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.
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
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.
>>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?
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?
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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 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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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 >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.
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.
>>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.
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?
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 >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
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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...
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>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
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.
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
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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.
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
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.