My counter would be what if this person sat here every session and simply exercised more xp expenditure discipline and built the same PC over time? How is that even remotely different?

I think you know the difference. But for those unsure, developing a PC over a series of sessions while playing with a group will, or at least should, make there advancement choices be a mix of personal desire and complementing the group. I don't mean filling a particular role or mechanically fitting ones PC in in the sense of being just a cog in the machine but complementing the other Players. As both a Player and a Character you are part of a team. This doesn't mean that the new player wouldn't have laser focused on their Charm but that it would have developed along with the group and had to experience the drawbacks of taking such an approach not just getting to skip ahead.

But again this is irrelevant because if the established players and the GM are unhappy then something needs to change and it's beholden on the new player to initiate the compromise.

For starters we don't know anyone's specifics on their builds, so there is no way to know who is rolling what. That's why I asked if there were another face person in the group, because if there isn't then it's double whining as far as I'm concerned because the new guy is bringing something they can't do anyway.

If there were, then I probably would have a talk with the new person about completely rendering another PC irrelevant, but at the end of the day what can you possibly do if two people just flat out want to play the same type of PC. A GM is going to have to come up with the scenarios to support it.

In regards to telling stories, the new guy is never going to be able to have contributed to that regardless of their build, so putting that burden on them is unfair. It's also ridiculous to tell someone build their PC mediocre so no one is envious imo, particularly in this case if there were no other face guys in the group anyway.

This isn't an issue of min/max at all, because by the time someone can easily afford 2 Dedication bonuses, a 6 in a stat is completely doable for all. This new person started at a 4 in Presence, so they didn't min/max to begin with. If they are human and put a 3 in Agility or Intellect, they're going to have a lot of very decent dice pools to begin with.

If the GM had no stipulation about them being unable to spend their Dedication bonuses in any way, I don't understand where the 'unfair' comes into it. If the originals had the exact same opportunities as the new guy, and they have 50 more xp to boot, there is no grounds for unfair.

This isn't an issue of min/max at all, because by the time someone can easily afford 2 Dedication bonuses, a 6 in a stat is completely doable for all. This new person started at a 4 in Presence, so they didn't min/max to begin with. If they are human and put a 3 in Agility or Intellect, they're going to have a lot of very decent dice pools to begin with.

If the GM had no stipulation about them being unable to spend their Dedication bonuses in any way, I don't understand where the 'unfair' comes into it. If the originals had the exact same opportunities as the new guy, and they have 50 more xp to boot, there is no grounds for unfair.

The unfairness comes in when you factor in the time spent playing with a given build to get it to where it is.

Typically, the tradeoff for "beelining" to a given point (in this case, Dedication), is having a fairly one-dimensional character for a long time, that's lousy in other areas (and sometimes even in that area) until they get to that landmark and things come together. As a result, most characters built "from the ground up", that is, starting at base XP and playing their way up, will seek to build a character that is useful in the here and now, and gradually work toward those top-tier features. Sure, on paper, they might have been able to get there sooner, but it would have meant putting their characters at a disadvantage until they got there.

To illustrate, it's like some kids getting an allowance every week. They really want to save up and buy a bicycle, but in the mean time, they'd like to occasionally buy some baseball cards, a football, and a summer pass to the community pool. Sure they might have been able to buy a bicycle by August had they saved every penny and not gotten anything to enjoy in the mean time, but the whole summer would have been rather dull in that case. Now it's the end of summer, and they've almost saved enough to get that bicycle.

Now a new kid shows up, and because the grown ups don't want him to feel left out, they give him a lump sum of almost all of the allowance that the other kids got bit by bit all summer. Since he has it all at once, the first thing he does is go buy that shiny new bicycle that the other kids have had their eye on all summer. With what's leftover, he manages to still get a football and a few packs of cards too, and now he rides that bike up and down the street every day.

Did the other kids get just as much allowance? Sure. But can you blame them for being a little bit annoyed that this kid basically got rewarded for not having to manage his allowance all summer, and was able to just go straight for the bike?

Also, there's something to be said for the part of the overall tone of the game that is contributed by the players. If they're approaching things from a very narrative standpoint, even if it means less-than-statistically-optimal numbers, then it's going to sour their overall impression when a new player comes in that treats it like an MMO, and he's building to the meta standard, ignoring everything but the numbers. If you're really going to put the onus on the GM to just "come up with something that suits everyone", I don't see how you can say that the current players need to "shut up and put up", when they're the majority of the people that the GM "needs" to please.

As a player, I've never been so desperate to play a game that I'd tolerate that kind of a flippant dismissal of my concerns from a GM. I wouldn't expect to get my way in everything, but if I raised such a concern, especially if the other veteran players echoed my sentiments, and the GM told us to shut up and deal with it, not only would I leave, but I'd encourage the others to leave with me, likely leaving the GM with his lone newbie, and continuing our group separately.

A one dimensional character is a false argument in the scope of 300xp. Advancing and taking 2 Dedication bonuses means 120 xp worth of Talents along the way. There is 70ish xp spent on other Skills or Talents. It's a focused PC, but they also had a 3 in another stat, and 70 other xp, which could encompass a great many other skills potentially impacted by that 3. In addition, being a great negotiator, charmer, leader, and gambler is by no means one dimensional.

This isn't an issue of min/max at all, because by the time someone can easily afford 2 Dedication bonuses, a 6 in a stat is completely doable for all. This new person started at a 4 in Presence, so they didn't min/max to begin with. If they are human and put a 3 in Agility or Intellect, they're going to have a lot of very decent dice pools to begin with.

If the GM had no stipulation about them being unable to spend their Dedication bonuses in any way, I don't understand where the 'unfair' comes into it. If the originals had the exact same opportunities as the new guy, and they have 50 more xp to boot, there is no grounds for unfair.

The unfairness comes in when you factor in the time spent playing with a given build to get it to where it is.

Typically, the tradeoff for "beelining" to a given point (in this case, Dedication), is having a fairly one-dimensional character for a long time, that's lousy in other areas (and sometimes even in that area) until they get to that landmark and things come together. As a result, most characters built "from the ground up", that is, starting at base XP and playing their way up, will seek to build a character that is useful in the here and now, and gradually work toward those top-tier features. Sure, on paper, they might have been able to get there sooner, but it would have meant putting their characters at a disadvantage until they got there.

To illustrate, it's like some kids getting an allowance every week. They really want to save up and buy a bicycle, but in the mean time, they'd like to occasionally buy some baseball cards, a football, and a summer pass to the community pool. Sure they might have been able to buy a bicycle by August had they saved every penny and not gotten anything to enjoy in the mean time, but the whole summer would have been rather dull in that case. Now it's the end of summer, and they've almost saved enough to get that bicycle.

Now a new kid shows up, and because the grown ups don't want him to feel left out, they give him a lump sum of almost all of the allowance that the other kids got bit by bit all summer. Since he has it all at once, the first thing he does is go buy that shiny new bicycle that the other kids have had their eye on all summer. With what's leftover, he manages to still get a football and a few packs of cards too, and now he rides that bike up and down the street every day.

Did the other kids get just as much allowance? Sure. But can you blame them for being a little bit annoyed that this kid basically got rewarded for not having to manage his allowance all summer, and was able to just go straight for the bike?

Also, there's something to be said for the part of the overall tone of the game that is contributed by the players. If they're approaching things from a very narrative standpoint, even if it means less-than-statistically-optimal numbers, then it's going to sour their overall impression when a new player comes in that treats it like an MMO, and he's building to the meta standard, ignoring everything but the numbers. If you're really going to put the onus on the GM to just "come up with something that suits everyone", I don't see how you can say that the current players need to "shut up and put up", when they're the majority of the people that the GM "needs" to please.

As a player, I've never been so desperate to play a game that I'd tolerate that kind of a flippant dismissal of my concerns from a GM. I wouldn't expect to get my way in everything, but if I raised such a concern, especially if the other veteran players echoed my sentiments, and the GM told us to shut up and deal with it, not only would I leave, but I'd encourage the others to leave with me, likely leaving the GM with his lone newbie, and continuing our group separately.

So you're counter to me saying people are being immature and petty is to use an example involving children?

Gotta say also if I am telling someone who is ostensibly an adult, they are being immature and their reaction is to crumple up their character and walk out I don't feel insulted, more like vindicated.

A one dimensional character is a false argument in the scope of 300xp. Advancing and taking 2 Dedication bonuses means 120 xp worth of Talents along the way. There is 70ish xp spent on other Skills or Talents. It's a focused PC, but they also had a 3 in another stat, and 70 other xp, which could encompass a great many other skills potentially impacted by that 3. In addition, being a great negotiator, charmer, leader, and gambler is by no means one dimensional.

You're entitled to your opinion, just as the existing players in OPs group are entitled to theirs. The simple fact that they *are* upset, and that you *aren't* in the group means that your base argument of "they shouldn't be upset" is fundamentally missing the big picture.

So you're counter to me saying people are being immature and petty is to use an example involving children?

So because you don't like my analogy to help you understand, you use my choice of subject matter to dismiss the valid point its getting across?

Classy.

Not surprising, for someone so hung up on their own superiority that their MO is to tell anyone that doesn't like it to shut up or go away, though.

A one dimensional character is a false argument in the scope of 300xp. Advancing and taking 2 Dedication bonuses means 120 xp worth of Talents along the way. There is 70ish xp spent on other Skills or Talents. It's a focused PC, but they also had a 3 in another stat, and 70 other xp, which could encompass a great many other skills potentially impacted by that 3. In addition, being a great negotiator, charmer, leader, and gambler is by no means one dimensional.

You're entitled to your opinion, just as the existing players in OPs group are entitled to theirs. The simple fact that they *are* upset, and that you *aren't* in the group means that your base argument of "they shouldn't be upset" is fundamentally missing the big picture.

So you're counter to me saying people are being immature and petty is to use an example involving children?

So because you don't like my analogy to help you understand, you use my choice of subject matter to dismiss the valid point its getting across?

Classy.

Not surprising, for someone so hung up on their own superiority that their MO is to tell anyone that doesn't like it to shut up or go away, though.

As opposed to someone whose reaction to being told their wrong is to crumple up a character and stomp out.

PCs need to focus on the Char sheet in front of them and not worry about the guy/gal next to them.

...and yet it's a social game, where players are encouraged to cooperate and work together.

I don't disagree with your basis, though I do disagree strongly with the extent to which you seem to be willing to carry it.

Indeed, as a player, sitting at your table in a situation like that, I'd feel that the time I've invested in the game had been sharply cheapened, and even held against me in a certain light (after all, new guy comes in that has, to this point, contributed nothing, and he's able to optimize his build in a way that nobody else could). If, again as a player, I'd voice these concerns, only for the GM to tell me, "Shut up and worry about your own character.", I'd crumple up that sheet and walk out on the spot. Not as much for the issue of the characters, but for the lack of respect and consideration shown.

My counter would be what if this person sat here every session and simply exercised more xp expenditure discipline and built the same PC over time? How is that even remotely different?

Then that pc would struggle until he did finally get to the end result. Other players would feel he earned it since as they got better all around he saved and saved to get to the end result.

If a player joins mid stream they're never going to overcome this 'they didn't earn it' hurdle, so that's a pointless straw man to deflect from the actual issue, which is the 6 Presence. The only truly fair option for everyone is to just allow the respec for those that feel slighted.

As opposed to someone whose reaction to being told their wrong is to crumple up a character and stomp out.

Had you bothered to read my post instead of cherry picking and twisting it to something you could try to reasonably dispute, you'd see that I spelled out pretty clearly that I'd leave due to the lack of simple respect. You're being expected to act like an adult too, remember. And going on a power trip and saying, "I'm the GM, and what I say goes. Either shut up about it or I'll show you the door." is exactly the lack of respect I was talking about.

If a player joins mid stream they're never going to overcome this 'they didn't earn it' hurdle, so that's a pointless straw man to deflect from the actual issue, which is the 6 Presence.

Or...you find a happy medium and allow them to earn XP at an accelerated rate, whereby you're allowing them to catch up to the veterans gradually, while still also requiring them to go through the process of building a character that's viable throughout its development.

It's not a strawman, but you *are* presenting a false dichotomy.

I do agree that if you're going to dump a lump sum of XP on the newbie, it's only fair to allow the existing players to optimize their characters as well, but personally, I don't feel that's the *only* option.

Hello all, again. This has become quite the discussion. I also want to apologize if my question was difficult to intepret at the original starting post but you guys did figure it out perfectly. I will have the game on monday but might get a chance to talk it out with the group tomorrow.

Except for thanking for more of your kind advices, I want to shed a little more information.

The player in question has a reputation of being a minmaxer. In our other games he often tries to optimize on one, single aspect (he also plays in SW Saga edition with a minmaxed character). I told him before starting our game session that I would give him character a chance before forcing a change or revoke his character stats. As expected, he tried to use Charm for every single problem like a one-trick pony and he has no problem at all getting 4-5 successes to the point its almost a Jedi Mind Trick.
On the other hand, the group had no Face character in the party and would no doubt benefit from his skills (especially now that we are playing The Jewel of Yavin story). I was also a bit unclear but its particularly one other player who feels its unfair; the others have been neutral or not dared make a statement about it.

So I think I will follow Hydrospanner's advice and just simply discuss with the group about this. We need to decide on rules for character creation (and even for existing players should their characters die or they want to make a new one) as well as how to balance rapid progression from character creation stage without breaking the game and ruining the thematic growth. As somebody in the topic said; having a fresh hero with top notch 6 doesn't feel justified. There has been no character growth at all. Then again, he could expand on other skills and evolve in character thay way. The problem is that the player himself is a minmaxer.... so I need to know what his visions and intentions are for this game. I honestly wouldn't mind so much with the imbalance in stats as long as we're having fun and building a story together.

I wouldn't allow someone to Charm their way out of a fist fight. It's situational as a skill.

Min/max is difficult to call once players are at this level of awarded xp because it is simply well within their xp expenditures to have 2 or even 3 Dedication bonuses depending on Career. Min/max imo is a CHARGEN issue that a PC learns over time was a bad call when they aren't doing well at a number of checks, but is he started with a 4 that isn't min/max either. I personally go for as many 3s as possible, but a 4 in the primary focus of your character concept is hardly OTT at CHARGEN.

I would also point out the benefits he brings to the group as a whole, such as winning Cool initiative checks, being a champ at gambling, negotiating great prices on purchases and smuggling jobs, or using Leadership. It's a hardly a one trick concept. A PC who does the same with Agility would be great at ranged combat, piloting, and stealth, so hardly one trick either.

I wouldn't allow someone to Charm their way out of a fist fight.

Why not?

I have literally done this, in real life.

I wouldn't allow someone to Charm their way out of a fist fight.

Why not?

I have literally done this, in real life.

Same.

Out of every fist fight? No. But to disallow it's use as a rule is nonsense.

I wouldn't allow someone to Charm their way out of a fist fight.

Why not?

I have literally done this, in real life.

Same.

Out of every fist fight? No. But to disallow it's use as a rule is nonsense.

I've talked my way out of a few (sometimes could be charm, sometimes deception, on at least one occasion coercion...) but by the same token I've had to scrap at least as many times in my misspent youth. I must also admit to more than one occasion when I've taken advantage of someone trying to talk me out of a fight by punching them on the mouth. Not very polite I admit, but it got the point across I suppose.

Really I guess what I'm saying is that it's good to be good at one thing, but also good to good at more than one thing so if option 1 fails you have a fallback plan or 2. Sometimes life (or a GM who has had enough of silly min-max BS) has a way of making that all too clear. Maybe a good talk with this player about goals and character development will help, but also sitting down with him and collaborating to build a character and story that meshes his goals with the group's needs and the GM's expectations could be beneficial to all. A good roleplaying session is really collaborative improv theater in a sense.

The trick to dealing with a player like this one is to learn when to say "no". I know this is supposed to be a "yes, but..." system, but a firm "no" is sometimes called for.

For example, stormtroopers guarding the entrance to a secure facility won't let you in no matter how charming you are. You could use Deception to get past them, you could dress up as an officer and use Leadership, or you could use Coercion to let them think they were under attack by a superior force and have them withdraw to a better position, but you can't charm them. It simply won't work. No matter how adorable your smile is, they won't just let you wander past against orders.

Same thing goes when the customs inspector finds contraband in your cargo. Charm will not get you out of that. Or when the Black Sun enforcers find you in their spice warehouse with an open crate at your feet and a sheepish grin on your face. Or when the pursuing TIE fighters order you to stop but you accelerate ahead and shift shields to rear instead of complying. Charm is a very useful and versatile social skill, but there are plenty of situations where NPCs simply won't be amenable to being sweet-talked, no matter how good the player is.

The trick to dealing with a player like this one is to learn when to say "no". I know this is supposed to be a "yes, but..." system, but a firm "no" is sometimes called for.

For example, stormtroopers guarding the entrance to a secure facility won't let you in no matter how charming you are. You could use Deception to get past them, you could dress up as an officer and use Leadership, or you could use Coercion to let them think they were under attack by a superior force and have them withdraw to a better position, but you can't charm them. It simply won't work. No matter how adorable your smile is, they won't just let you wander past against orders.

Same thing goes when the customs inspector finds contraband in your cargo. Charm will not get you out of that. Or when the Black Sun enforcers find you in their spice warehouse with an open crate at your feet and a sheepish grin on your face. Or when the pursuing TIE fighters order you to stop but you accelerate ahead and shift shields to rear instead of complying. Charm is a very useful and versatile social skill, but there are plenty of situations where NPCs simply won't be amenable to being sweet-talked, no matter how good the player is.

Orrrrr, "Yes, you successfully charm him...but he can't meet you until after his shift. He asks what you're doing Tuesday." lol

I agree with all of this except the Black Suns bit. a VERY good charm roll could see you given the option of joining them or fighting. With enough luck and the right words they are a criminal syndicate. A group who could manage to sneak/break into one of their spice warehouses and almost make it out could be very valuable to them.

Against local police or something it's even less likely, but a VERY good charm roll followed by cooperation could result in the PD putting in a very good word that you be hired as a consultant rather than jailed. Now whether or not either of these are actually useful to the party depends on them and the story, but they are cases where I could see Charm working even in extreme cases.

(Also, quoting is hard on a phone...)

Also I may be watching too much White Collar.

Also I may be watching too much White Collar.

Yes but even Neal knows you can't always talk your way out of being shot. You may be able to distract them so you can find cover or allow an ally to take them out, but it won't always stop someone determined to shoot you. Common sense, while not so common, should prevail.

There are impossible level checks for a reason, and you don't need to flip a Dark Side DP to upgrade all of them, then there is the Setback dice.

I would let him do some things without even rolling, "I try to charm the bouncer at the door to let us jump the Que" ... "Ok he lets you in"

This takes 3 things away from him, the fun of Dice Rolls, the ability to use Talents, the chance to spend enormous amounts of advantage and triumph due to the low difficulty.

If he wants to have fun he needs to get more creative and push the limits of his character in both the Maxed part and the Min part.

Also I may be watching too much White Collar.

Yes but even Neal knows you can't always talk your way out of being shot. You may be able to distract them so you can find cover or allow an ally to take them out, but it won't always stop someone determined to shoot you. Common sense, while not so common, should prevail.

Accurate.

There are impossible level checks for a reason, and you don't need to flip a Dark Side DP to upgrade all of them, then there is the Setback dice.

I would let him do some things without even rolling, "I try to charm the bouncer at the door to let us jump the Que" ... "Ok he lets you in"

This takes 3 things away from him, the fun of Dice Rolls, the ability to use Talents, the chance to spend enormous amounts of advantage and triumph due to the low difficulty.

If he wants to have fun he needs to get more creative and push the limits of his character in both the Maxed part and the Min part.

Also accurate. Though, to be honest that's just more of a reason to really push a skill in my opinion. The sooner you complete [Arbitrary task] the sooner you get back to doing something awesome. Like in my last session, there was a flooded section of an abandoned ship and I was trying to seal the breach and then de-flood it. After about the 3rd failed check that we had to keep interrupting the rest of the party and their things to do I suggested we just decide I get it done when it's done. Now the conversation and combat parts of the session can happen without me feeling bad and interrupting. Skipping checks for things that are either too easy to fail or are time consuming but important to the story line should be a perfectly acceptable tool for a GM. Especially with large (6+) parties.

There are impossible level checks for a reason, and you don't need to flip a Dark Side DP to upgrade all of them, then there is the Setback dice.

I would let him do some things without even rolling, "I try to charm the bouncer at the door to let us jump the Que" ... "Ok he lets you in"

This takes 3 things away from him, the fun of Dice Rolls, the ability to use Talents, the chance to spend enormous amounts of advantage and triumph due to the low difficulty.

If he wants to have fun he needs to get more creative and push the limits of his character in both the Maxed part and the Min part.

Also accurate. Though, to be honest that's just more of a reason to really push a skill in my opinion. The sooner you complete [Arbitrary task] the sooner you get back to doing something awesome. Like in my last session, there was a flooded section of an abandoned ship and I was trying to seal the breach and then de-flood it. After about the 3rd failed check that we had to keep interrupting the rest of the party and their things to do I suggested we just decide I get it done when it's done. Now the conversation and combat parts of the session can happen without me feeling bad and interrupting. Skipping checks for things that are either too easy to fail or are time consuming but important to the story line should be a perfectly acceptable tool for a GM. Especially with large (6+) parties.

I agree with hand waving simple checks, but I've never really liked hand waving the more important 'movie moments.' An approach I really like to those situations, is to still have a check, but it's not set up as a pass/fail. Instead it simply determines the degree of success.

If the PCs are desperately trying to escape an overwhelming force, and they must slice a particular door to get away, then a failed check could mean different things based on the amount of Threat/Despair/Failure the roll produced. Things like increasing the number of rounds it takes to get the door open, accidentally opening another door which allows an additional minion squad to join in the fray, or the slicer's gear gets damaged in the process and he must replace or repair it in the future. When time is not a factor, for crossing a raging river as another example, a failed check could result in suffering wounds, or even a critical injury, or gear getting washed down stream.

Approaching checks this way has a couple of advantages, for one, a failed check no longer bogs down what should be a cool story telling moment with a bunch of re-rolls, and secondly it's easier to throw in Daunting and Formidable checks at the group since the consequences of failure, while still painful, don't result in the game getting sidetracked. Also, by not hand waving and giving an auto success, it rewards the player that's doing the check for spending their XP on the required skill.

But back on topic: I can understand some of the frustrations against the dreaded Min/Maxer, but in these games I hate the mentality of 'You're doing it wrong!' I think there needs to be a compromise on both the part of the group that's frustrated with your Min/Maxer and him (or her) as well. The best thing about tabletop RPG's is there isn't one right way to do things, so I think you need to sit down and talk with your unhappy party members as much as you do with your Min/Maxer.

Lastly, as others have mentioned here, his high Charm is only as powerful as you allow it to be. Just because he's making an opposed roll does not mean you can't adjust the dice accordingly and only roll the NPC's Cool. If you do allow him to make a questionable check, don't be afraid to throw a bunch of Setbacks at the roll, or increase the difficulty accordingly. If I'm trying to convince a group of Stormtroopers that I'm Darth Vader, that should be a hell of a lot more difficult than if I were trying to convince them that I'm just a humble trader from Tatooine.

SSB_Shadow, on 13 Nov 2015 - 4:17 PM, said:SSB_Shadow, on 13 Nov 2015 - 4:17 PM, said:

Hello all, again. This has become quite the discussion. I also want to apologize if my question was difficult to intepret at the original starting post but you guys did figure it out perfectly. I will have the game on monday but might get a chance to talk it out with the group tomorrow.

Except for thanking for more of your kind advices, I want to shed a little more information.

The player in question has a reputation of being a minmaxer. In our other games he often tries to optimize on one, single aspect (he also plays in SW Saga edition with a minmaxed character). I told him before starting our game session that I would give him character a chance before forcing a change or revoke his character stats. As expected, he tried to use Charm for every single problem like a one-trick pony and he has no problem at all getting 4-5 successes to the point its almost a Jedi Mind Trick.

On the other hand, the group had no Face character in the party and would no doubt benefit from his skills (especially now that we are playing The Jewel of Yavin story). I was also a bit unclear but its particularly one other player who feels its unfair; the others have been neutral or not dared make a statement about it.

So I think I will follow Hydrospanner's advice and just simply discuss with the group about this. We need to decide on rules for character creation (and even for existing players should their characters die or they want to make a new one) as well as how to balance rapid progression from character creation stage without breaking the game and ruining the thematic growth. As somebody in the topic said; having a fresh hero with top notch 6 doesn't feel justified. There has been no character growth at all. Then again, he could expand on other skills and evolve in character thay way. The problem is that the player himself is a minmaxer.... so I need to know what his visions and intentions are for this game. I honestly wouldn't mind so much with the imbalance in stats as long as we're having fun and building a story together.

The problem isn't the character, it is his and your interpretation of what the charm skill can do. No, it is not Jedi mind trick. A PC cannot manipulate every NPC with charm roll unless you allow him to do so. Learn to say no.

As I said before, your player is going to build his character that way even if it take him 20 sessions. So, unless you tell him "no I wont let you raise your presence to 6 with that dedication talent", you end up the campaign before he reach that point or he change his mind during the course of the game, he is going to end up with a presence 6, charm 5 character. If I were you, I would start thinking about how I am going to manage that kind of character instead of thinking about how to structure his advancement.

Finally, I need to correct you. A character with 300 XP is not a new fresh hero, sorry, it's a veteran, so it makes sense that he have high scores. He may have just join the group but he has done other things in his life to earn that experience. What were you expecting when you give him 300XP after character creation?

Ask him to write up a good detailed back story that covers 300xp worth of his life.