|
I'm planning ahead to the next campaign, and in it I hope to bring the spirit of the game closer to its roots using "the most important rule": THIS IS YOUR GAME. My singular criticism of Pathfinder is not novel: system mastery is superior. Players who master the system have a superior advantage for in-game contribution (combat, skills, solving problems using abilities) over those who do not OR choose to build characters based on concept.
Given that 1/2 my players can recall 1st/2nd edition, and 1/2 have no clue, I'm looking for those magic words to convey (remind?) my players that it's the teamwork, the player ingenuity, and the story that matters, not how mechanically well-built a character can be. I'm tired of seeing everyone have the Trait "reactionary," the feat "improved initiative," and no one ever dreaming of taking an archetype or style that doesn't have a distinct combat benefit. I feel my game has lost its flavor, that we don't have characters in a great story contributing to a fantastic fictional experience but rather walking stat blocks.
I don't feel "burned out," but I want to "cure" where I think we've strayed from what could be an amazing experience. What do I say?
|
I'm not sure what to say, but some of it may depend on the kind of campaign you're running? Are you creating a full homebrew world? Or running an AP? If the later I recommend trying full homebrew that allows you off the tracks (so to speak) that only allow you to complete tasks with specific skills. Either way I recommend rewarding players in creative ways (the Plot Twist deck by Paizo is a great way to do this). Possibly preface your next campaign with a strong flavor text that will get your system mastery players thinking outside the box (I. E. My next campaign will be set in a water/lava/social/forest heavy area). Alternatively state flat out that unique character concepts will be rewarded more in the next campaign, and that min/max characters will be at a disadvantage. If the players ask how/why be vague and mysterious about it.
Also, if I may recommend taking a page from the Pathfinder Society rules: allow players to readjust all their first level selections upon hitting level 2 and take that first level as an opportunity to show the players how a system mastery character will not be as involved or have as much fun and nudge them in the right direction to, say, have a cleric take a point in swim rather than perception. Give all your monsters improved Initiative so that the players who pick that see they're not usually going first so maybe they take a different feat. Or don't let the high CHR character walk in and diplomacy everything into submission so they think about maybe taking some points in some other skills.
Just some thoughts about adjusting the campaign to get the players more in line with what you're hoping they do. But really if this is their game they're probably doing what they want with their game.
|
I would HOPE that the game isn't a novel. Novels are pretty fun to read but they are quite boring to PLAY. When everything is scripted to happen a certain way despite any input from the player...then there is no point to even bother. Write your novel and I'll read it when your done.
Now for the second aspect...nothing says you can't have BOTH. Seriously. One of the MAJOR perks of having high system mastery is that I can play in games with utterly crap concepts and STILL make them work out okay in most games that aren't tweaked to level 11 to handled characters that are tweaked to level 11.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Switch gaming systems.
Seriously the d20 system rewards game mastery and after being with quite a few players who didn't bother reading the rules and aquiring a basing understanding (action economy) of the system deserve to have their characters suck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop responding to their system mastery.
If you want to induce a different behavior, stop incentivising the unwanted one and reward the wanted one.
Don't reward roleplaying with dry XP or gold awards. That's re-engaging rules use and putting the focus back in the meta-game. Reward roleplaying with success in a broader sense- more attention at the table, more enthusiasm in your reactions and expressions, allies they can call on, ties to in-game organizations, information on something from their backstory. Maybe commission a picture of the character doing something cool that wasn't a routine use of the rules (emphasize something they did that was important to the character, not something generic to a dungeon crawl, like beating a tough but nondescript challenge).
Pay more and better attention to the people who are doing the things you want and make sure it pays off from their perspective. This doesn't mean actively punishing the others, but it does mean making it obvious that they are missing out by not engaging in the same behavior, inviting them to do it, and then rewarding them when they do.
Things I do that cut down on narrative staleness:
During the game, I ask for detail about how they are doing things. Not drawing out whole paragraphs, but I don't let them get by with "I attack" or "I use diplomacy." They always have to frame what they are doing clearly in the game world. If their description tags something unique about the narrative situation that gives them a bonus, I tell them that and give a bit of flourish to the result. They'll pay more attention to the situation and their in-game surroundings, and from there it's a short jump to getting emotionally invested in the story.
When prepping backstory, I ask people to come up with two things I can use as mini-quests for their specific character, as well as at least one ally and one enemy they know of. This gives me more material for adventures, and gives them a sense of shaping the world as it relates to them. (The ally usually was either a planned cohort or a potential backup character, but that still made them think about continuity, which is also important.)
I stopped running a "killer" game. This is probably important for players of the early editions- if they see the game as likely to kill off their character, they can't work up the will to make a detailed and nuanced concept. There isn't a point. For the level of development you are asking for, you need a sense of continuity and that your investment will pay off. The "ally" approach above helps with this a little, but you do need to find ways to preserve the risk in the game without making investing in character concepts pointless. A lot of old-school gamers thrive on the thrill of risk and equate it to death- cultivate other sources of failure and make those just as thrilling.
I offered advice on how to tighten up concept-driven character stats. When people approached their characters from a narrative angle, I showed them what rules they could use to represent those things best in the system. Seems contradictory, but this brought our lines of thought closer together, and showed them that thinking story-first doesn't equate to being "inefficient," which made them less averse to the idea. It also gave me ideas on what kinds of scenarios and events could showcase their abilities, meaning that they ended up more successful in the game afterwards for having done so. It also acts as "attention reinforcement."
I would HOPE that the game isn't a novel. Novels are pretty fun to read but they are quite boring to PLAY. When everything is scripted to happen a certain way despite any input from the player...then there is no point to even bother. Write your novel and I'll read it when your done.
I don't think anyone is referring to things being pre-scripted or not giving the players the ability to choose their fates. If anything, it seems to be concern that the players aren't showing any interest in making choices- just playing the same successful builds, in the same efficient way, over and over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I "mastered" 3.5 and all it got me was a constant nagging at the back of my brain to double and triple check everything I do in my groups PF game every time I roll a die. Most of the time, that nagging is right and I'm doing things wrong, and winding up with a bad play experience.
So, forget system mastery. Go with a concept, and just search for options that fit that concept. That's what I'm doing from now on. I refuse to look up crazy feat/trait combos and other crap, just give me what fits my idea and I'm happy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add to Parka's first comment, create interesting ways to deliver bonuses to the PCs that their generic magic items would. NPC boons, unique wonderous items, magic rituals or holy sites are all good ideas. Would your PC rather have a Cloak of Resistance +1 or have a C Good nixie reward them by having an (ahem) "encounter" with them in a magic spring which bolsters their mind, body and spirit for the challenges ahead...and gives them a +1 to their saves?
I don't know if there's a magic phrase you can sum up the theme of your campaign with; if you find one let me know b/cause I'm often in the EXACT same boat. The only thing I've found to help is by actively engaging my players and encouraging the behaviors and playstyle I'm looking for.
That being said, I had to quit my old tactics-heavy gaming group for a while and seek out new players. 2 of these new players were already of the mindset I was looking for and as such I've found that while GMing I tend to physically look at them more, talk over things with them and I toss out arbitrary +2's or +4's for their roleplay. Ironically one of the old tactics guys came with me to this new game and by the clever incorporation of just enough combat I've managed to coax him out of his shell. He now routinely describes how his character (a functioning alcaholic dwarf fighter) takes a shot from his hip flask to punctuate his points in roleplay.
Bottom line you're talking about a social/emotional issue. You'll have to address it at that level.
|
|
Thought about it and posted the following to my group:
From AD&D, 1978: there’s nothing quite like a successful D&D campaign, and while the DM is pivotal, it’s the players and their conduct and outlook that makes a game magical.
The greatest strength and weakness of 3rd Edition and Pathfinder is that “system mastery” overshadows ingenuity, that the system is designed to reward superior character creation using mastery of system rules over creative concepts. Superior mastery of the rules can give players the edge over other players in combat and solving skill-based encounters, which generally comprise at least half or more of any given game. On the other hand, the system has given the freedom to design character concepts like never before. In 1st/2nd edition, there wasn't much difference between a 7th level Fighter and 11th level Fighter except perhaps the gear they carried. Take away the gear and the advantage went to the player with greater ingenuity. Hence, many tournament-style modules at conventions would be written to test player savvy, not their stat blocks, and they awarded points for role-play. Today, we have a good mix of success that can be generated from both a stat-build and clever play, and role-play never goes out of style.
Ask 4th Edition gamers why not Pathfinder, and often it's the above criticism. Ask Pathfinder players why not 4E, and you might get a version of the above that we love options even if unbalanced. As for me, the Pathfinder products are top-notch, and that makes a big difference whatever system is played.
Now that we've been through the beta, are 80% through a Paizo adventure path, and looking into a future one, I conclude they're not designed to require system mastery. I've identified a few "broken" aspects of the game that run the risk of trivializing encounters and rendering contributions of other players superfluous. It's our game, so we'll toss those rules and patch some new ones in place. So in the next campaign, feel free to let your imaginations run wild as to the character you'll play. Read the cultures I've posted, get into your character. Don't worry about your stats and instead look into style. Explore how your outlook will make the next campaign even more magical and lead us to epic stories in and out of the game. Try out your minotaur voice, be theatrical, be humorous. Play an Abjuration Wizard because you like the idea of using magic against itself and ignore "player guides" that tell you it's an inferior choice. Be fearless in describing how your character facing down a wolf growls back. Be unafraid to call over a tavern wench to regale with your latest exploits and a song. Fix up your house, not because it gets you anything but because you like tapestries of elven picnics and anyone who tells you otherwise can take a long walk off a short pier. In short, don't rely on the GM, the system, or the rules to make the game magical. THIS IS YOUR GAME!!!
I believe in a very direct approach. I told the players for my current Skull & Shackles campaign that I wanted, "Tier two characters, if measured on a three-tier system," and assured them that I would scale challenges appropriately.
They gave me exactly what I asked for. The less expert players did so by building the best they could within concept, and the more experienced players used it as an opportunity to play weaker concepts that they would typically avoid.
What is system mastery exactly? The ability to min/max well? Or simply knowledge of the rules? One does not necessarily have anything to do with the other, you know.
I am currently playing this guy, for example. Everything I've ever read on these boards indicates that he is a TERRIBLE fighter.
---
Whirlwind attack? Do you enjoy getting surrounded and beaten to a pulp? You should be focus firing!
Spring Attack? Do you have any idea what that does to your DPR? You'll never kill anything that way.
No Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization? Don't you know that the best defense is a good offense?
Only 20 AC, for a front line fighter, who apparently likes to get surrounded? How'd you ever get this far?
14 Intelligence? What are you going to do, read your enemies to death? You're a fighter! Act like one!
---
Whirlwind attack lets me attack as many as 32 different people, all at my highest attack bonus. Most of the time, it's more like 2-4, but that's still pretty awesome. The fact that I can trip AND disarm ALL of them gives my fighter some serious battlefield control.
Spring Attack means I not only excel at swarms of enemies, but I can really mess with singular big enemies whose damage potential comes from their ability to full attack. Reach? Not a problem for this guy.
WF/WS, really aren't as necessary as people think. Monsters didn't get a big upgrade from D&D to Pathfinder, but fighters DID. Abilities like Weapon Training make additional attack/damage bonuses from other sources a secondary concern.
The below average AC allows me to tank effectively. Yes, that's right, tank. I can draw enemies to me and away from my fellows quite readily, all the better to mess them up. They come at me head on instead of realizing that I am unhittable and trying to work their way around me. If I need it, I have Combat Expertise and fighting defensively to increase my AC.
My above average intelligence allows me to better learn about my foes and find out about their weaknesses. It also gives me a greater variety of skills which help keep me engaged with the story when we are not in combat. The increased opportunities for fun should be obvious here.
In short, despite everything everyone has ever said about the MANY trap options my character has, it nevertheless remains (1) the most fun I've ever had playing a fighter and (2) is one of the more broken fighter builds my fellow players have ever seen.
He's versatile, powerful, and fun.
Yet, people who don't know me would look at this character and probably think "what a newb!" She clearly hasn't mastered the system.
It's all perspective and play styles, really. A powerhouse in one game might be a flowermouse in another. Demonstrating system mastery to great effect in one group might only diminish everyone's fun in another.
Anyone touting "system mastery" are full of themselves. There's too much variety in this game for it to ever really be "mastered." You might be a "master" of your group, but never the game*.
Building a character based on concept does not exclude the application of system mastery.
Yawn... Another forum community reply ignoring an OP's request by dismissing his need. Entirely unhelpful.
Building a character based on concept does not exclude the application of system mastery.Yawn... Another forum community reply ignoring an OP's request by dismissing his need. Entirely unhelpful.
What is his need?
His OP is essentially "This combat focused game rewards people who know how to play the game too much. =(".
How should I respond to that beyond "Iunno. Tell your players to just make up some interesting characters without feeling like I'm going to screw you if you don't optimize."?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Marcy!
This thread makes me think of all the parents who foolishly think that every child should be a winner. If everyone is a winner, than there is nothing left to strive for. As a result, everyone loses.
You know Ravingdork you would have a hayday in my upcoming campaign...
|
|
I would HOPE that the game isn't a novel. Novels are pretty fun to read but they are quite boring to PLAY. When everything is scripted to happen a certain way despite any input from the player...then there is no point to even bother. Write your novel and I'll read it when your done.I don't think anyone is referring to things being pre-scripted or not giving the players the ability to choose their fates. If anything, it seems to be concern that the players aren't showing any interest in making choices- just playing the same successful builds, in the same efficient way, over and over.
If it isn't pre-scripted and fates already decided, it's not a novel...those are kind of the defining things of what makes a novel a novel.
|
|
Explore how your outlook will make the next campaign even more magical and lead us to epic stories in and out of the game. Try out your minotaur voice, be theatrical, be humorous. Play an Abjuration Wizard because you like the idea of using magic against itself and ignore "player guides" that tell you it's an inferior choice. Be fearless in describing how your character facing down a wolf growls back. Be unafraid to call over a tavern wench to regale with your latest exploits and a song. Fix up your house, not because it gets you anything but because you like tapestries of elven picnics and anyone who tells you otherwise can take a long walk off a short pier. In short, don't rely on the GM, the system, or the rules to make the game magical. THIS IS YOUR GAME!!!
So you want theater majors as players only then? Not all players are comfortable with this level of immersion. I like games with such level of immersion...but finding others who do is pretty dang hard. I like making little details about how my wizard's books is bound or what jacket my bard has on or building a home. I don't do voices...because I suck at them, but I like immersion. I have too accept that many players and DM do not. If that is what you want, you have two options...either convince your players to do it your way (good luck with that)...or find new players who are more your style (good luck with that as well). The better option is to just accept your friends for the kind of gamer they are and have fun hanging out with your friends and rolling some dice and eating Cheetos and drinking mountain dew.
This thread makes me think of all the parents who foolishly think that every child should be a winner. If everyone is a winner, than there is nothing left to strive for. As a result, everyone loses.
Everything reminds you of that.
"People just want to play fantasy superheroes instead of using spreadsheets to max out DPR? That's like those jerks who took away my dodgeball!"
e: I like the implication that the point of RPG's is to beat your friends by memorizing more sourcebooks than they do, thus proving that you are the most
To the OP:
What about starting a campaign like Skull & Shackles, that just calls for a whole different type of experience than a dungeon crawl or city adventure? THIS IS YOUR GAME is about as true as it can get when your PCs have their own jolly pirate club with jolly pirate nickames, plus, they are on a boat, with a big blue watery road where they can just be about whatever man
Also I was a theatre major but I still get my damn trophy when I get my back up about it, so I am not sure what to think about the undertone of this whole role vs. roll thing
I like participation ribbons but dang man there is just something even better about winning
I had a player who wanted to play a half giant who dual-wielded double hackbuts as a level 10 character, using them with the leaping shot deed to make 4 attacks at his highest base attack bonus. He did a lot of multiclassing to tune his character to the flavor he wanted, and went into really extreme detail about his equipment, background and appearance.
I had to examine a lot of the rules he tried to exploit. At the end of the day, he was outputting a lot less damage than a pouncing two-hander barbarian I built, so I told him that as GM I had two things to say about his character.
I told him that the first thing was that, as GM, I thought his rules interpretation was wrong and that the rules as written did not support the concept he was going for. The second thing was that, as GM, I was going to allow his concept to work.
A lot of experienced players are used to building monstrous characters to protect themselves and their characters from having a bad time due to the whims of DMs who don't want them to be able to accomplish feats of awesome. Encourage avant guard awesomeness and let your players know you'll work with them to make options they think should be viable into actual viable options and see what happens.
Thats my advice anyway.
Archo reminded me of a good point: let your players be what they want and they might surprise you.
I have a player who loves DPR types and loves "winning" at Pathfinder. A couple campaigns ago I took the reins and challenged him to grow with an unusual build. He chose a healbot cleric, got bored after a couple games, and the campaign flamed out. Then we re-started and I challenged him again. He made a Dex barbarian with int and cha as dump stats but still didn't quite have the tactics he wanted; he got bored after a few more games this time and the campaign flamed out.
This last time we rebooted I said make whatever. He surprised me by making his DPR fighter but also a 2nd character - a maneuver monk. He min/maxed that guy too and both were the most well-optimized characters I've ever seen. Even the monk was a powerhouse so long as he won initiative (which usually happened).
Between always landing someone on their back and having the unbridled power to take out at least one guy a round in any combat, I noticed something interesting: my player was really amped to play and happy to go along with or even lead so called "talky" scenes of the game. I asked him about it and he said now that he had the numbers he wanted he felt confident to try anything, take chances.
I'm not saying this works all the time but it did re-affirm to me that with SOME players their roleplaying ratchets up alongside their optimization, not inverse to it. Just thought I'd mention; carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
good lord roberta the sarcasm from that e: is dripping down onto my previous post
also mark hoover, regarding winning:
man, there are just some games that are like that
I have touched on it before in other threads, but some tables I sit at for the GM vs. Us pure challenge and others I sit at for just pure fun with my droogs
as long as my GM and I can hug it out afterward I do not see it as any different than exchanging teeth with someone on a rugby pitch and just getting twisted on some cervezas with them afterwards, all singing songs and drinking beer out of shoes like it never happened
now I will hang with you in that if you bring that winning mentality to a table that is just looking to have the most fun possible, well, it will probably cause a large issue in that you are making it less fun for just about erryone else there
One way my DM counters system mastery (which he hates) is having house rules that make certain rulesets and systems pointless. So in order to incentivize people from making a fighter who cranks out as many attacks as possible, everyone from day 1 gets iterative attacks, albeit at penalties. Now, the fighter still has an edge in combat (as he can still hit pretty effectively on his iterative), but the rest of the party isn't feeling useless in combat. Now, the fighter knows he doesn't have to make a high STR fighter ext time to contribute to combat.
Also, to limit system mastery, the DM only allows things that make sense. So if I wanted to multiclass a magus and a witch to get the defiler build, I'd have to RP the transition, and do things that would get me noticed by a witch patron. He also offers us forks in the road when it comes time to level, for example my dirty trick using fighter gets spoken to by Iomedae after a particularly tough battle (right before I level up), and she urges me to turn my combat prowess to a more righteous fight. Ta da, now my dirty tricks fighter can multiclass into a paladin, or an inquisitor, or a cleric, or turn his back on a GODDESS. Sometimes he uses this to expose people to other options, but if someone decides they want to go Ninja after 4 levels of Monk, they have to find a ninja school, convince them to train them, and go through the training before you take your first ninja level. This makes builds blending classes to min-max labourious, and possible to fail.
TLDR: You don't reduce system mastery via turning people away from the rules, but you make the rules into the story, or skew the rules so as to make optimization sub-optimal :)
|
|
My first foray into system mastery is contained in an old post, summarized here:
The player returned and since has been awesome, building a character uniquely tied to the campaign that isn't running in elite-no-teamwork-needed mode. The other players took a bad lesson from the past campaign, though, and (it's obvious) aren't asking themselves if their feats, traits, skills, and so on are tied to the campaign theme or enhancing a character's personality. Instead, it seems the first question asked is if it provides the maximum benefit to combat.
With that history in mind, I'm looking for the mojo speech or actions to sway the others to go for flavor, even at the cost of being a little less awesome than they could be by the math. It's clicked for one of my players without having to say a thing (see spoiler).
@Lamontius: coincidentlly enough the return player invested in Skulls & Shackles, wonder if it's a subtle hint for me...
If all else fails, might have to go with "make up some interesting characters without feeling like I'm going to screw you if you don't optimize."
I'm planning ahead to the next campaign, and in it I hope to bring the spirit of the game closer to its roots using "the most important rule": THIS IS YOUR GAME. My singular criticism of Pathfinder is not novel: system mastery is superior. Players who master the system have a superior advantage for in-game contribution (combat, skills, solving problems using abilities) over those who do not OR choose to build characters based on concept.
Given that 1/2 my players can recall 1st/2nd edition, and 1/2 have no clue, I'm looking for those magic words to convey (remind?) my players that it's the teamwork, the player ingenuity, and the story that matters, not how mechanically well-built a character can be. I'm tired of seeing everyone have the Trait "reactionary," the feat "improved initiative," and no one ever dreaming of taking an archetype or style that doesn't have a distinct combat benefit. I feel my game has lost its flavor, that we don't have characters in a great story contributing to a fantastic fictional experience but rather walking stat blocks.
I don't feel "burned out," but I want to "cure" where I think we've strayed from what could be an amazing experience. What do I say?
Look up Dragon Age from Green Ronin
you will not be disappointed
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all else fails, might have to go with "make up some interesting characters without feeling like I'm going to screw you if you don't optimize."
Well apparently it was a better line than I thought.
I would suggest that GM's get the players they deserve. Most players build their characters based on what they will encounter, or at least what they think they will encounter . If all you are running and giving XP for is fighting then that is what the players are going to focus on. If you start giving XP out for other things especially as bonus's then maybe your players will start thinking of other things besides combat.
Also in order to create a character that fits a concept a certain amount of system mastery is essential. Let's say your concept is a swashbuckling swordsman straight out of the three musketeers. You want to be able to out fight multiple opponent but still have some social skills. So you decided to create a rogue because he gets lots of skills, but don't even pick up weapon finesse. Pretty soon you are going to find that your character does not match the concept. You try and save the lady, but are easily defeated by the BBEG minions. You would have been better off going fighter with a decent INT for the skills and using traits and feats to get your skills up.
What you really need to do is to sit down with your players and together decided what kind of campaign you want to have. You are the GM but the players are just as important. Let them know what besides combat they can expect to see. When a GM gives me some clues as to what is going to be a focus of the campaign I will build my character to that. After they players have created their characters follow up on what you said. Optimization is more than just combat effectiveness.
What you really need to do is to sit down with your players and together decided what kind of campaign you want to have. You are the GM but the players are just as important. Let them know what besides combat they can expect to see. When a GM gives me some clues as to what is going to be a focus of the campaign I will build my character to that. After they players have created their characters follow up on what you said. Optimization is more than just combat effectiveness.
This. Seconded.
I have never run an AP. I have read a couple however and played one adventure from one of them. From this plus what others have said on these forums I gather that the campaign guides and other player aids to these campaigns give you a good idea as a player of what kinds of threats/challenges you'll be facing.
You might not play an urban face type in Kingmaker; you know your ranger in Carion Crown would be well served to take undead as a favored enemy; a cavelier probably wouldn't work in Skull & Shackles (I'm guessing; that one I only know is about pirates).
As such, if you're homebrewing, you should have the same conversation w/your players that these guides/aids establish. If your homebrew then will involve a lot of roleplay, social challenges and an occasional combat with, say, singular multi-attack baddies, then playing a Power Attack/Cleave/Great Cleave minion-killer barbarian would be frustrating for all parties, while a more advantageous build might be an oracle of time with a lot of Cha-based skills.
On the flip, just because you are a player that's good at running the numbers and finding what combos maximize your concept that doesn't have to make for a bad experience at the table, for either the GM or the other players. Your play style will be your play style, regardless of how optimized your character is.
I played alongside a player who ran a paladin. This guy was a decked as a MAD build can be, plus had optimized even his gear so that he'd always come up aces in a fight. However our first scene was our party infiltrating a festival to gather information and this BA asks "are the townsfolk wearing armor, carrying weapons, or otherwise blending with how I appear?" The GM replies no and he promptly gets out of his armor, stows his weapons and walks out into one of the best RP scenes I've ever seen.
He talked to the NPCs in the crowd, genuinely listening to them, engaging the GM and creating a real presence and image for his paladin. Later he utilized some of the info to do some minor deeds around town, gain the trust of the townsfolk and just genuinely roleplayed having a high charisma and being a likable guy. But he wasn't doing that SPECIFICALLY because of his build; he just really wanted to play the paladin as likeable.
Some players are lumps that like beating on goblins. Some players are theater majors. Most fall somewhere in between. Engage your players, open an honest dialogue with them and find out if your vision and theirs can find a middle ground. Then run THAT game, and you'll all be happier.