The issue comes when a player tries to play a character as if the dump stat didn't exist or shouldn't negatively impact on the game. They usually are the first to say their 'fun' is being impinged on when the reality is they are just pushing for an advantage.
The solution to this is to eliminate the advantage NOT to punish role play. So don't give any points for buying down stats, problem solved without hampering role play.
I wouldn't punish good role-playing, my experience is that the people most likely to dump stat and not accept it as a character flaw in their play are the ones least inclined to role play.
I notice the same thing. I think this really comes down to everyone having a different understanding of what role-playing is.
The issue comes when a player tries to play a character as if the dump stat didn't exist or shouldn't negatively impact on the game. They usually are the first to say their 'fun' is being impinged on when the reality is they are just pushing for an advantage.
I think the issue under debate was how MUST that negative impact be demonstrated? Does a character with a low Cha have to be described in all ways as lacking in any area that Cha is remotely related to, or is the fact that the low Cha score and its modifier effecting all Cha related checks enough of a negative impact? In either of these cases the negative impact is present.
Now if the player says they should be able to solely roleplay encounters and not have to make Cha checks, thus bypassing the mechanical disadvantage of the low stat, then that would be case of trying to avoid a negative impact, and I don't think anyone here as been arguing for that. Though I have seen it happen in other treads.
I think the issue under debate was how MUST that negative impact be demonstrated? Does a character with a low Cha have to be described in all ways as lacking in any area that Cha is remotely related to, or is the fact that the low Cha score and its modifier effecting all Cha related checks enough of a negative impact? In either of these cases the negative impact is present.
Haha. And we're back to prettiness. XD I see some possible outcomes of this topic:
A. Declare this a very silly topic, in the words of the beloved Monty Python. Make a stat named Comliness and Smexiness and be done with it, already! <bursts into singing 'Every Sperm is Sacred'>
B. Make how stats penalties and/or negatives are handled consistent across all stats.
A high Cha is comparable to a high Int score. For example, how often do we see it argued that a high-int should influence a PC's or creature's tactics and general abilities? The most famous of these examples is when you get a wizard or a dragon who "cannot lose" because they're just too smart.
Jacobs (I believe it was) commented that one of the best ways to simulate a high-Int PC or enemy was to metagame somewhat.
On the other end of the spectrum--ogres are kind of stupid (low Int), so they're less likely to think of complex tactics. The lack of more complex tactics is a penalty, yeah?
So, if a high stat (Int) gains some sort of bonus, then it follows that a negative stat (Int) would have a harder time, just like our ogre would.
Now, if we decide that a negative, or positive, Cha receives no bonus or penalty other than mechanical, then it should follow similarly for Int as well. That is, you need a common understanding of how stat bonuses and penalties work.
C. Numerical averages, anyone? Characters are constantly and invisibly making thousands of tiny rolls for everything, from social interaction to strategic planning. By having NPCs respond somewhat more negatively to a low-Cha PC, you could compare this to just taking the average and not bothering with the rolls.
In this case, simply declaring a more general: you tend to elicit more negative/mistrustful reactions from NPCs OR you tend to notice trends in enemies' tactics a little faster...
...is just saving time and headache because no one wants to make those thousands of little dice rolls.
Now, as a result of C, we could handwave...or have someone crunch some numbers, and say that: X% of the time, this NPC is allowed to have a negative reaction, and so on so that there are solid and measurable guidelines. The DM could keep a dry-erase board and cross off tally marks per encounter, etc. to be sure that it is absolutely fair.
D. Realise that if we're using option C, there may be trust or style issues between the player and DM. Meet and resolve over pizza.