RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
TLDR: PFS GMs need to treat ability scores as meaning what the rules say they mean, not what makes them feel justified about how they already treat their players.
When I run you at one of my tables Jiggy, you more often than not do a good job at roleplaying your character's stats. Maybe not as extreme (or sometimes more extreme) than I might, but you make the attempt to play your stats as you've devised them.
With a low Charisma, you play your Tian as a pompous, elitist, jerk.
Its fun. And I try to have my NPCs riff off that when its appropriate to do so.
But not all players care to roleplay their character's stats as appropriate.
They like to try and be the face with a 7 charisma, and then would get all huffy when the NPCs don't take to them.
They are the first one to jump up and assist the fighter who's trying to lift a portcullis. Really? Weaky-Mcweakersen? You are going to try and help lift the portcullis? Don't you think you'd be better off holding up the wall over there?
Or the 7 Dex guy who tries to do acrobatics in combat all the time (despite having a 3 in Acrobatics do to low Dex and armor check penalty) to avoid AoO's.
Just because the rules say you can, or the statistics support a potential success on the effort, doesn't mean its good roleplay to actually do it.
Hm, this supports my idea in my other post that you and I aren't actually talking about quite the same thing.
If a guy with 7 CHA and no diplomacy ranks is trying to influence someone, then it calls for a diplomacy check and he's going to feel that -2 (especially if it's a DC 20). If he gets huffy about that, shame on him.
Alternately, if the same guy just has a passing interaction with an NPC, and you roleplay it with him being slightly offensive (or one of the myriad other representations of low CHA) with no mechanical impact, that's fine too. If he gets huffy about that, shame on him.
So to be clear, the only thing I'm against here is when a GM uses that roleplay as an excuse to impose extra mechanical consequences beyond how the stat and its related skills actually function. Like if my Tien guy is sitting around prepping a couple more spells and Mr. HighCHA is trying to diplomacize someone, some GMs in this thread have stated or implied that they would penalize the interaction for my mere presence with a 7 CHA. That would be cheating. Especially if said GMs wouldn't give my 7 CHA guy a BONUS to a diplomacy check if he's surrounded by sorcerers.
|
Lets be careful when we throw the cheating word around eh?
There is enough ambiguity in the rules that allows for certain GM calls.
If the 7 Charisma character just sits back and doesn't try to talk to anyone, then yeah, probably not going to adversely affect things.
But if Mr. Ugly and Socially Unacceptable keeps interrupting Dashing Guy, then yeah, good roleplay by the GM indicates that the NPCs aren't going to deal with that too well.
You have to allow the GM to make subjective calls based on circumstances. Otherwise, you are asking a GM to be a computer and spit numbers out at you.
By that same token, however, if Mr. Ugly and Socially Unacceptable happens to roll ridiculously well and actually manages to make the DC of a skill check, don't penalize them for it. It's unfair to the player and unbecoming of a GM that does so.
Edit: Ninja'd, but all the same, this.
If a guy with 7 CHA and no diplomacy ranks is trying to influence someone, then it calls for a diplomacy check and he's going to feel that -2 (especially if it's a DC 20). If he gets huffy about that, shame on him.
Alternately, if the same guy just has a passing interaction with an NPC, and you roleplay it with him being slightly offensive (or one of the myriad other representations of low CHA) with no mechanical impact, that's fine too. If he gets huffy about that, shame on him.
So to be clear, the only thing I'm against here is when a GM uses that roleplay as an excuse to impose extra mechanical consequences beyond how the stat and its related skills actually function. Like if my Tien guy is sitting around prepping a couple more spells and Mr. HighCHA is trying to diplomacize someone, some GMs in this thread have stated or implied that they would penalize the interaction for my mere presence with a 7 CHA. That would be cheating. Especially if said GMs wouldn't give my 7 CHA guy a BONUS to a diplomacy check if he's surrounded by sorcerers.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lets be careful when we throw the cheating word around eh?
I try, but you keep ninja-ing my clarifications. ;)
If the 7 Charisma character just sits back and doesn't try to talk to anyone, then yeah, probably not going to adversely affect things.
But if Mr. Ugly and Socially Unacceptable keeps interrupting Dashing Guy, then yeah, good roleplay by the GM indicates that the NPCs aren't going to deal with that too well.
I agree with both of these statements. See my post right before this one.
I am being very careful to only apply the word "cheating" where it is provably so. I will not use the term where adjudication is needed.
|
|
Charisma is also about first impressions.
A character with a cha of 7 will not give a great first impression to anyone, because they lack personal magnestism.
They may be the guy picking his nose at the back, the person who does not shower or bathe or the girl who just does not seem quite right.
Their very presence can cause disruption and negative percetions.
For anyone to say... 'who cares about charisma, mechanically i can take some skill points to fix my weaknesses' is plain wrong.
Taking a better stat will always result in recieving a different stat which is lower... ALL with in game consequences.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
For anyone to say... 'who cares about charisma, mechanically i can take some skill points to fix my weaknesses' is plain wrong.
Taking a better stat will always result in recieving a different stat which is lower... ALL with in game consequences.
The same thing could be said about Wisdom (Iron Will, skill ranks in perception, sense motive, you're golden). If the player invests skill points/feats to 'balance out' a bad attribute, then they're not overly specialized in anything else.
Besides, isn't that how real life works? I'm not a natural leader, but I take courses on leadership, reading body language, word choice, tone of voice, etc. In 'game terms' my player is spending skill ranks on perception, sense motive, diplomacy etc. I'm 'spending skill points to fix my weaknesses.' (seriously, check my profile, I have an 8 wisdom, and that might be high)
|
For anyone to say... 'who cares about charisma, mechanically i can take some skill points to fix my weaknesses' is plain wrong.
No, I'm not.
There is no mechanic for cha determining first impressions/starting attitude. You're simply house ruling an extra effect that the stat simply doesn't have by raw. The consequence is already there: its a penalty on the diplomacy check. You're trying to double penalize people because you think they're playing the game wrong.
|
|
Besides, isn't that how real life works?
I don't think the d 20 system mirrors reality very well in this case. Raw talent is very important in terms of how good you are , how quickly you pick something up, and how good you can possibly get. In pathfinder the difference between a 12 and 8 cha is almost negligible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For anyone to say... 'who cares about charisma, mechanically i can take some skill points to fix my weaknesses' is plain wrong.No, I'm not.
There is no mechanic for cha determining first impressions/starting attitude. You're simply house ruling an extra effect that the stat simply doesn't have by raw. The consequence is already there: its a penalty on the diplomacy check. You're trying to double penalize people because you think they're playing the game wrong.
Went and checked to be sure, and BNW is right: your CHA score does not affect first impressions.
Once you try to actually interact with someone, you'll see the effect - to the tune of a -2 to diplomacy checks. But that's already built in.
|
I think the issue is this:
1) Some of you who are arguing on this thread did not play any of the other “living” campaigns, while many of the Venture-Officers and veteran players and GMs alike have played since Living City in the early 90’s. They have experienced the gross dumping of stats to create uber one-trick poneys. The issue isn’t whether this is legal. It is. It’s the fact that often the negative stats are ignored, not because of the rules, but because the player only cares about maximizing that which the character is good at. And the dynamic of organized play mitigates a ton of the issues of many low stats, because there is rarely any issue with encumbrance, forced marching, etc.
2) So the GM’s by-and-large fought back against the 4/20 builds by creating a metric by which low stats have an in-game effect above and beyond what the rules indicate. It isn’t fun to GM a game where the 4/20’s run roughshod over a scenario and as GM I can’t do anything about it.
@ Jiggy, I am fairly certain you didn’t play any of the previous Organized or “Living” Campaigns, so you are unaware of the issues I’ve noted above.
I had a 4/20 play at my table at Con of the North. 20 Strength/20 Con, 7 everywhere else. Didn’t wear armor. Had a sub-10 AC. Roleplayed his character’s stupidity, lack of wisdom, social ineptitude, and general clumsiness. He rocked in the combats as far as damage dealing. But nearly died several times. But he roleplayed his character’s stats.
I don’t mind that.
But if you come to my table and bring the 4/20 I just described, and you try to use your player personality to dominate social situations, and your character to dominate combat, then as a GM, I have a duty to balance the scales so other players can see the spotlight too.
And if by creating an artificial penalty for a character that isn’t being roleplayed to their stats, I’m a cheater, then I wear the badge with honor.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But if you come to my table and bring the 4/20 I just described, and you try to use your player personality to dominate social situations, and your character to dominate combat, then as a GM, I have a duty to balance the scales so other players can see the spotlight too.
At this point I'm pretty sure Andy and I are seeing different discussions here, so one (or both, I suppose) of us clearly misunderstands something somewhere. Let's see if I can break it down lest we argue about something we actually agree on (something I've seen happen with disheartening frequency on the interwebz).
Andy, you're clearly making a distinction between the stat-dumper who roleplays it and the stat-dumper who ignores it. I like your stance.*
I just haven't seen that distinction made by other posters. I've just seen "if you have 7 CHA [or whatever], I'm going to impose X penalty". With nothing more specific said, I've been taking that to mean that it's being done regardless of roleplay. That even if the guy you mentioned from Con of the North is roleplaying his dumped stats fantastically, some of these GMs would still invent extra penalties for him (or even his comrades, just for him being in the room). If this is incorrect, and the distinction Andy's been making is also being assumed by everyone else, would someone PLEASE tell me so? I am firmly against players trying to use real-life "stats" in place of their PCs' dump stats to avoid legitimate penalties. If that's all anyone's talking about (like Andy is), then yay! The thread ends with sunshine, rainbows and agreement!
Clarity, people. Srsly.
Anyway, separate topic. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was an old episode of Malcom in the Middle that I think of when I see "Charismatic player/stunted character."
Dewey (The youngest son) would be shown as how he perceived things, and then they'd show the 'real world'. The one that stuck in my head was when he is wanting a toy.
Deweyvision: Mom, dad, I think I've been good, and I've accepted a lot of responsibility for someone my age. I would take care of the toy, and not break it. In exchange I could do various chores around the house to prove I was worthy of the toy.
Real world: I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it! I want it!
That's kind of how my brain translates the charismatic player bit.
Charismatic player: Greetings Satrap! Thank you for your gracious audience. We have been sent to investigate the tomb of the amethyst emperor, and seek your permission.
Int 7/Cha 7 character: Hey big guy! We're going to crack open this tomb. Are you going to get in our way?
:-)
|
|
2) So the GM’s by-and-large fought back against the 4/20 builds by creating a metric by which low stats have an in-game effect above and beyond what the rules indicate.
Which isn't allowed. You can't just ignore the rules, the dice, the characters abilities, skills, and feats to say "i don't like how you got that +13, I'm going to tack a -8 penalty onto it in addition to the -2 you're already working with". It isn't much fun when the dm says "well, you need to make this person helpful, he should start at friendly , but you're ugly so i'll start him at hostile and oh look.. its now impossible to complete your faction mission".,
It isn’t fun to GM a game where the 4/20’s run roughshod over a scenario
If that build is working that well in the scenario there is something wrong with the system or the scenario
I think the pathfinder faction missions do a lot to discourage hyper specialization.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But in table top roleplay, a GM HAS to take your charisma into account when you try to interact with people.
Bolded the part that we seem to be the only ones considering. Unless there's an unspoken assumption I missed, other GMs are taking CHA into account even when you don't try to interact with people.
|
|
But in table top roleplay, a GM HAS to take your charisma into account when you try to interact with people.IT is already taken into account in the diplomacy/bluff/intimidation check.
And if you roleplay that your dwarf constant hauks loogeys and farts loudly, but suddenly he plugs himself up during negotiations… as a GM you gotta wonder if the player is metagaming.
You can just leave Tooty the 8th dwarf outside if need be.
At worst the player knows its important and so does the character :in game and player knowledge match so i don't see the metagaming
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. Once again, the Dumpstat rears its ugly head.
Honestly, I really think the option to sell down stats for points ought to be eliminated. It causes nothing but problems in-game for PCs and GMs alike, and keeps spawning contentious threads like this one.
'Oh, I just want to RP being [insert lack of decent attribute level here].'
Pardon my French, but horseapples to THAT. You can manage RPing relative weakness just FINE with a 10.
In my opinion, the only reason for stat-dumping is to buff-up other scores, creating jarringly-unrealistic levels of hypertrophy-atrophy across your stats. There's no GOOD reason to allow it, and all it does is make characters that are NOT suited for any endeavor outside their specialty.
[/rant]
|
|
I just haven't seen that distinction made by other posters. I've just seen "if you have 7 CHA [or whatever], I'm going to impose X penalty". With nothing more specific said, I've been taking that to mean that it's being done regardless of roleplay. That even if the guy you mentioned from Con of the North is roleplaying his dumped stats fantastically, some of these GMs would still invent extra penalties for him (or even his comrades, just for him being in the room). If this is incorrect, and the distinction Andy's been making is also being assumed by everyone else, would someone PLEASE tell me so?
You must have missed my posts Jiggy, because that's what I've been saying.
I don't impose additional game mechanics on 7/20 players (not sure where Andrew is getting his 4/20 label for Pathfinder). The mechanics are already built into the game. It is when the player is roleplaying his PC or trying to do something out of combat or something not specifically covered by the rules and they are ignoring their low stats ... that's when I have a problem with their build.
EDIT/ to clarify: during combat, when a PC starts using expert to genius level tactics in battle with very low Int/Wiz scores and no ranks in something like Profession(Soldier), etc. I will verbally remind them of their build and ask them how their PC is managing to fight so well without the brain power to back it up.
|
|
2) So the GM’s by-and-large fought back against the 4/20 builds by creating a metric by which low stats have an in-game effect above and beyond what the rules indicate.Which isn't allowed. You can't just ignore the rules, the dice, the characters abilities, skills, and feats to say "i don't like how you got that +13, I'm going to tack a -8 penalty onto it in addition to the -2 you're already working with". It isn't much fun when the dm says "well, you need to make this person helpful, he should start at friendly , but you're ugly so i'll start him at hostile and oh look.. its now impossible to complete your faction mission".,
It isn’t fun to GM a game where the 4/20’s run roughshod over a scenarioIf that build is working that well in the scenario there is something wrong with the system or the scenario
I think the pathfinder faction missions do a lot to discourage hyper specialization.
You are being a bit extreme with your examples. I don't think anyone said they would apply a -8.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just haven't seen that distinction made by other posters. I've just seen "if you have 7 CHA [or whatever], I'm going to impose X penalty". With nothing more specific said, I've been taking that to mean that it's being done regardless of roleplay. That even if the guy you mentioned from Con of the North is roleplaying his dumped stats fantastically, some of these GMs would still invent extra penalties for him (or even his comrades, just for him being in the room). If this is incorrect, and the distinction Andy's been making is also being assumed by everyone else, would someone PLEASE tell me so?You must have missed my posts Jiggy, because that's what I've been saying.
I don't impose additional game mechanics on 7/20 players (not sure where Andrew is getting his 4/20 label for Pathfinder). The mechanics are already built into the game. It is when the player is roleplaying his PC or trying to do something out of combat or something not specifically covered by the rules and they are ignoring their low stats ... that's when I have a problem with their build.
Thank you for the clarification of your own stance. I agree with you and Andy, then: mismatched roleplaying isn't a ticket out of the mechanical ramifications of your dump stats, but no double-dipping penalties either. Glad there's at least three of us on the same page now. :)
PS: Maybe the "4/20" means "four dump stats, others at 20"?
|
|
You are being a bit extreme with your examples. I don't think anyone said they would apply a -8.
Starting someone off one step further down the track is effectively a -5.
Whats the rational for tacking any penalties onto the non charismatic character's rolls besides the penalty thats already there?
Taking a 7 cha (or even a 5 cha dwarf) and ranks in diplomacy tips my personal cheese o meter, but it works.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think it's funny that everyone is talking about how terrible a person with a CHA of 7 at socializing, when they don't realize that a lot of those "beautiful people" you see on magazines have just that. They're total douches!
A CHA of 7 means you're a substandard speaker and negotiator, but you can still be physically attractive and a successful jerk. Have none of you ever seen any teen romance movie? All them hot girls be rude!
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Taking a 7 cha (or even a 5 cha dwarf) and ranks in diplomacy tips my personal cheese o meter, but it works.
Maybe that dwarven barbarian has always used his ax to speak for him but now, after a few levels, he's ready to see "WAT R TALKING LIKE?"
(I assume he has a 7 int as well, because he's a barbarian)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you so upset by low stats?
I HATE average stats. They're hard/boring to rp. How do you stand out with an average int? How do you get humor out of a low strength score?
I don't buy your stormwind fallacy. I don't think the dump stats are hurting anything, I dont think min maxing makes you a worse roleplayer. My character is the one thing in the game that I actually control. If i want to min max it, i should be able to because its my character.
Why are you so upset by low stats?
I HATE average stats. They're hard/boring to rp. How do you stand out with an average int? How do you get humor out of a low strength score?
I don't buy your stormwind fallacy. I don't think the dump stats are hurting anything, I dont think min maxing makes you a worse roleplayer.
Back up, Jack.
I said NOTHING about min/max making worse RPrs.
My beef was people claiming a desire to RP weakness when what they WANT are more points to make their prime score(s) higher.
And yes, the dumping of scores are hurting things, like the ability to do anything outside a very narrow specialty well enough to get by at it.
Not to mention finding it difficult to believe such a lop-sided development happened. ESPECIALLY when that ridiculous division of 'really horrible scores vs. supernally-great score' becomes the norm.
|
|
I don't think the dump stats are hurting anything, I dont think min maxing makes you a worse roleplayer.
No. But often those who dump several stats to get two or three high stats in an effort to game the system to become an umber combat monkey, are the ones who are not interested in roleplaying the negative aspects of doing the dumping.
And as such, they have a tendency to steal the spotlight no matter what's going on at the table.
As a GM, we have a duty to help ALL the players shine as appropriate to their characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And as such, they have a tendency to steal the spotlight no matter what's going on at the table.
As a GM, we have a duty to help ALL the players shine as appropriate to their characters.
|
|
Back up, Jack.
I said NOTHING about min/max making worse RPrs.
My beef was people claiming a desire to RP weakness when what they WANT are more points to make their prime score(s) higher.
You act as if those are mutually exclusive goals. It can be both. You're saying its not so in short you're calling me a liar. I like palying low stat characters. I think its absolutely hillarious to play a gruff honest dwarf thar was raised by wolves... and then abandoned by them due to a lack of social skills.
I like the low stats and i like the points it gives me to do something useful. I get my cake and i get to eat it too. You're calling that horse apples and then in short calling me a liar.
And yes, the dumping of scores are hurting things, like the ability to do anything outside a very narrow specialty well enough to get by at it.
If thats the case then let natural selection run its course. If such specialization is harmful people will learn its a mistake and stop doing it
Not to mention finding it difficult to believe such a lop-sided development happened. ESPECIALLY when that ridiculous division of 'really horrible scores vs. supernally-great score' becomes the norm.
Even if its not reality its incredibly common in fiction. Raistling con, Caramons smarts, Mongo (and other dumb muscle) SMASHY THINGS , the brilliant but clueless scientist (absent minded professor, Bones, Zack)
|
|
No. But often those who dump several stats to get two or three high stats in an effort to game the system to become an umber combat monkey, are the ones who are not interested in roleplaying the negative aspects of doing the dumping.
Correlation is not causation, nor is that particular correlation 100%. Treat the problem player like a problem player no matter what it is they're doing and don't lump all of the stat dumpers in with them.
|
|
I'd rather a GM address this behavior (trying to "roleplay away" their weaknesses) directly by asking the player to stop it, and if they refuse, boot them from the table. Inventing mechanical disincentives just makes them try harder, and doesn't actually solve anything or discourage the behavior in the future.And as such, they have a tendency to steal the spotlight no matter what's going on at the table.
As a GM, we have a duty to help ALL the players shine as appropriate to their characters.
Being an inclusive campaign, we don't really have the option to boot someone from the table for bad roleplay. Even if they are doing it on purpose.
I have directly confronted some folks. And what that does, at the table, is create a divisive and uncomfortable atmosphere for everyone. I prefer to take them to side if I need to confront them.
But its easier to:
Ugly Fred: "Ok fine sir, I wish to know if thou doth liketh mine carefully crafted couture and would be willing to bequeath me the honor of your presence at yon party"
GM: <blink> Hmm... <thinks to self>Ugly Fred has a 7 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, so here's how I choose to see what he said "Dude", <fart> "you better come with me," <spit> "or I'm gonna" <snort> "pound you."
Fine Sir: "I don't think so you flatulent cretin! Guards!"
Player of Ugly Fred: But what if I roll really high on my Diplomacy! <whine>
GM: Why, with a 7 Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy, would you take the lead in important negotiations with an NPC when you have Dashing Bard standing right here. Sorry, but you just made it more difficult for the Bard to do his job. Next time you are in combat, I'm sure the Bard will let you do your job.
|
I have 8 Pathfinder characters, and you're likely to notice a trend in the dump stat(s) here - including one character i'm just going to blush and mutter ashamedly about. I needed the points, ok?!
Human fighter: Str 18, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
- This guy is a two-weapon fighter, and that Dex 15 pre-req really stings. Otherwise he'd have been Dex 14, Cha 10.
- Chelaxian in big spiky full plate who constantly simmers with barely restrained rage. His low Charisma manifests as making incredibly blunt statements, cutting right to the point, and generally behaving like he's a hairsbreadth away from saying 'Sod this talking nonsense!' and just ripping the head off the nearest person. Comes across as a borderline psychopath, which isn't far from the truth. Plain features.
Half-orc bard: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 13, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 14
- 'Selfish' buff-bard arcane duelist.
Kitsune rogue: Str 10, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 14
- experimental build, my newest character. Desperately managing his weight limit until that sweet sweet mithral chain shirt...
Human cavalier: Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 14
- The Dex 13 is because it's a pre-req for the Precise Strike teamwork feat.
Human ranger: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
- This was my first PFS character, built under 3.5 rules initially. I actually conceived him as horrifically scarred, so the Cha was for a roleplaying purpose! and the delicious build points...
- Doesn't speak much. Very, very ugly (looks like someone's taken a rake to his head, no hair, occasionally suppurating scars, missing one ear, etc). Good line in very, very dry humour, but makes a conscious effort to snark from the sidelines and avoid being the one who has to do the talking.
Half-elf magus: Str 18, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8
- Another very experimental build - a trip magus! Results pending.
- Smug, condescending, arrogant jackass.
Dwarf fighter: Str 16, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 5. Yes, 5.
- This guy is built to be a very specific thing: A Rahadoumi dwarf who fully follows Rahadoum's no divine magic thing. He will never, every accept clerical healing, and that's required me to get a bit creative. The plan is to multi-class into alchemist at some point and get some potions of infernal healing..
- Yes, I'm ashamed of the epic dumpstattery on this one. But sacrifices must be made!
- Abrasive, convinced that all clerics and those who worship gods are worthless dupes (and will tell them so), generally grumpy and difficult to get on with. Probably snaggle-toothed and grubby into the bargain.
Half-orc paladin: Str 16, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 15
- It's a paladin. Pretty standard load-out for this type of build, I think.
|
|
No. But often those who dump several stats to get two or three high stats in an effort to game the system to become an umber combat monkey, are the ones who are not interested in roleplaying the negative aspects of doing the dumping.Correlation is not causation, nor is that particular correlation 100%. Treat the problem player like a problem player no matter what it is they're doing and don't lump all of the stat dumpers in with them.
I don't. And if you actually read what I've written, you'll see that I don't.
But I have every right to mitigate the roleplaying reactions of NPCs in game based on character stats, especially if the player refuses to roleplay low stats.
BNW,
Maybe you're the exception.
But even if you are, you're unfortunately caught up in the problem side of the equation, IN MY OPINION.
Which is obviously not shared by Paizo, nor PFSOP, so you're safe enough being there.
We're not going to agree on this, since you 'like low stats' and I find the stat dump to be the most egregious system of errors in place in the game.
I won't apologise for you taking my general observation personally. It wasn't directed at you. Maybe you ARE the exception, but everyone I've EVER SEEN play the dump-stat game has proceeded to try to ignore their low stats.
In any case, we don't game together, so all this is strictly academic. I don't have to roll my eyes at your raised-by-wolves dwarf, you don't have to see me eye-rolling.
As far as the GENERAL discussion of stats goes, I find the sell-down a disruptive and poorly-designed bit of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Dwarf fighter: Str 16, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 5. Yes, 5.
- This guy is built to be a very specific thing: A Rahadoumi dwarf who fully follows Rahadoum's no divine magic thing. He will never, every accept clerical healing, and that's required me to get a bit creative. The plan is to multi-class into alchemist at some point and get some potions of infernal healing..
- Yes, I'm ashamed of the epic dumpstattery on this one. But sacrifices must be made!
- Abrasive, convinced that all clerics and those who worship gods are worthless dupes (and will tell them so), generally grumpy and difficult to get on with. Probably snaggle-toothed and grubby into the bargain.
Tangental. Um, he does know where infernal healing came from right? "No mister cleric, I won't take that cure light wounds from you. I have some devil juice right here to fix me up!"
:-)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Also, just some more food for thought. If the higher ups in PFS had felt that dump-statting was a bad practice, they would have said so in the guide to OP. "No PC can have a starting stat lower than 8," or something like that.
But they didn't.
They said 7 was the lowest, before racials -- fully realizing that there would be players with a 5 in a stat. So we can't really make the argument that the Grand Lodge would turn away people with a a stat of 5. The Grand Lodge made the flippin rules for character creation! Five is the minimum they expect from a recruit, anything above that must be gravy!!
Moderate sarcasm aside, after playing PFS for so long, my homebrew's rules for character creation have changed significantly. We say: no starting stats lower than 8 or higher than 16 -- after racials. Because we felt PFS was on a strong power curve. And for those interested, we haven't noticed a significant dip in power at all. Min/maxing of stats doesn't really matter after the first few levels.
|
|
But I have every right to mitigate the roleplaying reactions of NPCs in game based on character stats, especially if the player refuses to roleplay low stats.
I did read what you wrote and its exactly what you're doing.
What you've done is decided without rolling, without looking at the characters diplomacy score, that the player not only failed their diplomacy check, but has failed it by 5 so that the guards attitudes have worsened.
That is NOT mitigation it is making stuff up.
|
|
I break the rules. Sorry.
I normally ask the party to have a single point person when diplomacy is involved (obviously some situations this doesn't work). That person rolls diplomacy, everyone else rolls to assist (if they want to). If those assisting fail their assist roll by 5 or more they hurt the party and I impose a -2 penalty to the party's diplomacy.
Of course, I let everyone (players) talk and come up with cool stuff to say and add circumstance bonuses and penalties that I don't discuss.
But in table top roleplay, a GM HAS to take your charisma into account when you try to interact with people.Bolded the part that we seem to be the only ones considering. Unless there's an unspoken assumption I missed, other GMs are taking CHA into account even when you don't try to interact with people.
Jiggy, I assume the above post by Kyle and the two that followed it are the ones you are referring to when you have been talking about GMing penalizing people for just being present with a 7 Charisma.
If that is the case, re-read those posts, please. None of them said they would penalize the group for the unsociable person just hanging around. It's only if the unsociable person tries to help in the negoiations and then messes it up that they would apply the penalty.
Dashing Guy: So the deal is for 50 gold? *Succeeds Diplomacy roll by 1*
Charisma Dump Guy: No! We must also have a bakest of apples, 3 horses, 2 wenches, and the left eyeball of the 2nd tallest man in town! *Fails Diplomacy roll by 5 or more, resulting in a negative impact on the successful roll for Dashing Guy*
NPC: Er...yea, no deal. Maybe we can talk some more without that lunatic here.
Basically, he is applying a negative -2 penalty for really botching the aid another attempt, instead of the +2 a success gives, so it's a static bonus being applied.
While, yes, that is still not allowed by the rules, IF he is going to do that, would you prefer him to use a static bonus that is applied the same way every time, or just leave it up to however penalizing he feels it should be at the time, depending on how annoying you were and how botched the roll was?
Basically, I'm not saying they are in the right to do it, but you are misunderstanding what they are saying, I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Being an inclusive campaign, we don't really have the option to boot someone from the table for bad roleplay. Even if they are doing it on purpose.
If their intent is to perform an action that is supposed to have a penalty without taking that penalty, that's the same as not taking their -4 when they shoot into melee without Precise Shot. If they're doing it deliberately, then that's grounds for OOC disciplinary action.
I have directly confronted some folks. And what that does, at the table, is create a divisive and uncomfortable atmosphere for everyone. I prefer to take them to side if I need to confront them.
Naturally, an aside is better. I took that to be assumed. :)
But its easier to:
Ugly Fred: "Ok fine sir, I wish to know if thou doth liketh mine carefully crafted couture and would be willing to bequeath me the honor of your presence at yon party"
GM: <blink> Hmm... <thinks to self>Ugly Fred has a 7 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, so here's how I choose to see what he said "Dude", <fart> "you better come with me," <spit> "or I'm gonna" <snort> "pound you."
Fine Sir: "I don't think so you flatulent cretin! Guards!"
Player of Ugly Fred: But what if I roll really high on my Diplomacy! <whine>
GM: Why, with a 7 Charisma and no ranks in Diplomacy, would you take the lead in important negotiations with an NPC when you have Dashing Bard standing right here. Sorry, but you just made it more difficult for the Bard to do his job. Next time you are in combat, I'm sure the Bard will let you do your job.
Mind if I tweak this a bit?
Ugly Fred: "Ok fine sir, I wish to know if thou doth liketh mine carefully crafted couture and would be willing to bequeath me the honor of your presence at yon party"
GM: *blinks* Okay, make a Diplomacy check.
Ugly Fred: Uh... *rolls* um, 6?
GM: You're trying to sway an NPC. That's a diplomacy check. Right there in the rules. Now make your check.
GM: *checks and sees it's DC 20* Your parrot-like repitition of what you heard Dashing Bard say last week came out about right, but Fine Sir still isn't very impressed with you. No change in attitude.
GM: The Fine Sir can tell you're just spouting fancy-sounding words that you've heard other people say. He's offended at what he believes is feigned respect, and you can see his eyes harden and his face redden as his attitude toward you slips down a level.
-----+-----
See? Non-confrontational, and rules-abiding on both sides. Win-win. :)
|
|
But I have every right to mitigate the roleplaying reactions of NPCs in game based on character stats, especially if the player refuses to roleplay low stats.I did read what you wrote and its exactly what you're doing.
What you've done is decided without rolling, without looking at the characters diplomacy score, that the player not only failed their diplomacy check, but has failed it by 5 so that the guards attitudes have worsened.
That is NOT mitigation it is making stuff up.
Dude, if you want me to be a computer and just spit out numbers at you, instead of roleplaying (which is what this game is about) then that’s not going to happen.
And if you are playing a character with a 7 charisma, and you roleplay like its 18, then I’m going to notice, and so are the NPCs.
That isn’t making things up. That’s adjudicating a table fairly based on the circumstances of what is going on at the table.
|
|
Dwarf fighter: Str 16, Dex 11, Con 16, Int 13, Wis 16, Cha 5. Yes, 5.
- This guy is built to be a very specific thing: A Rahadoumi dwarf who fully follows Rahadoum's no divine magic thing. He will never, every accept clerical healing, and that's required me to get a bit creative. The plan is to multi-class into alchemist at some point and get some potions of infernal healing..
- Yes, I'm ashamed of the epic dumpstattery on this one. But sacrifices must be made!
- Abrasive, convinced that all clerics and those who worship gods are worthless dupes (and will tell them so), generally grumpy and difficult to get on with. Probably snaggle-toothed and grubby into the bargain.Tangental. Um, he does know where infernal healing came from right? "No mister cleric, I won't take that cure light wounds from you. I have some devil juice right here to fix me up!"
:-)
Hey, it's not like I'm having to praise Asmodeus for it! Wizards can whip it up, for Pete's sake! And what's a little stain on an immortal soul that's going to be stuck in a gem because Pharasma hates atheists?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, I assume the above post by Kyle and the two that followed it are the ones you are referring to when you have been talking about GMing penalizing people for just being present with a 7 Charisma.
Kyle's post is not what I was talking about. In Kyle's situation, the CHA 7 guy is getting involved in Diplomacy. He even said that it's only the folks who try to assist and fail by a significant margin get in the way. I might even adopt that myself (okay, probably not, because my head's filled with enough mechanics as it is). According to what Kyle described, a 7 CHA guy with enough sense to stand in the back and keep quiet isn't going to hurt anything. Kyle's practice is fine by me. It allows the PCs to decide (when possible) who does the "talky bits", just like they can decide (when possible) who's standing in the front lines or hanging back and shooting. That's how it's supposed to be.
Examples of what I'm talking about are where Curaigh suggests that the 7 CHA guy(s) in the background who are just standing there should be affecting the difficulty of the check made by the only person actually doing the talking. Or where Alexander_Damocles says he won't even let them decide who does the talking, rolling randomly to force a PC to take the lead even if they would know better.
Inventing OOC mechanics to force PCs into predicaments that they'd know better than to get into in-character is completely inappropriate.
Note that I'm not talking about extenuating circumstances. If Mr. Ugly rushes through the door and finds an unexpected NPC who immediately asks him what he's doing there, he's got to make the check. Dashing Bard has to clean up the mess afterwards. That's fine. But if the PCs have a scheduled audience with an NPC, and the GM rolls a die to decide who knocks on the door or does most of the talking? Having the very presence of Mr. Ugly standing quietly in the back while Dashing talks make it harder? Unless there were more qualifiers that didn't get communicated, that's completely unjustified.
|
|
I've been following along for a while and I'd like to say that Jiggy is the one on the right path here. His example takes into account the character's capabilities and the rules and does so without overriding the player'a actions in a super condescending way.
Maybe I just react very strongly to DM's overreaching and unilaterally deciding to dictate player fluff and actions. The DM's job is to take the input that the player gives and incorporate it into the world within the framework of the rules.
A character with CHA 7 might have a high enough Wisdom and/or Intelligence to not involve themselves in interactions with NPC's, so I am not seeing where this DM overriding of player action to give a penalty to the group's interactions is coming from.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if you want me to be a computer and just spit out numbers at you, instead of roleplaying (which is what this game is about) then that’s not going to happen.
Just because someone is concerned with the rules doesn't mean they want just a numbers game .
And if you are playing a character with a 7 charisma, and you roleplay like its 18, then I’m going to notice, and so are the NPCs.
I agree the player needs to be told to play their cha, or at the least not be allowed to have the players charisma and choice of words affect the character.
And by all means explain the difference between the characters and the players cha, go into Dewyvision mode and show "this is what you think you're saying (roll diplomacy... this is what they're hearing) smack the player with a rolled up newspaper, require that that they down a bottle of jaeger so they can properly role play their wis, int, and cha.... but don't bypass a diplomacy roll based on some non existant rule that anyone with an cha of 7 gets lynched the second they open their mouths. (if that were true i'd have even more concussions thatn i do...). and by all means, let him roll and THEN lynch him. Its not like he won't give you another opportunity. (revives the reformed church of the ll powerful polyhedral)
|
|
And if it is a diplomacy check they are trying to make that isn’t dictated in the scenario?
Just because a Scenario doesn’t indicate you can negotiate with an NPC, doesn’t mean as GM I can’t allow it. “Sorry, you can’t negotiate with this guy, he’s a computer mob with no soul or personality, he just regurgitates the information the scenario needs him to.”
So as a GM, I would prefer to actually roleplay the encounter. You know, interact with each other based on our characters personalities, traits, and stats?
I’m fair though. If I notice as a player you aren’t very eloquent, but you are playing a Bard, I’ll let you roll and take that result, describing it as you wooing him wonderously. But if as a player you are very eloquent, but your character rarely washes and picks his nose in public, then I will likely just let the diplomacy fail without a roll, because as a player you are being disingenuous with me.
|
|
Examples of what I'm talking about are where Curaigh suggests that the 7 CHA guy(s) in the background who are just standing there should be affecting the difficulty of the check made by the only person actually doing the talking. Or where Alexander_Damocles says he won't even let them decide who does the talking, rolling randomly to force a PC to take the lead even if they would know better.
I must have missed Curaigh's post the first time, but I dont think he was meaning that is a penalty he applies (I'm basing that line of thought on the fact that he doesnt have any stars, meaning even if he is GMing, it isnt much), just a thought on how it could be handled.
As for Alexander's, I was taking that to mean that is who the NPC begins speaking to first. The NPC isnt going to automatically know who is the most diplomatic and go straight for them. They'll go to whoever it closest, the most physically attractive to them (gender based, not Cha based), most impressive looking, etc. I think it was supposed to be a starting point.