[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Do we really need the charisma stat or social...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /tg/ - Traditional Games

Thread replies: 174
Thread images: 7
File: charisma2.jpg (132 KB, 654x563) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
charisma2.jpg
132 KB, 654x563
Do we really need the charisma stat or social interaction skills in RPGs? Do they really accomplish anything that can't be solved by a bit of back-and-forth with the GM?
>>
Maybe.
>>
I dunno.
>>
I always saw charisma as another possible option for some encounters. I mean it can get pretty boring if every encounter was just go from A to B, kill guys, rinse and repeat. Plus watching people roll shitty on bluff checks can be fucking hilarious when they to recover from fucking up.
>>
This is the eternal conundrum with Charisma et al, because there's an odd double standard between social and other mechanics in RPGs.

For almost anything else, all you need to do is describe it. It doesn't need to be accurate, realistic or authentic if nobody in the group has the means to evaluate that, so you can just describe it and roll. Anyone can be a swordsman or a wizard or an architect or an engineer. But why should Charisma be any different?

Sure, if a player is competent and comfortable with it, working with IC dialogue back and forth with the GM is good. if they're playing a high Cha character. If they aren't, it's metagaming. On the flip side, if someone is less socially confident and finds that kind of public speaking hard, should they really be punished for that in the game even if they rolled a high Cha character? I've only seen the worst case scenario a few times, but having a player of a low Cha character consistently talk over the player of a high Cha character due to their difference of IRL skills seems a little wrong, doesn't it?

I tend to go for a split approach. As a GM, I love it when players get involved in the game and pull out some good dialogue... But I still make them roll. Good dialogue might get a bonus, but if they dumped their social stats they can't expect to talk themselves out of any situation. Likewise, if a player wants to play a social character, but struggles, I'm not going to levy harsh penalties against him. I'll encourage him to, even if he can't figure out the specific works, describe his intent and ideas, and generally give him the benefit of the doubt. In my experience this has worked pretty well.
>>
>>44717379

You could argue that almost every stat could be replaced by talking more to the GM. But simply relying on the GM's sense to decide everything you do is troublesome for both people.
>>
>>44717495

So is the issue more of how eloquently and quick thinking people can be when put in speaking situations versus how they pump stats to better serve talking and negotiating with NPCs?

Would it just be better to have 1 or 2 people then be like the designated "negotiators" of the party and level up some charisma based stats if they intend to be the ones who talk a lot anyway in those situations that require it? Not saying that other people shouldn't be involved it
>>
Yes. We did this recently.

The main reason to quantify charisma is not actually to let wallflower players indulge in their fantasies of being ultra-charming (although this is a nice bonus). The main benefit of making social interaction determined by dice roll is so that NPCs can genuinely differ in opinion from the DM. Otherwise, every NPC is just the DM with a barely different accent.
>>
>>44717586

Couldn't you then just make the requirement for a successful check higher if what they are saying is fucking stupid or not very persuasive sounding at all?
>>
>>44717684
Not him but that's how I do it. I set the target number based on how convincing their idea is in the first place, with bonuses that go both way for roleplaying. I then have them roll it.
>>
>>44717586
>Socially awkward players should be killed
You first.
>>
>>44717379
I would say yes because it is a widely accepted human personality trait that people express to varying degrees in reality. Some people stammer when they talk, or cannot express strong convictions in anything, some people cannot express cogent ideas well when conversing. Other people can, they speak smoothly and confidently, they express their beliefs and convictions clearly in ways that their listeners can understand. They may also have a naturally appealing voice which others find pleasant to listen to.
That is charisma, the ability to communicate in a manner that makes others favor whatever position you express when speaking to them.

Of course, communication between players and the GM should take place as well, but it shouldn't replace the necessity to roll for certain actions. One pretty popular reason to roleplay at all is to do things in the game that you can't or wouldn't in real life, or to explore stories and characters that are different from yourself. Either way, the player's ability to effect things in-game through actions out of game should be kept subtle to avoid metagaming.
>>
>>44717586
> retards who are really shitty at roleplaying and play high Cha to overcompensate for having a Cha 7 in real life.
So I'm not allowed to play an 18 STR character if I can't bench press 400 lbs?

I shouldn't be able to play an 18 Int character until I write an 18 page dissertation on transatlantic trade in the 17th century?
>>
>>44717779

Okay then.

Next time you cast a spell in the game, you should be able to bring out a real version of the spell component. What, too hard?

Okay then. Next time you make a melee attack, you should be able to explicitly display competence with an example of that weapon.

Or, in a less stupid example, Intelligence checks. The next time you'd roll Int for any reason, the GM shouldn't have to tell you the answer. After all, if you're an idiot you shouldn't be playing a high Int character, right?
>>
>>44717586
>Implying everyone is autistic as your players

Sorry for you mate.
>>
>>44717873

So you're just an elitist asshole, got it.
>>
>>44717684
I don't think so. A player's roleplaying should never result in a penalty if you ask me. It's either a bonus or nothing.
>>
>>44717824
This response is obvious, but you're overlooking the real dick move on the part of the self-proclaimed "roleplayers'. They NEVER say that fast-talking the DM is wrong (i.e. bad roleplaying) if the character is uncharismatic, even though it's misrepresenting the role.
>>
>>44717779

I am getting a game started as a DM and I plan to do stuff like that and have potential penalties if people follow a certain religion/race/wear certain symbols/etc in the wrong area performing certain charisma checks along with having penalties added on checks should they fail 1 or more checks and try to continue. It can go the opposite way as well. I want to do this so I force people to think and try.
>>
>>44717824
>>44717843
This meme again?

GM: Player, describe how you attack.
Player: I'll bash him with my shield to throw him off balance and finish him off with my sword. *makes roll*

GM: Player, describe how you convince him.
Player: I'll mention how if we succeed in this investigation it would increase traffic through his shop. *makes roll*


The principle is the same. This is how every GM I've ever had ran things. Why not just make it this simple?
>>
>>44717892
And that's why you make them roll, and you use the result of the roll as a filter/lens against what the player actually said.
>>
>>44717990

Then why does that same logic not apply to people who lack IRL social skills? The point is the hypocrisy of the 'real roleplayer' crowd.
>>
>>44717379
Just as you may be able to bench press more or less than your character, you may be more or less able to navigate social situations than your character.
>>
>>44718009
Because IRL social skills are a complex interplay of attitudes, behaviors, appearances, and socio-cultural concepts whose use is entirely contextual?
>>
>>44718009
it applies the other way around, too. A high CHA means your character is actually being smooth while you yourself are stuttering.

Anyone who has otherwise is being a dick.
>>
>>44717973

...that's literally the exact point the posters you're replying to is making. What is even wrong with you.
>>
>>44718163

Lots of assertions, no arguments. Keep shouting, asshole, I'm sure eventually people will get tired of trying to talk to you and stop. That means you win, right?
>>
>>44718163
I'm taking it you don't feel the same way about how the party interprets your NPC's interactions with them.
>>
>>44717379
Don't really need any rules--we're playing make-believe.

Charisma serves a decent purpose for an engaged DM who considers it when crafting his stories. I rely on it all the time, and probably call Charisma checks more than any other stat. I apply reaction adjustments to determine the disposition of guards, officials, potentially-hostile or suspicious groups encountered in the wilderness. I call charisma checks to determine who is getting the attention of the important characters to determine who gets snubbed and paid attention to at a palace ball, or who the barmaid rubs up against, or the crazy old wizard stops in the street.

I get a lot of use out of Charisma stats, and my players stopped using it as a dump stat a long time ago.

It's a good tool that I am fond of. I call for rolls on top of RP--not instead of it.

But it's a tool. Use it or don't.
>>
>>44718129
I'm specifically talking about a numerical bonus to a roll. Combat is adjudicated through multiple rolls, while social interactions are (almost always) determined by one. The system has rules for bonuses for tactics in combat (cover, footing, etc), the social roll doesn't.
>>
>>44718278

How much CAN you squat, out of curiosity?
>>
>>44718278
You're kind of a dick man. If someone wants to play a charismatic or intelligent character, but isn't very charismatic or intelligent themselves, what is wrong with giving them a bit of a leg up? This guy finished the thread.
>>44717495
Its a multiplayer game, there needs to be a little bit of reasonable collaboration about anything.

>I tend to go for a split approach. As a GM, I love it when players get involved in the game and pull out some good dialogue... But I still make them roll. Good dialogue might get a bonus, but if they dumped their social stats they can't expect to talk themselves out of any situation. Likewise, if a player wants to play a social character, but struggles, I'm not going to levy harsh penalties against him. I'll encourage him to, even if he can't figure out the specific works, describe his intent and ideas, and generally give him the benefit of the doubt. In my experience this has worked pretty well.

Is how you handle CHA in RPGs.
>>
>>44717891
I disagree, there are certain decisions that absolutely would be incontrovertibly stupid to make and should incur penalties. Say a stealthy character wants to attack some NPCs, the NPCs are standing in a well lit area, but the stealthy character hasn't got anything to distract them or obscure their vision at the time. If he moves into the lit area where the NPCs would easily spot him, there absolutely should be a penalty, if not an outright inability to preform stealth.
>>
>>44718278

Because the point of the game is to have fun, not make people jump through entirely arbitrary hoops?
>>
>>44718278
Hey, you do realize that you are "ROLEPLAYING" in a combat scene just as much as you do in a social scene, right?

If not, you're just being arbitrary.
>>
ITT: "Roleplaying" asshole continues to ignore the question about charismatic players fast-talking the DM despite their low charisma.

Also ITT: "Roleplaying" asshole confirmed for cheat and powergamer.
>>
>>44718403

Because you're basically making a badwrongfun argument. Which means you don't have an argument.
>>
>>44718436

You are so hilariously angry. How many groups have you been thrown out of- I'm sorry, I mean 'left of your own accord' over this?
>>
>>44718463
The guy is probably angry about other things in his life. Most people who obsess over their "roleplaying ability" don't have anything else going for them.
>>
>>44718436
>Because the point of the game is to have fun
>You are so wrong.
>The point of the game is to create an engaging alternate reality and narrative storyline.

Ok, little guy: it's time for you to go to bed.
>>
>>44718497
>I cannot deal with this thing about using the player's charisma even when the character is uncharismatic
>Please stop talking about it

Never leave. You are a shining light of entertainment on this board.
>>
>>44718403
>I know, I'll say they're the same person!
>Because its inconceivable there are two people on earth who disagree with me!

Look guy, I sympathize with not wanting immersion broken, but there's two extremes here and neither one is desirable.

Banning players from playing charismatic or intelligent characters just because they're not social butterflies or geniuses just isn't fun. Its not. Players want to play games where they can be things they aren't in real life. That's the whole reason we have mechanics in the first place.

We also don't want the story ruined by players who can't RP their way out of a paper sack trying to play Casonova.

But in the reasonable middle ground, there's the person whose not dumb as a sack of bricks, but isn't a genius either, and he needs Knowledge rules. And the person who isn't a stuttering shitstain, but also isn't as eloquent as Sir Rodgingham the Third and his 20 CHA.

Trying to make blanket statements out of your bad experiences is retarded.
>>
>>44718278
>Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution are mindnumbingly simple.
It sound's like you've never done a day of any serious physical activity in your life, achieving and then maintaining a high/rare level of physical capability can be and often is just as rigorous difficult and time consuming as becoming an exceptionally good scientist, speaker, or philosopher.
For example, swinging an axe. Shit seems simple right, swing the heavy stick at what you want to cut? Well no, not really because without practice to develop a good form and understanding of how the blade is meant to be used, you'll not only become rapidly exhausted, but also bruise and injure your hands in the process.

I submit the opposite, there is no fundamental difference between intellectual and physical greatness and their development, merely the parts of your body you chose to focus on improving.
>>
>>44718360
I was thinking specifically about a social interaction when I wrote that. I should have been more specific.

If a player says "I put on my belled jester shoes and sneak past the guard, jingling as I go," I think he has earned himself some form of disadvantage.
>>
>>44718334
>rolling after you act it out

hurk
>>
>>44718591
>Excuse me
Sorry: I won't. The number of your statements made in all-caps?

Sorry kidd-o, but you aren't up to talking to people on the internet.

Go put a glass of milk in the microwave for one minute and twenty seconds. You can drink it after you put on your footie PJs.
>>
>>44718591
He's saying that whatever reasonable position you may have had, namely

"Some people should just avoid high INT or CHA roles because no amount of DM handholding is going to make it anything more than cringeworthy"

Which is a semi-reasonable position. Not sure I agree with it, but its defensible-

Is completely destroyed by the fact that you seem to be screaming in your mind and wishing that your computer was a portal you could throw shit through in sheer rage, for people having the impudence of disagreeing with you.

It makes you funny. It doesn't matter if you're arguing in favor of the sky is blue, if you act like a trained monkey, people are going to throw peanuts.
>>
>>44718669
I thought games weren't about fun. >>44718436
>>
>>44718436
>The point of the game is to create an engaging alternate reality and narrative storyline

That's the *means*, my friend, not the *end*.

The point of a roleplaying game session 99% of the time is to have fun.

The other 1% is when the gaming group is making performance art.
>>
>>44718669
>you have resorted to
It's where I started, actually. I was talking to you earlier. Your incredible stupidity and all-caps posts made me notice your posts as I waited for someone to post something worth talking about. But your idiocy and rage has taken over the thread, because watching you have an emotional melt-down and explain why playing games isn't about fun became more entertaining than the topic. So, currently, the topic is about watching you sperg.
>>
>>44718436
Give us a complete breakdown of the cultural, social institutions, and economics of your setting and we'll be the judge of whether or not you have created an engaging alternate reality.
>>
>>44718669

Because it doesn't necessitate putting your fun before others in a group.

I play in groups with people of mixed social abilities, and we've never had an issue with a less social person trying to play a not social character. Not once. But then again, we aren't assholes. We try to support our friends and enable them to enjoy the game how they wish, rather than raging about it for no good reason.

I get the feeling the one projecting here is you. You think 'bad' roleplayers spoil your fun, and so you're having a tantrum over it. Grow up.
>>
>>44718644
No, it's not. If you can't describe the proper technique for chopping wood then I have no reason not to have the ax head hit the wood wrong and fly straight into your ankle.
>>
>>44718732
Except, that you're leaving out the reasonable middle ground. Someone who just CAN NOT roleplay to save his life, probably shouldn't be trying to be party face.

But someone whose only mediocre, or slightly bad in his social skills, can easily get by with pleb-tier explanations.

For example, he may not know exactly how to word it, but if he can explain "I try and convince the bandits to let us pass on the grounds that we're simple travelers with no money", then that's probably good enough.
>>
>>44718779

There is no proper way to play a roleplaying game. They exist to allow people to have fun, and any use of them to do so is a correct one.

The only incorrect use of a roleplaying game is one that actively goes against the general enjoyment of your group. Like one asshole player raging and putting limits on what other players are allowed to do.
>>
>>44718732
>I would love to blow all of you dumbasses up with a hand grenade and masturbate to the leftovers.
I'd like to nominate this for /tg/'s prestigious "Autist Fetish of the Month" award. Do I hear a second?
>>
>>44718855
Seconded
>>
>>44718848

To be fair, I'm also selective with people I play. But in my experience, attitude and personality matter a whole lot more than any evaluation of 'roleplaying skill'. An asshole will ruin a group, whether they're a great roleplayer or not. A person who fits well with the group dynamic and is enjoyable to be around will add to the game, regardless of their personal skill, and over time that skill will likely increase. You fit in category A, by the way.
>>
>>44718921

>Your fun does not come before others'. Get over it.

I feel like this is a lesson you've yet to learn yourself.
>>
>>44718921
>we sit around masturbating with the crumpled up pages for half an hour
No, no, that will not get you into the "Autist Fetish of the Month" award again. Come on, anon, you're capable of much better than this.
>>
>>44718884
That other anon wasn't me, and I won't demand statistics because I've never heard of any being taken, but I would ask if you think that your own experiences roleplaying constitute a good representative sample of roleplaying in general.
In truth, I would be inclined to agree that the intricacies of social situations are more often roleplayed than those of physical ones (unless that situation is sex, I've heard plenty of cringeworthy horror stories).
>>
>>44718848
I am on-topic as your argument hinges on a collaborative effort in playing an RPG. By saying you're not going expose your efforts to critique you're engaging in the very thing you're arguing against.
>>
>>44718884
>Except no one gives a fuck about that
No, you don't give a fuck about that and are demanding that everyone else not give a fuck about that, demanding your "fun" take priority over everything.
>>
>>44718628
If a character is supposed to mechanically suck at social skills and the player ignores this fact when we act it out, you bet I'm going to make the player roll. That will give him a chance to succeed.
>>
>>44717586
You argue quite beautifully to keep charisma as a stat.

>Not all players are socially apt
>Roleplaying games are about wish fulfillment
>A player can learn to be socially apt by playing an autistic 18 charisma character, and experiencing negative reactions to their clumsy attempts to be Sauvé

Education. Not even once.
>>
>>44719149
>The GROUP'S fun takes priority over YOUR fun you selfish shit. That is what I have been saying.
No you haven't. You've been trying to explain to everyone why they would have more fun if they just did what you wanted, all the time.

Basically: you're retarded.
>>
>>44719149
great meme macro xdddd
>>
>>44717379

You could say the same for INT or WIS, right? Just RP through it!

The reason that CHA is a dump stat is that most players are dumping CHA in real life. They're just not socially adept enough to see the opportunities or how to use them adroitly. They think in terms of immediately application of raw, brute force.

Reinforcing and stemming from this is that many game systems and settings start from the premise that players don't care about social encounters.

WoD games (especially Vampire) had a ton of emphasis on social skills, and sure enough players made heavy use of those stats and optimized their characters around them.
>>
>>44717379
Depends. The same goes with Intelligence or Wisdom (or anything similar, really). Sometimes, your character is far more intelligent, wise or cool (leaning, educated, etc.) then you are, so that's why having any of those as a stat is important.
>>
File: Break it Up.jpg (62 KB, 640x512) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Break it Up.jpg
62 KB, 640x512
>>44717379
>Seeing one of my old RPG.net motivational posters

Argh, got me right in the age.
>>
>>44719241

From the sound of your group, being a total fucking cunt works for the rest of you. Why are you shitting on the new guy?
>>
>>44719241
>This is why you owe it to me to play games the way that I want you to
>Now let me talk about how entitled other people are, for a little bit
I just reduced your post down to two sentences, for you.
>>
File: High Level Rogues.jpg (91 KB, 640x512) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
High Level Rogues.jpg
91 KB, 640x512
>>44719264
Seriously, i made, like a hundred of these for the threads back in the day. Barely saved any of them, though. most are on flickr.
>>
>>44719197
I'm asking you to present your worldbuilding since that is your component, as a DM, of a collaborative RPG session.
>>
File: NICE.jpg (28 KB, 574x586) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
NICE.jpg
28 KB, 574x586
>>44717379
I just feel conflicted about how many things each stat encompasses. Especially since looks and force of personality are treated as the same thing, it would be weird if every sorcerer was a blonde slut with blue eyes, but that's what the game would have me believe.

I agree and I'd much prefer CHA to be removed and personality traits be moved to WIS (Willpower is a thing after all) and the conversation options be split between INT and WIS. But as for attractiveness, that's kind of subjective anyway and it's strange to have a big stat decider for it.
>>
>>44719317
>neither of those sentences occured in my actual post,
First off: Thank you for correctly identifying what reducing someone's statements to other statements is.

>I am talking about
Next: you're just sperging in caps like a retard.
>>
>>44719149
"Uh...I bribe the guard and uhh...yeah."

"We need a little more than that. What do you say to the guard?"

"Can't I just roll?"

"We want to hear it. Give it a shot."

"Uh. H-hey there, um, look the other way and I'll make it worth...your...while?"

"That works! Make the roll."

...How hard is that? Does that really take away from your enjoyment of the game?
>>
>>44719354
YES. ARGLE BARGLE!

See? I was roleplaying that poster. I win.
>>
>>44719321
I still think it should be kept in, as I said near the start of the thread >>44717814, Charisma refers skill in communication or lack thereof. You don't need to be intelligent or actually willful to be a smooth talker. Being intelligent can add to how charismatic a person is, but it isn't a requirement and the two are not dependent upon one another. Plenty of charismatic people are not particularly intelligent (like movie personalities) and plenty of highly intelligent people are fucking autists.
>>
>>44719381
>Therefore it was worth nothing and does not deserve to exist.
I am enjoying this thread. You should start tripfagging.
>>
>>44719340
>My worldbuilding is satisfactory to our group. That is all that matters.
>As I literally just said, if it was NOT satisfactory to the group, I would step down as GM because I put the group's enjoyment before my own selfish aspirations.

So you claim.
>>
>>44719215
>As for the rest of your post: Charisma should be vanquished as well as Intelligence. You should live or die on your character's personal actions. After all, if you make a shitty tactical decision you still die, your Int score nonwithstanding. It's not any fucking different.
I take it that you ban players from taking notes at the table unless their character is physically taking notes, and confiscate/deface their notes as appropriate to the character? After all, we wouldn't want the character to be able to remember things that the player can't...
>>
File: 1427742832271.jpg (194 KB, 566x816) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1427742832271.jpg
194 KB, 566x816
>>44717586
Most people I've played with who make charismatic characters don't really do so to make up for their own faults, but enjoy doing something more than swinging their sword or casting spells. Usually they enjoy being a sort of support character, or getting involved in social situations over combat ones, or like to have some sort of measure of leadership or control of a party - party faces usually end up making the deals, directing the party, stuff like that. Any lack of social skills can be made up for by support from the GM and the party.

The real problem comes when two people come in who have fairly high charimsa. I am sometimes that problem guy - someone makes their charismatic rogue or sorcerer, and then I make a paladin or a bard, so not only do we overlap in our skills, but if we disagree there's a rift in the party - and especially as a paladin, there are strong IC as well as OOC reasons for not simply acquiescing.
>>
>>44719432
That you are entertaining the shit out of us.
>>
>>44719453
>in my games I am generally the only one allowed to take notes.

This is gold.

Please start tripfagging.
>>
What if you're playing a class that doesn't use Charisma as a dumpstat but as a primary, like Paladin? Do you still have to be sauve and smooth-talking? Or can you be charismatic by convincing your teammates to manup?
>>
>>44719432
>You are not part of my group so your opinion doesn't matter anyway
Turn this around, and it's as good a reason as any for you to stop acting like your opinions are worth anything outside your group.
>>
>>44719036
To be fair, the number of people typing sex at each other over the internet likely eclipses the number of people playing 'tabletop roleplaying games' by several orders of magnitude.

They're not a niche in our hobby, we're a niche in theirs.
>>
>>44719354

This is doing it right. Being supportive of people and helping them engage with the game, rather than being an asshole about it.
>>
>>44719432
>You are not part of my group so your opinion doesn't matter anyway.

I haven't given my opinion because you refuse to provide us with the information we've asked for. I don't know why you're feeling persecuted by my interest in your DM skills.
>>
>>>44719354 (You) #
>>>44719371 #

>What are you trying to prove with this post? Genuinely curious.

Believe it or not those were two different posters. I was asking whether working with a wallflower was so bad after all.
>>
>>44719523
>The fact that you consider this entertainment shows you are not arguing in good faith.
Kiddo, I was never arguing with you. I've simply been mocking you since the first time I replied to you. You're confusing me with other posters because I count at least four of us making fun of you.

The part that makes it gold? You can't seem to help yourself from swinging at every pitch. Hell, you're swinging at the wind-up.

That's what's making this fun and, by the way? That's what everyone means when they call you a "sperg."
>>
>>44719453
Not the other Anon, but I would like to know what your reasoning behind this is? To me disallowing people to take any notes seems pretty stifling. Players might have ideas they want to bounce off of you later that they want to write down, they might want to flesh out characters or write down events or names of NPCs for later recovery.
>>
>>44719453
>However, in my games I am generally the only one allowed to take notes.

I roll to disbelieve.
>>
>>44719273

You win the 'Actually made me spill my coffee laughing' award. Well played.
>>
>>44719523
>The fact that you consider this entertainment shows you are not arguing in good faith.

Not only do you not get to determine what others find entertaining, the fact that you continue to argue implies that you find this entertaining. Otherwise, you would have left the thread.
>>
>>44719635
>Then you are not part of the discussion. Kindly fuck off.
Hey, it's a free country, kiddo. I can post, take notes, AND allow rolls for Charisma, all at the same time. Your made-up group doesn't exist, because you're autistic and have no friends.
>>
>>44719635
I don't think you DM at all and don't actually have anything to show in the first place.
>>
>>44719397
It was always explained to me as force of will. If you've a shit charisma it doesn't matter how smoothly you talk, the person isn't paying you enough attention or taking you seriously enough for the words to work.
>20 Cha walks into a room: everyone glances over and keeps watching, expecting something.
>10 Cha: People glance over, but look away after a mild glance.
>3 Cha: People glance at the door opening but don't see anything interesting, just more of the usual day-to-day stuff that gets forgotten every night.
>>
>>44719523
You seem to have genuine difficulty with the notion that people may enjoy roleplaying with someone despite their imperfect social skills, and not enjoy roleplaying with a world class actor who happens to be an offensively pedantic arsehole. Just as examples.
>>
>>44719581

>Another reason for why Charisma is a shitty stat, that we did not discuss in this thread yet because of others' pointless nitpicking over a failure to understand basic human rights and the divide between player skill and character skill.

> others' pointless nitpicking over a failure to understand basic human rights

> basic human rights
>>
>>44719635
You don't get to decide what I do in response to your worldbuilding. Your adamant refusal to divulge leads me to make inferences about its quality, but I'm not going to pre-judge it.

While you giving the setting it nice, it really doesn't say anything about you as a DM unless you exclusively run pre-mades.
>>
>>44719698
This thread has been about mocking you since >>44718760. I mean, sure, people keep throwing in tangents, but mainly we've stayed on topic.
>>
>>44719473
Sometimes, you have to take one for the team and try to ignore how stupid something is. Just like when a nerdy guy with a reedy voice yells a battlecry like his barbarian would.
>>
>>44719684
You can't say to not jump into semantics when the preceding sentence is a purely semantic argument.
>>
>>44719795
>The basic human right to not be shit on by other people.
That's not a basic human right. It's an argument against the basic human right of freedom of expression.
>>
>>44719795
That's not a basic human right.
>>
>>44719684

Wow... you really can't let anything go can you? You poor bastard. 4chan is going to ruin your life mate. You gotta learn to let things slide because there are people here who will just keep disagreeing with you, regardless of what you say, just to watch you freak out.

Like, that is exactly what is happening here. Nobody else in this thread cares about this remotely as much as you do. We're all here just to watch you flail.
>>
>>44719846
Now who is resorting to ad hominem to make his point while implying that he gets to dictate my actions?
>>
>>44717495
>>44717973
>>44717843
>>44718807
>dat false equivalency
Every time

It's roleplay not rollplay. Character interaction is fundamentally at the heart of the game and thus necessitates the so called "double standard"

The second you abandon this principle you end up with some autist player who is convinced that charisma/diplomacy is some sort of auto win mind control ability, and spergs out the second the GM tells him one of his npcs wouldn't be convinced by such a flimsy argument, if they even bother to come up with in the firstplace

Search your feelings, you know it to be true
>>
>>44719927
Then why is the stat in the game at all?
>>
>>44718268

Actually, we're playing make-beleive with each other so a set of rules is explicitly needed to avoid cowboys and indians style "Bang bang! I shot you, you're dead! No I'm not! Yes you are!".

This is also why computers have networking protocols.

Goddamn, that may be the single most autistic analogy I've ever made...
>>
>>44719869
But this isn't your house, this is 4chan. Why do you keep telling people that they should just be silent, that their arguments have no validity, that the topic is whatever you say it is?

[notspoiler]Because you're role-playing an autist. Nobody could actually be as emotionally crippled as you're coming across. 10/10, award-winning performance![/notspoiler]
>>
>>44719927

Characters interact through more than just words. Everything on your sheet is a method of interacting with the other characters and the world, to a greater or lesser extent. To treat two of those methods differently to the extent you're describing is an entirely arbitrary double standard.
>>
>>44719695
It seems to me your describing presence or confidence, an expression of command or importance through facial expression and body language that inclines people to pay attention to you. To me that's one part of charisma, but not the whole thing. I've always been a dictionary definition person and Charisma always refers to convincing people of things which means talking/speaking/debate ect.
>>
>>44719915
>You're implying I'm not enjoying this also
If everyone is deriving enjoyment from this then we have zero reason to stop.

>>44719927
>dat strawman argument

Half of your examples involve character interaction, one applies your principles to other stats, and one doesn't even have the player rolling at all. You also present your example as the ultimate result of not following your method.
>>
>>44719927
>"roleplay not rollplay"

> Actually dusting off that old chestnut and thinking it's a real argument.

Oh you darling little bear you.
>>
>>44719795
But you've been continuously shitting on other people with blanket statements and petty insults. Not even the people you've been arguing against, but the faceless "plebs" and "idiots" and inferior forms of enjoyment/RP you alternately rant about like an angry old man or allude to disdainfully like an arrogant young one.
>>
>>44720075

Badwrongfun is a bullshit argument.
>>
>>44720075
I know someone who sure as hell can't roleplay high CHA characters
>>
>>44720063
It's certainly a better argument than "Oh you darling little bear you."
>>
>>44720075
Badwrongfun isn't saying "shut up". It's an invitation to consider that other people might not be doing something wrong just because they enjoy a thing you don't enjoy.

Responding to that by getting angry isn't wrong, though - it's hilarious. Please continue your performance.
>>
>>44718163
>>44718278
>>44718403
What a little cry baby.

Try disney.com, it might be more your maturity level.

btw bro, you're flat out wrong
>>
>>44717379
When I GM I ask my players what they say to get out of whatever situation, bargain, flirt, etc, then I have them roll, based on what they say I give a penalty, bonus, or nothing to the roll plus there stat in the particular area.
PS: usually play rules light home brew systems, my group has its foundation in freeform RPGs.
>>
>>44717379
Charisma is important. You are assuming everyone can be reasoned with. That's not true. Sometimes you must overcome their innate biases and prejudices. That's what the charisma roll represents.
>>
>>44719927
>It's roleplay not rollplay

This should be subject to a Godwin's Law of a RPG forums: "As a RPG discussion thread gets longer, the probability of someone accusing another person of rollplaying instead of roleplaying approaches 1."
>>
>>44720272
You're the one who started shitflinging. I bet your name is Chad and you go to /r/redpill.

Actually I know that's true because you were boasting about how much you benchpress, while completely missing the point that it wasn't a personal attack, but a parallel between player fitness and STR score.

Whatever.
>>
>>44720272
It's not just personnal attack m8, it's a fact.
See how you sperged and people call you on it? That means bad charisma. You can't make strangers like you when you talk. So, you shouldn't play characters with high CHA, because you don't have high CHA.
The majority of people can't roleplay CHA/INT/WIS 14+ anyway, because they're just not that charismatic, smart or wise.
>>
>>44719968
I had a lot of fun playing Cowboys and Indians, personally. But my point was that no particular, individual rule is ever "needed" in an RPG. They're just useful and fun.
>>
>>44720326
Of course it isn't. It's an aphorism.
>>
>>44720028
>Does it pertain to the original discussion?

It directly calls into question your reasoning and position, as it becomes an argument from ignorance. And yes, calling someone "a fucking teenager who just learned what libertarianism is," is an ad hominem.
>>
ITT: my ableist gm is forcing me to come up with reasons why the npc should do what what I want instead of letting me just diplomance with a roll of the dice.

So unfair, doesnt he know I'm charisma impaired?
>>
>>44719927
>Character interaction is fundamentally at the heart of the game
Dubious. I can imagine an interesting roleplaying game (or at the least, session) with just the DM and a single player, and no real NPCs. The heart of the game is that:

1. the player takes on - or "plays" - a different role, attempting to think for (or as) another person.
2. instead of attempting to define every situation with rules, the game includes a referee empowered to make up rules on the spot.

Those two combined are what make the magic of RPGs.
>>
>>44720394
The people you're talking about are people that shouldn't roleplay in the first place. Every sperg I met that tried to play a high CHA characters was making some effort.
The problem here is not "people with low irl CHA" but "people who don't want to roleplay"

And yes, that kind of do. You would know that even people agreeing with you will mock you just because you're sperging out if you had good cha.
>>
>>44720432
>Not to mention, isn't Godwin's Law saying "if someone mentions or makes a comparison to Hitler the argument is over and that person lost"? Because if so, it IS trying to have an actual bearing on the fate of the argument, and thus it is overstepping its bounds.
No. Godwin's Law was originally something more like, "Wow, this discussion has gone to the dogs, I don't think we're going to get any further now." There are people who use it like a rhetorical hammer, and that prompted Godwin to postulate a second law on the probability of Godwin's (First) Law being invoked.
>>
>>44720307
>stop bringing up legitimate points it ruins my narrative
>>
>>44719397
Charisma doesn't necessarily represent skill in communication (though it does contribute), those are done by skills like diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive etc.

Charisma is force of personality. Which doesn't necessarily mean looks (though they can certainly contribute). Its your ability to draw people to you, to take the spotlight (and ideally not fuck-up while in it) and a variety of other things.

I played a half-orc bard in pathfinder who (due to shenanigans) started with 22 charisma at level 1 (his stat lineup was insane, the dm gave us a free 20 in any one stat and allowed us to reroll any stat under 11... so I ended up with I believe no stat under 16). By the time he was level 7 he was commanding a squad of lethal crossbowmen and he had made allies with a dragon as well as a few orc tribes (by either befriending or intimidating them).

Eventually his character path was set to have him carve out his own kingdom and probably end up going down in history as one of the greatest orc kings to have lived. He drew people to him, his bardic performances were based off of war chants and tribal performances like the haka. Many people thought he was some reborn godling set to lead his race to glory.

Charisma isn't just social ability... if anything its almost akin to being a ta'veren in wheel of time, people feel *pulled* to you.
>>
>>44720191
>Oh fuck off. It's wasn't an invitation, it was quite literally "you are saying badwrongfun, therefore you have no argument"
>It was saying "Shut up you're wrong". It was not an invitation. Quit using deceptive language to defend your stupid bullshit.
On the offchance that you're serious, you should understand by now that there are multiple anons disagreeing with you, mocking you, or applauding you as the most entertaining thing on /tg/ right now. So assuming that someone responding to your posts is the same person you engaged with earlier only makes you look foolish.

Secondly, saying "you have no argument" is not saying "fuck off" or any of the more abusive things you've littered your posts with in this thread. It's simply saying that you don't have an argument, you just have opinions. Nobody is saying that opinions can't be voiced, but opinions are not right or wrong - they're just opinions. The same point was made earlier in >>44718190 without recourse to the badwrongfun meme, and it was just as valid then.

But if you're not being serious, please continue because the crazy person act is really good.
>>
>>44719927
Looking at all those examples it occurs me that people are looking at this wrong. "Combat doesn't need all that work, so why does talking?" Well, dialogue doesn't require positioning, inventory management, action resource management, or regular resource management. You don't have to make sure you don't run out of breath, or have a limited number of words, or specify where your eyes are looking while you talk. All you do is talk.
>>
>>44720941
Says you. You ever tried Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel? That shit is a mechanically rigorous mini-game, and has a tendency to produce awesome results.
>>
>>44720941
I see you haven't tried playing Legends of the Wulin.
>>
>>44721079
>>44721449
I take it by how only very specific games, which are probably built specifically for character interaction, are being brought up that I made some people think. Or they didn't get it.

tl;dr
Combat:
>Positioning
>Action resources
>Resources
>Inventory
>Tactics
>Stats

Charisma challenges:
>(Verbal) Tactics
>Stats

Making you talk is what makes it a challenge at all, otherwise it's just attempted mind rape.
>>
>>44717824
>So I'm not allowed to play an 18 STR character if I can't bench press 400 lbs?
The guy you're responding to is being a bit ridiculous, but so are you. Your own strength does not affect your role-playing in any way, shape, or form, but your ability to communicate does. So clearly we're talking about two different things here.
>>
>>44717586
>>44717873
>>44718163
>>44718436
>>44718403

This is the same asshole who was shitting up the Character Concepts thread yesterday. Tell people they should die for gaining inspiration from video games.
>>
>>44717884
>Implying this guys even has players
>>
File: 1451944399278.jpg (88 KB, 500x281) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451944399278.jpg
88 KB, 500x281
>>44717586
Look I know we're all expendable to you since you're drawing from your

> 100s of other applicants for your game

I play with people I know and like. They're not always so great with the words all the time. The dice roll sorta balances out what the person knows and what the character inside that universe knows
>>
>>44721893
Link to that thread? If it's half as dumb as what he posts in this one it should be an interesting read.
>>
Im getting a weird gut feeling this is virtualoptim returned to continue his shitposting.

Its the same violent rage towards those who don't fall in line with his thinking, the same strange ideas about how the game should be played, and just being an insufferable ass with terrible opinions.

He even has the same time period virt posted from.

Id be sure if we could get ROLEPLAY NOT ROLLPLAY faggots opinion on DW and other rules lite games.
>>
>>44722513
Fuck me sideways, but I find myself agreeing. I barely ever ran into him but damn if it's not a striking similarity now that you've pointed it out.
>>
>>44721806

Dude, neither Legends of Wulin (high-powered kung-fu action) nor Burning Wheel (gritty fantasy) are specifically social games. For that kinda stuff you'd want to talk Monsterhearts, Breaking the Ice, or Hillfolk.

What I (the person who mentioned BW) was trying to say was that there are a ton of different games out there, and assuming that they all have similar mechanics is goofy.

Yeah, there are some games where combat has a vast plethora of mechanical complexity while social mechanics languish in poorly defined obscurity (like D&D), but there are other games where social conflict and physical conflict are resolved with the a universal resolution mechanic (Fate, for instance), and yet more where there are subsystems for social mechanics that are of comparative complexity to those for physical violence (BW, Cortex, Apocalypse World).

Making any kind of generalization about RPG mechanics or experience is a mugs game, there's too many different systems and too many different play cultures.

This is why sperglord is so funny when he tries to conflate his personal experiences with his personal group with some kind of universal truth about the hobby as a whole. Only the myopically narcissistic would assume their experiences were universal in a hobby so diverse.
>>
>>44722568
Ah, sorry. I've literally never heard of social mechanics any different than D20 + Cha + Skill = yes/no result. Again though, in general when discussing how shit works in games the default game that's being discussed always seems to be DnD and that's how it is in DnD which is why actual talking and acting out is important.

>his personal group
That idea scares the shit out of me.
>>
>>44722568
>neither Legends of Wulin (high-powered kung-fu action) nor Burning Wheel (gritty fantasy) are specifically social games
Can't speak for Burning Wheel, but LotW doesn't need to be "specifically" a "social game". It does social combat well enough without focusing only on that.
>>
>>44717517
Agreed. It's not any different than any other stat.
>>
>>44722661
Ah, yeah, that was the gist I was getting. Well I have good news for you Capn, there is a world of varied games out there that work absolutely nothing like D&D and create very different experiences at the table.

I recommend checking some of them out. There's been a lot of interesting design work done over the last few years.
>>
>>44722689
True that, I wasn't arguing against Wulin's social combat mechanics, I was trying to show that even games where social conflict isn't the focus can have cool social mechanics of comparable mechanical complexity to those for physical conflict.
>>
>>44717873
While you sound like an elitist asshole, you aren't wrong. I think it comes down to skill as a roleplayer in being able to pull off a genius character or a charismatic character. Generally, experienced players can do it without much difficulty.

That said, you don't have to be a genius to play a genius. You just need to act like genius characters from movies and books. Most of the time, Int checks are for plot related information that only the GM knows, so no amount to thinking can fix that.

You also don't have to be a playboy to act like one. Just watch some movies and draw from that. And hell, I usually say my piece and imagine that the charisma roll could be a variety of factors from; a good roll being exactly what the character wanted to hear right then, a slip of the tongue, or even there just being something wrong with your face.
>>
>>44722330
Here you go sir

>>44689720
>>
>>44723069
Thank you.
>>
>>44719175
>Roleplaying games are about wish fulfillment
Disgusting.
>>
>>44722513
It all fits, except no trip. Virt loved his trips, even when the main one failed, he had others to fall back on.

He's too much of an attention whore to not have a trip.
>>
>>44717517
>You could argue that almost every stat could be replaced by talking more to the GM.
No you couldn't, what in the hell are you talking about? Are you proposing players have mock sword fights with the GM instead of using dexterity? Lift weights instead of using strength?
>>
>>44717379
not this shit againe. You dont have to be able to bench press a planet to play goku so why would you need to be as charismatics as freddy mercury irl to play a very charismatic cherecter? Hence the stat
>>
>>44724158
Yes you could.
>>
>>44724057
I can't believe i'm saying this, but maybe a shitposter learned something. Maybe he learned that having a trip leads to immediate banning.

We've made a breakthrough in social conditioning!
>>
>>44718278
I disagree. People should be free to choose wether to act out the interactions with the NPCs or not.

Someone saying "What ho! Good sir pray tell where may I find the Market?"

Should be the same as when the player says. "I greet the guard cheerfully and ask him for directions to the market."

Sure, acting out interactions is nice and all, but it is not fundamental in my opinion.
>>
Depends on the system.
>>
>>44718129
Seems to me your position is "punish my players for making me do extra work in portraying THEIR characters"... with no consideration as to just how socially capable (or incapable) they are in real life.
How lucky for you that you've never had trouble with your players speaking and conveying their thoughts properly, but what about the rest of us?
Guess you should have a more capable GM than yourself explain it to you, since you obviously do not have the real-life intellectual capacity to understand such a simple situation. Or, you could just roll for it and pretend you understand, provided your in-game INT is high enough.
>>
>>44717379
This is the exact reason I believe there's no such thing as a min-maxed build with high charisma. It's a skill that can be ignored by the player gitting gud.

I despise min-maxers though, so I'd probably fuck them over for doing that
>>
>>44717379
depends on the system

charisma in shadowrun for example has a mechanical usage as one of the primary stat pillars, and actually affects rolls and also conjuration and gives bonuses to social characters

sometimes you can see charisma being completely useless because most things can be solved by roleplaying a convincing strategy in-character, but in some systems you actually need a quantifiable grasp of just HOW social your character is to pass certain checks regardless of what you roleplay as because checks require an enemy intelligence check or something to see your degree of success

but from what I see it's overall a very useless stat that's added on a lot of games because it's traditional or whatever but doesn't actually have any actual use other than making socially awkward people roll rather than roleplay social situations
>>
>>44728540

>>44728540

Completely wrong. Min-maxxed bards, especially diplomancers, have high CHA. Min-maxxed CHA-based casters have high CHA, as do paladins in reasonable amounts.
>>
>>44717586
>These kinds of players should be shot and killed.

People who say charisma shouldn't be a stat should be taken out back and beaten to death with a shovel.
>>
Wow that guy is a piece of shit.
>>
>>44717379
Yes, charisma determines how many henchman you can have, and how loyal they are. It's the most important stat.
>>
>>44724057
No, he's posting without a name and trip now.
Thread replies: 174
Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 402497



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.