How to play a charisma 7 character?


Advice

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Mondragon wrote:

In social media ask first to high charisma characters.

Ignore low charisma mates for a while. just like low charisma people is ignored in real life. They had dificult to can get their words listened

Unless they're a student of philosophy empiricist anyway.


alair223 wrote:

For some it is simply physical beauty; ugly scars, burn marks, deformities that despite whatever articulation they might have simply leave a person uneasy.

Physical beauty isn't just based on whether you have a pretty face. Case in point. The clones from Orphan Black are all played by the same actress. However, they all have their own mannerisms and each present themselves in a different way. Consequently, fans of the show find some clones more attractive than others.


"appearance" doesn't necessarily mean "attractiveness" either. Appearance could just be the expressions on your face or your posture. You could have two people with the same body, but with one of those people having a better appearance.


Protoshoggoth wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
...I work in natural science. The building I work in is full of strong, memorable personalities. Few of them are charismatic.
Yes, but do they get their way?

Not as often as they would like. More importantly, from what I can tell, that metric is decoupled from what I would consider "strength of personality" without concern for other metrics.

Protoshoggoth wrote:
BTW, I work in the natural sciences also (Physics) - yes, it can be quite a collection of "memorable personalities." Some of ours need to be kept in a broom closet :p

:)


Sissyl wrote:
Except they want to look Every time a player dumps charisma, AND claims that their character is really, really good-looking AND that their low charisma comes from being rude, the character has been an unmitigated disaster.

I'd have thought that the rudeness was the only disruptive element there. Have you ever had a rude and ugly character work out well?

(This situation has never been a problem for me, possible because I've never demanded people role-play their charisma or tell me how attractive their character is.)


If you have the Charming Trait, you have good looks, regardless of your Charisma. So, good looks + low Charisma = require Charming trait (or something similar), for thems who dislike the idea of low Charisma folks with good looks? (Some mechanical cost to it, since they wouldn't get other traits that would be better for min/max?)

Shadow Lodge

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
If you have the Charming Trait, you have good looks, regardless of your Charisma. So, good looks + low Charisma = require Charming trait (or something similar), for thems who dislike the idea of low Charisma folks with good looks? (Some mechanical cost to it, since they wouldn't get other traits that would be better for min/max?)

Being attractive doesn't have a mechanical benefit, so why should there be a mechanical cost to achieve it?

The Charming trait rewards good looks, it doesn't give them to the character.


I should ask you natural scientists, in your bastion of various strong personalities that you are quick to discount: Who is it that is getting the grants? Perhaps you do not Feel Their Power because they don't really feel the need to influence you. Try being helpful, or even just non-condescending, and maybe their focus towards you might be more than keeping you at a distance.

Remember, rudeness may be a stratagem. Not usually a healthy one, but really, putting off some people might just be a good idea.

Digression: As for the wallflower supermodels, no, not so much. Far too much of what we think of as a supermodel is how they carry themselves. That extra bit is charisma, how you can pose is more important than your features, though, super is when you have it all. You do not want to ever hear a photographer tear apart a pretty girl who has been told by all her friends that just being pretty is enough. The worst part is knowing that, professionally, he is doing her a favor. Maybe this will keep her out of the path of the professional abusers.

If your player needs to be pretty, let him. If he wants to be influential too, then he is going to have to put effort (skills and feats) to get there, and with a sold down charisma, he is going to start at a disadvantage in the social combat milieu. If he wants to use the force of his own personality to make up for putting no "points" into it, burn him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serum wrote:
Being attractive doesn't have a mechanical benefit, so why should there be a mechanical cost to achieve it?

I've seen cases in adventures (homebrew and professional) where an NPC gravitates toward or treats differently "attractive" characters. Probably not a compelling argument... just saying. :)

Daw wrote:
I should ask you natural scientists, in your bastion of various strong personalities that you are quick to discount: Who is it that is getting the grants? Perhaps you do not Feel Their Power because they don't really feel the need to influence you.

Naahh... they're just egomaniacs. Having a Ph.D. does that more often than I would have thought (not always, nor most of the time, but enough to want to smack people around).

Of course, my PhD has produced only wisdom and an incomparable awareness of what's right and wrong. If I give you my opinion, you're welcome! :p

Daw wrote:
If your player needs to be pretty, let him...

Probably the best opinion on the thread - simple and cooperative always makes for more fun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Except they want to look Every time a player dumps charisma, AND claims that their character is really, really good-looking AND that their low charisma comes from being rude, the character has been an unmitigated disaster.

I'd have thought that the rudeness was the only disruptive element there. Have you ever had a rude and ugly character work out well?

(This situation has never been a problem for me, possible because I've never demanded people role-play their charisma or tell me how attractive their character is.)

I think the idea here is that, if a 7CHA character wants to be pretty, they feel that they need to be rude so that they can "average out" to 7. PCs who accept that their 7CHA character fell onto an ugly stick generally don't feel like they need to "average out" their CHA, so they can behave like slightly awkward human beings instead of... well, Zapp Brannigan, at best.

Shadow Lodge

VixieMoondew wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Except they want to look Every time a player dumps charisma, AND claims that their character is really, really good-looking AND that their low charisma comes from being rude, the character has been an unmitigated disaster.

I'd have thought that the rudeness was the only disruptive element there. Have you ever had a rude and ugly character work out well?

(This situation has never been a problem for me, possible because I've never demanded people role-play their charisma or tell me how attractive their character is.)

I think the idea here is that, if a 7CHA character wants to be pretty, they feel that they need to be rude so that they can "average out" to 7. PCs who accept that their 7CHA character fell onto an ugly stick generally don't feel like they need to "average out" their CHA, so they can behave like slightly awkward human beings instead of... well, Zapp Brannigan, at best.

Then surely the solution is to make clear that being pretty isn't a characteristic that "needs to be averaged out" with an awful personality, because there is no mechanical benefit for being pretty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Protoshoggoth wrote:


So the Gyllenhall pic is OK, but the PC has some sort of major social disorder - it's not just that he's shy, but people actively dislike being around him.

I'm thinking a less-likable version of Gaston from "Beauty and the Beast," for instance. Or maybe Gaston as the audience sees him, not the village. Good looking but completely obnoxious and self-absorbed.


Gaston is a bad example. He may not be likable but he is undoubtedly charismatic. He raises a peasant "army" after all. He is effective.

Low charisma/low social skill just fails to be convincing or attention getting. He is always going to feel insulted that he isn't getting the time of day, while people who aren't as pretty as him ..... even if, no, especially if he is acting like a jerk.

Now, having such a character being the butt of every joke is realistic, but rather cruel.


Low charisma is Chang from orange is the new black. People consistently don't notice her/forget she is there.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Low charisma is Chang from orange is the new black. People consistently don't notice her/forget she is there.

Low charisma CAN be that way. It does not HAVE to be that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes you're right. Its just my go to example. Of course it can portrayed be other means.

C3P0?


It'd also be Crazy Eyes or the meth heads. No one ever takes them seriously.


Or soso. She annoys the f%@~ out of everyone.

Lots of people in Orange is the new black actually xD


Wolf,

It really does have to be that way if you don't want players using being a jerk to game the system, with the added benefit of getting to be an attention getting jerk. Being weak at something means your are ineffective at something.

If you want your character to be the center of it all, you had better put points to it.


Serum wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
If you have the Charming Trait, you have good looks, regardless of your Charisma. So, good looks + low Charisma = require Charming trait (or something similar), for thems who dislike the idea of low Charisma folks with good looks? (Some mechanical cost to it, since they wouldn't get other traits that would be better for min/max?)

Being attractive doesn't have a mechanical benefit, so why should there be a mechanical cost to achieve it?

The Charming trait rewards good looks, it doesn't give them to the character.

Sorry, my post is aimed at people/GMs that don't like players dumping Cha for mechanical benefit, but still want their characters to be good-looking. Personally, I don't have issues with low Cha characters looking good. (Usually, my low Cha characters are plain-looking wall-flowers)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Wolf,

It really does have to be that way if you don't want players using being a jerk to game the system, with the added benefit of getting to be an attention getting jerk. Being weak at something means your are ineffective at something.

If you want your character to be the center of it all, you had better put points to it.

Pretty or ugly, some players will use low charisma to be a jerk no matter what they look like. i don't think looks even have anything to do with those people playing jerks.


Melkiador wrote:
Daw wrote:

Wolf,

It really does have to be that way if you don't want players using being a jerk to game the system, with the added benefit of getting to be an attention getting jerk. Being weak at something means your are ineffective at something.

If you want your character to be the center of it all, you had better put points to it.

Pretty or ugly, some players will use low charisma to be a jerk no matter what they look like. i don't think looks even have anything to do with those people playing jerks.

No arguments, but if their low charisma/investment means that that their character is getting ignored, then it takes some of the wind out of their sails, doesn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
No arguments, but if their low charisma/investment means that that their character is getting ignored, then it takes some of the wind out of their sails, doesn't it?

Depends. If you start ignoring them during social interactions, they will just find even louder ways of getting attention. Like attacking the NPCs the other players were enjoying interacting with. The thing is that you can't legislate problem players. The guy at your table who wants to play a jerk so bad, is probably a jerk. And jerks will do jerky things.

But again, this has nothing to do with whether the pretty character has high or low charisma. If anything, you would be better off to not ever address how pretty or ugly a given character is. Don't make players role play stats. Let them role play characters, who will fail or succeed at challenges based on their stats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ability scores actually have very little relation to the actual character. They just constitute plus and minuses to certain types of checks.

For GMs trying to enforce some sort of balance by ascribing attributes to a -2 CHA you being a bad GM mechanically and creatively. Let the players play; let them roll their social checks; don't tell them what they look like.

If you want to avoid dumping, just make a rule. I don't suggest doing it, and wouldn't want to play at the table where it's done. But hands off character description, personality, and history (unless the history directly affects the story itself).

Being a good GM is about actualizing characters for players and having fun. Not creating a world that you, as GM, feel support the numbers on the page as you interpret them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Badwrong fun, huh, CMP? Well, that is on you. I could just as well claim that "any player that doesn't make their character according to the GM's world is a bad player, since that is a player's job", but I don't. You know why? Because it is a matter of compromise and collective agreement. It is NOT the GM's job to serve the players' fun any more than it the players' job to serve the GM's fun. All parties need to find a style of play that works for them. And if the GM isn't having fun, there won't be a game for long no matter how actualized the players' characters are.

Further, a player who designs their character to be disruptive to the game needs to be forced into a change of that personality or kicked. It is not an area where the GM should butt out, even if the disruptive player would certainly prefer it.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I play my 5 Cha dwarf as a person that questions any acts against lawful institutions, laws and authorities, and acts towards such laws, but not at the expense of the party's total decision. I usually leave some space for party to either Bluff him successfully or divert his attention if they wish so. In general, he tends to be annoying as hell, but is still occasionally good speaker (he has good Diplomacy score despite bad Charisma).

Scarab Sages

As luck would have it, I'm putting together a Cha 7 half-orc lion shaman druid for a gaming opportunity that has just become available on Saturday. Here's what I have so far in terms of description:

"Moui is an average sized half-orc (6 ft. 2 in., 250 lbs). His skin is very dark with numerous scars, some self-inflicted as decoration and others the result of combat. He has long, black hair along with sideburns and a very short beard. Following the example of his totem animal, he keeps himself clean and well-groomed whenever possible. In terms of personality, Moui intensely dislikes social interaction. He grunts and mumbles in conversation and sometimes ignores others when they speak to him."

Now, I'm not personally going to grunt and mumble and ignore my fellow players (well, no more than usual), but I will certainly stay quiet and out of any social encounters that might arise, leaving those to players whose characters have actual social stats and skills.


Daw wrote:
I should ask you natural scientists, in your bastion of various strong personalities that you are quick to discount: Who is it that is getting the grants? Perhaps you do not Feel Their Power because they don't really feel the need to influence you. Try being helpful, or even just non-condescending, and maybe their focus towards you might be more than keeping you at a distance.

As far as I can tell, the ability to get grants is very decoupled from how you treat others. I've known amazing scientists (who have a lot of grant money, which is a very different statement) who are great, friendly, outgoing people. I've known complete jerks who are struggling to keep their labs running because they can't get good funding. The you could reverse those previous statements and they would also be true.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:
So make them look it. For some reason, dumping charisma isn't so much fun anymore then.

I'm currently playing a Cha 9 monk who I describe as being somewhat unattractive, with oversized features. I also try to play the character as a bit blunt and stand-offish, though not intentionally rude.

Another party member is a tiefling samurai who I think has dumped Cha - between fiendish features and extensive scarring he's got an extremely unsettling presence, but is quite affable.

And a couple games back a friend of mine played a low-Cha half-elf ranger as a cute wallflower with self-esteem issues.

Sometimes you need to dump charisma. As long as people are making some effort to roleplay and not bothering the rest of the table, it's all good.

ChaiGuy wrote:
There's also ways to get social skills (at least in part) to be based on other ability scores. The traits clever wordplay and student of philosophy can do this with intelligence. The inquisitor's conversion inquisition lets wisdom be used in place of charisma for several social skills. It would be an interesting role playing challenge to play a character with one of these options (especially if you dump charisma), like a dwarf inquisitor with a 5 charisma, that is actually good at social skills.

Depending on the exact skills and stats involved, I tend to see these as cases of "I don't like you, but you make a compelling argument, so I'll do what you want for now."


I think it is a bit hard to lock down what a low mental stat looks like in general. Most Swashbucklers for instance should have VERY low WIsdom scores (If I need to cross this room I will use the chandelier to swing across...Umm dude, you could, you know, have just walked or ran...Why would I, this had STYLE)

What is a dumb fighter? Is a slow thinker dumb or careful? it all is in how you choose to play it...

IF YOU ABSOLUTLITY need a mechanic maybe a negative penalty causes a instant dislike (Say every -2 one step down the hostility table?)...Maybe make them have to spend .05% more on equipment per -1...

Point is your table, he should not be OVERLY penalized for it, but there should be accost...


Serum wrote:
Jason Wedel wrote:
pjackson wrote:

I am playing a cha 7 character (a monk 1/sorcerer 6/EK 1 dwarf) currently. I role play her charisma by having her stay quiet much of the time, not explaining her actions, and not attempting Cha skill checks, except once when I made a bluff check and succeeded. Unknown to me it was very nearly the truth.

She has Wis 20 and ranks in sense motive, so being rude would not fit.

I thought you had to have a CHR 10 to be a Sorcerer
No class has an ability score restriction. However, in order to cast spells, one needs an ability score (X+10) in order to cast a spell of level X. With a 20 Wisdom, it seems likely that this character has the Empyreal Wild Bloodline, whose bloodline power replaces Charisma casting score with Wisdom.

That is correct.

101 to 131 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to play a charisma 7 character? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.