is there any particular reason why Charisma should be a stat in the first place? shouldn't that fall more on the roleplaying part rather than the stat-o-vision realm?
if a player can make a decent argument or intimidation one-liner in-character that there's no possible way the NPC argues with it, why should they be punished or dismissed if they have no points in charisma or any sub-branch of it?
i guess it could help you out if you have no IRL social skills or some kind of speech impediment or you're just unable to improvise in-character, but in that case why are you even playing tabletop RPGs in the first place?
it's beyond me
>>44275209
>Copypasta replacing Cha with Str, Int, Dex, etc.
Sorry, OP, can't be arsed.
Even if you, as a player, come up with a really good argument, it doesn't mean your character would be capable of formulating or executing it. You aren't your character.
>>44275209
Because it would be down to the GM to be "convinced" and that would never happen.
The game makers knew what they were doing.
>>44276693
>the visuals are actually indicators of each game's depth.
Neat. Morrowind will always be the best game bethesda ever made.
>>44276693
>Sorry, OP, can't be arsed.
I can. Because it really highlights the absurdity of the argument.
>is there any particular reason why Dexterity should be a stat in the first place? shouldn't that fall more on the roleplaying part rather than the stat-o-vision realm?
>if a player can make a decent tumble or balance check in-character, why should they be punished or dismissed if they have no points in dexterity or any sub-branch of it?
>i guess it could help you out if you have no IRL hand-eye coordination or some kind of physical impediment or you're just unable to improvise parkour in-character, but in that case why are you even playing tabletop RPGs in the first place?
>it's beyond me
Because as a GM I know when the person is lying. I can't makes an unbiased judgement.
Also as the GM I am not the characters I am playing mentally, they can be dumber or smarter than I.
In all these cases it is simply better to have a guideline because I actually can not represent how well the 32 wisdom outsider is at discerning lies.
>>44275209
>shouldn't that fall more on the roleplaying part rather than the stat-o-vision realm?
No, because everything that makes a person has to be a stat in a stat-heavy RPG, otherwise it fails at inception.
An RPG has to allow a complete shut-in to play an outgoing and amicable person.
>>44279727
Why shouldn't it? It allows someone weak or frail to play someone strong and tough, it allows people to play other races or people with powers beyond human ability. If someone finds it hard to interact with others, for whatever reason, having a creative outlet for them to explore a more social and charismatic character seems like an asset, not a downside.
>>44275209
let me explain it this way OP, no matter how strong your character is or how good his one liner/intimidate attempt is, if you have no charisma you will fail to do anything. Imagine if you will a gigantic chav. He is fit as fuck, could probably bench press your skelly out of it's protective meat shelter. No said dude walks up to you, looks down and you see that he has a bad case of baby face, like his face is of a incoent 9 year old, and a bit chubby. To add to that, when he asks you "you got a problem mate", his voice is squeaky and high, it is like he is just now going through puberty. This is a example of high str low cha character, and trust me on this (because i have been in such situations) you will not be intimidate at all. He might be dangers but sure as fuck not threatening. This is why we have the charisma check, because even if you come up with the very best one liner in the world, if you are ugly or look like a child you will not charm/intimidate anyone
>>44279775
But it pretty much never works out that way at the table. We can suspend disbelief for physical or supernatural abilities, but we can't suspend disbelief when someone says something fucking stupid, but rolls well to force the guard/diplomat/whatever to play along.
>>44275209
I usually tell my players to tell me the exact word they would tell the NPC. Based on the line and words they use I give them bonus or malus on the roll. If they completely fuck up or come up with the perfect line I avoid them rolling entirely.
>>44279824
But isn't this a double standard of sorts? When it comes to other checks, we ask them to describe what they're doing. When it comes to charisma based checks, a lot of groups seem to expect the player to actually do it.
When I'm GMing, all I expect from players is a description. If they can't think of a compelling way to phrase a particular argument or bluff, they can describe the tone and intent of what their character is saying, rather than doing the exact words. If they want to try roleplaying it out? Cool, they'll likely get a bonus if they do a good job. But eliminating rolling altogether encourages players to dump social stats and still smoothtalk their way through everything, which is kinda ridiculous.
>>44279839
>>44279816
interesting discussion you've got going here anontachi
>>44279848
i dont think i get the reference
>>44279856
just a compliment
no reference
>>44275209
Why do people think Charisma's most important use is for interacting with faggots?
Obviously it's meant for spells or wicked sick save bonuses. Spells are awesome. Save bonuses are awesome. Ergo, Charisma is awesome.
Take a hike, dork.
>>44279868
ach, thank you anon
>>44275209
Because most pc's are trying to save the world/conquer the world or some equally hard core shit, and if we had to rely on the real life skills of the players there's no way in hell they'd get through because they're either stick men of land whales physically and fedoras or autists mentally.
>>44279977
>The reason to take Charisma as a stat is for spells
And this is why D&D sucks
>>44279824
>we can't suspend disbelief when someone says something fucking stupid, but rolls well to force the guard/diplomat/whatever to play along.
Here's what you do.
>The guard looks at your absurd argument like it's a pile of dog shit, narrowing his eyes. The DC is 10 higher.
>The guard tells you to fuck off. Please try harder, you can save that roll with a follow-up sentence.
It relies heavily on the player being socially capable. My old GM would penalize my character for my out of game pauses and struggles to think my words
>>44275209
>>44276820
>>44276916
>>44276962
>>44279727
The only reason this is a problem is that YOU'RE ALL ROLE-PLAYING AND ROLLING THE WRONG WAY.
I'm serious, just stay with me for a moment. What you're supposed to do, is roll first, and then role-play the result. Not role-play first, and then roll to see what happens.
When you play before rolling, you get those retarded situations like "I did an awesome thing or made a brilliant speech but somehow it totally whiffed, that's so bs, I should have autopassed because of my roleplaying" which is kind of bullshit.
But if you roll before playing, you get shit like "Okay I want to try to persuade them. -okay, roll for it. -Damn I failed hard- Yep. Now roleplay what failing hard looks like."
When you play out the actual consequences of the roll, instead of roleplaying out what you WANT to happen with the roll, you avoid disconnect between fiction and mechanics, and you avoid situations where people try to game the system by using role-playing to shore up what should be a weakness of the character. It actually promotes role-playing because it lets people portray what their characters successes as well as their failures look like, and getting to decide for yourself if your character is the kind that usually fails because he's too clever for his own good, because he's clumsy or because he has shit luck.
Rolling before playing is the best way to avoid the temptation of gaming the system, and to help everyone stay immersed by avoiding the disconnect that happens when you role-play executing a brilliant maneuver, and then roll a 1 and the DM has to go "And then nothing happens" again.
Try it.
