Charisma: A Lovely Little Dump Stat?

The young of most species exude a natural charisma.
Image by DivvyPixel from Pixabay
While introducing the players to the characters for the chase mechanics playtest a couple of weeks ago, I found myself ruminating on (of all things) the Charisma stat and what it represented.
You might think that this is a simple question – but it’s not, as readers will see by the end of this article.
This is a stat that is so devoid of functional value that I once almost removed it completely from a D&D campaign as far more trouble than it was worth, and some of the reasons why seem like a good place to start.
The Problem With Charisma 1: The Conflict with Player Agency
Charisma is ultimately all about using game mechanics to define, describe, simulate, and manipulate in-game interpersonal relationships. When it’s a PC using such abilities on an NPC, there’s no problem, and when it’s an NPC influencing another NPC, there’s no problem. But as soon as the target is a PC, regardless of whether it’s being done by an NPC or another PC, the owner of the target PC loses some control over his character, and with it, some measure of player agency.
This can be a small problem or a very large one, depending on a number of factors, but it’s always a problem of some scale. The scale can sometimes be minimized by using Charisma / Interpersonal mechanics to dictate the character’s state of mind but leaving the expression of that state of mind to the owner, and that’s a practice that I would recommend regardless of what game mechanics might recommend, except in cases of mental / magical domination
The Problem With Charisma 2: Contradictory social standards
The most overt characteristic associated with Charisma is physical attractiveness – Beauty and Grace. But as soon as you learn a little social history, you suddenly find yourself mired in some very deep waters even with this seemingly most innocuous of interpretations.
Consider a character with Charisma 18. We interpret that as describing an individual of great physical beauty.
Go back in time 200 years, and you will find that the very definition of “Great Physical Beauty” has changed somewhat. Does that mean that our CHAR 18 character only has CHAR 14? The standards of Beauty during the French Revolution were very different to those of the Roman Empire, which were different to those of the ancient Greeks. Even in modern times, Beauty can vary from one culture to another with some small overlap.
Body weight, hair styles and cleanliness, beards or no beards, even the clothing that is socially acceptable (and how much it reveals or hides) all combine to make standards sufficiently different as to be comparing apples and oranges.
Does that mean that our CHAR 18 character would only be CHAR 16 to an Elf and CHAR 6 to a Dwarf? What about the beauty standards of Goblins and Orcs?
Ultimately, what these issues raise is the problem that CHAR has a “soft” definition (at best), with no foundation in objective reality. Other stats also suffer from this problem, but not to the same extent – CON, for example, can be considered “the indexing of a character’s physical Resilience to a predefined universal scale”. CON 18 means the same thing whether you’re a Halfling or a Bugbear.
In many ways, this was actually easier to deal with back in the AD&D era, because CHAR was implicitly defined as being from the perspective of in-game contemporary human society, by giving other races an explicit adjustment to their CHAR to bring their local cultural interpretation into line with the “absolute” Human scale.
Back in that D&D game in which I contemplated abandoning the stat, the premise was that the appearance of physical health was the foundation of Beauty in a medieval society, in combination with the airs, graces, and absence of effects of hard labor that derived from social status. Since the former was already covered by CON, and the latter wasn’t actually defined anywhere, this interpretation left CHAR rather unsupported.
In that same game, Orcs were gifted with a natural regenerative ability that left physical health largely something that could be assumed, but they had a relatively short lifespan on average, so their standards of attractiveness were oriented around a youthful appearance in spite of advancing years.
With the Halflings, it was being well-fed that was the defining trait of Beauty, and hence of CHAR. The Elves held grace of motion and expression to be Beauty, and so on.
Food for thought, isn’t it?
But physical beauty is only a small fraction of what I now perceive as the constituents of CHAR, and that’s where this model collapses.
The Problem With Charisma 3: The problem with time
Vanity and a youth-oriented society mean that Beauty is now seen as an attribute of youth. The number-one sales pitch for beauty products is that it will restore a youthful appearance or hide (or somehow undo) the effects of aging.
So long as CHAR was defined in terms of comeliness, that meant that time – and aging – would inevitably have eroded CHAR.
This complication only became more complex when other aspects of CHAR were acknowledged.
For the purposes of illustration, this diagram simplifies CHAR into 4 elements:
- Beauty – attractiveness in all its forms
- Skill – things the character has learned to do like Command
- Class – Social Class. Except in the case of nobility, this tends to drop off as a character ages after ‘retirement’. This plots Child, Apprentice, Journeyman, Master, Senility as the five major stages of a long life.
- Nature – a catchall for the bonuses due to character class, race, and the perception of same by the general public.
The top four panels of the diagram rates each of these factors out of 10, because we all know how to do that, with age increasing across the bottom of the diagram. The larger panel on the left simply adds these four factors together. The larger panel on the right weights the different contributions to emphasize appearance and social rank. Note that 1+1+1+1 = 1½+½+1½+½, so the totals are directly comparable.
That, of course, is not the only way the contributions can be weighted, and one can spend innumerable hours down the rabbit hole of playing around with the weightings to see what happens. You could, for example, decide that the contribution of Beauty is equal to everything else put together, and that social class is half of the rest.
The Problem With Charisma 4: The problem with definitions
Working definitions are all well and good, but the more closely you scrutinize everything that Charisma is used for, the more those temporary structures start to fall apart. The diagram hints at this, too, in that it could easily be decided that it was comparing apples and pomegranates.
But this is just a symptom of a problem identified earlier: that there is no conclusive definition of what Charisma is and what it covers.
Which brings me back to the thoughts sparked during the playtest. It wasn’t that these thoughts were anything particularly ground-breaking or profound; it was more that they suddenly crystallized, having been floating around in the back of my head for quite a while..
The Anatomy Of Charisma
.
Let’s smash the box that’s labeled “Charisma” (or any equivalent) and see all the things that are rattling around inside. Maybe that way a definition can be reached.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 1: Beauty
To start with, let’s dispose of the bleeding obvious, something that is referenced by just about every description of Charisma going, regardless of genre. Charisma represents the physical attractiveness of the character, the extent to which can be objectified by those who are so inclined.
There are still innumerable terms that can be applied to describe a high level of Beauty – “Cute”, “Pretty”, “Gorgeous” – and there will be others that are more poorly defined, such as “eyes that you can melt in”, or “perfect listener”.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 2: Physique
Also implicit in the concept of Beauty can be the concept of physique. Lean, Strong, Lithe, and more. Again, this is an association with youth, health, and vigor, but you can have these qualities without being exceptional in those respects, you just have to work a little harder at it.
A poor physique would naturally detract from other aspects of Charisma, while a healthy or powerful physique would enhance those aspects. So this is definitely part of the story, and one that is often overlooked or subsumed into “Beauty” when it shouldn’t be.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 3: Magnetism
Some people don’t need attractiveness to be attractive (though it helps); they have a natural charisma that not even they can explain, but it draws people to them like moths to a flame. They don’t have to be known to those attracted, so it’s not fame, or wealth, or power, or any of the other ‘aphrodisiac qualities’; it’s best described, therefore, as sheer animal magnetism, but that is a label, not a definition, so bear that limitation in mind.
Most game systems don’t go this far when defining Charisma. This, and everything else that follows, gets left out, and that’s important to note.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 4: Presence
Related to, but not necessarily the same as, the preceding item is a character’s Presence. Characters with this often find themselves propelled into performing or politics (sometimes both). In fantasy campaigns, the Church would be another obvious career path.
Presence makes an individual seem larger than life, someone to listened to. That doesn’t make them more convincing, or anything like that; it simply means that they can hold an audience enthralled.
In extreme cases, the location of an individual with Presence within a room can be sensed without looking, simply by extrapolating subconsciously from the directions that almost everyone else is looking.
Some people can simulate or emulate having this quality through learning to be great orators. Others can take a moderate level of Presence and elevate it.
I have often read that Adolf Hitler had a kind of magnetism, but further explanation of what was meant by that clearly suggests that it was actually a high Presence. Even today, 80+ years later, and not knowing a single word of the language, when watching one of his recorded speeches you get a sense of it; how much more powerful it must have been without those barriers.
Churchill was a great speech-maker and an above-average orator, but his speeches could not conjure the overwhelming passion that Hitler could. The difference in quality of the two (setting aside all historic and political differences) is that Churchill had less Presence. That’s all right, he had plenty of other qualities on his side!
The Anatomy Of Charisma 5: Seductiveness
I view seductiveness as a form of hypnotism in which the target of the seduction becomes more and more enthralled in the prospect of some form of romantic association with the seducer. It’s the art of bending every thought that starts to stray from that singular objective back until all roads lead to dalliance.
It can be learned, but the results of doing so can be mechanical and performed by rote; some people have the quality naturally. They may not be the prettiest people (though adding Beauty to the mix can be a knockout blow), but they do more with whatever they’ve got.
If you’ve never been the subject of a seduction, it induces a kind of mental fog in which everything and anything else other than the potential romantic interlude fades almost into insignificance; you can still see it, but it just doesn’t seem to matter as much as it should. It forms a bubble around the participants that can be as strong as armor plate or as delicate as a film of soap, depending on who is attempting to penetrate it and their relationship with those within.
When the bubble is pierced, the subject shakes their head and tries to clear their thoughts, discovering that considerable time has passed while they were enthralled. If the seduction is permitted to run its course, it must be renewed when next the two encounter each other or it will simply become a wild fling in the mind of the subject, something to remember with pleasure; but if it is renewed, it can bind the target in chains of passion for days, weeks, months, or years. When mutual, it can be the foundation of a love that lasts a lifetime, but there is something just a little cynical in the concept of seduction as an expression of romantic attraction – but that’s a side issue.
So long as players and GM think of seduction as a form of Slow Hypnotism, they can handle roleplaying appropriately fairly easily.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 6: Manners
Etiquette is mostly reserved for highly formal occasions, these days. Society encourages the forthright expression of thoughts over the form of presentation of those thoughts – quite rightly, in my opinion – but I never forget the purpose of formalized modes of expression.
Etiquette is a set of rules designed to grease social and formal interactions, aimed at maintaining the functionality of that interaction regardless of the opinions, feelings, and any ill-will between attendees.
We naturally soak up the basics of etiquette as children. Listen when other people are speaking and don’t interrupt, for example, how to use a knife and fork, and so on. Until about a century ago, perhaps less, there was formal instruction in etiquette within schools, and there have been specialist schools in the subject for even longer and even more recently than that. I don’t recall where and when, but sometime in the last 30 years the headmistress of such a school was interviewed, prior to educating the participants in a reality show of some kind.
Even today, when you meet the Queen Of England (and, presumably, other royal families and monarchs), they have someone who explains the etiquette that is to apply at that meeting – do this, don’t do that, etc.
If Charisma is to incorporate one’s social class in some respect, then high skill in Manners and Etiquette are clear contributors to Charisma because these subjects are inextricably entwined with nobility and the upper class. This is especially true in fantasy games, with societies untainted by modern egalitarianism.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 7: Persuasiveness
Interpersonal skills come in three basic varieties – intellectual, forcible, and passionate. In the latter, you are attempting to directly engage the emotions of the listener in order to get them to do something – vote for you, or whatever. The first is an INT-based form of persuasiveness rooted in facts and logic; the second is about threats and an induced fear of the speaker, and is all about intimidation, and is arguably rooted in some demonstrated capacity to make good on those threats. This includes all argument by authority.
The last one, however, is clearly positively influenced by many other aspects of Charisma, to the point where natural Persuasiveness is itself a quality that would have to contribute to Charisma itself.
Characters who could naturally talk a law-abiding citizen into a criminal act arguably have a high level of Charisma regardless of their appearance. Any extension or other application of that ability must also mean the same thing, and so we end up at the point where Persuasiveness itself must be considered an element of Charisma.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 8: Sincerity
Palpable Sincerity (whether genuine or falsified) is close kin to Persuasiveness. Giving the sense that you sincerely believe in something that you have said makes your argument all the more persuasive if your judgment is respected by the listener, either in broad or in the specific case of the individual.
“I have always found their judgment to be sound” plus a Sincere expression of some belief equals a compelling argument for the person making the statement to accept that belief.
There was a time when Science and Scientists were regarded in this way; in fact, it is only within the current Pandemic and the debate over Climate Change that this has not been the case in recent times. This is because Science, demonstrably, works.
Prior to Science holding that authority, it was held by Religious bodies. The transition occurred when science challenged religious doctrine and science won. It didn’t happen overnight, it was a relatively gradual shift, and one that is still far from resolved in the minds of many.
An air of Sincerity is still respected and persuasive, and that makes Sincerity another element of Charisma.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 9: Leadership
What is a natural leader? Well, aside from having to make right choices at least some of the time in a tactical sense, a natural leader inspires others to follow.
This question has been given a strong airing of late due to the Invasion of Ukraine, and the inspirational performance of President Zelenskyy, compared to other politicians; who you are comparing him with depends on where you are from, to some extent.
It’s arguably a touchy subject, so I’m not going to go too deeply into it (or we will be here all day). Instead, I will simply state the obvious – the appearances, behavior, and actions of President Zelenskyy have been described as expressing a natural gift for Leadership that he didn’t even know he possessed until he needed it. Can anyone reasonably deny that those televised appearances showed this Leadership to be Charismatic?
This demonstrates with a real-wold scenario that Leadership is an inalienable element of Charisma.
Some people can give an order, and there will be a natural inclination to follow that order. Captain America had this quality (in the comics, less so in the movies). Superman (prior to the recent DC-Universe revisions) once had natural leadership in a similar way, and (again in the comics more than the movies) Batman found that he had it too, much to his surprise.
That ability to inspire others is Leadership, and it is clearly a contributor to Charisma.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 10: Authority
I’ve referenced this already, under the heading of Sincerity, but having the weight of Authority on your side is not quite the same thing. An amalgam of demonstrated expertise and recognition of that expertise, or of the bestowing of authority upon an individual based on the perception of expertise, brings Authority to an individual.
Religious men and women are perceived as knowing the mind and will of God more clearly than lay people; if religion matters to you, those individuals speak not only as themselves, but with the authority of their church behind them. I once posited the question of how much more authority must such people have in a Fantasy world in which the gods are Demonstrably real?
But that would simply reinforce Belief, and it is actually Belief that gives Authority its power to sway and direct. And that’s true of the Authority of Scientists, too; if people believe in the power of science, then they will accord Scientists with the authority to make definitive statements about something that is happening, or that is going to happen.
The modern problem is that people started believing in the scientists instead of the scientific process; the first permits absolute pronouncements that then become treated as gospel, the second implicitly accepts that the pronouncements are simply the results of the best model available right now, but that evidence to the contrary causing a reassessment is always possible. To those who imbued the scientist with Authority and not the process, this looks like flip-flopping and betrayal.
Extended for too long, there can also be “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” syndrome, where pronouncements are automatically disbelieved or received cynically – and sometimes, they should be – but most of the time, the scientist is not trying to deceive, they are simply explaining the foundations of the science (particularly the scientific method) badly.
(I think that it says something about my perspective on this that “Scientific Method” is a foundation skill in my superhero campaign. Without it, you can learn and recite facts by rote, but you can’t evaluate evidence that contradicts the ‘authority’ of what you’ve learned, or understand the implications of anything new.)
Be that as it may, it is also possible to show that political authority is exactly the same (except in dictatorships, perhaps). “Leaders” get elected by convincing the public that they have the expertise to run the country / state / whatever, effectively, and can solve the problems that are currently manifesting. That belief results in the people vesting that “Leader” (who may have no Leadership whatsoever) with the Authority to speak on their behalf, to tell them what to do, and to make decisions for them.
All authority springs from Belief. This is an external boost to the Charisma of the Authority that results from the Belief.
But some people naturally seem to be able to speak with a Voice Of Authority, to seem like they are more across any given subject than anyone else (even if they are not). This kind of Authority is a direct attribute of Charisma.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 11: Nobility
Nobility, in this sense, is not directly related to social class, though it is a general expectation that members of the uppermost social class will posses Nobility. It’s more of a sense that the individual has respectable social values that will direct their behavior.
In a one-faith community, the pronouncements of religious doctrine tend to over-ride personal Nobility most of the time when the two do not accord; in any plurality, where an individual must speak to adherents of many faiths, there is more scope for (and demand for) a personal Nobility that suggests that the person will do “the right thing” no matter what religious doctrine may state, and any leader who permits dogma to override what is generally considered “the right thing to do” tends to get pilloried.
Nobility is perhaps more akin to Etiquette – a system for making moral judgments and acting on them. But because the spirit of Nobility automatically makes the individual more attractive as a leader and more persuasive, those who posses it have a higher Charisma than those who do not (even if they are, in all other respects, equal).
The Anatomy Of Charisma 12: Pivot of Inspiration
The ability to inspire others is closely related to several of the attributes described already. Some people can take the seemingly impossible and make it seem possible, inspiring others to go beyond the limits that they thought restricted them. Such people tend to be social pivots, around whom events swirl, drifting this way and that, rudderless.
There can be a lot of debate about why people respond to Pivots Of Inspiration the way that they do. Some of the arguments and analyses can be fairly convoluted, to say the least. I don’t think any of that matters, in this context; instead, it suffices to say that some people can inspire others to attempt things that they thought impossible. When those attempts fail, we rarely hear about it; when they succeed, they become the stuff of legend.
The ability to inspire others, to make events move in a particular direction, is clearly an often under-appreciated aspect of Charisma.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 13: Shared Confidence
This isn’t about the ability to seem confident yourself, we’ve already covered that; this is the ability to make others feel confident, which is clearly related to the Inspiration attribute discussed above.
This is where Winston Churchill shined, during the second world war, and especially the Blitz and the Battle Of Britain. It’s also an area where President Zelenskyy scorers highly, which has led to many comparisons between the two Leaders.
There is a dark side to this aspect of Charisma – it is all too easy for a Charismatic person to inspire Confidence in others, who then inspire greater Confidence in the original source, creating a self-amplifying feedback loop that convinces people that it will all work out the way they expect in the end, no matter how unrealistic those expectations have become.
This is where the Charisma of cult leaders comes into the picture, because the ability to inspire confidence is also the ability to persuade others to drink the Kool-Aid, or to otherwise engage in fanatical behavior.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 14: Repository of Trust
Getting others to trust you is another item that has been touched on already. In this case, however, I’m not talking about using expertise or the opinions of others to persuade people to grant that trust; I’m talking about something more fundamental. Some people are naturally convincing; successful con men rank high in this regard, for example. Others are naturally unconvincing – they could tell you water was wet, and you would want to check for yourself the next time it rained.
Being able to inspire trust in others is also clearly related to the last two attributes of Charisma, further cementing all three in place.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 15: Self-confidence
Closely connected to the ability to inspire confidence is others is the power of being confident in yourself, regardless of the obstacles to be overcome. In cases where events fail to follow the script, this self-confidence is usually reclassified as a form of personal delusion; but when they do work out, against all odds, they imbue an individual with a Charismatic attraction that cannot be denied.
It is my contention that this charisma is a mere amplification of a quality that already exists, that derives directly from an individual’s self-confidence. If you are confident in yourself, that on it’s own enhances your charismatic attraction to others through the power of Sincerity.
The Anatomy Of Charisma 16: Self-control
Finally, there is something charismatic about someone who is always calm and measured even when everything around them is going to hell in a hand-basket. Where this self-control comes from is unimportant; what matters is that the self-control that results is itself a contributing element to a high charisma score.
Charisma as a weapon
It can often be helpful to think of Charisma as a weapon that operates in the domain of interpersonal relations. It can be even more helpful to use this concept as the foundation for a definition of Charisma, which is the fundamental problem at hand in this article.
“Charisma is the stat that describes how good you are at influencing people to change their minds and do what you want them to do instead of what they want to do.”
That’s not a bad working definition.
Charisma as a defense
The question then arises, what is the defense against such attacks in the interpersonal space.
A lot of my games have equated Wisdom with Willpower – so much so that I have, on a number of occasions, re-branded the Wisdom stat accordingly. But I now think that I was wrong, and that Charisma is a better expression of a characters determination – because that, too, can be charismatic.
And that makes sense of all sorts of other attributes that are often derived or implied by Charisma, like Bravery.
So that general working definition needs one final amendment – “Charisma is the stat that describes how good you are at influencing people to do what you want them to do instead of what they want to do, and how effectively you can resist being influenced by the Charisma of others attempting to change your mind, and your drive and determination in general.”
Roll- vs Role-playing
It’s very easy for interpersonal skill use to devolve into Roll-playing, where one or both sides simply roll dice to determine an outcome. This is largely because that is less-threatening to player agency; combat damage is an accepted aspect of the game that can override player’s choices and wishes.
If an enemy manages to snare you in a lariat or net, players accept that their choices of action have been constrained by the enemy. There are all sorts of other examples, too. Roll-playing places interpersonal skill use by someone else – PC or NPC into the same context, rendering it acceptable.
This solves some of the problems associated with such skill use, but at the cost of role-playing, which is what the game is supposed to be all about. However, this is a problem that is relatively easy to solve; the GM simply has to allow a bonus for those who roleplay their character’s attempts to invoke the interpersonal skill.
GM: “You like the looks of that goblet, eh? That will be 15 sestari, my friend. A bargain, I assure you.”
Player: “Fifteen? I wish to buy something to drink out of, not add a new wing to your mansion! I will pay three.”
GM: “You wound me, noble sir. Look at the exquisite workmanship, the beauty of the firegems. Surely one would not expect to purchase such a work of art for less than ten sestari!”
Player: “It’s pretty enough, but hardly a national treasure or relic of a past age. Five.”
GM: “It has been a hard time for me, lately. To feed my family, I regret that I have to dispose of many objects at lower prices than they deserve. Let us compromise and agree upon…” Make a bargaining roll at +2. If you win, his offer will be Six, if you lose, his offer will be eight. Or you can accept an offer of 7 without rolling.
Player: “Seven sounds pretty fair. I’ll accept that offer, and throw in a half-sestari for goodwill toward his family – if he really has one.”
This exchange shows how Roleplaying can be used to supplement Roll-playing, even to the point where there is an option not to roll at all. If (as sometimes happens), on the other hand, the player had ignored the lead offered by the GM to start roleplaying:
GM: “You like the looks of that goblet, eh? That will be 15 sestari, my friend. A bargain, I assure you.”
Player: “I offer him three, and made my bargaining roll by six.”
GM: “Okay, I’m going to drop your margin of success to four for not even attempting to roleplay. [Rolls] He beats his bargaining skill by five, which is one more than your total. So he wins but doesn’t get it all his own way; you end up paying 12, and are convinced that this is 2 more than it’s actual worth to most people.”
Carrot and stick. Works a lot better than either of those choices on their own.
Notice, too, in the first example, that the GM responded to a reasonable attempt at roleplaying on the part of the player by making the seller’s counter-offer less than he would otherwise have done if the value was actually 10. By roleplaying a brief exchange (regardless of how well or how badly), the GM let the player have a win and buy the item at a bargain price.
In the second version, the player’s choice to go straight to die rolls sped things up, but took some of the fun out; and cost the player the opportunity to go for a bargain.
The Problem With Charisma 5: The dump-stat
And so we come to the ultimate problem, the one that I hinted at during the introduction to the article – when Charisma is considered just a reflection of attractiveness, it’s easy to make it a dump stat, a place to park a low stat score.
If you define a high charisma as being exceptional in one of the defining attributes, and moderate in most of the rest, it provides a realistic characterization. You can even permit exceptionally good results in a second attribute, or a third, for every aspect of Charisma in which the character is deficient. This makes Charisma a powerful tool for character definition.
But if you point out that a low CHAR score means being deficient in most or all of these applications, players will suddenly be a lot more hesitant to make it a dump stat.
How many attributes should be substandard for a given score? That’s up to you. There are many possibilities, including the potential for one of them to be ‘abysmal’ in exchange for one being ‘average’. Or two being abysmal for “above average”.
As a general rule of thumb, though, I would define a standard ‘mix’ that derives from each possible score – that’s not too much work – and a set of equivalences that let one be raised at the expense of another.
“And what are you good at, you silver-tongued devil?” becomes a perfectly valid answer to the problem of making Charisma as important as all the other stats. Do this, or something like it, and it will never be an automatic first choice for a dump stat again.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Comments Off on Charisma: A Lovely Little Dump Stat?