Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GroopaKoopa 09-24-05, 06:02 AM	I am thinking about completly removing charisma from the game. I don't like the idea from it, I have removed most skills it use (Bluff, Diplomacy etc) because I prefer role playing. What are the use of charisma? If I remove it, I'll have to change some things. Like, what sort of things Sorcerers and Bards cast with, what things people use (like clerics turning with wisdom instead of charisma) etc. What do you think about the idea? I am DM:ing a Dragonlance Campaign.
Gilean 09-24-05, 06:39 AM	Bad. With your system, no character is better at convincing others than other. No character just has what it takes to be a great performer; anyone can simply practice, or is the skill removed, too? Charismatic and quickthinking players will be greatly rewarded.
GroopaKoopa 09-24-05, 06:54 AM	I haven't removed Perform, but should that be Wisdom or Intelligence? As it is now, almost everyone is dumping Charisma. It just doensn't give much good things. Well, I don't think removing it will do much difference that who is rewarded. The people that like to talk continue to talk, and the ones that don't, don't talk. Rolling for a diplomacy check is boring... And what exactly do Charisma make? Being nice to people? Looking good? That sort of things are very relative, and some sorts of people have other ways of being persuaded. Sorry for any bad english you find in my posts. If you find any, please inform me so I can learn and improve my english.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-24-05, 07:00 AM	A simular post with 3 pages of replies, may give you some of the info you need: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=469284
GroopaKoopa 09-24-05, 07:25 AM	The Charisma skills I have removed: Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Intimidiate. That leaves Disguise, Handle Animal, Perform and Use Magic Device without any Key Ability.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-24-05, 07:50 AM	:eek: What? Why remove those skills? they are the measure of how NPC''s react to the characters NOT the players. If any thing those skills promote roleplaying... why? Because a good DM wont let a player roll a skill check against those skills unless the player actualy roleplays what he is saying and doing the acomplish the skill check. Having those skills in the game helps becuase: 1) It shows players there is an actual, in-built function and mechanic to social interaction and its not just up to the DM's whim. 2) It helps have regimented responces and clear goals for the players interaction which makes the players feel they have some control in social interaction and arn't just left second guessing how bloody-minded or easy-going the gm responces are going to be today. Making them more likley to enguage in social manipulation like diploimay and bluff, etc. 3) It helps players play characters who are not just themselves in platemail. If a players wants to be more cunning, verbaly dexterous, suave, dashing, etc than he is in real life, he needs those skills to define his character. If someone was playing a muscle bound barbarian and they wanded to break a lock with thier bear hands you wouldnt pass the player a padlock over the table and say "there you go, if you can do it your character can do it". So why force a player to try and come up with a 30+ bluff roll equivelent lie or an Intimidate that could shake a battle hardened fighter. DO ask them to play out what they would say and how they would act but the roll is there to fill in the blanks that the player just isnt capable of but his fantasy character is. You average beer swilling, pringle munching, dice jockey isnt going to be able to roleplay an intimidate role that would shake a barbarian who eats his foes faces while they ley there dying on the battle feild... but his character might, so those skills are there to simulate this BUT should be used in conjunction with roleplaying and never without.
GroopaKoopa 09-24-05, 08:10 AM	Duration_10_Rounds: 1) While that is true, having no skill roll for role playing encourage the players to think up good things to say. 2) Well, I suppose that is true... 3) I have five players. One play a monk, he is the best role player and I don't think he would be satisfied with "talk" rolls. Another is a female archer, and she is new and doesn't say or roleplay much... The third is a human Knight of Solamnia, also new and haven't said to much... The fourth is a human scout, he haven't played it yet but I suppose he will play it like his old Rogue, being rude to everyone. And the fifth on was a cleric but will now play a bard. He might have use for it... The monk player does do the most talk anyway. But we'll se how it goes removing Charisma. If it don't work, I'll have to put it in the game again. Simple.
Shike 09-24-05, 09:02 AM	I agree, with the consensus that you should not remove the social abilities from the game. Doing so encourages Players to play themselves instead of expanding their boundries and letting them play characters that are significantly different from themselves. Case in point, I (a somewhat introverted male) played both a devoute female as well as a witty, extroverted swashbuckler, all because the game mechanics allowed for me to play characters vastly different from myself.
clarkvalentine 09-24-05, 12:45 PM	Wow, I think this would be a colossal mistake. 1) While that is true, having no skill roll for role playing encourage the players to think up good things to say. Why would not using skills do this? In our games, we say the witty and clever in character stuff then make our roll. We roll for attacks because we don't want the sort of character a player can play to be limited to how well they can swing a sword in real life. Why do this for social skills?
Nor'Morgwae 09-24-05, 02:12 PM	As a general rule I think removing social skills is a mistake. That being said the situation is basically that your group does not use them, correct? So you see no reason to keep a statistic that no one wants. What you basically do when you remove the Charisma stat is you simply make the character's charisma skills the same as the players charisma skills. If that is okay with you and your group then I expect it would be workable. What I would suggest, however, is that you leave them but just ignore them if no one uses them. The reason for that is if you get a new guy who comed in and wants to play a diplomat style character but he isn't nearly a suave or fast-talking as his character would be. Honestly I kind of think removing them detracts from roleplaying. I say this because Roleplaying is adopting the persona of another person, not making a fictional character just like you. When you say that every character has the same social skills as the person playing them then no matter what they are playing it slides one step closer the the real person and one step away from the fictional one. I would leave the dipomacy skills as written. I never let players get away with "Ok, I'm going to say something nice to the guard so he will like me. Does a Diplomacy 26 do it?" I would immediately follow up with "That depends on what you say." Make them RP it out but use Charisma as an indicator of the character's skill. It's a similar concept to Knowledge checks. Would you let a player with a masters in Architecture orcastrate the construction of a mansion with a character whose int was 3 and had no ranks in knowledge arcitecture? I sure as heck wouldn't. Neither would I let a character witth a charisma of 3 and no ranks in diplomacy fast talk a guard just because the player was a master at fast talking. It's never just a roll, it RPing and a roll. I would say don't remove it simply because you or one of your players may want it somewhere down the road.
Granakrs 09-24-05, 02:36 PM	Well, I for one have always loved SAGA's seperation of stats. Strength, Endurance, Agility, Dexterity, Reason, Perception, Spirit and Presence. That way the more social aspects of the character like the Player's intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are on the player, not the character. That way, you can still allow characters to keep their "charisma" stat for magically based skills and features using the Presence stat. the character's "wisdom" can be a combination of him noticing things (perception), reasoning it out (Reason). Clerical/magical energies can be represented as raw internal spiritual energy to act as a conduit for Gods (Spirit). Weldon
caeruleus 09-24-05, 02:44 PM	While I personally don't like the idea of dropping Charisma, others have already commented on that. Besides, it's up to you to decide how you'll run your campaign. So, I'll address the following issue. If I remove it, I'll have to change some things. Like, what sort of things Sorcerers and Bards cast with, what things people use (like clerics turning with wisdom instead of charisma) etc. What do you think about the idea? I am DM:ing a Dragonlance Campaign. Given what sorcerers are supposed to be in a Dragonlance campaign, I've always thought that it would make more sense to have them use Intelligence for spellcasting, just as wizards do. I'd also give them the same class skills as wizards. (These are changes of flavor that makes sense in Dragonlance even if you keep Charisma. Some disagree, but I like the idea.) As for bards, since they also use primal sorcery as sorcerers do, have them also use Intelligence for spellcasting. After all, that's what their spellcasting was based on in 2e, so it's not that much of a stretch. Bards are supposed to be repositories of knowledge, so high Intelligence scores fit the basic flavor. Or, you can use the divine bard variant from Unearthed Arcana (also to be found here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bardVariantD ivineBard). This bard's spells are granted by the gods, and so are divine spells. They use Wisdom for spellcasting. The variant still uses Charisma to set the DCs of spells, but just switch that over to Wisdom.
Koga:The ninja trick 09-24-05, 02:59 PM	Cha isn't nesscarey, but you should keep the skills, either just make them have no modifier and have ranks or split them up evenly to differant stats.. Intelligent based: Bluff. Disguise. Gather Information. Wisdom based: Handle animal. Peform. Use magick device. Intimidate.
Verelor 09-24-05, 03:21 PM	There's no reason to remove charisma. Ever. You're just a poor DM. Game balance is a joke, but you just through that "joke" out the window into the Abyss. How many Weeks have you been playing this game?
Koga:The ninja trick 09-24-05, 04:11 PM	Most rpgs don't have a charisma stat, most things that would be applied to charisma in the majority of role-playing games would be wisdom.. Wisdom and intelligence do a well enough job on thier own in dictating special abilities, magick, and other such things. Especialy if you divide them in such a way neither one is really better then the other. The Koga is more prone to give wisdom a bigger slice because it only has will save bonuses ussualy otherwise, where as intelligence is dire to having a large skill pool.
Sylian 09-24-05, 05:33 PM	This is my new username, I don't like the name GroopaKoopa. I have been on this site for over a year, about a year since I registrerd but I probably been on the site longer. Koga, so, Disguise Intelligence and the rest Wisdom? About what I use to. Since the bard player I have gain magic from the God of Music, he cast with Wisdom. All Knight/Paladin abilities that are used with Charisma changed to Wisdom. Makes more sence. Charisma is strange. A Hag has about 14 charisma, right? Strange... Many systems don't use Charisma or roll to role play... No other system I have seen has used Aligment, so I removed it too. What is the reason? Bluffing? Intelligence. Diplomacy? Intelligence. Intitimate? Wisdom.
caeruleus 09-24-05, 05:55 PM	Since the bard player I have gain magic from the God of Magic, he cast with Wisdom. If you're playing Dragonlance, none of the gods of magic would grant spells in this way. They don't have clerics either, the magic they grant is wizardry, which requires spellbooks. Of course, bards in 2e used spellbooks, so it may not be that bad an idea. No other system I have seen has used Aligment, so I removed it too. Some other systems use a form of alignment. But, once again, if you're playing Dragonlance, how do you account for the fact that the struggle between Good and Evil is the fundamental premise of the entire setting?
Sylian 09-24-05, 06:33 PM	Changed Magic to Music. Branchala is the God. Have you read Lord of the Rose? Are these knights really lawful good? Was the Knights of Takhisis really evil? They wanted order... Sure, there still is struggel between "Evil and Good", but there is no gaming things involved.
Millennium 09-24-05, 06:34 PM	I agree, with the consensus that you should not remove the social abilities from the game. Doing so encourages Players to play themselves instead of expanding their boundries and letting them play characters that are significantly different from themselves. Exactly why I disagree with the idea of removing Charisma. The idea behind stats in D&D is that it allows characters to do things which their players can't. Every time you make something "just a matter of roleplaying", you inextricably tie the characters more closely to their players in that way, and this is particularly true of the "mental" stats. When taken to extremes, roll-playing is indistinguishable from a video game. When taken to extremes, role-playing is indistinguishable from reality. The point behind every RPG system in existence, and that includes D&D, is to try and find the appropriate balance between these two things, where the game can spark the imagination rather than stifle or blugdeon it. House rules need to be made in that same spirit, and I honestly don't think that removing Charisma serves that goal.
Sylian 09-24-05, 06:40 PM	If it is possible to play theater without rolling dice, then it is possible to play D&D without rolling dice for talking. One player plays Lajv, Live Action Role Playing I think it is in USA. There he plays roles that isn't himself without rolling dice.
Koga:The ninja trick 09-24-05, 07:47 PM	AH! Has The Koga been siding with a LARPer this whole time?! He's been decived! *Kick to the groin and a matrix-punch to the throat* The Koga feels so dirty.. so very very dirty..
Sylian 09-24-05, 07:51 PM	Naw, I am no LARPer. To me that seams to be very boring. Go out and fish all day if you are a fisherman... If I would LARP, I would be a rich noble with many sevants! The point is, you don't need a ability to role play. You don't have any ability for Willpower, do you think you need one? Nor any for Awareness, but it is in Wisdom. Why couldn't talking things go by high Intelligence or Wisdom?
Koga:The ninja trick 09-24-05, 07:58 PM	That's what The Koga's been saying all along! That and to destroy the druid/cleric.. but that has to be done sublimally in your music.. :P Not to meation cha gets shafted in general anyway, so it may as well destroy the cleric and druid.. not exsist..
Granakrs 09-24-05, 10:34 PM	Sure, there still is struggel between "Evil and Good", but there is no gaming things involved. So then, how do you judge the actions of your heroes to be one the side of good or not. How do you play a game where the quest involved being the pinnacle of goodness like Huma? How can you tell if they're neutral rather than evil. How do you know if your mage should be a white-, red- or black-robed wizard? Weldon
Lina_Inverse 09-24-05, 11:09 PM	If your going to cheat and take away the ability to roleplay by makeing diplomacy tied to the player and NOT the charecter. take away all the stats pick up swords and stab eachother.
Vaalingrade Ashland 09-24-05, 11:46 PM	Without proper social skills, you're asking for a fight with he players over if person x would be convinced or not.
Gilean 09-25-05, 02:38 AM	Many systems lack charisma as a stat; true. Presence, or something to that effect, which includes charisma and willpower is usually there. Most systems that have attributes for other mental abilities also include one that charisma is part of. Pendragon, OTOH, has no mental attributes whatsoever. Skills yes, but no attributes.
GroopaKoopa 09-25-05, 06:39 AM	That's what The Koga's been saying all along! That and to destroy the druid/cleric.. but that has to be done sublimally in your music.. :P Not to meation cha gets shafted in general anyway, so it may as well destroy the cleric and druid.. not exsist.. Huh, what do you mean? The turning for cleric use Wisdom instead. Druid, well, if I get a druid PC, I suppose the Charisma things change to Wisdom. So then, how do you judge the actions of your heroes to be one the side of good or not. How do you play a game where the quest involved being the pinnacle of goodness like Huma? How can you tell if they're neutral rather than evil. How do you know if your mage should be a white-, red- or black-robed wizard? Weldon The real world isn't black and white, not even all Knights of Solamnia are "good". Good isn't abstract, so it shouldn't be used in D&D as it is now. Most RPG's don't have aligment. To chose whatever they are good or evil is from the persons point of view. The Draconian fighting to survive might think the Knights of Solamnia are evil for trying to kill him. It is still possible to play the aligment, but you don't know what you are, there are no "Smite Evil" and "Detect Evil" and the like. If you, as a Knight of Solamnia, don't follow the rules, you still get kicked out. About the wizard thing, it isn't any harder telling what robe they should use. I'll just use the traditional point of evil and good, what are they more likely to use? Do they want to help people? If your going to cheat and take away the ability to roleplay by makeing diplomacy tied to the player and NOT the charecter. take away all the stats pick up swords and stab eachother. It isn't the same thing. Roleplay by making diplomacy checks? Without proper social skills, you're asking for a fight with he players over if person x would be convinced or not. If there ever is one, I guess I can roll and see... Perhaps roll d20 plus modifier and the other roll d20 plus modifier. Gilean, Wisdom and Intelligence take the roll of Charisma. I don't think skills are needed, noone wanted to use skill point in Charisma skills anyway. Edit, changed "och" to "and".
Lina_Inverse 09-25-05, 06:54 AM	The real world isn't black and white, not even all Knights of Solamnia are "good". Good isn't abstract, so it shouldn't be used in D&D as it is now. Most RPG's don't have aligment. To chose whatever they are good or evil is from the persons point of view. The Draconian fighting to survive might think the Knights of Solamnia are evil for trying to kill him. It is still possible to play the aligment, but you don't know what you are, there are no "Smite Evil" och "Detect Evil" and the like. The real world is not D&D and thus has no place in disscussions of it. In D&D evil is a real tangiable TOUCHABLE force. It isn't the same thing. Roleplay by making diplomacy checks? useing the players skill in any way shape or form above the charecters is bad roleplaying. roleplaying means takeing on a role. that means just because the player is the most skilled diplomat in the world doesnt make there charecter. it also means the shy silent guy can run the woman wooing super charismatic bard.
Sylian 09-25-05, 07:04 AM	The real world is not D&D and thus has no place in disscussions of it. In D&D evil is a real tangiable TOUCHABLE force. I don't agree. It is more fun for the players to don't know who is "evil" or not.
Lina_Inverse 09-25-05, 07:08 AM	I don't agree. It is more fun for the players to don't know who is "evil" or not. Doesnt change the fact inargueably in a D&D universe good and evil are defineable facts of the world. demons are made of pure metaphysical chaos and evil. you go to hades and your walking on pure evil.
Sylian 09-25-05, 07:12 AM	Yeah, but humans and other humanoids aren't pure evil, so they don't need aligment.
Millennium 09-25-05, 10:10 AM	The point is, you don't need a ability to role play. No, but you need either an ability or an abstraction to roleplay someone who is better than you at something. Nobody likes to bring up the stereotype that most gamers would have to roll their Charisma on 1d10 instead of 3d6, but let's not kid ourselves: it's true for enough gamers that tying social situations to role-playing will seriously limit most games' ability to emphasize diplomacy. You don't have any ability for Willpower, do you think you need one? Yes, in fact, you do. It's called the Will save. Nor any for Awareness, but it is in Wisdom. Spot? Listen? Sense Motive? Awareness is broken up into many abilities, but it is very much there. Why couldn't talking things go by high Intelligence or Wisdom? Because neither intelligence nor wisdom implies by itself the ability to understand how people work. There are many true geniuses in the world who barely have the social skills of a radish. You may very well know some.
Millennium 09-25-05, 10:19 AM	Yeah, but humans and other humanoids aren't pure evil, so they don't need aligment. They can be, just as they can be pure good. Most interpretations of alignment simply make it too easy to commit one's self to Good or Evil. There are ways around that, if you know how to work with the system. I posted the way I deal with alignment in games once; I'll see if I can find the link. Basically, it involves asking players questions about significant acts their characters they did: both why they did it (Law/Chaos) and how they feel about having done that (Good/Evil). A Good or Evil character who stops taking pride in her actions which are in harmony with her commitment, or who stops feeling uncomfortable with actions against her commitment, is not going to keep that commitment for very long. I look for patterns of behavior rather than perfect consistency, but even looking for patterns it becomes very hard to stay committed unless you're really working at it, which is frankly how it should be. Go on. Tell me with a straight face that Pol Pot was not Evil-aligned, or that Mahatma Ghandi was not Good-aligned, even by D&D standards. The problem with D&D's alignment system as commonly implemented is not that it's unrealistic, but that it's too easy to keep a commitment going. But if you really can't handle this, then I strongly suggest finding another system. I certainly don't oppose houserules -this very post should be proof of that- but the design and concepts of D&D don't seem to be suited to your playstyle.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-25-05, 10:27 AM	Now, I don't have any fundamental problem with taking away charisma and social skills. I've always handled that sort of thing with pure roleplaying and never had a problem. The main balance issue of removing charisma is quite simply that paladins now get divine grace from a different stat and sorcerers get thier spells from a different stat. Now, normally people are going to shift this to wisdom, but this is a bad idea, and here's why... 1. wisdom casting for a sorcerer makes a monk dip for AC all too easy. 2. Paladins getting divine grace from wisdom means that their already insane saves get even better, since they now add wisdom twice to their saves. 3. If you shift the divine feats from complete warrior, like divine might to wisdom, then clerics become even more uber. My best advice is to shift charisma bonuses to flat bonuses as opposed to another ability score. Divine grace can be a flat +2 or +3 bonus, Monk AC can be a +4 base and then just raise the monk AC progression for class levels. Sorcerer/Bard casting is a bit trickier. I'd consider possibly giving them a base DC of 13 + spell level, and then giving them DC boosts of +1 every 4 sorcerer levels. This generally means that sorcerers improve since they now no longer have a casting stat and can afford to put their points elsewhere. So on average, your sorcerers are now more athletic and resilient than wizards. The divine feats really would no longer fit well in this paradigm, so I'd advise just removing them. It might be possible to replace them with flat +3 or +4 bonuses, but I fear this gives the cleric too much melee power. Turn undead itself can just be a flat 3 times per day ability if you don't take the extra turning feat. The bonus to attack from smite evil can be shifted to wisdom, I don't forsee any problems from doing that. Use magic device skill can be made wisdom or int. I think that sums up everything.
Sylian 09-25-05, 10:40 AM	No, but you need either an ability or an abstraction to roleplay someone who is better than you at something. Nobody likes to bring up the stereotype that most gamers would have to roll their Charisma on 1d10 instead of 3d6, but let's not kid ourselves: it's true for enough gamers that tying social situations to role-playing will seriously limit most games' ability to emphasize diplomacy. Yes, in fact, you do. It's called the Will save. Spot? Listen? Sense Motive? Awareness is broken up into many abilities, but it is very much there. Because neither intelligence nor wisdom implies by itself the ability to understand how people work. There are many true geniuses in the world who barely have the social skills of a radish. You may very well know some. Not my players, I think. Yes, Will save, from Wisdom. Not a ability you put point in, it is in Wisdom. Awareness could be a separate ability, but it is in Wisdom. Wisdom isn't the ability to understand how people work? Millennium, Alignment aren't needed. Not really. Few roleplaying games have alignment. 1. wisdom casting for a sorcerer makes a monk dip for AC all too easy. 2. Paladins getting divine grace from wisdom means that their already insane saves get even better, since they now add wisdom twice to their saves. 3. If you shift the divine feats from complete warrior, like divine might to wisdom, then clerics become even more uber. 1. A sorcerer/monk in Dragonlance? What the... 2. Well, since I have removed alignment, and Knights of Solamnia takes a good paladin roll, I don't think I'll see many paladins. 3. Then I don't allow that feat.
Gilean 09-25-05, 10:48 AM	The real world isn't black and white, not even all Knights of Solamnia are "good". Good isn't abstract, so it shouldn't be used in D&D as it is now. Most RPG's don't have aligment.True, but Dragonlance uses alignment. In a few places very obviously.It is still possible to play the aligment, but you don't know what you are, there are no "Smite Evil" och "Detect Evil" and the like. :P A swede? Anyway, fiends and celestials, do they exist? Or the creatures of Chaos, in DL.Gilean, Wisdom and Intelligence take the roll of Charisma. I don't think skills are needed, noone wanted to use skill point in Charisma skills anyway.Nobody using charisma; a player/GM problem. Do you say that all charisma tic people are either smart or very aware of their surroundings? The thing could work if you, say, separated perception from wisdom and called the merging of wis and cha presence. Key those skills that originally were keyed to wis but that are obviously based on sensing things to perception. Add initiative to give more combat boosts from it. Key most things previously keyed to cha to presence.
Millennium 09-25-05, 11:08 AM	If it is possible to play theater without rolling dice, then it is possible to play D&D without rolling dice for talking. Although theater and RPGs are often called "role playing", they are very different things. In fact, I wouldn't call theater 'role-playing' at all; I'd call it 'role-acting'. Consider: when you're role-acting, everything about your character is predetermined. His personality, his actions, his emotions, whether or not he succeeds: it's all written down in the script. A theater actor never makes decisions for his character, and he never has any say in the character's fate. All a theater actor can really do is go through the motions, portraying it all in a believable manner. This is not a trivial task by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a very different task from role-playing. A role-player, except in LARP (which D&D is not), does not normally go through the motions of what his character does, and does not really portray very much. However, he creates his character from scratch, defines the character's personality, and makes all the decisions. In essence, a roleplayer isn't an actor; he's a writer. Again, not a trivial task, but very different from acting.
Sylian 09-25-05, 11:29 AM	True, but Dragonlance uses alignment. In a few places very obviously. :P A swede? Anyway, fiends and celestials, do they exist? Or the creatures of Chaos, in DL.Nobody using charisma; a player/GM problem. Dragonlance doesn't has to use alignment. Not really. Yeah, I'm from Sweden. Fiends and celestials, I think they exists, same for Chaos creatures. But do they have to be "good and evil"? There is fallen angels, and probably "fallen" demons too. Chaos creatures are spawn from Chaos, and thus are pure evil, no exeptions. Thus Magius Light of Truth worked on them. Force of personality, isn't that willpower? So Wisdom... Edit, Millennium, true, normal theater isn't really roleplaying. But LARP is, right? So why shouldn't LARP have a Charisma skill if D&D has it?
caeruleus 09-25-05, 12:41 PM	Dragonlance doesn't has to use alignment. Not really. Part of the premise of the whole setting is that Good and Evil are objective. I agree that this is not like the real world, but then neither is magic, etc. The gods have chosen definite sides, and choosing to be on the side of the gods of Evil will make you show up with a detect evil spell. Be that as it may, it's your campaign, and if you want a different Dragonlance, you are prefectly entitled to that. I certainly make changes to it also. I was just wondering how you handled it. Have you read Lord of the Rose? Are these knights really lawful good? Was the Knights of Takhisis really evil? They wanted order... I've not read Lord of the Rose. But not all Solamnic Knights were lawful good, even in the official rules. Derek Crownguard was lawful neutral--he didn't have any levels in the Solamnic Knight prestige classes (which require one to be lawful good). You don't have to have levels in those classes to be a member of the knighthood. As for the the Knights of Takhisis, yes they were evil. They wanted order, but that's lawful, not good. They're lawful evil. Not every individual is lawful evil (just as not every individual Knight of Solamnia is lawful good), but the order as a whole is lawful evil.
Cymraegmorgan 09-25-05, 02:06 PM	Force of personality, isn't that willpower? So Wisdom... Edit, Millennium, true, normal theater isn't really roleplaying. But LARP is, right? So why shouldn't LARP have a Charisma skill if D&D has it? Force of personality is not the same as wisdom. Think of any generic pop singing sensation. The stage presence of said pop icon is not based on wisdom or intelligence, but rather charisma, the magnetism of his or her personality. This is as completely divorced from intelligence and wisdom as dexterity is from physical strength and constitution. A bard or a sorcerer does not have to be intelligent to gain power, they have to be grounded in ego, and that requires charisma, the measure of the force of the personality. As for LARP,... :rolleyes:
Millennium 09-25-05, 08:26 PM	Edit, Millennium, true, normal theater isn't really roleplaying. But LARP is, right? So why shouldn't LARP have a Charisma skill if D&D has it? Most LARP systems actually do have Charisma-like stats. Mind's Eye Theater, made by White Wolf and arguably the most popular system, finds it so important they use not one but three stats for it: Presence, Manipulation, and Composure. Together these three stats are called Social Traits, and make up three of the nine; the others are the Physical Traits of Strength, Dexterity, and Stamina, and the Mental Traits of Intelligence, Wits, and Resolve. Stamina corresponds almost directly to Constitution, and likewise Wits to Wisdom, and Resolve is pretty close to what we'd call a Will save. But that will tell you something: after six physical and mental traits, White Wolf found the sorts of things embodied by D&D's Charisma to be so important that they made three stats to cover it all. Still think Charisma isn't important?
Shini Neko Ni 09-26-05, 06:03 AM	Well I think it should be obvious to everyone at this point that Sylian isn't going to change his mind on this and i really think that people have given their opinions on what you should use for a system without Cha. However make sure to talk to your players before you change the game in such a way, most likely they wont agree but if you don't ask them and just tell them it wont be good for your game most likely. (If they wanted you to do this/already told them about it ignore this) I would say that Alignmentless systems can be fun, Eberron does a good job makeing alignments more blured. I would say that, in Dragonlance that alignments are very important to the system. More so than any of the other current setting. But if you really don't want to use alignments I would sugest useing another system for alignments. However everything on how you want to run your game, and how you want your version of Dragonlance to be. Happy gameing ^_^
Duration_10_Rounds 09-26-05, 06:48 AM	OT here: Sylian do play GunZ online? some one with that name had a total "you f***ing n00b" spaz-out on me yesterday for killing him with a knife :)
Millennium 09-26-05, 08:18 AM	Millennium, Alignment aren't needed. Not really. Few roleplaying games have alignment. What other games do is irrelevant to what D&D does; it is its own system. The only reason I mentioned White Wolf's system was to show how dead wrong the assertion is that "very few systems have Charisma"; on the contrary, social stats are one of the most fundamental building blocks of any role-playing system. D&D rolls it into the mental stats, but even this system still recognizes its importance. As for alignment being "unnecessary", One of the most interesting things about D&D is the ability to explore a system of morality which few people in the world actually follow. Many people think this only applies to Evil campaigns, but it only takes slightly more creativity (and willingness to accept alternate moralities as "good") to apply it to every campaign. This theme is not present, and often not even doable, in other systems. The closest thing out there would be Vampire: the Masquerade, and its alternate moralities ("Paths of Enlightment", as it called them) were explicitly defined as inhuman, so it didn't really work very well for this theme. So much of D&D is bound up in the alignment system that to remove it requires a multitude of other changes which tend to mutate the game almost past the point of recognizability. If that's what you want, then play D20 Modern; it's not designed around alignment (though its Allegiances system can emulate it for those who want it) and so its rule system will be more consistent than a mutated system designed for alignments which has been hacked to remove them.
Sylian 09-26-05, 11:01 AM	OT here: Sylian do play GunZ online? some one with that name had a total "you f***ing n00b" spaz-out on me yesterday for killing him with a knife :) No, I don't play GunZ online, but I have played Illarion, and it doesn't have Charisma as a ability!
Gilean 09-26-05, 11:22 AM	Dragonlance doesn't has to use alignment. Not really.Chaos creatures are spawn from Chaos, and thus are pure evil, no exeptions.Am I missing something? I don't use alignment myself. Neither do I use D&D worlds, for that matter. DL requires alignment.
Verelor 09-26-05, 08:27 PM	If your games are very VERy roleplay, story-oriented, I just might be able to see it work out. If they're anywhere near compromise, expect a beating. If you like cruddy hackenslash, well, not everyone was meant to be a DM, I guess.
CaoSlayer 09-27-05, 10:32 AM	But still you have to agree that there is need of social adjustments. charisma it is a simple way to do it, althrought in D&D there is little space to a good system of social modificiers. An elf will trust before an human than a dwarf, a king will do it with a paladin before a barbarian and a good cleric will hate an evil cleric.
Sylian 10-08-05, 07:11 AM	Force of personality is not the same as wisdom. Think of any generic pop singing sensation. The stage presence of said pop icon is not based on wisdom or intelligence, but rather charisma, the magnetism of his or her personality. This is as completely divorced from intelligence and wisdom as dexterity is from physical strength and constitution. A bard or a sorcerer does not have to be intelligent to gain power, they have to be grounded in ego, and that requires charisma, the measure of the force of the personality. As for LARP,... :rolleyes: But the bard in my group is a divine bard, he gets his music and magic from the God of Music, so Wisdom should work. Force of personality is more of a character trait, and not a stat. Well I think it should be obvious to everyone at this point that Sylian isn't going to change his mind on this and i really think that people have given their opinions on what you should use for a system without Cha. However make sure to talk to your players before you change the game in such a way, most likely they wont agree but if you don't ask them and just tell them it wont be good for your game most likely. (If they wanted you to do this/already told them about it ignore this) I would say that Alignmentless systems can be fun, Eberron does a good job makeing alignments more blured. I would say that, in Dragonlance that alignments are very important to the system. More so than any of the other current setting. But if you really don't want to use alignments I would sugest useing another system for alignments. However everything on how you want to run your game, and how you want your version of Dragonlance to be. Happy gameing ^_^ You are right, I'm probably not going to change my mind until I have tested it enough to make sure that it's bad. The players haven't complained about it yet. There is no absolute evil or good, why should D&D need it? Millennium, there isn't so many things that I have to change. Mostly magic, but there isn't that many alignment based spells. Gilean, they are pure destruction, then, and people in the world see them as evil. If your games are very VERy roleplay, story-oriented, I just might be able to see it work out. If they're anywhere near compromise, expect a beating. If you like cruddy hackenslash, well, not everyone was meant to be a DM, I guess. What's your point? Why wouldn't it work if it is hack'n'slash? I try to get both battles and role-playing. But still you have to agree that there is need of social adjustments. charisma it is a simple way to do it, althrought in D&D there is little space to a good system of social modificiers. An elf will trust before an human than a dwarf, a king will do it with a paladin before a barbarian and a good cleric will hate an evil cleric. Social adjustments is doable with role-playing. The trust thing, it isn't needed with Charisma, it works by just role-playing it.
FlameLover 10-08-05, 08:10 AM	I'm fine with the attributes as they are but here is what a game called Arcanum used: Power: Stength (Physical) - Intelligence (Mental) Prowess: Dexterity (Physical) - Perception (Mental) Resistance: Constitution (Physical) - Willpower (Mental) Appearance: Beauty (Physical) - Charisma (Mental) Now some of those are a little odd but i like where it's going. I would change it myself though to this: Power: Stength (Physical) - Perception (Mental) Prowess: Dexterity (Physical) - Intelligence (Mental) Resistance: Constitution (Physical) - Wisdom (Mental) Basically "Perception" would be made to encompass mental strength and force of will, etc. It might seem like a name change but it would also mean that Listen, Spot, etc. would be tied to the same stat as Bard and Sorc spellcasting. I think that Wisdom and Charisma are the problem. The other 4 stats are quite clearly defined but these two are sort of hazy. I think it should be cut so that "Charisma" (or whatever you want to call it) is mental Strength while Wisdom is mental Constitution. This means that offensive and active things are tied to Cha while defensive and passive things are tied to Wis.
Quirriff 10-08-05, 10:42 AM	Don't remove charisma, make it more AD&Dish perhaps.
Sylian 10-08-05, 11:07 AM	Don't remove charisma, make it more AD&Dish perhaps. I haven't played AD&D...
Cymraegmorgan 10-08-05, 11:50 AM	Force of personality is more of a character trait, and not a stat. No it is a stat, an ability score called Charisma. When a "trait" affects interaction with NPCs and monsters, it becomes a mechanic, which needs a stat so to allow fair adjudication. Hence, Charisma. But the bard in my group is a divine bard, he gets his music and magic from the God of Music, so Wisdom should work. He may get his magic from his high Wisdom score, but it is Charisma, a very different sort of personality aspect, that shows us how he affects people, how much or little they are drawn to him. There is no absolute evil or good, why should D&D need it? Because it is a game, based on a long tradition of fantasy literature. From Tarzan and Paulvitch, to Aragorn and Sauron, fantasy concepts revolve around heroic and epic struggles between the light and the dark. Throw it out if you choose, but expect some players to lose interest. I have played D&D for 25 years, and I have never seen an alignmentless campaign succeed for long, though others on these boards have reportedly made it work. If you want a game with no alignments and no charisma, might I suggest Risk? The trust thing, it isn't needed with Charisma, it works by just role-playing it. Again, how do you adjudicate from one situation to another? Say you have a player who has a great RP concept, but is a habitual stutterer. Because the player's physical handicap makes the RP less believable, do you adjudicate against him. The mechanic is there to allow the character to be more or less than the player himself. Again, do you make players roleplay out combat maneuvers? Are those unable to properly swing a broadsword penalized for the lack? Roleplay is, obviously, an important part of D&D. It can also become a tedious burden if the social mechanic is removed. If every social interaction is resolved at the whim of the DM, then the players stop interacting socially when they see a lack of a standard being applied. Your opinion on an RP performance might be quite at odds with the player's opinion of how well they did. So with no mechanic bad feelings begin to mount, and players either leave the game, or turn into hack and slashers because you, the DM, were "unfair." Charisma and its associated game mechanics solve the fairness problem, and keep an RP heavy game flowing properly.
Koga:The ninja trick 10-08-05, 02:19 PM	Instead of getting rid of charisma, maybe something should be added to it to make it more useful. Like say "feat points". You gain a number of feat-points each level based off your cha modifier. (So if 18 cha 4 feat points) When you have 8 feat points you can burn them off to gain a bonus feat! This would explain the powerful leaders who seem to be violant, brunt, fighters.. Wisdom seems kindof shafted overall too. Extra to will-saves? Give The Koga a break, but sense it's not nearly as screwed as charisma, you gain bonus skill ranks based off your wis modifier, but only at first level.
Green 10-10-05, 11:19 AM	Instead of getting rid of charisma, maybe something should be added to it to make it more useful. Like say "feat points". You gain a number of feat-points each level based off your cha modifier. (So if 18 cha 4 feat points) When you have 8 feat points you can burn them off to gain a bonus feat! This would explain the powerful leaders who seem to be violant, brunt, fighters.. Wisdom seems kindof shafted overall too. Extra to will-saves? Give The Koga a break, but sense it's not nearly as screwed as charisma, you gain bonus skill ranks based off your wis modifier, but only at first level. I think other d20 games use the Charisma bonus for action points or something similar. I can't speak for how much I like it since I haven't used it. However, redoing how saves might be a way to boost Wisdom and Charisma. First of all, I'd make Charisma the stat for willpower and determination (traits associated with the power of your personality) instead of Wisdom. Therefore, will saves will be goverend by Charisma. Wisdom, though, makes a lot of sense for reflex saves since perception and intuition help with getting out of harm's way moreso than raw agility and coordination (unless said agility and coordination are at supreme levels). Jack Burton* not being the only example. *Jack Burton from "Big Trouble in Little China." Not particularly quick or agile, but has great reflexes and a big dose of common sense. "Big Trouble in Little China" should be required viewing for all roleplayers.
00_Whupass 10-10-05, 03:45 PM	While I will freely admit that I haven't had time to read the whole thread and I may submit a more complete response later, my initial response is that this is a horrible idea. One of the major purposes of the Charisma skill is that it drives the social interaction skills. Now you say you've removed them and instead rely on roleplay, I have several things to say about this but in the interest of time I will limit myself to the two most significant: Roleplay and a mechanical representation of an action are not mutually exclusive, to use an example from a different situation were I to look to my DM and say, "Looking over his shoulder and seeing the orcish brute move in to flank him. Thesil, will tuck and roll to the left then bring his sickle up into the brutes leg trying to pull him off balence" I've just role played a tumble check and a trip attempt, should there be no mechanic to address these issues since they can be role played out? I certainly don't think so, the same is true of the socail skills, any player who looks to his DM and says "I bluff the guard" is just lazy and probably not entirely immersed in the roleplay experiance in general. The problem here rests with the players, and not the rules mechanic. Furthermore the roleplay experiance is at its core about getting to step outside yourself and fill the shoes of someone else, often someone radically different from yourself. The big clumsy guy might choose to play a nimble swashbuckler, or the shy bookish girl may want to play the dashing courtier, chatting up all the noble's in the kingdom while she dances at the royal ball. By eliminating a mechanical device for social interaction and relying entirely on roleplay you've just informed your players that their character will never be more convincing\charming\frightening\ect. then they themselves can be. What happens to our bookish young lady in my earlier example in your campaign, she is forced to choose between being ineffective in her chosen role, or playing a different character concept either of which has the potential, and likelihood, of reducing her enjoyment of the game.
Millennium 10-13-05, 06:38 PM	There is no absolute evil or good, why should D&D need it? Whether or not absolute evil or good exist is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you could use this as a means of exploring the other side of your argument. Social adjustments is doable with role-playing. Only to the extent that the players are with their social skills. If you have the social skills of a real-world person with Charisma 8, you are not going to be able to role-play anyone with better social skills than that. That's just how mental skills and actions are. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant; the fact is, you need an abstraction to let players play characters who are better than they are at this kind of thing. Or are you saying that players should simply play themselves?
TwistedShadow 10-14-05, 01:43 AM	Ok I just read through this entire thread and have found a bunch of things that really bug me that I would like to drag into the light. First off this thread was reduced to a no win situation for anyone very early on because Sylian/Groopakoopa was put on the defensive by some of the reply posts (really doesn't matter at this point if it was intention) So natural there is no way that he will budge an inch or retract his position. So no matter what is said he will continue to sick to his position and rephrase the same points in different ways against whatever points are brought up in opposition to his view. Points which are likewise repeated rephrasing of the same general points by a bunch of different people. With that point made I would like to ask Sylian a few questions and get his answers so I can "Understand" his perspective. So here goes, and once i have asked my questions I will give you my answers to the same questions Sylian, I would like to know a few things 1 How do you define the nature of the alignments Good, Evil, Law, Chaotic? 2 How rigid to see them as? Is a characters available actions defined by his alignment or is his alignment defined by his actions? 3 How do you define each of the 6 basic stats and their function (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) 4 on a basic % scale how much of an average game session is spent with the characters in something other then a social activity (out in a dungeon, fighting something, sneak or otherwise engaged in activities that would not call for skill rolls in diplomacy or one of the other skills you are looking at removing? Ok now for my answers so you can see my position 1) Good & Evil in alignment Good Character tends to be compasionate, trusting, giving, openly friendly, and fosters a mindset that is not focused simply on themselves where as Evil is a tendency to be ruthless, or otherwise uncaring, and though it can include things like Malice and outright cruelness these are only part of it As far as Law vs Chao's Its Disciplined/organized mindset vs Freespirit/spontanious mindset 2) With out a doubt actions determine alignment, since alignments are just a lable that is important for game mechanic in terms of spells and stuff and also as an ok gauge as to where the character is morally 3) Ok im gonna skip the physical ones cause I have never heard anyone having wildly different ideas on those. Intelligence: a characters ability to use logic and memory (not how much they actually know) Wisdom: intution, mental strength, attention and persception. Charisma: Natural wit and cunning, Mental equivelent to Dex in alot of way the thing that helps your mind slip out of tight spots your muscles might not work for. 4) in games that I run and play in scocial aspects of character and NPC interaction (especially non-plot required character development) usually takes up 60% of a session with combat, and other non scocial activities taking up the other 40% so my position is a little biased in favor of keeping charisma. Now I would like to make mention that its your game so you should do whats in the best interest of you & your players so that everyone has fun. There are some things i would caution you about, if you remove skills you will need to reduce skill points for the classes as well or skill points normally spent on these skills will suddenly be dumped into other skills, but you might not see a problem with that. If people give you too much gruff about the dragon lance setting, just change it to a custom setting with a heavy dragon lance flavor then no one can say anything about it. My advice is somewhere in the middle of this, Keep charisma and the skills in, but instead of letting people roll out of a situation, make them earn the chance to make the roll. It doesn't have to be something elaborate like every word said cause that can be hard to do if the player is not a very fast wit. But don't let them just say Can i roll diplomacy to improve his attitude. but the player saying in character to the NPC "Surely there is some agreement we can reach" that should be good enough. The thing you have to remember is that 80% of good communication is Now WHAT you say But HOW you say it, and that is really what Charisma and these skill represent. Cause in honest life I can tell someone to "Go To Hell" and they laugh but my brother say the exact same words and the person gets excited about the trip But again it is your game.
Gilean 10-14-05, 09:16 AM	With out a doubt actions determine alignmentUnless you play RaW, of course.Charisma: Natural wit and cunningMore like the natural tendency to get people do what you want. Wit and cunning are not all too determined but are not, as far as the book tells or implies, parts of charisma.
Leap_UK 10-14-05, 10:11 AM	In D&D evil is a real tangiable TOUCHABLE force. Not without bloody thick gloves it aint!!! :D As for removing Charisma! Nooooooooooooooo. A truly terrible idea. If you dont believe that there are innate differences in charisma go check out a playground at a school (erm get the teachers ok first otherwise mr plod may want to see your harddrive!! ;) ). Charisma is a very real attribute in reallife(tm) and should be continued in the game to represent passion, confidence, sociability that is innate in all regardless of skills - shyness can be covered by skill but it is not a LACK of skill, for example :D Pant gasp pant gasp :)
Sylian 10-14-05, 11:36 AM	Cymraegmorgan: But the NPC's can't use Charisma... Why should I need Alignment? Other RPG's doesn't have it... The players don't want to roll for social interaction. None of my player are uncomfortable with talking, I think. Koga, the feat points looked broken... A sorcerer with more feats then a fighter... Green, redoing how saves work might work, but isn't it easier to just remove Charisma? Oh, and the skills I've "removed"... None of the players had taken them, and NPC's can't use them. 00_Whupass, even when I had these skills, none of the players ever used them. They just tried to roleplay instead. If they want to be that kind of character, I might use the skills anyway. Like bluff, put that on Intelligence. Millennium, yeah, but most players have like 20 in intelligence, they can't really play that, can they? Should I put something like 12 at maximum at each mental skill? I could always give them advice and such. TwistedShadow: 1. Is it good to slay goblins because they are "evil"? Is it evil to save the life of a criminal? Good and Evil are relative. Law and Chaotic... A "chaotic" person may follow the law, and a "lawful" person may brake the law... Why are they even needed? 2. Hard to tell. 3. Strength is mostly arm strength, strong in arms will help you climb, swind a weapon and break down doors. Dexterity is more like an acrobat, agility and such things. Constitution is the other muscles on the body, stamina, and how hard your skin and bone are. Intelligence, how much he knows about things, knowledge, such as advanced mathematic and things like that. Logic and such things too. Wisdom, how wise one is, if one learn from ones mistakes, and similar things. Charisma, big problem. Not looking good, force of personality wont get people to like you... 4. I don't know...
Cymraegmorgan 10-14-05, 12:44 PM	Cymraegmorgan: But the NPC's can't use Charisma... Why should I need Alignment? Other RPG's doesn't have it... The players don't want to roll for social interaction. None of my player are uncomfortable with talking, I think. Not for Dip or Bluff, but NPC Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics, etc., do use Charisma, as do NPCs with Leadership. Other RPGs aren't D&D. D&D is the standard by which all other RPGs will forever be judged. It is not always about being incomfortable with talking, or rolling. It is about setting a concrete standard of failure or success that is not dependent on a DM's mood/whim/hangover. :D It is, in the end, up to the concensus of you and your players. If everyone involved can agree to houseruling no charisma and no alignment, then go for it. It is just my opinion that those two mechanics are fun and easy to work with.
Sylian 10-14-05, 01:18 PM	Not for Dip or Bluff, but NPC Bards, Sorcerers, Clerics, etc., do use Charisma, as do NPCs with Leadership. Then I'll just let them use the things with another stat, like Wisdom or Intelligence. Other RPGs aren't D&D. D&D is the standard by which all other RPGs will forever be judged. Not in the country I live in. It is not always about being incomfortable with talking, or rolling. It is about setting a concrete standard of failure or success that is not dependent on a DM's mood/whim/hangover. :D Well, I could always roll and see anyway... None of the players have put skill points in the skills anyway...
00_Whupass 10-14-05, 02:01 PM	Cymraegmorgan: But the NPC's can't use Charisma... 00_Whupass, even when I had these skills, none of the players ever used them. They just tried to roleplay instead. That is using the skill, at least as I see it. In my group (and I am thankful to have been blessed by such a great gaming group) we don't speak in mechanical terms, no one ever says "I use Knowledge (nature) to see what I know about this strange plant" they say "I pluck a sprig and a few leaves from the bush and quietly excuse myselft to ponder this unusual specimen" Its the DMs job to know that this means a knowledge (nature) check. Your players never said the words, "I use diplomacy to modify the attitudes of the npcs" but as soon as it becomes obvious to you that thats what they're doing you either roll the check behind the screen or ask them to make a check. Its like my earlier example of a trip attempt, in my group we role play the combat aspect of the game too (not LARP, just with more player contributed flavor text). No one ever says "I make a bull rush attempt against the ogre" but the player of Adhoran the Barbarian might say "Adhoran lets out a bellowing roar and holding his sheild before charges in an attempt force the giant back through the door". Adhoran's player never used mechanical terminology, but the DM was able to infer from his discription of his characters action should be resolved using the bull rush rules. It is the same as your players role playing out their social interactions, you as the DM must decide on the appropriate mechanic and apply it. As a parting shot let me add that, ultimately it is your game, and as DM your responsibility to ensure fun for everyone at the gaming table, so if this is how your players want to run their game, good for you. However as a message board community we have to look at the game from the holistic approach of "every game" not "your game" and from that larger perspective removing charisma from the game would be potentially problematic for all those reasons people have offered you here.
syrinth 10-14-05, 02:30 PM	Meh, one little interjection I feel like plopping in. I personally houserule that NPCs CAN use Dip and Bluff, although I rule that the skills work a tad bit differently then the books say. You can ignore me now lol.
Sylian 10-14-05, 03:51 PM	00_Whupass, you probably have better players then me. What I am in need of is actual game experience. I had to start being a DM before ever played D&D before, searching for a online game is part to improve my DM skills, and to have fun. ;) Your whole post made sense, and I'll see if taking away Alignment and Charisma will work.
00_Whupass 10-14-05, 06:17 PM	I thought I would come back and offer some thoughts on removing alignment from the game, since my earlier posts dealt only with removing charisma. Alignment is one of the fundamental components of the D&D system, and personally I am against removing it from the game. But if you do, it is important to consider all of the ramafications of that decision. There are more than I can come up with on the spot without my books. The biggest single example I can think of right now is the paladin. In addition to the alignment restriction required to even be a paladin a vast majority of his class features and spells are alignment centric, detect, smite ect. And while you might answer by saying that no one in your group plays a paladin, it is still an important factor to consider for a plethora of reasons, a couple of which are NPCs and new players. Your answers to TwistedShadow's questions were a good base to start discussing your outlook on alignment. You said: 1. Is it good to slay goblins because they are "evil"? Is it evil to save the life of a criminal? Good and Evil are relative. Law and Chaotic... A "chaotic" person may follow the law, and a "lawful" person may brake the law... Why are they even needed? 2. Hard to tell. The second question, do a players actions detirmine alignment or vice verca, is the more important of the two questions. Thankfully its also the easiest to answer. This is your game, you're the DM, which means how a players alignment is detirmined is up to you. Consider the following scenario: A players character sheet says he is Lawful Good, the villians have taken hostages in a constablaries office, the character wants to set the building on fire to flush out the villians despite the innocents inside. Do you A: Tell he you can't do that since he's Lawful Good and and that is not a good act. or B: Allow him to do it but inform him that it will result in an alignment change. If you said A then a characters alignment detirmines his actions, if you said B than a characters actions detirmine his alignment. My opinion, as well as what I believe the general consensus among role players, is option B since limiting a players options has the potential to severly hamper thier ability to enjoy the game, which is after all the point. If you could give this some thought and then tell the community where you fall on this issue it will help further our discussion of the ramafications of removing alignment from the game. Your answer to TwistedShadow's first question indicates that you favor a moral reltivist approach to good and evil, this is generally at odds with the approach taken by game designers in D&D. That said, there is some wiggle room in a dynamic system of alignments, which means a system in which actions detirmine alignment (Option B above), in that you can consider the sum total of a players acts. Sylian, if you have any more thoughts on the matter go ahead and offer them and we can continue to discuss things here. Let me end my post on the same not I started on. Removing alignment from D&D is a drastic change carefully consider all of the ramafications before proceeding.
Ranger REG 10-14-05, 07:17 PM	What are the use of charisma? If I remove it, I'll have to change some things. Like, what sort of things Sorcerers and Bards cast with, what things people use (like clerics turning with wisdom instead of charisma) etc. What do you think about the idea? I am DM:ing a Dragonlance Campaign. You might as well remove all the other abilities and try to translate your player's strengths and weaknesses directly into the game. But I thought the purpose of a fantasy role-playing game is to pretend to be someone or something else in a game setting. But if you want to penalize a very shy player who probably count your gaming group as his only circle of trustworthy friends, it's your call.
Sylian 10-15-05, 05:15 AM	You might as well remove all the other abilities and try to translate your player's strengths and weaknesses directly into the game. But I thought the purpose of a fantasy role-playing game is to pretend to be someone or something else in a game setting. But if you want to penalize a very shy player who probably count your gaming group as his only circle of trustworthy friends, it's your call. Sigh. Why do I get the feeling that people doesn't read my answers? 00_Whupass, I'll probably remove the Paladin. It isn't really needed in the Dragonlance setting IMO. C. Warn him that it isn't good, if there is any good NPC in the team he probably try to stop him, but if he manages to do it it changes his alignment. But consider this, many of the threads in the help forums are about alignment, by removing it it get less complicated. EDIT, this is about my view too. http://www.worldofere.com/articles/game_alignment.htm
Gilean 10-15-05, 06:01 AM	A: Tell he you can't do that since he's Lawful Good and and that is not a good act. or B: Allow him to do it but inform him that it will result in an alignment change. If you said A then a characters alignment detirmines his actions, if you said B than a characters actions detirmine his alignment. My opinion, as well as what I believe the general consensus among role players, is option B since limiting a players options has the potential to severly hamper thier ability to enjoy the game, which is after all the point.Ummm, no. A is the wrong answer as it is within the player's sphere of influence, not GM's. B implies that alignments can change, that is all. It can be explained by saying that Evil got a bit more inlfuence over the character for a while. That is why good characters occasionally do evil acts. Second point; one action will almost never changes a character's alignment. How a character acts in the long run is best indicator of the character's alignment, not mere actions. Oh, and for the record, I don't use alignment and don't think it brings great benefits to any RPG. But in DL I would use it.
Green 10-15-05, 12:17 PM	Green, redoing how saves work might work, but isn't it easier to just remove Charisma? It'd be easier to remove a lot of things, but I thought you were looking for ways to make Charisma more useful. My mistake.
Ranger REG 10-15-05, 09:04 PM	Sigh. Why do I get the feeling that people doesn't read my answers? I didn't know it was required reading when responding to GroopaKoopa. :smirk:
Sylian 10-16-05, 03:20 AM	I didn't know it was required reading when responding to GroopaKoopa. :smirk: I never wrote that I changed name? :rolleyes:
Ranger REG 10-17-05, 05:30 AM	I never wrote that I changed name? :rolleyes: Ahem. I mean I didn't know I have to read YOUR answers in order to reply to GroopaKoopa's post. :uh-huh:
Sylian 10-17-05, 07:59 AM	Ahem. I mean I didn't know I have to read YOUR answers in order to reply to GroopaKoopa's post. :uh-huh: I meant that I changed name from GroopaKoopa to Sylian.
Ranger REG 10-17-05, 05:09 PM	I meant that I changed name from GroopaKoopa to Sylian. Make up your mind. Are you GroopaKoopa or Sylian? Or will I be talking to your third personality anytime soon? :P
Judging Eagle 10-17-05, 05:11 PM	Cymraegmorgan: But the NPC's can't use Charisma... Why should I need Alignment? Other RPG's doesn't have it... True, but they do have concepts such as good and evil, hell V:TM probably one of the better known pure-roleplaying games has the character's humanity as a measure of how well they've kept their humanity or how deep they've descended into the depths of their bestial nature. The alignment system acts as a guide marker for where the PCs stand with respect to mercy/tyranny or law-abiding/outlawery. Most people you seem to describe would tend towards chaotic neutral; you are able to flout laws when it's convenient, and you don't really care about the good/evil debate, however you probably feel that being well fed is better than starving and living free is better than being a slave. The players don't want to roll for social interaction. None of my player are uncomfortable with talking, I think. Actually, you mentioned how a few of your players didn't want to talk. That alone will make RPing much harder to pull off. An overall better way is to have diplomacy/bluff/etc. become modified with the player roleplaying it out. If a player doesn't have the confidence to even roll-out the roleplaying, how will they ever get the confidence to actually role-play at all? Koga, the feat points looked broken... A sorcerer with more feats then a fighter... The feat point system has it's upsides and down sides, however having it means that in a point-buy game (ie. the uber min-maxed game) people will really reconsider getting only 8 or 10 charisma; I know that in living greyhawk (25 point buy) only people who need Cha actually get more than 10 and most just get the base 8. Green, redoing how saves work might work, but isn't it easier to just remove Charisma? Oh, and the skills I've "removed"... None of the players had taken them, and NPC's can't use them. 00_Whupass, even when I had these skills, none of the players ever used them. They just tried to roleplay instead. Doesn't matter. The players can't have their super-combat capable characters that can suddenly role-play anything out. Going to a few living greyhawk games showed me that no matter how good you are as a player, your PC is limited or boosted by what their sheet says they have. A player can try to convince the leader of a village to give the party more information; however if his gather information roll is bad, no matter how well they roleplayed it their character is considered to have flubbed it. Perhaps the PC was a bit too arrogant, or they didn't use the proper local greetings or they were too formal or informal. Like TwistedShadow said: The thing you have to remember is that 80% of good communication is Now WHAT you say But HOW you say it, and that is really what Charisma and these skill represent. If they want to be that kind of character, I might use the skills anyway. Like bluff, put that on Intelligence. Millennium, yeah, but most players have like 20 in intelligence, they can't really play that, can they? Should I put something like 12 at maximum at each mental skill? I could always give them advice and such. TwistedShadow: 1. Is it good to slay goblins because they are "evil"? Is it evil to save the life of a criminal? Good and Evil are relative. Law and Chaotic... A "chaotic" person may follow the law, and a "lawful" person may brake the law... Why are they even needed? 2. Hard to tell. 3. Strength is mostly arm strength, strong in arms will help you climb, swind a weapon and break down doors. Dexterity is more like an acrobat, agility and such things. Constitution is the other muscles on the body, stamina, and how hard your skin and bone are. Intelligence, how much he knows about things, knowledge, such as advanced mathematic and things like that. Logic and such things too. Wisdom, how wise one is, if one learn from ones mistakes, and similar things. Charisma, big problem. Not looking good, force of personality wont get people to like you... 4. I don't know... The thing is... you can be very smart, and very wise. However if you've got a wheezing whiny voice, no one will listen to you. If you speak with a stutter, or a lisp or if you tend to wring your hands or pick your nose, or scratch your hair when you talk you won't make as good of an impression as those people who don't. On the other hand, you can "appear" to be incredibly intelligent and wise if you're charismatic enough; until someone smarter or wiser shows up of course, but that's not the point. Personally. I'd say for you to remove Cha from the game system only; and only, if you have played the game for a while and actually understand from an emperical level how and why charisma exists in the system. Don't theorize why to remove Cha unless you've actually encountered points in the game where Charisma; or Force of Personality or Animal Magnetism or any of those other terms that mean how well you attract and command the attention of other people. Personally, I think you want to remove Cha becuase you either don't understand it well enough to realize that it can be quantified just like str, dex, con, int and wis. Oh, and most people that play D&D don't have... 20+ Int. Most have about a 12-13 int; int is.. supposedly on a 1 int = 10 IQ scale (which I break the rule since my IQ is not my indicated Int score last I checked). On the other hand I know where to look for information on D&D (the WoTC boards) so I tend to bring crazier ideas to the table at our games. Oh, and if you really think that players can.... role-play an interaction out and not have Cha as a stat. You must have them play out combat, lock picking, trap searching, trap disabling etc. if not it's not fair to remove Cha as a stat. If they don't have an 18 str in real life, then I guess they're boned in game combat is I guess what you mean, but don't want to really say. On a completely unreleated to the OP, but related to the later disc. on good/evil. You know that game Fable? Where your actions determine your appearance? Guess how long it tended to take north americans to try evil, compared to europeans? It seems that more seperates us than just the atlanic, europeans were more likely to start killing random people than north americans and sooner; I've always said that a person's character in a game tends to reflect their inner person more than anything else. When you don't have to worry about long-term/real-life conqequences you tend to play more true to what's in your head. Unless you're truly messed and play true good even when you'd rather spill the blood of your surrendered foes who just killed your allies, stupid conscience. in short: -a lot of games have alignment, just not always so prominent -you yourself said many of your players don't even talk; rolling makes it easier at first, you'll have to role-play as well to get them to learn how to do it -cha affects how you talk, not what you say; also illogical reasons work more often than logical ones for convincing people to do things, funny and sad, but true -don't tinker with a game system unless you actually know how it works; play D&D normally, then re-evaluate how Cha affects the game. Cha became more important in 3.0/3.5 IMO, also if you do play with old school players who know how to RP the use of a stat to improve their chances (and introduce the fact that the game truly is random and adds the fact that a player with lots of charisma whose char has low charisma can't out-charisma a player whose charisma is low in real life but has put a lot into beefing charisma based skills) -alignment ... if you don't like it, then I don't think you're read the book properly
Strange Brew 10-18-05, 02:41 AM	I always found the topics of alignment and charisma to be very loaded arguements, as what happens with matters of personal philosophy. I have always debated removing alignment from my games finding it an unnecessary mechanic as long as npc reactions are adjusted appropriately to a particular character's reknown and behaviour (basically your gameplay determines your particular alignment and personal philosophy). This thought has been extended to charisma as it seems to be a summation of a myriad of factors built into a character design. Basically the two concepts seem redundant. Now you could make the arguement that these are great tools for a PC to roleplay your character as others have stated. This is very true for rookie players unsure of how to translate certain concepts in the d20 environment. I've always found charisma and particularly alignment too abstract of a mechanic, ultimately being constrictive to character development for those who have an understanding of how the mechanics work. It also creates many a philosophical arguement depending on perspective. But more to the point of the removal of charisma I find that other stats represent a character's persona more than simply saying this character's charisma is high or low. For myself I think as myself as not the best talker but I have learned how to compensate for this through my other gifts. Through the learning of skills I can appear to be a better speaker even though I am introverted making intelligence seemingly more of a measure of my speaking skills and my physical size of 6'2" and a solid 250 lbs creating what you could call a certain charismatic aura making the physical stats a more controlling factor. My willpower and understanding of motives (spent years as a bouncer, real world experience here) determines my character in the treatment of others (I could go in deep philosophical arguements as far as acceptable behaviour in security work). In short, the measure of charisma could be folded into other aspects of a character. As such, the skills could be reassigned to other stats and not effect character design significantly. In my opinion of course. As far as confidence goes, I find it's more a measure of Wisdom and willpower. As far as interacting with others it's saying the most Intelligent thing for the situation that determines the appeal of the idea. For such things as intimidating it's knowing your physical gifts and applying them correctly. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what one might find appealing as far as looks in one person might not hold the same sway to another. Really I believe it's the sum of your parts that determines your charisma not an abstract ability score and appropriate roleplaying can bring that forth. It is in the end a roleplaying game. In my games charisma and alignment are dead concepts, but then that's my game, use whatever mechanic you feel works for you.
Sylian 10-18-05, 04:21 AM	I answer more later. One big point I haven't brought up is this: If Charisma is use, and one player spends points in Diplomacy, wouldn't that make only that player talk? Why would someone with low skill points, like a sorcerer, ever talk to NPC's?
Cymraegmorgan 10-18-05, 05:46 AM	One big point I haven't brought up is this: If Charisma is use, and one player spends points in Diplomacy, wouldn't that make only that player talk? Maybe more than one player wants to talk and interact. You do not have to put ranks in Diplomacy to make the check. Why would someone with low skill points, like a sorcerer, ever talk to NPC's? Not everyone who plays a sorcerer is acarbon copy of some minmaxer. Maybe the palyer has an RP reason for putting his skill points in a cross class skill.
Ranger REG 10-18-05, 09:12 PM	Now you could make the arguement that these are great tools for a PC to roleplay your character as others have stated. This is very true for rookie players unsure of how to translate certain concepts in the d20 environment. I've always found charisma and particularly alignment too abstract of a mechanic, ultimately being constrictive to character development for those who have an understanding of how the mechanics work. It also creates many a philosophical arguement depending on perspective. I don't know about being too abstract. Charisma represent the strength of your personality, the ability to project confidence that appeals to your future employer about hiring you (remember the saying about making the first impression) or how people find it easier to be with you and around you when you walk into a social and the willingness to talk to you, especially when you're not a celebrity to begin with. As with Strength and Dexterity, it can also be an inherent trait, a potential for a particular skill and talent if properly groomed. That's why I don't think it can be too broadly abstract than say love and apathy for another neighbor. But more to the point of the removal of charisma I find that other stats represent a character's persona more than simply saying this character's charisma is high or low. For myself I think as myself as not the best talker but I have learned how to compensate for this through my other gifts. Through the learning of skills I can appear to be a better speaker even though I am introverted making intelligence seemingly more of a measure of my speaking skills and my physical size of 6'2" and a solid 250 lbs creating what you could call a certain charismatic aura making the physical stats a more controlling factor. My willpower and understanding of motives (spent years as a bouncer, real world experience here) determines my character in the treatment of others (I could go in deep philosophical arguements as far as acceptable behaviour in security work). In short, the measure of charisma could be folded into other aspects of a character. As such, the skills could be reassigned to other stats and not effect character design significantly. In my opinion of course. True, even the most shyest of person can be a proficient lecturer (assuming one would aspire to be the next monotonic Ben Stein). Which is why I like the current 3e Skill System. But inherent trait still play a part. After all, take two orators with equal skill rank, but one has is better at it naturally, that one may have an advantage over the one who lack it naturally and solely rely on learned knowledge and training. As far as confidence goes, I find it's more a measure of Wisdom and willpower. As far as interacting with others it's saying the most Intelligent thing for the situation that determines the appeal of the idea. For such things as intimidating it's knowing your physical gifts and applying them correctly. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder so what one might find appealing as far as looks in one person might not hold the same sway to another. Well, aside from the game definition of being aware with your surrounding, "comon sense" is not a measure of confidence. Willpower is more of a defensive trait than an influential or offensive one.
Elgonn 10-18-05, 09:49 PM	Removing Charisma is a mistake just because you cannot play a role different from yourself without a mechanical abstraction in the rules. I can't imagine how you can think otherwise. Also NPCs use bluff all the times in my games even against the PCs and it is perfectly legal by the RAW. Feinting, Lieing, Hiding, and Obfuscating messages as examples. Only one function of Bluff doesn't have a direct implementation against Players.
Strange Brew 10-20-05, 02:16 AM	The biggest thing with charisma it seems to me is that it is a summation of other character traits than anything that truly stands on it's own. Anything that I have tried to attribute to charisma has always ended with some combination of stats and skills representing the same thing. It provides a good descriptive benchmark for a character I guess but has always felt like a dump stat game wise. Could also be symptomatic of the fact my groups has always preferred high action to deep political intrigue though.
Sylian 10-20-05, 09:37 AM	Removing Charisma is a mistake just because you cannot play a role different from yourself without a mechanical abstraction in the rules. I can't imagine how you can think otherwise. So it would be impossible to role-play on a online game without charisma?
RobertJ 10-20-05, 12:50 PM	Actually, you mentioned how a few of your players didn't want to talk. That alone will make RPing much harder to pull off. An overall better way is to have diplomacy/bluff/etc. become modified with the player roleplaying it out. If a player doesn't have the confidence to even roll-out the roleplaying, how will they ever get the confidence to actually role-play at all? The feat point system has it's upsides and down sides, however having it means that in a point-buy game (ie. the uber min-maxed game) people will really reconsider getting only 8 or 10 charisma; I know that in living greyhawk (25 point buy) only people who need Cha actually get more than 10 and most just get the base 8. Doesn't matter. The players can't have their super-combat capable characters that can suddenly role-play anything out. Going to a few living greyhawk games showed me that no matter how good you are as a player, your PC is limited or boosted by what their sheet says they have. A player can try to convince the leader of a village to give the party more information; however if his gather information roll is bad, no matter how well they roleplayed it their character is considered to have flubbed it. Perhaps the PC was a bit too arrogant, or they didn't use the proper local greetings or they were too formal or informal. Some good points here. I'd like to point out what tends to happen when people remove Charisma from having actual game effects... I'm sure most people here have at least tried playing an MMORPG of some kind. Now, if you've ever become involved in a GM event of any kind, isn't it amusing how characters who play totally savage, uncivilized races or classed suddenly become the most eloquent, rational and learned people? One minute a Barbarian character is off in a rage, hacking off limbs, the next minute a GM pops in and starts an event and they're quoting Aristotle (or the game-world equivalent). What this sort of thing boils down to is... Even if that person has never spent any effort on training up Charisma, and let's be honest, that's the earmark of a min-maxer (not that there's anything wrong with it, I am as well). If you're going to let them get off with no penalty for Min-ing Charisma, which is effectively what happens if you substitute roleplay for mechanics, why not other stuff? What if my Barbarian comes across writing on a wall that tells of some crucial detail about dangers lying in wait ahead. If I role-play "figuring it out" well enough are you going to allow me to read it, even if I never spent the skill point on training my Barbarian to be literate? If, as a player, I know an enemy I'm facing has a weakness, are you going to let my rocks-dumb Barbarian suddenly start playing around with "testing weaknesses" so that eventually I can use my metagame knowledge to my advantage without having to have ranks in any Knowledge skills? Don't get me wrong. I don't think there's really a slippery slope here, most people have enough judgement not to fall down that slope. I also think Charisma is a very weak stat, but the solution is that it needs to be more strongly incorporated into the game, not removed altogether. I do like the feat idea, but it doesn't scale well for higher powered games. I know for a fact that my DM cheats like hell, his characters usually have stats ranging from 16-20... Is getting 3 extra feats (9 HD worth!) really acceptable? Not to me.
Elgonn 10-20-05, 05:47 PM	So it would be impossible to role-play on a online game without charisma? I think you've completely missed the point. Can Steven Hawkings role-play a debonaire lady killing man ****? Only if the game mechanics exist as an abstraction. He certainly cannot do it in real life. /sorry Steven
Judging Eagle 10-25-05, 10:21 AM	Here's a better set of questions: 1. Can you role-play hitting people and dealing damage without Strength? 2. Can you role-play avoiding getting hits and jumping over tables to charge at an enemy in combat without Dex? 3. Can you role-play taking damage and surviving, or shrugging off the effects of poison without Con? 4. Can you role-play figuring out how a trap works, the history of a nation or even plain old reading without Int? 5. Can you keep your eyes peeled, your ears open, and determine if the merchant your dealing with is lying about the quality of their wares without Wis? If you can do all of those with none of those stats, you're in a free-form RPG. Cha has no point. If you use any of those stats, just play normal D&D. Figure out emperically (ie. actually play the game for a few months/years with real GMs; Living Greyhawk is your best bet for well run adventures where they will show you exactly how the game's mechanics work) how the game actually runs before removing or adding things to it. Even with tons of experience under your belt you won't be able to do it properly. The only real reason people are riding on you is b/c you obviously haven't played the game much or at all so you probably don't see problems that could arise since many parts of the game all are linked. Adding more links works fine usually; removing links and chains from the games mechanics makes the rest of the system not work as well. It's like the web of like (circles are for noobs).
Sylian 10-25-05, 11:30 AM	1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. Yeah, I'm trying to find an online D&D Game with times that are workable in Europe, because I live there. Yes, the focus are on role playing.
Judging Eagle 10-25-05, 04:36 PM	1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. Yeah, I'm trying to find an online D&D Game with times that are workable in Europe, because I live there. Yes, the focus are on role playing. If you say yes to those all. I'd reccomend playing a play by post or forum style RPG. Take a look around these forums; I know that the megatokyo forums used to have tons of crazy very long-running RP threads (with anywhere from 5 to 60 people with some going for over five years now). The only problem with things like that is that there's no such thing as 'cheating' which tends to leave you reading really bad or overly long RP posts; sometimes both overly long and terribly bad posts. The fact that you use dice as the mechanic means that neither the players nor the DM has the absolute final say into what happens, which means that PCs have more freedom and usually won't be as restricted by pathetic DMs who can't run a plausible story line (like... 'capturing' 4 very high level PCs at a Drow outpost in the middle of nowhere which somehow has several dozen 15th lvl drow wizards and clerics). If you really have trouble finding a game, try to find your nearest hobby/comic/gaming store and ask if you can run or play a session, or leave an index card with your info. I've done the online gaming scene, the only time I've ever had a decent game was with one that actually had a non-player DM with a tight reign on who the players were and where they went and what they did (ie. they wrote what they were doing, and he wrote what they saw; sort of a collaboratory fantasy story). I'd reccomend looking for real players over online play; and use the SRD (check the for the "hypertext SRD" it's really the best) and you may need some pennies and a ruler with inches to mark players, monsters and how far they can move.
Sylian 10-25-05, 04:55 PM	What I ment was, it is possible doing a system without strenght, wisdom and dexterity as abilities. Play by post, I don't feel like having to wait like over five hours for every answer (I live in Europe) and I am searching for an online game. Since I live in Sweden, I don't think I have a local gaming store, and probably not with D&D. Most of the fun with role-playing is talking, after all, and just rolling removes alot of the fun in the game. That's my two copper.
Judging Eagle 10-26-05, 03:11 PM	Try your gaming store; you won't easily find an online game out of europe, but it's possible. As for roll-playing. If you don't have the imagination to describe what happened for the result of the dice roll; then you will make a poor role-player. I find most kids who do the whole 'I can describe anything so I can do it' don't tend to have their character ever, ever fail. The dice introduce failure; or rather realism, to the story. It's hard enough when you roll dice to accept failure on your character's part. It's a whole other thing when you simply ignore it b/c you can. Then again I prefer lower level, non-epic-stupidity type play. Several years of dealing with online players whose characters were not even one-dimensional has made me very jaded about listening to people who say that everything should be role-played out. If there's a chance of unwanted/unexpected failure you're role-playing, if not you're either writing collaborating on a book (usually a very bad one, since no one will ever let their character ever fail unless they're actually a person who is willing to be honest about the way that they write) or you're an actor in your DM's play/book (in which case, you're just helping the DM write their book or act their play and you really do no role-playing). My real leeriness to non-random type 'role-playing' is that it isn't that. It's really just people circle-jerking and all telling each other that they're so cool. If however the fact that their characters can get arms or legs broken or severed, get killed by exploding fireballs or get gutted by a rampaging wyrm's claws and each of the 'players' is able to do this then you might be going somewhere towards what you want. If you want good dnd playing; look for your nearest Living Greyhawk triad and find out what Convention they're at next and show up with a lvl 1 human/hill dwarf/ gnome/halfing/elf 28 point buy character with all core feats/gear etc. Living greyhawk is probably your best bet for really well run gaming. It's all pretty reasonable power-wise. 28 Pt buy is lower than what most people will roll on a 4d6 drop lowest method, but it shows you exactly what your character's priorities are; b/c it's such a low pt buy you seldom see fighters with over 10 cha, wizards with more than 10 wis, monks with more than 10 int, etc. etc.. However, role-playing is extremely crucial as is having a character with a large amount of knowledge skills (wizards are very, very helpful in this respect since they can take any knowledge skill as a class skill) is very important in LG. Anyway, it seems that you want to RP, you just need to find a system that works for you, I'm going to tell you that most systems will have Charisma as part of their mechanic unless the game is a purely online mmo type game; only in games where role-playing has no point does Cha not exist.
Gilean 10-27-05, 01:11 PM	Sylian, go to the local (large) library, and find Amber. It is diceless. If you have read the books, all the better. I have another diceless system (in a confusing format) in this thread (http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tablets_of_Dleinr/index.php?showtopic=38), in my forums.Anyway, it seems that you want to RP, you just need to find a system that works for you, I'm going to tell you that most systems will have Charisma as part of their mechanic unless the game is a purely online mmo type game; only in games where role-playing has no point does Cha not exist.Ummm, no. Really. Now that I think of it, many do have either charisma or presence, but not nearly all. Many lack stats alltogether. Currently I prefer trait-modeled systems, or essentially skills that the player can select that aren't predefined. You can have a skill called "hide", or "stealth", or "dexterity", or "hide in shadows", whatever you like and GM accepts. It is really liberating.