Magic - How is it used in Yliakum?

[Prolix]

In other words, if the player does not have the skills to roleplay their high charisma stat, you will find a way to ignore it, and only a person with true player charisma will be taken heed of by you, even if they have low charisma stat ingame.

Thank you for proving my point.

No you misunderstand me. I am saying that Charisma is not a magic bullet. I am also saying it is a two edged sword that can cut either way. If someone who has a maximized charisma tells you to kill your lover it is exceedingly unlikely that you will do so unless you already want to do it whether you realize it or not. I am suggesting that if someone has to tell you that their charisma is maxed the best they can hope for is that you try a little harder to justify for yourself (the player ... not the character) complying with their wishes. I, the player, may be vastly impressed by your awesome spiel but if what you require is directly opposed to my characters essence, I, the player, will have to dig deep into my characters background to see if there is any excuse to go along even a little. If not I may just have to attack you for being a fair seeming abomination.

By the way Charisma is more than just a way of speaking and text is far more likely to be misinterpreted than spoken word which more likely to be misunderstood than without a visual component. You may well think your speech is being persuasive but I may think you are just insulting my heritage.  You seem to imply that charisma is some monolithic thing that cannot be considered in context. You also seem to imply that only people fluent in English can be charismatic in the game.

 Certainly let us have one level of game mechanics -- just as soon as an npc is as versatile as I am. When the ai is as sophisticated as the people it attempts to model then, maybe it will be possible.

You expect the impossible and think it is a reasonable position.

[Under the moon]

Removing charisma as a stat from the game is impossible? Charisma is some monolithical thing? I am done here, as you clearly have not been reading what I have written.

[eldoth_terevan]

Prolix, you are correct, you have seen hundreds of maxed characters over the years. I did however treat things a little differently in my table top campaigns. I did not exclude the possibility of maxing stats, but I felt back then that it was rather unrealistic and I would make it very difficult to do so. This attitude came from playing with some other kids who would show up with uber-characters with tons of magic items, et cetera. My immediate group of 2-3 friends was very focused on roleplaying the characters as they were rolled, and enjoyed playing this way. The rest, I killed off often. What can I say...

[Duraza]

I have to take issue with the concept of charming words. If that were to be implemented what you would have is endless guilds with their lists of these charming words and newbies would be making Amidson dance the Virginia Reel just for laughs. How would that improve things?

How many leet people do you know who are going to actually try endless amounts of pharses in a role playing tone in order to unlock secrets? On the other hand how many leet people do you know who would have no problem maxing charisma just so they have a bigger effect on NPC's? There is a BIG difference. Besides, what are you ultimately doing? Taking the easy way out. Deciding that you rather promote more game mechanics than rp, which may I remind you is what planeshift is supposed to be about, role playing. Game mechanics serve the purpose to help PROMOTE roleplay, regardless of the reason. The leet who does waste their time will still need to roleplay to get what they want, a win for us not them.

By the way where is the role play skill involved in talking to npcs anyway? Unless you are ready to wait however many years it will take to develop their ai that should not be much of a consideration. I suspect they will always be extremely limited in the range of responses compared to other players so perhaps you are expecting too much from the game. The npcs are there to expose the settings and to allow you to advance your character. I do not see how you can expect more. Enlighten me. Would it make you feel better if you eventually discovered in context that everything in the game except the other people connected to the server were programmed illusions? It might help you cope if you assume that is true.

I know that it is unlikely for NPC's to ever be able to respond to every situation. It is not immpossible for one to make a few "creative pharses" that could be figured out by actually talking to the NPC. Posssibly after having a chat with the NPC he/she may tell you a bit about themself. Maybe he is a tired guard and you suddenly ask if he would care for a drink. You being the rper may suddenly unlock a quest because of your willingness to rp, not because you sat around and typed pharses over and over till he responded.

When things like charisma, intelligence and so on don't base on stats and rather base on the ability of the player to talk and what he knows, then there is not much of a reason to actually play a RPG.

Yes, especially MMORPGs are also virtual realities for many people, but for me the question is:
Will PS be more of a RPG (with stats like charisma and intelligence) or a virtual reality (with an enourmous AI and a cyber suit to interact with the game, a holo deck :-P )

The About section on planeshift.it says:

PlaneShift is a Role Playing Game immersed into a 3D virtual fantasy world which is FULLY FREE to play.

Which wouldn't be against a virtual reality point, but in my opinion: you can't excell in both at the same time. It is either not realistic enough or not RP-like enough. You just can't be yourself (in another world) AND play a different role at the same time.

How do you expect to play a role you can't comprehend? The idea of playing a character smarter than you are is stupid within itself (no offense meant there). We are role playing in a virtual reality, this is what planeshift is. It is simply a reality different from our own. Doesn't mean that I should suddenly bow down to the guy with 200 intellegence even though he doesn't know 2+2=4.

The reason that I appear to support the game mechanics argument is simply because it gives a way to make the basic system fair to all players. The current RPs in the system are decided on a subjective basis.

Answer yourself this question, is life at all fair? No. Rp should be the same, unfair. Just because you try doesn't mean you are ever going to win. For the sake of realism this is true. It is also the only way that no one can be the best. "Fair" is another thing that leads to hack and slash (yes I brought it up again). In hack and slash since mechanics are "fair" to everyone anyone can level themselves to death and become an uber master of everything. In a role playing game do you think it's realistic that everyone can do everything? Do you think its fair that I try to just be a dark mage yet I have to deal with uber warriors who've mastered all the magics? You can't be "fair" and be realistic because the real world is simply not fair.

I completely agree with Duraza regarding that the character would go an max their charisma. This is the problem, one should not be able to max any stat until a significant amount of time has been spent playing the game.

I also don't think you should be able to max anything around Hydlaa. The trainers that finally max a stat should be on the 8th level or something. It is far too easy now, I totally agree with that.

Thats not really going to solve anything. All it means is a longer time to level which just leads to more hacking and slashing. More work to level means more leveling, possible bots, etc. Not going to fix anything and I still see no way this helps role play.

If someone who has a maximized charisma tells you to kill your lover it is exceedingly unlikely that you will do so unless you already want to do it whether you realize it or not. I am suggesting that if someone has to tell you that their charisma is maxed the best they can hope for is that you try a little harder to justify for yourself (the player ... not the character) complying with their wishes. I, the player, may be vastly impressed by your awesome spiel but if what you require is directly opposed to my characters essence, I, the player, will have to dig deep into my characters background to see if there is any excuse to go along even a little. If not I may just have to attack you for being a fair seeming abomination.

Sorry but what happened to all that game mechanics supporting you were talking about before? From the sound of this your basically saying whats the point of Charisma? If you are suddenly leaving the final choice ultimately to my character than why have the stat that doesn't truely matter? This is what we've been arguing the whole time and whether you want to admit it or not it sounds like you agree with it. What is the point of any mechanic that just tries to replace rp? What is the point of a mechanic that according to you we can overide with rp? Why not just rp and save the time of caring?

You expect the impossible and think it is a reasonable position.

Actually I think I expect what is already being done. People already live without charisma and intellegence, rping what they want how they want it. You want to add this whole system using the two stats that really aren't needed in the first place. What I want already exists. What you want is going agaisnt grandpa's old way of doing things and while sometimes new is attractive that shiny new toy is usually a disappointment. I think I'll stick to my old dusty paddleball as it has proved loyal time and time again 

[Prolix]

Sigh. Where to begin. I guess I  will start the next post down on this compose page.

As I said before the game mechanics are there to interact with the game. No game mechanics <<==>> no game.
You want to remove the game mechanics remove the npcs, you can't roleplay with them anyway. Then you will not need any stats at all. You will need some mechanics of course if you want figures and movement and whatnot but you might as well import them from doom it will save a lot of work. You want magic and stuff? well maybe Heretic(?) is available. Guess there won't be any training because there are no npc's to teach you might be able to have player training but where will the trainers learn their trades?

What is impossible is to have one system for both player and game use. How would you feel if the next time I meet you anything you say but a small subset of predetermined phrases get you the response "you sound like a mad mud-dobber, go away before I get mad." Surely the npcs are not likely to do more than that anytime soon so why should the players? One system after all. The point is the game mechanics are always going to be more limited than player inventiveness. Adding the character stats that you so hate is a building block to the kind of functionality you seem to want. Right now there is just the first riser set and the first runner is ready to be nailed to it.

Think about this for a second, I said it would take godlike levels of charisma to compel someone to do something they really do not want to do. the character stats are quite likely to be unsigned integer data types that would mean the maximum possible stat value of 65535 which would be top of the godlike range what is your measley 300 compared to that? They might be unsigned char but that would limit them to 255. How much charisma would a person need to have in real life to convince you to cut off one of your healthy fingers? How badly would you have to want whatever they were offering? You are telling me I have to do your characters bidding because its charisma is trained as high as it currently can? Give me a break. I might if it isn't too outlandish and I might look for a reason even if it is outlandish if the idea amuses me personally and I want to play along but if it is really out of character I probably will not go along with it.

As for intelligence it does not guarantee sensible behaviour or even success. All it really indicates is the ability to learn but there can be other aspects of the persons makeup such as dyslexia or physical constraints such as myopia that can be hindrances.

I think there will be a lot of people that will join a guild just to learn what the ardent puzzle solvers have already discovered, then they will quit or lurk and set up another guild possibly with another character and share their newfound knowledge with others of their kind. Isn't that a common complaint around here? Why would they learn something for themselves when others have it already?

Ok next post ... what is it... Ahh yes. Back in the day (little beige World of Greyhawk books or AD&D 1st Edition, kind of hazy now when paladins became available) you only got to play a paladin if your sixth roll of three six-siders in front of the DM was 18 and the previous five were such that met the bare minimums for the class. If you came late into the campaign you still started off with nothing but by the book at first level unless the DM was feeling generous or ran Monty Haul dungeons. Later on you still generally needed to roll up a character at your first session but often you you were slid in several levels back of the lowest regular character.

Next. UTM, already dealt with the impossible referent, monolithic meant that max character charisma was unstoppable, must-be-obeyed as seemingly suggested previously in the thread. That was also dealt with in the data type paragraph.

That about covers it to my last post, unless I missed something that was important to someone?

Hey Xillix, feel free to make your deferred comments anytime now, I am running out of steam. I promise to take them as personal opinion and not game canon, can't speak for anyone else though

[Garile]

Well this thread has gone quite the different way here. *smiles* A good different way though.

Problem with stats is that stats are most succesfull when there are limits.

Limits like being a certain class or a certain amount of points you can distribute. These limits make sure you have strengths perhaps but definately also weaknesses If you want the uber warrior you will have to accept you will be as stupid as the back end of a door and will be tricked easily and will not be able to use advanced tactics but will only know enough when and not to run at the enemy becuase his teammate told him. (extreme example but you get the picture)

Stats are there not only to get weaknesses that way, but also to limit what people can roleplay. You want to be the ulber hero with the intelligence of da Vinci and the strength of Hercules? In Planeshift this seems to be possible. Tht is one of the reasons why mechanics are oten frowned upon by roleplayers. becuase the gamemechanics at the moment don't force you to make decicions in how you develop your character.

"Everything should be possible" in this case simply means everyone simply levels everything. And that is really the most dissapointing part of Planeshift becuase instead of creating different persons it really makes everyone the same. The only difference is on what part of the road we are and how fast we travel it. All the sideroads are mostly ignored.

As for Moons suggestions that it is ipossible to RP max strength I have no idea what he is talking about. With intelligence and Will it obvious is hard to look what a rak exactly means, but with strength we clearly know what it means to be that strong. We know what an anvil weighs and we know how much strength it takes to carry it.

I also don't think looking at the anvil I mentioned beore the max in strength atm is an unbelievable amount of strength leadin to godly acts. I mean with max strength I believe you can't even carry two of those anvils so why exactly is it impossible to roleplay it believable? Or do you mean what you expect the devs to eventually make strengths max?

Still strength really seems to be rather obvious with an inventory you can easely see how much someone can carry. That only means you have to gues aproxamately how much effort it would cost to do the thing you want to RP compare and you'll have a pretty good idea. Good enough for a believable Rp in my eyes atleast.

[Under the moon]

Edit @ Garile: I never said it is impossible to RP max STR stat. I said that was possible.

@Prolix
The faction system will deal with how NPCs react to you. That makes charisma a redundant system that is not needed.

As for the rest, nothing you have written addresses that fact that a player is not forced to play to others' or their own charisma or intelligence stats. Your examples are inane, extreme, and prove nothing. You do not address the character that has low charisma stat because of the lameness of Creation, yet the player can convince a tavern full of people to do something they would normally not. You do not address the character with an average charisma, yet the annoying player is avoided by people who would normally go along with what he is suggesting. Even your 'max' example is lame and full of "Well maybe" and "what if" so that you can avoid using the charisma stat if you don't want to.

"Well maybe my character does not like your smile, then I can ignore your high CHA stat, and decide not to go to the tavern with you, even though I was about to go there anyways."

"What if I am drunk, so the character seems to have more charisma than their stats say they do? Then your low CHA character can easily convince me to go to the arena."

You are modifying your own character's 'reality' to adapt to your abnormal reaction to other character's so-called charisma stat. Some would call that godmoding.

You also resort to the age old (and very lame) argument that if someone wants one stat removed, you might as well take them ALL out. That is the childish 'all or none' argument, and does not float any kind of boat.

So, your character has a high charisma stat. What exactly is that? Is he dark and imposing? Is he the intelligent, powerful speaker? Is he jovial and endearing? Is he the wisecracking funny guy? Is he suave and charming?Is he crazy and fun (you know him as the guy who can convince anyone to do crazy things just for fun)? Is he huge and intimidating? Is he solemn and serious? Is he the wormy guy with the magic tongue? Is he a combination of the above? CHA is not useful as it is intended, as it does not even define what it is. Zak would react positively to the 'dark and imposing' charisma, but would gut the 'jovial and endearing'. Jayose would find the 'wisecracking funny guy' to be a mud-dobber, while would find himself drawn to the 'intelligent, powerful speaker'.

Charisma is a terrible catchall, as it refers to many completely different aspects of a personality, and what can make one person seem charismatic to another.

Back to magic.

Is the Suave and Charming guy going to be able to cast 'charisma' based spells in the same way the Dark and Imposing guy will, if they have the same 'charisma level'. What of the Huge and Intimidating? Is he a magical match for the Wormy Guy with the magic tongue? Which of all the above is going to be able to magically charm a raging trepor the best?

If charisma is how others perceive your character, is it others that govern how powerful your spell is? If you start acting like an uncharismatic, jerk, is that going to reduce your CHA-based magical powers? How exactly does CHA affect magic in the first place? Does your charm (only in the case of a charming person) draw more mana to you? How about the imposingly dark and charismatic guy or Crazy and Fun guy?? What effect do those have on making his spells more powerful?

When you can answer all of the above with one satisfactory, all-encompassing answer, I will bow my head and admit you are right.

[Duraza]

As I said before the game mechanics are there to interact with the game. No game mechanics <<==>> no game.

Just one comment to assert something that has already been said. No one is trying to remove mechanics from the game. Game mechanics, as I've said time and time again, are very helpful in the promotion of rp. I simply come here trying to remove a SINGLE mechanic that I do not feel serves this purpose. Did I ever say we should ditch mechanics completely? No, I said they help. Did I say certain mechanics don't need a little work done? No, and I'd expect so because planeshift is still beta. All I ever said is that I feel one mechanic to not be serving any purpose and I fail to see any purpose for it in the future that is worth the time of implementing. Thats all now, I'm done 

[Sevis]

I'm sorry that I don't understand the mechanics too well, never having used magic in PS myself, but wouldn't it be possible to make the process of learning magic such that only a true bookworm would learn it? For example, all glyphs would require far more careful work on them for every individual spell. It would need more work, but all wizards would be more of the Merlin/Gandalf/Saruman type.

As for charisma, I'd say there's simply no need to call it that way, "Magical Charm" could be used as a name instead, so nobody has any problems...

[Prolix]

@Prolix
 You do not address the character that has low charisma stat because of the lameness of Creation, yet the player can convince a tavern full of people to do something they would normally not.

Poor role play, pure and simple, on the part of the person doing the convincing. The others cannot be assumed to know this person has low charisma but if they do then it is poor role play on their part too unless they have some other motivation for going along. It could also be poor role play on their part if the low stat character was properly unconvincing and they went along with it anyway. That might have to do with OOC info such as the player behind the character. Many variables must be considered in evaluating what ifs and often too many are missing.

You do not address the character with an average charisma, yet the annoying player is avoided by people who would normally go along with what he is suggesting.

Nothing says you have to like someone. It may be that this person is moody and has bouts of erratic behavior mixed with periods of extreme likability. Some people might prefer his chaotic moments others prefer his reasonable ones.

Even your 'max' example is lame and full of "Well maybe" and "what if" so that you can avoid using the charisma stat if you don't want to.

"Well maybe my character does not like your smile, then I can ignore your high CHA stat, and decide not to go to the tavern with you, even though I was about to go there anyways."

"What if I am drunk, so the character seems to have more charisma than their stats say they do? Then your low CHA character can easily convince me to go to the arena."

Your examples are rather self-serving and miss the meaning I was trying to convey. Charisma in RPGs traditionally gave an indication as to your leadership abilities. If you had a high charisma people would be more likely to follow your lead. Those who shared your value system were most likely and those who held opposite views were the least likely. Indeed those against you were more likely to move against you personally if it looked like you were gaining followers. Another thing it is used for is to limit how many npc followers you could get. If you have low charisma you will have difficulty hiring the mule driver for the money run through the dangerous territory. It will likely cost a lot more. Certainly if you are in good with a faction you might get assigned that muleskinner but if the faction leader does not like you the peon you get assigned will probably run off at the first sign of trouble. The quality of the favors you can call in is affected by your charisma. Of course I am talking about run of the mill favors not ones to help you save the world -- everyone is counting on you.

You are modifying your own character's 'reality' to adapt to your abnormal reaction to other character's so-called charisma stat. Some would call that godmoding.

It appears that you think that charisma is some kind of irresistible force that compels people to do what you want them to do. For that kind of effect you are godmodding. Not me. I do not care how cute and cuddly you are, if I hate cute and cuddly I am going to whack you with a stick rather than tickle your belly.

You also resort to the age old (and very lame) argument that if someone wants one stat removed, you might as well take them ALL out. That is the childish 'all or none' argument, and does not float any kind of boat.

Granted some of my rhetoric is uninspired, I believe that of both sides of this debate.

So, your character has a high charisma stat. What exactly is that? Is he dark and imposing? Is he the intelligent, powerful speaker? Is he jovial and endearing? Is he the wisecracking funny guy? Is he suave and charming?Is he crazy and fun (you know him as the guy who can convince anyone to do crazy things just for fun)? Is he huge and intimidating? Is he solemn and serious? Is he the wormy guy with the magic tongue? Is he a combination of the above? CHA is not useful as it is intended, as it does not even define what it is. Zak would react positively to the 'dark and imposing' charisma, but would gut the 'jovial and endearing'. Jayose would find the 'wisecracking funny guy' to be a mud-dobber, while would find himself drawn to the 'intelligent, powerful speaker'.

Any of the above. They had a saying way back when "Different strokes for different folks." Why should everyone react the same way to any given personality type? How would that be good role play? If your character is a snobbish prig he will likely be horrified by the bawdy tavern wench with the high charisma and the thing that will horrify him the most is the attraction he feels to someone who behaves in a manner that is disgusting to him.

Contradictions of personality are good role play, one sided cutouts are not.

Charisma is a terrible catchall, as it refers to many completely different aspects of a personality, and what can make one person seem charismatic to another.

True it is kind of nebulous but so what? That does not bother me. Life is full of abstract things, people manage to get by all the same.

Back to magic.

Is the Suave and Charming guy going to be able to cast 'charisma' based spells in the same way the Dark and Imposing guy will, if they have the same 'charisma level'. What of the Huge and Intimidating? Is he a magical match for the Wormy Guy with the magic tongue? Which of all the above is going to be able to magically charm a raging trepor the best?

I would assume that the spells one finds easy to learn and prefer to cast would be those which suit the casters personality, however that is not likely to be reflected in the game mechanics. The suave and charming guy is likely to learn and prefer charm spells as he just wants to get his way with no hard feelings. The dark and imposing guy would prefer domination spells as he wants what he wants and doesn't give a fig for what his victim thinks. All this assumes enough spell variety to make a difference. Huge and Wormy question depends on too many unconsidered factors to answer. As for the trepor the quick answer would be the one with the highest animal handling skill or the most appropriate glyph/spell combination and otherwise unanswerable.

If charisma is how others perceive your character, is it others that govern how powerful your spell is? If you start acting like an uncharismatic, jerk, is that going to reduce your CHA-based magical powers? How exactly does CHA affect magic in the first place? Does your charm (only in the case of a charming person) draw more mana to you? How about the imposingly dark and charismatic guy or Crazy and Fun guy?? What effect do those have on making his spells more powerful?

I do not believe I have ever said charisma is how others perceive your character. I believe that is your misconception. I said it is how your character is able to affect another. That may sound like the same thing to you but what I am saying is that it is the difference between what I intentionally imply by something I say and what you infer from what I say even if I did not intend that meaning. My charisma is inherent in me how you perceive it is up to you. If your willpower is strong you will not be swayed by my ideas despite thinking that they are very well presented. You will note that I have a significant presence but you will be unmoved.

When you can answer all of the above with one satisfactory, all-encompassing answer, I will bow my head and admit you are right.

There you go, expecting the impossible again but I have done my best. I do not need you to admit I am right, you are entitled to your opinion, different strokes and all that. I do not even need you to agree with me or for you to stop trying to have charisma dropped from the game. I doubt you will succeed but if you can present some kind of alternative to it which will cover all areas where it is planned to be used, you might. I do think you add a lot to the community and it would be sad if you left but nothing lasts forever.

[Under the moon]

That was one of the longest posts I have seen that answers nothing. Congrats. Nearly every single response you had to one of my quotes completely avoided what they were actually about.

Look again, read harder, and this time answer how the mechanics of the game can deal with these situations. Yes, your character is charismatic. Now is Zak going to follow you or gut you?

[Zan]

I think it's getting time for the people involved to take a step back, count to ten, calm your breath and ask yourself where you're going with this.

The discussion was great but it's now deteriorating into 'sling same old arguments at opposition yet again.' I honestly haven't read the last page of this thread because I doubt it's going to be worth my time doing so. Learn to argue your side and let go .. the rest is up to the Devs anyway.

[Jonerian]

That was one of the longest posts I have seen that answers nothing.

I personally think that Prolix was very exact with the explanations. You may or may not agree, but your above post looks just a little childish to me. There are millions of role players that learned to deal with the stat charisma from D&D and Co. and just because you don't like it or never understood it (which seems to be the case, referring to your explanations of charisma) you don't want it in the game. This is a valid opinion, but just stating that the D&D stat charisma like it exists is something different and everybody that argues for the stat is wrong, is not a valid way to deal with the problem.

Roleplaying is also about mental stats like intelligence and charisma. The player behind the char not having the ability to make a good speech is not nice, but completely OOC.
Yes there is actually a GM missing that says "well, your speech sucks, but you won the roll" in PC interaction. Sitting around a table you have always somebody like that present. This IS an issue. My idea would be to declare the stat in a more obvious way, maybe even that you can judge the charisma of a char by certain looks to improve the RP interaction between players.

Anyways, the game is NOT only about PvP interaction (go in an irc channel for that..). It is difficult to use the mental stats of chars in PvP, but for me this would not be enough reason to take these away from the game completely. There is also the possibility to just not try to roleplay any mental stats in PvP, neither high or low ones.

[Under the moon]

Very exact, yes. Address what I wrote, no. Not a single thing he wrote dealt with the separation of player to player vs player to mechanics issue, nor did they address how the system will differentiate between different types of charismatic personalities.

Neither of you have answered how Zak could listen to one type of charismatic personality he likes, yet kill someone who is equally charismatic in another way that he does not like, when the system uses a blanket approach that deems all charisma equal in NPC reactions.

The faction system does this better. The single charisma stat does not, and will not.

[Prolix]

Pardon me if I perceived all of your examples to be player to player interactions. I did not see anything to indicate differently. Of course you want to have player to npc interaction to be exactly the same as player to player, as far as I can tell. That is just not possible. It is like expecting your robot dog from Japan to behave exactly like your neighbors poodle, their nature is entirely different although they have some slight similarities.

As for Zak, he is going to do exactly what he is programmed to do no more no less unless there is a bug in his systems. If you have a high charisma he is more likely to let something slip inadvertently because he wants to impress you. If you are rude and seem stupid he might tell you the same thing in a different manner just because he thinks you are stupid, you annoy him and he wants to get rid of you. The only difference may be the words that wrap the particular nugget of information he needs to pass on for the quest. If you are planning to turn him into a psychopath that attacks anything that does not please him you will likely need some other kind of trigger than charisma.

If you are looking how to use charisma in the npc interactions you are writing do not go it alone. Consult with the people who are developing the code to find out how they can see implementing it. I think the key to writing good game dialog is to decide what you want it to  accomplish, which ways it could go wrong and all possible outcomes before you write the first line. People will only complain if something seems really odd in whatever manner, most of the time you will be able to go with the first implementation.

I have said all along that npc and player interaction are different and that means that the character stats must be approached differently when considering their meaning in the respective context. Charisma is just one tool in the box, it will break if you try to use it for the wrong jobs.