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.
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.
Whether it's the barkeep or the princess, it doesn't matter. Type of NPC isn't relevant. It's the seemingly automatically negative attitude of the NPC that is important.
If you treat a low-CHA PC as a social pariah or an invisible man, simply out of hand, and it doesn't matter which, you're going above and beyond the games penalties for negative value attributes.
I'm not advocating that a 7 CHA character should expect to be some kind of "can't fail" Face-type; rather I'm advocating for a chance to RP social interactions from a fair starting point, free of external DM prejudice.
I agree. I was just using "bartender" because it seems to be the most common example.
I agree. I was just using "bartender" because it seems to be the most common example.
I just think it's funny that Ciretose felt it necessary to play the "strawman" card in the first place. The "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" argument is well known.
Is it my imagination, or does this thread now consist primarily of ciretose and loaba each telling each other what the other person thinks instead of what they themselves think?
I'd just like for the guy to admit that he's got a prejudice against CHA dumping, if not stat dumping in general.
|
I am telling loaba what I think, he keeps adding things I haven't said to them...
No one is saying "automatic negative" attitude. What they are saying is your starting attitude would be effected. If I saw a beautiful woman and a man who smelled funny and had to pick which open seat...
Do I dislike the smelly man? Not particularly. Am I hostile to him? Nope. Would I rather talk to the pretty lady? Yup.
As to the diplomacy question, several people have argued that a high diplomacy skill overcomes poor charisma in social interaction. That isn't what the diplomacy skill says it does. It says
"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 conf licts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."
Who determines starting attitude? The GM, what factors would the GM consider...exactly.
So you can change attitude, what does that mean?
"If you succeed, the character’s attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character’s attitude toward you increases by one additional step."
And there is a chart saying they go between Hostile to Helpful. In 3.5 there was accompanying documentation of what these mean, but that isn't included in pathfinder. But that is ok, because this line is included.
"Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation
(GM discretion)."
In other words, you aren't making them lifelong friends, you are just convincing them to work with you for a period of time, using diplomacy.
This has been expanded by some to be a replacement for a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
It is not.
So how does a DM decided how an NPC views a PC. Same as they always have, by considering all of the circumstances involved in the interactions and using their best judgment.
And to me it seems obvious that a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would factor in to the GM's thought process.
The only reason to exclude a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance from consideration seems to be so you can be able to dump the stat that effects a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance without consequences.
Which I don't agree with.
So again, it comes down to the question "Do you think a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." when deciding how an NPC would interact.
Yes or No.
|
|
I agree. I was just using "bartender" because it seems to be the most common example.I just think it's funny that Ciretose felt it necessary to play the "strawman" card in the first place. The "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" argument is well known.
You are correct, it is a well known strawman argument made by people who don't want to answer the question "Should a GM consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when deciding how NPC's would interact with them"
You are correct, it is a well known strawman argument...I agree. I was just using "bartender" because it seems to be the most common example.I just think it's funny that Ciretose felt it necessary to play the "strawman" card in the first place. The "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" argument is well known.
made by people, like you, who don't like CHA dumping. You are trying to get around that by instead playing the "invisible man" card.
The thing is what if the player has low Cha and can't play a high charisma character well?
I have had a gm say I don't play high charisma characters well.
I am telling loaba what I think, he keeps adding things I haven't said to them...
Him, not them.
I am simply taking your logic one step further. That is all.
No one is saying "automatic negative" attitude. What they are saying is your starting attitude would be effected. If I saw a beautiful woman and a man who smelled funny and had to pick which open seat...
Starting attitude of pretty girl on bus is "leave me alone, unless you look like Brad Pitt." That's it, that's for anybody. Low CHA doesn't automatically mean that you're ugly, so as long as you didn't pencil in "ugly as a toad w/ body odor" on your character sheet, you're good to go.
See how it works? Her starting attitude has nothing to do with the low-CHA character, she doesn't care.
So again, it comes down to the question "Do you think a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." when deciding how an NPC would interact.
Yes or No.
The GM should consider the NPCs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance first. That's where the starting point comes from.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't think either one of you knows what the other is talking about.
In hopes of putting an end to this (or at least starting the discussion down a productive path), I'm going to try and simplify what each of you is basically saying. Then you can each choose to keep screaming, or start acting rational.
Ciretose is saying that the CHA score should be factored into NPC interactions.
Loaba is saying that it already is, via the lower modifier to every interaction-based skill.
Loaba believes that ciretose is saying that the CHA score should be factored into things a second time (i.e., in addition to the skills already affected by it).
Loaba protests against the idea that CHA should be "double-dipped" by affecting social situations in two separate ways (within associated skill modifiers, as well as outside them).
Ciretose interprets this protest as being against any incorporation of CHA scores in social situations, rather than against double incorporations. He then asserts that the CHA score must be accounted for.
Loaba continues to interpret the assertion that CHA must be accounted for as an assertion that it must be accounted for twice; ciretose continues to interpret the assertion that CHA should not be accounted for twice as an assertion that it should not be accounted for at all. Both insert increasing claims of moral and intellectual superiority to the other.
If either of you are adults, you should be able to move forward constructively from here.
|
|
made by people, like you, who don't like CHA dumping. You are trying to get around that by instead playing the "invisible man" card.You are correct, it is a well known strawman argument...I agree. I was just using "bartender" because it seems to be the most common example.I just think it's funny that Ciretose felt it necessary to play the "strawman" card in the first place. The "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" argument is well known.
I am sorry, I assumed you knew what a strawman was.
A strawman is when you say that I am saying something that I am not saying, then demand I defend it.
For example, you keep saying that I am saying the "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" when I didn't say anything like that at any point.
The reason you would do that is that you want me to try and defend something I didn't say, because you can't refute what I did say.
You create a "strawman" for me to attack that you can hide behind.
But I'm not interested in defending that argument, because I didn't make that argument.
You did.
What I will defend is what I said, that is a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when deciding how an NPC would interact, in the same way they consider intelligence and wisdom in deciding who a monster would attack, in combination with any number of circumstances that may apply to a given situation.
But you don't want to answer the question of if a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when deciding how an NPC would interact, because your argument isn't very strong.
So you created the "Automatically Negative Reaction NPC vs. Low-CHA Characters" to try to bait me into an argument you can win.
But again, not taking the bait.
So I will ask you once again, do you think a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when deciding how an NPC would interact with a PC.
Yes or No.
We can discuss degrees of course, but you have so far illustrated most of the issues the OP posted about before we got off topic, first by insulting Finn, then by throwing up strawmen...really, this could be an interesting discussion if you would only be a part of it rather than trying to "win" it.
... a bunch of stuff that made a lot of sense.
I suppose it really does come down to my belief that negative CHA modifier is already out there and in play.
A strawman is when you say that I am saying something that I am not saying, then demand I defend it.
I never said that you made that argument, Ciretose. But I am pointing out that your "invisible man" theory is practically the same as the "Auto Negative Reaction" theory.
They are the same thing in that both theories penalize the player twice.
|
|
So again, it comes down to the question "Do you think a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." when deciding how an NPC would interact.
Yes or No.
The GM should consider the NPCs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance first. That's where the starting point comes from.
@Jiggy - You seem to share loaba's position, so you aren't really in a position to mediate here. I stated my position, multiple times, very clearly. I don't think you have restated accurately. I pose the same question above to you.
@ loaba So you are saying an the GM should only consider what the NPC's Charisma is, and not consider what the players Charisma is when deciding how an NPC should act.
Regardless of the players personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance the NPC will interact with them in the same way (or perhaps differently based on the NPC's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance)
Is that your position?
So again, it comes down to the question "Do you think a GM should consider a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." when deciding how an NPC would interact.Yes or No.
That is fluff so you can decide how you want your character to express himself. The player decides the personality, and appearance. You can be ugly or attractive and still have people love you or hate you. You can be good at getting people to like you, but not good at getting them to follow you.
As for changing starting attitude that is a big thing. Most rational people won't show prejudice for or against someone without a reason. I am not saying they won't feel a certain way, but they don't act on it until the person has proven themselves in some way for good or bad. So if someone gives you a bad vibe most people will at least give you a fair shot, even if they don't want to.
As I have said before the game allows you to start with a 7, or even a 5(with racial penalties). Punishing the negatives beyond what they already have to deal with really makes no sense to me, if it is being argued as something that is intended to be done. The rules certainly don't mention it.
A character has to take skill focus or some other skill to pull even with the character that did not focus on charisma, and since the charisma focused character will keep boosting charisma he will eventually pull away anyway.
Being good at anything is part training and partially raw talent as I said in an earlier post.
The issue might be that diplomacy does cover too many things, but that is a diplomacy issue, not a charisma issue. I bring this up because diplomacy is always the skill discussed. I have yet to see a thread complaining about a low charisma character having a high bluff or intimidate check.
What about my ideas concerning dex checks and wisdom checks here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loaba is saying that it already is, via the lower modifier to every interaction-based skill.
Loaba believes that ciretose is saying that the CHA score should be factored into things a second time (i.e., in addition to the skills already affected by it).
Loaba protests against the idea that CHA should be "double-dipped" by affecting social situations in two separate ways (within associated skill modifiers, as well as outside them).
That is how I read Ciretose post also.
Ciretose - no, that is not my position.
The NPC's starting attitude is pre-set, before any PC enters into the scenario. That attitude can rationalized for a million different reasons, whatever you like.
Once the PC enters the scenario, the NPCs attitude can change, but I would hesitate to do it automatically, just because the player has a negative modifier CHA. For the attitude to change significantly, there needs to be some kind of external factor (like NPC hates Elves or Paladins or Dirty Adventurers or Chelaxians or whatever) or the PC needs to open his mouth and insert foot. Regardless, when it comes time to roll, that negative CHA stat is going to be there. It will get factored in.
|
|
A strawman is when you say that I am saying something that I am not saying, then demand I defend it.I never said that you made that argument, Ciretose. But I am pointing out that your "invisible man" theory is practically the same as the "Auto Negative Reaction" theory.
They are the same thing in that both theories penalize the player twice.
And I view it as failing to reward players who invested in having score that reflects their personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance being better than average by giving them the exact same outcomes as someone who didn't invest.
If you want to make a character who is charismatic, and you invest in charisma to do so, and someone else who didn't invest in it is perceived identically to you, you aren't receiving the deserved benefit of having a higher that average personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
My position is that you aren't directly punished, but you are judged relative to the other available options. If you are a dwarf around a bunch of dwarves, a 10 may be the most charismatic person in the room (in the whole wide room...she could be a waitress...)
If you give no relative benefit, you punish bards and sorcerers by not giving them one of the benefits of being higher charisma that others.
If you give no relative benefit, you punish bards and sorcerers by not giving them one of the benefits of being higher charisma that others.
Do you know why a Sorcerer has a high Charisma? 99% of the time, it's because the player realizes that he needs CHA to power the main function of his class. He is so not worried or threatened by the 7 CHA Fighter who bothered to put ranks in Diplomacy. If anything, he's happy for the back-up.
Same thing for the Bard - his class demands high CHA. Again, the 7 CHA Fighter isn't even in the same league, and they both know it.
/ crimony, talk about strawman defenses... The CHA classes are punished by allowing the 7 CHA Fighter-Diplomancer to be semi-effective? Really? O.o
Just because charisma is high that does not mean you are liked. You can have a high charisma, and have a terrible personality, and always have it show. In that case being so noticeable would be a negative.
I have never seen a person want to be nice/mean to another person on sight unless they had preexisting prejudices that made them want to do so such as hating dwarves or not liking a particular class for some reason.
On the subject of not being punished if the bartender is indifferent to everyone(mostly everyone) does the person with the low charisma get treated worse/starting attitude is lowered?
|
|
@wraithstrike - Yes a player should be able to decide how it manifests, but charisma governs a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. Literally, copied and pasted.
So if you go to your GM and say "I have a great personality, amazing personal magnetism, an innate ability to lead, and my appearance is gorgeous" then you don't have a 7 Charisma with any decent GM.
You can say "I am gorgeous, but I'm very shy and a people think my voice is grating" or something like that to reflect how the scores match the fluff, but just as you can't say "I'm a professional weightlifter" with a 7 strength and not expect your GM to laugh at you.
I posted what Diplomacy does above. As I said, unless you want to argue that my carrying capacity can increase if I have a really good swim score, you can't argue that your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance is gorgeous are improved by diplomacy.
What is improved is your ability to convince people to be helpful toward you, for a limited amount of time, if it isn't against their nature, as defined by the GM.
Not the same as having a great personality, amazing personal magnetism, an innate ability to lead, and my appearance is gorgeous.
The GM constantly is factoring in circumstances to decisions NPC's and monsters make. Personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are factors that would be a part of that calculation.
Does this make Charisma important? Yes. All ability scores are important, and presumably intended to be of comparable value, in general. Charisma is the one that most impacts social interaction, in the same way strength is the one the most impacts melee combat.
I can think of no reason you would not consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when running an NPC.
Why wouldn't you consider it?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I stated my position, multiple times, very clearly. I don't think you have restated accurately.
Call me biased if you want, but you two are mostly just going back and forth with "you've been saying..." and "I never said...", so clearly neither of you is as on top of this as you'd each like to think.
Just because charisma is high that does not mean you are liked. You can have a high charisma, and have a terrible personality, and always have it show. In that case being so noticeable would be a negative.
Roleplaying Awesome Sauce - Pair up the High CHA Sorcerer, who has the worst personality out there, with the Low CHA Fighter, who put ranks in Diplomacy, and watch 'em go. Between the two of 'em, they get things done.
So if you go to your GM and say "I have a great personality, amazing personal magnetism, an innate ability to lead, and my appearance is gorgeous" then you don't have a 7 Charisma with any decent GM.
and I'm the guy with the bad manners? O.o
I think helping people from adventures like you rescued someones wife from orcs that captured her should improve the attitude without a check in most cases. Likewise trying to pickpocket someone should make them unfriendly and likely hostile. These are external events. An npc that hates mostly everyone and is just mean could start off unfriendly to mostly everyone but it may not be just charisma the npc could just be a jerk.
|
|
@Jiggy - You seem to share loaba's position, so you aren't really in a position to mediate here.Call me biased if you want, but you two are mostly just going back and forth with "you've been saying..." and "I never said...", so clearly neither of you is as on top of this as you'd each like to think.
I am not saying what he is saying. I've asked for clarification, and I've asked questions, but I'm only stating my position.
I would love to discuss thing people disagree with in my position, but I am not particularly interested in discussing positions I am being asked to defend that I didn't say.
My position is very, very simple.
1. Any good GM is going to consider a players personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when thinking about how NPC's will interact with them. These are, copied and pasted, the factors that make up charisma.
2. Diplomacy does what the skill entry says it does, and nothing more. It does not improve your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. 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 conf licts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem. That isn't the same as making you charming, personally magnetic, a born leader and beautiful.
If anyone would like to refute the two above statements, feel free.
If you want to put forth your position, feel free and if I disagree with you we can have a debate about that.
That isn't what is happening.
|
|
I think helping people from adventures like you rescued someones wife from orcs that captured her should improve the attitude without a check in most cases. Likewise trying to pickpocket someone should make them unfriendly and likely hostile. These are external events. An npc that hates mostly everyone and is just mean could start off unfriendly to mostly everyone but it may not be just charisma the npc could just be a jerk.
Absolutely. As I said above, if you have an 18 charisma and kick my dog, I won't like you. If you have a 7 charisma and rescue my kitten, I will like you.
Circumstances matter.
But I also am saying that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are circumstances that a GM should consider.
And those are the factors effected by your Charisma score.
So if you go to your GM and say "I have a great personality, amazing personal magnetism, an innate ability to lead, and my appearance is gorgeous" then you don't have a 7 Charisma with any decent GM.
I agree.
I posted what Diplomacy does above. As I said, unless you want to argue that my carrying capacity can increase if I have a really good swim score, you can't argue that your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance is gorgeous are improved by diplomacy.
I have never seen that point argued though. Better yet I have never seen anyone try to do these things with a low charisma score mechanically. Diplomacy to me is just a negotiation skill. It does not mean you are likable.
What is improved is your ability to convince people to be helpful toward you, for a limited amount of time, if it isn't against their nature, as defined by the GM.
I agree again.
I can think of no reason you would not consider the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of a player when running an NPC?
It is already factored into the ability score. How it manifest is just a matter of fluff/flavor more than anything else. I am not going to make you roll a charisma check before rolling a diplomacy check anymore than I will make a you roll wisdom check before trying to use sense motive.
--------------
Wisdom (Wis)
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
Player:I am going to roll a sense motive check.
7 wisdom, but has skill focus, and other things to boost sense motive.GM:Roll a wisdom check first. Maybe you were not really paying attention or able to pick up on anything that would clue in on whether or not he might be lying.
The GM might even impose some other penalty I can't even think of. If the fluff is the reason for the double dip then doing such things with wisdom is just as justifiable as with charisma, not that I would agree with either one.
PS:If you are not advocating the double dip then I misread your last statement.
edit:clarification.
|
|
Just because charisma is high that does not mean you are liked. You can have a high charisma, and have a terrible personality, and always have it show. In that case being so noticeable would be a negative.
I have never seen a person want to be nice/mean to another person on sight unless they had preexisting prejudices that made them want to do so such as hating dwarves or not liking a particular class for some reason.
On the subject of not being punished if the bartender is indifferent to everyone(mostly everyone) does the person with the low charisma get treated worse/starting attitude is lowered?
As a former bartender, the only thing that influenced my indifference was a good tip or a great body.
[CHA modifier] is already factored into the ability score. How it manifest is just a matter of fluff/flavor more than anything else. I am not going to make you roll a charisma check before rolling a diplomacy check...
This is what I've been trying to say.
|
|
@laoba - I enjoyed how you point to the "fluff" that agrees with your point while dismissing the "fluff" that doesn't. I just shook my head when you tried to create the "only 7 charisma" character in the room strawman right after I posted how it is relative to the other people in the room, and therefore a low charisma character could still be the coolest person in the room.
Nice.
@Wraitstrike - I think we largely agree, but perhaps you are seeing my position as more rigid than it is. I'm not saying you do a charisma roll all the time (although occasionally it may come up) as much as I'm saying as a GM when I'm sizing up what an NPC will do, I will take into consideration the characters charisma in the same way that if the players have become local heroes that would be taken into consideration.
Also, I think you read far more into the diplomacy skill than I do. I don't roll diplomacy unless the player is trying to do something that involved the diplomacy skill, which is fairly narrow. I think some people, incorrectly IMHO, use diplomacy to see how "likable" a player is.
But if you read the skill, that isn't what it does.
Your sense motive example is completely different, as what you are trying to do is exactly what the skill does. Now if a player has a high perception they may notice something that then makes them more likely to want roll a sense motive check on someone.
Is that double penalizing? No, that is skill synergy.
In my experience, some GMs will stop players with high wisdom or intelligence from doing something stupid by saying "are you sure" or even telling them "Your character is smarter than you and would know that isn't a good move."
On the other hand, they will let the low wis and int do as they wish.
Those are more personal preference IMHO, but I think it is just silly to not consider personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when running NPCs, which is all I am saying you should do.
Consider it.
If you consider it and it isn't a major factor for that NPC, or other things supercede whatever effect it would have, fine. But I think it is ridiculous to argue that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance wouldn't weigh into NPC actions.
Incidentally, Starting Attitude is under Diplomacy. To me, that means it doesn't really come into effect until the PC or the NPC start to negotiate.
Seems to me that what Ciretose is really talking about is the general attitude of NPCs, towards PCs, before Diplomacy even enters the picture. So whatever there starting attitude is, he's adjusting it on the fly, for that particular PC.
In essence, that is applying the PC's CHA modifier, whatever it may be, twice.
@laoba - I enjoyed how you point to the "fluff" that agrees with your point while dismissing the "fluff" that doesn't. I just shook my head when you tried to create the "only 7 charisma" character in the room strawman right after I posted how it is relative to the other people in the room, and therefore a low charisma character could still be the coolest person in the room.
I don't think strawman means what you think it means, ciretose. Or are you taking back the assertion that a low CHA Diplomancer punishes those characters who do have a high Charisma?
If you give no relative benefit, you punish bards and sorcerers by not giving them one of the benefits of being higher charisma that others.
Did you, or did you not say this?
The game takes care of itself, ciretose. You don't need to add anything. The high CHA classes are not being punished when the low CHA character is allowed to work within the rules of the game.
But I think it is ridiculous to argue that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance wouldn't weigh into NPC actions.
Of course those things are factored in, after the die is rolled and the results are sorted out.
@Ciretose - are you going to answer the double-dip question?
|
|
@ Chris Clay
Ok, now I am home. Point by point where I respectfully disagree.
First, on the skill issue, you are reading "Characters can sometimes use skills for purposes other than those noted here, at the GM’s discretion." far more liberally than I am.
Compare this to the ability description "Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities."
I read that as giving the GM a little leeway to do what they want with skills if it is close, while the ability score represent the most basic aspects of who the player is are. When in doubt, default to the ability score, which is the characters most basic attributes that effect nearly every aspect of the character.
But for the purposes of the argument lets assume a more liberal reading and look at what Diplomacy says you can do with it.
"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."
Unless you take a very, very liberal reading of "proper etiquette" there is nothing there about fashion sense, appearance, personality, etc...it is basically the ability to negotiate.
If it became the defacto of how you are perceived by others, it would be the "common use" of the skill, which it clearly isn't. And in either case, I don't think you are proposing rolling every time an NPC interacts to see how effective the skill is.
Compare this to what Charisma the ability score governs, and it seems very clear to me that Diplomacy was never intended to be a catch all for social interactions, but rather just an ability under the charisma umbrella in the same way a knowledge check falls under the Intelligence umbrella. Charisma is what represents the characters "most basic attributes."
Now part two, you use the word "Initial penalty" which I disagree with as a descriptor. And your examples, frankly, are a bit hyperbolic.
Do low strength characters have less ability to lift and carry things? Yes. Is it a double penalty when an encumbered character also has to make a swim check. Yes.
Similarly if a low Dex character fails a reflex save and has to make an acrobatics check to avoid falling, it is a "double penalty"
The other abilities are easier to quantify and less subjective than charisma, but then again roll play outside of combat is very subjective by it's nature, unless you are literally rolling every interaction you have with any NPC in the game.
Which I doubt any of us are.
So if you are as a DM, trying to assess what the NPC would do, you look at the most basic attributes of the Player you are interacting with, which would to me be the Ability scores unless the player is using a skill.
I simply don't see anything in diplomacy that indicates it effects initial impression or appearance. To the contrary it requires a full minute of interaction to change initial impression. You can argue that it may influence personality and ability to lead, but to me even that is a reach when you consider what the description of the skill is vs the description of the ability.
I can only think of one reason why you wouldn't have the charisma score not be the indicator of the factors it specifically says it is the indicator of. Because you want to get around having a low score.
And again, if you aren't increasing carrying capacity to someone with a good swim score, why are you increasing the aspects of Charisma unrelated to the listed skill?
If you did allow the swim skill to increase carrying capacity, you would be indirectly punishing those with high strength by removing an advantage they invested in.
Where I think you and I depart is that you seem to look to skills as the meat of the character, while I look at skills as accessories added to the meat of the character, which for me are the ability scores.
I don't see a 7 charisma character being punished if they are in a room with people who have higher charisma. I see the people with higher charisma being appropriately rewarded for having a high social ability in a social situation. For me it's no different than having any other score high in a situation where it benefits you more than someone else who doesn't have a high score.
But again, I appreciate this as an honest disagreement and discussion.
I don't think pathfinder ability scores represents an individual in real life. However I do understand why you would want to try and associate scores with people to define What these scores mean. I'm wondering how many people roleplay their con?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it possible for someone who has no natural talent at playing an instrument to practice very hard and become very good? Yes of course!
Is it possible for someone who has a low charisma to work really hard on themselves mentally and physically to give themselves the confidence they need in order to succeed? Yes of course!
People with a natural talent for something will just have an easier time at getting better, and perhaps being even better than the one without the talent in the end.
Let's take two saxophone players since I play the sax.
Let's use Sonny Rollins and Stan Getz.
Both are and were professional players, legends in their own right. Stan Getz didn't have a natural talent for the saxophone but he used to practice for 6 hours a day. Now one may be a little better than the other but when you get to the level that they achieved how would you really know?
In this game a person can have a low cha, spend lots of resources to have a +15 Diplomacy for example while another person may have a high cha and send little resource and end up with the same score. All that shows is the first guy had to work harder to achieve while the other guy didn't.
I have seen ugly ugly guys get hot hot women. God rest his soul but look at Joey Ramone.
@Wraitstrike - I think we largely agree, but perhaps you are seeing my position as more rigid than it is. I'm not saying you do a charisma roll all the time (although occasionally it may come up) as much as I'm saying as a GM when I'm sizing up what an NPC will do, I will take into consideration the characters charisma in the same way that if the players have become local heroes that would be taken into consideration.
Being a local hero would be a circumstance bonus. I still don't think walking into a room makes someone dislike you to the extent of changing how much they would normally like you. Changing attitudes is a major thing to me. It takes a willful action or a very strong trait(race, connection with a deity, etc) that the NPC really does not like for home to dislike you that much. Even taking the charisma roll away I don't think a low charisma should make you disliked. Charisma is basically your ability to exert your will onto someone. That is why it influences social skills, and certain spells which force people to do things they would not do otherwise.
Also, I think you read far more into the diplomacy skill than I do. I don't roll diplomacy unless the player is trying to do something that involved the diplomacy skill, which is fairly narrow. I think some people, incorrectly IMHO, use diplomacy to see how "likable" a player is.
I never said the skill did anything more than allow you to negotiate. Trying to gain entry into a ball when you don't have an invitation is an example.
Your sense motive example is completely different, as what you are trying to do is exactly what the skill does. Now if a player has a high perception they may notice something that then makes them more likely to want roll a sense motive check on someone.
Is that double penalizing? No, that is skill synergy.
Not at all true unless you are saying I should require a wisdom check before allowing sense motive to be used. Is that what you are saying?
In my experience, some GMs will stop players with high wisdom or intelligence from doing something stupid by saying "are you sure" or even telling them "Your character is smarter than you and would know that isn't a good move."
I have given player's hints, but I don't think it is the GM's place to take over a PC. I also don't think it is a rule that says I should even give the hint. I just do it as a courtesy.
If you consider it and it isn't a major factor for that NPC, or other things supercede whatever effect it would have, fine. But I think it is ridiculous to argue that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance wouldn't weigh into NPC actions.
I don't think that everyone with a +2 charisma, as an example, has the same ability to lead, the same personality, and so on. If you have to use the fluff for charisma to try to boost it, then the other abilities should be treated the same way. You can't(well really "shouldn't" is a better word) advocate that the weakest attribute gets special treatment. Just to be clear I am not saying you should not play that way at home. I just don't think saying that is the best way to do it is good.
The minute a GM starts double dipping for good or bad with regard to charisma and diplomacy I am going to ask about other skills and attributes.
|
|
Is it possible for someone who has no natural talent at playing an instrument to practice very hard and become very good? Yes of course!
Is it possible for someone who has a low charisma to work really hard on themselves mentally and physically to give themselves the confidence they need in order to succeed? Yes of course!
People with a natural talent for something will just have an easier time at getting better, and perhaps being even better than the one without the talent in the end.
Let's take two saxophone players since I play the sax.
Let's use Sonny Rollins and Stan Getz.
Both are and were professional players, legends in their own right. Stan Getz didn't have a natural talent for the saxophone but he used to practice for 6 hours a day. Now one may be a little better than the other but when you get to the level that they achieved how would you really know?
In this game a person can have a low cha, spend lots of resources to have a +15 Diplomacy for example while another person may have a high cha and send little resource and end up with the same score. All that shows is the first guy had to work harder to achieve while the other guy didn't.
I have seen ugly ugly guys get hot hot women. God rest his soul but look at Joey Ramone.
Yes, but Joey Ramone was still ugly. He had a very high perform skill, which when people over time saw him perform made them like him more.
But he was still ugly and mumbled.
I am not saying people can't like low charisma characters. I am not saying low charisma characters can't do things that make them liked by others.
I am saying they are still low charisma, meaning they are below average in the areas that charisma covers, which include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
But again, if low charisma saves the princess...I mean look at Mario, not an attractive man, but Peach still loves being saved all the time.
It is "a" factor, not the only factor.
But I disagree when people argue that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance won't factor into NPC interactions.
And I also disagree with the broad interpretation many seem to be using for diplomacy. It isn't a catch all for all social interactions unless you view every conversation like a hostage negotiation. It is what it is, it does what it does.
I am perfectly fine with a low charisma rock star character with tons of perform who gets laid like crazy. But that dude probably looks like Joey Ramone, and is viewed by non fans of his music as...well...Joey Ramone.
|
|
Being a local hero would be a circumstance bonus. I still don't think walking into a room makes someone dislike you to the extent of changing how much they would normally like you.
I am going to stop you right there, because now I am getting annoyed.
I am not saying dislike. I have never said dislike, that is the strawman created by loaba and it needs to stop being attributed to me or anyone on this side of the argument.
I am saying ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL if you have two players, one has a 7 and one has a 14, the 14 has an advantage.
This isn't saying anyone dislikes the 7, it is saying the 14 is more charismatic than the 7.
Do you disagree?
|
|
@ Psionic Juggernaut - You aren't rude at all. This is a discussion with disagreement.
What I am saying is the game has a number that reflects a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, and those are factors a NPC would consider in an interaction.
Those aren't the only factors, in many situations they may not even be important or relevant factors. But they are factors that are considered and make up a character, and are relevant at times.
I am not encouraging more dice rolling in any way. I am saying when a GM is running, say, a barmaid, and the PC starts to flirt with the barmaid, the PC's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance will reflect how the barmaid reacts to the PC, as would any number of other factors.
Going back to the Joey Ramone example, she may initially be put off by his...well...lack of charisma. But then she may discover he is rich and musically talented, and that may be something she values, and the fact he isn't very charismatic isn't as relevant for that NPC in that circumstance.
Again, the high Charisma PC kicking my dog is not liked, the low charisma PC who saved my cat is.
But I don't think you can ignore personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when you are running NPC's, which is what you would be doing if you are saying Charisma should not be considered by the GM at all outside of skill checks.
Much of the game is subjective to the GM's interpretation of circumstantial bonuses. All I am arguing, despite the number of other things people keep trying to attribute and add...is that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance should be included in these considerations.
|
|
All I can tell you is to look at it like a math problem because that's all it basically is. That Cha 7 is just a part of the equation.
10 + 5 = 15
5 + 5 + 5 = 15
8 + 1 + 4 + 2 = 15
Three different ways to reach the same goal.
Only if you start from the assumption that social interaction is a skill check, which I don't.
If your 7 charisma character rescued the orphan girl in front of the whole town, he would become a local hero. That isn't a number, that is a subjective circumstance bonus adjudicated by the GM.
If he were to interact with someone in town, I think a reasonable GM would take into consideration the fact that he is a local hero, and that would effect how people react to him.
Similarly, the BBEG who was trying to sacrifice the orphan as part of his plot to take over the world may now specifically have issues with that player.
These are all subjective bonuses that I believe occur in most, if not all games, that are not skill checks.
My entire argument is that personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are also factors that a GM should consider. The weight of that consideration varies from table to table, situation to situation, NPC to NPC. How a character defines why they are above or below average is between the GM and the PC to work out.
But it is a factor.
You seem to be arguing that generic interaction is informed by the Diplomacy skill. If this is your position, I fundamentally disagree with you, as it isn't what the skill is described as doing and it isn't in the crunch of the description. It would be like arguing you can use intimidate to make someone think you are charismatic. Diplomacy not only has very specific applications that require interactions, it has a time limitation for effectiveness. Diplomatic negotiation is a type of interaction, it is not a replacement for personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
If it isn't what you are saying, I apologize. But I also ask what factors a GM should and should not consider when running an NPC?
I go back to the monster encounter example. A good GM is going to consider the intelligence and wisdom of the monster they are running when deciding on strategy the monster may use in the encounter. A dumb monster should be run differently than a highly intelligent one, as it may fall for tricks the PC's try when a smart monster would.
How this actually occurs is subjective, and one of the many reasons a good GM is the most important part of a game.
A good GM should consider everything, including personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. I can think of no reason not to consider the above factors in social interactions.
I am not saying they are "the" factors. I am not saying anyone should "dislike" low charisma characters. I am saying the GM should ask "What would this NPC do given all of the factors currently involved."
For example, if an NPC hates orcs, it doesn't matter much if they are 7 or 18 charisma, that NPC hates orcs. Until maybe they save a kitten or something...