Dedicated Social Characters

[stemfish]

Most modules have at least one point where the party needs to talk their way into something, out of trouble, get information, bluff, or some other social related skill. More often than not, the character at the table with the highest charisma modifier is expected to fit that role and be the talker for the party. This can be fine, if you play a bard, you're creating a character who is designed around talking, but what about people who take charisma based characters, whom don't want to be the face?

I had a new player join with us for his first session of PFS, and he came to the table with a blaster sorc. We got through the first part of the adventure, and got to a town where the party had to find out where the next clue was. The sorc didn't put any ranks into diplomacy, and two of the other three players began to question his decisions. When he said that he simply didn't like being the leader of the party, they continued to question why he would play a charisma based character, if he didn't plan on being the 'face' of the party. One went as far as to say, 'Any character with a high charisma will be the leader of the party. If you don't think you can do that, then you shouldn't be playing a charisma based character.' As DM I was able to get the party to roleplay it out in character without needing an actual diplomacy roll for gather information and move past the issue as best I could (skipping one scene entirely as it was nothing but a set of social rolls in a row), but it left a sour taste in everyone's mouth for the rest of the session.

Afterward, my friend asked me if it was too late to change up his character. We talked it over, and he decided that if he was going to go through this every time he wanted to play, then he just didn't want to be a charisma sorc, instead he'd turn the sorc into a wizard. But I don't like this decision, as he's pretty much off of charisma based classes. I also talked to the other players and went over how they were getting on his case for no reason - similar to people who get angry at clerics who do anything besides healing - as it wasn't what he wanted to do. If he needed to make a skill check he would, but that they shouldn't tell him what to do as either a person or character.

So, any advice on how to help out players who want to play charisma based characters, but not be forced to roleplay for the group?

[Mahtobedis]

I think both groups of people are being a little bit silly.

On the one hand a person should play to their characters strengths. A high charisma character will generally be better at talking to people than a low charisma character. Unless, of course, the lower charisma characters have invested a great deal into social abilities and the charisma character has not.

One of a charisma based characters strengths is interacting with people. I do not think it is anymore unreasonable to expect a charisma based character to talk to people when needed than it is to expect a Str based fighter to hit things really hard when the party needs them to.

On the other hand a player should also consider their strengths and play to them. If a player if very good at analyzing a situation tactically then maybe they should consider play a controller fighter or a wizard.

I am not saying a player should play only to their strengths. Sometimes it is a lot of fun to play to your weakness. I have personally have a hard time playing the moral lawful character in a group. My last three characters have been very moral honorable people.

It seems to me that what happened is the player in question wanted to play a very flashy blasting character who isn't as interested in talking to people as he is in blowing them up. To do this he played a sorcerer and incidentally also wound up having potential to be the party face.

I think that it is foolish for the player playing the blaster to ignore an entire area for his character to shine. I think that he should be prepared to interact with people if that is what the party needs. Could even be an opportunity to grow as a role player. However I also think it is his choice. If does not want to play his character that way the other players need to butt out and let the sorcerer's player make the decisions and play his character the way he wants. As long as he does not break the, don't be a jerk rule.

My advice to character who want to play charisma based characters but don't want to roleplay for the group is the following.

1: Roleplay for the group? Excuse me the group should roleplay for itself.

2: Explain to the group that you do not feel comfortable being the face for the party. But that you will help as you can.

3: Take advantage of the assist rules to let another player do most of the heavy roleplay and be primary on the check. Naturally you will still have to contribute a bit to this. I have personally done this more than once.

[Matteo Falcone]

Two facets of this come to the fore:

1. That a player, especially a new player or one trying the PC class for the first time, should not be required by a GM or other players to create a character based on their expectations. This process makes each new player a robot or a puppet. Circumstances and experience in play will draw out worthwhile PC development or perhaps discourage the character design that is too inefficient. PFS is about character building with creative and diverse players. Simply asking of the new player, "What will be fun for you?" may work best and then guiding them toward choices.

2. That a GM or other player giving best advice is not a bad thing, it just can get overbearing, even to the point of bullying, which should not be tolerated at a PFS table. Bullying in my view implies threat of exclusion or ridicule by a GM or other players. Often out of game suggestions on improving charater development work best. PFS is not played only by 'professional' gamers. PFS is about team building with the resources you have at the table.

[Caderyn]

I dont think people would ever let my paladin be the lead in social situations except when they have gotten themselves into trouble and he has to bail them out.

Honestly you have the choice of being a social character if you have cha as a primary stat but it should never be assumed just because someone has the highest diplomacy/intimidate/bluff modifer that they should automatically be the prime talker in negotations.

I would like him to be willing to interject in conversations with either diplomacy or imtimidate based conversation to allow him to aid another to assist the guy who is taking the lead. (we generally have a rule that unless you are actually talking you cannot aid another in social situations)

[redward]

I can see both sides: on the one hand, they're jerks for telling him how he should build and play his character. On the other hand, they're hypocrites for assuming someone else will pick up the social skills slack for them and then berating him for doing the same.

[Dust Raven]

Questioning why a high charisma character hasn't put ranks into Diplomacy and other "face" skills is like questioning why a high dexterity character hasn't taken Dervish Dance and a scimitar. There is no "right" build and definitely no "if you have A, then you must have B & C." A high charisma sorcerer doesn't have to put ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy any more than a high dexterity monk must put ranks in disable device and sleight of hand.

[Paz]

Looking at this purely from a game mechanics POV, sorcerers get 2+Int mod skill points per level (with no assumption of a high Int), and don't have Diplomacy as a class skill. They'll probably want to put several ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana). Based on that, it's a little foolish for a so-called experienced player to make the assumption that a sorcerer will be an accomplished face character.

[Sarta]

Yup, he's fully in the right to spend his skill points however he wishes. He certainly is not required to shore up the shortcomings of the rest of the table.

High Charisma characters are not necessarily diplomatic. This is why diplomacy is not even a class skill for sorcerers.

So, if he simply turns to the rest of the party and says,"I have the blood of < heroes / dragons / whatever > flowing through my body. I do not mingle with riff raff." He'd be perfectly justified.

[Jiggy]

stemfish wrote:

If you don't think you can do that, then you shouldn't be playing a charisma based character.

At my table, if you say this then you can consider yourself on probation. One more instance of telling someone else what they should/shouldn't play, and you're gone.

[Fromper]

Agreed with Jiggy. Nobody should be telling others how they should play their character.

And as Paz pointed out, diplomacy isn't even a class skill for sorcerers, which is a skill starved class to begin with. Only two skill ranks per level, and intelligence is a possible dump stat.

I have two sorcerer PCs for PFS. One is a pathological liar with bluff as his only trained social skill. He's always happy to be the party face, but the party doesn't always want him to be.

The other is my borderline evil Sczarni character. She's technically true neutral alignment, but I think of her as "neutral evil waiting to happen". She usually just intimidates people into giving her what she wants. But she also has a rank in bluff, mostly so she can lie to her fellow Pathfinders about being a team player and caring about the Society, when she really just wants power for herself.

So would those players be mad at me for not having a single skill rank in diplomacy with either of my sorcerers?

[Mergy]

I think these bossy players need to be educated in what don't be a jerk means. It doesn't mean berating someone for not fulfilling what YOU ASSUME is their role.

[Off in the Shower]

They should be told what they did was wrong and why.

They should not be told that what they did breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule. That rule can be interpreted in too many different ways.

[redward]

Off in the Shower wrote:

They should be told what they did was wrong and why.

They should not be told that what they did breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule. That rule can be interpreted in too many different ways.

I would say that me telling someone that their character should be covering for my character's deficiency is me unequivocally being a jerk.

[Off in the Shower]

Not to the three people at the table who made the Sorcerer feel like they were doing something wrong. To them it only made sense.

Hence the need for actual rules as opposed to aphorisms.

[Imper1um]

The people who were saying that every CHA-based character should be the "face" were being selfish. Some people don't like to be the face. I understand that, and, unfortunately, it happens that players a like this: they have preconceptions that characters should fit basic roles based on their class decisions; Cleric- Healer, Wizard- Knowledge Monkey/Nuker, Barbarian- Pure Tank, etc. I've seen some very creative builds that completely "break the mold" of their class, and they have awesome characters.

The DM was completely in his authority to call upon the "Don't be a Jerk" rule, allowing for dismissal, or the shutting up of the offenders.

[Matthew Morris]

Off in the Shower wrote:

Not to the three people at the table who made the Sorcerer feel like they were doing something wrong. To them it only made sense.

Hence the need for actual rules as opposed to aphorisms.

It is impossible to 'rule' everything. Basically it comes down to "Do you want someone to tell you 'you're not doing it right?' No? Then stop being a jerk."

It's like with our local group. We were talking classes, it was suggested I take a level of cleric for Dex, for the cleric/inquisitor synergy that can come from channel smite. Um, no. I want to play and inquisitor. Taking a level of cleric defeats that for me.

We had a monk who has an AC in the 30's at like 4th/fifth level (some mix of feats and crane style.) He gets ignored because he does piddly damage with a small chance to get hit. He almost lost the monk to a fireball. (no evasion) Suggesting he might want to start focusing on offense is fine. Telling him that his monk is 'wrong' isn't.

Same thing above. From my read, the other players were telling him he was doing it wrong. Not suggesting "You know, a little diplomacy might go a long way." It's like expecting Talyn to be a master trapsmith because he has a level of rogue, or Rey to be the face of the party because he's a sorcerer. Talyn's a skirimsher, not a trapsmith. Rey's a sage bloodline sorcerer.

To the original poster. You might suggest that the sorcerer player look at the sageblood sorcerer or another alt-stat-casting archtype. Find out what he wants to play. (Or have him message on the boards, and hopefully he won't have too many jerks answer. :-)

[redward]

What they did wrong was be a bunch of jerks. The rule they broke was don't be a jerk. What they need to know is that they're not entitled to:
Healing
XP
PP

[tlotig]

Suggest that if they are so keen for him to have social skills that he puts a rank in intimidate. much more fun

[Drogos]

tlotig wrote:

Suggest that if they are so keen for him to have social skills that he puts a rank in intimidate. much more fun

Indeed. Intimidate is just Diplomacy with lower DCs...at least for a little while <veg>

[Mergy]

Intimidate is even easier if you cast enlarge person first. Easy +4, +5 if you have Intimidating Prowess! :D