How to punish characters with low Charisma


Advice

301 to 350 of 630 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Dannorn,

Unless you posed that specific question rhetorically, there's really no reason to ask it. There are tons of instances within the Core Rulebook that qualify that a higher ability score indicates a superior value for an aspect of a character (or any other creature, really) than a lower one would.

Quote:
+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma: Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff.

The superior (on average) Constitution and wisdom of dwarves makes them tough and wise (on average). Their inferior (on average) Charisma (generally) translates to the being gruff.

Their description reinforces this: "dour and humorless ... stocky ... compact ... burly ... standoffish, ..."

The same pattern repeats with every race that has racial bonuses and/or penalties assigned to specific abilities. Elves are "nimble, both in body and mind, but their form is frail." Gnomes are "physically weak but surprisingly hardy, and their attitude makes them naturally agreeable." Halflings are "nimble and strong-willed, but their small stature makes them weaker than other races."

So on, so forth: proof that ability scores - not their modifiers - translate to the character, their image, their concept, etc.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Would you say the same if I said I had a Barbarian or Fighter Orc PC with 5 Int who had a natural knack for tactics, a quick whit and was generally good at processing information on hand, but who was bad at retaining pure facts?

Or would you call me a munchkin because my character concept doesn't fit your standards of what a stat should mean?

It's fine for a stupid character to be smart at something, the only thing I object to is if you want to play a stupid character who isn't stupid at anything.

Like if your INT 5 Barbarian had a natural knack for tactics, and was good at processing information, but he was terrible at abstract reasoning, had poor recall, and was largely illiterate and innumerate, then that's great. As long as the manner in which the negative modifier manifests is something you have considered, then I'm happy with it. That's all I was ever asking for.

The thing I don't like is when a player has a negative modifier and they haven't bothered to flesh out what that means in the context of their character. As long as you've thought about what it means, great!


Actually, Sandal from Dragon Age would be a prime example of a craftsman with a high intelligence... but is actually, in canon, mentally handicapped when it comes to most "typical" displays of intelligence. (It's also suggested that he's got some wicked good UMD scores or invented some kind of runic bomb on the fly since he somehow detonated an enemy with magic even though he's not a mage)


Tactics includes a certain level of numerateness, but outside the orc language I wouldn't object to him being illiterate, having a good personal memory but poor ability to retain arbitrary facts (aka knowledge skills) and be inadequate in a philosophical discussion of abstract concepts.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Would you say the same if I said I had a Barbarian or Fighter Orc PC with 5 Int who had a natural knack for tactics, a quick whit and was generally good at processing information on hand, but who was bad at retaining pure facts and couldn't be expected to piece together a puzzle under pressure?

Or would you call me a munchkin because my character concept doesn't fit your standards of what a stat should mean?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I wouldn't call you a munchkin.

I would, however, argue that an Intelligence of 5 is not indicative of a quick wit, a natural grasp of tactics, or processing information well. I would propose to you that an Intelligence of 5 indicates a character who faces serious challenges in all aspects of his life that involve mental applications precisely because of his significantly sub-par Intelligence.

I would hope that you wouldn't leave the table having received such an explanation, but I also would point out that the game - as written - consistently justifies that perception. In either case, I would in no way think less of you as a player for wanting to play an Intelligence 5 character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm actually not sure literacy and grasp of numbers should inherently be tied to intelligence. If that's how you want to play your character, go right ahead, but the human species was not rendered permanently stupid until the written word was invented (actually, it's got to take some pretty sharp minds to manage to come up with something as complex as language). Our primitive ancestors were solving somewhat complex physics and engineering problems (like the best materials to make a bow, how to work metal, finding out that atlatls make spears do more damage and throw them farther, finding out the golden proportion of the length of the atlatl to the spear for optimum power, etc) all long before the first letter were scribed onto stone tablets.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Tactics includes a certain level of numerateness, but outside the orc language I wouldn't object to him being illiterate, having a good personal memory but poor ability to retain arbitrary facts (aka knowledge skills) and be inadequate in a philosophical discussion of abstract concepts.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I even like it. All I ever suggested was for a low CHA character to consider, for example, "I am, on average, less effective at interpersonal skills than many other people, what is it about my character that means it's harder for her to make friends, tell lies, make convincing arguments, etc. than it is for other people with the same training and education?" As long as you've considered that, and you've come up with an answer, then you're taking advantage of the opportunity that additional bit of structure that your statistics impose.

I just feel "using your stat array to help tell a story about who you are" is better than just ignoring it.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Tactics includes a certain level of numerateness, but outside the orc language I wouldn't object to him being illiterate, having a good personal memory but poor ability to retain arbitrary facts (aka knowledge skills) and be inadequate in a philosophical discussion of abstract concepts.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I even like it. All I ever suggested was for a low CHA character to consider, for example, "I am, on average, less effective at interpersonal skills than many other people, what is it about my character that means it's harder for her to make friends, tell lies, make convincing arguments, etc. than it is for other people with the same training and education?" As long as you've considered that, and you've come up with an answer, then you're taking advantage of the opportunity that additional bit of structure that your statistics impose.

This, I am cool with. There generally should be some justification for the typically lower rolls to be consistent with the stats. What bothered me was all the people (yourself included IF I am remembering correctly) who went on to define exactly what it meant to have a 'low cha' and started layering all these assumptions on someone else's character.

One can be charismatic or attractive or forceful with a low Cha, one can be wise with a low Wis, and one can be smart with a low Int, as can the reverse be true for each of them. Thus is the crux of my point. RP should not be restrained by stats, but it certainly can be supported by them.

Quote:
I just feel "using your stat array to help tell a story about who you are" is better than just ignoring it.

Nine times out of ten this may be true, but I can attest to the fact that some excellent stories are told of characters who's identities are completely isolated from their mental stats.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:

Dannorn,

Unless you posed that specific question rhetorically, there's really no reason to ask it. There are tons of instances within the Core Rulebook that qualify that a higher ability score indicates a superior value for an aspect of a character (or any other creature, really) than a lower one would.

More specifically I was trying to clarify some cognitive dissonance. If you're going to argue (as kyrt has) that stats need not have any bearing on character, than how can they represent the character in gameplay? Using the idiot Wizard if he's genuinely an idiot, and you refuse to allow his 18 Int to describe him as smart, than how can you say that Int of 18 is an accurate representation of the character's abilities.

It seems to create a necessary divide between the character in gameplay and the character in roleplay, two completely different entities operating under completely different rules. In roleplay the 18 Int is not a measure of the character's actual intelligence, but once you hit gameplay it is.

Kyrt did offer a good explanation though, it just struck me initially as wanting to have your cake and eat it, I don't want my character's stats to define what they're like or what they can do unless I'm actually trying to do something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's also important to consider specifically what effects your deficiencies or advantages is that in a lot of situations you're going to make a die roll, and it's going to indicate that you succeeded or failed based on your skill and attribute, but it's still up to the GM to describe the specific form the success or failure takes (i.e. if you failed, why did you fail.)

Consider five different CHA 7 fighters:
#1 is ugly as sin.
#2 is completely guileless and comes across as kind of a gomer.
#3 has no concept of personal space
#4 is quite shy.
#5 is just mean to people for no reason.

If each of them attempt a diplomacy roll to impress the princess and fail it, then the specific form that the failure takes is going to be different for each of them (she refuses to even talk to #1 for longer than it takes to politely excuse herself, she can't take #2 seriously because she thinks he's a rube, #3 commits a social faux pas by leaning into her when he shouldn't, #4 just fails to make an impression because she can barely hear what he's saying, and #5 says the wrong thing which upsets her quite a bit), and determining the specific form of your character's deficiencies (and even whatever deficiencies you have even in your positive attributes) you help the GM say something more interesting than "you failed the roll."

There's nothing I hate more than "Okay, you failed" or "Okay you succeeded" as a description of the outcome of a die roll. I want to tell you how you succeeded or failed, but in order to do that I need to know who you are, and therefore inform why you may have failed or succeeded.


Dannorn wrote:
Kyrt did offer a good explanation though, it just struck me initially as wanting to have your cake and eat it, I don't want my character's stats to define what they're like or what they can do unless I'm actually trying to do something.

This is actually exactly how I see it. The character is a roleplay construct with an identity, a 'who' they are. The game mechanics are a conflict resolution, they come into play when the players need to decide who succeeds at what when push comes to shove.

I don't want my character's stats to define what they're like, only for them to be the strictest mechanical constructs that they are within the rules. Going back to the Int example, I don't see it as Intellect but instead as 'Knowledge Skills, Spellcraft, Bonus/Penalty Skill Points, and Wizard/Witch casting.' That is all.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
There's nothing I hate more than "Okay, you failed" or "Okay you succeeded" as a description of the outcome of a die roll. I want to tell you how you succeeded or failed, but in order to do that I need to know who you are, and therefore inform why you may have failed or succeeded.

I agree with this 100%

I just feel that I as a GM should say "Ok bub, you done f%&~ed up and the Princess is gonna be pissed. Show time, lets see how you managed to blow this one."

Then we RP it.

EDIT: ok, I take that back. I was responding based on the idea of rolling a casual attempt of 'I hit on the princess' or whatever, even though that's not what I attempt to build in my games.

Instead, generally the Player would RP his approach to the Princess/whatever he does, and she would react to whatever it was he did. If he rolled a failure, then she would react poorly to whatever it was he did, not a reaction based on 'how his low cha is reflected'


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the argument others made is that the stats are a reflection of prowess in whatever stat. You can build a character with max ranks, a trait to give bonuses, feats to give more bonuses, items to do more and actually be effective at whatever you need. The difference being someone with a higher stat and all of the same traits, feats, and items will be better than the former. The difference being the stats which are the cause of the difference.

If the stats are the cause of the difference then at a basic level stats are a representation of what a character is capable of and how they would act. No one should say how you're meant to act as it's your character to play and your idea of how they would act, but your stats should be reflected in your role playing as that is your character as they're your limitations. You may want the low intelligence guy to act intelligent, but the skill checks would statistically say otherwise. Likewise having low charisma and coming up with believable lies.

Being idiot savant is entirely believable with low intelligence. You grasp a single concept well and it brought you joy so you pursued it while neglecting most other aspects. Or the idiot savant with any other skill as you could get with a Cha of 5. Full ranks in bluff, trait boost bluff, skill focus bluff, that mask that gives +10 bluff for lies and anyone believes what you lie about even with that charisma modifier.


Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.

If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.

Can you offer evidence for this?

Quote:
If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)

Out of curiosity, why do you play Pathfinder? It seems like, well, what you prefer to avoid. Amber Diceless seems to be more you thing, for example.


I actually have a long and established history of diceless RP online via forums, but for tabletop I like having a dice-based conflict resolution system.

It's fun rolling dice to simulate chance (although as I've mentioned in this thread, I HATE the massive random chaos of the d20. I'm actually currently experimenting with the 3d6 variant available on d20srd.com)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.

If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)

In the pathfinder gaming system charisma is the only thing that governs telling lies. A character could have 3 intelligence for the ability to speak a language, 1 wisdom, and still be able to tell an effective lie.

The game inherently associates ability stats to characters.

Edit: a number.


Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.

If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)

In the pathfinder gaming system charisma is the only thing that governs telling lies. A character could have 3 intelligence for the ability to speak a language, 0 wisdom, and still be able to tell an effective lie.
PRD wrote:
A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

One can be charismatic or attractive or forceful with a low Cha, one can be wise with a low Wis, and one can be smart with a low Int, as can the reverse be true for each of them. Thus is the crux of my point. RP should not be restrained by stats, but it certainly can be supported by them.

... I can attest to the fact that some excellent stories are told of characters who's identities are completely isolated from their mental stats.

Excellent stories are, indeed, excellent. Where you lose me is when the space between Intelligence 5, Intelligence 10, and Intelligence 15 starts getting gray. If that space is due to experience and investment in training, then I'm 100% behind you. If that's due to creative interpretation of what you're good at with a low ability score, though, you've lost me.

Call me unreasonable, but an Intelligence 5 character - however you want to describe him - is not going to be "as smart" in any category as a character with an Intelligence of 10. His grasp of tactics will not be as natural. His wit will not be as quick. His ability to process information will not be as good. So on, so forth.

That individual will be able to become smarter (ability score increases). He will be able to overcome the hindrances his low ability scores impose on him with training.

You'll note that I don't have nearly as much an issue with creative interpretation of a high ability score. Why? Because you're simply describing how your character is doing something he is capable of doing or has the aptitude/potential for. I don't care if your Intelligence 18 character is a savant, a person who genuinely believes himself to be an idiot, or really anything that can be creatively explained within the boundaries of the Race and Class selected. One way or another, as long as what you're striving to describe is within the realm of mortal human genius, your character has the Intelligence to justify it. The only thing he lacks at 1st level is the requisite experience and knowledge.

Quote:
Going back to the Int example, I don't see it as Intellect but instead as 'Knowledge Skills, Spellcraft, Bonus/Penalty Skill Points, and Wizard/Witch casting.' That is all.

Except it's not just that.

PRD wrote:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.

If your Intelligence is below average, then your ability to learn and reason is below average as well.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.

If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)

In the pathfinder gaming system charisma is the only thing that governs telling lies. A character could have 3 intelligence for the ability to speak a language, 0 wisdom, and still be able to tell an effective lie.
PRD wrote:
A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.

My bad. Wisdom 1 to remain conscious. Still doesn't affect your bluff.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Call me unreasonable

Deal


Ipslore the Red wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.
Can you offer evidence for this?

I don't see how there could be any dispute on the point. Whenever you use bluff, you'd have to say what lie you're telling the target. If the player is terrible at coming up with lies for their character to tell, then they'll end up taking a lot -20 penalties for telling utterly ridiculous lies that nobody would ever believe.

It doesn't matter if the character has a +15 to bluff, when the player has him trying to get past the guards by telling them "Let me in, I'm actually the king in disguise." Especially when they're not even in a kingdom. That was a facepalm moment.

Ipslore the Red wrote:
Quote:
If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)
Out of curiosity, why do you play Pathfinder? It seems like, well, what you prefer to avoid. Amber Diceless seems to be more you thing, for example.

Why has this become such a common response to anyone not playing the game the "right" way? It seems rather rude, to me.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Call me unreasonable
Deal

:D


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Ipslore the Red wrote:
Quote:
If we're going to be associating Ability Scores with characters, which is something I prefer to avoid ;)
Out of curiosity, why do you play Pathfinder? It seems like, well, what you prefer to avoid. Amber Diceless seems to be more you thing, for example.
Why has this become such a common response to anyone not playing the game the "right" way? It seems rather rude, to me.

Okay firstly only speak to me in ancient Latin, everything else is rude. To answer your barbaric question, because it's somewhat unusual for someone to play a game which heavily incorporates an element they desire to avoid. An analogy would be me expressing my hatred of flight and fear of technology while on a space shuttle.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.
Can you offer evidence for this?

I don't see how there could be any dispute on the point. Whenever you use bluff, you'd have to say what lie you're telling the target. If the player is terrible at coming up with lies for their character to tell, then they'll end up taking a lot -20 penalties for telling utterly ridiculous lies that nobody would ever believe.

It doesn't matter if the character has a +15 to bluff, when the player has him trying to get past the guards by telling them "Let me in, I'm actually the king in disguise." Especially when they're not even in a kingdom. That was a facepalm moment.

But under Kyrts same argument that stats shouldn't define role play having a 3 intelligence shouldn't affect telling good lies if that's how you want to rp.


Indeed it doesn't. I was making a joke when I made that comment. The characters intellect DOES but his Int score doesn't mean jack to me when I'm GMing.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

One can be charismatic or attractive or forceful with a low Cha, one can be wise with a low Wis, and one can be smart with a low Int, as can the reverse be true for each of them. Thus is the crux of my point. RP should not be restrained by stats, but it certainly can be supported by them.

... I can attest to the fact that some excellent stories are told of characters who's identities are completely isolated from their mental stats.

Excellent stories are, indeed, excellent. Where you lose me is when the space between Intelligence 5, Intelligence 10, and Intelligence 15 starts getting gray. If that space is due to experience and investment in training, then I'm 100% behind you. If that's due to creative interpretation of what you're good at with a low ability score, though, you've lost me.

Call me unreasonable, but an Intelligence 5 character - however you want to describe him - is not going to be "as smart" in any category as a character with an Intelligence of 10. His grasp of tactics will not be as natural. His wit will not be as quick. His ability to process information will not be as good. So on, so forth.

That individual will be able to become smarter (ability score increases). He will be able to overcome the hindrances his low ability scores impose on him with training.

You'll note that I don't have nearly as much an issue with creative interpretation of a high ability score. Why? Because you're simply describing how your character is doing something he is capable of doing or has the aptitude/potential for. I don't care if your Intelligence 18 character is a savant, a person who genuinely believes himself to be an idiot, or really anything that can be creatively explained within the boundaries of the Race and Class selected. One way or another, as long as what you're striving to describe is within the realm of mortal human genius, your character has the Intelligence to justify it. The only thing he lacks at 1st level is the requisite experience...

The PRD is correct as a default and as a start. Intelligence 5 characters will be at a disadvantage to the 15 Int guys all things being equal. A minus -3 compared to a +2. Nothing five more ranks in a particular skill won't fix in each area of intelligence based skills. Going back to our 5 Charisma examples and how they 'should' be played, I don't see anyone saying they would be pros at performing or diplomacy without any work. Where I take offense is where helpful people step in say how these guys should be played- compound by an of anti-munchkin sense of justice to really step on toes and be wrong on several levels. The game has skills to resolve these interpretive issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Indeed it doesn't. I was making a joke when I made that comment. The characters intellect DOES but his Int score doesn't mean jack to me when I'm GMing.

I think you're missing an opportunity. I also think this ignores how PF is structured and defined. It's your choice, though.

When I invoke munchkin, it's obvious that RP is important enough to you that you do not fall into that category, Kyrt, but your interpretation allows or would allow players with that penchant to get away without consequence to dumping a stat. I believe (IMO) a character's deficits should be played up as much as their heroic abilities. Sometimes this means stunning your friends because you convince the guard to leave you alone with a well-placed lie (you've secretly been putting points into bluff). Sometimes it means they all watch and cringe as you blow it. But your companions view of you is going to be founded upon your 1) underlying strengths and weaknesses (e.g. ability scores) 2) your capabilities going back to the beginning of your career (either before you had skill ranks, or starting at first level, perhaps, which are highly informed by your ability scores) 3) their day to day interactions with you (which you're not rolling, but include all manner of social and other interactions). So, I'm not going to let my player's character conception for a 7 int character to be 'he's smart', but I'm going to ask them to rephrase that to 'he thinks he's smart' or 'he's a wiz at counting enemies and battlefield geometry, but is otherwise dumb as a rock' and the world will react to them accordingly.

I worry about your position which appears to me to be 'characters can be anything they want' (even without devoting resources to back up that conception). I think game balance is key, and one of the equalizers is giving everyone strengths and weaknesses. Each weakness is someone else in the group's opportunity to step in and excel. Or where no one does, an opportunity for great RP moments. I just don't believe people should be allowed to completely cut out weaknesses they chose from their character conception (not saying they can't be overcome through adding ability score points or skill points to compensate in some ways).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kwauss wrote:
I just don't believe people should be allowed to completely cut out weaknesses they chose from their character conception (not saying they can't be overcome through adding ability score points or skill points to compensate in some ways).

Trust me my friend, nobody gets to cut out weaknesses they chose in my campaigns.

Have a low Cha? You're damned skippy going to be taking that -X penalty to Cha based rolls. Have a low Int? You won't be getting bonus languages and will be taking penalties on Knowledge and Craft rolls. Etc etc.

The difference, is that when it comes to personality and character identity, I expect my players to choose their own RP weaknesses without respect for the text in some rulebook. To design characters with their own identities, personalities, hopes, dreams and failings.

Mechanical weaknesses are as they are in the text. Narratalogical weaknesses are as the Player dreams up during the character conceptualization phase.


Khrysaor wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Ipslore the Red wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Pssst, believable lies is an Int/Wis/metagame thing, Charisma is delivering it in a way that is believed.
Can you offer evidence for this?

I don't see how there could be any dispute on the point. Whenever you use bluff, you'd have to say what lie you're telling the target. If the player is terrible at coming up with lies for their character to tell, then they'll end up taking a lot -20 penalties for telling utterly ridiculous lies that nobody would ever believe.

It doesn't matter if the character has a +15 to bluff, when the player has him trying to get past the guards by telling them "Let me in, I'm actually the king in disguise." Especially when they're not even in a kingdom. That was a facepalm moment.

But under Kyrts same argument that stats shouldn't define role play having a 3 intelligence shouldn't affect telling good lies if that's how you want to rp.

I imagine that's why he noted it's a metagame thing. If the player has low Int/Wis...


Nah, during that joke I was saying it's either a thing about the character's int/wis (which I followed up with a comment about me not liking to associate stats with character concepts that way), or its metagaming.


EpicFail wrote:
The PRD is correct as a default and as a start. Intelligence 5 characters will be at a disadvantage to the 15 Int guys all things being equal. A minus -3 compared to a +2.

It's more than just a simple modifier. It's "how well your character learns and reasons," as well, and the numerical value of the ability score corresponds with the "how well" part of that descriptor. Skill will certainly address some of those shortcomings, but your Intelligence remains. A skilled individual with below-average Intelligence will not be as smart as an above-average individual.

Quote:
Going back to our 5 Charisma examples and how they 'should' be played, I don't see anyone saying they would be pros at performing or diplomacy without any work.

Look, ultimately this is nothing more than a pleasant distraction - a discussion about a hobby. I say that so you don't think I have some axe to grind. With that qualified, here's what I'm referring to:

Quote:
If I bring a character who has a high OR low stat but who's identity and roleplay don't reflect it, then by the gods that's exactly how that character will be until a check is called.
Quote:
One can be charismatic or attractive or forceful with a low Cha, one can be wise with a low Wis, and one can be smart with a low Int, as can the reverse be true for each of them. Thus is the crux of my point.

I have no issue with someone saying that, "with some work" they can do well at (as you offered) Diplomacy. I don't see how the previous two statements - and I think you'll agree that they more or less inform the opinions of posters other than kyrt-ryder's indicate an approach wherein "work" (that is, skill) overcomes the hindrances of a low ability.

What kyrt-ryder seems to be saying, however, is that a low Wisdom character can be described as wise if the player wishes it, that the ability and its score ultimately don't matter, and that the only thing that does matter is whether he succeeds in wisdom-based rolls. He's missing - in my eyes - the difference between "succeeding because of" and "succeeding despite of".

If your point is that a Charisma 5 character with sufficient ranks in Diplomacy can be diplomatic, or that with sufficient ranks in Intimidation he can be intimidating, I agree. The distinction I'm raising is that his success in being diplomatic or intimidating isn't because of his "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, [etc.]," but despite his shortcomings in those areas - and thanks to a lot of training and study in specific fields of interaction. Outside of those types of interaction, though, how does that Charisma translate? You can't tell me that every form of interaction/roleplaying falls within the range of the skills tied to the Charisma ability.

Quote:
Where I take offense is where helpful people step in say how these guys should be played- compound by an of anti-munchkin sense of justice to really step on toes and be wrong on several levels. The game has skills to resolve these interpretive issues.

I assure you, I don't think anyone here - based on their stated positions - is being a munchkin.

At "worst", I simply think they are not correct when they say that abilities and ability scores don't matter and have no bearing on a character's portrayal, period. Everyone is entitled to their own style at their own table, but that view is one that disregards the game's "default" position. As such, I'll admit to feeling a tad "troubled" (well, insofar as one can when referring to an ultimately irrelevant debate) when kyrt-ryder describes it as "overly-literal" and as valid grounds for him to walk away from a gaming table.

That's all. :)


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
What kyrt-ryder seems to be saying, however, is that a low Wisdom character can be described as wise if the player wishes it, that the ability and its score ultimately don't matter, and that the only thing that does matter is whether he succeeds in wisdom-based rolls. He's missing - in my eyes - the difference between "succeeding because of" and "succeeding despite of".

NOPE!

I just completely disassociate the two. Stats /= character, just modifiers to their actions.

EDIT: while I'm here, I suppose I may as well elaborate a bit on my background as a roleplayer. I've got about 17 years of experience roleplaying on forums in paragraph form (personally preferring a format with specific rules and restrictions as opposed to what might be called 'free-form RP'), but I've only been doing tabletop for seven years.

I come from a background where characterization is the most critical thing there is, where one really invests themselves in creating a credible character with a unique identity, strengths, flaws, and soul. I consider it a disservice to a roleplayer to tell them that just because they took certain mechanics (especially in a game like PF where X stat is required for Y build), that it somehow defines their character's mind/personality/mentality/identity for them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that kyrt-ryder is taking a lot of flak for cultural differences here. For the record I feel that ability scores are there to describe the character and that if you roleplay a 7 int character as smart you are doing it poorly. I didn't say wrong for a reason. When we play RPGs either as players or GMs we are performing. And we are being judged on that performance while we simultaneously judge the performances of everyone else. I think that to try to tell others not to judge us is an insulting waste of time. If I didn't want to be judged I would recite monologues in the dark by myself. I can only control myself and I can't avoid forming judgements about things I pay attention to.

While forum roleplaying is a part of the hobby, it has some social norms that are very different than what people who came to the hobby sitting around a table experience. Much of RPG culture comes from the experience of sitting around a table with whoever happens to live nearby, rather than self selected groups online. Cheating was apparently a big thing back in the day from all the articles I've read on dealing with it. Pathfinder specifically was built to appeal to the old timers while also drawing in new players. It succeeded and now we have culture clashes in the fandom that only sorta kinda have to do with experience and a lot to do with stereotypes.

I find my enjoyment of the game is very strongly tied to my ability to suspend disbelief. I have a hard time suspending disbelief when the game mechanics model reality poorly. I have no problem with game reality letting you break real world physics. I have a huge problem when everyone knows this and doesn't prepare for it. I try to get my characters statistics to match my conception of what they can do as closely as possible. It is jarring to me when people are wildly wrong about the rules of what they can do. Why should I put the time and effort into making my character able to back up his roleplaying with statistics when the other people playing don't care about that? I obviously shouldn't. I obviously should find like minded individuals instead of trying to change the people I'm currently playing with. It actually isn't that hard to find people with similar philosophies online, but in physical space it can be. I think the idea that people so casually leave games that they have invested so much time in really bothers people.


At level 7 offer everyone Leadership for free but only if the character recruits the cohort/followers. No seriously.. It un-breaks the feat and rewards high CHA more than dump stat CHA, encourages roleplaying and investment in NPCs and the campaign world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Epicfail wrote:


The PRD is correct as a default and as a start. Intelligence 5 characters will be at a disadvantage to the 15 Int guys all things being equal. A minus -3 compared to a +2. Nothing five more ranks in a particular skill won't fix in each area of intelligence based skills. Going back to our 5 Charisma examples and how they 'should' be played, I don't see anyone saying they would be pros at performing or diplomacy without any work. Where I take offense is where helpful people step in say how these guys should be played- compound by an of anti-munchkin sense of justice to really step on toes and be wrong on several levels. The game has skills to resolve these interpretive issues.

A difference of +5 in intelligence is a minimum of 3 less skills for the low int guy and potentially 5 less. He lacks the ranks to make up for the short comings. The opposed sides have been that stats should or shouldn't affect how a character would act. Investment is something both of them can do and the stat is the only limiting factor to who can achieve a greater result. The high charisma character will outperform and be a better diplomat. It's not skills that resolve the interpretive skills it's the mechanics. If the mechanics tell you you're going to struggle more than someone else this should be reflected in the character.

Edit: No one is arguing this is what you must do or you're doing it wrong. They're stating personal opinion and giving the reasons that make their point valid while asking other views to be made valid through reason.


Gregory,

You covered me completely. :)

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When a monster decides to attack A or B he might decide to attack the character with the lower charisma or just make charisma rolls to sort between two possible targets.


Punishing in this circumstance is unfair. They rolled dice that they had no control over. Charisma is generally the skill that least affects a game from mechanics so it's the logical choice to put into. Had they all put the 5 into any other stat would you be just as willing to further punish them?


I'm not saying "pushing" is the right course of action. Heck, I'm not even saying they need to be "punished" at all, other than them being treated as uncharismatic characters (except in those situations where they invested appropriate skill ranks).

That having been said, the GM indicated he even offered them the opportunity to re-roll that ability. I mention this just to ensure our answers take that bit of context into consideration. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Khrysaor wrote:
Punishing in this circumstance is unfair. They rolled dice that they had no control over. Charisma is generally the skill that least affects a game from mechanics so it's the logical choice to put into. Had they all put the 5 into any other stat would you be just as willing to further punish them?

I think everything the GM does should be in the interest in maximizing everyone's fun, so you shouldn't just pick on the guy who has low charisma because he happened to have low charisma. But every group is different and people will have different tolerances for this sort of thing, and some players will make great hay out of the foibles of a low charisma character (I'm especially fond of the potential comedic value of the low CHA fighter whose dearth of charisma manifests as lacking any concept of personal space). So if whatever form "picking on" a character makes the game more fun for everybody, then go for it. If it doesn't, then don't.

Like if you have a half-orc PC, making every NPC racist against half-orc is probably going too far (at the very least talk about it with the player first), but if you make one NPC extremely racist against half-orcs as part of the "the PCs aren't really supposed to like that guy very" then it can be of benefit to the campaign.

Some groups are going to loathe failure, and other groups are going to find great fun in failures that don't result in character death or whatever. It's always important to know your players and if your players are the sort of group that will enjoy "punishment" of this sort, then do it, and if they're not then don't.

I do think more people should write campaigns with very little combat, just so we can re-balance people's perception of the mechanical importance of Charisma. Just, tell your players "this campaign contains very little combat" in advance so they get blindsided when they show up with fighters and barbarians (I mean, a Barbarian in a political campaign is totally valid narrative choice, but you'll be at a disadvantage compared to some other classes, so only do it if you'll enjoy being at a disadvantage.)

Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed some unnecessarily harsh posts. This thread is going in a positive and civil direction, let's not bag on folks for how they play the game.


PossibleCabbage,

The obvious exception to that last parenthesized item being Conan in the latter years of his career. ;)

(which, to be fair, by that point he'd been a thief, a pirate, a gladiator, a mercenary captain, etc., etc.)

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
let's not bag.

*shakes fist*


It's been a pretty entertaining thread. I was pleasantly surprised I managed to come to a certain measure of understanding with PossibleCabbage.

I have to say though, I regret not catching those 'unnecessarily harsh posts' before the gninja silenced them.

EDIT: just to add a little more fuel to the discussion, in regards to P.C.'s last post, I actually favor a high RP (be that political or just integrated into the community) campaign with a moderate amount of combat over a dungeon crawl.

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
let's not bag.
*shakes fist*

So im gonna repeat something for sure but heres my feeling on it summed up...

the initial scenario of rolling stats and then them rolling a 5 and trying to find a dump stat is understandable, its why my group uses the less exciting but waaaay more fair point buy system.

but i dont like pcs dumping charisma for 2 main reasons, for one it normally lets them feel that they have a license to be utter d-bags to the other players, jerk players dont need more of an excuse, and second the points they save dropping charisma goes toward them min maxing their combat abilities so not only are they jerks but they are show stealing jerks.

my solutions to this is pretty simple. eventually a shadow or other charisma damaging creature will appear and one shot them. 5 charisma is 40% one shot from a regular shadow. the fear of this element generally is all a powergamer needs to know to not super drain their charisma. I also make them roll to assist diplomacy even if they dont want too if they interact with a social scene at all ( if they want to wait outside and not get to roleplay with the story its their loss of fun.) I generally have NPCs overlooks them and talk to other more appealing players and this can bug some players that want the points for a low charisma but still want to roleplay a much higher charisma.

Ultimately I try to be fair in my games and not penalize any low stat too much but when a PC has ANY stat at 7 or less its going to define a lot of my narrating of their events.


I don't have any problems with 'powergaming' so that is one difference.

Another is that I try to use as little 'narrating of their events' as possible, preferring to keep things in character to the maximum degree possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
let's not bag.
*shakes fist*

...fist?


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:


[a dozen or more points that I don't care to argue]...

I have no issue with someone saying that, "with some work" they can do well at (as you offered) Diplomacy. I don't see how the previous two statements - and I think you'll agree that they more or less inform the opinions of posters other than kyrt-ryder's indicate an approach wherein "work" (that is, skill) overcomes the hindrances of a low ability.

What kyrt-ryder seems to be saying, however, is that a low Wisdom character can be described as wise if the player wishes it, that the ability and its score ultimately don't matter, and that the only thing that does matter is whether he succeeds in wisdom-based rolls....

What does matter is how the player in question decides to play; in that sense what the ability score is does not matter. When an appropriate interaction occurs, there are skills to take care of that case.

Phoebus Alexandros wrote:


You'll note that I don't have nearly as much an issue with creative interpretation of a high ability score.

It's good to know there's a limit to your issues and how others' are to role play.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
let's not bag.
*shakes fist*
...fist?

He keeps it undigested for just such occasions.

301 to 350 of 630 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to punish characters with low Charisma All Messageboards