Charisma: Can we learn it?

[PK]

Originally Posted by knarf

I don't think Charisma can be learned. You can, however, learn social skills.

I, personally, have notable Charisma (I'm generally likable), but no real social skills (I'm not often able to provoke specific reactions or responses in other people).

"I have X but not Y" does not equate to "X cannot be learned".

People can learn to be more generally likable and impressive, just like they can train up their intelligence or their strength. A large part of it is "buying off" some of the hundreds of 0-point Odious Personal Habits (the ones too minor to even call quirks, but that make others think of you in a negative way) that everyone has. Most people don't want to admit that they aren't as likable as they could be, however, and aren't willing to overhaul their personality for the sake of improved reactions.

[Guver]

Originally Posted by Agramer

If you implement 1 cp improvement /session ... do not add other restrictions to PCs.

1/session is enough to control inflation,people may want some other skills higher than they currently are and youll get wider dispension of points than if you limit it to "used skills only" and besides it can be "played" which could lead to unnecessary disputes.

Edit: another way around it is 1 level of Adv,skill..whatever /session limit .Though that can get out of control if PCs are just spiking instead cooperating realistically.

I do not allow more than 1 level of anythign per session. That is another restriction I use.

The problem here is that if do not add the restriction of "do not upgrade skills not used or trained in the session" the players can start upgrading things that they never use. That is not realistic at all. So I see one as being a complement to the other.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

People can learn to be more generally likable and impressive, just like they can train up their intelligence or their strength. A large part of it is "buying off" some of the hundreds of 0-point Odious Personal Habits (the ones too minor to even call quirks, but that make others think of you in a negative way) that everyone has. Most people don't want to admit that they aren't as likable as they could be, however, and aren't willing to overhaul their personality for the sake of improved reactions.

Avoid focusing much on the name too. What GURPS implements as a reaction table and Charisma another game might well have had a "Generic Reaction Skill" for. Flip the table upside down and use the same standard as other influence skills (a Good reaction) and you should be able to convince yourself that Reaction is a skill that defaults to a flat 8, costs 5 points per level to improve, and gives you superior results on a margin of success of 3 (Very Good) or 6 (Excellent). By GURPS standards that's not all that far away from being an ordinary skill, and obviously would be one you'd expect to be able to buy up. You should also see given that crummy default why few GMs actually use the reaction table for casual reactions, and why GURPS needs a lot of reaction bonus advantages and specialized influence skills in the first place, but that's a separate issue.

Of course I can argue the other side too. Charisma adds to a lot of other stuff as well, so perhaps it's more a Talent and the Reaction skill itself is missing, so the relevant rules are obviously those for Talents, which you can't necessarily buy up and are limited to 4 levels.

Which of those you prefer is in some ways a matter of taste. I personally lean more toward the Talent interpretation, but do allow Talents to be bought up, so you could buy it up to Charisma +4, but it should cost more (it applies to more than 6 skills, even if most of them only a fraction of the time when you are using them as Influence skills) and can't be raised open endedly.

[jason taylor]

Isn't that what a lot of military commanders and politicians do? Simply create an image that roughly corresponds to their personal taste in the hope that it will inspire the ignorant proles? Or memorize tricks and grand gestures done in the past and copy them in a manner that will impress? Didn't Churchill use to stand in front of a mirror practicing a speeches?

[pawsplay]

I think the quintessential example would be Adolf Hitler, who was unprepossessing youth, an unpopular corporal, a fiery but respected political speaker, a formidable party leader, and finally, an enthralling Chancellor. Somewhere along the way he picked up a level or two of Charisma and Smooth Operator 3; he certainly didn't have them as a young man.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I think the quintessential example would be Adolf Hitler, who was unprepossessing youth, an unpopular corporal, a fiery but respected political speaker, a formidable party leader, and finally, an enthralling Chancellor. Somewhere along the way he picked up a level or two of Charisma and Smooth Operator 3; he certainly didn't have them as a young man.

I broadly agree.

Though he was not exactly 'unpopular' as a corporal. More that he was not seen as a person that would respond in kind to friendly overtures. He was certainly respected.

The job he had was exceptionally dangerous and he volunteered for extra danger at almost any opportunity. Evil, perhaps, but respected and heroic, in that war.

[Figleaf23]

I'd allow a character to develop one level of Charisma after character creation. I'm dubious about Ambidexterity, however. Left handed people used to be trained to do things with their right hand in school, but I don't think this ever truly made them right handed. Handedness does not seem really to be a learned trait.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I'd allow a character to develop one level of Charisma after character creation. I'm dubious about Ambidexterity, however. Left handed people used to be trained to do things with their right hand in school, but I don't think this ever truly made them right handed. Handedness does not seem really to be a learned trait.

I strongly disagree and can point to dozens of people to dispute this fact.

Just from sports, I know that training to use both feet or hands absolutely does work. It takes more time and effort than not doing it, of course, but it can be done.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I strongly disagree and can point to dozens of people to dispute this fact.

Just from sports, I know that training to use both feet or hands absolutely does work. It takes more time and effort than not doing it, of course, but it can be done.

Well ...

I'm talking about hands, not feet, and I'm talking about general handedness, not task-training. I'd have to see some pretty convincing evidence of task-training ever producing a generalized bi-handedness before I believed it.

I am partially ambidextrous. For those tasks that I can do either way, it feels equally easy to do. For those tasks that I'm not ambidextrous on, I have a hard time fathoming how it could ever be made to feel right doing it backwards.

[knarf]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

"I have X but not Y" does not equate to "X cannot be learned".

People can learn to be more generally likable and impressive, just like they can train up their intelligence or their strength. A large part of it is "buying off" some of the hundreds of 0-point Odious Personal Habits (the ones too minor to even call quirks, but that make others think of you in a negative way) that everyone has. Most people don't want to admit that they aren't as likable as they could be, however, and aren't willing to overhaul their personality for the sake of improved reactions.

Actually, based on my experience watching people who have low/no Charisma and high social skills, they tend to either deflect attention away from their OPHs or "own" them in such a way that you tend to respect them for it.