no need to be pissy Detoxifier and pull the 'you're a shitty DM' card, really have some respect for other people.
|
I do work with the players on the details of the campaign, when it comes to character creation and even offering suggestions if they have ideas for future scenarios or in the direction they want their character going in the campaign.
Just because I reserve the right to say no on certain details doesn't mean the game isn't collaborative or that players don't have any control, at least when it comes to the characters. I still control the NPCs and as DM I make decisions involving aspects of the game that players are not in control of.
I see this as fair, especially since I would discuss such with the players and allow for there to be changes made if my players come to talk with me about things that don't seem to be working.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason that a player cannot be involved in a scene just because their character is not. Players and DM can collaborate together to create the scene and adventure for the character who is on stage at the time.being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.Thanks for telling me what is bad/wrong fun.
In a less sarcastic note, if you've never been separated from the group than your enemies suck and the GM plays constant softball, but I think that's cool if you have fun playing that way.
Yes, because sitting down and doing nothing while one person has to fight off whatever they're fighting off is tons of fun. I absolutely love waiting and waiting for my character to be able to do something in what could be an important battle or scene.
But seriously, as someone that had to sit through a dream sequence fight and a hunter running off and soloing half a dungeon, sitting around while my character is not relevant is not fun at all. Maybe you find waiting fun but most people don't.
Roleplaying Tips actually has an awesome article about this. Basically, the idea is to switch perspectives every few minutes, kinda like in a TV show or at the climax of an action movie.
Because it is my campaign, I can decide how I want it to work
Yes, and you're posting your rules here for discussion. That's the only possible reason one would be posting house rules and such on this thread. If you're going to fall back on Rule Zero so quickly, why even bring it up?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
no need to be pissy Detoxifier and pull the 'you're a s+*&ty DM' card, really have some respect for other people.
I'm not being pissy, just contrasting different styles as starkly as possible. He even came back and clarified, maybe my point was to give him pause after his statement. There are appropriate contexts for each paradigm, but his answer made it clear that his reason was an emotional one, ie that it was his game and he had control, not a compromised one, or one sought through discussion and argument to find the best possible method.
Its possible to disagree and call things as you see them without intending personal offense. Try not to read into it too much.
The goal of debate should be to find the truth, or in this case the best possible method. I would posit that there is one, but perhaps that would be too serious a position for these forums.
There is no reason that a player cannot be involved in a scene just because their character is not. Players and DM can collaborate together to create the scene and adventure for the character who is on stage at the time.being able to access permanent see invisibility or using a wand of cure light when you get separated from the group, there's just so many times UMD can be the difference between life and death in a campaign.Either your GM is a huge jerk for forcing the team apart or you play with some really dumb players that split up poorly.Thanks for telling me what is bad/wrong fun.
In a less sarcastic note, if you've never been separated from the group than your enemies suck and the GM plays constant softball, but I think that's cool if you have fun playing that way.
Yes, because sitting down and doing nothing while one person has to fight off whatever they're fighting off is tons of fun. I absolutely love waiting and waiting for my character to be able to do something in what could be an important battle or scene.
But seriously, as someone that had to sit through a dream sequence fight and a hunter running off and soloing half a dungeon, sitting around while my character is not relevant is not fun at all. Maybe you find waiting fun but most people don't.
Roleplaying Tips actually has an awesome article about this. Basically, the idea is to switch perspectives every few minutes, kinda like in a TV show or at the climax of an action movie.
That's close but not quite what I meant, I actually encourage the players to participate in crafting and executing scenes of the game. As in you have each player contribute elements to the scene for the lone character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well the point involving Charisma and beauty still apply and is not house rules. What I added was my feelings on other discussions in this thread, counting whether a player should be allowed to dump a stat, Charisma, into near nothingness and not roleplaying it.Generally my point would be ... Dumping a stat would inconvenience you in some way. If you want to play it out somehow in your characterization, that is cool. But if you decide not to I'll just make sure at least some situations crop up where you really could benefit from a decent charisma, or have to utilize rolls involving charisma based skills. Not throwing them at you like a Gatling gun, but making sure they do crop up from time to time, so it's understood dumping something is a trade off. Same with other dump stats.
I certainly think it's fair to have the occasional scenario where you can't leave all the talking up to the one guy with good bluff/diplomacy skills (Though obviously the character who invested should still get plenty of chances to use those skills).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Languages are a fun way to do that, since those high-Int characters with lots of languages are not always those with the social skills. My group recently had the face role of an infiltration mission fall to the least social character - an alchemist, the only character with a Cha below 14 - because he was also the only character to speak Undercommon.
Giving characters certain titles or organizational ranks can also designate them as the primary "face" when talking to those organizations - though since these titles are given as a reward I tend to use it less to put pressure on the non-face characters and more to engage them under favourable circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I don't care if someone dumps CHA. They can describe their character as supermodel attractive, doesn't affect one darn thing. As soon as they want to interact with someone, it comes into play...
"But I didn't have my character say anything offensive, I picked the words very carefully!" they argue... to which I respond:
"You chose a CHA of 7, you said beautiful words, delivered as you said them, but SOMETHING about your character makes you less likeable. Welcome to the downside of a dump stat."
Players who argue that a stat of 7 shouldn't have penalties are silly.
We often use CHA as a guide to physical attractiveness, but RAW it isn't required, we just kinda houserule it...
It's rare to see CHA below 12 at our table, no one wants to be ugly (physically or otherwise).
As a GM, I don't care if someone dumps CHA. They can describe their character as supermodel attractive, doesn't affect one darn thing. As soon as they want to interact with someone, it comes into play...
"But I didn't have my character say anything offensive, I picked the words very carefully!" they argue... to which I respond:
"You chose a CHA of 7, you said beautiful words, delivered as you said them, but SOMETHING about your character makes you less likeable. Welcome to the downside of a dump stat."
Players who argue that a stat of 7 shouldn't have penalties are silly.
We often use CHA as a guide to physical attractiveness, but RAW it isn't required, we just kinda houserule it...
It's rare to see CHA below 12 at our table, no one wants to be ugly (physically or otherwise).
Is this based on a diplomacy or other skill check, that a character who did not dump CHA would also need to roll? Because if not then you are just adding additional penalties to the system ad hoc. A 7 CHA renders a -2 modifier to their ability and skill checks, not an automatic failure. Much in the same way I wouldn't tell a Wizard who dumped STR that all his STR based checks auto fail or that he drowns everytime he is in water over his head I won't tell a character who dumped CHA that they autofail every social interaction.
If you are ad hocing penalties and bonuses into the game that can't be rolled for, then the players are playing you, not the game.
|
We often use CHA as a guide to physical attractiveness, but RAW it isn't required, we just kinda houserule it...
It's rare to see CHA below 12 at our table, no one wants to be ugly (physically or otherwise).
Is this based on a diplomacy or other skill check, that a character who did not dump CHA would also need to roll? Because if not then you are just adding additional penalties to the system ad hoc. A 7 CHA renders a -2 modifier to their ability and skill checks, not an automatic failure. Much in the same way I wouldn't tell a Wizard who dumped STR that all his STR based checks auto fail or that he drowns everytime he is in water over his head I won't tell a character who dumped CHA that they autofail every social interaction.
If you are ad hocing penalties and bonuses into the game that can't be rolled for, then the players are playing you, not the game.
To be fair he did recognize that his interpretation was a hosuerule. One I am not in favor of because as you said its a double kick to the nuts. Especially, when its applied to all stats which often it is. Funny how having a very highly bought stat doesn't seem to ever net any bonus beyond mechanics which you would assume it would based on dumps taking additional penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The role the GM plays in the game is arbiter of the rules, not owner of the game. He is the referee; that is his job in the game. It is a co-op experience; not GM vs Players. Technically, the GM and Players are on the same side. So never, ever think of this as "just my game" because it isn't; that's against the rules of the game.
Two things:
1. It may not be my game, but it's my homebrew world, my NPCs, and my campaign. For example, a player can't just decide that an NPC acts a particular way because he thinks that's how the NPC should act. He can tell me, the GM, that he thinks the NPC would act this way or that way, but I've got the final word.
2. The GM may just be another player, but like it or not the GM is the most important player. If a player can't make a session or has to bow out, the campaign goes on. If the GM doesn't show up or stops GM, the campaign stops dead in its tracks.
I wanted to point out that Cthulhu has a 34 Charisma.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to point out that Cthulhu has a 34 Charisma.
If hentai has taught me anything, it's that many people find tentacles sexy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I'm sorry, but your friend has gone irrevocably mad. Whatever they saw was just too handsome for mortal eyes."
Some of the most charismatic people in history have not been physically attractive.
Gandhi for example. Not attractive, but held an entire nation, and even the world, spellbound.
There's also plenty of very beautiful people that are just insufferable.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. Any other GMs tired of being told "it isn't your game"? It sure as hell is my game. If one of my players is too sick to play, the session moves on without them. When I'm too sick to play, the session is canceled. If I say there are no drow, no minotaurs, no simulacrums, there are none. If my players say that, I can literally have one walk in the door to make them wrong. If one of my players died tomorrow, we'd all be really upset, and the game would continue. If I died tomorrow, the game dies with me, and the players need to find a new GM. Just because someone knows how to share a world/game and make a functional collaborative experience doesn't mean that they don't have ownership.
I haven't run into players that Sissyl describes. If I had, I'd throw them out of my game, because I don't have time to work out the perfect balance of charisma dump to appearance that might make them try to be less toxic to the table.
Generally, most of my players don't just want to be a combat monster, but have an impact on the game world itself. I don't see too many dumped Charismas.
I do however, enforce the idea that they all find the mind flayers sexy and attractive. Fair's fair, after all.
What if we brought back Comeliness & applied its modifier as a bonus when interacting with races that found your race in a positive light & as a penalty when interacting with races that hold your race in a negative (or at least less attractive) view? By doing this it could then be reflection of how visual impression affects your impact before anything even comes out of your mouth.
Technically someone can be ugly as sin and have a high Charisma; they would likely be focused more on things like Intimidate and Bluff rather than Diplomacy, however, as a result.
That being said, a fair amount of "appearance" is entirely subjective - two people can have identical faces and yet one be perceived as "more attractive" than the other because of body language, posture, pheromones, etc.
Charisma is a catch-all of your force of presence, really.
"Comeliness" was a measured (optional) stat in 1st and 2nd Ed that didn't get carried over to 3rd ed that really DID register your physical attractiveness - it was a composite stat determined by your Strength, Constitution, and Charisma altogether, though with more emphasis on Str and Con than on Cha (thus why you could still have a low Comeliness and high Charisma, to allow for charismatic fugly sods like Hitler).
However, the major problem with Comeliness is that measuring physical attractiveness is fine if everyone is the same species or related species like Elves, Humans, Vishkanya, etc. who share a nearly-identical morphology and would thus share instincts on what is or isn't percieved "beauty"; it starts to break down with things like Gnolls and Ratfolk, though, who have vastly different morphologies and thus would be instinctively attracted to aspects wholly alien to other species.
To illustrate:
And they put (Ping-Pong the Panda) in the cage with Ling-Ling and say "Go mate", and he looks at her like..."I would never f*** her. That is one ugly panda b**ch. If you were a panda, you would know she is one ugly panda b**ch. I'd rather lick my own b*lls then f*** that panda b**ch. I would not f*** her with a koala's d**k.However, Charisma can carry across species, and thus an individual who is considered ugly by, say, Gnolls, can attract Gnoll followers or make them cower in fear by force of personality alone.
As a GM, I don't care if someone dumps CHA. They can describe their character as supermodel attractive, doesn't affect one darn thing. As soon as they want to interact with someone, it comes into play...
"But I didn't have my character say anything offensive, I picked the words very carefully!" they argue... to which I respond:
"You chose a CHA of 7, you said beautiful words, delivered as you said them, but SOMETHING about your character makes you less likeable. Welcome to the downside of a dump stat."
Players who argue that a stat of 7 shouldn't have penalties are silly.
We often use CHA as a guide to physical attractiveness, but RAW it isn't required, we just kinda houserule it...
It's rare to see CHA below 12 at our table, no one wants to be ugly (physically or otherwise).
Is this based on a diplomacy or other skill check, that a character who did not dump CHA would also need to roll? Because if not then you are just adding additional penalties to the system ad hoc. A 7 CHA renders a -2 modifier to their ability and skill checks, not an automatic failure. Much in the same way I wouldn't tell a Wizard who dumped STR that all his STR based checks auto fail or that he drowns everytime he is in water over his head I won't tell a character who dumped CHA that they autofail every social interaction.
If you are ad hocing penalties and bonuses into the game that can't be rolled for, then the players are playing you, not the game.
Not adding any penalties at all, simply applying the ones they chose for themselves. Never mentioned automatic failure, didn't even imply it... I just remind people about their cruddy stats if they have them... it's usually enough to convince them to avoid dumping on the next character.
When roleplaying, you interact with NPCs... you don't make 'Conversation' roles, you just talk, and they respond... at least, that is how we do it.
If someone has a below average CHA, people usually notice. We all have that friend who doesn't shower enough, or has some personal quirk that gets under our skin... but he still has a job, and maybe even a girlfriend... bad stats don't mean bad rolls, I just don't IGNORE crappy stat choices.
I also do the opposite, pointing out how awesome a high CON character is at drinking contests, how peasants hang around and compliment the big buff Fighter on his physique (high STR and CON)-stuff like that.
You can reinforce non-mechanical ideas about stats, the game isn't just about numbers.
For some of us, anyway...
You just stated no rolls on the conversations, that would imply automatic failure. Quite simply I would just have the character roll a diplomacy check at the beginning of the conversation to determine the attitude of the NPC towards the PC. If the barbarian has a -2 mod he is substantially more likely to be disliked than the Bard or Sorcerer who have a +3 or +4.
Now if the Barbarian starts spending points in diplomacy every level he could eventually even the odds, given the Bard or Sorcerer choose to ignore that skill. Much in the same way a Wizard who spends points in swim could eventually overcome his poor strength.
My point is that there is really no reason to just handwave it and refrain from giving the PC a chance to make a check. You can argue that you aren't auto-failing them all you want, but if you are going to account for the negatives in social situations without calling for a diplomacy or other appropriate skill check that is exactly what you are doing. Much as it would be unfair to tell a wizard with a 6 str that he drowns without ever giving him the chance to make a swim check.
|
Off topic to a certain extent the game is a even split in ownership. Either side is free to either kick out a player. Or for a player to walk away. To say that all it takes is the death of a DM to make a game come to a full stop is simply untrue. If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM. To be blunt to some DMs and being one myself. Get over yourselves. Your not some secret special super rare commodity. Your not. If I decided for whatever reason to stop running games today. My players would try to convince me to keep running. Failing that another player in the group replaces me. Or they find a new DM. As for kicking players out with impunity I suggest any DM who does that to run games at their homes and only there. I can tell you if I get kicked out of a game. Which is being held at my place. Your sure as hell no longer going to keep running the game. Even if I have to call the police to remove a DM from my home.
As for appearence despite a few exceptional people I think we as a society place too much importance on it. Take two people one attractive and one average looking. Even if the second one is a better public speaker we are more drawn to the first. I'm not sure if it's a sad reflection on our society. But I have yet to see it happen differently. Take dating sites. Too often from friends and strangers they want the most attractive person, physically fit, rich, smart sociable. When more often than not it's usually a mix of one two or if one is lucky three. Never the whole package imo. I have a male friend who is still single. He has all the excuses in the book in the end it comes down to wanting to date someone who is clearly out of his league. Scanning some profiles sometimes I feel like telling the person is their anything else you want to add to that extensive laundry list.
In my games I allow characters to dump Cha but I do tell them that they can't take higher than a 16 in a stat. Sometimes even a 14 if they want to invest heavily in social skills. Why the penalty if your a character that has low Cha and as a player you tell me that your roleplaying being more socialable. That mean less time to focus on everything else. So if a 5 cha character does his best to roleplay being more effective in social situations. It means less time developing Str or Con or both. It's only fair. When I was working out Between work and the gym I had little time do to do much else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM.
In that scenario a new game would happen, whatever game is getting played after my death, it's not my game. My game is over. Even if they just pick up and continue in the same world I was running with the same characters using my notes (the notes part is especially creepy) it's now someone elses game.
Much the same way anyone can write Conan but no one else can write Robert E. Howard Conan.
- Torger
*edit* to clarify there's nothing wrong with that, there are some great Conan stories not written by Robert E Howard. But they're not his Conan.
If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM.In that scenario a new game would happen, whatever game is getting played after my death, it's not my game. My game is over. Even if they just pick up and continue in the same world I was running with the same characters using my notes (the notes part is especially creepy) it's now someone elses game.
Much the same way anyone can write Conan but no one else can write Robert E. Howard Conan.
- Torger
*edit* to clarify there's nothing wrong with that, there are some great Conan stories not written by Robert E Howard. But they're not his Conan.
This.
My friends would keep gaming without me (or at least they damn well better =P), but it certainly wouldn't be my campaign they were playing.
|
|
The argument of "How can I challenge the players if they dump stats that they don't specialize in," is just as spurious as saying, "It shouldn't be allowed for a player to take the Shaky flaw (penalty to ranged attack rolls) if they don't use ranged attacks in the first place." I've actually seen that line of reasoning; saying that he requires a player to pick up a ranged weapon and have at least one feat pertinent to ranged attacks if he is taking the Shaky flaw so that the flaw actually affects the character some. If you aren't able to challenge your players, you need more practice.
I'd never require a character to take a ranged feat to make shaky relevant. However I would certainly put them in a situation where making ranged attacks would be advantageous, for example fighting a monster that damages opponents striking it in melee.
Likewise the wizard should be prepared to be threatened in melee or even grappled, and the heavy armour wearer might want to make a stealth check.
I wouldn't do that frequently, but the game should IMO engage characters' weaknesses as well as their strengths. That's why versatility is valuable. And my group's playstyle features a lot of social encounters, so being hopeless at it is a significant weakness. Note that I do try to give the characters who aren't natural diplomats opportunities to contribute (like faction bonuses) though better skills will still be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kazaan
Please don't twist my words, I do NOT think I own the game. Yet at the same time, especially if it is a custom campaign setting, a DM should be allowed to decide how certain aspects of the setting work.I do agree with the ruling above, I never said otherwise. I do NOT think it is my game!
Charisma-???-Physical Beauty has nothing to do with the setting. It has everything to do with mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I don't care if someone dumps CHA. They can describe their character as supermodel attractive, doesn't affect one darn thing. As soon as they want to interact with someone, it comes into play...
"But I didn't have my character say anything offensive, I picked the words very carefully!" they argue... to which I respond:
"You chose a CHA of 7, you said beautiful words, delivered as you said them, but SOMETHING about your character makes you less likeable. Welcome to the downside of a dump stat."
Players who argue that a stat of 7 shouldn't have penalties are silly.
We often use CHA as a guide to physical attractiveness, but RAW it isn't required, we just kinda houserule it...
It's rare to see CHA below 12 at our table, no one wants to be ugly (physically or otherwise).
Is this based on a diplomacy or other skill check, that a character who did not dump CHA would also need to roll? Because if not then you are just adding additional penalties to the system ad hoc. A 7 CHA renders a -2 modifier to their ability and skill checks, not an automatic failure. Much in the same way I wouldn't tell a Wizard who dumped STR that all his STR based checks auto fail or that he drowns everytime he is in water over his head I won't tell a character who dumped CHA that they autofail every social interaction.
If you are ad hocing penalties and bonuses into the game that can't be rolled for, then the players are playing you, not the game.
Meh. My rule of thumb is that if you buy up a skill, you spent time and effort developing coping mechanisms for the deficiency you have. You spent resources that could have been spent elsewhere making up for your deficiency so your combined skill + attribute is what it is.
As said. You will occasionally have situations where your deficiencies will come into play. Where you have to use those skills. You, not the party face. And not just with charisma. But the only place where things...
As a player I don't mind those things at all. My "witch" psion in my friend's Reign of Winter game had a 7 Cha and eventually ended up being the party's face. She began as somewhat introverted and chaffing towards others (she grew up in a hovel in the woods where the only human interaction she had was at the hands of her very irritable elder witch) but later became very good with people.
|
|
Sounds like good character development!
I find characters who compensate for their deficiency to be particularly interesting, because you have to explain who this came about. Maybe the ranger with Cha 7 and high diplomacy is socially withdrawn but has a lot of practice negotiating with those who want to exploit her favourite forest. Maybe they are empathetic (with a high Sense Motive) and know how to offer things people want. Or they were raised in a culture that values etiquette and respect, so they can win people over even without possessing much personal presence.
In my games I allow characters to dump Cha but I do tell them that they can't take higher than a 16 in a stat. Sometimes even a 14 if they want to invest heavily in social skills. Why the penalty if your a character that has low Cha and as a player you tell me that your roleplaying being more socialable. That mean less time to focus on everything else. So if a 5 cha character does his best to roleplay being more effective in social situations. It means less time developing Str or Con or both. It's only fair. When I was working out Between work and the gym I had little time do to do much else.
The game mechanics should enforce these tradeoffs for you. In order to have good social skills, you need to invest in those skills whether through a high Cha stat, skill ranks, feats, or racial/class features. If you invest these resources into social skills, you should have a good skill modifier and a higher chance of success. If you do not invest in any of them you will have a low chance of success. A character with 5 Cha and no investment in Diplomacy should not expect to negotiate a treaty no matter how well their player argues, but a character with 5 Cha, 10 ranks in diplomacy, and a +2 bonus from the ancient splendor rune may be able to do so.
|
|
In that scenario a new game would happen, whatever game is getting played after my death, it's not my game. My game is over. Even if they just pick up and continue in the same world I was running with the same characters using my notes (the notes part is especially creepy) it's now someone elses game.
What i meant was not running the same game. Just that some in the hobby who run games. Seem to think that their irreplaceable. Without them no gaming can be had. While players outnumber DMs imo. Neither are we some sort of special rare commodity. With online gaming it's quite easy and fast if one is willing to adapt to that format to find a game. Or find players. It's quite possible to be playing with people from every corner of the planet and be in one home. Running the same game with the same notes. I could not see myself or another player running the same exact game if the DM moved on. I do agree it is kind of creepy. Kind of how like everyone suddenly has a interest in reading a dead author books. What makes them more readable then when he was alive.
The game mechanics should enforce these tradeoffs for you. In order to have good social skills, you need to invest in those skills whether through a high Cha stat, skill ranks, feats, or racial/class features. If you invest these resources into social skills, you should have a good skill modifier and a higher chance of success. If you do not invest in any of them you will have a low chance of success. A character with 5 Cha and no investment in Diplomacy should not expect to negotiate a treaty no matter how well their player argues, but a character with 5 Cha, 10 ranks in diplomacy, and a +2 bonus from the ancient splendor rune may be able to do so.
Can I say I like your forum name and the avatar associaited with it. I can see a goblin with that name lol.
I'm hoping that if we ever get a ultimate skills book that we get some kind of mechanic. Even then it's one of the few times I would require at least some small amount of roleplaying on the part of a player. Otherwise we will start seeing too much "I'm so ugly that I break mirrors but I auto succeed on social situations because of my skill points" type of behavior at the table imo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found this while reading Monte Cook's Iron Heroes, this book mentions a connection between Charisma and Physical Beauty:
"Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, magnetism, leadership, and physical attractiveness.
This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how others perceive you in a social setting."
I post this here because of Monte Cook great experience in tabletop roleplaying games, which I feel offers strength to the idea that were is basis to tying Charisma to physical beauty... even if it doesn't have to be 'required'
What i meant was not running the same game. Just that some in the hobby who run games. Seem to think that their irreplaceable. Without them no gaming can be had. While players outnumber DMs imo. Neither are we some sort of special rare commodity. With online gaming it's quite easy and fast if one is willing to adapt to that format to find a game. Or find players. It's quite possible to be playing with people from every corner of the planet and be in one home. Running the same game with the same notes. I could not see myself or another player running the same exact game if the DM moved on. I do agree it is kind of creepy. Kind of how like everyone suddenly has a interest in reading a dead author books. What makes them more readable then when he was alive.
Oh yea for sure, players always have the option of finding a different GM/Game. At my table of roughly 6 gamers at least 3 are also DMs. If nobody wanted to play my game, games would still be had.
- Torger
Monte Cook had nothing to do with the development of Iron Heroes, FYI. It was primarily penned by Mike Mearls, Monte Cook just published it.
That's an interesting interpretation, but utterly in conflict with what the actual rules say.
The rules are where physical beauty/appearance/attractiveness is mentioned.
The rules are also where we find exactly how much a character with low charisma is penalized. If we take three 5th level characters, one with a low Charisma (9), one with moderate (11) and one with high (13), we can see that the one with low charisma will be 1 point behind the moderate charisma, in all diplomatic actions, assuming similar effort. Conversely, the high Charisma character is 1 point ahead.
|
|
Actually two points ahead, going from -1 to +1 counts as two steps since to -1 to 0 to +1. Still let consider this a bit more extreme, as a 7 to 5 CHarisma. A -2 and -3 to skill rolls involving Charisma, which can be quite a bit of a pentalty particularly at low levels.
Still... investment in skills, traits, and more notably feats can overcome this. Of note, there are feats specifically involving physical attractiveness... though I admit to not remembering if these feats are core or 3rd party.
The point that can be made is that even with an extremely low Charisma one can compensate for such, but if a players wants to be beautiful I would expect it to be shown by the traits and feats involving such, in addition to skills.
I still feel Charisma involves physical attractiveness/beauty, but there was other ways of showing such without worrying about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Charisma is primarily about your looks, then why doesn't a gnome take any charisma penalty for using Alter Self to turn into a Duergar, or vice-versa?
For that matter, shapeshifting in general should have plenty of options for upping your charisma.
|
|
Again, only part not primarily, there are a number of things Charisma involves and ways to show someone having such.
On why shapeshifting doesn't effect Charisma, well no mechanics for such but I would perhaps also offer that even if you used polymorph to improve attractiveness you would need to know how to put such to use... as in already having a high Charisma.
As it has been pointed out, you can have ugly people that are charismatic and beautiful people who have terrible personality or that are complete (insert one of two B word swears).
Just so we are on the same page... my argument is NOT that Charisma is Physical Beauty, only that physical beauty is one of the many parts that could encompass Charisma. That while it is not the focus of what defines the stat neither should it be tossed from it entirely.
Does that make clear my position? I have been debating this not because I feel beauty for a high charisma, and ugliness for a low charisma, should be a required aspect of this stat only that it shouldn't be tossed aside or said not to be involved it at all.
A middle ground essentially.
|
|
It also flies into the face of how we treat looks in society. Put two men or two women in a room. One attractive with no social skills. One average with good social skills. Chances are good that at least at first the one with the better looks will get more attention. Even after chances are good that he or she will have more attention. It's not to say that the average person has no chance. He or she does. It's just that we as a species focus on the more attractive first. I'm close to 41 years old and that has not changed really that much. To think that all it takes for someone to ignore appearence is how well they talk. Simply does not know how people think or act. If all I needed to get a date easily was being able to talk well. Then dating would be very easy. For better or worse as a species we want a person with both looks and intelligence.
In terms of rules a player with a low cha character is not useless. Far from it. It will take a decent investment and skill points as well as a minimum amount of roleplaying imo to succeed. Even then against a person with a high cha they still are at a disadvantage even if it's a small one. Chances are good that they character with the better score is also investing in skill points. I don't think it's fair to say that they will or should be equal at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just stated no rolls on the conversations, that would imply automatic failure. Quite simply I would just have the character roll a diplomacy check at the beginning of the conversation to determine the attitude of the NPC towards the PC. If the barbarian has a -2 mod he is substantially more likely to be disliked than the Bard or Sorcerer who have a +3 or +4.
Now if the Barbarian starts spending points in diplomacy every level he could eventually even the odds, given the Bard or Sorcerer choose to ignore that skill. Much in the same way a Wizard who spends points in swim could eventually overcome his poor strength.
My point is that there is really no reason to just handwave it and refrain from giving the PC a chance to make a check. You can argue that you aren't auto-failing them all you want, but if you are going to account for the negatives in social situations without calling for a diplomacy or other appropriate skill check that is exactly what you are doing. Much as it would be unfair to tell a wizard with a 6 str that he drowns without ever giving him the chance to make a swim check.
I agree with you. However, in situations where no roll is made, it is okay for a GM to remind a player about the ramifications of their character creation choices. Kinda like how a half-orc might be looked down upon in a conservative community, or a Druids Bear companion might frighten villagers in a small farming town...
Not everything is a roll of the dice, and a low charisma character has generally poor social skills until they put effort into overcoming it...
If you want to assume that I handwave and automatically fail people with stuff, that is your assumption, but I am explicitly saying that isn't the case. I treat my players fairly, whether it is good or bad.
If someone wants to transition from a casual conversation into making a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, I never deny them that opportunity. It isn't a contest of me vs them, that's a childish concept I left behind years ago. My roll as GM is to create a fun environment, to have my players begging me to run my game more often.
People who play low CHA characters know what they are in for, it usually results in comedic situations, especially when a CHA 5 Orc Barbarian is forced to serve as the party leader due to unforseen circumstances... :D
|
|
I agree with you. However, in situations where no roll is made, it is okay for a GM to remind a player about the ramifications of their character creation choices. Kinda like how a half-orc might be looked down upon in a conservative community, or a Druids Bear companion might frighten villagers in a small farming town...
Not everything is a roll of the dice, and a low charisma character has generally poor social skills until they put effort into overcoming it...
If you want to assume that I handwave and automatically fail people with stuff, that is your assumption, but I am explicitly saying that isn't the case. I treat my players fairly, whether it is good or bad.
If someone wants to transition from a casual conversation into making a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, I never deny them that opportunity. It isn't a contest of me vs them, that's a childish concept I left behind years ago. My roll as GM is to create a fun environment, to have my players begging me to run my game more often.
People who play low CHA characters know what they are in for, it usually results in comedic situations, especially when a CHA 5 Orc Barbarian is forced to serve as the party leader due to unforseen circumstances... :D
Well said Alex. I have noticed that a small minority of players want to build characters with low stats then either don't want negative ramifications. Roleplaying can only do so much. The lower the score the harder it should to overcome. A 5 cha is simply not going to be accepted with open arms at least at first. Eventually and with skill points and roleplaying. As well their only so many "I'm really a handsome well groomed, well spoken beautiful person cursed to be ugly" origin stories I'm willing to allow.
Back to the original point though, at my table, we don't have a mechanical measure of physical attractiveness, it is sort of an amalgam of several stats:
STR, CON, CHA
If you are buff, tough and likeable, you are likely attractive... Of course, with all the different races out there, who is to say what is attractive?
I think it is smart to NOT have a mechanical measure of attractiveness in this game, as a Lizardfolk and a Drow probably measure beauty by VERY different standards.
If I were to pick ONE stat to associate physical beauty with, CHA would be the closest one... it shows how likeable you are, none of the other stats do.
That being said, if you want to describe your CHA 5 Orc Barbarian who smears himself with horse poop every morning as being supermodel hot, all the more power to you, it doesn't affect a single thing in game, good or bad.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, only part not primarily, there are a number of things Charisma involves and ways to show someone having such.
On why shapeshifting doesn't effect Charisma, well no mechanics for such but I would perhaps also offer that even if you used polymorph to improve attractiveness you would need to know how to put such to use... as in already having a high Charisma.
As it has been pointed out, you can have ugly people that are charismatic and beautiful people who have terrible personality or that are complete (insert one of two B word swears).
Just so we are on the same page... my argument is NOT that Charisma is Physical Beauty, only that physical beauty is one of the many parts that could encompass Charisma. That while it is not the focus of what defines the stat neither should it be tossed from it entirely.
Does that make clear my position? I have been debating this not because I feel beauty for a high charisma, and ugliness for a low charisma, should be a required aspect of this stat only that it shouldn't be tossed aside or said not to be involved it at all.
A middle ground essentially.
We've covered this a number of times in this thread, but to make it clearer.
Appearance does not equal Attractiveness. So there is no words that support Charisma affecting physical attractiveness. Charisma is a measure of quantity; "how much" appearance someone has, not "how good/bad" their appearance is in the same way STR is measure of how much STR your have not how toned your muscles are. A supermodel character with CHA 5 would be less noticeable and less able to draw attention then an unattractive character with CHA 18.
|
|
We've covered this a number of times in this thread, but to make it clearer.
Appearance does not equal Attractiveness. So there is no words that support Charisma affecting physical attractiveness. Charisma is a measure of quantity; "how much" appearance someone has, not "how good/bad" their appearance is in the same way STR is measure of how much STR your have not how toned your muscles are. A supermodel character with CHA 5 would be less noticeable and less able to draw attention then an unattractive character with CHA 18.
It has also been covered many times that there was those, counting myself, who argue Appearance can be physical appearance and thus attractiveness. When one asks, "What do you think of their appearance?" Many would answer what another looks like, the word 'Appearance' on character bios often directly mean relates to what a character looks like, their physical appearance.
So I'm sorry but it has and can still be argued that Appearance can involve whether or not someone is Attractive. That a high Charsima, through appearance, would naturally and logically often involve being physically attractive not only the character mannerisms and behaviors but 'how someone appearances to another'... which more often then not as often involves how someone looks not only what they say or do.
If someone decides to describe their STR 18, CON 18 Human barbarian as looking like Conan, fine.
If the same player describes the same character as an overweight, 5 and half foot tall flabby couch potato, fine.
There is no Attractiveness or Appearance mechanic, for better or for worse.
Whether or not you decide to have CHA have any correlation to your characters (highly subjective) "level of attractiveness" is entirely up to you.
CHA penalties and bonuses affect rolls, nothing more.
If the player creates an arbitrary 'Beauty' stat and assigns 18 points to it (from his infinite pool of arbitrary stat points) it still has zero impact on the game. Mechanically or otherwise.
If someone dumps a stat, then tries to argue that it should have no repercussions, they don't understand how penalties work.
Still, CHA has no correlation to attractiveness. Unless you want it to. It doesn't matter one way or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've covered this a number of times in this thread, but to make it clearer.
Appearance does not equal Attractiveness. So there is no words that support Charisma affecting physical attractiveness. Charisma is a measure of quantity; "how much" appearance someone has, not "how good/bad" their appearance is in the same way STR is measure of how much STR your have not how toned your muscles are. A supermodel character with CHA 5 would be less noticeable and less able to draw attention then an unattractive character with CHA 18.
It has also been covered many times that there was those, counting myself, who argue Appearance can be physical appearance and thus attractiveness. When one asks, "What do you think of their appearance?" Many would answer what another looks like, the word 'Appearance' on character bios often directly mean relates to what a character looks like, their physical appearance.
So I'm sorry but it has and can still be argued that Appearance can involve whether or not someone is Attractive. That a high Charsima, through appearance, would naturally and logically often involve being physically attractive not only the character mannerisms and behaviors but 'how someone appearances to another'... which more often then not as often involves how someone looks not only what they say or do.
You can argue that Appearance includes whether or not someone is attractive, but I can think of no evidence that would support your position. At best, the only relationship is that knowing how to maintain, shape or project one's appearance can make someone more attractive (or less attractive if they wanted), but that has nothing to do with how physically attractive a given person actually is.