TheRPGSite

I mean obviously, in a "REAL" (all in capitals) Old-School game it wouldn't technically matter, because you roll 3d6 all in order with no switching around.  But assuming we stop the fantasy-fucking-vietnam dick-waving for a second, or even if we don't, the question still stands.

Should, for example, someone who rolls 3d6-in-order and ends up rolling an 18 in Charisma have cause to rejoice, or should he bemoan his bad luck that it wasn't in Dexterity or Constitution?

I think, for my part, that people who run the type of game where the CHA 18 guy has reason to feel upset for the CHA 18 itself (not, say, because he really would have liked the 18 in INT so he could be a better wizard, but because he feels the 18 is "wasted" in CHA) are objectively doing it wrong.

Let's start from this perspective: those are the six ability scores. Charisma is in there. We must assume it is equally important (not necessarily equally in all situations but equally overall) to every other ability score.

If you're running the type of game where CHA doesn't matter enough for it to matter as an ability score (compared to the others), why the fuck are you keeping it?

In fact, as in life, CHA is generally the most important stat for getting ahead. More than INT, more than WIS, definitely more than STR.  CON at least protects you from dying of an infection or something, so it gets an important plus there (you can't conquer the world with CHA if you're dead from massive infection).

But an old-school GM should be using CHA for all kinds of reaction-situations.  Leading retainers/henchmen obviously, but it should be the stat the GM looks at in any social situation to see whether people take you seriously or not.  Of course, other factors like social class can still matter a lot, but within your equal social strata, it is Charisma which will determine whether you do well: the pretty boy with the smile is more likely to get a second chance, or given the chance to talk first.   It should affect how you deal with supernatural creatures, for that matter, and not just with the old canard of attracting succubi.
It should make you the party leader (again, things like social status aside) whether the rest of the party wants that or not; other people will see you as the most important person of the party (again, within the boundaries of the credible; if you're a 2nd level thief and the party has a 19th level world-famous wizard; he'll probably be seen as the most important person of the party, but then you'll be seen as the adorable youngster of the group and quickly develop a huge fan following).

It is a sign of the failure of thinking of some GMs (propelled, I suspect in some cases, by a common Nerd-belief in 'personality not being so important', and the utter fallacy that intelligence 'should be' more important than how good at making an impression you are) that people would think of CHA as a dump stat in old-school play.  Of all the PC's ability scores, if he's only going to know one himself to keep in mind, that should be it. And it should be coming up as relevant in far more situations than almost anything else.  Even in the common dungeon crawl it should be important, and if you get out of the dungeon and into anywhere there's people who can be talked to or social situations of any kind, it should be paramount.

And note one more thing: it doesn't need any kind of idiotic 'social combat' mechanics. It may not even need to be rolled; though I think stuff like retainer loyalty checks (modified by CHA) or reaction rolls (again, modified by CHA) can be helpful guidelines for the GM as to how people or creatures react to a player's roleplay.  What Charisma should do is act as the lens through which the GM interprets the response to the Player's roleplay.  A stupid idea or a really bad judgement of character (trying to bribe a guy who is unimpeachably honest, for example) should still fail, whether you have CHA 3 or CHA 18 (and no roll should ever save you from that, which is why new-school 'social combat mechanics' are bullshit); but the guy with CHA 3 should be beaten and sent to prison, while the guy with CHA 18 should be sternly upbraided and given a chance to explain his reasons for doing something so awful.

In my games, particularly Dark Albion: The Rose War, the players have quickly come to know the value of Charisma.  And if you, oh theoretical OSR GM reading this diatribe, have been thinking of Cha as a dump stat until now, try to reconsider and understand just how great a gaming resource/element you're wasting by ignoring it.

RPGPundit

Dunno about "old school" - but not in TSR-era D&D rules sets, and likewise with Leadership Potential in MA.

T&T I think makes it too hard to develop; I'd flip it right around from 1/2 to 2/1.

In C&S, the figuring into command and influence factors is important (since a nobody with a sword is still a nobody in feudal or even tribal society).

In Chaosium's RuneQuest, it is usually not so hot - and can improve with successful adventures, so you're not stuck with a poor initial stat. (POW  is probably more important for the novice, e.g. in getting guild/cult credit as well as in relation to magic.) Skills such as Oratory also improve through experience and training.

In Stormbringer, I think Ken St Andre frankly called it out as negligible.

In Traveller, Social Status is very important for some careers and more generally perhaps about as significant as you'd expect it to be from observation of real life.

It's obviously more valuable with an assumption of civilization as key context than in games in which player-characters are assumed to be outside of society, concerned with people only as meat targets of weaponry.

In old D&D, I'd dump whichever of Intelligence or Wisdom is not a prime requisite. If neither is, then it's a matter of what sort of personality I want (though I might pick Wisdom for mini-max reasons if there's no hard and fast penalty, e.g. to  saving throws).

High Charisma means more henchmen, and higher morale for all of them, along with any hirelings. So not a dump stat at all.

EDIT: In my (B/X-derived) ACKS game, no one dumped Charisma, because everyone wanted as big a retinue as they could manage. The lowest Cha of the group is 15, and there's a PC with an 18 (he also has 18 Int).

There are no "dump stats" if the GM is any good at his job. There are countless situations where a high Charisma score should be beneficial and a low Charisma score detrimental.

Quote from: Matt;806544There are no "dump stats" if the GM is any good at his job. There are countless situations where a high Charisma score should be beneficial and a low Charisma score detrimental.

Zigackly.

I was in a campaign where there were no reaction rolls, intimidation, persuasion and bribery never worked, we got no Dex bonus for surprise etc - "you're in a group!" - and so on. Basically the only stat that mattered was Strength.

This was less fun than it could have been, so after some months and lots of unsubtile hints to the DM, I left the group.

In the games I DM and quite a few where I've played, Charisma and its equivalents have been a major stat as its part of the negotiation/diplomacy side of adventuring. In fact working through Hoard of the Dragon Queen it has been vital for the group and has allowed them to totally avoid or infiltrate various enemy camps and bases again and again and get on the good sides of villains even.

And as I have noted before. I am oft the groups negotiator when playing and Jan pretty much never plays a low charisma character if she can help it. I am actually sometimes disappointed if I do not get a good CHA score.

CHA - Henchmen, Hirelings, Reaction Rolls, and most of all PALADIN.
INT - Languages, resistance to psionic blast, stat rolls
WIS - Saves, resistance to psionic blast, stat rolls

Int and Wis would be more of a dump stat then Cha for a Fighter, but really all are potentially useful.

In the 5e DMG, they put out an optional rule in which any NPC allies you have get a Loyalty score that maxes out at the highest party member's Charisma, starts off at half that, and if it's less than 10, they'll do their part, but they won't put their necks on the line for you.

Not old school, I know, but a nice, mechanical use of Charisma.

Yes, in our game it was. We distributes our scores ourselves, to be able to choose character class. I often ended up with a charisma of 6 in order to raise the other scores as much as possible. It did not really matter. You are right, we should have made the score have consequenses or thrown it out the window (we never used reaction rolls or henchmen anyway).

In the B/X Barrowmaze game I'm in, Charisma isn't a dump stat, it's the god stat.  Reaction rolls with intelligent encounters, morale rolls for your followers, hiring followers in the first place... and the 2d6 scale makes every 1 point of bonus or penalty matter.

In fact its the god stat to such an extent that I'm not sure where the original post is coming from.  "(I)f you, oh theoretical OSR GM reading this diatribe, have been thinking of Cha as a dump stat until now..."  Why would you think an OSR GM would think that in the first place?  If there's really someone posting that somewhere, name em and shame em.  As a first impression, it looks like a straw man of your invention.

That's all very well and good, Pundit, but you have to know better: 40 years of D&D have taught us that this is exactly how people have thought of CHA.  

What the majority of gaming circles have favored, for the entirety of the hobby's history, is NOT the ability to negotiate with NPCs, but the ability to kill them.  Of the prime requisites for the classic character classes, none of them have been CHA.  XP has been earned not by cleverly bringing the NPCs over to your way of thinking, but by killing them and looting the bodies.

Should things be different?  Perhaps.  I run a GURPS campaign where people gleefully pile on the social advantages -- Charisma, Appearance, Voice, Status, Reputation -- and revel in large reaction roll adjustments ... because that works for them, in my campaign.

But the fact is that things aren't different, and groups still operate by the forty-year-old paradigm that problems are solved through combat, and rewards come only through combat.  In order for CHA to stop being a dump stat, two things have to happen: players need to see that talking tangibly benefits them at least as much as hacking, and players need to prefer talking to hacking.

That's a bit of a tall order, hobby-wide.

You can't just use reaction rolls and loyalty adjustments and expect players to show Charisma some respect. You also have to enforce the Charisma limits on special hirelings.

In OD&D and a few of the other early versions of D&D, you can have as many mercenaries as you can afford. However, there's a "command control" rule in OD&D that I rarely see mentioned, and may even have vanished from later editions. Your Charisma score x10 is the max distance your hirelings can be away from you and still follow orders. If you want to run an efficient army of your own, you need sergeants and captains... And those count against your henchmen and special hirelings limit.

Depends on roleplaying.

If you are roleplaying your stats then of all the stats having low charisma will be least impactful.
Basically if you look at the real world then its easier to get by with very low charisma.

Strength - a strength of 5 is akin to being physically disabled. Life is tough.
Constitution - Again someone who has 5 Constitution would be ill all the time and prone to all sorts of illness, allergic to bee stings etc
Dexterity - You can get away with this today, being very clumsy and having crap hand eye coordination isn't such a big deal but if you lived back when you were supposed to make your own stuff and catch your own food.. you are fucked
Intelligence - An intelligence of 5 would be really, really thick, if you actually play a character like this then you are talking about someone who can't remember complex orders, can't read or do basic maths. If you actually role play this rather than just handwave it and use Int to determine just spells and languages then ...
Wisdom - someone with so little nous, willpower and understanding of the world around them would be constantly manipulated, used and abused. Again depends how you role play it.

Charisma - having no leadership or interpersonal skills is a massive failure in modern society however ... in a society that is run entirely on social status your actual charisma might not matter, likewise a loner that lives in the woods has no need of social skills and is still a viable character for an RPG.


So it's all about Roleplaying. If you allow people to take 5 wisdom and have no actual Roleplay consequences of that, or 5 Int with the same... Now I have heard some folks saying that a low Int just means that you get a low number of languages and are crap at learning spells and doesn't mean you are actually thick.. likewise for Wisdom and one assumes Charisma. I think it's pretty weird to have a guy with 5 Charisma who is always cracking jokes and is the life of the party, just like its weird to have a guy with 5 Intelligence coming up with Napoleon-esque battle tactics. YMMV.

Quote from: Ravenswing;806586What the majority of gaming circles have favored, for the entirety of the hobby's history, is NOT the ability to negotiate with NPCs, but the ability to kill them.

Exactly.  The stats are all equal only if the types of interactions presented by a GM are equal.  If it's all combat, then no, you don't need much in CHA.

Actually, I always found INT (for non-wizards) to be the dump stat.  More languages?  Okay, so what?

Quote from: RPGPundit;806521In fact, as in life, CHA is generally the most important stat for getting ahead. More than INT, more than WIS, definitely more than STR.

I suppose it all comes down to the era. In today's world, where a gun equalizes most of the advantages given by the physical abilities of an individual, CHA is a significant advantage. In ancient times, where the strongest people could bully the weaker, CHA had lesser impact.

Quote from: Matt;806544There are no "dump stats" if the GM is any good at his job. There are countless situations where a high Charisma score should be beneficial and a low Charisma score detrimental.

This is the key. Each GM has to decide how to run a campaign and if the GM does his job properly the player regrets any low stat in any of the six categories.

I spend time looking for ways to make the non-physical stats (INT, WIS, CHA) more meaningful and fit them into my campaign. For example, I interpret WIS as being general perception of the world around you and use it for perception and searching type rolls. INT may help in appraising value of antiques or treasure. In a sci-fi campaign I might use INT for psychic attack and WIS for psychic defense. Things like that cause my players to think carefully before dumping a bad number somewhere.

I think the biggest weakness of most RPGs is that they are clearly combat-simulation games and don't give enough examples of how to make the non-combat stats meaningful.

Quote from: finarvyn;806673I think the biggest weakness of most RPGs is that they are clearly combat-simulation games and don't give enough examples of how to make the non-combat stats meaningful.

I don't know that it's a "weakness," per se.  It's certainly a preference, and it's been that way since Day One.  Gygax had no notion of making a "roleplaying" game; he set out to design a wargame.  And that persists to this day: in how many RPGs does the page count allotted for combat rules outnumber the pages allowed for social rules at least 10:1?

Well, I can't really comment on the pen and paper rpg's. But I played my fair share of pc rpg's, so here we go.

I played Baldur's Gate (one, two, Throne of Baal) and Icewind Dale (one, two, Heart of Winter) and in those games charisma meant nothing. It was an obligation for the Paladin to have a minimum charisma. But in the end you wanted a high strength for any fighter, high dex for a ranger or thief, high int for a wizard and high wisdom for a cleric or druid. And high constitution for everyone.

Then I played VtM: Bloodlines and that game had social skills (not social combat) and you frequently used persuasion, intimidation and seduction to solver problems. It kept you alive. On top of that you also had the Jedi knight trick (dominate). There was always choice about how to solve problems. Sneaking, hacking and lockpicking were also good quest solving skills. So you could play sneaky, charismatic or a brute. It didn't matter as long as you got the job done. You generally tried to avoid combat.

But then again you could do the same if you played D20 Spycraft. Lots of investigative and social skills in that game.

Quote from: Ravenswing;806586
What the majority of gaming circles have favored, for the entirety of the hobby's history, is NOT the ability to negotiate with NPCs, but the ability to kill them.  Of the prime requisites for the classic character classes, none of them have been CHA.  XP has been earned not by cleverly bringing the NPCs over to your way of thinking, but by killing them and looting the bodies.

Should things be different?  Perhaps.  I run a GURPS campaign where people gleefully pile on the social advantages -- Charisma, Appearance, Voice, Status, Reputation -- and revel in large reaction roll adjustments ... because that works for them, in my campaign.

But the fact is that things aren't different, and groups still operate by the forty-year-old paradigm that problems are solved through combat, and rewards come only through combat.  In order for CHA to stop being a dump stat, two things have to happen: players need to see that talking tangibly benefits them at least as much as hacking, and players need to prefer talking to hacking.

That's a bit of a tall order, hobby-wide.

This isn't true for every group, but assuming for a moment that kicking ass is all that matters, CHA is still a valuable tool for getting that done.

It is generally known that one must survive in order to live long enough to have a successful ass kicking career. If you are playing OD&D and are allowed to place your stats where you want, then the smart money chooses CHA over STR.

So having distributed most of your scores, you are left with an 18 and a 9. Putting that 18 in STR for a fighting man might seem like a no brainer but is it?  If we had an 18 STR then we could force open doors more easily and get a 10% bonus on earned XP. That doesn't help in the survival dept. all that much. One has to survive to earn XP in the first place.

That 9 in CHA means that we are only able to hire 3 hirelings and their loyalty base will be normal.

If we put the 18 in CHA we can hire 12 hirelings and their loyalty base (and the loyalty base of common mercs) will be +4. They will be less likely to run away during tough fights and that means we live longer.

CHA is the stronger bet and that's only counting reasons for kicking butt and staying alive.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;806707This isn't true for every group, but assuming for a moment that kicking ass is all that matters, CHA is still a valuable tool for getting that done.

It is generally known that one must survive in order to live long enough to have a successful ass kicking career. If you are playing OD&D and are allowed to place your stats where you want, then the smart money chooses CHA over STR.

So having distributed most of your scores, you are left with an 18 and a 9. Putting that 18 in STR for a fighting man might seem like a no brainer but is it?  If we had an 18 STR then we could force open doors more easily and get a 10% bonus on earned XP. That doesn't help in the survival dept. all that much. One has to survive to earn XP in the first place.

That 9 in CHA means that we are only able to hire 3 hirelings and their loyalty base will be normal.

If we put the 18 in CHA we can hire 12 hirelings and their loyalty base (and the loyalty base of common mercs) will be +4. They will be less likely to run away during tough fights and that means we live longer.

CHA is the stronger bet and that's only counting reasons for kicking butt and staying alive.

But a 9 isn't your dump stat.
Even in AD&D a 9 is basically 0 modifier.
Your dump stat is where you put the 5 you rolled.

So look at your figther and say you have a 12 and a 5 where do you put the 5 STR? CHA?

Quote from: jibbajibba;806708But a 9 isn't your dump stat.
Even in AD&D a 9 is basically 0 modifier.
Your dump stat is where you put the 5 you rolled.

So look at your figther and say you have a 12 and a 5 where do you put the 5 STR? CHA?

Still put the 12 in CHA. A 5 in CHA results in a negative loyalty base. You followers will turn on you or desert when things get dicey.

In OD&D a 5 STR is not a detriment in combat.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;806717Still put the 12 in CHA. A 5 in CHA results in a negative loyalty base. You followers will turn on you or desert when things get dicey.

In OD&D a 5 STR is not a detriment in combat.

If being in the lowest 5% of Human strength doesn't give you a -ve modifier to hit and damage no wonder than had to change the stats for Basic and AD&D :)

I quite like the idea of the weak fighter who can't fight and so hires a gang of fighters to do his fighting for him... but the lowest 5% of the population out to be getting a malus on their rolls :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;806727If being in the lowest 5% of Human strength doesn't give you a -ve modifier to hit and damage no wonder than had to change the stats for Basic and AD&D :)

I quite like the idea of the weak fighter who can't fight and so hires a gang of fighters to do his fighting for him... but the lowest 5% of the population out to be getting a malus on their rolls :)

Who said he's in the lowest 5 percent of the population? The 3d6 roll is used to make certain scores more common and others rarer. There is nothing in OD&D or Basic that states it's about emulating the distribution of qualities in a population.

Quote from: talysman;806740Who said he's in the lowest 5 percent of the population? The 3d6 roll is used to make certain scores more common and others rarer. There is nothing in OD&D or Basic that states it's about emulating the distribution of qualities in a population.

It's the bottom 5% of adventurers who apparently include 3 foot tall hobbits, fey elfin maidens and all the random bearers you picked up in the last village.... so  meh...

Quote from: Exploderwizard;806707This isn't true for every group, but assuming for a moment that kicking ass is all that matters, CHA is still a valuable tool for getting that done.

(shrugs)  Nothing is true for every group: no doubt there are gamers out there who not only prefer to solve scenarios by sodomizing the opposition, but that there are GMs willing to cater to them.  For what it's worth.

CHA is only a valuable tool if a GM thinks it is, and the players agree.  The great majority of gamers over the history of the hobby haven't seen things that way.  You might not agree with them.  I don't agree with them.  But we're obviously and demonstrably heavily outvoted.

The vast majority of people who have ever kicked a soccer ball around can't do a header. Yet the good players, the ones who we like just watching, can - and in fact score goals doing so. It's just that most people who take up a soccer ball are crap players. They have fun, but they're not very good.

Same goes for roleplaying games. "Most gamers ignore Charisma." Sure, and most gamers aren't very good. It's a social hobby rather than a well-paid full-time job like the soccer players, so we don't have to be very good to have fun... but it helps.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806796The vast majority of people who have ever kicked a soccer ball around can't do a header. Yet the good players, the ones who we like just watching, can - and in fact score goals doing so. It's just that most people who take up a soccer ball are crap players. They have fun, but they're not very good.

I don't know if the analogy's useful.  Most everyone -- even those who aren't really knowledgeable about soccer -- would agree that players who can do headers are hot stuff.

But to equate the willingness not only to interact in social situations as an alternative to combat, but to design one's character to suit, with being a "good" player?  A great many would reject that out of hand.  Even a lot of those who'd concede the value of social interactions in gaming nonetheless just want to hit things.

Yes, Charisma has historically been a "dump stat" in old school D&D....for most gamers in the hobby. We can debate the rightness or wrongness of it until we're blue in the face, and it matters not one bit. The only thing that matters is what most people actually do during their gaming sessions.

And adventuring without hirelings is not a sub-par or "wrong" way to adventure. Some of us aren't interested in dealing with the clutter of having extra NPC's, or having to pay people to adventure with us, or having to negotiate a hireling's potential loyalty or disloyalty.....because hirelings can still turn on you even if your Charisma is 18.

Bad reaction rolls? Just kill 'em, and take their stuff.

Charisma is least valued by players even though there are lots of mechanics tied to it.  IME, this is because DMs refuse to apply the penalties using the excuse that they want to incentivize "roleplaying".

So, DMs get exactly what they reward, and what they penalize.

If I know that a DM is going to base encounter reactions and henchmen loyalty off of roleplaying to a far greater degree than my attribute, I'm sticking a 5 in CHA.  I can mostly control my roleplaying.

Quote from: Ravenswing;806857But to equate the willingness not only to interact in social situations as an alternative to combat, but to design one's character to suit, with being a "good" player?  A great many would reject that out of hand.

Yes, and people who can't do headers say it's not important.

I see the same in my job of personal training. People with a strong academic background and little practice say that book knowledge is the most important. People who didn't finish high school but know how to lift dismiss book knowledge out of hand, "bro do you even lift?" Of course they're both wrong, you need both to be most effective.

People tend to say that the things they know about and are good are very important, the things they don't are stupid and useless.

A competent roleplaying gamer is good at tactics AND social stuff AND puzzles/traps/tricks AND knowledge of the rules. I'm sure others can come up with other factors that help.

Alas I am not good at all of these, but I'm working on it. And luckily, we don't all have to be great at everything, because we adventure in parties. So you get one who is good at this, another at that, and so on.

An effective party requires someone competent in those areas, it's fine if it's spread through the party. Of course it's a bummer if the guy who's smart socially rolls 8 for Charisma, and the girl who's smart tactically gets 8 for Strength or Wisdom, while the social or tactical idiot gets 18, but... that's how the dice roll, and we improve by challenging ourselves. And we should try to improve, become better players.

Eeesh, Kyle, you're just not listening.  Sacrificial Lamb is entirely right: you can argue your point until you're blue in the face, but it's patently obvious that over the years, the great majority of D&D players disagree with you, no matter how many times you claim you're right and they're wrong.

It's a surprisingly simple stipulation, for the resistance it's getting.

It's been bandied about so often on this forum that you don't need things like Charisma and Social Skills (because that's all roleplaying and player skill, not character skill, a stance I don't necessarily agree with), that it's easy to see - given the old school tendencies here - why Charisma is a dump stat.

In all the 1E games I played, with the exception of wanting to play a Paladin, Charisma was useless. No one ever used it for anything. Not even a GM. Why did we keep it? Because it was part of the game. Gygax told us it was.

Of course any GM that makes a player roll in order and play what they got was just showing the group that they did in fact hate players. Don't play with GMs like that. Players get to do one thing, play their character. Let them play the character they want. Yes, I am sure that everyone that Rolled In Order and Played What They Got has a Twelve Inch, Titanium Penis. I don't want to see it or hear about it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806521It should affect how you deal with supernatural creatures, for that matter, and not just with the old canard of attracting succubi.

This sounds cool. Can someone please expand on it? Like, what kind of situations would this apply in and how? Could it also matter with your run of the mill orcs, for example?

A better question isn't whether CHA is a dump stat, but: should it be?

If you just use roleplaying, then you ignore the investment the player made in their charisma stat. But if you use the charisma stat it takes away from the roleplaying in the game...

I'd say it is the kind of stat that is very DM dependant. If the DM makes an effort, it isn't a dump stat. But if the DM overlooks it, then it can easily become one. Whether that is a problem though kind of varies from group to group. I know plenty of game groups where CHR is a dump stat and no one seems to mind. I know others who get quite upset when any stat is not balanced with the others. For my taste, I would like it to come up for sure but sometimes when you create too much parity among the stats, that takes something away from the game as well.

Quote from: Tetsubo;806897Yes, I am sure that everyone that Rolled In Order and Played What They Got has a Twelve Inch, Titanium Penis.

The jokes on them. Titanium adds 40% chance of spell failure to casting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806950A better question isn't whether CHA is a dump stat, but: should it be?

If you just use roleplaying, then you ignore the investment the player made in their charisma stat. But if you use the charisma stat it takes away from the roleplaying in the game...

Only if you use it as the be-all-and-end-all determiner of all social interactions, I suppose.  There are players who hold to the "But I've got a 17 CHA, all the NPCs should be rolling over for me, automatically!" mindset, and those who hold to the "But you've got a CHA of 5, so no one ever ought to deal with you!" one.

Now, me, I think that's bullshit.  Being 10th level doesn't mean you always hit with a weapon.  Having STR 16 doesn't mean you always cleave your foe in two with a sword swing.  Having INT 18 doesn't mean you always remember who won the Second Battle of Council Rock.

I figure that pretty much any system with a CHA stat can (and ought to) use it the same way I'm used to with GURPS social advantages: as giving reaction roll modifiers.  A poor roll, a lame approach, the NPC isn't guaranteed to like you.  A great roll, talking good sense and making good offers, the NPC isn't guaranteed to reject you.  

Quote from: Ravenswing;806881the great majority of D&D players disagree with you,

Yes, because the great majority of D&D players are not very good at playing it.

Likewise soccer, chess, tennis, backgammon, whatever. Most people think certain aspects of those games are unimportant - because they're not very good at those games. Thinking certain aspects are not important are part of what makes them poor players.

There many ways to play a game. There are rather less ways to play a game well. Most of us don't play well, so we don't realise it's possible. I never thought I was great, but I met a few great players and realised just how far I have to go.

If you play D&D well, then Charisma is not a dump stat. If you play it badly, then it is.

I think ignoring the strategies which a high CHA offers, including large groups of hirelings, is a poor choice for original style play. If the referee of the game-session doesn't offer those strategies, well, it's a different game. I wonder if the different play styles in different cultural areas (Lake Geneva vs West Coast, etc) ended up throwing these strategies out with the "just role-play it" idea.....

It's taken me a while to piece the older playstyles back together, having hit D&D in the 90s in Hawaii.

Quote from: Telarus;806984I think ignoring the strategies which a high CHA offers, including large groups of hirelings, is a poor choice for original style play. If the referee of the game-session doesn't offer those strategies, well, it's a different game. I wonder if the different play styles in different cultural areas (Lake Geneva vs West Coast, etc) ended up throwing these strategies out with the "just role-play it" idea.....

It's taken me a while to piece the older playstyles back together, having hit D&D in the 90s in Hawaii.

Could you elaborate on what kind of strategies high CHA offers?

I want to incorporate it into games I run.

A couple things that cut against Charisma as a godlike survival stat in old-school D&D games:

- it's not going to be of great use hiring help right out of the gate, because hiring people also requires m o n e y – the daily hazard rate is feasible, covering equipment costs is harder, and if you're roleplaying it's probably going to be harder to convince naked slingers to go in the dark cave than mailed swordsmen with tower shields. In my experience hiring help starts to kick in after the crucial 2nd-level hump. It's much worse if you implement training costs

- when you get to higher levels, by which I mean 4th or 5th, you start to encounter shit that can kill normal 4-to-7-hit-point mercenaries in droves, such that they will plausibly rout whether you have a 9 in Charisma or a 29; for practical purposes you are largely limited to henchmen with levels who can take a shot or two – unless you know that you are going to be facing humanoids that don't cast fireball

I mean, the usefulness in reaction rolls and interactions is well noted, but the mob of followers is not always so useful in a magic-and-monsters adventuring world.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806980Yes, because the great majority of D&D players are not very good at playing it.

Likewise soccer, chess, tennis, backgammon, whatever. Most people think certain aspects of those games are unimportant - because they're not very good at those games. Thinking certain aspects are not important are part of what makes them poor players.

There many ways to play a game. There are rather less ways to play a game well. Most of us don't play well, so we don't realise it's possible. I never thought I was great, but I met a few great players and realised just how far I have to go.

If you play D&D well, then Charisma is not a dump stat. If you play it badly, then it is.

The question isn't should charisma be used in a game but is charisma the Dump stat. Now the definition needs some tweaking but you have to say the obvious one is where do you stick the really really low roll...

Now in D&D there is also a lot of dependence on how people roleplay stats. If there are roleplay swith 5 Intelligence or 5 Wisdom, if there are disadvantages to 5 strength beyond those specific to the attribute tables then it is definite truth that you can create a far more effective PC out of 5 CHR than any of those. The lonely wanderer who kills everyone , the hooded assassin etc may be cliches but they are effectrive ones

Quote from: Ravenswing;806586That's all very well and good, Pundit, but you have to know better: 40 years of D&D have taught us that this is exactly how people have thought of CHA.  

What the majority of gaming circles have favored, for the entirety of the hobby's history, is NOT the ability to negotiate with NPCs, but the ability to kill them.  Of the prime requisites for the classic character classes, none of them have been CHA.  XP has been earned not by cleverly bringing the NPCs over to your way of thinking, but by killing them and looting the bodies.

Should things be different?  Perhaps.  I run a GURPS campaign where people gleefully pile on the social advantages -- Charisma, Appearance, Voice, Status, Reputation -- and revel in large reaction roll adjustments ... because that works for them, in my campaign.

But the fact is that things aren't different, and groups still operate by the forty-year-old paradigm that problems are solved through combat, and rewards come only through combat.  In order for CHA to stop being a dump stat, two things have to happen: players need to see that talking tangibly benefits them at least as much as hacking, and players need to prefer talking to hacking.

That's a bit of a tall order, hobby-wide.

It's a lot easier to kill things when "You and what army?"  has an answer. Better yet, it's a lot easier to attain victory, to secure the objective - which is where the big scores  are prior to 2e  AD&D (and even in that with the full dm advice), as they are in life. The notion that killing is the thing seems peculiar to 3e, though 4e might emphasize it more than the TSR editions.

Quote from: jibbajibba;806660Depends on roleplaying.

If you are roleplaying your stats then of all the stats having low charisma will be least impactful.
Basically if you look at the real world then its easier to get by with very low charisma.

Strength - a strength of 5 is akin to being physically disabled. Life is tough.
Constitution - Again someone who has 5 Constitution would be ill all the time and prone to all sorts of illness, allergic to bee stings etc
Dexterity - You can get away with this today, being very clumsy and having crap hand eye coordination isn't such a big deal but if you lived back when you were supposed to make your own stuff and catch your own food.. you are fucked
Intelligence - An intelligence of 5 would be really, really thick,

With the  3d6 spread, 5 or less is actually almost 1 in 20 for a particular stat; with 6 stats, at  least one at that level  is pretty common (about 1 in 4, I think).


[

Quoteif you actually play a character like this then you are talking about someone who can't reember complex orders, can't read or do basic maths. If you actually role play this rather than just handwave it and use Int to determine just spells and languages then ...
Wisdom - someone with so little nous, willpower and understanding of the world around them would be constantly manipulated, used and abused. Again depends how you role play it.

Charisma - having no leadership or interpersonal skills is a massive failure in modern society however ... in a society that is run entirely on social status your actual charisma might not matter, likewise a loner that lives in the woods has no need of social skills and is still a viable character for an RPG.


So it's all about Roleplaying. If you allow people to take 5 wisdom and have no actual Roleplay consequences of that, or 5 Int with the same... Now I have heard some folks saying that a low Int just means that you get a low number of languages and are crap at learning spells and doesn't mean you are actually thick.. likewise for Wisdom and one assumes Charisma. I think it's pretty weird to have a guy with 5 Charisma who is always cracking jokes and is the life of the party, just like its weird to have a guy with 5 Intelligence coming up with Napoleon-esque battle tactics. YMMV.

Quote from: Ravenswing;806682I don't know that it's a "weakness," per se.  It's certainly a preference, and it's been that way since Day One.  Gygax had no notion of making a "roleplaying" game; he set out to design a wargame.  And that persists to this day: in how many RPGs does the page count allotted for combat rules outnumber the pages allowed for social rules at least 10:1?

That's  because mathematical models of combat are a lot more interesting than reductions to abstraction of personal relationships.

Quote from: jibbajibba;806708But a 9 isn't your dump stat.
Even in AD&D a 9 is basically 0 modifier.
Your dump stat is where you put the 5 you rolled.

So look at your figther and say you have a 12 and a 5 where do you put the 5 STR? CHA?

Wisdom, which is 'mechanically' nothing to a fighter unless it's high enough to contribute to an  xp bonus. Why the fuck would it come down to strength?  

Not that  the xp  penalty would amount  to a huge  handicap, mind  you.

Quote from: Phillip;807134That's  because mathematical models of combat are a lot more interesting than reductions to abstraction of personal relationships.

That is a great explanation of my feelings about why more combat rules than social rules. Personal relationships are so complex and rich that abstract reductions end up often crude and unsatisfying. Whereas, by sheer dint of civilization (and it being just a fucking game), combat rarely can be enacted meaningfully without such abstracted reductions.

I'm tempted to sig...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;806980Yes, because the great majority of D&D players are not very good at playing it.

Likewise soccer, chess, tennis, backgammon, whatever. Most people think certain aspects of those games are unimportant - because they're not very good at those games. Thinking certain aspects are not important are part of what makes them poor players.

There many ways to play a game. There are rather less ways to play a game well. Most of us don't play well, so we don't realise it's possible. I never thought I was great, but I met a few great players and realised just how far I have to go.

If you play D&D well, then Charisma is not a dump stat. If you play it badly, then it is.

Oh, look....gaming elitism. Like I haven't seen this form of toxic hobby snobbyism before. It looks like my long vacation from gaming forums was merited after all.

Do the world a favor, and spare us your elitist nonsense "badwrongfun" grognardier-than-thou speech. Lots of other gamers play differently from those "few great players", and do better than fine.

~The End

Quote from: Saladman;806561Why would you think an OSR GM would think that in the first place?  If there's really someone posting that somewhere, name em and shame em.  As a first impression, it looks like a straw man of your invention.

See the post immediately below you.

Also, this rant was inspired by someone (playing B/X D&D) bragging on G+ about how their kid had already figured out that CHA was the 'dump stat'.

Quote from: finarvyn;806673I suppose it all comes down to the era. In today's world, where a gun equalizes most of the advantages given by the physical abilities of an individual, CHA is a significant advantage. In ancient times, where the strongest people could bully the weaker, CHA had lesser impact.

My research in medieval history tells me this doesn't hold up.  Charisma was just as important then as now.

Yeah, who is "stronger"? Someone with high CHA could command a big army of strong guys and beat you anywya.

I only saw the "CHA as dump stat" meme in RPGA where you didn't roll stats, but instead spent points and even in 2e, that meant RPGA tables were seeing the build mentality of Champions and GURPS.

In home games, rolling a high CHA was always a happy moment.

The first time a henchman turns on a pc and kills him, will teach you not to blow off charisma.

Its all about the roleplay.

A low Charisma hero is a much more common trope in all genres than a physically disabled hero, a mentally retarded hero, an incredibly clumsy hero or a really physically weak hero.

You have some mileage in an incredibly weak willed and gullible hero, with Jack and the Beanstalk, Edmund Pevensie, Harry Flashman and others but I have found players stuggle with playing very weak willed or gulible PCs as it requires them to put their PC in bad situations for roleplay reasons.


The Lone bounty hunter or assassin, the grizzled woodsman, the isolated necromancer, the silent gladiator are all workable examples of low charisma heroes who work very well across RPGs.
You don't need to hire henchmen or hirelings. You probably will need to come up with a plan, get involved in combat or negotiate a difficult obstacle (requiring a dex save).

So its all about roleplay. If you allow a guy with Int 4 to come up with smart tactics and plans, if you allow a guy with 4 wisdom to resist the sign that says "Walk this way to see one of the wonders of the world - just 1gp" then wisdom and Int only matter if you are casting spells or learning languages or whatever.

Now I love playing High Charisma characters but I can't deny that very low charisma characters are much more survivable and easier to roleplay that having very low scores in any other statistic.

Quote from: Phillip;807136Wisdom, which is 'mechanically' nothing to a fighter unless it's high enough to contribute to an  xp bonus. Why the fuck would it come down to strength?  

Not that  the xp  penalty would amount  to a huge  handicap, mind  you.

Fair enough if you play a very weak willed gulible PC. most folk find that harder than playing a very unpleasant loner PC.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808351Fair enough if you play a very weak willed gulible PC. most folk find that harder than playing a very unpleasant loner PC.

That mostly seems to work in groups that include a special PC glow.

Otherwise, in the game as in real life no one wants to associate with unpleasant loners. Instead they ignore them most of the time, use them as a disposable blade for hire or member of the forlorn hope on the rare occassions when there is the need, and the rest of the time they ensure that the unpleasant loner remains powerless and isolated so that their unpleasantness won't cause too much trouble.

Quote from: Bren;808362That mostly seems to work in groups that include a special PC glow.

Otherwise, in the game as in real life no one wants to associate with unpleasant loners. Instead they ignore them most of the time, use them as a disposable blade for hire or member of the forlorn hope on the rare occassions when there is the need, and the rest of the time they ensure that the unpleasant loner remains powerless and isolated so that their unpleasantness won't cause too much trouble.

And yet fantasy, sci fi and modern films, novels and comics are full of these sorts of characters.

Remember an unpleasant loner doesn't have to be evil or trecherous.

Do the Guardian's of the Galaxy keep Drax around for his sparkling conversation and wit? Do the Loners love having Cougar on team despite the fact he never strings more than two words together? Do the A team still love BA despite his ridiculous dress sense, tendency to try to hit people that make him get on a plane, and overal "Bad attitude"?

Quote from: Phillip;807134That's  because mathematical models of combat are a lot more interesting to me than reductions to abstraction of personal relationships.

There, fixed that for you.  (Of course you wouldn't be suggesting that your personal preferences are the be-all and end-all of POVs hobby-wide.)

Quote from: jibbajibba;808366And yet fantasy, sci fi and modern films, novels and comics are full of these sorts of characters.

Remember an unpleasant loner doesn't have to be evil or trecherous.

Do the Guardian's of the Galaxy keep Drax around for his sparkling conversation and wit? Do the Loners love having Cougar on team despite the fact he never strings more than two words together? Do the A team still love BA despite his ridiculous dress sense, tendency to try to hit people that make him get on a plane, and overal "Bad attitude"?

Oh for pity's sake.  

(deep breath)

Do all those movies, novels and comics also have one entirely pervasive attribute: that they are entirely under the narrative control of their authors, and that in fact the degree to which the other characters pay attention to the Surly Loners is entirely up to those same authors?

Whatever the director on The A-Team's set told George Peppard and Dirk Benedict to say, as their characters, to Mr. T's, in the interest of keeping the team the viewers expected to see together, we as PCs are entirely capable -- and often willing -- to say, "I don't feel the need to keep that prima donna asshole around."  This is why those are fictional works, and these are our RPG sessions.

Quote from: Ravenswing;808369Oh for pity's sake.  

(deep breath)

Do all those movies, novels and comics also have one entirely pervasive attribute: that they are entirely under the narrative control of their authors, and that in fact the degree to which the other characters pay attention to the Surly Loners is entirely up to those same authors?

Whatever the director on The A-Team's set told George Peppard and Dirk Benedict to say, as their characters, to Mr. T's, in the interest of keeping the team the viewers expected to see together, we as PCs are entirely capable -- and often willing -- to say, "I don't feel the need to keep that prima donna asshole around."  This is why those are fictional works, and these are our RPG sessions.

Thanks for that.

Indeed assuming those narrative devices apply to the unpleasant, loner PC is one hallmark of the PC Glow. And from jibbajibba's post above yours, jj appears to use and expect a PC glow in their RPGs.

Quote from: Ravenswing;808369There, fixed that for you.  (Of course you wouldn't be suggesting that your personal preferences are the be-all and end-all of POVs hobby-wide.)

Oh for pity's sake.  

(deep breath)

Do all those movies, novels and comics also have one entirely pervasive attribute: that they are entirely under the narrative control of their authors, and that in fact the degree to which the other characters pay attention to the Surly Loners is entirely up to those same authors?

Whatever the director on The A-Team's set told George Peppard and Dirk Benedict to say, as their characters, to Mr. T's, in the interest of keeping the team the viewers expected to see together, we as PCs are entirely capable -- and often willing -- to say, "I don't feel the need to keep that prima donna asshole around."  This is why those are fictional works, and these are our RPG sessions.

but the same pressures exist within a party in an RPG to stay together.

More so in fact. Its very hard to turn round to Dave and say "Dave my PC Sir Elidar really hates your PC Finan the low charisma thief so either you roll a new character or you can't come and play next Sunday.... "

Narative links between party members are much better constructed and informed in "stories" than they are in RPGs where simple social mores imply that 5 blokes that met in a tavern are willing to lay down their lives to protect each other because the 5 players have agreed to play weekly....

Also Low charisma PCs are not Prima Donnas, they are silent brooding perhaps certainly not a lot of laughs at a party but they may be the most efficient dedicated party members because they may be very focused on doing their "job" really well.

Do you want the high charisma guy to climb the castle wall and kill the guard or the low charisma guy? answer it makes no f*ing difference except that in "D&D" world the high charisma guy probably put his low dump stat into something else , like Wisdom so he is probably doing to fail the perception check to notice the alarm, hidden gargoyle etc etc .....

In real life I manage a large IT build team. A number of members of that team have low charisma in terms of social skills, charm, looks etc. However, I entirely trust them to do what I ask in a highly professional and skilled way. I trust them entirely with doing their jobs excllently and really value them as members of the team. Why would an RPG be any different to that?

Quote from: Bren;808373Thanks for that.

Indeed assuming those narrative devices apply to the unpleasant, loner PC is one hallmark of the PC Glow. And from jibbajibba's post above yours, jj appears to use and expect a PC glow in their RPGs.

Sorry I don't know what PC glow means can you explain it to me.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808378Sorry I don't know what PC glow means can you explain it to me.

You know the behaviors. You just don't recognize the term for the behaviors. I will illustrate from your post.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808376Its very hard to turn round to Dave and say "Dave my PC Sir Elidar really hates your PC Finan the low charisma thief so either you roll a new character or you can't come and play next Sunday.... "

Because Finan has PC Glow.

QuoteRPGs where simple social mores imply that 5 blokes that met in a tavern are willing to lay down their lives to protect each other because the 5 players have agreed to play weekly....

More PC Glow. The 5 blokes in the bar are trusted because they are PCs. While this is common in some groups an NPC that is met in similar circumstance is almost always greeted with suspicion, some scepticism, frequently much less tolerance because NPCs have no PC glow. GMPCs could be said to have a stain or taint, a sort of inverse glow.

QuoteAlso Low charisma PCs are not Prima Donnas, they are silent brooding perhaps certainly not a lot of laughs at a party...

You said "a very unpleasant loner," not just and someone who is silent and brooding and not a lot of laughs at the party. People don't like being around people who are very unpleasant. Being a loner is in part a result of being very unpleasant.

On the one hand, I agree that it can be cool if charisma has significant use and effectiveness in a campaign.

That said, though, I totally disagree with the idea that GMs should always contrive to make all character stats equally useful.

Game balance can be good, but it shouldn't drive every campaign to be the same. If we're playing a court intrigue game, then maybe Charisma is crucial and Constitution isn't. If we're playing a wilderness survival game, then maybe Charisma isn't as useful as Strength or Wisdom. I don't think games should be limited to strict balance like this.

So basically "PC glow" is the PCs getting treated differently than they would otherwise because they're PCs.

Like having an asshole character in the party that normally anyone would ditch, except you don't because of meta out-of-game reasons that they are another player at the table.

Quote from: Bren;808379You know the behaviors. You just don’t recognize the term for the behaviors. I will illustrate from your post.

Because Finan has PC Glow.

More PC Glow. The 5 blokes in the bar are trusted because they are PCs. While this is common in some groups an NPC that is met in similar circumstance is almost always greeted with suspicion, some scepticism, frequently much less tolerance because NPCs have no PC glow. GMPCs could be said to have a stain or taint, a sort of inverse glow.

You said “a very unpleasant loner,” not just and someone who is silent and brooding and not a lot of laughs at the party. People don’t like being around people who are very unpleasant. Being a loner is in part a result of being very unpleasant.

Okay makes sense.

Lets rationalise very unpleasant or loner etc into what we mean "has a very low charisma score".

I agree and disagree.

I agree that people don't want to spent their social time with low charisma folks but I don't think rpg parties are primarily social groups. I think rpg parties are more like military mission teams, work teams or even folk that meet at the local game store to play magic on fridays.... that is to say there are lot of non-social reasons why groups stay together especially groups that are involved in dangerous/illegal/dubious activities.

Mal invites Jayne to join the crew of the Firefly not becuase he likes him, at first he clearly doesn't, but because doing so saves him from an immediate situation and then because is both useful as a fighter but also and critically from a RPG perspective becuase he is now one of the team. Mal's personality (obviously drawn from his 5e "background") is that anyone that is part of his team gets treated as such which is something he got from his military service.

I can totally see a party of 5 tomb robbers working together as a team despite personal issues which may well lead to all sort of intraparty conflict, but not socialising with each other when they hit the town and go carousing.

Now if team members are actively murderous or whatever those types of teams will break down into conflict (all in favour of that as well) but if there is  the low charisma guy who is great at his job I can see him being a stalwart of the group however dislikeable. Over time they may even get to respect him and trust him learning that beneath that gruff unlikeable exterior is a man of honour and integrity (+ other cliches maybe he breeds small birds or something).

The SWAT team where one guy is low charisma but he is really good at house clearing and you would rather have him on your team than anyone else but you would hate being on a stake out with him if you were still working Vice and stuck in a van for 8 hours.

So I think I have provided enough examples from fantasy fiction and real life  where low charisma people can be accepted into teams. Certainly enough to justify them as a playable option in a table top RPG....

Huh. You actually made a good case for that. I haven't seen it made anywhere else.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808376Narative links between party members are much better constructed and informed in "stories" than they are in RPGs where simple social mores imply that 5 blokes that met in a tavern are willing to lay down their lives to protect each other because the 5 players have agreed to play weekly....

Does anyone really do that any more? Every single game we play, we establish, during chargen, how the PCs know each other and come up with some past links and reasons why they give a shit about each other.

We don't do the risible collection of strangers who mysteriously meet in the same place at the same time, then inexplicably band together to do unusual and dangerous things. Dear gods, or the tedious and awful "introduction" scenes where the characters talk to each other in stilted fashion getting to know each other.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;808397So basically "PC glow" is the PCs getting treated differently than they would otherwise because they're PCs.

Bingo!

Quote from: jibbajibba;808410I agree that people don't want to spent their social time with low charisma folks but I don't think rpg parties are primarily social groups. I think rpg parties are more like military mission teams, work teams or even folk that meet at the local game store to play magic on fridays.... that is to say there are lot of non-social reasons why groups stay together especially groups that are involved in dangerous/illegal/dubious activities.

In military mission teams and work groups the group does not self select. They are assigned by a higher authority within the organization. If your party is assigned by some higher authority then it makes sense that they might have to put up with a few assholes and jerks though they may well try to get them reassigned if they are very unpleasant as opposed to just introverted. So ask yourself, is your party assigned to work together by some organization or do the PCs self-select?

In the stereotypical game store pickup group various geek social fallacies may be in play or it may be a case of putting up with a jerk for one or two nights. That compares well with the 5 guys meet in a tavern and go dungeon crawling together trope you mentioned earlier. While that occurs, it is not the sum total of parties. So ask yourself, did your PCs find each other through the dungeoneers meetup board or by all sitting at the same table in the Green Dragon one night or do they have a reason to like each other?

QuoteMal invites Jayne to join the crew of the Firefly ... [because Joss Whedon thought that Jayne would be an interesting character to add to the mix.]

But a character who is really only there because its in the script is very common in media. The old sixties TV show Lost in Space never did adequately answer the question of why they didn't shove Dr. Smith out the airlock. Genre savvy Joss Whedon lampshaded the sentiment by having Mal threaten to do exactly that to Jayne.

Really it seem like you are intentionally ignoring any negative effects of playing a low charisma and then claming that because you actively choose to ignore any effects that proves charisma is a dump stat. I already agreed that if you choose to ignore any effects whether due to PC glow or GM fiat then yeah it doesn't matter if your character has a low charisma or is an asshole.

When it comes to the CHA effect on other PCs just........don't.

PCs are controlled by players and can react however they wish to anyone or anything. The mechanical impacts of CHA are only there for NPCs.

For this same reason I don't use social skill influence rolls to enforce PC behavior. The NPC says/does whatever and its up to the player to react in whatever way the player wants.

If a large dragon attempts to intimidate a neophyte adventurer PC I role-play it out. The player can either act as if his/her character is intimidated or not. Displaying a lack of intimidation to the dragon could bring painful consequences for the character but it is still up to the player to decide.

The only exceptions I make are magical/supernatural power based compulsions such as charm or suggestion spells. Other than that it isn't my job to tell a player how their character reacts to something no matter what the ability scores are.

The same applies to PC vs PC. If a player wants to try and dupe, browbeat, or convince another player then they have to DO it. No help from the dice or any character attributes.

Quote from: Bren;808434Bingo!

In military mission teams and work groups the group does not self select. They are assigned by a higher authority within the organization. If your party is assigned by some higher authority then it makes sense that they might have to put up with a few assholes and jerks though they may well try to get them reassigned if they are very unpleasant as opposed to just introverted. So ask yourself, is your party assigned to work together by some organization or do the PCs self-select?

In the stereotypical game store pickup group various geek social fallacies may be in play or it may be a case of putting up with a jerk for one or two nights. That compares well with the 5 guys meet in a tavern and go dungeon crawling together trope you mentioned earlier. While that occurs, it is not the sum total of parties. So ask yourself, did your PCs find each other through the dungeoneers meetup board or by all sitting at the same table in the Green Dragon one night or do they have a reason to like each other?

But a character who is really only there because its in the script is very common in media. The old sixties TV show Lost in Space never did adequately answer the question of why they didn't shove Dr. Smith out the airlock. Genre savvy Joss Whedon lampshaded the sentiment by having Mal threaten to do exactly that to Jayne.

Really it seem like you are intentionally ignoring any negative effects of playing a low charisma and then claming that because you actively choose to ignore any effects that proves charisma is a dump stat. I already agreed that if you choose to ignore any effects whether due to PC glow or GM fiat then yeah it doesn't matter if your character has a low charisma or is an asshole.

What I am trying to do is to point out that if you have to have one stat at 5 the easiest character option is to go for Charisma because there are plenty of character options that cope well with having low charisma, even in settings where the character is part of a group.
I don't think you can do that with other stats very easily at all.
What are the negative effects of low charisma to a PC who isn't going to front the party or have any henchmen or hirelings?
There are roleplay implications of course I feel they are less difficult than other stats.

Now I am coming from a role play perspective as well as "mechanical" and you can certainly ignore the role play aspect of low intelligence and wisdom and they are perfectly fine to dump in.
Physical stats are directly impactful to all classes -s to hit and damage , -s to HP negative initiative & AC modifiers will affect everyone. Yes a MU in AD&D can get away with 5 Str but will find it even harder even than usual at low levels.

If roleplaying is "on" then low wisdom PCs can definitely be fun to play but they can lead the party into trouble and are much more likely to be "dumped" from a group than a low charisma dude.
Low Intelligence is very hard to do as it's so passive.

So a really low stat say a 5 or less or if you actually roll a 3  then ... hard to argue that the easiest place to dump that isn't Charisma.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;808438PCs are controlled by players and can react however they wish to anyone or anything.

That is one fairly popular way to play RPGs. Of course it's not the only way nor is it suitable for all games. You should probably never, ever play Pendragon or, indeed, any game that includes stats for things like bravery.

Quote from: Kiero;808420Does anyone really do that any more? Every single game we play, we establish, during chargen, how the PCs know each other and come up with some past links and reasons why they give a shit about each other.

I'm currently playing in a largely beer-and-pretzels-y D&D5 campaign where we're pretty much doing this. Yes, it's stilted and contrived, but it's quick and it gets us on to the monster-fighting. It's probably not how I would do things if it were only my choice, but it's still fun with that group.

Quote from: Bren;808434In the stereotypical game store pickup group various geek social fallacies may be in play or it may be a case of putting up with a jerk for one or two nights. That compares well with the 5 guys meet in a tavern and go dungeon crawling together trope you mentioned earlier. While that occurs, it is not the sum total of parties. So ask yourself, did your PCs find each other through the dungeoneers meetup board or by all sitting at the same table in the Green Dragon one night or do they have a reason to like each other?

Even self-selected groups can have reasons to stick together for reasons other than friendship. Modern examples would include a band or a start-up company - who often have major clashes, but stick together for professional reasons. In olden times, the equivalent of message boards is word-of-mouth network - like hearing that the new barbarian in town is quite fearsome, and thinking he would be good in a fight.

Personally, I tend to prefer it if there is an external connection that keeps characters together, rather than just being unrelated people who like each other. Typical hooks that I've seen:

1) The characters are bound by circumstance, such as being the only similar foreigners in a strange land.
2) The characters have a common secret that they are responsible for dealing with.
3) The characters are brought together by a patron or organization.
4) The characters are all family.

I prefer this to just being self-selected friends, because it's really easy for self-selected friends to have good reasons to part ways. Incidentally, I don't think that a singular charisma stat is a good measure for how well people get along. There are lots of small groups who bond well together, while being unlikeable to the general population.

Quote from: Bren;808434Really it seem like you are intentionally ignoring any negative effects of playing a low charisma and then claming that because you actively choose to ignore any effects that proves charisma is a dump stat. I already agreed that if you choose to ignore any effects whether due to PC glow or GM fiat then yeah it doesn't matter if your character has a low charisma or is an asshole.

I would agree that this is what is happening here - but I also think it's legitimate because it is what a lot of groups do. Both GMs and players frequently to react to a character based only on descriptive details and role-playing, and not based on their charisma stat.

In much the same way, many games have puzzles and strategic problems solved by using player intelligence regardless of the character's intelligence stat.

Quote from: Bren;808441That is one fairly popular way to play RPGs. Of course it's not the only way nor is it suitable for all games. You should probably never, ever play Pendragon or, indeed, any game that includes stats for things like bravery.

Due to the thread topic I was talking about D&D (any edition).

Other games may not even HAVE Cha as a stat to dump, so the comments wouldn't apply.

Quote from: jhkim;808443I'm currently playing in a largely beer-and-pretzels-y D&D5 campaign where we're pretty much doing this. Yes, it's stilted and contrived, but it's quick and it gets us on to the monster-fighting. It's probably not how I would do things if it were only my choice, but it's still fun with that group.


Even self-selected groups can have reasons to stick together for reasons other than friendship. Modern examples would include a band or a start-up company - who often have major clashes, but stick together for professional reasons. In olden times, the equivalent of message boards is word-of-mouth network - like hearing that the new barbarian in town is quite fearsome, and thinking he would be good in a fight.

Personally, I tend to prefer it if there is an external connection that keeps characters together, rather than just being unrelated people who like each other. Typical hooks that I've seen:

1) The characters are bound by circumstance, such as being the only similar foreigners in a strange land.
2) The characters have a common secret that they are responsible for dealing with.
3) The characters are brought together by a patron or organization.
4) The characters are all family.

I prefer this to just being self-selected friends, because it's really easy for self-selected friends to have good reasons to part ways. Incidentally, I don't think that a singular charisma stat is a good measure for how well people get along. There are lots of small groups who bond well together, while being unlikeable to the general population.


I would agree that this is what is happening here - but I also think it's legitimate because it is what a lot of groups do. Both GMs and players frequently to react to a character based only on descriptive details and role-playing, and not based on their charisma stat.

In much the same way, many games have puzzles and strategic problems solved by using player intelligence regardless of the character's intelligence stat.

My default mode of party creation is to give one player a "leader" role in the setting and advise them that they need to get to so and so a place or do such and such a thing. Sometimes they will have a mentor or senior partner who advises give s them some help (another PC) sometimes they are just on their own.
Sometimes I will start the game with the group formed and cover the recruitment in flashback.
I started doing this is modern and Cyberpunk games in the late 80s and it works really well as a default option.

I am just re-reading "Best Served Cold" and this is exactly how the party is put together. A mercenary is betrayed and to get her revenge hires a team, a barbarian she meets in the street and offers a job to after he proves himself in a ruck. An ex-convict she is "loaned" by an old ally, a poisoner and his assistant she hires for his particular skills, a low life woman with a lot of criminal contacts and an old mercenary friend who really she just feels sorry for.

These groups have good reason to stick together initially, money, and after a while the game itself builds links.
I am sure we have all been in groups where one individual has low CHR and you don't just dump them. You are more likely to dump the one that steals or the one that keeps on getting drunk and starting fights or the one who slept with your girlfriend :)
You can still be lawful good, honest, trustworthy and generous and have low CHR after all.

Quote from: Kiero;808420Does anyone really do that any more? Every single game we play, we establish, during chargen, how the PCs know each other and come up with some past links and reasons why they give a shit about each other.

We don't do the risible collection of strangers who mysteriously meet in the same place at the same time, then inexplicably band together to do unusual and dangerous things. Dear gods, or the tedious and awful "introduction" scenes where the characters talk to each other in stilted fashion getting to know each other.

What I have fun with is establishing PC relationships during chargen, but in two groups. Then have the two groups meet up when the first adventure starts.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808440What are the negative effects of low charisma to a PC who isn't going to front the party or have any henchmen or hirelings?

Starting fights at the wrong time or place (or with opponents who are much tougher than the party) because their rudeness is found offensive to others or because they crudely hit on someone's significant other. Having doors shut the the groups' faces due to the improper and even offensive things said or done by one of their members. Not that different when roleplayed as what might occur with a low wisdom or intelligence really. Unless of course you don't roleplay out the low charisma as the PC actually being unlikeable to others and the consequences of those actions.  

QuoteYes a MU in AD&D can get away with 5 Str but will find it even harder even than usual at low levels.

How so? The MU doesn't really use STR and since the MU isn't wearing armor their effective gold carrying capacity isn't all that bad compared to the already burdened armor wearing cleric. STR seems like the perfect dump stat for the MU.

QuoteIf roleplaying is "on" then low wisdom PCs can definitely be fun to play but they can lead the party into trouble and are much more likely to be "dumped" from a group than a low charisma dude.

I'd say that is only because of how you choose to play them and how your GM allows players to roleplay low wisdom vs. low charisma. The low wisdom character may just be very a very trusting, credulous person but that nature isn't a problem since his pals watch out for and make allowances for him to keep him safe. Having someone who trusts his pals is probably a net positive in a group of people who depend on each other in peril. The player just needs to play wisdom as something that doesn't cause the PC to be unplayable, just like you want them to do for the low CHA guy.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;808445Due to the thread topic I was talking about D&D (any edition).

Fair enough. The attitude that the player is at all times 100% in control of their PC's feelings, attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors no matter what (magic excepted) is probably most common in D&D.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808446My default mode of party creation is to give one player a "leader" role in the setting and advise them that they need to get to so and so a place or do such and such a thing.

If the leader is the only one who typically talks to NPCs and the leader has a good charisma I can see how that style of play would make it easier for the low CHA character not to cause trouble. But so long as the leader also acts as the leader for declaring the party's actions, most of the roleplaying disadvantages of low WIS and low INT should also be avoided for the other characters. It does mean the leader can't use any of those for dump stats, but then leaders who are uncautious, overly trusting, stupid, and ignorant are going to be pretty bad leaders.

QuoteYou can still be lawful good, honest, trustworthy and generous and have low CHR after all.

You can be all those things with a low WIS or INT too. After all the stereotype of lawful stupid had to come from somewhere.

I learned CHA is not a dump stat when our 3rd level party got trapped in a dead end and the wandering Chimera said, "GRR!  What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Start bargaining for your lives and see how much CHA is a dump stat.

Quote from: Old Geezer;808509I learned CHA is not a dump stat when our 3rd level party got trapped in a dead end and the wandering Chimera said, "GRR!  What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Start bargaining for your lives and see how much CHA is a dump stat.

Chimera: "GRR!  What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Us: "We're here to sever your heads, and use them for material components. Prepare to die!"

If you like begging so much, your character do it. Otherwise, the Charisma check has been "handled".

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;808525Chimera: "GRR!  What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Us: "We're here to sever your heads, and use them for material components. Prepare to die!"

Us: "Aieee! Eeeei! Aagggh! Eehhh!"

Chimera: "Munch. Crunch Munch. Mmmmmm...crunchy on the outside, chewy on the inside."

You missed the ending so I finished the story for you. :p

Quote from: Bren;808527You missed the ending so I finished the story for you. :p

No surely its more ....

Chimera: "GRR! What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Party: Um Dude have you like seen the McDonald's round here we got totally lost going through the car wash by the old stone idol with the ruby eyes.

Chimera: Left at the idol and then through the Maze of 1000 eyes. If you reach the car wash you have gone too far...fucking tourists....

Quote from: jibbajibba;808536No surely its more ....

Chimera: "GRR! What are you little shrimps doing here?"

Party: Um Dude have you like seen the McDonald's round here we got totally lost going through the car wash by the old stone idol with the ruby eyes.

Chimera: Left at the idol and then through the Maze of 1000 eyes. If you reach the car wash you have gone too far...fucking tourists....

OK, that was pretty good. :)

* golf clap *

So many many ways to play with stats.

The stat determines and controls the character (and players) actions.

The stat comes into play as a success/fail detrminer after possibly actions unrelated to the stat.

the stat is irrelevant other than mechanical bonuses to something and/or access to skills or classes.

etc.

To me. If I am the group spokesperson, which I oft am, then putting my lowest roll in CHA feels like gaming the system if CHA is not checked during play for success or is just a mechanical bonus to henchmen or whatever that hardly gets used anymore. It feels to me like cheating. So I dont.
How others play is their own business unless it is getting blatantly and deliberately gamey.
Same for when I am DMing. Unless the players are blatantly gaming the system Im pretty laid back on how they apply stats and RP them. If at all. My current group is all over the field on that. One I am not sure is even aware of what his stats are most of the time, one plays off on his stats for how good or bad he is at something, and one is a bit of a mix of styles.

I don't see the "low CHA = silent, brooding loner" thing. I mean silent, brooding loners are kewl (in movies, books and games anyway. IRL they do tend to be unpleasant to be around). Low CHA = uncool. Your low CHA dude isn't the brooding Eastwoodesque loner, he's the noisy irritating loner with a loud lack of social skills who irritates everyone. You know, the guy who wants to tell you about his character. Or a whiny git. Or a cliched 80s nerd. Or a hick who goes on and on about having sex with his cousins, or a crazy homeless person who never washes.

Low CHA = uncool.

Quote from: The Ent;808643I don't see the "low CHA = silent, brooding loner" thing. I mean silent, brooding loners are kewl (in movies, books and games anyway. IRL they do tend to be unpleasant to be around). Low CHA = uncool. Your low CHA dude isn't the brooding Eastwoodesque loner, he's the noisy irritating loner with a loud lack of social skills who irritates everyone. You know, the guy who wants to tell you about his character. Or a whiny git. Or a cliched 80s nerd. Or a hick who goes on and on about having sex with his cousins, or a crazy homeless person who never washes.

Low CHA = uncool.

Yes. Thank you for more clearly making my point about the penalties inherent in actually roleplaying a low CHA instead of ignoring it.

I thought the brooding loner was Lawful Evil? :cool:

Quote from: Omega;808674I thought the brooding loner was Lawful Evil? :cool:

:D

You'd think so, but I hardly ever see one that isn't Chaotic Good. :D

Well except that Lawful Neutral dude but he's more silent and kinda cold than brooding. THE LAW doesn't brood! ;)

Quote from: The Ent;808677THE LAW doesn't brood!

I like that.

Quote from: Omega;808674I thought the brooding loner was Lawful Evil? :cool:

How about a looding boner?

LOL

I found this whole discussion pretty interesting. I'm mainly working with the Earthdawn system (3/4e until the 4e GM Guide comes out), which I consider a response to AD&D2 by FASA combining Shadowrun with the older D&D incarnations. I discovered from my other research that I was only exposed to a small slice of D&D playstyles in the 80/90s (mainly the "west coast" styles if that can actually means anything). It's good to have a broader base of play styles to model from. :)

So, in Earthdawn, Charisma cannot be a dump stat (any more than any other stat based on character type). There is a whole cycle of mechanical effects tied to your Social Defense (which gets generated from Cha, like Physical/Mystic Defense from Dex/Perception).

The simplest example of a Charisma mechanics that occurs a lot is the Taunt talent. If an Adept throws Karma into a Taunt (Cha+Taunt+d6) at you and beats your Social Defense, you may end up with a significant negative to all your rolls for the next X rounds, as your emotions cloud your judgement. Very favored tactic of Swordmasters, as they can then more easily parry/riposte your low attack rolls.

Or, Battle Bellow (a Skyraider talent) rolled against your group leader's Social Defense, +1 for each additional target. Smaller penalty to your action rolls, but affects groups for a similar amount of time. Try charging a shield line with every 5th Troll Skyraider SCREAMING at your guys and beating their shields.

There is some other Charisma based mechanics spelled out in Earthdawn, like asking/trading for favors, deceit, insight (countering deceit), intimidation, etc. There's some other examples, like the "Spectral Dancer" spirit I mentioned in the awful Spectre conversation, which forces you into a dance (repeated Charisma checks) or begins to zap you.

But there is really no "reaction roll" or "hireling/henchmen" rules given. So I'm digging into how these were used and adapting them. There's definitely some useful stuff in this thread if you use Charisma focused mechanics.

Thats why the whole argument of "(insert stat of the week here) is a dump stat" falls apart. For one type of campaign it is useless, for another its vital, for the rest its situational. Even the way its used has no set style.

Quote from: The Ent;808643I don't see the "low CHA = silent, brooding loner" thing. I mean silent, brooding loners are kewl (in movies, books and games anyway. IRL they do tend to be unpleasant to be around). Low CHA = uncool. Your low CHA dude isn't the brooding Eastwoodesque loner, he's the noisy irritating loner with a loud lack of social skills who irritates everyone. You know, the guy who wants to tell you about his character. Or a whiny git. Or a cliched 80s nerd. Or a hick who goes on and on about having sex with his cousins, or a crazy homeless person who never washes.

Low CHA = uncool.

Or, low CHA = uninspiring and unpersuasive. Just as the low strength mage deals with it by not trying to carry lots or kick down doors or fight, the low charisma character might deal with it by minimizing personal interaction, and perhaps only talking to people on internet forums.

Quote from: rawma;808826Or, low CHA = uninspiring and unpersuasive. Just as the low strength mage deals with it by not trying to carry lots or kick down doors or fight, the low charisma character might deal with it by minimizing personal interaction, and perhaps only talking to people on internet forums.

That's a good point.

Depends on the rest of the chsracter's stats I'd say.

You have to understand the nature of the question I guess.

For me the "dump" stat is where I put a really awful number. The 3,4,5 type things.
The 3-18 paradigm in early DnD is actually pretty flat. An 8 isn't really a dump stat as you incur no minus and mechanically 7-14 is pretty much a wash.

so to me the question is if I rolled an array that looks like say ...

17,16,13,12,11,9,4

where do I put the 4.

Now AD&D rules on "if x is this score or lower the PC can only be a " aside the question is what stat leaves you with the widest roleplay options.

Now the case I was making was that in the genre fiction that RPGs tend to emulate Charisma is the most common stat for an antagonist to have at that lower level and I described a range of characters both solo and in groups who exhibit low Charisma but are still interesting and engaging characters that would be fun to play.

I could think of very few if any who have other stats at that low level (I noted that wisdom was a possible exception as there is a category of "naive hero" in typically older fiction).

In fact there is probably a little bias in the genre against High Charisma types as being treacherous /duplicitous etc etc.

That was all I was saying.

Some people seems to be taking the idea of "dump stat" as the stat you always put your lowest score in for mechanical reasons. I seldom distribute stats for mechanical reasons much preferring to make choices based on roleplay reasons. This typically produces mechanically weaker PCs.

Now from a roleplay perspective 4 Int is a huge thing to deal with. It basically means you are playing Hodor all game. If however your group places no regard on roleplaying stats and only uses them mechanically allowing the player to run a Int 4 guy just like they run a Int 16 guy but with different mechanical outputs then the dump stat simply depends on what is mechanically optimum for your particular PC.

Even in that case I think there is a case to be made for Charisma depending on how the game-table works.

If henchmen and hirelings are uncommon, as they are in most non-OSR games, or if all social interactions are roleplayed rather than done through mechanics , interestingly as they are in a lot of OSR games, then Charisma can indeed be the least useful stat mechanically.

Certainly if you are playing a murder hobo game where you kill most stuff you meet, most of your adventure takes place underground killing things and taking their stuff through a series of traps puzzles etc with very interaction between groups of monsters or room for diplomatic alternatives then Charisma.... meh... and that is a pretty common play style.

Quote from: jibbajibba;808863In fact there is probably a little bias in the genre against High Charisma types as being treacherous /duplicitous etc etc.

Huh.  You know, you're right:  I do remember, in the day (my first character, in fact, being one), a tacit sneer in a number of gaming circles at people who did run high CHA characters.

And I wonder if you're on to the other part of the motivation behind this paradigm.  What too-accurate-for-comfort stereotype enveloped the hobby in its early days, after all, but the (inevitably male) teenage wargaming geek loser, who'd never been laid and was terrified he never would be?  They sure weren't fans of the pretty/popular types, and that may have well tied into a revulsion by many to play those types.

I pity you two for the fucked up gaming groups you had to grow up with...

Quote from: Omega;808984I pity you two for the fucked up gaming groups you had to grow up with...

Strange response. I was actually referring to the genre fiction rather than games. I think its all Tolkien's fault for pointing out that a servant of the dark lord would seems fairer but feel fouler.

Reading 'best served cold' and the emergent villain is definitely Benna the Charismatic but dead brother. Same is true for a host of fiction from charming serial killers, to generals that speak well but lead from the back. Even in real life someone like Obama gets hit with criticism because he is too good at speeches and the like with no substance (Clinton had the same problem).
We prefer our heroes to be gruff no nonsense folk who have fought through massive personal hardship than glib smooth tongued types that can coast through life. As I mentioned in another thread the primary heroic trait is fortitude, from frodo forcing his way up mount doom,  to Conan being cut down from cruxifiction.
I guess we prefer Job to the serpent in the garden.

Quote from: Bren;808434But a character who is really only there because its in the script is very common in media.

But then every example from any media can always be rejected on this basis; something of a no true Scotsman fallacy at work. And we're left without many examples to work with.

QuoteThe old sixties TV show Lost in Space never did adequately answer the question of why they didn't shove Dr. Smith out the airlock.

In the early going, Dr. Smith has control over the robot, and the other characters simply aren't murderers. (The question is probably meaningless once the show went camp.) But more interestingly, why do you imagine that Dr. Smith has unusually low charisma? He seems unpleasant more for his alignment and attitude, and he does well at deception and manipulation.

QuoteGenre savvy Joss Whedon lampshaded the sentiment by having Mal threaten to do exactly that to Jayne.

Shoved out the airlock is such a standard space SF thing, the space equivalent of walking the plank, that I doubt the two are really related.

QuoteReally it seem like you are intentionally ignoring any negative effects of playing a low charisma and then claming that because you actively choose to ignore any effects that proves charisma is a dump stat. I already agreed that if you choose to ignore any effects whether due to PC glow or GM fiat then yeah it doesn't matter if your character has a low charisma or is an asshole.

The effects of a low charisma (at least in early D&D; later versions also have saving throws versus charisma) include: penalty to reaction rolls, reduced loyalty, limited command ability, and a lower number of special hirelings. All of these can be rationalized in a number of ways - go to any game that has Disadvantages and choose some combination that give corresponding reaction penalties. So it doesn't have to be something that constantly grates on other party members; perhaps a lower class character with unattractive scars and a speech impediment. And most of the effects beyond the party of adventurers can be mitigated, by paying more or leaving the function to another party member; neither is typically true of other D&D abilities (maybe wisdom in early D&D, since it had so little non-cleric function; with 5e perception based on wisdom, that's not going to work).

I don't like the idea of a dump stat, but jibbajibba makes a good argument that charisma is an easy option for placing a low roll, and not because of ignoring the effects.

Quote from: jibbajibba;809103I guess we prefer Job to the serpent in the garden.

For a new online game I'm trying the serpent. I call him Iago, he's a first level magic-user. CHA17. Going well so far... We just had a session of mostly talking, we all had fun.

Quote from: Omega;808984I pity you two for the fucked up gaming groups you had to grow up with...

I pity a LOT of people in online gaming forums for the fucked up gaming groups they had.

Bill was commenting about showing people AD&D1e, that experienced gamers pissed and moaned and didn't really get it, while newbies took to it straight away.

Preconceptions, I guess. Come in open-minded and you'll have fun whatever the system.

Yeah, for that reason I enjoy playing with newbies more than veterans. All the newbies I played with (close friends) took to it easily, while the two veterans would never stop backseat DMing and getting upset when things didn't go the way they would've done it.

Quote from: jhkim;808396On the one hand, I agree that it can be cool if charisma has significant use and effectiveness in a campaign.

That said, though, I totally disagree with the idea that GMs should always contrive to make all character stats equally useful.

I think "contrive" is the key word here.  I agree that the GM shouldn't go out of his way to artificially make any ability score important.

What the GM should do is think about what natural ways to the virtual-world of the setting would end up making Charisma matter.

Quote from: Old Geezer;809171I pity a LOT of people in online gaming forums for the fucked up gaming groups they had.

Well ... of course this is part and parcel of "We only notice the negative on Internet forums" syndrome.  If we go by the forums, the tabletop world is full of dysfunctional lunatics, yet for some perverse reason we stick with a hobby so laden with assholes, idiots and outright psychosis.

For my part, I've *seen* a couple of screwed-up groups, and I've encountered a number of screwed-up players, but overwhelmingly, I've played with normal people in normal groups.  The only two circles I've known to have imploded dramatically had far more to do with the revelation of extracurricular bedroom activities than anything taking place around a gaming table.

Quote from: Arohtar;806560Yes, in our game it was. We distributes our scores ourselves, to be able to choose character class. I often ended up with a charisma of 6 in order to raise the other scores as much as possible. It did not really matter. You are right, we should have made the score have consequenses or thrown it out the window (we never used reaction rolls or henchmen anyway).

One of my Pathfinder Society character had a CHA of 7. But then she IS a Dwarf barbarian. Granted, my fiancée made it, and she had to follow the point-buy system that PFS makes you use. I tried to roleplay it as her being a rude jerk most of the time.

At least, I tried that after I had played her a few times and figured out what the character was.

My option, no. Its was just the opposite.

From my reading older D&D assumed the characters had a retinue of henchmen and hirelings  and would care for and equip them like  Housecarls . Its why so many of the old modules had extra magic items.

Some you'd find and keep, some you'd gift to your henchmen and some you'd never find at all. In those terms, the number of items was well suited to the party size which instead of a 5 man band was a war band, 5-8 PC officers with  henchmen. hirelings and sometimes war animals.

At "name" level this was formalized with an actual war band but those leaders were in addition to henchmen and were attracted to the characters  in world power and prestige.

This meant 9th level Lords (Fighters) say were serious power players able to field several men capable individually of killing an ogre and a small army of men at arms.

The higher the charisma, the better people reacted to you and the better you did in the end game and the higher your guys morale.  

Now later classes that weren't endgame focused did come about but remember the original 3 (Fighter, MU, Cleric) all had followers and the later add on Thief  were.

The only way in "old school," if I understand the term correclty, that one could possibly think of CHA as a "dump stat" is if one totally ignores everything about CHA in the rules including henchman loyalty and NPC reaction.

So, yeah, something ignored is unimportant.

But this then becomes about players, not rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;806521Should, for example, someone who rolls 3d6-in-order and ends up rolling an 18 in Charisma have cause to rejoice, or should he bemoan his bad luck that it wasn't in Dexterity or Constitution?

Well, the only game I know of that's strict 3d6 in order is OD&D plus supplements.

In that game, a 17 or 18 in Charisma is the only way to become a Paladin, so my vote is for "and there was much rejoicing."  The original OD&D Paladin is awesome; so much so I'm glad they're so damn rare.  I've only had two rolled in 40 years.

Quote from: Old Geezer;810263Well, the only game I know of that's strict 3d6 in order is OD&D plus supplements.

In that game, a 17 or 18 in Charisma is the only way to become a Paladin, so my vote is for "and there was much rejoicing."  The original OD&D Paladin is awesome; so much so I'm glad they're so damn rare.  I've only had two rolled in 40 years.

IIRC, AD&D 2E also defaulted back to 3d6 in order as "method 1" for rolling up PCs, but no one ever used it.

Quote from: EOTB;810266IIRC, AD&D 2E also defaulted back to 3d6 in order as "method 1" for rolling up PCs, but no one ever used it.

I used and use it. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;810293I used and use it. :)

Absolutism withdrawn :)

My LotFP and DCC campaigns both have 3d6 in order; I think that's how the rules are as written?

Quote from: RPGPundit;811293My LotFP and DCC campaigns both have 3d6 in order; I think that's how the rules are as written?

Do they have Charisma or some equivalent?  And do players treat it as important or unimportant?

Now, I will say "You have a low number, it's gotta go somewhere" is not the same as a "dump stat" to me.  I just started in a game where it was 'Roll 3d6 6 times but put the numbers where you want.'  The 8 I rolled had to go someplace, so I put it in Wisdom.

I put my 17 in Charisma, so I guess that answers your question for me. :D

LotFP has Charisma.  DCC has Personality.  Players in my campaigns are always acutely aware of how valuable that ability score is, by experience of play.