"Looking back at your posts from this time last year, I wonder if there's some way to use the character of a block to drive the types of NPC interactions the players might have there. What NPC concerns and attitudes are typical to this area? How frequent, and how extreme, are the outliers? Then we're not looking at a series of erratic, random parleys, but something more like a coherent social setting, with cues and mores the players can start to understand."~ Silberman
Following up on this idea, I find that some studies (K. Fiedler & G.R. Semin) have concluded that the perception of strangers tends to be based primarily on group membership, and their identity as a member of an "out-group." Elements that really matter in communication depend on whether we're speaking with an adult or a child, a stranger or an insider, someone high or low in education, whether communication is oral or written, whether we're under time pressure or in a relaxed setting, whether it takes place in the workplace, in a pub, in the bedroom or in the public forum. In each case, our approach depends greatly on whether the person we're speaking with is someone we psychologically identify as being a member of our class, culture, race, gender or religion.
Note that "charisma" is not included in the above examples. Inherently, we distrust someone who is an outlier from us. Most likely someone who is a charismatic outlier is a greater threat, since they are probably surrounded by synchophants who can potentially hurt us. If a highly charismatic individual steps forward from a group to speak with us, rather than viewing that person as a potential friend, we will worry about that person's influence over their group.
Charisma applies where it comes to interpersonal relationships ~ the strong, deep or close association we have with persons who know us. Trust is a matter of shared experience; charisma does not create trust. It creates love, solidarity, support, commitment and a desire for reciprocity. Romantic relationships and companionship depends on a like degree of charisma, enabling us to stand someone we have known for a long time. Your charisma, then, relates to the loyalty of your followers and your long-term relationships. But you cannot, CANNOT, exercise your charisma with any real meaning or purpose over someone you've just met.
This utterly explodes 99% of the basis of role-play logic in D&D. Every party always assumes that the character with the highest charisma "ought to do the talking," when in fact the one who ought to do the talking is the one with the most shared characteristics of the listener. Clerics should talk to other religious persons, fighters to soldiers and guards, mages and illusionists to the highly esoteric, thieves and assassins to the criminal elements, bards to performers, druids to rural folk and so on. A highly charismatic wizard would be seen as a poof and an ignorant dolt by a guard of the realm. A highly charismatic paladin would be no more than a pompous asshole to a common beggar. We just don't see the benefits of charisma as something that appeals to us directly, if it is not also connected to our social outlook.
I think this improves opportunities for role-play, if the players are made to understand this. They would be noting on their character sheets that coming from a family of sailors, cooks, leather workers or lawyers each have a peculiar opportunity attached when it comes to speaking with strangers. And it definitely shatters the controlling approach of the one player who thinks that because they have a 16 charisma, they are always the chosen one where it comes to every interaction.
To sum up, I'm firmly saying a charisma check, for first meetings, is ONLY relevant if the character also shares a common experience with the stranger. And that charisma check should only dictate that the other has given enough time to listen to the character explain the premise of their inquiry. The answer to a succeeded check should be, "All right, I'm listening." And a fail should be, "I haven't got time to talk to you; move on."
After the opportunity to present one's case is gained, it should be up to the character to say things that will matter to the stranger, and gain the stranger's interest: to gain information, to barter, to offer assistance, ask for it or whatever. But every time others in the party who don't also share the stranger's background speak up, that should also be a charisma check ~ at half-points.
On the other hand, if the bard makes the check, all the bard gets is a gruff answer ~ and then the listener turns attention back to ME.
This forces others in the party to clamp up and let this party member have their moment, where they have to carry the day. It reduces free-for-all conversations and most of all, the charismatic member of the party is forced to accept a little humility.
I quite like it.
P.S.,
Sorry for the title change. Seemed better. More bait-worthy.
This is so simple and makes so much sense I'm annoyed at myself for not even coming close to this concept before. This is getting filed away for use in my games from now on.
ReplyDeleteI like this too. Research shows that pretty people are given more credence, but you have to be listened to in the first place. That requires some relationship.
ReplyDeleteThe last time I was at a party with some people of Native American ancestry, I was asked who I knew (instead of what I did). When I said, "Oh, I know Bill of Grande Ronde", that trickled through the people there. Someone came up to me and said, "You know Bill?", and after verifying that I actually did, everyone became much more friendly and welcoming.
A connection was established, and people were more comfortable to talk with me.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree wholeheartedly with this. I see too many examples of charisma having an influence over complete strangers.
ReplyDeleteI mean, why are celebrity endorsements so successful? Why are they used to build trust between a consumer and a product or service or issue? You can say that it's a product of the the celebrity's "celebrity status" but I'd argue that individuals who become celebrities do so in large part because of their innate charisma. There are politicians that are bad at their job...hell, there are actors who are bad at their job!...who still cultivate followings based on their personal magnetism.
The wizard who is derided as an "effete poof," the bard about whom the sailors grumble...to me these are examples of individuals with low charisma sticking their noses where they're not wanted. Yes, I agree with the idea that we relate to people like us (and are put off by those who are different) and that this should be worth a bonus or penalty to any type of "reaction check," however that occurs. But a high (or low) charisma should likewise have an impact. When I see a class like the bard that REQUIRES a minimum charisma score, I take that as a sign that the class must have some relatable quality. People like bards. They're welcomed most places. The minimum 15 charisma is a sign that the person *must have* some sort of "natural magnetism" to elicit this near-magical effect. Without it, the character's not a bard, just a poor busker or some dude practicing the lute while out on the range...or whatever.
I realize this doesn't jibe with your take on the paladin (for all the reasons that you've changed that class), but if one considers the character as some sort of fairy tale goody-good guy (a Sir Galahad, I suppose) then one sees the need for the 17 charisma stat. This is a person who's supposed to be SO GOOD that she elicits a natural trust in her, that will be constantly petitioned by the poor and suffering for help, that people will try to touch because of the healing power of her hands! The paladin as conceived in the PHB is supposed to have some sort of Christ-like halo that repels evil and draws normal folks (folks who can't otherwise relate to this armored warrior) like a moth to flame. No, it's not realistic; it's a fantasy trope given form in the game.
A lot of D&D is fantasy tropes. It's the old man Gandalf leading soldiers in battle (because of a high charisma). It's [pick your example of a saint] converting heathens and pagans instead of just being martyred. It's the beautiful elf queen or king that characters (regardless of race or class or social status) can't help but fall somewhat in love with.
Having said that, I will admit to being a biased as I have had good success using reaction tables. I also use a different system than the one found in AD&D: the B/X edition uses a smaller adjustment for high and low charisma and the scale in the PHB/DMG seems so high as to be utterly ridiculous (a +25% bonus for 16 charisma?!)...especially imposing a penalty based on differences of class/background, the B/X system is much more stable.
And after reading this post I probably WILL make use of such a penalty. But I just can't bring myself to abandon Charisma altogether. I guess I'm whimsical about my fantasy.
Well, first, celebrities endorse products because we think we "know them." So now you're talking about a presumed relationship, which I said charisma affected. Obviously, you're not moved by the charisma of a celebrity you don't like; so why does their charisma affect others, but not you? It's because you don't think of them as your kind of people, so you're immune to their charisma.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your "... these are examples of individuals with low charisma sticking their noses where they're not wanted." I used a bard in my example talking out of turn. You've confused me.
WHY should high or low charisma have an impact on specifically this situation? Just because you think so?
The bard, druid and paladin require high charismas because their long-term relationships with other persons ~ audiences, the edges of rural cultures and the natural distrust of animals, religious authorities ~ is needed. I read those stories about Galahad and Arthur too. Mordred's charisma was high, Morgan le Fay's charisma was insane. I don't remember the passages in those stories where strangers approached them and said, "Oh amazingly charismatic person, what would you have me do?" It was their armor, their titles, their status, their notariety that gave them power. They always gave their names first.
Same goes for Gandalf. He doesn't lead men in battle because he's charismatic, it's because EVERYONE KNOWS Gandalf. Again, you're talking a long-term relationship here. Not first sight of a total stranger.
People don't follow the king because he's charismatic, its because he's the king. It's because he's charismatic that they don't KILL the king. That's a relationship thing.
I think you're missing the point, and essaying to make your argument with evidence that doesn't apply to the situation described. I never said charisma doesn't matter. I simply redefined HOW it mattered. According, I might add, to legitimate research, and not just pulling it out of my ass.
Is a "presumed relationship" the same as a relationship? I have never met Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, he and I have nothing in common, save that our mothers were both Americans, and yet I find him imminently watchable, even in the most execrable of film and television. He has a natural charisma that causes me to like and, yes, trust him.
ReplyDeleteI recall the first time I encountered Barac Obama, at a political rally I was forced to attend during his first campaign. I was, at the time, a strong supporter of a different candidate, had in fact caucused (successfully) for the other candidate and had no interest in Obama, a person with whom I had (again) almost nothing in common. But he had a powerful charisma, such that I was (grudgingly) moved to like and trust this man I'd never before met even if I couldn't bring myself to support him in the primary (I had little difficulty voting for him in the general election).
You write that charisma checks on first meetings is only relevant if characters share a common experience with a stranger. I can't say I agree. I've met individuals I immediately liked despite sharing nothing in common with them. In my experience, some people have that effect.
I can understand wanting every party member to "have their moment." I can see that as a reasonable objective of play. My experience with groups and group dynamics *outside* of gaming is that folks tend to nominate (sometimes by unspoken consent) spokespersons to act as the "face" of the group. They're not saying, "well, Bob you go talk to this guy because he's a union guy and you know how to deal with his type." If Marcia's the usual spokesperson, she's going to do the talking, perhaps with input from Bob.
[one could say that this is as much a cause of an "A type" personality asserting him/herself as a matter of charisma...but if the same person is allowed by the same group to take the lead over and over again, doesn't that imply some level of trust that the group has for that person? And isn't that trust a mark of charisma?]
So, yeah. I guess my reasoning for Charisma having an impact IS "just because I think so." But that 'think so' seems fair based on my personal experience.
For the record, I've also met people (in casual circumstance) who immediately "rubbed me the wrong way" despite being VERY relatable (i.e. of the same age, race, sex, socio-economic background, and local resident as myself). I'm not sure I'd call it a charisma penalty, but I did chalk it up as them being "assholes."
And this solved an issue I had with reputation.
ReplyDeleteBasically if the players helped a village, word would spread and they would gain reputation with the village; if they helped a guard, they would gain reputation with the city watch, and so on. Turned out it was way too hard to track.
But now! If Mr. Player presents himself as "the guy who helped in the chimera crisis", he would be a known entity, thus allowing a charisma bonus in that instance. Marvelous.
We might also consider, in the case of the bard, that a person's class (if known by the NPC) has the effect of helping to define the relationship (presumed or otherwise). The guards in the example might scoff at the bard for speaking out of turn (screwing up his words as he tries to "help" the fighter) or they might recall they heard him perform last night in the tavern, allowing a full Charisma check (or just a small penalty).
ReplyDeleteJB,
ReplyDeleteYou can find mountains of stock psychology studies that argue, yes, a "presumed relationship" is a mental state of the presumer, and is not necessarily limited by reality. Why else is it such a shock when we find out that our beloved sports celebrities, politicians and movie stars turn out to be such gits? Why are we offended ~ or, dare I say, "betrayed" by their behaviour?
When you say you grudgingly "moved to like him," do you mean in that instant, in the space of the first sentence, or do you mean over time?
I regret that I said charisma checks on first meetings are ONLY relevant if characters share a common experience. I'll amend that, since I sort of already did in the post. Reworded: I'm firmly saying a charisma check, for first meetings, is BEST if the character also shares a common experience with the stranger. Accepted? These things are a process and I'm not wholly inflexible.
Let's look again at the rule I've described: if the character is not your kind of person, and talks to you, they have to make a check against HALF their charisma, to get you to LISTEN. Okay, seems like you prove my point. He made his check, you listened, and then over the length of the speech, he started to build a relationship with you, that you grudgingly considered, that slowly became something you could live with.
Ever seen one of those charismatic people you much appreciate (mustn't say "love," since you contend that there's a relationship, though that is almost always the word we use) turn up in a bit part in a film you saw long ago, but you don't remember that person in the film at all? How come that person's performance didn't make an impression right off? How come it took several performances, or a particular performance, or a particular interview, before you decided, "hey, I like this person?" Because ONE MEETING isn't sufficient.
Moreover, there are dozens of people like that who clearly don't have charisma, but you like them for other traits; they work hard; they sacrifice; they fight through the pain. I'll bet you could name for me a dozen sports figures you like (mustn't say love) who you'd be the first to say, "No charisma at all, but ..." How do you explain that?
When you say you've met individuals you immediately liked dispite sharing nothing in common with them, I'm strongly suspicious. You're living in the same city, hearing the same media, sharing similar cultural behaviour, at the same party or event, with the same approximate amount of income (I'd guess), or people you have in common (else how could you have met), or in the very least wandering in the same neighborhood and buying coffee in the same shop. Your "nothing in common" deserves reconsideration ... or at least a better definition. If you really did have nothing in common, how did you meet, how did the conversation start, etc? I'd argue that global media and shared experience had something to do with it.
Now compare that to the isolated cultural landscape of the medieval world.
(cont ...)
(... cont)
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that your players tend to be more group dynamic in orientation and don't need a rule to create moments of discussion. I have a similar party dynamic, in all three of my campaigns. BUT ... that doesn't mean that the pressure can be put on a specific individual, not because they want to, Like Marcia might, but because the best solution is they have to, because Barry is the right fellow in this instance. That can make players HATE a rule like this, despite its positive objective. Barry might really like hanging back and letting others do the work.
And since the body of the discussion is not on charisma (which only opens the door), but still on the player's ability to role-play the moment, perhaps making an ass of themselves, it is not just a benefit for some characters it is also a great moment of tension and white-knuckling.
Charisma in the game is often subverted by the A-type personality. They throw a 9 under their charisma and continue to speak and act like the stat is a 17. EVERYONE knows the falsehood of this but there are no practical rules that really slap the A-type personality down. I think there ought to be.
JB, I fully expected people who contend with me. It is why I changed the title of the post: because I knew it would get under skins. That's why I said, this utterly explodes 99% of role-play logic in D&D. The concept of charisma having this purpose in the game was established with the white box set and it has been D&D DOGMA and THEOLOGY since that time. But I think it is bullshit, psychology thinks it is bullshit, in game terms as a justification for players with high charismas to act as they please and always believe they can talk their way out of whatever is bullshit, and believing that an 18 charisma will get you in any door is bullshit. Always has been. As I posted on the blog yesterday, with the other post, there was NO real justification or argument put forward to explain this bullshit. I'm calling them on it and I feel it's justified. You can hear it in the responses I've received from Maliloki, Opal, Agravain and Ozymandias in the comments thread here.
People have waited for this for a long time.
So...a few things.
ReplyDeleteRE yesterday's post: the AD&D table isn't good, and neither is it's system. B/X uses a 2D6 system with less extremes (if it were changed to a D% it would look like 1-3/4-28/29-72/73-97/98-00 with the bulk being "neutral"); however, B/X is explicit in that the DM need not roll randomly, but can instead choose reactions to fit the situation. Charisma adjustments thus only come into play has a chance to react in one of several fashions.
But, yes, thinking an 18 Charisma can just talk your way into (or out of) anything is bullshit. Agreed.
RE meeting folks from different walks of life: I've travelled a lot. I lived in Paraguay and ended up meeting many people who I would never have otherwise. I spent a couple weeks living with a "host family" in Japan. I've spent extensive time in Mexico, meeting random people through family, friends, and friends of friends. In my own life I've had a habit of collecting an eclectic bunch of friends and acquaintances: ex-killers, priests, entrepreneurs, folks with college degrees, stoners who barely finished high school...and those are just the folks I've gamed with over the years. I've hung out with a lot of weird folks, most of whom were from Seattle...but very few were people I bonded with over the local sports team (or even gaming). Mostly we met through strange circumstance, and our relationship started because of that circumstance ("So what do you think of Paraguay?")...but how is that different from meeting random NPCs on the road or in the dungeon?
RE the charisma of celebrities: when I say I was moved to like and trust the guy, I mean "at that moment" hearing him speak for the first time, knowing nothing about him. I've met other famous people who didn't make that impression. And that guy was on a stage, probably 50' away from me.
My wife, because of her work, has had the opportunity to meet and work with a lot of celebrities. Here's the thing about them: they all tend to be very, very nice human beings. They make GREAT first impressions. She had dinner with Mel Gibson around 2006...after he'd been outed as a crazy asshole. She was very surprised at how incredibly nice and APPROACHABLE he was. She met the current Pope...very different, calm and serene, but also kind and approachable. Bill Clinton: ditto...and that guy has the most "charisma" of everyone she's met. She says he just "glows;" he seems to love everyone and everyone feels like they love him. It's a weird personal magnetism.
These people are born with (and/or cultivate) a gift that few of us have. Of course they're human, they're flawed, they have issues...but they also have something special something that makes that first impression a super-positive one, even with complete strangers. A likability that puts people at ease. It's only after getting to know them (long after any "reaction roll") that people would begin to see the dark parts that lurk beneath the facade. If they can bring themselves to do so (some people can't and will delude themselves and justify an asshole's actions to maintain their love for that figure). It's why people are so eager to forgive their celebrities' indiscretions, ignore things the shitty side of people like Michael Jackson (or whoever).
Yes, we live in a different age than medieval times, but I can't help but thing this kind of thing...people with charisma...has been going on since ancient times. It's why we remember certain individuals from history and let others fall through the cracks. I'm very hesitant to short-change its power.
Curiously, my daughter, because of work she once had, managed transport for celebrities out of Calgary and into Banff. She would concur with your wife's assessment, having spoken many times on the phone with the like of Tom Hanks (and his son), Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Katy Perry and so on.
ReplyDeleteHow about I give you the last word on this one?