trying to differentiate between the leader everyone wants to follow and the one they have to follow.
Charisma alone does not get you to far if the other mental stats offset it.
The person I want to follow into battle can be a jerk, but if knows what he is doing I can deal with it.
If you are likeable guy, as in I would actually hang out with you outside of work, but you don't have any soldiering skills don't expect a lot of cooperation.
A lot of people support their nation because it is not normally in their interest for their nation to be on the losing end. A lot of people are also more than willing to turn a blind eye to right and wrong or just not know something is wrong.
Part of charisma is the ability to get people to believe you know what you are doing.
And sometimes it is because you do, and sometimes it's because you are charismatic.
Being likable doesn't mean I will run through a wall for you. Consider the Head Coach, who you follow as the leader, vs the Assistant Coach who actually has the expertise for your specific skill set.
One has knowledge, one has charisma. Sure, if the coach is a moron you'll stop following him...unless he's so charismatic you don't realize he's a moron.
At the risk of a flame war, Religion isn't exactly based on logic and reason. But people go to war over it all the time.
|
|
Most good military leaders do not have a high cha. They have a high Int and Wis. Most people will like to hang out with the high cha guy. They are not going to put there life in his hands just becous he is nice to hang out with. In combat you are going to follow the person that gives you the best chances at living. I have known alot of good combat leaders none of them where very nice people.
Political figures are good example of cha. Military people are tought to be socially unacceptable. To do the job your trained for you have to be. You can not be concerned with what people think or how it will look. That falls on the political people.
|
|
Most good military leaders do not have a high cha. They have a high Int and Wis. Most people will like to hang out with the high cha guy. They are not going to put there life in his hands just becous he is nice to hang out with. In combat you are going to follow the person that gives you the best chances at living. I have known alot of good combat leaders none of them where very nice people.
Political figures are good example of cha. Military people are tought to be socially unacceptable. To do the job your trained for you have to be. You can not be concerned with what people think or how it will look. That falls on the political people.
Charisma isn't about hanging out with people. I hang out with a lot of people I wouldn't follow or fight for.
Again, you are mistaking Charisma for likability.
Chr doesn't determine whether you will or will not follow someone into combat, you are taught to follow orders in the military.
Chr determines how much you WANT to follow someone into combat.
Two equally experienced leaders, knowledge-wise, who do you think will have more people eagerly follow them into battle, rather than reluctantly? The one with a 7 or the one with a 14? Sometimes leadership is showing that you have compassion for your troops and care for them. This helps them see that you want them to come back alive.
That's why (at least in 3.5) with the leadership feat, there are penalties for being cruel or having followers die. It implies that you don't care about them, as does a low Chr.
I've had soldiers as a squad leader that would have followed me into a firefight, over our Platoon Sgt, who although more experienced than I, they would have reluctantly followed to guard duty.
You still have to follow the appointed leader's orders though or bad things happen, like article 15's or worse.
I think you were trying to differentiate between the leader everyone wants to follow and the one they have to follow.
Charisma alone does not get you to far if the other mental stats offset it.
The person I want to follow into battle can be a jerk, but if knows what he is doing I can deal with it.
If you are likeable guy, as in I would actually hang out with you outside of work, but you don't have any soldiering skills don't expect a lot of cooperation.
A lot of people support their nation because it is not normally in their interest for their nation to be on the losing end. A lot of people are also more than willing to turn a blind eye to right and wrong or just not know something is wrong.Part of charisma is the ability to get people to believe you know what you are doing.
And sometimes it is because you do, and sometimes it's because you are charismatic.
Being likable doesn't mean I will run through a wall for you. Consider the Head Coach, who you follow as the leader, vs the Assistant Coach who actually has the expertise for your specific skill set.
One has knowledge, one has charisma. Sure, if the coach is a moron you'll stop following him...unless he's so charismatic you don't realize he's a moron.
At the risk of a flame war, Religion isn't exactly based on logic and reason. But people go to war over it all the time.
I think we agree.
Words that are spoken: Those heretics over there are being blasphemous they must die OR <other random idea to get people to fight for you>
Real thoughts: I want their land, wealth, and women...... I will twist and magnify certain opposing beliefs to make it so.