Rant about accustations of cheesing / cheating / powergaming / munchkinism


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

loaba wrote:


So if one player makes a low-CHA character, knowing full well that there is a "face" type character in the party, then the low-CHA player, aside from being guilty of stat dumping, is now also guilty of "using" the other PC to his advantage?

Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that stat-dumping is bad practice, as it pushes characters into unlikely positions on the bell-shaped curve in both 'bad' and 'good' scores. Using teamwork, as I noted in my first post, is a reasonable way to cover for the deficiencies a character might possess.

Stat-dumping just makes unbelievable characters, both in their proficiencies and their deficiencies.


Wraithstrike Minion #1 wrote:
I nominate lord WraithStrike.

This one is wise, and that is why he is will have a seat beside me when the rest of the world cowers at my feet. It would be best if you were to follow his lead.


Alitan wrote:
loaba wrote:


So if one player makes a low-CHA character, knowing full well that there is a "face" type character in the party, then the low-CHA player, aside from being guilty of stat dumping, is now also guilty of "using" the other PC to his advantage?

Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that stat-dumping is bad practice, as it pushes characters into unlikely positions on the bell-shaped curve in both 'bad' and 'good' scores. Using teamwork, as I noted in my first post, is a reasonable way to cover for the deficiencies a character might possess.

Stat-dumping just makes unbelievable characters, both in their proficiencies and their deficiencies.

Stat dumping is from the geek world view that you can't be fit, nice, and smart at the same time.

In real life if it were an rpg, gaining ranks in athletics would boost your three physical stats. Being successful enough to boost your stats would force teamwork and shared goals that would boost components of charisma like self confidence and sense of community. Wisdom and willpower are boosted by struggling in the endeavor. The only thing not connected is intelligence, although a think there is a relationship.

On the otherhand, fat slow sick people who can't exercise despite youth lack wisdom and will power, and often dump charisma due to low self esteem and emotional baggage.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:

What worries me, is that the amount of over-optimization some people preach and propagate seeems to lead to the effect that the modules start ramping up the difficulty to a point they prove a challenge to the STR 50 RageLancePounce Barbarian, the 40d8+8,388 damage fireball blaster and the AC76 tank.

Which, of course leads to louder cries that claim that non-dumped, non-cheesed characters are not able to survive.

In my opinion, this spiral is removing quite a lot of variety and flavor from the game.

Obvious hyperbole aside, I'd say that I have yet to see a paizo module geared towards optimized characters. I think their relative difficulty has been rather even in the ones I have played in or run. Paizo has been pretty clear on what their standard is, a 15 point buy non-optimized party of 4-5 players. Seems to me they have held to that and its been up to dms of optimizers to make the needed adjustments not the other way around.

And given the massive different in the flavor of the last few adventure paths, I'd hardly say there has been a loss of variety, but instead an increase. Carrion Crown, Jade Regent, Skull and shackles, this is a LOSS of variety?

The end of kingmaker was pretty rough*, especially since the rest of it was so easy.

*actually only 3 opponents who are in the spoiler below.

Spoiler:
The black dragon, lesser jabberwock, and the Narissa(spells sucks so it was a test of endurance, but the AC was around 50 IIRC.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another thought on low CHA:

• If 8 CHA means a mental disorder, then presumably 8s in other stats represent deficiencies of equivalent severity.
• Every NPC stat array (both common AND heroic) includes an 8.

Therefore, either the entire population of Golarion has a mental disorder or equivalent disability, or 8 CHA is not actually that bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one issue is that people have a hard time divorcing their perferred playstyle from the rules and/or assumes everyone plays like they do.

That is why look at each rule in a vacuum, then combine them together. If you ask me a rules question, even if I know it is broken in most games, I will say you can do it. I will also tell you how it will be an issue for the game, and why the GM might say no.

It is not my place to arbitrarily decide what does and does not work. Are +2 caster levels OP'd or is it +35? If you can dump charisma, and still get really high social-based modifiers it is not my place to tell you that you can't do it. I feel like training and practice are just as important to success as raw talent, and that is all charisma is. I have seen people who can't run or jump be really good at basketball. In the game those are the guys who took skill focus(shooting, rebounding). It is just a different path to the same area.

Some would disagree, but that is a playstyle issue, not a rules issue.


Alitan wrote:
What I'm saying is that stat-dumping is bad practice, as it pushes characters into unlikely positions on the bell-shaped curve in both 'bad' and 'good' scores.

I see the 6 attributes in a different way. They are literally just in-game measurements, that have little in the way of real-world translations.

For me, there isn't much difference between an 18 INT and, say, a 22 INT. They're both unbelievably high scores. Both numbers mean my Wizard is an effect caster, not much else. Same goes for an 18 STR vs a 22 STR. Sure, the 22 can carry more, but it's not like the 18 STR is that much more "real". It's still beyond fabulous.

For my part, I don't look too closely at the numbers these characters possess. They're not supposed to simulate real life at all.

Alitan wrote:
Using teamwork, as I noted in my first post, is a reasonable way to cover for the deficiencies a character might possess.

I agree, and I daresay it's been assumed since the 1st edition of the game. No one is good at everything; the party benefits the most when core roles are filled.

Alitan wrote:
Stat-dumping just makes unbelievable characters, both in their proficiencies and their deficiencies.

I disagree - these are fantasy characters, adventuring in a world where magic is real and dragons roam the sky. 24 INT and 24 STR are the order of the day.


ciretose wrote:

I also think diplomacy isn't charisma, it is how well you can negotiate with people to get them to work with you. Lots of diplomats dislike each other personally, but have shared goals.

A player should have leeway in deciding how charisma manifests, but negative charisma should have at least some negative manifestation.

No other stat can be replaced by skills, charisma is no different.

The consequences are built into the game just like they are for other skills. You dump the primary stat, and someone with the same devotion will be better. Now if you want more repercussions that is a playstyle issue.


Jiggy wrote:

Another thought on low CHA:

• If 8 CHA means a mental disorder, then presumably 8s in other stats represent deficiencies of equivalent severity.
• Every NPC stat array (both common AND heroic) includes an 8.

Therefore, either the entire population of Golarion has a mental disorder or equivalent disability, or 8 CHA is not actually that bad.

An 8 is pretty terrible. In strength for a grown man, it means you can lift like 70-80 pounds over your head once, which is terrible.

In Int, a fighter would be too stupid to learn both how to jump and how to ride / take care of a horse, making him useless.

Personally, I think most 8s are in wisdom because of all the terrible decisions people make.


Cranewings wrote:
Stat dumping is from the geek world view that you can't be fit, nice, and smart at the same time.

Or it could be that stat-dumping is what you do when you have limited resources and you want to excel at X game function.

Cranewings wrote:
In real life if it were an rpg

It isn't. I've been trying to give you Finger of Death for over an hour now and it isn't working.

Cranewings wrote:
gaining ranks in athletics would boost your three physical stats.

So real-world athletes are automatically Stronger, more Dexterous, and have better Constitutions because they've placed X ranks in Athletics? Don't you see how that simply doesn't translate? A soccer player has tremendous stamina, while a defensive football player is likely much stronger. A agile Gymnast is possibly more flexible than either.

Cranewings wrote:
On the otherhand, fat slow sick people who can't exercise despite youth lack wisdom and will power, and often dump charisma due to low self esteem and emotional baggage.

I don't even have words for this.


Yes, these are fantasy characters, but the way stat dumps for high scores works out, what you get are characters with ridiculous dimension. Absurdly high competence in one or possibly two scores coupled with nigh-crippling incapacity in two or three.

And the attribute scores ARE supposed to simulate 'real' life, to the extent that they are describing human (or near-human) individuals.

The process of stat dumping leads to characters who are, in my opinion, unbelievable, which is the harshest criticism I can think of for a game of imagination. Just because magic is real and dragons roam the sky doesn't mean there's a complete suspension of biological and cognitive principles.


cranewings wrote:
An 8 is pretty terrible. In strength for a grown man, it means you can lift like 70-80 pounds over your head once, which is terrible.

Look around you, not everyone is in peak physical condition. But that's not even the point, really. It's a game where you can function with a 8 STR.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

On topic, loaba’s cheap shot at Finn is exactly the problem. You can’t have a reasonable conversation when people resort to name calling when what they say is questioned.

On the off topic-topic a few things. First 7 is a -2, which is isn’t the counter of 13 (+1) but the counter of a 14 (+2). I wouldn’t describe that as mentally ill or disgusting, but I would describe them as significantly below average. In fact, I don’t think anyone on this side of the argument has described it that way, which makes it a strawman. The issue isn’t just if you are being “punished” it is if you are not allowing others to receive their earned reward.

It is hard to cite a below average celebrity, as to achieve celebrity you have to have a certain charisma. To understand what a 7 means to me, let’s look at the definition.

Charisma governs Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. You’ll note appearance is last, we’ll get to that.

Using the bar example, I would say an 18 would be the Dos Equis guy. He’s not the most handsome person, but he has a personal magnetism that makes him “The most interesting person in the room.” You would follow the Dos Equis guy, because whatever he’s doing is going to be cool. Why? You don’t know, but there is something about him…

Since she was mentioned, let’s go with Kate Middleton at 16. She’s very attractive, so you’ll notice her before someone else, and will likely be more interested in having a conversation with her than someone else, all things being equal. All thing being equal is going to be a recurring theme.

Taking a step down to a 14, now we have the coolest kids in your high school. Out in the real world, they don’t stand out that much relative to real celebrities, but when you walk in the room, you definitely know who the cool kids are.

At 12 you have people who are a little more interesting and likable. If you were able to choose tables to sit at in the bar, you would more like to sit with them than most people.

10 are just people, more or less background noise.

8 are people who give you a slightly off vibe. You’d sit next to them without thinking about it if the other seats were taken, but you’d rather sit with everyone else, all things being equal, but you aren’t going to turn down a chair if you want to sit.

7 is a -2, meaning they are the opposite of the most popular kids in school, something about them is off, not to the point of them being pariah, but all things being equal you probably would just stand unless you are really tired.

Now if you are an orc with an 18 charisma in a place that hates orcs, you will be the most interesting orc they have ever hated. Circumstances are most important. If you have a 7 Charisma and save my dog, I’m going to love you more than the 18 charisma guy who kicked my dog. A hags charisma isn’t going to change the fact that you hate hags because they are evil. But it will give that hag a certain gravitas, which is how she is able to manipulate people into doing things.

It is a lazy and/or sloppy GM who doesn’t take a characters personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance into consideration when thinking about how NPC’s will interact with a PC.

And those are the things what charisma governs.

And just as having a really high jump or swim skill doesn’t make you stronger, having high charisma based skills doesn’t make you more charismatic. It can make you a good negotiator, or intimidating, or a good liar, etc…but that doesn’t mean you have a personal magnetism or an innate ability to lead.

To be clear, players should always be able to control how their charisma, high or low, manifests, and if they care they should discuss it with the GM ahead of time. If you want to be handsome but smelly, or just really shy, however you want a negative to manifest is between you and you GM, just as how you would like a positive to manifest is between you and your GM. You can be pretty or ugly or whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge your charisma score effects your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

But don’t take a penalty and then refuse to be penalized. That is the only problem with min/maxing I have. If you want to play a specialist, that is great. But then don’t get mad when you can’t contribute at certain times because you dumped X stat.

So when on first impressions, the king takes a liking to the bard with an 18 rather than the wizard with a 7, that isn’t a GM punishing you, that is a GM using common sense because you gave yourself a penalty.

If you don’t want to have to deal with the effects of having a low score, don’t take a low score or buy an ability enhancing item.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd just like to say that my games don't model real life. They model the fantasy stories I read/watch.


Alitan wrote:
Just because magic is real and dragons roam the sky doesn't mean there's a complete suspension of biological and cognitive principles.

Do your characters poop? And I'm not being sarcastic or baiting you or whatever. Do your characters poop? 'Cause mine don't. Not ever. Impacted bowels all around.

It's a game. It's make-believe. And so I don't get hung up with 26 CHA or 10 INT or 8 WIS.


loaba wrote:
cranewings wrote:
An 8 is pretty terrible. In strength for a grown man, it means you can lift like 70-80 pounds over your head once, which is terrible.
Look around you, not everyone is in peak physical condition. But that's not even the point, really. It's a game where you can function with a 8 STR.

Right, which in the absence of a handicap means a grown man has a lack of wisdom or will power. This probably results in low self esteme and causes low charisma. Sounds like 8's across the board.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alitan wrote:

Yes, these are fantasy characters, but the way stat dumps for high scores works out, what you get are characters with ridiculous dimension. Absurdly high competence in one or possibly two scores coupled with nigh-crippling incapacity in two or three.

And the attribute scores ARE supposed to simulate 'real' life, to the extent that they are describing human (or near-human) individuals.

The process of stat dumping leads to characters who are, in my opinion, unbelievable, which is the harshest criticism I can think of for a game of imagination. Just because magic is real and dragons roam the sky doesn't mean there's a complete suspension of biological and cognitive principles.

Then what do you think of rolling 3d6 for stats? Were the first however-many years/editions of the game producing streams of unbelievable characters?

Also, regarding "nigh-crippling incapacity":
If you have a 7 STR (the lowest you can dump, unless you're 3ft tall), you can routinely lift 70lbs over your head. You can stagger around while carrying 140lbs. I can't do either of those things, and I'm far from being an invalid.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a bunch of posts and the replies to them.

I don't care who started it. If you want civility, be civil. If someone else is being uncivil, flag it.


I guess I prefer a little more cohesion to my make-believe. Wherein people don't straddle the line of 'really awesome capacity+really awful disability.' Or at least, where HALF the demographic has that problem, rather than the VERY occasional disjunction of genetics and training.

And yeah, one of the reasons I like to play wizards is that prestidigitation is a must-have in a world where nobody's invented toilet paper...


Jiggy wrote:


Then what do you think of rolling 3d6 for stats? Were the first however-many years/editions of the game producing streams of unbelievable characters?

Also, regarding "nigh-crippling incapacity":
If you have a 7 STR (the lowest you can dump, unless you're 3ft tall), you can routinely lift 70lbs over your head. You can stagger around while carrying 140lbs. I can't do either of those things, and I'm far from being an invalid.

'K, maybe I was indulging in a little hyperbole there.

But the unnatural division between a hyperbought stat and the stats that had to be dumped to get it are a rather jarring disconnect from plausibility to me, nonetheless.

And I think 3d6 sucks, despite its long tradition. I'm a 4d6-drop-the-lowest guy all the way. And even then you can tank something.


PC's can dump down to a -7. You then add in racial penalties and you get a -5. That is still an adventurer worthy stat by the character creation guidelines.
I am not advocating all -5's, but I think the debilitation of the numbers is being greatly exaggerated.
By the rules charisma checks only come up at certain times, normally during certain spells.
As I have said before nobody forces a character to make a dex check before he makes an acrobatics or stealth check. Nobody also forces people to make wisdom checks before making sense motive checks. I have seen posters advocate that if the charisma roll is not high enough the diplomacy/bluff check won't even be allowed. Changing a starting attitude should be a major thing IMHO, and there is not much other than extreme circumstance modifiers that should be able to make it vastly different from other party members. If the bartender hates gnomes, and you are a gnome I get it. I don't see the bartender becoming a jerk(going from indifferent to Unfriendly) just because you are unattractive, and have a nasally voice. The fact that charisma is a stat that is dumpable, and in many people's eyes the weakest stat is not really an excuse to advocate it* as rule.

*double dipping it for good or bad


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the case of the infamous bartender NPC:

His JOB is to sell people drinks... and implicit in the responsibility of said job is being NICE ENOUGH to people that they come back and keep buying drinks.

So, no, I don't think a low CHA justifies rudeness. But god help you if you want to haggle over the price of drinks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alitan wrote:

'K, maybe I was indulging in a little hyperbole there.

But the unnatural division between a hyperbought stat and the stats that had to be dumped to get it are a rather jarring disconnect from plausibility to me, nonetheless.

Maybe you're just a really well-rounded guy, so it seems weird! ;)

Me, I apparently have less than 7 STR; I have digestive issues that lead me to believe my CON's less than 8; my DEX is maybe average, maybe not; I'm a bit reserved and quiet in social situations so probably less than 10 CHA; and I was in the gifted program in elementary/middle school, got a degree in Psychology while being bored when my handful of friends were all busy doing homework, and am currently keeping up with this conversation while at work and still impressing my supervisor with my work output, so I daresay my INT is a good deal above average.

My total point-buy's pretty low, but the point is that the big gap doesn't seem so strange to me.


Alitan wrote:

In the case of the infamous bartender NPC:

His JOB is to sell people drinks... and implicit in the responsibility of said job is being NICE ENOUGH to people that they come back and keep buying drinks.

And that's been my point for about the last 10 years now.

If you're bound and determined to bring that low CHA to light, as the DM you will get your opportunities to do so. But why go out of your way to do it? What purpose does it serve?

If you want to RP the barkeep as paying extra-special attention to The Most Interesting Paladin in The World, well okay. The Pally is an attention- magnet, at least until he realizes that drinking is against his religion.

Scarab Sages

loaba wrote:
The Pally is an attention- magnet, at least until he realizes that drinking is against his religion.

PALADIN AM CONFUSED. PALADIN AM KNOW MANY DWARF PALADINS. MUST ASK HOW THEY KEEP POWERS.


AM PALADIN wrote:
loaba wrote:
The Pally is an attention- magnet, at least until he realizes that drinking is against his religion.
PALADIN AM CONFUSED. PALADIN AM KNOW MANY DWARF PALADINS. MUST ASK HOW THEY KEEP POWERS.

AM OKAY, PALADIN. DIVINE CLASSES AM ALWAYS MISUNDERSTOOD.

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:
ciretose wrote:
On topic, loaba’s cheap shot at Finn is exactly the problem. You can’t have a reasonable conversation when people resort to name calling when what they say is questioned.

So saying to someone "I don't respect you" is name calling? It's not the truth, it's name calling? If I don't respect you, that's going to come out in these kinds of discussions. Maintaining civility is a two-way street, but once the train jumps the rails, it's over. I daresay Finn jumped the rails, with me anyway, a long time ago.

ciretose wrote:
It is hard to cite a below average celebrity

Lindsay Lohan. Not getting work. That wasn't hard at all.

ciretose wrote:
Using the bar example, I would say an 18 would be the Dos Equis guy. He’s not the most handsome person, but he has a personal magnetism that makes him “The most interesting person in the room.” You would follow the Dos Equis guy, because whatever he’s doing is going to be cool. Why? You don’t know, but there is something about him…

How does this correlate to someone like Curtis Armstrong? He's not handsome, you probably wouldn't notice him enter the room at all. But would you RP the bartender as being flat-out rude to the guy?

Yes, dismissing someone as someone you don't respect by saying you don't respect them enough to respond is both rude and unproductive.

And no thank you, I am not interested in fighting your sþrawman bartender.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't follow the Dos Equis guy, but that may be my own high Cha preventing his Diplomacy check from succeeding.


ciretose wrote:
And no thank you, I am not interested in fighting your sþrawman bartender.

Cute.


Talonhawke wrote:

Pardon my tone here but I've kinda hit a wall on this one. See I spend a lot of time in the rules part of the forum and to be honest I see a glaring issue. It seems everytime a question is asked that isnt just a cut and dried response the side who's reading of the rules is most beneficial gets a constant steam of "stop gaming the system" or "quit trying to be the table superstar and have fun".

Now usually I go on about my day but today I felt like it was time to just ask the communtiy why we cant simply use the rules forums to figure out the rules and not call names to each other. I know I've done it before, though it was over glaring misreadings of the rules such as allowing half elf summoners to have over 100 evolution points.

No every one is out to min max a character and in fact a lot of the questions this comes up on would make an imperceptible differnce for the ability/class/feat in question.

There's a lot of player elitism on this boards. There are a lot of people who feel that their way to play and their interpretations are superior. There are a lot of people who post that think that their opinion is fact. They can't believe that anyone who interprets the rules elsewise must be wrong, and anyone who takes a different approach to character creation is playing the game wrong.

Meh, it's a people thing (in D&D, highly attributed to elves); people are under the impression that their way is the best way.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:
ciretose wrote:
It is hard to cite a below average celebrity
Lindsay Lohan. Not getting work. That wasn't hard at all.

If her Charisma was actually low, she wouldn't have EVER been famous. Her current status is due to what she did with the fame that her high Charisma brought her.


cranewings wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
cranewings wrote:
In real life, people with low charisma usually either have a mental disorder or are carrying a ton of emotional baggage that comes out in every interaction.
I hope by "low" you don't mean 7-8. Because 7 is the counterpart to 13. If 13 CHA is the opposite of a mental disorder, then I can't imagine what 16-18 would be.

You probably haven't met too many people with charisma actors that high. I'd put Kate Middleton at 16. Barak Obama might be up there, and partly because he is driven to be liked and praised, which is another kind of problem.

18 charismas are for sorcerers, and they are otherworldly.

And the average dwarf has 8 CHA. So the bulk of that race has a mental disorder?

Yes. They live underground even though they don't have to. They are the poster children for xenophobia and have little contact from other clans, other cultures, and even the sun... Even though they could live like all other races. They don't understand what it is to live in cities, see the ocean, to not fear strangers, and they can't relate to other races for it. They get a cha penalty.

Actually: "Dwarf Racial Traits

+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma: Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff."

Scarab Sages

shallowsoul wrote:
I think the main problem is trying to use the Diplomacy Skill and CHA stat to replicate real life. There are just so many factors that come into play and these two game mechanics do not represent the real thing.

Ciretose believes it is just too darn easy to become good at Diplomacy, despite a low Cha.

I'd go further, and say it's too darn easy to become good at Diplomacy, period.

I think he's focussing on the wrong culprit; he sees PCs with below-average Cha offset this via ranks, class skill bonus, Skill Focus, whatever, and says "You low-Cha types shouldn't be able to influence so many NPCs that easy! There should be more weight to Cha."

I say "No-one should be able to influence people that easy, no matter if they start with 7 Cha or 17."

It's too easy to crank up one skill, it's too convenient that this skill is treated in RAW as one overarching omni-skill, that applies whether you're negotiating a legal contract, hob-nobbing at the opera, or working the seedy hives of scum and villainy.

Remove the uber-skill, and make people actually talk to one another about stuff. Stuff covered by the other skills. Make Diplomacy a matter of rolling (Cha plus ranks) in the skill you're actually using, and you'll see Cha matter more across the board. You can't max that many skills to be the face guy in every situation, unless you're a bard or rogue. Craft starts to matter, when socialising with working folk. Profession begins to matter. That rank you spent on a hobby skill at level one, just for flavour, actually comes into play, instead of sitting on your character sheet, unloved and unnoticed.

Further discussion of the idea took place HERE.


My problem with splitting up Diplomacy into a lot of other skills is that you exacerbate the existing problem that Int is better for someone specializing in Cha-based skills to focus in than Cha is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue is that Diplomacy is very clear about what it does, but people seem to want to expand it to cover other things.

From the book
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."

It has the mechanics of how to make checks for each of the above including time limitations and requirements. Being able to negotiate isn't the same as being charismatic.

If there is a grey area, default to the ability score.

The bartender strawman assumes we are saying that having a 7 charisma makes you some kind of pariah, which no one except the people perpetuating the strawman is saying.

In fact, quite the contrary, a low charisma makes you socially invisible relative to someone with a higher charisma.

If I am the damsel in distress, who in the room do I run to for help?

If I have been tasked to find heroes to help find Maguffin X, who in the room seems the most capable.

High charisma is a bonus that makes people more likely to find you interesting, to invite you to things, to follow you, etc....

Low charisma isn't going to make people throw rocks at you. They aren't even going to care enough to bother. You aren't that interesting.

With enough skill points, you can be the party diplomat with a low charisma, maybe you are good at negotiations. Lawyers and police don't need to be charismatic to be good at diplomatic negotiations and gathering information. It's a skill. You can be the party intimidation specialist, or master of disguise, liar, animal wrangler, etc...

But you will be below average with regards to charisma, which effects your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

And that has effects in the same way being way above average has effects.

If it doesn't, you penalize the people who don't dump.


ciretose wrote:

My issue is that Diplomacy is very clear about what it does, but people seem to want to expand it to cover other things.

From the book
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."

It has the mechanics of how to make checks for each of the above including time limitations and requirements. Being able to negotiate isn't the same as being charismatic.

If there is a grey area, default to the ability score.

What does it matter if you’re not an instantly likeable guy? If you have ranks in Diplomacy, then you overcome that by entering into negotiations/conversation/interaction. Where a high-CHA character may not even have to negotiate, a low-CHA character is clearly going to have to use Diplomacy. There is the clear advantage for the high-CHA PC; he spends less time getting what he wants and if he has Diplomacy as well then he practically always gets what he wants. The low-CHA character can fail.

ciretose wrote:
The bartender strawman assumes we are saying that having a 7 charisma makes you some kind of pariah, which no one except the people perpetuating the strawman is saying.

Irrespective of the actual NPC cited (bartender, princess, peasant, whoever), many posters (GMs and players alike) do subscribe to the theory that exactly says low CHA does equal social pariah status. I’ve found numerous posts on the boards that support this. Do I really have to quote them here?

ciretose wrote:
In fact, quite the contrary, a low charisma makes you socially invisible relative to someone with a higher charisma.

That’s your take on how to penalize the low-CHA PC, Ciretose. Rather than actively treat the low-CHA PC as a social pariah, you have elected to treat him as the invisible man.

And that’s fine, it just means the low-CHA player has to circulate through the crowd and actively engage individuals. He will eventually find someone to talk to and perhaps come away with useful knowledge or a new ally/employer, whatever the case may be (or not, as the dice roll).

ciretose wrote:
If I am the damsel in distress, who in the room do I run to for help?

Could be anybody, low or high CHA notwithstanding. Could be the first person you see or maybe you've heard of one PC in particular or the group as a whole. The options here are limitless.

ciretose wrote:
If I have been tasked to find heroes to help find Maguffin X, who in the room seems the most capable.

That 7 CHA Fighter, with his 22 STR and 16 DEX and 16 CON is probably exactly what you’re looking for. If his low CHA is so readily apparent than his physical stature must be as well. He does look like he knows how to “handle” himself.

ciretose wrote:

High charisma is a bonus that makes people more likely to find you interesting, to invite you to things, to follow you, etc....

Low charisma isn't going to make people throw rocks at you. They aren't even going to care enough to bother. You aren't that interesting.

In terms of Leadership, you're absolutely right. In terms of random social interaction, you could be right in certain situations.

ciretose wrote:

With enough skill points, you can be the party diplomat with a low charisma, maybe you are good at negotiations. Lawyers and police don't need to be charismatic to be good at diplomatic negotiations and gathering information. It's a skill. You can be the party intimidation specialist, or master of disguise, liar, animal wrangler, etc...

But you will be below average with regards to charisma, which effects your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

What you're talking about here is represented by your overall –X CHA modifier, which effects things like CHA-based skills and Leadership and Class functions etc. But you really seem to be advocating for going beyond those things.

Liberty's Edge

What I am saying is that charisma governs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

I would also say that that Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons and Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.

The difference is that the other ability scores tend to be less subjective in game than Charisma. But there are times when you do look to ability scores when other criteria doesn't apply.

If a talented scholar is looking for an apprentice, does he go with the high or low intelligence character, all other factors being equal? Are they going to trust the character with low wisdom to use good common sense, or will they pick the high wisdom character, again all other factors being equal.

Of course circumstances trump Charisma. If I like druids more that Bards, your charisma isn't going to change my mind. But it is a factor that the GM who is running the NPCs should take into consideration.

Hopefully players are also willing to play the character they built, and if they don't hopefully they will build a character they want to play. The issues comes up for those of use on my side of the arguement when someone wants all the mechanical advantages without dealing with the disadvantages that come with them.

Rewarding players who use the advantages they built into a character by having a high charisma (or any other stat) isn't punishing the players who don't. It's being fair to everyone at the table and keeping a level playing field.


ciretose wrote:
The issues comes up for those of [us] on my side of the arguement when someone wants all the mechanical advantages without dealing with the disadvantages that come with them.

The problem is that people on your side of the argument seem to be advocating for houseruling more negative effects for low CHA than the game already provides.

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:
ciretose wrote:
The issues comes up for those of [us] on my side of the arguement when someone wants all the mechanical advantages without dealing with the disadvantages that come with them.

The problem is that people on your side of the argument seem to be advocating for houseruling more negative effects for low CHA than the game already provides.

Only if you think is houseruling when a GM considers a monsters intelligence and wisdom when deciding on who it will attack and how it will act.

Charisma governs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. A GM factoring those things into how NPC's interact with a player isn't a house rule any more than a GM factoring in if an NPC is wearing a coat because it is a cold climate.


ciretose wrote:
Only if you think is houseruling when a GM considers a monsters intelligence and wisdom when deciding on who it will attack and how it will act.

By your logic, a characters lack of Charisma may very well mean that the monster just doesn't find him all that appetizing. I mean, what, socially he's the invisible man, but in combat he suddenly becomes the center of attention?

Okay, how does he do that? Well, by engaging the monster, right? Okay, then he can use that same tactic with people, right? He engages them, and converses with them. When he wants them to do something (that they perhaps don't want to do), he whips out the Diplomacy dice to see if it all worked.

But again, it's almost like you don't even want to give the low CHA PC a chance at all. That's extra tax.

Liberty's Edge

loaba wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Only if you think is houseruling when a GM considers a monsters intelligence and wisdom when deciding on who it will attack and how it will act.

By your logic, a characters lack of Charisma may very well mean that the monster just doesn't find him all that appetizing. I mean, what, socially he's the invisible man, but in combat he suddenly becomes the center of attention?

Okay, how does he do that? Well, by engaging the monster, right? Okay, then he can use that same tactic with people, right? He engages them, and converses with them. When he wants them to do something (that they perhaps don't want to do), he whips out the Diplomacy dice to see if it all worked.

But again, it's almost like you don't even want to give the low CHA PC a chance at all. That's extra tax.

If charisma involved visability or flavor, sure. But since it doesn"t...

On topic, if you want to argue that the factors governed by charisma aren't a part of social interactions that a GM should consider, I disagree with you.


ciretose wrote:
If charisma involved visability or flavor, sure. But since it doesn"t...

Per your own logic, it must. You're saying that low CHA characters are invisible, that they're just not noticed. Why would monsters react to them while people don't? What you're saying is that a low CHA character pretty much goes through life completely unnoticed.

I disagree with that.

ciretose wrote:
On topic

We never varied from it

ciretose wrote:
if you want to argue that the factors governed by charisma aren't a part of social interactions that a GM should consider, I disagree with you.

I'm arguing that you're penalizing the low CHA character before he even opens his mouth. Those governing factors that you keep referring to mean nothing until then. You are arguing for going outside of the rules.


ciretose wrote:


The bartender strawman assumes we are saying that having a 7 charisma makes you some kind of pariah, which no one except the people perpetuating the strawman is saying.

You might not be arguing that point, but I have seen it argued before. Some have even gone so far as to say the bartender might refuse service. I am going to start bookmarking such quotes if they come up again since I am sure the charisma argument will return.

Quote:
My issue is that Diplomacy is very clear about what it does, but people seem to want to expand it to cover other things.

What have people tried to get diplomacy to do that it does not do? If this has been answer later in the thread just ignore this question as I am still reading. If it was answered earlier and I missed it could someone provide a link?

151 to 200 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Rant about accustations of cheesing / cheating / powergaming / munchkinism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.