So, should games even have Charisma and Charm stats for characters?  Should those aspects be left solely up to role-playing?

While working on my homebrew, I noticed that most of the social skills in the game are given rather low priorities, as well as the Charisma stat itself being given a low priority.  This made me wonder if I really need it, and I'm beginning to think, "No.  I don't.  I'll just play this stuff out."

Discuss.

I guess it depends on the game, and if it includes more than force of personality.

QuoteSo, should games even have Charisma and Charm stats for characters? Should those aspects be left solely up to role-playing?

I'm not big on rolling dice to resolve "social conflict", although I have met MANY vocal advocates of this method on web forums (much less so at the gaming table in real life).

I sort of take a compromise position on this question for games I run. Specifically:

I tend to treat Charisma as a "gift" or "advantage" in game terms. That is, it's a binary trait and the character either has it or he doesn't. It's understood that NPCs will tend to react better to a character that has it than one who doesn't, even if both characters are saying or doing the exact same things. The exact effects are left to the GM's discretion, however.

As long as the players clearly understand that "likeability" and "good looks" are two totally separate factors, yeah.

This whole, "Whoa! That halfling chick's got an eighteen Charisma, she's gotta be a looker!" annoys me to no end.

I'm sorry.  She still has bulbous features, hairy feet and floppy tits.  She's really nice and will make you feel great when she banters with you, tells you a joke or compliments you on your style.  But you'd have to be a seriously twisted and perverted bugger to find her "attractive."

Or another Halfling, one assumes...


Actually, my view is virtually the same as Yamo's.  While there should be a mechanism for the uncharismatic player to 'prove' his character is likeable, I don't feel that they are appropriate as 'stats'.  Quite frankly, in a points buy system it is hideously annoying to realize that one's chiseled cheekbones are weighted exactly the same as one's ability to dodge bullets, toss handgrenades or disarm nuclear bombs.

To put it another way: All the best swordsmen in the game are ugly as sin, by default.  All the best scientists are ugly as sin, by default. Anyone who IS NOT ugly as sin must be a bard/conman or other social dude. OR they have chosen to be 'non-competetive' in their chosen feild to be pretty.  

Seems to me to be a strange thing, especially when compared to 'genre emulation', where you often have 'pretty' swordsmen or scientists or what not, who are still the best at what they do.

Quote from: SpikeTo put it another way: All the best swordsmen in the game are ugly as sin, by default.  All the best scientists are ugly as sin, by default. Anyone who IS NOT ugly as sin must be a bard/conman or other social dude. OR they have chosen to be 'non-competetive' in their chosen feild to be pretty.  

1) Charisma is not "beauty."

2) Fighters who focus exclusively on fighting ability tend to lack social skills (have you looked at the wrestling industry lately?)

3) The stereotype of the scientist/programmer whose people skills are in the negative range is a stereotype for a reason.

4) Bard's aren't necessarily "beautiful," but they are definitely "people skilled" which would be the function of Charisma.

After reading your post, I think you actually made the opposite case that you intended.

Quote from: Vellorian1) Charisma is not "beauty."


After reading your post, I think you actually made the opposite case that you intended.

True, and true enough. I was thinking of one particular game where beauty IS a stat.

As for realism: the case could be made for games to be LESS realistic, and MORE like the books, movies, comics, and other sources of fiction, where all to often the worlds greatest swordsman IS devestatingly handsome, or charming, or witty or what have you, so it isn't an irrelevant or counterproductive argument.

Beauty, at least more than charm, is something that ultimately has no bearing on how capable you are. Perhaps on what you might choose to do in life, but not capability.

As for the thrust of the thread: Charm/charisma... all to often the anti-social scientist, or the anti-social athlete... doesn't succeed.  They may or may not possess teh same basic potential as a more charming counterpart, but their behavior keeps them from progressing within their fields. It interferes with their ability to get grants, say, or find competent assistants, or even (T.O. I'm looking at you...) stay on the field to continue honing their skills.  In our mythical master swordsman, it can interfere with finding a teacher, getting a good sword made, or legends being spread about him...

In a random character generation, it is simple to say 'Charisma' is as important and foundational to establishing "WHO HE IS" as Strength, because having a high charisma doesn't add to or take away from his innate abilities in other areas.

In the balancing act of point buy systems it all to often IS. Oddly; charming, sociable people are NOT less capable in other feilds.    

Mind you, I'm not really making an arguement either way, just illustrating the issue. I SIDE with one side, but I can SEE both.

Yes, Charm can be veiwed as an innate 'trait', just as strength and smarts and so forth. Appearance IS used in some games as a social 'attribute', clouding the issue.

On the other hand I don't think it carries the same weight, nor should it.  Part of this has to do with the nature of RPG's as social activities. You SHOULD rely on around the table discussions to influence what happens in game, though I also think you SHOULD have some way to bolster the less persuasive PLAYERS so that they can play outside of type with some confidence.

Should a master charmer be more potent than the guy that just wants his bad ass swordsmaster to be witty and handsome? No doubt. Should the guy that has a 'witty and handsome' idea for his 'concept' be penalized over the guy that only thinks 'can kill anyone' is a rocking concept and plays, by default, a monster? No.



We can easily agree that one's charm or beauty should not influence combat or bomb defusion or any of the hundreds of non-social tasks characters might be called upon to do in the course of a game. However: weighting the character design process by slapping Charm down as 'equally relevant' ultimately DOES penalize people who want to be 'experts'.

Quote from: GabrielSo, should games even have Charisma and Charm stats for characters?  Should those aspects be left solely up to role-playing?

Discuss.

I would prefer it if those aspects of the game were left to be roleplayed. But, in all of my games with stats like these I make them relevent to the game, by presenting the players with situations where those stats are used.

Regards,
David R

I like them, I don't tend to like social mechanics much but I do like a stat or two relating to such things.

If a player wants to play a charismatic character, I still get them to say what their argument is or their speech and then I take into account the stat or skill in assessing it.

It's a roleplaying issue for me, I like people playing characters other than themselves and I don't want every game to have the most persuasive player having the most persuasive character.  Nor do I want a shyer player being barred from having persuasive characters.  Where's the fun in that?

If a dweeb who can't fight can play a warrior in game a dweeb with no social skills can play a schmoozer. It's what roleplaying is all about IMO.

That said, within the player's own abilities they still need make an effort, it might be a crap effort if they suck at that sort of thing but I generally don't let people just roll charisma, I take their charisma or whatever into account and mentally upgrade or downgrade their real life performance accordingly.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a roleplaying issue for me, I like people playing characters other than themselves and I don't want every game to have the most persuasive player having the most persuasive character.  Nor do I want a shyer player being barred from having persuasive characters.  Where's the fun in that?

At the same time, don't confuse roleplaying with acting. Only a staggeringly-shitty GM is going to let things like the tone of voice that PC dialog is delivered in at the table factor into character success.

What matters is that the player is thinking and planning-out what their character will say and do with some care.

Quote from: YamoAt the same time, don't confuse roleplaying with acting. Only a staggeringly-shitty GM is going to let things like the tone of voice that PC dialog is delivered in at the table factor into character success.

What matters is that the player is thinking and planning-out what their character will say and do with some care.

I entirely agree.  Essentially, I want the player to make an effort, provided they meet me half way I am more than happy to let the stats carry them the rest of the difference.  How they meet me half way is really their business, if they want to set out what they say, if they want to act it out, if they want to make a little speech and then say "like that, but obviously more effective given his abilities", if they want to note to me the points their character will make without acting it out at all, whatever, that's their business.

The key point for me is that it's not reduced to "I roll my charisma" because that's boring.

In the old days there was a stat called COMELINESS. It returned in the Book of Erotic Fantasy as APPEARANCE. I still use that stat, but it makes one of my players enraged because it's not a stat that's tied to anything, and ends up being another dump stat, except to players like him who actually care about what their character looks like.

I've eliminated INTIMIDATE skill from my game, which weakens Charisma a little. But I've also linked a lot of magic items to a charisma modifier, so players can't just treat it as a dump stat without suffering the consequences.