While I'm not doing this with the current game I'm getting ready to run, I have awarded extra points to characters who have avoided dumps.
The point would be to reward not-dumping as opposed to penalizing dumping.
If before racials, a character has all stats above 9, they get another 1 point to spend, above 11, +2.
I try to create situations where all different stats are used and important. My players know that all confrontations are not destined to come down to what I call "HP/AC" affairs where those two are the most important numbers.
I feel like don't go out of your way to pick on a player no matter what; it undermines the trust they gave you as a GM. If the GM uses point-buy RAW and RAI then it allows for dump stats; and players are acting under the letter of the rules. It's not fun to get picked on by an all-powerful GM, especially when doing something in the rules. It's not picking on the PC when they have dumped charisma and aren't effective in social situations, or when a dumped constitution guy gets one-shotted, but that's not what we're really talking about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you do to discourage thread necro?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you do to discourage thread necro?
Turn the forums into hallowed ground?
What do you do to discourage thread necro?
Nothing, of course.
Heh heh heh...
I never understood the issue with dump stats. Dump stats are actually more realistic than people think. Show me someone who's good at EVERYTHING (strong, athletic, charismatic, smart, strong-willed), and I'll show you a thousand people that have very defined strengths and weaknesses. Sure, they're maybe not so strategically placed as they might be on a PC, but the "high stats" and "low stats" are definitely there.
Also, PF can be a brutal game with lots of PC deaths, particularly at low levels. If you wanna survive, you have to make a solid character. That may include dumping useless stats, particularly if you're playing in a low point buy game. Now, I will agree that dumping anything below "8" is total cheese. Nobody wants a guy with a Charisma of 5 hanging around.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, they're maybe not so strategically placed as they might be on a PC
They absolutely are.
Nobody hires the 8 STR guy to put the couch into the moving van.
The 7 DEX person won't make a living as a figure skater.
The 8 INT math student does not go on to work at NASA.
The gal with 7 CHA isn't traveling around the country as a motivational speaker.
The 8 CON farmer who can't finish a harvest finds a new career.
Pretty much any field that requires any sort of real talent (i.e., something beyond fast food and assembly lines) is filled with people who have a high relevant stat, and tends to lack people who have it as a dump stat.
The matching of stats to professions is one of the most realistic aspects of the entire game.
Great point Jiggy!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dumping stats just so that a character can put more points into another stat is very strongly discouraged in my games, if not outright banned. It falls within min-maxing which I consider cheating, sort of. So, yes, I will probably go out of my way to have that character's dump stat bite him in the ass more than it should.
Two years later, so this should probably be seen more as a general point than a reply to Hama.
If you want to introduce a rule, then introduce a rule!
I don't really think too much about the social contract in my home games, until somebody interprets it differently to how I do e.g. player turns up to a 20 point buy game with two 7s on his character sheet; nobody had ever dumped two stats before (dumping one is quite common) and I was thinking "hey, we agreed not to do that", and then I remembered that we'd agreed no such thing - it had just been an assumption on my part.
If I'm a player in your game, I'll roll my character, assign points, allocate ability scores etc. in any way you want. (Disclaimer - you might have to explain the benefits to me if your system is especially bizarre.) But you need to tell me in advance. Don't have the universe take revenge on the character later "because the player couldn't take a hint".
I tend to play high charisma characters, so this particular bit doesn't particularly apply to me, but if the townsfolk who are treating me like dirt are also the ones who want me to sort out a particular bandit problem they are having, then they are going to be out of luck.
Also, if the low level commoners in the pub are disrespecting my 10th level adventurer (who, incidentally, is minding his own business - I don't role-play bullies), then either they are being mind controlled or they are bizarrely blasé about getting some bones broken (which as a player would destroy my sense of verisimilitude).
I think there is some healthy middleground. Dump stats should have negative consequences occasionally, but the player shouldn't be penalized all the time. We GMs might be tempted to teach players how to build 'proper' characters, but we should resist this urge. Players only have their PCs, so let them do what they want (unless it becomes really disruptive).
If someone wants to play the generic elven wizard with Int 20 at level 1, fine. So if they sacrifice their Str for it, transporting loot might be more challenging for the group, sometimes. And melee touch attacks become significantly more difficult. First issue encourages roleplay ('is the grumpy barbarian willing to carry my stuff, despite my arcane arrogance?'), second one encourages different tactics (let the familiar do the touch attacks).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just looking back at the op's example does the converse apply? IF having a -2 in a stat causes people to shun you like a leper then conversely does having a +2 or better mean everyone treats you like prince?
I use stat dumping as a roleplaying opportunity.
I had a dwarf barbarian/magus with a 6 Charima (8-2). I used my Diplomacy checks as agro, and it worked! :-) It was also fun trying to find the exact opposite of the perfect turn of phrase to influence an NPC.
I also have a 5th Edition half elf (+2 Cha, +1 to two other abilities) rogue with the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), and went 12 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 14 Wis, and 12 Cha instead of 10 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha just to mix it up a bit. Then I decided to make him "street smart" (everything else really, really dumb) and he's been really fun to play! Granted, Int doesn't give you bonus skill points or anything in 5th Edition (but being half elf gives you 2 bonus skill proficiencies, which is A LOT!), so it didn't really hurt much mechanically. Just Investigation checks, but I can use Perception for that most of the time.
I use stat dumping as a roleplaying opportunity.
I had a dwarf barbarian/magus with a 6 Charima (8-2). I used my Diplomacy checks as agro, and it worked! :-) It was also fun trying to find the exact opposite of the perfect turn of phrase to influence an NPC.
I also have a 5th Edition half elf (+2 Cha, +1 to two other abilities) rogue with the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), and went 12 Str, 16 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 14 Wis, and 12 Cha instead of 10 Int, 14 Wis, 10 Cha just to mix it up a bit. Then I decided to make him "street smart" (everything else really, really dumb) and he's been really fun to play! Granted, Int doesn't give you bonus skill points or anything in 5th Edition (but being half elf gives you 2 bonus skill proficiencies, which is A LOT!), so it didn't really hurt much mechanically. Just Investigation checks, but I can use Perception for that most of the time.
I do the same thing. When I make a character with 8 Charisma, I take pleasure in rp-ing the low Charisma as much as possible.
Ignoring the dump stat is what annoys alot of people. The guy who had 8 Cha yet the player keeps wanting to do all the talking, or the guy with 8 Int but the player wants to do all the problem solving.
Better to own up to it, at least that's my perspective.
I think there needs to be a balance between 'always doing the thing' and 'never doing the thing' when it comes to playing up dump stats. If you tanked your charisma then sometimes play it up by putting your foot in your mouth during diplomatic discussions but you don't have to do it every single time. Really. We get it.
(One of the players in a F2F game I'm in is kinda bad for 'always doing the thing' whether it's dump stats, a personality trait, etc.)
Someone who always plays up the low Cha ends up being Jar Jar Binks. Players should show restraint and only play it up in small, character establishing doses.
One could argue that Jar Jar actually had a decent Cha modifier, considering how memorable he ended up being (although not in a positive light). He just had really low Int and Wis (and a terrible writer).
Low cha is... Someone completely forgettable. People notice their presence, but don't care about them or what they have to say.
I have been thinking about why rolling a 7 is NOT considered dumping a stat and why buying a 7 in point buy IS. And I think it boils down to the fact that when rolling YOU aren't in control of those stats, rolling a 7 is the dice dumping your stat not you. And you gain NOTHING by the dice giving you that 7. Where as in point buy YOU are the one in control YOU chose to dump a stat AND you are gaining extra points by doing so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An 8 Cha is NOT a social reject... they are SLIGHTLY below average. Same with ANY stat. It damages the game by forcing people to play a certain way.
Someone who always plays up the low Cha ends up being Jar Jar Binks. Players should show restraint and only play it up in small, character establishing doses.One could argue that Jar Jar actually had a decent Cha modifier, considering how memorable he ended up being
Well, one could argue that, I suppose. One would be pig-ignorant and wrong to the point where the Flat Earth Society members would point and laugh, but it violates no physical law to utter or type such gibberish.
Low cha is... Someone completely forgettable
That can be one way to play a low charisma. Another way is the more traditional be-so-objectionable that people respond negatively to anything you say or do. Remember that charisma is the ability that measures your ability to get people to be friendly to you and to do what you want. If you want, for example, the barman to give you a pint on the house, people who are naturally gifted at that are, pretty much by definition, the ones with high charisma. So they might be sexy, they might be funny, they might simply be friendly -- there's lots of ways to charm a pint out of an innkeeper. There are also lots of ways to fail to charm a pint out of an innkeeper, perhaps by not being noticed, or perhaps by actively being insulting, rude, driving other customers away.....
So when you say that Jar-Jar was memorable "(although not in a positive light)", that's pretty much an acknowledgement of low charisma.
I know an 8 Int isn't totally stupid, but it's really, surprisingly fun to play it that way. And no one else has a negative Int modifier, so I get to really play it up.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's good to remember that, in Pathfinder, the average set of stats for the general populace includes both a 9 and an 8 (the full set is 13/12/11/10/9/8). That means that for the human/half-human races, about a third of any random schmuck's stats are sub-10, yet those races have functional societies.
Similarly, for the races which have a stat penalty, the majority of the members of that race have less than 10 in that stat. For example, the range of possible CHA scores for dwarves is 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, and 6. And again, they have a functional society and are described in the CRB as "a bit gruff".
This also means that if a human dumps (for example) CHA down to 7, then they're still at least as charismatic as a third of the dwarven population.
The only time a "dump stat" in Pathfinder gets below the range of normalcy for Golarion is why you buy a 7 and racially adjust it down to 5 from there. But even then, you're only 1 point down from what's considered normal. Such a character is literally the smallest noticeable increment down from "just another ordinary person" with a 5.
A person's description of what a dump stat means can tell you a lot about how well they understand which game they're playing. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's good to remember that, in Pathfinder, the average set of stats for the general populace includes both a 9 and an 8 (the full set is 13/12/11/10/9/8). That means that for the human/half-human races, about a third of any random schmuck's stats are sub-10, yet those races have functional societies.
The only time a "dump stat" in Pathfinder gets below the range of normalcy for Golarion is why you buy a 7 and racially adjust it down to 5 from there.
Except that a lot of "normal" people are notably clumsy, stupid, bad decision makers, or whatever.
Just because you're in the range of typical (human) variation doesn't mean that people won't notice that you're at an edge of the the range. For example, average height for an adult female in the United States is about 5'5", and the standard deviation is about 3-1/2 inches. So about one woman in six is 5' 1-1/2" or shorter,.... but those women are also notably short -- when people describe such women, one of the first words out of their mouths is usually "short" or "small" or some such, and they typically have to shop for clothes in special ("petite") sections of the store, which usually cater to 5'4" or below.
Little People of America define "dwarfism" as 4'10" or smaller, which is (notably), the two-sigma cutoff. Perhaps coincidentally, this is more or less the exact edge of what a statistician would call "normal" height for human females.
So just because you're within the range of normal variation, don't assume that people don't notice. A human within intelligence 8 should be as noticeably stupid as a human woman of height 5' 1-1/2" is noticeably short -- or a 6'2" man is noticeably tall. It may not be a crippling disadvantage, but don't try to pretend that you're just like everyone else.
Someone who always plays up the low Cha ends up being Jar Jar Binks. Players should show restraint and only play it up in small, character establishing doses.
I would argue Jar Jar suffered from dump stats in a ALL his mental abilities. To me, low Charisma doesn't necessarily mean obnoxiously annoying, it could also mean shy and quiet, or someone who wants to be social but always ends up saying the wrong thing. There are many ways to play a low stat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Orfamay Quest: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say "nobody will notice" or that you'd be "just like everybody else". I said you're still within the range of "normal". Discuss with honesty and in good faith, please.
To use your own examples, nobody passes a 5'1" woman on the sidewalk and spins around to stare in awe, taking in this spectacle of nature. Yes, her height would get used in a description, but it wouldn't make you take much notice of her in the first place. Any day you're around any significant number of people you'll see heights in the ranges you mentioned, and most folks won't even bat an eye.
To go back to Pathfinder's stats, having a —1 CHA modifier applies to a third of the human population of Golarion. Now, think about how some folks have talked about responding to that kind of CHA, and compare it to your own reactions to one third of the people you meet on a daily basis. Do you recoil at the sight of a fellow shopper every time there's at least three of you in the checkout lane at once? Do you cross the street to avoid every third person on the sidewalk?
I'm also really curious what definition of "stupid" you're using, since you're applying it to one sixth of humans and two thirds of the nagaji population. And if that's "stupid", then what term do you use for the INT 4 "village idiot" that Paizo published?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest you are making a huge error by equating real life to the game mechanics, there is no correlation.
I'm also really curious what definition of "stupid" you're using, since you're applying it to one sixth of humans and two thirds of the nagaji population.
Notably dumb. As Carlin so memorably put it, "think about how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them are stupider than that." We're talking about the people who don't realize that "password1" isn't a good password for their bank account, about the people who buy lottery tickets as a retirement plan, and the one American in six that fails to achieve a "basic level" of financial literacy.
I'm also talking about the 30-50% of motorcyclists that will not voluntarily wear helmets, and the one in twelve drivers that admit to driving drunk.
Basically, I'm talking about people who are quite noticeably doing really stupid things, despite being relatively functional members of society. You mentioned earlier that "about a third of any random schmuck's stats are sub-10, yet those races have functional societies," but that's not really a high hurdle to clear, precisely because society expects to have a certain amount of stupid people and works around instead of with them.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm pretty sure that's a different definition of "stupid" than the NPC villagers are using when determining how to interact with the PCs. How do you interact with the people you cited as examples? Do you match how folks have suggested having NPCs interact with "dump-statted" PCs?
I'm pretty sure that's a different definition of "stupid" than the NPC villagers are using when determining how to interact with the PCs. How do you interact with the people you cited as examples?
Intelligence isn't really a good example for that, since most interactions with people aren't on the basis of their intelligence unless either you're dealing with someone you specifically interact with because of their intelligence, or you're in a power relationship where you need to get an underling to understand a task. I'm simply not going to ask a random person on the street for help solving a crossword puzzle.
Charisma is a better example, because people do interact with other people on the basis of how nice they are. Any shopkeeper or clerk, for example, knows that most customers don't interact smoothly with the store.
So how does a typical clerk respond when a customer asks "hey, jerkwad, where can I find your g---d---ed butter?" (As an example of low charisma, specifically being insulting....) If the clerk is feeling particularly nice, he might say "aisle seven," but I've also seen clerks simply tell the customer to leave the store (or call security).
Do you match how folks have suggested having NPCs interact with "dump-statted" PCs?
Being thrown out of a store for insulting the staff? That happens often enough that no one is surprised by it.....
I'm pretty sure that's a different definition of "stupid" than the NPC villagers are using when determining how to interact with the PCs. How do you interact with the people you cited as examples? Do you match how folks have suggested having NPCs interact with "dump-statted" PCs?
And do you treat the opposite side of the coin with that much awe? if a 8 or 7 is really causing people to notice how weak/clumsy/frail/dumb/senseless/crass you are do you treat someone with a 14-15 as a god among men in their chosen field?
I'm pretty sure that's a different definition of "stupid" than the NPC villagers are using when determining how to interact with the PCs. How do you interact with the people you cited as examples? Do you match how folks have suggested having NPCs interact with "dump-statted" PCs?And do you treat the opposite side of the coin with that much awe? if a 8 or 7 is really causing people to notice how weak/clumsy/frail/dumb/senseless/crass you are do you treat someone with a 14-15 as a god among men in their chosen field?
Yeah, someone with a charisma of 14 will be noted and respected. ("Of course, butter's on aisle seven. Here, let me show you....")
Me, I don't bother to penalize my players for having dump stats. I run prewritten adventures like AP's, so eventually EVERYONE in my games encounters beasties that will take advantage of their weaknesses. It's just a matter of time.
For example, our low Dexterity, heavily armored Cleric has discovered that climbing is not easy with a huge ACP, and anything sneaky is out of the question. Moreover, since he decided to take a Cleric of a deity that allows greatswords because the player has a stupid fetish for that weapon, he's noticed that AC is paramount for Clerics and he doesn't have a shield. Every monster that can would LOVE to take out the party's healer, and if he goes down, the party will panic.
I know an 8 Int isn't totally stupid, but it's really, surprisingly fun to play it that way. And no one else has a negative Int modifier, so I get to really play it up.Table dependent for sure. Some may find it offensive, and others may find it obnoxious too.
I get lots of Inspiration from roleplaying, so at least the DM thinks I'm doing a good job.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Charisma is a better example, because people do interact with other people on the basis of how nice they are. Any shopkeeper or clerk, for example, knows that most customers don't interact smoothly with the store.
So how does a typical clerk respond when a customer asks "hey, jerkwad, where can I find your g---d---ed butter?" (As an example of low charisma, specifically being insulting....) If the clerk is feeling particularly nice, he might say "aisle seven," but I've also seen clerks simply tell the customer to leave the store (or call security).
Okay, we can switch stats.
So, you gave an example of "low" Charisma. Previously, we were discussing "low" as around 8, or a -1 modifier. So if we assume you're not trying to move the goalposts, that means that you're saying one in three people would walk up to a clerk and say "Hey, jerkwad, where can I find your g**d***ed butter?"
Now, Pathfinder says that about a third of humans (and two thirds of dwarves) have about that much CHA (or less). That means that you're claiming that it's normal for about every third customer ever to routinely insult people (or equivalent) in everyday social interactions.
I mean, I've definitely seen people act like that, but it's every once in a while, not every third person. Do you seriously see people act like that so frequently? I find that hard to believe. And if that's not how a third of people act, then that's not what having a -1 CHA mod means.
Now, Pathfinder says that about a third of humans (and two thirds of dwarves) have about that much CHA (or less). That means that you're claiming that it's normal for about every third customer ever to routinely insult people (or equivalent) in everyday social interactions.I mean, I've definitely seen people act like that, but it's every once in a while, not every third person. Do you seriously see people act like that so frequently?
Oddly enough, there are other factors involved in a typical check than just the modifier.... like the die roll. And the way the thresholds are build into the system, there are some things that are possible to an untrained person with low Charisma that are literally not possible to someone with a higher attribute, or vice versa.
For example, it requires a Diplomacy check of DC 15 to shift an ordinary (10 CHA) clerk's attitude (which presumably starts at "indifferent") to "friendly." To get them to provide complicated help to you ("oh, let me drop the task that my manager actually told me to do and instead show you where the butter is") is DC 20. That's literally impossible if you have a) a negative Charisma modifier and b) no ranks in Diplomacy. If they start out at "unfriendly," you can't even get them to offer advice ("aisle 7"). In either case, you have a substantial chance of rolling badly enough to shift their attitude the wrong way.
So in terms of realism? Well, most people in the real world are experts, so they have skill points to burn, and so it's no hardship to take a point or two in Diplomacy as part of being able to deal with ordinary people. But in direct answer to your question, yes, I see this type of behavior on a fairly regular basis, typically exhibited by teenage (or early adult) rebels-without-a-clue.... One encounter in 60 doesn't seem unreasonable.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Orfamay Quest — When you brought up the example of cussing out a clerk without provocation, you didn't say that's what happens when you fail a Diplomacy check, you said that's what it means to have a low CHA. You said that having a low CHA means that's how you behave, not that that's how you behave if you fail a Diplomacy check regardless of your CHA.
That's the assertion you made.
Then, I showed that if (as you asserted) low CHA means a baseline of cussing out the clerk without provocation, and if (as the Pathfinder system lays out) one third of humans have low CHA, then you're saying that the baseline behavior for one third of humans is to cuss out the clerk without provocation.
Obviously, that's absurd. One third of people do not act that way as a matter of course. As you said yourself , such encounters are about 20 times less frequent than the one-in-three that you originally asserted. So how did you respond? Did you accept that your original assertion of what the functional definition of low CHA is must be flawed? No. You doubled back and—without directly admitting any revision—started talking about likelihood of failing checks.
This, of course, flies in the face of your previous assertion (both in letter and in spirit). Most notably, focusing on the checks means that it's not just the low-CHA folks who will fail; even a 14 CHA person can frequently fail those Diplomacy checks. And yet, your original definition of clerk-abuse was limited to the low-CHA people, which demonstrates you were not at all talking in the context of checks when you gave your example; you were talking about what it means to have certain scores.
So the long and short of your last few posts is this: you made an assertion, the assertion was shown to be absurd, and you then defended a different assertion instead of addressing the issues in your original assertion. That's really dishonest of you.
Now, I'm not going to extrapolate from your behavior any generalities about you. After all, maybe you had a bad day or have some topic-specific baggage or something; I won't just assume this is the result of you being a "bad person" or whatever. However, I am going to accept that a legitimate discussion of this topic isn't going to happen with you right now, for whatever reason. Therefore, I'm done trying.
Best wishes in future dialogues.
This, of course, flies in the face of your previous assertion (both in letter and in spirit). Most notably, focusing on the checks means that it's not just the low-CHA folks who will fail; even a 14 CHA person can frequently fail those Diplomacy checks.
Not at all. That's the whole threshold argument. Or, (with less diplomacy), math doesn't work that way, Jiggy.
Well, one could argue that, I suppose. One would be pig-ignorant and wrong to the point where the Flat Earth Society members would point and laugh, but it violates no physical law to utter or type such gibberish.Someone who always plays up the low Cha ends up being Jar Jar Binks. Players should show restraint and only play it up in small, character establishing doses.One could argue that Jar Jar actually had a decent Cha modifier, considering how memorable he ended up beingLow cha is... Someone completely forgettableThat can be one way to play a low charisma. Another way is the more traditional be-so-objectionable that people respond negatively to anything you say or do. Remember that charisma is the ability that measures your ability to get people to be friendly to you and to do what you want. If you want, for example, the barman to give you a pint on the house, people who are naturally gifted at that are, pretty much by definition, the ones with high charisma. So they might be sexy, they might be funny, they might simply be friendly -- there's lots of ways to charm a pint out of an innkeeper. There are also lots of ways to fail to charm a pint out of an innkeeper, perhaps by not being noticed, or perhaps by actively being insulting, rude, driving other customers away.....
So when you say that Jar-Jar was memorable "(although not in a positive light)", that's pretty much an acknowledgement of low charisma.
Unnecessarily rude and condescending tone apart...
Don't confuse "poorly written" with or "highly disagreeable" with "low Cha score". Generating an strong reaction is a sign (but not proof) of high Cha.
Just because a character is unlikable and dull to the audience, doesn't mean it's the same for the other characters. Have you never seen a character who's supposed to be charming, but feels completely dull and yet, for some reason, other characters seem to like him? I've seen plenty (the protagonist of "Utawarerumono - Itisuwari no Kamen" comes to mind).
Charisma tells us the intensity of someone's reaction... Or, more precisely, your ability to obtain the desired reaction. Someone with high Cha wouldn't have much problem convincing people he's a horrible person... It's just not something desirable or useful most of the time.
Most people have strong negative reaction to Hitler's ideals, but we can't deny the man had a high Charisma score.
Whether a raction is positive or negative has more to do with what's being said (and who's saying it) than with Cha scores.
Or, more precisely, your ability to obtain the desired reaction.
This part is key, Not-Lemmy. Jar-Jar doesn't seem to want people to hate him—he's just incapable of not being annoying. So he's either uncharismatic or more charismatic than we can possibly imagine, a chessmaster who has deceived us all.
Also, nitpick: I can deny that Hitler had a strong Charisma score. The guy just got a small but violently dedicated base that allowed him to push around the rest. Don't forget, the guy lost his election. Hard. Hindenburg just decided he wanted Hitler on his side after getting elected, which, uh, kinda backfired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or, more precisely, your ability to obtain the desired reaction.This part is key, Not-Lemmy. Jar-Jar doesn't seem to want people to hate him—he's just incapable of not being annoying. So he's either uncharismatic or more charismatic than we can possibly imagine, a chessmaster who has deceived us all.
Proof that Jar Jar was by far the most charismatic character in the entire Star Wars franchise!