On Balancing Logic And Charisma

Original Lecture: On balancing logic and charisma

I should note that I will be keeping the identity of the player requesting the lecture anonymous, but that they are a player I consider to be more on the logical side rather than the charisma side. Now with that in mind, their basic request was for me to analyze them, and offer some feedback. My basic take on things was essentially this--

Charisma and logic aren't black-and-white have-one-don't-have-other. (Though...they [i]can[/i] be. As an example, since Nero just posted in the thread, I can basically say that he has essentially no charisma but is a deadly-logical player.) Often, players have some (or even a lot) of both. Sometimes, to their detriment. Other times, their benefit. And one aspect of the request was in helping to make sure that having both would get the best of both worlds rather than the worst. Basically, though, how these two aspects manifest differs from player to player. Some have charisma that makes them look obvtown, but not convincing. Others, charisma that makes them convincing but places them dangerously close to a lynch. You can have both or neither. But generally, a player who is charisma-based has both (yet is more lacking in logic), and a logical player that's charismatic will have one yet not the other, because their charisma is essentially subservient to the more dominant logical side. Of course, this isn't an absolute, but I think it does give a general feeling for players. Good at doing analysis and picking up on the right things = both of logic. Good at lynching others and not getting lynched = both of charisma.

Players often have 2-3 specialties.

And this does tie heavily into my recentish MD thread on player roles, but basically, players of types do have tendencies. Logical players tend to be more prone to walling, and charismatic players typically have a knack for spamposting. Not an absolute rule, but a general trend I've observed. Even though charismatic players know how to wall, often, their posts are much shorter when using charisma. (The exception being convincing cases, which often go into detail--you can wall and still be followed, just so long as the wall is something that can be followed. :P) Vice-versa, too; I've noticed that logical players typically have longer (but slightly less frequent) posting.

...But they don't fit into these molds for the entire game, at least, not necessarily. In this case, if you consider a charismatic player to be a 'leader' and a logical player to be an 'analyzer', then it should be noted that the two players can often end up in different roles. A charismatic player wallposting is generally scumhunting, analyzing using logic. A logical player interacting directly with players in real-time is often not doing so to get a better read, but to try and bridge a gap between them and the player they're interacting with. (Again, these are generalities.) It's all circumstantial.

And this is the key to recognizing how players obtain the best of both worlds. If you're familiar with operations management, there's basically 'competitive priorities' and a 'triangle', where you can't have all at the same time. Basically the same thing. You can't simultaneously fill every role in the game that needs to be filled. You can't both be extremely convincing and extremely analytical at exactly the same point in time. (Even though you can have both, close together.)

So the people who have the best of both worlds are more accurately described as, well, the players who have the best of one world, and the ability to swiftly adapt to having the best of the other world. And when I think about games, that makes a lot of sense to me. That's what happens. They may have one, two, maybe three traits, but not all at once. They switch, as circumstances dictate it, for them to fill a different role.

• Disclaimer: It should be noted, however, that my logic, I'm not necessarily referring to logic as traditionally defined. I refer to it in the sense of my lecture on the subject. Logic falls apart easily. Reasoning is much, much harder to master and manipulate. So nowadays, when I refer to logical-players, I'm mostly actually referring to reason, to analytical roles, rather than true logic.

My overall recommendation for the player that made the request is to not actively force to change anything about them, especially if the change isn't really them. It applied to them, but it also applies to basically everyone. I recommend players pay attention to circumstances, and to read the playerstates, to tell if they need to adapt styles and change roles. And that? That's the key to nailing it, to have the best of both worlds, the logic and the charisma in one neat package.