How to punish characters with low Charisma


Advice

601 to 630 of 630 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

insaneogeddon wrote:

Role playing is playing a role -- those stats andclass.If a PC is a horrible actor (or trying to min/max to milk every possible combat benefit while covering THEIR characterS holes with personal bs like some unbalanced metagame version of the synthesist summoner)

Its you the narrator/sheppard/teacher/head actor/production manager/dms job to get them in line.

Otherwise your not doing your job and the campaign will devolve into minmaxy randomness without cause and effect.

The irony of the munchkin barbarians are at the gate crowd telling us how to role play a certain score is palpable. The mind reels at what steps you would take to reign in such offense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want low charisma to have effects, have misunderstandings and arguments start because of it, which the low charisma char then has to use charisma skills to try and diffuse. The party can of course help or kidnap the low charisma character before it gets worse. If they fail to step in and smooth it over, problems start at the worst of times.

*The party are fleeing the city while arrows fall around them*

"Why did that gate guard pick a fight with you? And just you?"

"Maybe he had a bad day?"

It can lead to some great and memorable scenes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
insaneogeddon wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:

Not punish but a game should have cause and effect. Thats what role playing is all about.

What happens to such people in real life?

Their food gets spat in (disease saves), dogs attack/pee them, people strangers bully them, they get over charged,in combat they are preferred targets etc etc

Wrong, on so many levels. First DM's passive aggressive "correction" posted by a frighteningly more than few is a lot of things, but it is not what role playing is all about. The classic example is a character who dumps say Charisma to 7. The difference between that awful cad and the noble fellow who toughed it out is a net 2. If you think a two point difference would lead to your made up litany you are out of line.

If the awful cad above had diplomacy as a class skill and put in one rank, while our noble fellow did not- then the tables would be turned. Advantage Cad, noble fellow -2. According to your logic, now the noble fellow would be overcharged, have problems with food, and he would get bullied.

No I know plenty of people who are severely disliked and suffer the pain, but once they get to talk for 5 mins people like them. The issue is getting that 5 mins and as a traveler/adventurer thats an rp challenge. Its also likely why some really liked people I know hate travel because their fist impression is such they attract trouble.

Strange anecdote is not a good substitute for playing by the rules.


EpicFail wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:

Role playing is playing a role -- those stats andclass.If a PC is a horrible actor (or trying to min/max to milk every possible combat benefit while covering THEIR characterS holes with personal bs like some unbalanced metagame version of the synthesist summoner)

Its you the narrator/sheppard/teacher/head actor/production manager/dms job to get them in line.

Otherwise your not doing your job and the campaign will devolve into minmaxy randomness without cause and effect.

The irony of the munchkin barbarians are at the gate crowd telling us how to role play a certain score is palpable. The mind reels at what steps you would take to reign in such offense.

Do we even have enough flaming pitch to handle this level of irony?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.


Yes, the face and the anti-face. Or the about-face.


Wow, this thread is growing faster than I can read it!


EpicFail wrote:
You are saying your interpretation of the rules says one needs to play a certain score a certain way.
EpicFail wrote:
Saying the rules dictate that you should play character a certain way or you'll be outside said rules is exactly what's going on.

Not true. I have consistently said that there is a "default setting" to the rules, which is that ability scores inform the character's "concept" (strong, average, or weak; intelligent, average, or not intelligent; etc.); that anyone who wishes to ignore them for whatever reason should be free to do so; but that those who wish to stick with the default rules are neither overly literal nor overly restrictive.

I have re-stated this position on several occasions. For whatever reason, you have assumed the worst about it.


I guess it would be fair to punish low Cha characters, if you similarly punish characters with other low ability scores.

If a character who dumped Charisma is getting into "wacky misunderstandings" then it is only fair for the Wizard who dumped Strength to become fatigued regularly from carrying a medium/light load.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

If you want low charisma to have effects, have misunderstandings and arguments start because of it, which the low charisma char then has to use charisma skills to try and diffuse. The party can of course help or kidnap the low charisma character before it gets worse. If they fail to step in and smooth it over, problems start at the worst of times.

*The party are fleeing the city while arrows fall around them*

"Why did that gate guard pick a fight with you? And just you?"

"Maybe he had a bad day?"

It can lead to some great and memorable scenes.

Nice! :D


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
You are saying your interpretation of the rules says one needs to play a certain score a certain way.
EpicFail wrote:
Saying the rules dictate that you should play character a certain way or you'll be outside said rules is exactly what's going on.

Not true. I have consistently said that there is a "default setting" to the rules, which is that ability scores inform the character's "concept" (strong, average, or weak; intelligent, average, or not intelligent; etc.); that anyone who wishes to ignore them for whatever reason should be free to do so; but that those who wish to stick with the default rules are neither overly literal nor overly restrictive.

I have re-stated this position on several occasions. For whatever reason, you have assumed the worst about it.

Yes true. You have re-stated trying to worm out of your own position, i.e., ""What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says." You are owning up to neither what you said nor its consequences.

Prove me wrong. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error. Or you caN write another couple of hundred words that skate around the point and pretend to have it both ways.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
There has been a lot of "that's a house rule" or "You're not playing according to the rules if..." going about. It's not accusing people of badwrongfun, strictly speaking, but it definitely carries an unpleasant whiff of it.

Guilty as charged where the "that's a house rule" bit is concerned. If it's coming off as unpleasant, that's certainly not the intent.

Everyone has a right to make the game into what they like. kyrt-ryder and EpicFail don't like (EDIT) the concept of abilities defining aspects of their characters beyond dice-rolls.(/EDIT) I don't like the combat system so much that I created my own combat rules, based off of the "Called Shots" and "Armor as DR" rules from Ultimate Combat. I also have home-made concepts for parrying, ripostes, and means by which "initiative changes", so as to make combat more cinematic. So on, so forth.

Everyone has the right to enjoy the game the way they want to. I don't know if "house rule" somehow carried a negative undertone to it, but me saying that something is that, or "non-standard", is not meant as an insult or as a critique. At worst, it means "I don't agree with you when you say that's the default." And even then, I could care less if you're not playing the default!

After all, as the book says:

Quote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.

We can all agree to disagree on any number of things about this game, but disagreeing with the boldened emphasis items is a non-starter (in my humble opinion).


EpicFail wrote:

Yes true. You have re-stated trying to worm out of your own position, i.e., ""What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says." You are owning up to neither what you said nor its consequences.

Prove me wrong. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error. Or you caN write another couple of hundred words that skate around the point and pretend to have it both ways.

What you quoted sums up what I have been saying all along.

The only issue here is that you think that this ...

Quote:
"What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says."

... means this:

Quote:
"You have to play the way I say."

That's not the case, and I'm not trying to "worm" out of anything - hence why I haven't tried to change my position. My posts posts are available for anyone to peruse for posterity, EpicFail.

Beyond that, I'm simply dumbfounded that, after qualifying my position so many times, and qualifying that I don't think anyone needs to play the way I do, you still think I'm trying to tell people what to do. I struggle to imagine what I can gain by trying to "have it both ways" where this topic is concerned.

I leave the last word to you. If you don't agree with my stated position, then let's simply agree to disagree. If you don't believe that I'm being honest about my stated position, then we have nothing more to say to each other.


Shadowkire wrote:

I guess it would be fair to punish low Cha characters, if you similarly punish characters with other low ability scores.

If a character who dumped Charisma is getting into "wacky misunderstandings" then it is only fair for the Wizard who dumped Strength to become fatigued regularly from carrying a medium/light load.

What about not punishing characters at all? What about having a good discussion about their concepts before the campaign starts, making sure you know why their abilities are where they are, and tailoring the adventures so that they provide a fitting challenge?


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
EpicFail wrote:

Yes true. You have re-stated trying to worm out of your own position, i.e., ""What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says." You are owning up to neither what you said nor its consequences.

Prove me wrong. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error. Or you caN write another couple of hundred words that skate around the point and pretend to have it both ways.

What you quoted sums up what I have been saying all along.

The only issue here is that you think that this ...

Quote:
"What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says."

... means this:

Quote:
"You have to play the way I say."

That's not the case, and I'm not trying to "worm" out of anything - hence why I haven't tried to change my position. My posts posts are available for anyone to peruse for posterity, EpicFail.

Beyond that, I'm simply dumbfounded that, after qualifying my position so many times, and qualifying that I don't think anyone needs to play the way I do, you still think I'm trying to tell people what to do. I struggle to imagine what I can gain by trying to "have it both ways" where this topic is concerned.

I leave the last word to you. If you don't agree with my stated position, then let's simply agree to disagree. If you don't believe that I'm being honest about my stated position, then we have nothing more to say to each other.

I see you opted for the hundred words option. The flip side to prove me wrong by simply saying that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it is that you just proved me right. Enjoy being nice and enjoy the confusion and ambiguity of your position.

The Exchange

having only seen the title for this thread and nothing else I suggest covering them with thousands of snails and force them to endure the horrid feeling of their slimy embrace.


Phoebus Alexandros wrote:
Shadowkire wrote:

I guess it would be fair to punish low Cha characters, if you similarly punish characters with other low ability scores.

If a character who dumped Charisma is getting into "wacky misunderstandings" then it is only fair for the Wizard who dumped Strength to become fatigued regularly from carrying a medium/light load.

What about not punishing characters at all? What about having a good discussion about their concepts before the campaign starts, making sure you know why their abilities are where they are, and tailoring the adventures so that they provide a fitting challenge?

That would be the best option, I was merely pointing out the logical conclusion of what some here are advising the OP to do.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.

I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.


Shadowkire wrote:

I guess it would be fair to punish low Cha characters, if you similarly punish characters with other low ability scores.

If a character who dumped Charisma is getting into "wacky misunderstandings" then it is only fair for the Wizard who dumped Strength to become fatigued regularly from carrying a medium/light load.

The rules cover what you can carry before being slowed down, and it would be tied to constitution and fortitude since it is fatigue, not str.

And you know how spellcasters love to put con as high as possible. That wizard will be double timing it with as much as they can carry.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.
I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.

Unrealistic?

There are no followers that hide behind leaders letting them do all the talking?

Ooookay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.
I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make (which actually may not matter to you at all). Your interpretation of ability scores allows powergamers to build a concept with no concern for their ability scores, and from the example you gave no concern for any type of reality (a 5 int 'military tactics' expert with no relevant skills sounds like a way to get free abilities and avoid having to deal with a low ability score without devoting resources unless the GM nixes it). This allows rampant abuse by avoiding any consequences of a player's choices by using either 'hiding behind the face' (for CHA), RPing through it as the player (thank goodness I read that military tactics book!), not the character, or avoiding making the die roll (which is the only place where you say it should effect). This is probably immaterial to you in your game, since you do it too.

The rest of us have to deal with players across a wider spectrum of taste and styles. Some of them optimize, some do not, some specialize, some like to be well-rounded. All of them have to be allowed to have a good time and get some spotlight time, if they choose. That's central to how the rules are written - CRs are balanced against non-optimized ability scores, ability scores are defined to allow everyone to agree on their meaning. It gives a framework (which everyone is entitled to deviate from, of course) that has been balanced over time (not perfectly, mind you) to try and overcome some of these issues. You can disregard whatever aspects you wish, but I'm calling it out because I see your interpretation as encouraging behavior that I find unbalancing and destructive. It obviously works well for you in your campaign (and in a few other posters'), but I worry about encouraging the OP in this way, since it's not standard and requires more than the basic level of management (and probably skill) to carry off.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.
I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.
*scream* *yell*
Kyrt-ryder wrote:
Don't tell tell me how to play my character!

*fume* *rant*

Oh the irony.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.
I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.

Unrealistic?

There are no followers that hide behind leaders letting them do all the talking?

Ooookay.

I'd say it's a balance. Obviously, if one member of the party needs to conduct sensitive negotiations or give a big speech, it'll be the guy who's actually good at doing that. However, there are plenty of fairly reasonable circumstances where the face might not be able to cover for the guy with no social skills.


EpicFail wrote:
Saying the rules dictate that you should play character a certain way or you'll be outside said rules is exactly what's going on.

You're projecting too much semantic content in the word "should" here. Like you'll hear people on this very message board saying "A crossbow fighter should not take the crossbowman archetype, since it's not good" or "you should dip into [class] for [benefit]." They're obviously not saying "if you were to take the crossbowman archetype, you would be playing the game incorrectly" because that's ridiculous.

What someone means by "should" in that context (i.e. this course of action leads to what I perceive as the best results) is precisely what people mean by "should" in this context. It's just that context for the charisma discussion is somewhat more abstract than DPR, so people's impressions of it are going to be different.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread is still going?

I suppose it really is cultural differences. My understanding of the ability scores is informed not just by the rules of pathfinder but by older editions and other games. Shadowrun in particular before 4th edition uses a six stat system that is an obvious clone of AD&D. I think Strength, Dexterity and Constitution are pretty easy for most people to understand and Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are much easier to disagree about. I think of the mental stats as imperfect mirrors of the physical stats. Charisma is a mirror of Strength, your force of personality. Everything you do with charisma is about applying some kind of force socially. Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Handle Animal, Perform and Use Magic Device are all about imposing your will on someone or something else. Wisdom is the mirror of Constitution, your strength of will. Everything you do with wisdom is about protecting yourself and others. Perception, Sense Motive, Profession, Survival, Heal these are all about protection.
Intelligence is the mirror of Dexterity, the precision of the mind. Appraise, Craft, Linguistics, Knowledge, Spellcraft these skills all serve one purpose, to answer the questions how? and how much?

I do find that my simulationist style isn't a perfect fit in Pathfinder. Some things are just how they are for ease of game play, I'm ok with that, it works and it works well. I also find some concepts fit into the rules in such a way that they would need to be over point buy or higher level than the character I've been asked to create, so I have to choose between playing a different concept or playing the concept at a reduced power level. I usually opt for a different concept unless it is only a minor change.

If my concept was powerful warrior who is smart, wise and charismatic I would go find a game that supports that character. That concept and others like it provoke resentment from players who have internally discarded it as inappropriate, because the assumptions they have made about the game they were joining turned out to be wildly incorrect, not because the player with that concept is actually irritating them. This is often misinterpreted by the player who asked about the powerful concept as jealously and then the situation devolves into something like this thread ;)

I like having long discussions about gaming philosophy before I commit to a campaign with people. I enjoy the hobby immensely, I don't always enjoy being around specific people though, and its better to waste a few hours than a few months.


Khrysaor wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the simplest solution to letting low charisma/social skills have an effect is to not have the party face always be able to handle all social things. Let him keep his role (he did invest in those skills and a good charisma, and that should be rewarded) but don't let the social-skill-less guy hide behind him 100% of the time. Something as simple as the city guards wanting to interview each of them individually, per standard police procedure, could do the job.
I do this sort of thing all the time. Everybody has to deal with other human beings, 'hiding behind a face character' is completely unrealistic and incredibly suspicious.
*scream* *yell*
Kyrt-ryder wrote:
Don't tell tell me how to play my character!

*fume* *rant*

Oh the irony.

I never claimed a character couldn't try to hide behind a face character, just that doing so doesn't last very long in my campaigns.

A character might manage to dodge about 40-60% of the potential social interactions that way.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I never claimed a character couldn't try to hide behind a face character, just that doing so doesn't last very long in my campaigns.

A character might manage to dodge about 40-60% of the potential social interactions that way.

To refer back to the original question posed by the thread, I do think that "forcing characters to participate in social situations when they attempt to avoid social interactions because they have have distributed their resources so that they are mechanically weak in these situations" is probably the most appropriate way to "punish" (in the non-pejorative sense) characters with low charisma.

In other words, the more the party tries to hide their low CHA, Diplomacy characters behind the party Face, the more I want to concoct scenarios in which they are incapable of doing that. Or at the very least, to set up situations in which standing there, saying nothing, and glowering while waiting for somebody else to talk is not to the benefit of the party.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Or at the very least, to set up situations in which standing there, saying nothing, and glowering while waiting for somebody else to talk is not to the benefit of the party.

Is that ever of benefit to the party? :P

EDIT: I will note, however, that I don't feel that engaging a character in the current scene- regardless of build- is a punishment.

Heck, this might be another part of the issue Sissyl was describing earlier, where the players with the 'low cha' are chomping at the bit for combat and not interested in social encounters. They aren't interested because they're not involved, and IMO that's a problem.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Or at the very least, to set up situations in which standing there, saying nothing, and glowering while waiting for somebody else to talk is not to the benefit of the party.

Is that ever of benefit to the party? :P

EDIT: I will note, however, that I don't feel that engaging a character in the current scene- regardless of build- is a punishment.

Heck, this might be another part of the issue Sissyl was describing earlier, where the players with the 'low cha' are chomping at the bit for combat and not interested in social encounters. They aren't interested because they're not involved, and IMO that's a problem.

I think it just depends on how you interpret punishment. I pointed back to a potential ambiguity that the OP didn't clarify for me, but from one sense you could view punishment as making a player's experience unfun, but from another sense you could view punishment as making a character's life difficult.

By all means, make your characters lives difficult, and make low charisma character's lives difficult in a way where being more socially adroit than they are would have been extremely helpful, just don't do it in a way that makes anybody's experience less enjoyable.

If you really are dealing with players who don't want social interactions, they just want to move onto the next fight, you probably owe it to every GM those players will ever have in the future to try to convince them that the social RPing/Acting stuff is potentially a lot of fun.

Digital Products Assistant

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking. Guys, we are not at all OK with the kind of "them and us" mentality going on in this thread. We welcome all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com, regardless of play style. Derogatory labels/namecalling are unhelpful and don't foster the kind of friendly/inviting community we want to have here. Additionally, if what you are posting isn't advice, please do not post it.

601 to 630 of 630 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to punish characters with low Charisma All Messageboards
Recent threads in Advice