| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I learned from this thread is that if you aren't playing a Paladin, a 3rd party class that makes all your stats valuable in a way that doesn't make you MAD, or a full caster who didn't need to dump any stats then you are a dirty mongrelman whos awkward and terrible to be around.
Woah woah woah hold the phone Phoebus. Just because I disagree with your perspective doesn't mean I want to remove the element of roleplaying/describing what the character is doing from the game.In the types of games I run and in the way I play my own characters, the description and immersion in the character is critical. I don't give a damn what your stats are, to me they don't matter. What matters is what you've chosen your character to be, and how you play that role.
Whether Cha is 5 or 25 doesn't matter to anything except the modifier to success on certain tasks, what matters is that you create a character and then immerse yourself in that role.
I'm glad immersion is critical to you. I think that's an integral part of the game as well. At the end of the day, though, I personally can't reconcile with your view - that Ability Scores don't matter with regards to the concept of a character.
Each ability "partially describes your character and affects some of his actions." Strength, for instance, "measures muscle and physical power." How is that measured? Through the score, obviously, which ranges from 3 to 18 before racial modifiers are applied. The higher that ability score, the more "muscle and physical power" your character has. Nor does that "muscle and physical power" amount to a mere modifier to a d20 roll. It determines, for instance, how much weight you can lift, carry, etc. A character with a Strength of 18 can demonstrably lift, carry, etc., more weight than a character with a Strength of 5. The ability score matters.
You, as a player, are given broad liberties to determine how exactly that ability score translates to your character's concept. Maybe your Strength 18 means that your character is a mountain of a man, possessing the classic type of sheer power. Or maybe he's a short, barrel-chested strongman with a low center of gravity. It's your choice. Either way, that character and a character with a Strength of 5 are not the same. The latter one may very well have a ridiculous Climb skill and reach the same peak as your unskilled strongman, but all that just means that he's an exceptional climber - not strong.
Please don't take this as me saying you can't do whatever you want in your game. That's the last thing on my mind. It seems as if we're discussing what is actually stated in Chapter One of the Core Rulebook... and in that sense you'll excuse me if I respectfully disagree with your argument. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A character with dumped physical stats can't look like an athlete.
A good friend of mine as a teenager was a model. Her build was reminiscent of a dancer or gymnast. She had the physical prowess of a wet spaghetti noodle, and was only half as coordinated, but it was fun playing DDR with her.
oh the nightmares created of a PC who played an 8 year old girl with 20 strength...
Or maybe my Strength 18 (Possibly +2 Racial for a total of 20) is on a 4'9 sub-100 pounds Seventeen year old female Human Fighter without the slightest hint of muscle definition.
I can't say she lacks the slightest hint of muscle definition but miss Abbot isn't particularly large and her frame/muscle definition isn't she-hulk levels by any means.
I recently made a psychic monk and rolled for height/weight and rolled minimum, so she's a physical front-liner who's 4'7 and weighs 95 lbs.
No. Wrong. Objectively wrong. It's amusing that you think you have the authority to tell others how to role play when you don't the system itself. If we have say a tenth level guy who put a rank in Diplomacy each level but started with a 5 charisma, he will be superior in social interaction to a 20 charisma fellow who neglected that skill.
Absolutely. Just like an otherwise unimpressive high school graduate who happened to pass a Physics (and retained some of the curriculum) is superior in mathematics to a naturally brilliant individual who never attended school.
According to your logic, the high charisma people who don't put ranks in diplomacy "should" role play like spasses.
Of course not. There's a difference between being naturally likeable and captivating, and possessing training in conflict resolution, negotiations, speech-writing, etc.
Yeah, you usually don't get strong people with zero muscle definition IRL except instances of Stout Strength (although some people can be 'wirey' skinny strong with comparatively little muscle definition.)
That aside though, this is a fantasy game, where things aren't always as they appear. Fiction is littered with people who appear harmless but are capable far beyond their appearance.
Rurouni Kenshin always springs to mind when I think of a guy who would be statted in D&D as having a solid Strength score but is pretty scrawny.
I'm also reminded of a cleric of Kord depicted in one of the 3.5 D&D books who is tiny and scrawny, and a emissary of the god of strength. Don't let her looks fool you as odds are, she can probably break an ogre's arm in a wrestling match. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I have a double standard, characters can look whatever they want to look like (as long as it's racially possible), but stats must influence the personality for me. :/
no specific reason, it just feels wrong not to.
for the most part, everyone i know DOES apply their stats to their character in some regard.
but 20 strength, 8 year old girl, kosher.
I actually don't think this is probably as big of a problem as it's made out to be. suboptimal charisma does not make a horrible person, and usually people make their characters back story and ideals revolve around what the stats suggest from all of my experience.
like the character I'm making right now with rolls of 16, 16, 16, 15, 15, 13 is going to have a superiority complex, that's for sure, he's also lawful evil.
....... suboptimal charisma does not make a horrible person...
I agree, but a lot of people in this thread say that having low charisma, does in fact, make you a terrible person.
I feel like I have a double standard, characters can look whatever they want to look like (as long as it's racially possible), but stats must influence the personality for me. :/
I appreciate your honesty and self observance. :)
A character with dumped physical stats can't look like an athlete.A good friend of mine as a teenager was a model. Her build was reminiscent of a dancer or gymnast. She had the physical prowess of a wet spaghetti noodle, and was only half as coordinated, but it was fun playing DDR with her.
Yep, looks aren't everything.
In other news, some small Asian men that don't look very impressive and certainly don't look anything like Conan, can easily break bones and organs with a single strike. Training and your ability to project force and inflict damage doesn't always mean you "look good". Looking good as Ashiel says, doesn't mean you have prowess above that of a wet noodle.
My father a butcher passed down some stories about one of his friends from the old days. Small guy, liked to brawl, an expert at dislocating jaws with hammerfists. He was frequently underestimated because he didn't look very strong, but he was tall enough to hit the jaw just so.
....... suboptimal charisma does not make a horrible person...I agree, but a lot of people in this thread say that having low charisma, does in fact, make you a terrible person.
well, they're like, it makes you autistic, which a score of 3 or something may do.
but I meant by that you can still be lawful good with a chr of 3, or chaotic evil. lawful good, is probably shy or has a speech impediment, finds it hard to turn thoughts into words. Chaotic evil could just be a raging xenophobic narcissistic jerk.
Alas I can never truly rp and do justice to a female noble Chelaxian diplomat with 22 charisma and a dizzying high mod to diplomacy, but I can try.
Hopefully I am not doing it wrong.
Pre-reqs can get out of hand if you focus too much on them, and hopefully there is a lot more to the game than forcing players to act like they have 8 wis or 17 int.
usually people make their characters back story and ideals revolve around what the stats suggest from all of my experience.There's nothing wrong with that, but it's the COMPLETE opposite of the way I go about character creation (and the opposite of how I advise my players.)
I begin character creation by coming up with a character I want to play. This starts with the personality and rough origin, leading into the powers, and finishing with the details of their upbringing.
Aside from their literal capabilities in terms of dice rolls, at no point whatsoever do stats come into the equation. The character stands on their own merit according to their own design.
it tends to go both ways
Step 1. create concept
Step 2. roll stats
Step 3. fit stats into character
Step 4. explain the stats that didn't fit well.
like a concept of a urban barbarian who is as good as chess as fisty-cuffs. roll a single 16 and a 14 with some other mediocre stuff. 16 in strength, 14 in int, he now instead likes to play chess and often enters tournaments, but generally doesn't get very far in them but wins more often than naught. He constantly flips tables though and was even arrested and served a night in jail after he almost killed a contestant.
What you can do is a part of who you are.
You know, how people have been defining themselves and their identity by their professions since the ancient world?
I don't think we are actually really in disagreement, but I will say that a character's skills can be very important for their identity and what they are. Whether they are good or bad at a skillset and what they excellent or terrible at can say a lot about them as characters without needing paragraphs of backstory to explain it all out.
The mechanics are your friend, and they can help both the storytelling and the playing of your character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's so much more to what someone can do than a 4-5 point differential on a d20.
it can mean the difference of being better than average or worse than average, which has a big impact on how you view yourself in that regard.
also, the Greeks and Romans ideas of self is weird don't bring up how we thought of ourselves in ancient times.(Greeks thought that what you thought defined your self, Romans thought what you did defined your self)
Aside from their literal capabilities in terms of dice rolls, at no point whatsoever do stats come into the equation. The character stands on their own merit according to their own design.
Sure they do! :)
Again, let's use a character with a Strength of 18 and a character with a Strength of 5. Both are trying to climb up an uneven surface with narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon (DC 20). Strong Character is low level. He only has one rank in Climb. Including his modifiers, he rolls a 20. Weak Character has 13 ranks in Climb. Including all his modifiers, he, too, rolls a 20.
Both characters made it to the top. As far as you're concerned, the ability scores never come into question aside from their effect on the dice rolls.
Here's my question to you: absent any magic, miracles, or divine intervention, which of the two characters got up to the top with more than 50lbs worth of equipment?
I'm in this game to RP a character, to me the game rules are nothing more than conflict resolution. They don't define my characters, they're just an expression of said character's odds of success.
I think this was clear enough from your first post on this topic. :)
I should also, mention I feel more like I'm possessing a person than using a character that I made, and thus the character has more influence on his actions than I do.(if this makes sense I will be surprised)
I Role-Play in the Game, I don't Role-Play the Game.
also, what you said made no sense to me.
When it's roughly 10% above or below average it doesn't even cross my mind. Especially when you're dealing with the ginormous RNG that is the d20, where a little old lady Commoner 1 with age penalties to her physical stats has a chance of successfully arm-wrestling a Troll.
To put it simply (rather than wax on with a wall of text example I contemplated writing) my characters are created for themselves and their own stories, stats are just mechanics for the game part of an RPG.
I Role-Play in the Game, I don't Role-Play the Game. (I hope this makes sense, it sounds good in my head.)
EDIT: I think I may have just had a stroke of genius on this topic.
I'm in this game to RP a character, to me the game rules are nothing more than conflict resolution. They don't define my characters, they're just an expression of said character's odds of success.
Yeah that makes sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look... if you REALLY want to play a game that is all about kicking in the door and beating monsters to pulp, do yourself a favour and don't use Charisma. Remove the stat, the Charisma skills, any spell and magic item that affects Charisma. Then make the Sorcerer and Bard cast with Wisdom instead, and tie channel energy to Wisdom. Simple. Everyone can choose to play a supermodel, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should also, mention I feel more like I'm possessing a person than using a character that I made, and thus the character has more influence on his actions than I do.(if this makes sense I will be surprised)
Time for you to be surprised :)
Most of my characters end up doing whatever they want to do, whether or not I feel it's a particularly good idea at the time.
It's a similar thing with writers - some lay out a plot and make things fit the story, while others create characters then just sit back and leave the characters to write the story for them.
For the computing-types out there: It's the ability to segment off a part of your mind into a "virtual machine", then load up a character's personality into it and set it running. When you're doing it with multiple characters at once, it gets really interesting. Or possibly it just gets you committed to the nearest mental health facility :)
|
I have the tendency to punish characters with low charisma.
Actually, punish is the wrong word.
I simply expect stats to be relevant into describing the character phisical appearance and personality.
A character with dumped physical stats can't look like an athlete.
a charaterthat dumps int can't be witty, one with low wisdom can't be overly cautious...and one with low charisma can't have a strong personality.
I usually play with point buy, so dumping a stat is a deliberate choice and not an unlucky roll of dice.
Anyway... I consider a character with a chaisma 3 like gollum.
pathetic, submissive and generally awkward.
I said a thing once when someone asked what a low charisma character with trained diplomacy would look like.
Grima Wormtongue is the perfect example.My suggestion is to make clear what kind of character would result from low charisma. no matter how high your skills or level, you still are that creepy spineless self-loathing creature that creeps people out.
And it's not about beauty...(even if beauty without the proper attitude could be hard to be made apparent) but about personality.
The old an ugly veteran who barks orders is not low charisma.
The one who is to shy and spineless to give orders away is.
That is extremely forced, and cruel.
The mass of statted NPCs with low charisma, that in no way fit your "one way" to have their look, and personality forced upon them disagree.
Imrijka, Cha 8.
Harsk, Cha 8.
Look... if you REALLY want to play a game that is all about kicking in the door and beating monsters to pulp, do yourself a favour and don't use Charisma. Remove the stat, the Charisma skills, any spell and magic item that affects Charisma. Then make the Sorcerer and Bard cast with Wisdom instead, and tie channel energy to Wisdom. Simple. Everyone can choose to play a supermodel, too.
It is an idea. It is also possible to remove the charisma stat and still have social interaction be a significant part of the game. Then what the players say and roleplay saying matters solely, no dice saying yes or no to succeeding ("well said, unfortunately the dice say you fail" situations are avoided). If they are smart and persuasive, they are in, if they have a good plan it may be followed. It is more rp reliant than actual rp with diplomacy/intimidate/bluff skills and the charisma mechanic.
It can work out well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should also, mention I feel more like I'm possessing a person than using a character that I made, and thus the character has more influence on his actions than I do.(if this makes sense I will be surprised)
Time for you to be surprised :)
Most of my characters end up doing whatever they want to do, whether or not I feel it's a particularly good idea at the time.
It's a similar thing with writers - some lay out a plot and make things fit the story, while others create characters then just sit back and leave the characters to write the story for them.
For the computing-types out there: It's the ability to segment off a part of your mind into a "virtual machine", then load up a character's personality into it and set it running. When you're doing it with multiple characters at once, it gets really interesting. Or possibly it just gets you committed to the nearest mental health facility :)
I'm with you on this one.
Load character LXXIX. Let's see how it plays.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
DM:
"Did your character just act confident? Did you seriously try to be persuasive? What is this picture? Your PC? Did you dare draw your PC as anything not ugly as sin. Not in my game. You have a 7 Charisma, and I don't care how high any of your social skills are. That skill bonus is meaningless. You are an ugly, social awkward twit, and if even try to roleplay otherwise, I am going to straight up kill your PC, and have every NPC crap on your corpse."
Sounds fun, huh?
This is the superior style, right?
Any PC who wouldn't love this DM, must be a dirty munchkin, Roll-player.
Right?
|
I have the tendency to punish characters with low charisma.
Actually, punish is the wrong word.
I simply expect stats to be relevant into describing the character phisical appearance and personality.
A character with dumped physical stats can't look like an athlete.
a charaterthat dumps int can't be witty, one with low wisdom can't be overly cautious...and one with low charisma can't have a strong personality.
I usually play with point buy, so dumping a stat is a deliberate choice and not an unlucky roll of dice.
Anyway... I consider a characterwith a chaisma 3 like gollum.
pathetic, submissive and generally awkward.
I said a thing once when someone asked what a low charisma character with trained diplomacy would look like.
Grima Wormtongue is the perfect example.My suggestion is to make clear what kind of character would result from low charisma. no matter how high your skills or level, you still are that creepy spineless self-loathing creature that creeps people out.
And it's not about beauty...(even if beauty without the proper attitude could be hard to be made apparent) but about personality.
The old an ugly veteran who barks orders is not low charisma.
The one who is to shy and spineless to give orders away is.
Except that willpower is Wisdom based. Which makes this make absolutely no sense at all, given that what you're talking about is willpower more than anything else.
A low-Wisdom and low Charisma character could totally be this way, you're right...but a high Wisdom low Charisma character shouldn't for a moment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In general, I do feel that low Charisma should be represented somehow in a character's appearance or personality, but feel like it's up to the individual player how to do so.
Arasmes Silvertongue, for example, was covered in horrific burn scars. This was a disadvantage in social interactions for obvious reasons (though one he'd overcome pretty much completely with his charm, being a Conversion Inquisition Inquisitor)...but I still reflected that low score somehow.
Another low Charisma character (Amiri, for example) might simply be crass and blunt, while another (like Harsk) might be taciturn and irritable. All are valid ways to represent 'has problems socially' which is all the stat really does, and thus all that needs to be represented.
DM:
"Did your character just act confident? Did you seriously try to be persuasive? What is this picture? Your PC? Did you dare draw your PC as anything not ugly as sin. Not in my game. You have a 7 Charisma, and I don't care how high any of your social skills are. That skill bonus is meaningless. You are an ugly, social awkward twit, and if even try to roleplay otherwise, I am going to straight up kill your PC, and have every NPC crap on your corpse."Sounds fun, huh?
This is the superior style, right?
Any PC who wouldn't love this DM, must be a dirty munchkin, Roll-player.
Right?
blackbloodtroll, take a step back and relax. You can disagree with Scarletrose's examples if you want, but ultimately you completely ignored their point:
Actually, punish is the wrong word.
I simply expect stats to be relevant into describing the character phisical appearance and personality.
And then you attributed value judgments on Scarletrose. At no point did they make any comment about their style being "superior", nor did they ever imply anything about other players.
Except that willpower is Wisdom based. Which makes this make absolutely no sense at all, given that what you're talking about is willpower more than anything else.
A low-Wisdom and low Charisma character could totally be this way, you're right...but a high Wisdom low Charisma character shouldn't for a moment.
Why doesn't it make sense?
Absent training in social skills, what's wrong with a character with low Charisma (which translates to a deficiency in "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, ...") being (e.g.) awkward and unsuccessful in social situations, but whose high Wisdom gives him the willpower to persevere and maintain a positive outlook?
I see a commendable willingness to be imaginative and imagine concepts where characters overcome low ability scores to be good at something in this thread. On the other hand, I see a surprising lack of desire to see those same low abilities translate to anything negative.
By the way, I believe Smeagol was not a low charisma character.
He managed many times to lie, and draw pity from others. Bluff/Diplomacy.
He was quite good at telling riddles. Perform.
That's something to consider.
All instances of skill ranks at play, which allowed Gollum to overcome his low Charisma. :)
|
|
Why doesn't it make sense?
Absent training in social skills, what's wrong with a character with low Charisma (which translates to a deficiency in "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, ...") being (e.g.) awkward and unsuccessful in social situations, but whose high Wisdom gives him the willpower to persevere and maintain a positive outlook?
Ok, let's take a selected bit of the quote I was responding to shall we?
Anyway... I consider a characterwith a chaisma 3 like gollum.
pathetic, submissive and generally awkward.My suggestion is to make clear what kind of character would result from low charisma. no matter how high your skills or level, you still are that creepy spineless self-loathing creature that creeps people out.
And it's not about beauty...(even if beauty without the proper attitude could be hard to be made apparent) but about personality.
The old an ugly veteran who barks orders is not low charisma.
The one who is to shy and spineless to give orders away is.
It's not the 'being bad at social stuff' part of that description I disagree with, it's the bolded parts, that indicate the character as weak willed and self-loathing. That's...not part of Charisma at all. It's Wisdom, because, y'know, willpower.
The example you list seems entirely reasonable to me...but wouldn't be allowed in Scarletrose's game, at least not according to the post I was disagreeing with.
I'm not arguing Gollum's charisma wasn't bad (or even that certain parts of his personality weren't good examples for low Charisma), I'm arguing that wasn't his only bad stat and certainly wasn't the reason he was weak-willed.
|
|
All instances of skill ranks at play, which allowed Gollum to overcome his low Charisma. :)By the way, I believe Smeagol was not a low charisma character.
He managed many times to lie, and draw pity from others. Bluff/Diplomacy.
He was quite good at telling riddles. Perform.
That's something to consider.
Very good point.
Absent any magic is a little disingenuous when you noted one was low level but one had 13 ranks :P
You misread my post. Only Strong Character is low level. ;)
That being said, the line you're cutting is one with a wide level gap and isn't really one I feel comfortable debating. I expect to see a difference in characters of significantly different levels.
What I did was show that here is a qualified, quantified difference between low ability scores and high ones. If you take my example and reduce both characters to 1st level, the that difference becomes even more pronounced: absent someone else's assistance, magic, miracles, or divine intervention, Weak Character could never make that climb.
That being said though, Carrying Capacity is one of very few functions of a stat I believe in which has nothing to do with dice rolls.
Every ability has a function that has nothing to do with the character's own dice rolls. Depending on the class, though, the mechanic may not kick in.
Try presenting a scenario with any other stat and (most likely) I will debate with you until I'm blue in the face on the subject, because I refuse to reject a player's right to breath life into a character without being held back by the stats.
I'm not saying you shouldn't! :)
This honestly feels like we're having a conversation about real-world children and not allowing them to feel hampered by any limitations - perceived or real - in attaining their goals. What I'm getting at is that any player should go for any concept they want for their character. Depending on the attributes they roll up or the point spread they buy, some of those concepts may not be viable.
For instance, there are no ability score requirements whatsoever for the Sorcerer class. That having been said, a starting character who is not Charismatic enough (whose score is 10 or less) will not be able to cast 1st level spells until he finds some item that raises his ability score - or until he gains a level-based ability increase, etc.
Similarly, let's say you want to play a cosmopolitan polyglot but dump your Intelligence ability. Can you do this at 1st level? Sure. You'll get a bonus language by putting a rank in Linguistics and you'll be on your way. My recommendation as your GM might be to describe your character as more of a "savant" than a standard academic, but that's all. That having been said, you can't deny that the same character with a focus on the Intelligence ability will start at first level with one or more bonus languages beyond what was available to yours.
Again, there's a qualified, quantified difference.