Roleplaying Charisma

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Ah, metagaming at its worst, Stragen.

[darkstorme]

Not precisely "at its worst", and, I think, unavoidable. Immersive playing is all well and good, but if it's for something non-trivial (like a barter deal, say), a player is unlikely to want to RP well enough that they come out with the short end of the stick, even if their INT and WIS scores say they ought to. Kudos to anyone who does, but it's not something most people will voluntarily do.

(In addition, people have no CHA check to base their trust on initially, so the fact that they trust Jin more initially based on the way he's dressed is because stat scores aren't broadcast, so they have no alternative method of judgement. (unless you've entered your CD information into LORE)).

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

For me, CHA score doesn't involve physical attractiveness. My character Myrrha De'loran (some of you may have spotted her wandering around in Hlint) is a sorcerer, with 18 CHA - and she is half-blind. You'd see it in her biography. In RPing, I equate CHA with 'interesting' or 'provoking interest' in other people. In other words, not boring. I make an effort to have lively conversations (not sure if it's working, or I'm babblng though!), interact with others on a very social basis, mingle a lot, provide intelligent opinions, etc etc. Of course, blindness is a good conversation factor... I hope I don't overdo it though.

I don't think CHA should be used to measure attractiveness alone, otherwise all of us sorcerers with physical deformities would be out of our jobs.

[stragen]

I actually don't think it is poor role-playing that other characters trust the Priest more then the Pirate. Based on context a character may appear a lot more trustworthy then their charisma score, mechanically this could be through of a bonus to their charisma check to determine the reaction to a person. For example if you needed to ask for directions, most people would trust the directions given by the police officer standing on the corner. But the same burly man in civilians clothing standing on the street corner you might consider a thug or conman and wouldn't consider approaching. The charisma score of the person is the same, but they would have an appropriate modifier based on their appearance, and the context of their environment.

So charisma by itself isn't a good indicator of how trustworthy a person seems. A further example would be the case of the used car sales person.

I would argue that charisma, at least in game terms, is a combination of attractiveness (physical and other) and force of personality. It can be measured by how persuasive the person is as a speaker, and how desirable they appear to be as a friend. That is one measure is how often other characters will be persuaded by the speaker’s words. And another measure is the number and speed by which they make new friends.

Thus to play a character with high charisma they should appear persuasive, friendly, and/or desirable. Characters with very high charisma scores are likely to be both Attractive and have Forceful Personalities. Though it is possible to have all a characters charisma reflected in a single aspect of either Appearance or Personality. Two highly charismatic examples of this nature are 1) the supermodel who can barely string a conversation together, and 2) the short balding politician with funny eyebrows, who still manages to be ahead in the polls (eg the current Prime Minister of Australia http://www.pm.gov.au/ ).

A secondary result of this is that high charisma characters, Paladins, Sorcerers and Bards are likely to be the object of most other characters affections; so players with Paladin’s, Sorcerers and Bards should be ready to receive a lot of attention from other characters, some of whom may be less then desirable themselves. Furthermore if the high charisma score is refected in personality and not in the appearance of the character, then they should relish this extra attention and social interaction. That is ugly paladins with high charisma should NOT be anti-social loners.

With regard to the use of persuade checks resulting in an apparent reaction by the player. I think this is an instinctive reaction by the player to protect their character. And I don’t mind so called 'meta-gaming’ with certain limits. Indeed this game would be unplayable and not-fun without some meta-gaming. Indeed truly 'hard-core’ players can annoy me just as much as meta-gamers. As long as players try to enact their characters role and have fun the game is enjoyable.

I think part of the problem itself is the use of, ability checks, in this case persuade checks. If I am able to win other character’s trust through an appropriate selection of words, then I would not need to resort to the *persuade check* to roleplay the pirates Persuasive Personality. This is what I have observed in game, and what I have been trying to do. The *persuade check* itself breaks the immersion in the game. However I am still going to use it, just limit the use, to reduce loss of immersion in the world.

[Acacea]

That's a pretty good post, nicely done. This thread has been going on so long (eight months), with so much repetition, that I hope this one can be seen as a thought-out post that covers most aspects of the ability and not another step in a long debate... There is only so many ways you can say the same thing, after all. :P

As far as persuade checks go...if you want something from my character, feel free to roll, but start persuading to back up the numbers. It's a social skill that requires social interaction. If you roll high but say, "I would like your shoes. Now. Because I like them and my nose is green." ...that isn't really going to get you anywhere unless she happens to have a thing for green noses. Numbers get you breaks, but you've still got to sell.

[darkstorme]

@Amberyl Ravenclaw - As established earlier in the thread, physical attractiveness is only a component of CHA - however, "provoking interest" does not really qualify as a CHA reaction. Someone could be appallingly ugly with some sort of physical deformation that provoked a sort of horrified fascination from anyone they talked to.. but would not persuade them to follow with what the peron was saying. As stragen so aptly put it, if they're not physically attractive, they have to get by on force of personality. I would disagree that they need be friendly, however. One thing to consider is that Intimidate is a Charisma-based skill. Case in point: a red dragon.

Red dragons (think of Smaug) can be beautiful. But this alone does not account for the 25-30 CHA an Ancient Red Dragon has. The fact that they have dozens of centuries worth of experience, have a voice so commanding that you find yourself doing what they say before your brain is truly in gear, and (not least) the fact that they could incinerate you, destroy you with spells, or simply squash you flat - these contribute hugely to their Charisma. Add to that the fact that most Ancient Dragons are fantastically well-spoken (after all, when you've got an INT of 25, too, just eating your enemies is so boring), and there you have the explanation for the astonishing CHA dragons display.

Similarly, think of Gandalf, who (since he doesn't seem to use a spellbook often) must have levels in Sorceror. Think, particularly, of when he persuaded Bilbo to leave the Ring behind. Normally a fairly laid-back individual, he calls upon all of his considerable personal prescence and reputation, and you get The Wrath of Gandalf. He doesn't physically threaten Bilbo, or threaten him (explicitly) with magic.. he just allows all of that to be implied in the force of his voice, his presence.

Historically, we have such characters as Henry the Fifth ("Once more into the breach!"), Winston Churchill ("We will fight them on the beaches..."), and Hitler (don't know any direct quotations) as examples of leaders who were not what one would call terribly physically attractive - but who all could persuade men to fight for a cause through force of personality and use of clever rhetoric. Conversely, we have Helen of Troy as the Face that Launched a Thousand Ships - though there were probably underlying political issues, as well.

As an addendum, I would say that anyone who uses L337 in their RPing should get an automatic -8 to all RP CHA checks. *grins*

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

darkstorme - 6/16/2006 12:18 PM

As an addendum, I would say that anyone who uses L337 in their RPing should get an automatic -8 to all RP CHA checks. *grins*

Agreed. And a -8 to all stats. And lose 10k XP. And be banned from the server after the third time.

And be eaten by mephits.

Who would then be brutally slaughtered by a Pit Fiend.

Who would later be destroyed by a flask-of-limitless-gunpowder enema.



Yeah.

Though I'd have to say that Gandalf was mainly a sorcerer, who multiclassed with fighter and Loremaster. Think of the longsword! And the poor Will Save!

Excellent examples, though, Storm, as usual.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

How about people whose speech consists completely of small letters? Even when capitals are needed?

[lonnarin]

locked in a box with leperous hobbits

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

lonnarin - 6/16/2006 10:03 PM locked in a brothel for lecherous hobgoblins

Fixed. You had the first letters right, but your spelling on the rest had something to be desired.

[Chongo]

Sure this is more then beating a dead horse... but I've always loved doing that. I've actually read up a good deal on charisma, I'm not going to do all the articles justice nor am I going to bother looking them up, but....

Standard Depiction people take:
- Ability to interact
- Physical Attractiveness
- Verbal Attractiveness
- Ability to lead
- Calm demeanor
- Conversational saavy
- etc

The less standard depiction I like seeing is:

Social confidence. The lower the charisma, the less likely the character is to trust others or let them in. They may be a chronic leader who will never let anyone else take charge. So the inability to lay trust and have social confidence has little to do with their actions trying to persuade, lead, or interact. They simply don't have much confidence in dealing with others. That said, overcompensation can occur while retaining the lack of confidence... which really just reverses the roleplay for the character until someone actually gets 'let in'.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

Actually, the social competence (not neccesarily confidence) thing holds true for my two low-CHA characters. They usually end up taking the lead, simply because they have the ability and sense of purpose required for the job, while everyone else is busy getting each other killed.

[Weeblie]

The non-physical abilities are usually tricky to roleplay so just avoid min/maxing and put 10 (or more) points in int/wis/cha and you'll be fine. "8 charisma or 10 charisma" might feel like a small difference on the paper, but in reality (erh.. game reality, that is!) it's much, much bigger. 10 is "average Joe" (as you probably know) while 8 puts you to the same level as "Gnoll, Dire Boar, Manticore, Gorgon". And 6 charisma... Heeeh! Either others would be running from your mere presence (because of your unearthy ugliness or rudeness) or you would be running from them (your "negative" confidence). :P

Taken from the D&D 3.5 handbook:

"Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."

So, that people trust the CHA 10 cleric but not the CHA 18 pirate is completely valid.

As others already have noted... Everything that's worth to say has most probably already been said.

[darkstorme]

'o course, the other thing to consider about the "leader who lets no one in", is that with a low CHA, they don't have much by way of personal magnetism, nor the ability to inspire confidence in others. So lead they might, but they won't be a strong leader. What a leader like that needs, generally, is a mouthpiece. The master tactician, a small, quiet individual of mousey demeanour, can be trusted utterly by the strong, charismatic king/general/warleader, who takes the tactician's advice and gives it power.

That is to say, while a low-charisma leader might know the thing to do, he'd be hard-pressed to convince others of the fact until repeatedly proven right, in which case others can get over their misconceptions and listen regardless of what the individual looks/sounds/acts like. This, unfortunately, is somewhat more difficult to RP properly where dialogue is constrained by WPM typing speed. What's really required is a streaming voice modulator paired with a VoIP client. THAT would be interesting.

Sadly, I've yet to find anything reasonably priced (read: free) that does the former, and allows you to feed that through to the latter. But RP opportunities where you aren't constrained by your typing speed would be more immersive.. and require a great deal more acting skill, most likely. Also, if you're a naturally charismatic person, playing low CHA would be harder... and vice versa. Still, it's something for the more technically-minded forum members to think about. I'd be willing to put in some time on the modulator bit. *grins*

[Frelinder]

Ok. correct me if I'm getting this wrong. As Weeblie here just stated and what seems to be the common thoughts about Cha. Is that 10 is an average Joe. And here I totaly agree. But then one point or two points less make you to an "Gnoll, Dire boar, Manticore" etc... But why is two points less then average such a huge different. when two steps up is almost nothing? For as I see it Cha 12 isn't that big of a difference from a cha 10.

I have never played D&D so i don't know how this work. but it sounds a bit strange to me. Either Average Joe should be 12 or 14 Cha if 8 is an Boar. Or if average Joe is 10 and 8 is an Boar.. shouldn't then Cha 12 or more be extremly charismatic, beautiful, thrustworthy and so on?

When I created My latest Character ( Cha. 8 ) I thought of him like a simple man that talk a simple language. He isn't pretty ( balled, tatoos and alot of scars from battles) and he has an rather raw sence of humer that maybe others can think of being rude ore even offencive.. but thats just his way.. However i don't see him as an Boar.. and if i'm infact have created an boar.. that was not my intention when I created him.. Anyway. I'm not going to change the way i play him. But If I would have known that 8 is an extreemly!!! low cha I would probably made him an average joe.. *shrugs*

So to sum up what i'm trying to ask here. Is two points below avarage such a HUGE! difference?

I wan'ted to make Boon below average in Cha.. But i didn't wan'ted him to be compared with an Boar

[Weeblie]

A CHA score of 12 or 13 puts you to the "Treant, Roper, Doppelganger, Night Hag" level.
A CHA score of 14 or 15 puts you to the "Storm Giant, Barghest, Medusa" level.

The examples given aren't so much about appearance or trustworthiness. Rather about "personality/inner strength" (what usualy "counts most" in CHA scores). Treants are... well... impressive. So, I would say that the step up to 12 (Treant) is as great as the step down to 8 (Gnoll) is "un-great". :P

One single ability point differs actually a lot more than what people normally thinks... But, also remember that even though 10 is average Joe (10 to 11 is "Human" in the table), you'll probably see people ranging from 9 to 12 if you walk on the streets.

Please also note that you don't -have- to have even numbers... Below average CHA could mean 9!

[darkstorme]

And to clarify Weeblie's point (still looking to get you those knuckles, btw), when he says "walk the streets", he isn't referring to Leilon or Hlint. He's talking about the streets outside. 10 is simply unremarkable. Nothing particularly impressive one way or the other. A human with a charisma of 12 would be more persuasive than most. A human with a charisma of 18 would be devastatingly beautiful/handsome, or have personal magnetism so strong that a suggestion on their part would almost work as a suggestion, as in the spell. You have to bear in mind that a stat of > 16 is exceptional, and > 18 is astonishing. Layonara's active population consists mostly of adventurers.. who are a cut above the norm regardless, and buy/sell things for more than a village of commoners would see in a hundred years.