Charisma v. Friendliness

[Shiki Koe]

I created a gnoll ranger for d&d, and I rolled a 10 for his charisma. Being a gnoll has the unfortunate penalty of a -2 modifier in chr so it knocked me down to 8.

Anyway, my question is this; although he's not going to be very good at bartering and intimidating and whatnot, is it still possible for my gnoll to be friendly?

[LiaThistle]

Charisma isn't necessarily friendliness; it deals with how they are perceived, a lot in regards to leadership. Now, when trying to make a friend, yes, it is going to matter, but at the same time, if a seven foot hyena was trying to shake your hand, wouldn't you be a little ...uncomfortable?

[ArgusLowell]

LiaThistle

if a seven foot hyena was trying to shake your hand, wouldn't you be a little ...uncomfortable?

Not if I myself was a seven foot hyena.

And that right there is the issue with charisma. It's subjective, usually to human standards. If you are using it as a stat to represent how personable they are, then your capacity to match your behavior to the situation is how high you roll your diplomacy check. Having a low charisma, you might say, makes it harder for you to control your emotions and say the proper thing for the situation. It really depends on what order your DM makes you do things; do you roll your charisma first, then roleplay the result? Or do you roleplay something and then roll to see if it works?

[LiaThistle]

ArgusLowell

LiaThistle

if a seven foot hyena was trying to shake your hand, wouldn't you be a little ...uncomfortable?

Not if I myself was a seven foot hyena.

And that right there is the issue with charisma. It's subjective, usually to human standards. If you are using it as a stat to represent how personable they are, then your capacity to match your behavior to the situation is how high you roll your diplomacy check. Having a low charisma, you might say, makes it harder for you to control your emotions and say the proper thing for the situation. It really depends on what order your DM makes you do things; do you roll your charisma first, then roleplay the result? Or do you roleplay something and then roll to see if it works?

I believe the typical order is that you roleplay, then roll, and the roll is how the people react to you.

[MerlinsMage]

You can be perfectly friendly, I just recommend roleplaying it out really well. A lot of times a DM will give bonus EXP for such things.

*Enter 7ft tall Hyena man carrying a battleaxe and wearing half-plate* "Hi little halfling bartender!!!! It's nice to see a friendly looking face around he-....HEY! Where are you running to so fast? I just wanna be friends!!!!" (That sort of thing)

It's how he's perceived. In fact you could work the 8 Cha into being really friendly, say that his friendliness tends to drive people away because he's scary looking(he's a Gnoll, c'mon!)

[LiaThistle]

MerlinsMage

You can be perfectly friendly, I just recommend roleplaying it out really well. A lot of times a DM will give bonus EXP for such things.

*Enter 7ft tall Hyena man carrying a battleaxe and wearing half-plate* "Hi little halfling bartender!!!! It's nice to see a friendly looking face around he-....HEY! Where are you running to so fast? I just wanna be friends!!!!" (That sort of thing)

It's how he's perceived. In fact you could work the 8 Cha into being really friendly, say that his friendliness tends to drive people away because he's scary looking(he's a Gnoll, c'mon!)

For some reason, a really huggy-type gnoll came to mind with that.

[ArgusLowell]

LiaThistle

I believe the typical order is that you roleplay, then roll, and the roll is how the people react to you.

See, this always bothered me. Because this way, even if you give an impassioned performance that could melt the heart of an ice queen and perfectly fits your audience, a low roll will ruin it. I actually like the method of rolling first, and the roleplaying whatever you roll.
A great example of this shows up in the webcomic "DM Of The Rings", where the guy playing Gimli rolls a 1 on a diplomacy check and follows it up with the line "You tell me your name, ********, and I'll tell you mine!" It's in character, it's just... really bad diplomacy. REALLY bad diplomacy.

[Lazarous]

I've always taken any Charisma stat to represent how trustworthy you seem. A gnoll would have low charisma because everybody knows that gnolls are shifty buggers. Even other gnolls. Perhaps especially other gnolls.

Now, if you go and execute a brilliant argument or a persuasive course of action but roll badly on your Charisma, then I'd say it's because all through your delivery you can't keep that oily smile off your face. Or you can't stop fingering your dagger. Or you keep staring at the queen's cleavage. Whatever the case, your actions contradict your words and you end up being escorted from the premises before you pocket the silverware.

Conversely, having a low Charisma should not entail bonuses like being frightening or having an easier time to hide in crowds. Nobody should be getting bonuses for being bad at something. Someone with low Charisma who tries to Intimidate someone has a frazzled impression, as if he's more nervous than the one being threatened. Someone trying to hide will find himself singled out as people try to both keep their distance and keep an eye on him - lest he do something improper.

[epiclevelwarrior]

Charisma in D20 games is in a funny place because while there are 3 physical stats and 2 mental stats Cha is all alone on the social spectrum.

So Cha can be a measure of physical attractiveness (which in D&D skews toward a human normative spectrum so the "inhuman" will be considered unattractive) and/or force of personality, and/or empathy and trustworthiness, and/or social savy and manipulative ability all at the same time.

In lieu of playing a different game or making up cludgy rules patches, my take on this is to simply pick and choose what elements of the stat to emphasize or demphasize for your character.

If you want an 8 cha friendly Gnoll, that's fine. He won't be winning any beauty contests or making brilliant speeches but he doesn't have to be a complete jerk either.

[LiaThistle]

ArgusLowell

LiaThistle

I believe the typical order is that you roleplay, then roll, and the roll is how the people react to you.

See, this always bothered me. Because this way, even if you give an impassioned performance that could melt the heart of an ice queen and perfectly fits your audience, a low roll will ruin it. I actually like the method of rolling first, and the roleplaying whatever you roll.
A great example of this shows up in the webcomic "DM Of The Rings", where the guy playing Gimli rolls a 1 on a diplomacy check and follows it up with the line "You tell me your name, ********, and I'll tell you mine!" It's in character, it's just... really bad diplomacy. REALLY bad diplomacy.

I think that's why it's easy to tell when you have a good DM and a bad DM; a good DM will let an "impassioned" performance boost the roll (or skip it altogether), while a bad DM will simply punish you for bad rolls.

Of course, this applied to combat, too. You're supposed to describe what you're doing and the roll determines your success at it.

[epiclevelwarrior]

I have a problem with the "skip it altogether" part of that because it essentially favors the players with better social skills regardless of what their character can do.

If you're not allowing strong players to replace their character's str with their own then you shouldn't be allowing charismatic players to replace their character's cha with their own either.

I do agree with the bonus aspect but I would be inclined to set up some specific rules and limits on what bonuses apply for what descriptions (I would use the Exalted stunt system as a guideline but it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few reasonable rules without it) as without that sort of framework it may turn into the same thing as "skip it all together" only with more steps.

I would also not suggest using that system for social interaction unless you're going to use it for combat and mental rolls as well.

I have a pretty serious problem with the "charismatic player dominates the game" dynamic that I've seen mentioned a number of times online, though, happily, never IRL.

[LiaThistle]

epiclevelwarrior

I have a problem with the "skip it altogether" part of that because it essentially favors the players with better social skills regardless of what their character can do.

If you're not allowing strong players to replace their character's str with their own then you shouldn't be allowing charismatic players to replace their character's cha with their own either.

I do agree with the bonus aspect but I would be inclined to set up some specific rules and limits on what bonuses apply for what descriptions (I would use the Exalted stunt system as a guideline but it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few reasonable rules without it) as without that sort of framework it may turn into the same thing as "skip it all together" only with more steps.

I would also not suggest using that system for social interaction unless you're going to use it for combat and mental rolls as well.

I have a pretty serious problem with the "charismatic player dominates the game" dynamic that I've seen mentioned a number of times online, though, happily, never IRL.

Depends on the situation and the location.

One of my favorite instances was when one of the players publicly sang Lucy the Slut's "Special" - in a restaurant - and in character. The DM decided that the roll was unnecessary.

That's probably the extreme, and though I'm on board with that instance, there are plenty of instances where I would say to roll regardless.

Yet, at the same time, a grand speech after a victory in a decisive battle would feel ruined to me by making the player roll if they can verbalize what their character would say and it flat sounds good. Maybe it's the one time that the character actually has it all together and it clicks to the onloookers why people would be friends with him/her. Maybe it's just that everything lines up for that character like movie makers are wont to do. Great roleplaying should be rewarded - good roleplaying should be, too, but maybe not quite as much.

"Skip the roll" should, like all tools, not be abused or played to favorites.

[Katane]

epiclevelwarrior

I have a problem with the "skip it altogether" part of that because it essentially favors the players with better social skills regardless of what their character can do.

If you're not allowing strong players to replace their character's str with their own then you shouldn't be allowing charismatic players to replace their character's cha with their own either.

I have a pretty serious problem with the "charismatic player dominates the game" dynamic that I've seen mentioned a number of times online, though, happily, never IRL.

This. This is exactly my problem. It's kept me from playing charisma based characters in games with my group. There are a couple of players in the group who are very charismatic and naturally good at coming up with clever things to say off the top of their head (though they don't seem to realize it). Thus, when the situation calls for it, they can come up with witty banter or an inspiring speech and deliver it in character and on the spot. Which is great. For them. Unfortunately, it means they expect the same from everyone else, and that's just not something most of us (myself included) can do. I once played a warlock with an awesome charisma who was supposed to be incredibly charming and manipulative. But no matter how high I rolled on Bluff or Diplomacy checks, I could never accomplish anything because I rarely knew exactly the right words for my character to say. As I DM, I figure if you can give me the general idea and put in a good effort, than you shouldn't fail if you have a really good roll.

Those two dominate most of our games and invariably end up becoming the party leaders. Then they complain about always being the party leaders. rolleyes They just don't give the meeker players time to speak up or think before they make decisions.

[Scott_Holmes]

LiaThistle

MerlinsMage

You can be perfectly friendly, I just recommend roleplaying it out really well. A lot of times a DM will give bonus EXP for such things.

*Enter 7ft tall Hyena man carrying a battleaxe and wearing half-plate* "Hi little halfling bartender!!!! It's nice to see a friendly looking face around he-....HEY! Where are you running to so fast? I just wanna be friends!!!!" (That sort of thing)

It's how he's perceived. In fact you could work the 8 Cha into being really friendly, say that his friendliness tends to drive people away because he's scary looking(he's a Gnoll, c'mon!)

For some reason, a really huggy-type gnoll came to mind with that.

LOL Gnoll Glomps.

[Chibirusia]

Oh, you can be super friendly! Just like a shy, mousey girl can be a really sweet person, or a really brash, tactless person can mean well.

Charisma isn't your niceness stat, it's you're self-confidence stat. It reflects your social charm and how ambitious you are when it comes to interacting with people, and how much they're willing to listen to you speak.