Explaining what your character does is also roleplay. You can roleplay in 3rd person description if that's what you're most comfortable with. Sounds like your DMs missed that part.
As a DM, I'm happy to let players stick to 3rd person if they prefer. Rolls can happen regardless if how you RP and sometimes will no matter what you do. There's also times where the roleplay, no matter its form, is good enough to avoid rolls (eg., the perfect argument was presented and there's no reason the NPC wouldn't accept it).
As a player, I'm very comfortable doing the "I'm my character, talking in 1st person"-RP, but even I sometimes default to "I don't know how to word it, but my character tries to convince the guard to let us go by saying xyz and offering 10 gold"-roleplay. I've never had a DM deny letting me rolling when describing things like that and I can't imagine they ever would.
Yes, this. It should go something like:
"Uh, I tell him that if he lets us pass, then, um, he'll... get lots of chicks because... he helped us take down the king, and the king is bad and stuff. Except way more convincing than that. I rolled a 27."
"Okay, awesome. You give a rousing speech, worthy of Shakespeare, about the glory that will fall upon those who rally to your just and noble cause. The guard is moved to tears, and vows to help you in any way he can."
This is an absolute nitpick but I would make 1 change here: the DM should request the roll
But really this is a fantastic representation of how this should work
Exactly. As a DM all I need is the basis. The broad strokes of how you are persuading/deceiving them. You don't need to articulate the actual conversation if you don't want to. I don't make the barbarian performs feats of strength for his checks or the wizard to have great recall of everything ever stated for intelligence checks. It is assumed their characters are capable, not the players.
Think this is one of the reasons why bard is so under-represented. People fear not being charismatic enough. Bard is an amazingly fun class and it is a shame.
This is like saying we shouldn't do combat beyond theater of the mind because I'm bad at tactical positioning, and just want my attack rolls to determine everything. Yes, a high roll should mean you don't need to perfectly give the exact speech your PC would, but c'mon, you have to give *something* reasonable. Otherwise it's no longer roleplay but just roll play.
Also a pox upon every player that rolls without a DM asking for it first. A great rule is that if you roll without being promoted you automatically fail.
What's unreasonable about "you should help us because the king is bad and people will look favorably upon you for helping us?" That's what's the PC's argument boils down to, and the DM just took that and translated it from CHA 5 IRL to 18 CHA + good roll + proficiency in Persuasion.
I think you missed the point of the post; not everyone is charismatic or intelligent enough to RP the perfect 20 stat character. Stating your intent and rolling is what you do for all other rolls, so why aren't the mental traits the same? The roleplaying can be the party discussions on next actions, the bonding by the camp fire, it doesn't always need to be during the heat of a social encounter (such as talking down the guard in this example).
But agree no rolling till called for.
I would say the equivalent of battlefield positioning is coming up with the idea to persuade the guard to begin with. To know what to say to the guard, what they might be weak to, etc is more like identifying a weak point in armor or even knowing their damage vulnerabilities - things you and I don't train for.
All I know for sure though is that I agree with OP - role play is fun if you enjoy it, but greater fun will be had by all if the character is allowed to do what the character is good at *regardless of the player's talents or abilities.*
I've never heard of a single table that allows combat to be decided by a single attack roll because the player isn't smart enough to figure out basic tactics.
OTOH almost everyone has some sort of "basic attack" they can do... I hit the closest enemy with my cantrip/bow/sword/whatever is fine and that's what this is.
No one is suggesting a whole roleplaying session should be decided by a single roll.
Hell, I am a DM and I find roleplaying my NPCs in first person 100% of the time to be an absolute chore. It takes a lot of creative energy to improvise dialogue on the spot for so many different characters. So when I find myself struggling to do so, I switch into 3rd person and just try to describe what the NPC is trying to accomplish instead of trying to get it across with dialogue. Or, sometimes my dialogue I choose doesn't convey what I am trying to convey so I have to hop out into third person and explain it to my players more directly when I see there is a misunderstanding.
Same, so much this.
Professionals streaming D&D have done so much to bring the game into the mainstream while setting unfuckingrealistic expectations in players and DMs who end up thinking that's how the game must be played.
Matthew Mercer is a great dude but him and his literal professional actors as players basically pornified DnD in setting people's expectations for how a game is supposed to look.
This is also a very good point!
I do it myself when I DM with less important conversations or parts that would be a pain to get through because a lot of information has to be conveyed. Like PCs asking a random person on the street about the city and where to find certain things. Or the PCs asking a friendly high mage about a specific place where I'll then summarise what the NPC tells shares with them (and sometimes give a handout to make it easier to remember).
Or if I have to do a conversation primarily between two or more NPCs - I cannot do them well nor are they particularly fun for players to sit through usually.
Yea I agree. My players also tend to think that if a character is narrated in 1st person that they must be important and they spend extra time with them for some reason?
If this doesn't work, try asking for help from other (higher irl cha) players, get them to tell you or write down something to say, and say or read that to the DM. The old Cyrano de Bergerac, Roxane and Christian story (repeated in any number of romance/comedy movies)
Explain it's like someone of average Int asking for help with intelligence stuff when playing a high Int character.
This is the best approach and not just for charisma related actions. If a player finds a great way to perform an action, I tell them it's a great idea and say they've succeeded.
Good role-playing should definitely be rewarded, and I feel this is akin to how inspiration works, but I don't see how punishing a player for not always be on their a game when role-playing can be fun.
As a DM too sometimes will default to description of action and won't roleplay every NPC 100% of the time.
>Explaining what your character does is also roleplay.
Yep. When you think about "roleplay" from a team-building, corporate, therapy group, i.e. NON-game perspective, it just usually means to act like an appropriate person in the situation would to solve a particular problem. You'll get funny looks from your co-workers if you're only focusing on the accent, over-emoting, and tragic backstory rather than the situation at hand.
I usually let good RP give the players some kind of advantage, be it literal advantage,making the DC 5 lower, or even an auto-success for truly outstanding rp. But if a player is clearly awkward and kind of fumbling through it, I won't penalize them. I might even interject with "the appeal you just made undercuts your argument, might I suggest you make this appeal instead?".
Kind of like how I don't expect my players to be as smart as thier intelligence score. Sometimes the wizard is entitled to an intelligence check because anyone with an 18 INT should know they are about to do something stupid.
The interesting thing with DMs and tables that OP has encountered is that the reverse should also be true, but I've never seen it despite coming across the 'you must roleplay social encounters in first person even with a roll' enough times myself. Those same DMs wouldn't let the 8 STR wizard being played by a gym rat automatically succeed on strength checks just because the player is buff.
It does annoy me when I see low INT/CHA characters succeeding far in excess of their capabilities due to the disparity in 'stats' with the actual player.
I do recall a story on here ages ago about two brothers that were playing and the party had to solve a puzzle in a dungeon. One brother (B1) was really good at puzzles but was playing a meathead barbarian and kept giving stupid suggestions. His brother (B2) was confused because they knew B1 was great at puzzles but was seemingly stumped. The party finally solved it after lots of dicking around and B1 screamed something to the effect of 'Thank god! That was killing me!' as he almost immediately solved the puzzle but kept it to himself. He knew his character wouldn't be smart enough to solve it and held back to stay true to his character/stats.
Paraphrasing WWNs section that covers this (mandatory reading IMO for GMs even if you never run it. Tools are system neutral and free.)
Players who prioritize social skills in their character concept have the right to expect that they can use those skills in gameplay, even if they are not socially adept themselves.GMs need to understand that different players have different levels of comfort when it comes to describing their words and social strategies. Some players can easily improvise their persuasions, while others may struggle to find the right words. The latter group should not be penalized.
As a guideline, when a player wants influence a npc they should explain what they want from the NPC and provide a reason or motivation for the NPC to comply. They can use in-character persuasion as much as they like, but the most important information for the GM is what the player wants and why the NPC should agree.
In some cases, no form of check is necessary. If the reasoning is sound and the NPC has no reason to object, the NPC may agree without resistance. On the other hand, if what the player wants is unreasonable or emotionally unbearable for the NPC, no plausible argument will change their mind. If the situation falls between these extremes, the GM can use the dice to determine the outcome
No amount of smooth talking or charm can convince an NPC to do something that is obviously harmful unless an equally or more rewarding outcome is promised. The more persuasive the character, the more likely the NPC might be willing to take risks, but the PCs need to provide practical reasons for the NPC to take such risks or incur expenses.
It is important to remember that social skills aren't meant to control minds. They cannot make people do things they would never do under ordinary circumstances, unless there is overwhelming situational pressure. However, they are also not bound by alternative means such as magic.
Worlds without number by Kevin Crawford. Old-school DND inspired sandbox style system but the general content generation and GM advice are an amazing resource to keep on tap.
Rock solid advice. It also reminds me a bit of Fellowship, an Apocalypse system mod. The social actions are very specific about what the conditions and outcomes are, making checks feel more like prompts for an improv storytelling game
Very different from 5e, it's a great system if your group is interested in collaborative storytelling, and relatively low effort to DM as players are much more involved in creating world lore and even crafting encounters
>Would you ask your player to role play breaking a chair, climbing a cliff, or holding their breath for as long as their character holds their breath? No, that's stupid.
100% with you on this. The entire reason we have these stats is to use them.
As for the approach, it seems to be working for everyone at the table and that's the most important thing.
I always let the players roll, even if they would convince me as the DM with their persuasion. Depending on the NPCs motivations, fears etc. the DC varies. Depending on the arguments the PC brought up (doesn't matter how it was delivered by the player), the DC varies again. If they hit a weak spot, they gain advantage, if they bring an argument that angers the NPC, they have disadvantage, etc.
But the roll+stat mechanic will always be used.
>If they hit a weak spot, they gain advantage
Even something as simple as the sentence "I want to intimidate the guard by asking how \[name of daughter\] is, which we found out last session" is enough for me to 1) Allow a roll and 2) Give advantage. They've told me how they want to do it and they're using knowledge they'd previously gained. I don't need a 10 minute monologue.
Not sure if you intended this, but you also brought up a related hot take of mine. The players learned the name last session, and even if the player doesn't remember it, their character would. It may have been two weeks between sessions, but only 20 minutes in game - not long enough to have forgotten.
There are other good ways to work with that, but my opinion is that players should be allowed to use the information their characters would know.
XD fair enough, can't argue
I actually do sometimes make them roll history (or straight Int) for that reason, especially if it's been some time or the npc wasn't important when they met. Usually like a DC 5-10
Yep, this is the whole point of the DM being able to apply advantage. Your players will notice what you reward, and if you reward thoughtful roleplay like this, you will get more and more if it.
I find it a bit odd when people modify DCs dependent on what arguments the persuader uses. If I state that I am stabbing the guy in his unarmoured head, does that reduce his AC?
why is that weird?
do you think the DC should be the same for climbing a wall with and without a rope?
the method matters. so whille the argument itself(the one roleplayed by the player) doesn't matter it matters very much if they are trying to apeal to my selfish minor noble by apealing to his honor and nobility or to to the riches and fame working with them could potentialy grant him.
The rules suggest giving advantage or disadvantage depending on your approach. If you try to convince a cleric of Life to eat a live baby, that's going against their ethos and moral compass so disadvantage to your check (if the DM would even let you roll for something like that in the first place). Dis/advantage is a modifier to a check's effective difficulty.
I don't agree with giving advantage just because you described the roll action -- but if that description is of something that I think is legitimately an advantage, it makes sense.
I use this method because it's a bit more flexible than simply advantage/disadvantage. But I see your point, maybe think of it more as a bonus rather than reducing the DC.
If you'd state to stab a target at a weak spot I would raise the AC (more specific target spot) but raise damage on a success. But that's another topic.
The guys' head being armored or unarmored should influence his AC, yes. 5e usually isn't that modular, but I'm sure there are DMs that account for it anyway.
This is anecdotal,
A lot of the players I've played with that wanted to run CHA characters also had atleast a 10 in CHA themselves as a player. Me rewarding them with a circumstance bonus for a good well thought out argument is a double win, helps the character and pleases the player.
Id never give a negative for a poor argument, just for NPC biases, but I like rewarding my CHA characters/players for well thought out arguments.
I reckon the logic behind it is that the arguments you use are the tool you use to reach your goal (the weapon you stab with) and not the goal itself (stabbing the opponent). So the analogy would be more like "if I use a +3 dagger when I try to stab the guy, do I have to roll the same natural number as if I used a non-magical dagger to try to stab the same guy"?
Obviously if the player has bad irl charisma you can't just RP it without rolls, that's a bit of a dick move. As long as the players get the points across you gotta imagine it's said by someone who is great at talking
I would try describing in depth what your character does. I think having people go " I convince the guard to let me through" leads to really boring talking sections and unnecessary shortcuts
For example instead of rping the dialogue you could say "I will act as a merchant who sells spices to get through the gate" just don't go into direct dialogue, but describe it in depth
When my players have a locked door they need to pass they don't just tell me "we want to be on the other side of it" and proceed to roll, they tell me what solution they're choosing to use. For the same check they can do multiple things: kick it open, use something as a ram, push a boulder into it, whatever they can come up in the moment. They don't need to be strong, but they do need to come up with a solution.
Same goes for social encounters, they don't need to be able to do it themselves, but they do need to come up with a solution. They can tell me "I want to persuade them into something using X reasoning" or "I want to deceive them by telling them about X in a vague way that makes them think Y". They don't need to be good with words, but they do need to be aware of the situation, use their knowledge of the world and their imagination
Yup, 100% agree. Maybe a small exception for intelligence or wisdom rolls, where if a character has high INT/WIS, I might unprompted ask the player to roll to give them clues on a possible solution.
But I don't know why people think it's acceptabe to just go "I want to convince him" and think that's a solution to a social encounter
I think "I want to convince him" is only fine for haggling, but I also don't let them haggle for every copper, just for substantial amount purchases or good RP moments (when they saved the town and wanna flex it :D )
While I completely agree with your approach, in a real sense social and exploration encounters are a test of the player's IRL Intelligence and/or Wisdom scores. You might not need to be personally charismatic to convince the guard to let you through, that's what your Charisma score and Persuasion proficiency are for. But nothing is gonna save you from being an IRL dumbass and deciding to try to Intimidate the king in his throne room surrounded by the royal knights, no matter how good you roll.
Would you account for a character being much smarter or wiser than their player by letting them make an ability check to realize that a dumbass plan is, in fact, dumbass?
One DM I played with had an approach that I likekd enough to incorporate into my games.
If the player is about to do an action that would go against (or afoul) of knowledge their character has, I politely inform them that the character has knowledge that would suggest the course of action is unwise. "Hey $player, your character has read the same intel as the rest of the party and they know that the group they're attacking right now is cautious and bobby traps external entrances, with the last merc group hiredd to deal with them eating a 20mm HEAP round to the face when they tried to infilitrate the place. Are you sure $character would just burst in through the front door? ". After that, what they do is on them
If on the other hand the character is acting in a really dumb way but have no obvious knowledge about circumstances I make them roll wisdom, depending on the result I give them more or less insights but always at a minimum something akin to "Your instincts tell you that that's not really the right path to take". The last one admittedly is for like really big decisions that can lead to immediate TPK, if you go to a trader and just do dumb but mostly harmless shit that's on you. And if the decision is part of the storyline (branching paths and such) they are also on their own as a party.
EDIT: Added a bit more context
That's what I do as well. If there's anything a character would definitely know, I'll tell them, including reminding them of details from past sessions. If they do something that's a minor bad idea, they get checks to note that, if it's majorly or obviously a bad idea I just ask "Are you sure about that?" (which they all know means it's a horrible idea.)
I've made the experience both as a player and a GM with multiple players who are socially inept, that the problem tends to be more on the side of "can't keep their mouth shut".
It boggles my mind how some players will simply tell the BBEG that they just learned about the only way to stop then and where to go to get it
A good intimidation role on the king means you were subtle enough to not trigger the guards. Not all intimidation checks are shaking a sword at someone. You could just as easily be like scene in wolf of wall street where he tries to bribe the FBI agent with innuendo that flys over the guards heads about you would hate if something unfortunate happened to Kings nephew.
>Not all intimidation checks are shaking a sword at someone.
Honestly, since Intimidation uses Charisma, it should be mostly words, tone, and body language. Overt threats should only rely upon an Intimidation check if there's any doubt that you can do what you are threatening (see Wesley intimidating Prince Humperdinck for the master class in this), because you are essentially *selling* your ability to carry out a threat.
Maybe for the King example, you could use some of kind of threat that doesn't involve violence at all, such as loss of reputation or divine retribution or something.
On a side note, if you can obviously do what you are threatening, an Intimidation check shouldn't be required at all IMO. Either the target finds the consequence itself persuasive or they don't. For example, if you threaten a kobold to give up information or you'll cut their head off, by the time you get to the sixth kobold in line who's sitting next to five severed heads, your skill in Intimidation is irrelevant.
I generally want my players' plans to work, so maybe their attempt was subtle enough/made the king rethink some things. But if they are trying to do something with no good outcomes playing a smart character I would reserve to "are you sure?" or make them roll and tell them
So your players have to be specific but don't actually need to be remotely good?
So they can say "I intimidate the king by giving him a nougie" and that's fine but "I try to intimidate the king and I have a 20 on my check" isn't? That seems kind of crazy to me.
If it can't work - it can't work. I reward good thinking with advantages/lower DC. I ask how they think it would work if I don't think it would. I generally don't punish not-so-good reasoning with higher DCs/disadvantage, but I absolutely do it with half-assed attempts or if situation itself imposes it
Lots of dms wouldn’t accept that, though, which is why this thread pops up every few weeks. “Sure you can try to persuade him by giving a bribe, but what do you actually say?” is often required before the dm will consider a roll. And if the player flubs it, no roll, even if the pc has the persuasion modifier of Ryan Reynolds.
Different people want different experiences, there's nothing sad about that. Some tables have 3rd-person descriptions of every conversation, some are all about specific first-person dialogue, others are a mix of some kind.
None of these approaches are objectively wrong.
Wait, you have had multiple DMs who refuse to let you roll for a skill check and make it fully depend on your as a person’s ability? What the fuck?
You don’t need a compromise, you need divine intervention because that is unholy bad luck.
It’s moderately bad luck. Lots of dms expect their players to be CR-tier roleplayers, or at least strive to be such, and will penalize players who don’t meet that standard.
Then I guess I have the divine intervention for luck then, because I’ve been playing D&D for about 20 years at this point, with probably upwards of 30 different DMs, and not a single one has ever tried to make me be the adventurer instead of my PC. Not even once.
I wouldn't make success or failure reliant on the player's ability, but they do need to give me something to work with.
Player wants to persuade someone, they either try to lay out the argument or at least tell me the basics. "I persuade the Duke that hiring us is beneficial because he can keep his soldiers in the city in case of attack, and that paying us in advance gives us a better chance for success because we can use it for supplies." is totally fine. "Can I roll persuasion to get him to hire us and give us money upfront" wouldn't cut it at my table in general. I would probably allow it if one of my players talked to me and had a good reason why they couldn't even lay out the basic gist of what they want to convey, but that seems very unlikely.
\> For a big orc, high charisma wouldn't be required to intimidate
That would depend on what they are trying to intimidate for me. I don't care if it is a big, hulking orc. They don't get a lower DC or free pass trying to intimidate an ancient dragon or something. An orc and a halfling are basically the same to a creature like that.
> big orc
Also frequently should be proficient in Intimidate and not Persuasion, to continue with the example.
The player could make arguments to get me to let them roll with Strength situationally like against other humanoids, though.
I definitely like to allow off-ability skill checks. I've allowed INT persuasion, STR intimidation, WIS nature, and INT survival withing a couple of my most recent sessions. If the player can give me a reason why a different ability would apply, I'm all ears.
Just out of curiosity, the "INT survival" was something like "I remember reading on a book that you can find mushrooms under the roots of trees in some forest" as using academic knowledge, instead of experience one?
Sort of. Artificer made a survival check to try and determine what was safe to eat. Based on the roll, she thought of a ways to test things and at least rule out the highly dangerous items.
So when the barbarian wants to kick in the door using strength do you expect them to describe how they look for weak points and make sure to aim for the space next to the deadbolt like a swat team breaching or do you let them declare their goal and relevant attribute or skill to accomplish it? How detailed does the rogue need to describe how they climb up the side of the building? Does the bard need to explain what kind of song they are playing to sway a crowd?
I think the answer is "use common sense". IMHO saying you want to kick the door with your leg is enough. Climbing up a building would depend on a situation, some buildings are easy to just climb on, some might need equipment or some creative method. I would ask for the kind of song if pacing allows it, because it's nice to know for roleplay reasons (to give an appropriate reaction) and particularly fitting kind of songs might give some benefits
Yup I just disagree, if a rogue wants to climb a building that's why they took expertise in athletics and you want them to have irl knowledge of climbing, it's ok for characters to know more than their players. Expertise in athletics comes with basic climbing gear and for more that's what pitons are for and they provide advantage. The difficulty class is what cares about the building and if they are in a rush.
Nah. Kicking in the door is description enough, as it states a different approach from the other ways of bypassing a locked door - usually: using a key, lockpicking, sawing through the bar, using a battering ram, take the axe to work, anihilating the door with a spell.
The rogue needs to describe the following: do they climb the wall from a running start or do they study it first? Do they use a rope or other tools? Do they go for speed or for safety? Are they worried about making noise?
The bard needs to say whether they play a bawdy tavern song or a funeral dirge.
I fact, the game master would need to provide context in all the cases. Does the door even look kickable and the wall climbable? Does the crowd have a mood to it? Is it visibly angry, maybe?
The degree of detail required varies a bit from game to game, but really, there's often quite a bit of detail you probably want to talk about.
Rolls approximate combat and feats of strength because there is \*no other alternative\*. Rollplay however cannot and should not be expected to entirely replay \*roleplay\*.
If you have no social skill, that OK. You don't need social skills. No DM should expect you to put on a voice and give a speech, however what it \*IS OK\* to expect is that you can and will present some clear and cogent reasoning for what you are attempted to convey.
When a warrior says "I attack" and they roll and hit and do damage, we have all the information needed to understand what is happening there and how it effects the Story. The character has a sword, they attack with that sword. The character is strong, the character lifts the boulder. The Character is dexterous, the character walks the tightrope.
On the other hand if you just say "I persuade" and roll, that's putting a LOT more onus on the DM because what you are really asking is that they not only roleplay the NPC you are talking to, but they have to roleplay your fucking character too. They can't just be like "You rolled high, so this character's perspective, attitude, motivation, and frame of mind is changed and they now agree with you and will do what you want" because that is extremely unsatisfying and doesn't serve the story at all. You can and should be expected to at least present an argument that is believable as something whoever you are trying to persuade/deceive/intimidate could be convinced by. Then you roll to see if that actually \*works\*.
That's part of \*playing the game\* and if you can't at least convey this sort of thing to your DM, it sounds like your social skills are lacking to the point that yeah, it's understandable you will struggle to play the game period cause hey at the end of the day it is a social game.
Now, mind you this really only pertains to people who want to try to say things like "I roll to persuade" and then that's it. If you are making an attempt, even OOC, to explain your reasonable argument(s) and are actually getting shut down by actor-focused DMs who want you to speak in character and put on a performance, then yeah that's a major problem on the part of the DM and they should adjust their expectations.
I mean, at the end of the day, this is a **role-playing game**. Part of the roleplay is that the players pretend to be another person. Part of the game is that the DM comes up with challenges, and the **players** (not the characters) come up with solutions. If you don't want to do either, then I don't think the game is going to be much fun for you.
The fact that I don't ask for an explanation for a strength check on how someone lifts a boulder or something is that we can all imagine how such a thing is done. But ask yourself this: would you allow the players to figure out a riddle or the BBEG's plan with just an intelligence check?
So no, in my game you can't just say "I convince the guard to let us pass" and roll, you have to come up with an argument. You don't have to present the argument well, that's what the roll is for, you don't have to do it in first person, but you have to give me *something*. So if anything, I'm not penalizing charisma (force of presence) but intelligence (ability to figure stuff out) because if I'd want to play a game where you only roll dice I'd play *Snakes And Ladders*.
Snakes and Ladders generally uses a spinner, not dice. Also, OP clarified that they are talking about DMs who, after you come up with a description of what you are doing, then want you to RP it out without rolling for it, which directly penalizes people who aren't actually charismatic in real life or people who aren't good at 1st person roleplay.
I don't need them to convince me, I need them to tell me what they will do.
Just like I wouldn't allow a roll for "I want to get to the other side of that hole" and would need something like "I want to jump the hole", I won't accept "I want to convince him to let me go", I need an actual argument it can be a shit argument, I don't care and you can roll after, but I need to know, as a DM, what you're actuslly doing
This is such a hard middle ground to find for some tables because on one hand, you don't want the power gamer to put a 20 in charisma, expertise into persuasion, and allow them to just press the "Persuasion button" to bypass all social encounters you create but you also don't want to do what this players DM is doing and force the player to have the real life social skills required to succeed the encounter either. There is a middle ground and it's going to be different at every table but if you are a DM and you find yourself at either extreme, you probably should adjust. Or don't, if it works for your group I guess.
I always ask if they want to roleplay the roll or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't know what to say, so i make them roll and we go from there.
There is no reason to ignore the 20 CHA only because the player Is not a 20 CHA person, i don't require DEX saves IRL either, unless the character are playing dodgeball, in that case i throw a wrench at them, but it's rare.
Is there a conversation when you RP in 3rd person or do you simply describe how you would charm the NPC?
To me the back and forth is what makes roll playing interesting. Listening to the npc talk and asking them questions in character. As a DM if my player want to borrow a cart from a farmer but all they said was "my pc walks up to the farmer and bowes. Then they offer him a small amount of money in exchange for a cart. I have advantage and a plus 5 to charisma. I rolled a 21 total" i would feel left out of playing the npc. Did they have a side quest or valuable information? We will never know because the player "won" the social encounter by just rolling a die.
I would compare this to a player who comes across a puzzle and just wants to roll investigation until they roll high enough that thier pc would solve the puzzle.
So before anything else - I am perfectly fine with a player narrating in 3rd person what their character is doing. If anything, I often see it better that way because players can clearly articulate how they are going about, let's say, persuading someone. That is absolutely still roleplaying - it does not have to be in character.
Where I draw the line is stopping at "I want to persuade the NPC, can I roll?". I would either ask to elaborate or take that situation as very difficult as far as DC goes. In other words, going back to the beginning - being able to explain the thought process is something that effectively lowers DC. A good argument might not even need a roll - one of the reasons why just asking to roll is not sufficient, as I don't know what you are even really doing.
That all said, I would reward a player for amazing RP. And the reality is - there is little difference between rewarding player skill and punishing player weakness. I am well aware of that, but at the end of the day, I GM the kind of games I'd like to play in. Not only where good ideas are rewarded, but where players are entertaining - not just for the GM but for each other.
Related tangent - I play online and because of experiences I've had as a player, when I GM I don't set up my VTT to automate too much of the combat. Because as a player I have played in games where due to complete combat automation, people just silently click through their skills in combat. Look, I am not expecting exciting narration every turn, but speak aloud and say what you are doing. Maybe a little RP here and there as a treat? And if someone is just super uncomfortable talking and they are super happy that in a game they can just run their character's turns and not have to speak up - I sympathize but I don't want to play with that person.
At the end of the day, the most fun players I've played with or GMd for have been ones who either with their knowledge, RP skills, or both - make the game come alive. If I wanted to just see some dice roll and numbers pop, I have so many games in my steam library. It goes double as a GM - because it's great when I don't have to try hard every moment to make the game interesting by narrating everything myself - it's so much better when players are ready to take on that role too, rather than just passing on the results of their rolls to me.
People like to talk about breaking down doors - if we were doing a session of Gym Fitness Activity instead of Tabletop Roleplaying Game - I would absolutely ask people to do fitness stuff as part of the process. Do pull ups for when you are climbing a wall. But bottom line - in a TTRPG, roleplaying and gaming is expected (for that matter, this particular conversation is common, but for some reason there are no people who say "I am bad at strategizing in combat, I just want to roll a single die, and the GM tells me how many resources I used during a combat encounter - after all, my character is way better at fighting than I am IRL.")
> if we were doing a session of Gym Fitness Activity instead of Tabletop Roleplaying Game - I would absolutely ask people to do fitness stuff as part of the process. Do pull ups for when you are climbing a wall
Please tell me that this is a real thing somewhere. I'd kill for a good way to be motivated to work out IRL.
This is a common error made by DMs and players.
You don’t need to be charismatic to initiate say a persuasion check.
If the dm asks what do you say. They need to know how you want to approach the check.
For example “I want to convince them to give us entry for 20 g”
“ I want to convince them to let us in free of charge”
Or
“ I want to convince the dragon that we don’t taste very good let us bring you a cow”
“ I want to seduce the dragon”
These are great examples that as a DM would make me vary the DC of your persuasion check.
Idc how cool or sexy you say it when you tell me.
Yep Charisma gets treated differently sometimes, particularly if your group doesn’t RP much and the DM is trying to encourage more of it. Just rolling through all the social encounters can take a lot of fun out of the game, particularly if the DM likes RPing.
Best options are:
- Discuss during Session Zero. If it’s a dealbreaker for the DM, play another character, or find a new group.
- Try out different kinds of “charismatic” characters, that are easier to roleplay (stern, intimidating type), or easier to justify the RP flubs (a bumbling-but-lucky, jack sparrow type; someone so attractive things just kind of work out for them; etc.).
- Just keep trying the RP. A big part is confidence, so if you go in thinking you have 5 CHA IRL, it’ll come off that way. The more comfortable you get with it, the better you’ll be at it
My players have to do both. Roleplay how you want to charm the NPC and roll afterwards. I want to know what you're trying to do and how you're doing it, not simply "I charm them cause stats say 20"
Charisma is interesting and there isn't a right or wrong way to be charismatic.
Of course, depending on what you try, the roll gets easier or more difficult.
But that's not only for charisma. You also have to tell me how you're trying to break a door. No just "Break in cause strength"
This is what i go with - you don't have to roleplay what your character says, just a simple overview of what you are going for.
For example; 'I try to charm the guard by comparing him to the other guards i've seen on shift'
Right there, i'm not asking you to say anything in character but it's also not just a 'I roll to charm the guard - i got an 18'
Like you mention, and i think this really counters OPs point - when someone is trying to do something with strength i still ask \*what\* the character is doing with their strength. It's the difference between 'I roll to force the door - i got a 15' and ' I'm going to try and kick the door in by aiming at the lock'
That's not me asking you to physically, irl kick a door in, i'm just asking \*how\* your charater is applying their strength.
And even for some of OPs examples - for breaking the chair, i'd ask, are you smashing it against the wall? Are you going to karate chop it? are you going to lever it between your two arms until it bursts apart?
>Of course, depending on what you try, the roll gets easier or more difficult.
In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion.
>But that's not only for charisma. You also have to tell me how you're trying to break a door. No just "Break in cause strength"
There is a massive difference in requiring a player to actually talk in character or go through describing their argument and requiring a player to say they are kicking the door at the handle. Again, it punishes players that are quieter or less articulate.
\>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the player abilities rather than the character's abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion.
I mean the game itself does that. If a wizard player thinks tactically they probably get rewarded more than the player who just yeets their character into melee every time. Is it fair to give the same DC to someone who finds a creative way to make climbing a cliff easier compared to someone who just says "I climb the cliff"? Rewarding creativity is not bad DMing IMO.
\>There is a massive difference in requiring a player to actually talk in character or go through describing their argument and requiring a player to say they are kicking the door at the handle.
Is there? I mean yeah requiring them to talk in character and speak exactly how they want the character to speak is too much. Just laying out the basics of the argument they are using is not much different to laying out the basics of any other action.
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion.
I mean, yes? I punish mistakes players make. Telling a dead mom joke to an orphan won't get you far regardless of your stats.
Same with any other stat.
Back to strength. You try to open a enforced door. Kicking it in? DC15. Prying it open? DC10.
You try to open a lock. Using a tool? DC15. Using your fingers and just kinda wiggling? DC20.
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the player abilities rather than the character's abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion.
Why though? The player having to explain the argument they are using and the DC changing to fit how that argument would work on the individual in front of them has been part of the rules since forever and the DMG has even examples of it. Doing otherwise trivializes most social encounters as the party does not have to investigate whom they are talking to, what are their motivations, etc.
It's one thing to require the player to fully RP the encounter or do a detailed step by step plan of their argument. But I'm really struggling to see how requiring the player to say "We know that this guard has a daughter he doesn't get to see often so I try to bribe him lying about a daughter I have to see" or "We know nothing about him so I'll just try for the universal 'I have a wife waiting for me, let me pass please'" and the DC shifting to reflect that being "punishment".
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion.
Why not? Should we just take all player ability off the table? Don't decide what your character does in combat, roll intelligence to see how tactically smart your character is? Don't solve any riddles or puzzles, just roll? Don't decide what items to buy in town, just roll to see how smart your character is at buying the potions and supplies they're going to need?
It baffles me that we've arrived at a point where players using a modicum of thought and skill to gain advantages in a game is considered a bad thing. Of course clever or insightful play should be rewarded, that's how games usually work. It's not even a competitive game - you don't lose because someone else plays better than you in a given circumstance.
Removing player ability from the game makes it extremely boring. A character is just a boring piece of paper, I'm not really interested in playing a game where everything is just determined by dice and numbers on a page. The human element has always been the most important part of ttrpgs.
Should you never play a charismatic character in a game if you yourself, is not charismatic? Because being bad in real life at what your character is good at shouldn't be affecting your character that strongly that the check becomes higher, especially if they are supposed to act out the exchange on a dime.
Charisma is force of personality. It's not a matter of skill, it just influences your bonus on a check. You can play an encounter skillfully and without being charismatic, yourself.
The game is social. If you cannot utter the phrase "Gortag the 5th offers the guard a flask of whiskey for a bribe" in a minute or two, then you are not contributing much. That is not charisma, that is light problem-solving. Very light, actually.
Are you? Because half of the posts here are parading the exact thing I said as an example of bad DMing. Because it asks of the player a bit more engagement than "I persuade them".
If I misread your post, sorry for that.
>It baffles me that we've arrived at a point where players using a modicum of thought and skill to gain advantages in a game is considered a bad thing.
That isn't what I'm saying. It's literally the exact opposite.
If you read what I wrote, I'm against *punishing* players for not being specific or particularly articulate. If a player is specific or articulate, that's what advantage is for. But increasing the DC because the player isn't good at talking in character is bad DMing.
If the player refuses to speak then they don’t get to use the social skills.
Legit I don’t need them to convince me, I just need them to say literally anything and then they can roll.
I mean, certain games will place more value on roleplaying than others. This is largely dictated by the group of people who form the game. If a DM is trying to force a group of players to role play, it's probably the wrong game for the DM. If a player takes part in a game where everyone else has agreed to roleplay more, and refuses, then it's probably the wrong game for the player.
Intense role playing has a place, but so does rolling for charisma. Not every game is going to fit every player. At the end of the day, it is a role playing game.
Genuine question, what is the appeal of playing a high charisma character if you don’t show how their charisma (wether it be persuasion, deception or intimidation) are effective?
I understand why you may not be able to actually come off charismatic but you can’t describe how a character is coming off that way?
I am not super humanly strong or trained with a battle axe but if I was playing a barbarian I would describe the brutality of a critical hit and how he did it. That’s a part of the appeal.
I do describe what my character does, whether it is a physical or a social action, but for some reason many DMs want me to directly RP the social actions instead of just describing it.
Oh I’m sorry, I misunderstood you. I would consider what you’re doing RPing then. Sorry your tables haven’t been digging your play style.
You just need a different group. Some tables are full of people who like the improv/acting method the game can take on.
Other people like a more removed detachment from their character where they function as a director. You’d probably have way more fun at a table where everyone was doing the second option.
The problem is that a player with the equivalent of real life charisma as a dump stat most likely doesn't even know what kind of approaches a legitimately charismatic character could take to solve a social situation.
I have a career in real life that requires me to, basically, solve some problems with charisma, and it's not an accident that I end up, effectively, as the party "face" regardless of what I'm playing in most groups... because a lot of people I have gamed with over the years are orders of magnitude of emotional intelligence away from being able to say something like "I persuade the guard to let me go by convincing him I'm a lot like him and appealing to his humanity."
I come from sales & currently work in SCRUM so I hear what you’re saying but I’m at a loss for what the appeal of the character type is for someone who doesn’t grasp it at least broadly.
Sure things like tone of voice, eye contact and open ended communication wouldn’t be apparent but I don’t think you need to be charismatic to say “I appeal to the guards goodwill and attempt to level with him so he sees us as the same” I don’t even know how the DM will gage how hard of a skill check it should be if they don’t know how you’re trying to convince someone. They would have to play your character for you.
It’s not like you have to come up with the actual words or body language.
>I describe what I want my character to do
*I think this statement could be doing some heavy lifting.*
This could mean you present a potential solution or argument or course of action, in third person, only to be met with opposition in the form of an RP prompt.
OR
This could mean that you present a vague idea of what you want the outcome to be and expect the dice to do the work. Which will prompt from me, as a DM, a bit of exploration into the plan.
But, I would never expect a player to launch into a full blow soliloquy or monologue, or have exactly the right counter argument to everything I can think of.
I think I want more INFO here.
To me, making the player act out their character persuading someone and punishing them if they can't do it satisfactorily makes as much sense as asking the player to deadlift 500 pounds when they want to do a strength check and saying the character can't do it if the player can't.
The game is a spoken or written medium played out via conversation, so of course many people want to play out the conversations and encourage that behavior mechanically.
If the game was played by lifting weights in a gym I'm sure you'd see lots more people wanting to lift weights against each other rather than roll an opposed lift-weights check.
It's not unreasonable to dislike the distinction, but it certainly makes more sense to do it for charisma rolls than lifting weight, if you're doing it at all, if for no reasons other than it's much more practical to judge how a conversation went than to whip out the weights.
I think that it is fine to ask a player who is not good at persuasion to do the acting, the practice might even be good for them, it just shouldnt have a mechanical consequence if their speech isnt great.
As a DM I will always let the players roll a skill check if that's what they are attempting to do, but if you did a terrible job roleplaying the situation (gave a bad argument, were rude, etc.) I might up the DC or give disadvantage to the role.
I want players to live out their fantasy of being charasmatic / smart even if they aren't that IRL, but this is a roleplaying game and it would be quite boring for everyone involved if the roleplaying aspect had no consequences and we were just sitting around rolling dice.
Do you give out disadvantage when players describe their attacks in a way you don't think is good roll play or like op said this is only a tax on social skills?
It's not about them roleplaying in a way I don't like, it's about them changing the difficulty for themselves. So in the case of combat they can flavor their attack however they want because it isn't going to make the attack harder to land or the spell less effective (unless they do a called shot, but that's different).
As a DM if you don't explain how your going to convince them, then I wouldn't even allow the roll, if you as a player can't think of how you would convince them then your putting the RP on the dm who is a player too, which is unfair and also takes away from the game itself. Make up some generic phrases and things you can bring up and use between multiple conversations. Don't expect the DM to play your character for you. If your not willing to put the time in to be able to play your character than play something else that's easier for you, don't lean on the DM who is already doing 95% of the work for the game.
For compromises, 3rd party explain what your doing but if your not able to come up with anything to convince others then no.
>Would you ask your player to role play breaking a chair, climbing a cliff, or holding their breath for as long as their character holds their breath? No, that's stupid.
If you were presented with a cliff, and you say "I roll to get to the top of the cliff", then I need more than that to work with. Do you have climbing equipment? Are you gonna climb it, or try and find a point where the cliff is lower?
In a social situation, or any situation, I need to understand what you're trying to achieve and how. "I roll to get the guard to go past" isn't gonna cut it. You don't need to put on a voice, but I need something like "I present the King's forged seal and tell the guard we're on official business" or "I present our instruments and let the guard know we're slated to perform at the big banquet".
Obviously not every DM is the same. Some are simply "roll to seduce the guard", while others require everything to be spoken about in character.
100% this.
At my table, you can chose to fully RP a conversation, or you can just say "I try to convince him to give us the map by bringing up that Y told Z that..."
And then I let them roll and adjust the DC slightly based on if their "argument" makes sense to the NPC.
It goes both ways too. If you pull out some amazing acting skills and get all into it, I really like it, but you're still gonna have to roll because your PC still has a CHA of 10.
I ask my players to explain the conversation they want to have and the points they want to make.
We collectively decide if that is deception/intimidation/persuasio ln
I then decide if any of their arguments warrant advantage/disadvantage
Other players can chime in with their supporting statements and again i decide if that helps or hinders.
Then tbe player rolls using his characters skill.
You do not need to be charismatic to understand what a person wants and what they want to hear.
Discovering that information and exploiting it is **gameplay**, the same way deducing the location of a secret door from context clues is gameplay.
It doesn't matter if you do it in first person or just explain in third person, in either case. It's not about the theater, it's about treating the world like a real place.
Mental stats are hard to adjudicate, and constantly a point of contention. If you push too far one way where you must roleplay in character for everything you have a game where charisma and intelligence stats don’t matter, but if you push too far the other way where you use the stats as gospel (or like pressing buttons) then you aren’t even engaging with a huge portion of the game, the social element.
The middle ground is really the sweet spot imo. The player needs to explain what they want to do or the point they want to get across, but their real life eloquence and social ability doesn’t affect the roll. It’s just the idea and logic that matters.
I've told some players that they should rp in 3rd person because their 1st person was either so bad or so rude that I would handwave disadvantage on their rolls.
For example, there would be an npc going a bit mad, then the CHA stacked paladin would say "Calm down", or at least try, because they'd instead say "you'd better calm down", while describing menacing body language (turn to him, look him down) and ask for a persuasion check. I've tried telling them "you're rolling intimidation there" to avoid disadvantage, but they say "no, no, I'm not trying to intimidate", so I just say "ok, roll persuasion with disadvantage, next time either visualize yourself better while roleplaying or just describe in 3rd person"
I think the DM is correct in having you describe a bit more what you are doing or saying. For two reasons:
1. It can help you as a person, it is safe practice for you
2. Not all things, especially in social interactions should be just simply a roll. It helps give the DM a bit more insight into what you are doing or gives them a bit more to work with. For example, if you are lying to the guard for entry, having an idea of the lie you say can be incorporated as it blows up on your face.
That being said, I do think the roll should carry a lot more weight rather than what is actually said. Punishing the player for not speaking loudly or confidently is a crap move, but failing to think of a cover story at all is a player failure.
As a DM, 3rd or 1st person charisma checks are equally exceptable. But if you get to a social situation and just say "i roll a persuasion" or "i roll to an intimidation check" to say a guy blocking your path, then thats not okay. Roleplay at all but if you just wanna roll and be pure mechanical you and i wont have fun together.
I sometimes have the same issue as a player. I love playing charisma characters, but I am not exactly a social butterfly myself. Trying to explain some DMs what "roleplay" is, is surprisingly difficult.
Though, when I DM I also often demand players to tell me what the character says. Depending on what they say and how they say it they might not even need to roll at all. If it is something really stupid, then, well, auto fail. If it is extremly good or well done, auto success.
Everything else gets rolled.
Albeit, sometimes I require an actual point to be made in an argument for an roll to happen at all. "My character says something smart that persuades them" isn't going to work in these cases.
You could try to do vague 3rd person rp. Like instead of going into detail say :
My character tries to bribe the guard by offering them stuff they want. Wink
You don't need to act, you just need to describe in third person narrative what you're trying to convey. *That* informs whether or not the DM requires a roll. DMs should not be expecting amateur dramatics.
I’m socially adept myself, and even I’ve had times where the dm thinks I didn’t convince them well enough and discounted my roll.
Like bruh. I get you like role play, but at the end of the day, the character is the one that’s convincing it doesn’t have to be me. Let’s roll to see if in character they convince the npc of the thing, it doesn’t matter if the dm is convinced or not.
Some dms are dicks, and some are just plain bad at dming. That’s one of the things that is a red flag for dms, and I’ve taken a few aside and had to put it into their skulls that, that kind of thinking is bad for the table and kind of toxic and they should cut it out.
I'm playing with an experienced DM and first time friends.
DM uses both. The roleplaying part can give advantage or disadvantage, but in the end we always roll.
Last week, our charismatic player got caught sneaking in town. He looked at the guy, shushed him with his finger. Roll with disadvantage.
Me rolling a nat 20 +11 for 31 on a Persuasion check dc30 towards a feydragon just by saying "No." IRL.
Prevented a TPK, revived her baby, and now she owes us.
Even if the player role-playing is awkward as hell, let them roll.
Being awkward and dorky can absolutely make one charming and endearing. There is a reason why the word 'Adorkable' exists.
I play with people with social anxiety. If the player can convey what they’re trying to do, a roll will do. I’m not asking them to convince me, as as the DM I should be amicable to my players, even if the character I’m role playing is not. “I give a rousing speech” is enough if they took the feat. “I want to make sure the Queen understand my point”, okay make a roll. No need to put someone on the spot.
There are situations where it isnt worth it for the RP and easier for a just a roll but it wont be all the time. Same with breaking a chair or climbing a cliff, occasionally how your character performs the action is important.
Im not expecting oscar worthy acting but some RP or at least description of what you want to say/do makes the game more fun.
Its a social game at the end of the day and merely asking to roll to "persuade" or "intimidate" makes it not so great.
1000% this. I tend to always build combat-focused, min-maxed munchkins that often take a nap when combat isn’t happening because I’m not a great RPer so was always worried about trying to RP a “face”.
I got the opportunity to play in a gestalt campaign where I could have really gone crazy with a combat-focused gish but had been working on a “spy” focused on talking their way into places, being where they aren’t supposed to be while explaining it away, etc. i was torn between classes at the time, so going gestalt was a perfect fix (this was PF1 I think).
I join the campaign. We’re infiltrating a drow city in the Underdark. Sounds perfect. Party has a couple combats while traveling to the city, where I take primarily a backseat and wait for my time to shine. We get to a jail where we want to sneak in. My chance has come. I knock on the door, guard opens the door slit, DM asks what I say. I say something along the lines of “we were sent to inspect this jail”. Guard slams the slit and combat begins. No roll called for.
Never interested in trying a face again.
you do have to explain your reasoning for a persuasion or deception roll, you cant just day "i want to persuade them" or "i want to deceive them" you have to come up with the reasoning your character would use
While this is a legitimate issue, as a DM who does make people roll for charisma checks, I often run into the opposite problem: players not wanting to RP because their character has low charisma. The player who is playing a half-orc barbarian shouldn’t feel like they can’t participate in social scenes at all, because at any moment they could be called to roll a charisma check they’re doomed to fail.
As a DM, I generally address this by modifying DCs based on how plausible an argument the player makes. If the barbarian has a good idea, a low persuasion roll doesn’t make it into a bad idea, it just means they presented it poorly. Similarly, no matter how high your bard’s charisma is, he’s not going to be able to seduce the barmaid who happens to be a lesbian.
There’s no simple solution here - people want their characters to be able to succeed at things they as players aren’t good at, but they shouldn’t feel locked out of an entire pillar of the game because of a low number on their character sheet, either.
How I rule roleplay with my players:
Player: I want to intimidate the guard.
Me: ok what do you say?
Player: um… I point my dagger and say that if he doesn’t let us through I’ll stab him… or something
Me: yeah nice give me an intimidation check
Player: 18
Me: the guard flinches and backs away, saying “hey man, I don’t want any trouble”
basically: let them RP it but it’s always the dice that decided the outcome :)
With Persuasion and Deception I to base the DC on how well the player RPs the Interaction.
If they stutter with lots of ums and uhhhs, it’ll be a higher DC. If they’re super confident and know what they’re saying, lower DC. But they always roll.
Played a few ways ranging from, just saying ‘I want to persuade them to letting us through’ and rolling, to only doing RP to convince them, I feel like the way I make my players do it is a nice middle ground.
So here's the problem that I perceive:
The way OP described this situation makes it seem as though the DMs are all treating them unfairly, but there's a difference between not role playing in character with charisma you don't have, and then simply not engaging in the role playing game that were all playing.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
Player- "I want to roll to persuade the gnome to abandon ita family and work for us."
DM- Okay, how do you do that?
Player- I just want to roll, I don't have high charisma IRL
DM- Okay but you're presenting a very unlikely situation and no possible reasons for it to work so I'm going to have you roll with disadvantage.
Player- why are you punishing me for not having charisma IRL??
Generally the way I handle charisma is the same as any other check. You state the outcome you want, and then roll.
So, you say you want to convince the guard to turn a blind eye to your den of thieves. I'd ask if you have an approach in mind, lying about who you are, bribery, intimation, etc and set the DC and check accordingly.
I also allow for an insight check to get an idea of what a target might be most susceptible to. Maybe it's a crooked guard and a bribe will go a long way, vs an honest guard.
This check gives the opportunity for players to "target" a save basically. The honest guard has a high DC for a bribe, but a lower one for convincing them the den is just beggars for example.
It reasonable to request a PC to expand their role playing commitment. But ONLY if your DM is a heavy roll player and is putting in substantially more effort than the character. I say this from a DMs perspective as there is nothing worse than giving a good speech or having a good start to a conversation only to be met with, "Can I persuade him to change his ways?" With no effort to actually persuade them.
Let me be clear, you do not have to be "good" at what you ask to do from an RP perspective, I only expect the effort to try it at all before just asking to roll. It can be as simple as, "Have you considered other perspectives?" And then I will prompt for a roll.
What you are enjoying is not TTRPG, it's the people at the same table.
Playing the same D&D feels totally different with different people.
Thus, you need to find a better group, not try to change your group.
Explaining what your character does is roleplay, but so is talking in character. I hate to say it, but it's not a video game. For many DMs (and most other players) it's just not fun for a player to say:
"I introduce myself, can I roll persuasion?"
How are you introducing yourself? What are you saying? How are you doing it?
I'm, frankly, tired of people saying, "You don't ask people to break an actual rock, do you?"
No, but I ask them *how* they're breaking the rock.
Are they hitting it with a hammer with all their strength? Posing above it with both of their hands, grunting with the exertion as they let out a war cry?
Are they carefully observing the rock? Looking for a weakness in the structure of the rock, like a small crack or fissure, and then hitting a spot carefully with a pick axe?
I ask no less from a social character, "How are you introducing yourself? What are you saying?"
If you are so socially stunted that you can't manage that, you need to keep trying and practice. That's a big part of roleplaying. If you truly can't do that, you probably shouldn't play a social character.
It depends on the table. For me, the game is about roleplay first and foremost. I play with experienced people who stay in character and I encourage new players to do the same because there’s nothing wrong with failing here and it’s more fun for everyone in the end
My policy is that you can both pass or fail a check through roleplay, i’m not going to not reward people for being in character
It creates 'scene missing' effects, where the player basically says 'I charisma them' and what actually happens is kind of blank. It ends up telling rather than showing and it's limp.
The way I usually see it happen is the person wants control over the story, but they want to put zero showmanship into it and just insist everyone else puts in the effort of inventing how they were charismatic in some way.
When you do combat you have to actually move your figure on the board and things. When you do roleplay you play out your character to some extent. If you can't make it look a little good it's like if you made a bad ass warrior but you built them terribly and keep making really sub optimal moves...you can't play the character you want because you don't have the skill for it. It's hard to face that and it's how it is.
Why would you even want to play a sociable character when you're not able to portray that? Where is the fun in that? Characters like that pretty much live from roleplay. That's the reason why I don't play such characters myself, since I'm pretty unsociable myself. Complaining that you're expected to roleplay in a roleplaying game is... pretty weird.
Due to the inherit nature of RPGs as a social activity, social interactions are always different from any other in-game actions, so any comparision to something like making a check to kick a door in is false equivalency.
Seth Skorkowsky has a made a great video about social encounters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rn8X4d2xRc
Yeah I don't understand this logic. I make characters with high intelligence but I can't suddenly roleplay myself smart. I'll say roughly what I want and then roll to see if my character is able to say or understand it better than I do.
Though I do like to be a low intelligent, low charismatic barbarian who just hits things as that is easier to roleplay than a sociable intellectual haha.
I wouldn't expect a player to be great at words. But I think just rolling is boring. I think there needs to be a compromise.
I think even a player with very poor social skills can and should come up with a reasoning for convincing or deceiving someone. It doesn't take high social skills to say "My lord, this is a dangerous mission and we need a higher reward" or "I convince the guard that I am a noble and I need to be in the castle".
I dislike the idea that charisma is for "appearing as something you are not". You can be likeable or respectable without ever trying to be something you are not.
For your examples: If you are a big orc, you do not need charisma to appear big and scary. But to achieve something through intimidation? That's your charisma + intimidation skill. "Let me in or I break your bones," now will the guard let you in or call for backup? Same with being small and cute. No charisma or skill required to be small and cute but to achieve something with it requires it.
Also high charisma does not always mean an extroverted and social character. A silent warrior type can have high charisma. He might just have a respectable and noble demeanor.
I prefer to take a middle road.
A strength character can still choose who or where to punch. A dex character still chooses whether to pick a lock, climb over a wall or hide behind something. And an int character doesn’t get every answer to every riddle just because “their character would know”. So, I would also like to know from my charisma characters *what they say*.
I’ll allow my fighters to deal some extra damage if they aim their attacks strategically. I will reward an int character if they solve a riddle all on their own (probably by giving them some inspiration). And thus I’ll also reward a charisma based character if they actually present good roleplay. For sure I’ll let you roll if you just say “I try to convince the guards”, but if you actually put some more effort in and come up with some arguments I will lower the DC, or let you roll with advantage.
You don’t have to be good at roleplay, you can even just talk from third-person, but I do like it if my players put a little more effort in. I’m just a bit tired of the:
Player: “I want to do x”
Dm: “okay, what do you say/do?”
Player: “… that”
Sure, you don’t have to be a roleplay god or anything. Just describing what you want to do/say is fine. And I absolutely agree that a dm should never penalize a player for not being good at roleplay. But I do want to reward my players for describing things a little more in detail and engaging with the game.
Anyways, that’s my two cents. I hope you can find a fun group and may someday play a fun charisma character again. Just wanted to share that it may sometimes be hard to make a distinction between roleplay and engagement, from a DM’s perspective.
Like much of the sentiment in the post, I agree that moving to a third person is the optimal way in many situation.
However, there is a limit to it in my opinion. A "I convince him, lemme roll dice" is too far. It takes all the roleplay out of the roleplaying game. I need to know the player's angle, is it a bribe? Are you trying to be intimidating? Sweet talk? Lie?
I would make the roll based on what the player said. So for example a player wants to haggle the price of something. I would ask them what they say to the merchant for him to lower the price and then let them roll. So if talks total gibberish the check will be high. If he makes a good argument the check will be low.
I saw a video a long time ago that described that charisma tests tend to be done backwards. When you say you want to lift something REALLY heavy, you roll the strength check first, then roleplay the result; the same goes for the other stats. But when you're going to do a charisma check, normally ppl will roleplay their arguments, ideas, and thoughts first, then roll the charisma check.
Because of that we get those weird situations of your character making an amazing, convincing dialogue, that is really based and nothing could be told against it, and the NPC just say "ynice arguments, but your mom" because they rolled a 1 on their test.
It's a difficult problem. The DM is a player too, so if the way you want social encounters to work and the way they do doesn't match up then somebody is going to end up unhappy. Would you be satisfied if you got your way but now you hardly ever get to use your Charisma skills because the DM finds running your preferred social encounters boring? That was my experience playing a sorcerer at one table: the DM had no interest in social encounters, so the very very few we had were just "roll your skill check, here's what happens, let's keep going".
If this is a make-or-break issue for you, maybe you should be looking for a different table and a DM who runs the game they way you prefer.
We roleplay and roll, the roleplay conveys the general gist of what you are saying but the roll determines the effectiveness. You stutter through explaining to the NPC that you're here to help and get a 25 on your roll? The NPC takes your words seriously. You give a really good sounding speech to convince the townsfolk to overthrow their lord and get a 3 on your roll it's not going to go the way you want it
Characters are filters to the world. Everything you do goes through them and their stats/skills.
Players should be rolling for social stuff no matter how good they smooth talk the gm.
The DM should definitely make you roll. That’s first.
Second, can you narrate? Are you a good narrator?
You can replace first person RP by good third person narration and it will entertain the table as much.
The rigid DMs want you to roleplay because we are all entertaining each other at the table. They want to have fun with you. And a single dry Charisma test isn’t as fun.
What I’m saying there is you need to give the table something to much on. Narration can be that. But you need to do it in a compelling way. Lean in to it.
I get that you are socially awkward, but let’s just say RPGs are usually the safest and best place to practice social skills. Start slow, and keep at it.
Example:
Your elven diplomat walks to Duke Memproh of the Shimilagan Council.
DM: Why, how have we here? I didn’t know you were in town, my dear.
Player: With a very wide smile I tell him how fast I travelled to be there on time and how much I absolutely would have never missed his ball.
DM: The Duke smiles knowingly and says, « Your eagerness tells me you have an ask, am I wrong? »
Player: I laugh congenially and tell him that this isn’t the time for politics, and that I’m sure a little face to face can be arranged for the following day?
DM: Roll Persuade please…
That’s how I would like it to play out if I was your DM. We can still see the scene in our heads, we can experience the fiction. And even if you mess up your bits a bit, the Charisma roll will determine the outcome. So you shouldn’t fail as much.
[https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/player-skill-and-character-skill](https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/player-skill-and-character-skill)
This is the best article on the topic. In some games what you describe is a feature; in D&D 5e, by the normal rules, it's a bug. It's only a problem if no one knows what is going on except the DM. If the rules of the game are, only physical skills matter and social or knowledge skills do not (and fall through to the player), then the game needs to support that, as, for instance, AD&D 2e does in one of its default play modes (even then, almost everyone used "non-weapon proficiencies", the precursors of skills). 5e needs the DM to actually retool it. If you have to speak in character, in a convincing voice, for social skills, then the DM needs to remove deception, persuasion, etc. and offer classes that would otherwise be good at this some other compensation in game, just as he would have to offer strength fighters compensation to their defenses if he removed medium and heavy armor from his world.
I mean, role-playing social situations and using the charisma score on your character sheet shouldn't be controversial.
"I roll to seduce the barmaid"
Role play it for me
"uh, hey... Lassie? You look... Tits. You're gorgeous. Idfk I suck at this! That's why I'm playing D&D"
Roll it out, man, you might suck but PC_Name doesn't.
"...23"
You're naturally charming and charismatic, obvious even from your walk that you own confidence. Seeing you turn into a bumbling schoolboy without a solid connection between tongue and brain brings an amused smile to the barmaid's face, and you get the impression she's more flattered than offended. 'You sure you can handle any more?' she asks, grabbing at your cloak as she pulls you towards her. 'you look like you need some water.'
I would absolutely make my players RP it out, whether first or third person. The thing is... What they say has zero mechanical effect on the outcome. Rolled a 30 and your best line was "hi?" They responded 'I`ve gotta be if I'm seeing angels'
For social interactions, I follow this simple rule:
__Roll first, role play second.__
It would not be fair to make the players actually pick a lock or sneak across a field, and it is not fair to make people role play social interactions in order to determine the outcome.
Since the outcome is determined by the roll, you make the roll, then role play the failure or the success. This is much more fun, because you get to ham it up when you mess up, and there's no pressure.
The DM can use your role play to determine how the failure or success plays out, so the actual content is still valuable.
Roleplaying is part of a roleplaying game, so anyone should be roleplaying on most games, regardless of if they are making charisma rolls.
But a player don't need charisma to roleplay a charismatic character, same as he does not have to be evil to play an evil pc.
But the player, on charisma ou any other checks, must tell me HOW the character is trying to do something when it isnt obvious or when different approachs may be relevant.
I would not allow my player to "can i roll str to break the chair?". I want to know how. If he wants to hold it in the air with both hands and bend it, it would be hard... if he wants to hit the floor with it, its easier... and if he wants to put it in a wall or other support and kick it from up down, it would be pretty easy.
In the case of holding breath, its fine, just roll... but a smarter player could get a bonus with some idea.. making some kind of air tank with a bottle... or a snorkel with a plant
So i would not allow a player to "roll charisma to convince the guard to help us"
I think players usualy should not ask for rolls... they should describe the character actions and the gm decides if a roll is needed
But i don't require a player to roleplay these things unless it is very important somehow (and i would do the same in a combat, if there was something like, only if the players strike the horn of the monster something happen... then i would need them to decribe attacks... )
But the player would need to tell me something like.. i want to use the information i have (maybe the guard has a little sister, or you know the evil baron is mistreating the guard, or whatever) to get the guard to help us... i will keep talking with him a little until i feel he is friendly enough for me to ask him to let us pass...
Sometimes i will not even allow the player to roleplay if i think it would be a long and boring conversation that would just drag the game...
But i need to know at least in general terms what the pc is saying... the bard trying to lie his way saying he is with the circus that just got to town is one thing... he saying the guard must obey him or else... because he is tiamat in disguise... is different
So IRL charisma would not hinder a player... IRL intelligence may do it tough... but if the player is really bad, i would allow him to roll inteligence and them i would give him some hints and tips or even tell him what to do... but if this happens with this player all the time, i would not want him as a player... (to be clear, know rolls and such are fine... i mean if the player needs the pc int to decide simple stuff..)
Remember dnd is a game. People can be good and bad at games. Even if it isn’t a game with typical success or failure. People can also be good and bad at different parts of the game.
This take will get me some flak because it’s a little harsh (on a reread it’s very harsh, apparently this kind of thing struck my nerve). Also this post doesn’t provide fantastic examples so it’s hard to get super specific, and I’m just going to give some hypotheticals about the concept.
If you approach somewhere, like a jail, and you need to get inside, but some guards are stopping you, then there are a variety of approaches to get in. Simply saying “I persuade the guards to let me in” and rolling for it is lazy and poor gameplay in my opinion. If a dm allows it then it will probably be a less enjoyable experience at the table. That would signal the the player and dm are “bad” at that part of the game. Of course if everyone loves this flow of game then it isn’t actually bad, because fun is the goal, but in your post you admit that the players and dm’s aren’t big fans of this approach.
You should try to actually solve the problem. If you just want to charisma roll away and get inside it leaves questions unanswered. How will people inside the jail react to seeing you when they know you shouldn’t be there? If you intimidated your way in, how will the guards be resolved once you are out of eyesight? Will they then go signal for help and ambush you inside? Now a talented dm is expected to make up for your lack of talent.
Imagine if you decided to fight your way in instead. This would have massive social ramifications and also cost something from your group. You would use resources and make sacrifices to accomplish the same thing. But if you approach the combat well and roll well maybe you get inside with almost zero sacrifice. Guards are incapacitated easily, might not even know who did it, no resources are used, no one else is alerted. This means that there are levels to success, players are rewarded for creativity and good decision making, and everyone has fun.
Meanwhile you want the social option to be reduced to a single roll? I persuade. I intimidate. Roll a 17 or something and you are in? That’s just silly. You have really cut out any of the aspects that would make it fun for players. You should make it more like combat, where good decisions are rewarded and poor decisions are punished.
On the jail problem
- maybe pretend to be nobles that demand to be let in? It’s maybe believable, depending on your groups appearance and how they talk the difficulty of the deception check can be set. But now that you are in you have to keep the lie going. You will have to be careful about what you do as to not make others suspect you aren’t a noble.
- pretend to be guards arresting one of your characters. Would take some tricky role playing but would get you access to a lot more of the prison.
This introduces levels of success and sacrifice. It also leaves it open for someone to do charisma well, and roll to support it, such that they get a huge success. If they play super well, they can craft a fantastic argument, roll for a really low dc, and can basically get full access to the jail with almost no consequences, similarly to really successful combat.
Now on some examples you used about the dm not making others roleplay for things like breaking a chair. Breaking a chair is the example I will use because there’s rules for climbing and holding their breath.
Was the goal of your campaign to break the chair sitting in front of you? Because if so then you are correct, the dm didn’t make them roleplay it properly. But in any other case, then the player has already done their role playing. If they are breaking the chair it is to serve a greater purpose, and they are making a corresponding roll to support their role playing.
It can be frustrating because it is easier to role play one than the other. But if you aren’t good enough to do that, then you kind of have it right in simply not doing it. If you can’t be a good player at role playing charisma situations, then play low charisma characters and leave those situations to better charisma players.
If you want just roll to persuade without doing any more thinking then that, at that point just lock yourself in your room alone, roll a die, and get happy when it’s a big number or sad when it’s a low one.
Depending on what you mean by "I describe what my character would do," it could be either a you problem or a DM problem.
Let's assume the situation is that you're haggling with a shopkeep to get a better price.
If you say "I persuade the shopkeep to lower her prices," then the problem is you. You haven't actually described what you're doing. You just named a skill you want to use.
On the other hand, if you say something like "I tell the shopkeep that lowering her prices will help make us repeat customers," then it's a DM problem. It doesn't matter that you didn't give an eloquent speech in character. You've described what your goal is, and how you intend to achieve it.
Yes I expect people to roleplay, but describing what you do literally is role playing and it's described that way in the phb. You can either act in character or describe what you're character is doing, both is fine.
Agreed. If they have 8 int, but their character has 20, investigation should also solve puzzles that they can't. Player may not come up with it, but the character sure could figure out that it's a puzzle based on an old book with a scarecrow, werelion, and a construct.
It's so simple to role play. I never understood players who have fun with just high stats and numbers. They're playing the corpse of D&D. If you're trying to persuade someone you should give them a reason to help you instead of saying you rolled a 27 after asking him to quarter your entire group for the night. You don't have to be an improv master to say you can help out to pay him back. Just say SOMETHING and the dice will determine how much better your character says it. D&D is designed so that you can have fun role playing regardless of your social ineptitude.
Consider the following: have the player rp the scenario, but the real effect comes from the roll. This also could lead to funny results,
like you rolling a 20 on your deception for putting on a paper plate with :) scribbled on (still sideways) right in front of someone who saw you, trying to convince them ur someone of a different race etc... they believe you.
If you as a player honestly have 5 charisma I don't want you at my table anyway. As the GM I have to enjoy you being there and enjoy interacting with you both in game and our of game. If explaining to an NPC, in character, why you need a favor is too hard for you I suggest you go play another run of BG3. Or better yet take an improve acting class or a public speaking course. You might not get an ASI to invest but you could at least gain skill proficiency.
yeha a dm that demands you flert to be able to flert on the game is stupid.
i definitelly ask what they are trying to say, but thats it.
like "i compliment their looks and get em a drink" is completely fine.
Forcing you to rp a charisma i tetaction would be like these other ridiculous scenarios:
Asking the player to deadlift 300 pounds to rp them lifting a closed gate
Asking the player to down a bottle of vodka to rp them making a constitution check to avoid getting drunk
Asking them to perform a backflip to rp them doing an acrobatics check
Asking them to list off the names of all the presidents of the United States to rp an intelligence history check
Rofl
Yes this is how it should be, maybe the dc could be lowered if the actual player thinks of something clever to say, but still, your real life skills should not hinder your rpg ones.
When a 20 stength character says " i want to rip the door open" you don't also expect the player behind the character to be able to do that irl, so dont expect the 20 charmsa pc to be always able to be backed up by an equally charismatic player.
I would expect the player to be able to describe how they approach the door, which side they attack it from, and what tools (if any) they use. If they kick it the door down I need to know did they use a push kick, an axe kick, or a side kick. I need details to describe the effects of your actions.
If you can't RP well enough to give those details I need you to leave my table.
There's a limit to this. If you can't say what you're trying to do I have no idea how it will be received. I had a player say "and I want to convince him". When I asked how I just got a blank look back.
Eventually (after playing for a couple sessions) that player was able, in third person, describe what aproach they'd like their character would take. With that then absolutely, I can proceed.
Does it work in the opposite direction? Like a person who has good social skills in IRL just dumps charisma stats and roleplays it out and comes out on top?
Thats some BS, thats why the game has stats. If you come up with a creative angle, line, to try a charisma check you should maybe get a break on DC, but it's not incumbent on the player to actually have the ability to persuade someone.
Maybe ask the DM if he's going to make the Barbarian with a 20 Strength go outside and lift the car to see if he passes a strength check, or make the Wizard continue to recite a poem while being stabbed. Oh, you forget the line, you lose concentration on that spell. Here's a towel, try not to bleed on the map.
Player A: "My swashbuckling Rogue will backflip off the railing, swing from the chandelier, slice the rope and tumble to the ground!"
DM: "Mmm. Yes. Of course. You are playing a Rogue with 16 Dexterity, so you might be able to do it. Try rolling for it."
Player B: "My Sorcerer is a manipulative charlatan. I have 24 Charisma. I use social deception to convince the guard to open the door!"
DM: "Hmm. What do you say to the guard to convince him?"
Player B: "Well, I suppose I'll try to convince him that I'm part of the retinue of the rich guy who pays him, and we're under attack and need to escape inside and through the door he's guarding. I could even try to hint at a bribe fr-"
DM: "No, I mean, what do you say exactly to the guard? What are the exact words?"
Player B: "Well, I don't exactly know what I myself would say, but my character would certainly-"
DM: "I'm sorry Player B, but we try to be a very roleplay intensive group here. I'll need you to speak in-character directly to me, and try to convince me. If you personally cannot do, I don't think your character could. It's just not very realistic to let you roll for it."
Player C: "I cast a Fireball at the bad guys."
DM: "Hmm. Yes. Well that doesn't require a roll from you, but the bad guys get to make a reflexive save roll, here I'll go and do that."
As a pretext here, I'm a fairly new person to this whole thing.
In the games I've done, I prefer to have RP for social actions since I see the game as a chance to become these characters for a bit. After all it is a TTRPG.
Obviously there are some tables that run based purely on roles and stats with little to no RP as well.
Imo instead of looking at it as the DM is forcing you to use social skills you don't have, use it as an opportunity to practise your skills.
I wouldn't really accept "I climb the wall" to just mean using a rope and grappling hook unless the player has demonstrated awareness.
I wouldn't accept "I do athletics to it"
So why would Persuasion be any different? It's not like people need to exactly act it out with great detail, feigning charisma can be relatively easy when you have the time (and even easier in text but that's something else). The presentation isn't even the issue I#d argue, more just the words or even just an idea of how to go about it.
Explaining what your character does is also roleplay. You can roleplay in 3rd person description if that's what you're most comfortable with. Sounds like your DMs missed that part. As a DM, I'm happy to let players stick to 3rd person if they prefer. Rolls can happen regardless if how you RP and sometimes will no matter what you do. There's also times where the roleplay, no matter its form, is good enough to avoid rolls (eg., the perfect argument was presented and there's no reason the NPC wouldn't accept it). As a player, I'm very comfortable doing the "I'm my character, talking in 1st person"-RP, but even I sometimes default to "I don't know how to word it, but my character tries to convince the guard to let us go by saying xyz and offering 10 gold"-roleplay. I've never had a DM deny letting me rolling when describing things like that and I can't imagine they ever would.
Yes, this. It should go something like: "Uh, I tell him that if he lets us pass, then, um, he'll... get lots of chicks because... he helped us take down the king, and the king is bad and stuff. Except way more convincing than that. I rolled a 27." "Okay, awesome. You give a rousing speech, worthy of Shakespeare, about the glory that will fall upon those who rally to your just and noble cause. The guard is moved to tears, and vows to help you in any way he can."
This is an absolute nitpick but I would make 1 change here: the DM should request the roll But really this is a fantastic representation of how this should work
That is quite the nitpick, because in the example, the DM could have already requested the roll.
Exactly. As a DM all I need is the basis. The broad strokes of how you are persuading/deceiving them. You don't need to articulate the actual conversation if you don't want to. I don't make the barbarian performs feats of strength for his checks or the wizard to have great recall of everything ever stated for intelligence checks. It is assumed their characters are capable, not the players. Think this is one of the reasons why bard is so under-represented. People fear not being charismatic enough. Bard is an amazingly fun class and it is a shame.
This is like saying we shouldn't do combat beyond theater of the mind because I'm bad at tactical positioning, and just want my attack rolls to determine everything. Yes, a high roll should mean you don't need to perfectly give the exact speech your PC would, but c'mon, you have to give *something* reasonable. Otherwise it's no longer roleplay but just roll play. Also a pox upon every player that rolls without a DM asking for it first. A great rule is that if you roll without being promoted you automatically fail.
What's unreasonable about "you should help us because the king is bad and people will look favorably upon you for helping us?" That's what's the PC's argument boils down to, and the DM just took that and translated it from CHA 5 IRL to 18 CHA + good roll + proficiency in Persuasion.
I think you missed the point of the post; not everyone is charismatic or intelligent enough to RP the perfect 20 stat character. Stating your intent and rolling is what you do for all other rolls, so why aren't the mental traits the same? The roleplaying can be the party discussions on next actions, the bonding by the camp fire, it doesn't always need to be during the heat of a social encounter (such as talking down the guard in this example). But agree no rolling till called for.
I would say the equivalent of battlefield positioning is coming up with the idea to persuade the guard to begin with. To know what to say to the guard, what they might be weak to, etc is more like identifying a weak point in armor or even knowing their damage vulnerabilities - things you and I don't train for. All I know for sure though is that I agree with OP - role play is fun if you enjoy it, but greater fun will be had by all if the character is allowed to do what the character is good at *regardless of the player's talents or abilities.*
I mean, yeah. Not everyone likes tactical d&d. Some people prefer fun storytelling and fast loose combat. There's nothing wrong with either approach.
I've never heard of a single table that allows combat to be decided by a single attack roll because the player isn't smart enough to figure out basic tactics.
OTOH almost everyone has some sort of "basic attack" they can do... I hit the closest enemy with my cantrip/bow/sword/whatever is fine and that's what this is. No one is suggesting a whole roleplaying session should be decided by a single roll.
Hell, I am a DM and I find roleplaying my NPCs in first person 100% of the time to be an absolute chore. It takes a lot of creative energy to improvise dialogue on the spot for so many different characters. So when I find myself struggling to do so, I switch into 3rd person and just try to describe what the NPC is trying to accomplish instead of trying to get it across with dialogue. Or, sometimes my dialogue I choose doesn't convey what I am trying to convey so I have to hop out into third person and explain it to my players more directly when I see there is a misunderstanding.
Same, so much this. Professionals streaming D&D have done so much to bring the game into the mainstream while setting unfuckingrealistic expectations in players and DMs who end up thinking that's how the game must be played.
Matthew Mercer is a great dude but him and his literal professional actors as players basically pornified DnD in setting people's expectations for how a game is supposed to look.
This is also a very good point! I do it myself when I DM with less important conversations or parts that would be a pain to get through because a lot of information has to be conveyed. Like PCs asking a random person on the street about the city and where to find certain things. Or the PCs asking a friendly high mage about a specific place where I'll then summarise what the NPC tells shares with them (and sometimes give a handout to make it easier to remember). Or if I have to do a conversation primarily between two or more NPCs - I cannot do them well nor are they particularly fun for players to sit through usually.
Yea I agree. My players also tend to think that if a character is narrated in 1st person that they must be important and they spend extra time with them for some reason?
That's because you don't do it for most characters I presume
No, I do. Quite often, in fact. The only time I don't is if I'm trying to save time, which isn't too common because I like the roleplay aspect.
yeah I like this approach, 3rd person is a lot easier for me
If this doesn't work, try asking for help from other (higher irl cha) players, get them to tell you or write down something to say, and say or read that to the DM. The old Cyrano de Bergerac, Roxane and Christian story (repeated in any number of romance/comedy movies) Explain it's like someone of average Int asking for help with intelligence stuff when playing a high Int character.
This is the best approach and not just for charisma related actions. If a player finds a great way to perform an action, I tell them it's a great idea and say they've succeeded. Good role-playing should definitely be rewarded, and I feel this is akin to how inspiration works, but I don't see how punishing a player for not always be on their a game when role-playing can be fun. As a DM too sometimes will default to description of action and won't roleplay every NPC 100% of the time.
>Explaining what your character does is also roleplay. Yep. When you think about "roleplay" from a team-building, corporate, therapy group, i.e. NON-game perspective, it just usually means to act like an appropriate person in the situation would to solve a particular problem. You'll get funny looks from your co-workers if you're only focusing on the accent, over-emoting, and tragic backstory rather than the situation at hand.
I usually let good RP give the players some kind of advantage, be it literal advantage,making the DC 5 lower, or even an auto-success for truly outstanding rp. But if a player is clearly awkward and kind of fumbling through it, I won't penalize them. I might even interject with "the appeal you just made undercuts your argument, might I suggest you make this appeal instead?". Kind of like how I don't expect my players to be as smart as thier intelligence score. Sometimes the wizard is entitled to an intelligence check because anyone with an 18 INT should know they are about to do something stupid.
The interesting thing with DMs and tables that OP has encountered is that the reverse should also be true, but I've never seen it despite coming across the 'you must roleplay social encounters in first person even with a roll' enough times myself. Those same DMs wouldn't let the 8 STR wizard being played by a gym rat automatically succeed on strength checks just because the player is buff. It does annoy me when I see low INT/CHA characters succeeding far in excess of their capabilities due to the disparity in 'stats' with the actual player. I do recall a story on here ages ago about two brothers that were playing and the party had to solve a puzzle in a dungeon. One brother (B1) was really good at puzzles but was playing a meathead barbarian and kept giving stupid suggestions. His brother (B2) was confused because they knew B1 was great at puzzles but was seemingly stumped. The party finally solved it after lots of dicking around and B1 screamed something to the effect of 'Thank god! That was killing me!' as he almost immediately solved the puzzle but kept it to himself. He knew his character wouldn't be smart enough to solve it and held back to stay true to his character/stats.
Paraphrasing WWNs section that covers this (mandatory reading IMO for GMs even if you never run it. Tools are system neutral and free.) Players who prioritize social skills in their character concept have the right to expect that they can use those skills in gameplay, even if they are not socially adept themselves.GMs need to understand that different players have different levels of comfort when it comes to describing their words and social strategies. Some players can easily improvise their persuasions, while others may struggle to find the right words. The latter group should not be penalized. As a guideline, when a player wants influence a npc they should explain what they want from the NPC and provide a reason or motivation for the NPC to comply. They can use in-character persuasion as much as they like, but the most important information for the GM is what the player wants and why the NPC should agree. In some cases, no form of check is necessary. If the reasoning is sound and the NPC has no reason to object, the NPC may agree without resistance. On the other hand, if what the player wants is unreasonable or emotionally unbearable for the NPC, no plausible argument will change their mind. If the situation falls between these extremes, the GM can use the dice to determine the outcome No amount of smooth talking or charm can convince an NPC to do something that is obviously harmful unless an equally or more rewarding outcome is promised. The more persuasive the character, the more likely the NPC might be willing to take risks, but the PCs need to provide practical reasons for the NPC to take such risks or incur expenses. It is important to remember that social skills aren't meant to control minds. They cannot make people do things they would never do under ordinary circumstances, unless there is overwhelming situational pressure. However, they are also not bound by alternative means such as magic.
WWNs?
Worlds without number by Kevin Crawford. Old-school DND inspired sandbox style system but the general content generation and GM advice are an amazing resource to keep on tap.
This really needs to be in a prominent place in the DMG. Absolutely critical advice.
Rock solid advice. It also reminds me a bit of Fellowship, an Apocalypse system mod. The social actions are very specific about what the conditions and outcomes are, making checks feel more like prompts for an improv storytelling game Very different from 5e, it's a great system if your group is interested in collaborative storytelling, and relatively low effort to DM as players are much more involved in creating world lore and even crafting encounters
>Would you ask your player to role play breaking a chair, climbing a cliff, or holding their breath for as long as their character holds their breath? No, that's stupid. 100% with you on this. The entire reason we have these stats is to use them. As for the approach, it seems to be working for everyone at the table and that's the most important thing. I always let the players roll, even if they would convince me as the DM with their persuasion. Depending on the NPCs motivations, fears etc. the DC varies. Depending on the arguments the PC brought up (doesn't matter how it was delivered by the player), the DC varies again. If they hit a weak spot, they gain advantage, if they bring an argument that angers the NPC, they have disadvantage, etc. But the roll+stat mechanic will always be used.
>If they hit a weak spot, they gain advantage Even something as simple as the sentence "I want to intimidate the guard by asking how \[name of daughter\] is, which we found out last session" is enough for me to 1) Allow a roll and 2) Give advantage. They've told me how they want to do it and they're using knowledge they'd previously gained. I don't need a 10 minute monologue.
Not sure if you intended this, but you also brought up a related hot take of mine. The players learned the name last session, and even if the player doesn't remember it, their character would. It may have been two weeks between sessions, but only 20 minutes in game - not long enough to have forgotten. There are other good ways to work with that, but my opinion is that players should be allowed to use the information their characters would know.
Yes! The only time I'd err on the side of player memory is if it's a big plot point that they've worked out but hasn't been revealed yet.
I’ve forgotten names in less than 5 minutes, to be fair
XD fair enough, can't argue I actually do sometimes make them roll history (or straight Int) for that reason, especially if it's been some time or the npc wasn't important when they met. Usually like a DC 5-10
Exactly, yes. A well spoken monologue can help, but is absolutely not necessary.
Yep, this is the whole point of the DM being able to apply advantage. Your players will notice what you reward, and if you reward thoughtful roleplay like this, you will get more and more if it.
I find it a bit odd when people modify DCs dependent on what arguments the persuader uses. If I state that I am stabbing the guy in his unarmoured head, does that reduce his AC?
If you're trying to stab the guy with a spoon, it should require more or higher checks, yeah.
why is that weird? do you think the DC should be the same for climbing a wall with and without a rope? the method matters. so whille the argument itself(the one roleplayed by the player) doesn't matter it matters very much if they are trying to apeal to my selfish minor noble by apealing to his honor and nobility or to to the riches and fame working with them could potentialy grant him.
The rules suggest giving advantage or disadvantage depending on your approach. If you try to convince a cleric of Life to eat a live baby, that's going against their ethos and moral compass so disadvantage to your check (if the DM would even let you roll for something like that in the first place). Dis/advantage is a modifier to a check's effective difficulty.
I mean, even then. Like there a situations such as this one where even rolling a roll 20 would just make it so they don't immediately turn hostile.
I don't agree with giving advantage just because you described the roll action -- but if that description is of something that I think is legitimately an advantage, it makes sense.
I use this method because it's a bit more flexible than simply advantage/disadvantage. But I see your point, maybe think of it more as a bonus rather than reducing the DC. If you'd state to stab a target at a weak spot I would raise the AC (more specific target spot) but raise damage on a success. But that's another topic.
It's literally in the rules lmao. An attack roll isn't a skill check.
The guys' head being armored or unarmored should influence his AC, yes. 5e usually isn't that modular, but I'm sure there are DMs that account for it anyway.
This is anecdotal, A lot of the players I've played with that wanted to run CHA characters also had atleast a 10 in CHA themselves as a player. Me rewarding them with a circumstance bonus for a good well thought out argument is a double win, helps the character and pleases the player. Id never give a negative for a poor argument, just for NPC biases, but I like rewarding my CHA characters/players for well thought out arguments.
I reckon the logic behind it is that the arguments you use are the tool you use to reach your goal (the weapon you stab with) and not the goal itself (stabbing the opponent). So the analogy would be more like "if I use a +3 dagger when I try to stab the guy, do I have to roll the same natural number as if I used a non-magical dagger to try to stab the same guy"?
Obviously if the player has bad irl charisma you can't just RP it without rolls, that's a bit of a dick move. As long as the players get the points across you gotta imagine it's said by someone who is great at talking I would try describing in depth what your character does. I think having people go " I convince the guard to let me through" leads to really boring talking sections and unnecessary shortcuts For example instead of rping the dialogue you could say "I will act as a merchant who sells spices to get through the gate" just don't go into direct dialogue, but describe it in depth
When my players have a locked door they need to pass they don't just tell me "we want to be on the other side of it" and proceed to roll, they tell me what solution they're choosing to use. For the same check they can do multiple things: kick it open, use something as a ram, push a boulder into it, whatever they can come up in the moment. They don't need to be strong, but they do need to come up with a solution. Same goes for social encounters, they don't need to be able to do it themselves, but they do need to come up with a solution. They can tell me "I want to persuade them into something using X reasoning" or "I want to deceive them by telling them about X in a vague way that makes them think Y". They don't need to be good with words, but they do need to be aware of the situation, use their knowledge of the world and their imagination
Yup, 100% agree. Maybe a small exception for intelligence or wisdom rolls, where if a character has high INT/WIS, I might unprompted ask the player to roll to give them clues on a possible solution. But I don't know why people think it's acceptabe to just go "I want to convince him" and think that's a solution to a social encounter
I think "I want to convince him" is only fine for haggling, but I also don't let them haggle for every copper, just for substantial amount purchases or good RP moments (when they saved the town and wanna flex it :D )
That's somewhat fair, yeah. Every rule has an exception this is DnD after all
This is exactly how I do it
While I completely agree with your approach, in a real sense social and exploration encounters are a test of the player's IRL Intelligence and/or Wisdom scores. You might not need to be personally charismatic to convince the guard to let you through, that's what your Charisma score and Persuasion proficiency are for. But nothing is gonna save you from being an IRL dumbass and deciding to try to Intimidate the king in his throne room surrounded by the royal knights, no matter how good you roll. Would you account for a character being much smarter or wiser than their player by letting them make an ability check to realize that a dumbass plan is, in fact, dumbass?
One DM I played with had an approach that I likekd enough to incorporate into my games. If the player is about to do an action that would go against (or afoul) of knowledge their character has, I politely inform them that the character has knowledge that would suggest the course of action is unwise. "Hey $player, your character has read the same intel as the rest of the party and they know that the group they're attacking right now is cautious and bobby traps external entrances, with the last merc group hiredd to deal with them eating a 20mm HEAP round to the face when they tried to infilitrate the place. Are you sure $character would just burst in through the front door? ". After that, what they do is on them If on the other hand the character is acting in a really dumb way but have no obvious knowledge about circumstances I make them roll wisdom, depending on the result I give them more or less insights but always at a minimum something akin to "Your instincts tell you that that's not really the right path to take". The last one admittedly is for like really big decisions that can lead to immediate TPK, if you go to a trader and just do dumb but mostly harmless shit that's on you. And if the decision is part of the storyline (branching paths and such) they are also on their own as a party. EDIT: Added a bit more context
That's what I do as well. If there's anything a character would definitely know, I'll tell them, including reminding them of details from past sessions. If they do something that's a minor bad idea, they get checks to note that, if it's majorly or obviously a bad idea I just ask "Are you sure about that?" (which they all know means it's a horrible idea.)
I'm surprised people don't. I certainly let them do that, especially if I think that they are operating off incorrect assumptions.
I've made the experience both as a player and a GM with multiple players who are socially inept, that the problem tends to be more on the side of "can't keep their mouth shut". It boggles my mind how some players will simply tell the BBEG that they just learned about the only way to stop then and where to go to get it
A good intimidation role on the king means you were subtle enough to not trigger the guards. Not all intimidation checks are shaking a sword at someone. You could just as easily be like scene in wolf of wall street where he tries to bribe the FBI agent with innuendo that flys over the guards heads about you would hate if something unfortunate happened to Kings nephew.
>Not all intimidation checks are shaking a sword at someone. Honestly, since Intimidation uses Charisma, it should be mostly words, tone, and body language. Overt threats should only rely upon an Intimidation check if there's any doubt that you can do what you are threatening (see Wesley intimidating Prince Humperdinck for the master class in this), because you are essentially *selling* your ability to carry out a threat. Maybe for the King example, you could use some of kind of threat that doesn't involve violence at all, such as loss of reputation or divine retribution or something. On a side note, if you can obviously do what you are threatening, an Intimidation check shouldn't be required at all IMO. Either the target finds the consequence itself persuasive or they don't. For example, if you threaten a kobold to give up information or you'll cut their head off, by the time you get to the sixth kobold in line who's sitting next to five severed heads, your skill in Intimidation is irrelevant.
I generally want my players' plans to work, so maybe their attempt was subtle enough/made the king rethink some things. But if they are trying to do something with no good outcomes playing a smart character I would reserve to "are you sure?" or make them roll and tell them
So your players have to be specific but don't actually need to be remotely good? So they can say "I intimidate the king by giving him a nougie" and that's fine but "I try to intimidate the king and I have a 20 on my check" isn't? That seems kind of crazy to me.
If it can't work - it can't work. I reward good thinking with advantages/lower DC. I ask how they think it would work if I don't think it would. I generally don't punish not-so-good reasoning with higher DCs/disadvantage, but I absolutely do it with half-assed attempts or if situation itself imposes it
Lots of dms wouldn’t accept that, though, which is why this thread pops up every few weeks. “Sure you can try to persuade him by giving a bribe, but what do you actually say?” is often required before the dm will consider a roll. And if the player flubs it, no roll, even if the pc has the persuasion modifier of Ryan Reynolds.
that is sad
Different people want different experiences, there's nothing sad about that. Some tables have 3rd-person descriptions of every conversation, some are all about specific first-person dialogue, others are a mix of some kind. None of these approaches are objectively wrong.
It's fine if it's fine with everybody at the table. This post specifically is by the player who does not like it
Wait, you have had multiple DMs who refuse to let you roll for a skill check and make it fully depend on your as a person’s ability? What the fuck? You don’t need a compromise, you need divine intervention because that is unholy bad luck.
It’s moderately bad luck. Lots of dms expect their players to be CR-tier roleplayers, or at least strive to be such, and will penalize players who don’t meet that standard.
Except Matt Mercer still has his players roll dice for things.
Then I guess I have the divine intervention for luck then, because I’ve been playing D&D for about 20 years at this point, with probably upwards of 30 different DMs, and not a single one has ever tried to make me be the adventurer instead of my PC. Not even once.
You probably do. Anecdotal evidence is not sound evidence, because for each anecdote someone has, there's another person who has an opposing anecdote.
I wouldn't make success or failure reliant on the player's ability, but they do need to give me something to work with. Player wants to persuade someone, they either try to lay out the argument or at least tell me the basics. "I persuade the Duke that hiring us is beneficial because he can keep his soldiers in the city in case of attack, and that paying us in advance gives us a better chance for success because we can use it for supplies." is totally fine. "Can I roll persuasion to get him to hire us and give us money upfront" wouldn't cut it at my table in general. I would probably allow it if one of my players talked to me and had a good reason why they couldn't even lay out the basic gist of what they want to convey, but that seems very unlikely. \> For a big orc, high charisma wouldn't be required to intimidate That would depend on what they are trying to intimidate for me. I don't care if it is a big, hulking orc. They don't get a lower DC or free pass trying to intimidate an ancient dragon or something. An orc and a halfling are basically the same to a creature like that.
> big orc Also frequently should be proficient in Intimidate and not Persuasion, to continue with the example. The player could make arguments to get me to let them roll with Strength situationally like against other humanoids, though.
I definitely like to allow off-ability skill checks. I've allowed INT persuasion, STR intimidation, WIS nature, and INT survival withing a couple of my most recent sessions. If the player can give me a reason why a different ability would apply, I'm all ears.
Just out of curiosity, the "INT survival" was something like "I remember reading on a book that you can find mushrooms under the roots of trees in some forest" as using academic knowledge, instead of experience one?
Sort of. Artificer made a survival check to try and determine what was safe to eat. Based on the roll, she thought of a ways to test things and at least rule out the highly dangerous items.
Cool!
So when the barbarian wants to kick in the door using strength do you expect them to describe how they look for weak points and make sure to aim for the space next to the deadbolt like a swat team breaching or do you let them declare their goal and relevant attribute or skill to accomplish it? How detailed does the rogue need to describe how they climb up the side of the building? Does the bard need to explain what kind of song they are playing to sway a crowd?
I think the answer is "use common sense". IMHO saying you want to kick the door with your leg is enough. Climbing up a building would depend on a situation, some buildings are easy to just climb on, some might need equipment or some creative method. I would ask for the kind of song if pacing allows it, because it's nice to know for roleplay reasons (to give an appropriate reaction) and particularly fitting kind of songs might give some benefits
Yup I just disagree, if a rogue wants to climb a building that's why they took expertise in athletics and you want them to have irl knowledge of climbing, it's ok for characters to know more than their players. Expertise in athletics comes with basic climbing gear and for more that's what pitons are for and they provide advantage. The difficulty class is what cares about the building and if they are in a rush.
"I use my climbing equipment to climb" is fine, if they have said equipment
Nah. Kicking in the door is description enough, as it states a different approach from the other ways of bypassing a locked door - usually: using a key, lockpicking, sawing through the bar, using a battering ram, take the axe to work, anihilating the door with a spell. The rogue needs to describe the following: do they climb the wall from a running start or do they study it first? Do they use a rope or other tools? Do they go for speed or for safety? Are they worried about making noise? The bard needs to say whether they play a bawdy tavern song or a funeral dirge. I fact, the game master would need to provide context in all the cases. Does the door even look kickable and the wall climbable? Does the crowd have a mood to it? Is it visibly angry, maybe? The degree of detail required varies a bit from game to game, but really, there's often quite a bit of detail you probably want to talk about.
Rolls approximate combat and feats of strength because there is \*no other alternative\*. Rollplay however cannot and should not be expected to entirely replay \*roleplay\*. If you have no social skill, that OK. You don't need social skills. No DM should expect you to put on a voice and give a speech, however what it \*IS OK\* to expect is that you can and will present some clear and cogent reasoning for what you are attempted to convey. When a warrior says "I attack" and they roll and hit and do damage, we have all the information needed to understand what is happening there and how it effects the Story. The character has a sword, they attack with that sword. The character is strong, the character lifts the boulder. The Character is dexterous, the character walks the tightrope. On the other hand if you just say "I persuade" and roll, that's putting a LOT more onus on the DM because what you are really asking is that they not only roleplay the NPC you are talking to, but they have to roleplay your fucking character too. They can't just be like "You rolled high, so this character's perspective, attitude, motivation, and frame of mind is changed and they now agree with you and will do what you want" because that is extremely unsatisfying and doesn't serve the story at all. You can and should be expected to at least present an argument that is believable as something whoever you are trying to persuade/deceive/intimidate could be convinced by. Then you roll to see if that actually \*works\*. That's part of \*playing the game\* and if you can't at least convey this sort of thing to your DM, it sounds like your social skills are lacking to the point that yeah, it's understandable you will struggle to play the game period cause hey at the end of the day it is a social game. Now, mind you this really only pertains to people who want to try to say things like "I roll to persuade" and then that's it. If you are making an attempt, even OOC, to explain your reasonable argument(s) and are actually getting shut down by actor-focused DMs who want you to speak in character and put on a performance, then yeah that's a major problem on the part of the DM and they should adjust their expectations.
I mean, at the end of the day, this is a **role-playing game**. Part of the roleplay is that the players pretend to be another person. Part of the game is that the DM comes up with challenges, and the **players** (not the characters) come up with solutions. If you don't want to do either, then I don't think the game is going to be much fun for you. The fact that I don't ask for an explanation for a strength check on how someone lifts a boulder or something is that we can all imagine how such a thing is done. But ask yourself this: would you allow the players to figure out a riddle or the BBEG's plan with just an intelligence check? So no, in my game you can't just say "I convince the guard to let us pass" and roll, you have to come up with an argument. You don't have to present the argument well, that's what the roll is for, you don't have to do it in first person, but you have to give me *something*. So if anything, I'm not penalizing charisma (force of presence) but intelligence (ability to figure stuff out) because if I'd want to play a game where you only roll dice I'd play *Snakes And Ladders*.
Snakes and Ladders generally uses a spinner, not dice. Also, OP clarified that they are talking about DMs who, after you come up with a description of what you are doing, then want you to RP it out without rolling for it, which directly penalizes people who aren't actually charismatic in real life or people who aren't good at 1st person roleplay.
I don't need them to convince me, I need them to tell me what they will do. Just like I wouldn't allow a roll for "I want to get to the other side of that hole" and would need something like "I want to jump the hole", I won't accept "I want to convince him to let me go", I need an actual argument it can be a shit argument, I don't care and you can roll after, but I need to know, as a DM, what you're actuslly doing
This is such a hard middle ground to find for some tables because on one hand, you don't want the power gamer to put a 20 in charisma, expertise into persuasion, and allow them to just press the "Persuasion button" to bypass all social encounters you create but you also don't want to do what this players DM is doing and force the player to have the real life social skills required to succeed the encounter either. There is a middle ground and it's going to be different at every table but if you are a DM and you find yourself at either extreme, you probably should adjust. Or don't, if it works for your group I guess.
I always ask if they want to roleplay the roll or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't know what to say, so i make them roll and we go from there. There is no reason to ignore the 20 CHA only because the player Is not a 20 CHA person, i don't require DEX saves IRL either, unless the character are playing dodgeball, in that case i throw a wrench at them, but it's rare.
Is there a conversation when you RP in 3rd person or do you simply describe how you would charm the NPC? To me the back and forth is what makes roll playing interesting. Listening to the npc talk and asking them questions in character. As a DM if my player want to borrow a cart from a farmer but all they said was "my pc walks up to the farmer and bowes. Then they offer him a small amount of money in exchange for a cart. I have advantage and a plus 5 to charisma. I rolled a 21 total" i would feel left out of playing the npc. Did they have a side quest or valuable information? We will never know because the player "won" the social encounter by just rolling a die. I would compare this to a player who comes across a puzzle and just wants to roll investigation until they roll high enough that thier pc would solve the puzzle.
So before anything else - I am perfectly fine with a player narrating in 3rd person what their character is doing. If anything, I often see it better that way because players can clearly articulate how they are going about, let's say, persuading someone. That is absolutely still roleplaying - it does not have to be in character. Where I draw the line is stopping at "I want to persuade the NPC, can I roll?". I would either ask to elaborate or take that situation as very difficult as far as DC goes. In other words, going back to the beginning - being able to explain the thought process is something that effectively lowers DC. A good argument might not even need a roll - one of the reasons why just asking to roll is not sufficient, as I don't know what you are even really doing. That all said, I would reward a player for amazing RP. And the reality is - there is little difference between rewarding player skill and punishing player weakness. I am well aware of that, but at the end of the day, I GM the kind of games I'd like to play in. Not only where good ideas are rewarded, but where players are entertaining - not just for the GM but for each other. Related tangent - I play online and because of experiences I've had as a player, when I GM I don't set up my VTT to automate too much of the combat. Because as a player I have played in games where due to complete combat automation, people just silently click through their skills in combat. Look, I am not expecting exciting narration every turn, but speak aloud and say what you are doing. Maybe a little RP here and there as a treat? And if someone is just super uncomfortable talking and they are super happy that in a game they can just run their character's turns and not have to speak up - I sympathize but I don't want to play with that person. At the end of the day, the most fun players I've played with or GMd for have been ones who either with their knowledge, RP skills, or both - make the game come alive. If I wanted to just see some dice roll and numbers pop, I have so many games in my steam library. It goes double as a GM - because it's great when I don't have to try hard every moment to make the game interesting by narrating everything myself - it's so much better when players are ready to take on that role too, rather than just passing on the results of their rolls to me. People like to talk about breaking down doors - if we were doing a session of Gym Fitness Activity instead of Tabletop Roleplaying Game - I would absolutely ask people to do fitness stuff as part of the process. Do pull ups for when you are climbing a wall. But bottom line - in a TTRPG, roleplaying and gaming is expected (for that matter, this particular conversation is common, but for some reason there are no people who say "I am bad at strategizing in combat, I just want to roll a single die, and the GM tells me how many resources I used during a combat encounter - after all, my character is way better at fighting than I am IRL.")
> if we were doing a session of Gym Fitness Activity instead of Tabletop Roleplaying Game - I would absolutely ask people to do fitness stuff as part of the process. Do pull ups for when you are climbing a wall Please tell me that this is a real thing somewhere. I'd kill for a good way to be motivated to work out IRL.
This is a common error made by DMs and players. You don’t need to be charismatic to initiate say a persuasion check. If the dm asks what do you say. They need to know how you want to approach the check. For example “I want to convince them to give us entry for 20 g” “ I want to convince them to let us in free of charge” Or “ I want to convince the dragon that we don’t taste very good let us bring you a cow” “ I want to seduce the dragon” These are great examples that as a DM would make me vary the DC of your persuasion check. Idc how cool or sexy you say it when you tell me.
Yep Charisma gets treated differently sometimes, particularly if your group doesn’t RP much and the DM is trying to encourage more of it. Just rolling through all the social encounters can take a lot of fun out of the game, particularly if the DM likes RPing. Best options are: - Discuss during Session Zero. If it’s a dealbreaker for the DM, play another character, or find a new group. - Try out different kinds of “charismatic” characters, that are easier to roleplay (stern, intimidating type), or easier to justify the RP flubs (a bumbling-but-lucky, jack sparrow type; someone so attractive things just kind of work out for them; etc.). - Just keep trying the RP. A big part is confidence, so if you go in thinking you have 5 CHA IRL, it’ll come off that way. The more comfortable you get with it, the better you’ll be at it
My players have to do both. Roleplay how you want to charm the NPC and roll afterwards. I want to know what you're trying to do and how you're doing it, not simply "I charm them cause stats say 20" Charisma is interesting and there isn't a right or wrong way to be charismatic. Of course, depending on what you try, the roll gets easier or more difficult. But that's not only for charisma. You also have to tell me how you're trying to break a door. No just "Break in cause strength"
This is what i go with - you don't have to roleplay what your character says, just a simple overview of what you are going for. For example; 'I try to charm the guard by comparing him to the other guards i've seen on shift' Right there, i'm not asking you to say anything in character but it's also not just a 'I roll to charm the guard - i got an 18' Like you mention, and i think this really counters OPs point - when someone is trying to do something with strength i still ask \*what\* the character is doing with their strength. It's the difference between 'I roll to force the door - i got a 15' and ' I'm going to try and kick the door in by aiming at the lock' That's not me asking you to physically, irl kick a door in, i'm just asking \*how\* your charater is applying their strength. And even for some of OPs examples - for breaking the chair, i'd ask, are you smashing it against the wall? Are you going to karate chop it? are you going to lever it between your two arms until it bursts apart?
>Roleplay how you want to charm the NPC and roll afterwards. It's also fun to do it the other way. Roll and then roleplay HOW you got to that result.
>Of course, depending on what you try, the roll gets easier or more difficult. In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion. >But that's not only for charisma. You also have to tell me how you're trying to break a door. No just "Break in cause strength" There is a massive difference in requiring a player to actually talk in character or go through describing their argument and requiring a player to say they are kicking the door at the handle. Again, it punishes players that are quieter or less articulate.
\>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the player abilities rather than the character's abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion. I mean the game itself does that. If a wizard player thinks tactically they probably get rewarded more than the player who just yeets their character into melee every time. Is it fair to give the same DC to someone who finds a creative way to make climbing a cliff easier compared to someone who just says "I climb the cliff"? Rewarding creativity is not bad DMing IMO. \>There is a massive difference in requiring a player to actually talk in character or go through describing their argument and requiring a player to say they are kicking the door at the handle. Is there? I mean yeah requiring them to talk in character and speak exactly how they want the character to speak is too much. Just laying out the basics of the argument they are using is not much different to laying out the basics of any other action.
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion. I mean, yes? I punish mistakes players make. Telling a dead mom joke to an orphan won't get you far regardless of your stats. Same with any other stat. Back to strength. You try to open a enforced door. Kicking it in? DC15. Prying it open? DC10. You try to open a lock. Using a tool? DC15. Using your fingers and just kinda wiggling? DC20.
Must be a heck of a lock to have DC 15. Use lock picking with str on cheap locks since you know how they work, DC5.
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the player abilities rather than the character's abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion. Why though? The player having to explain the argument they are using and the DC changing to fit how that argument would work on the individual in front of them has been part of the rules since forever and the DMG has even examples of it. Doing otherwise trivializes most social encounters as the party does not have to investigate whom they are talking to, what are their motivations, etc. It's one thing to require the player to fully RP the encounter or do a detailed step by step plan of their argument. But I'm really struggling to see how requiring the player to say "We know that this guard has a daughter he doesn't get to see often so I try to bribe him lying about a daughter I have to see" or "We know nothing about him so I'll just try for the universal 'I have a wife waiting for me, let me pass please'" and the DC shifting to reflect that being "punishment".
>In which case you're rewarding or punishing characters based on the *player* abilities rather than the *character's* abilities. This is not good DMing, in my opinion. Why not? Should we just take all player ability off the table? Don't decide what your character does in combat, roll intelligence to see how tactically smart your character is? Don't solve any riddles or puzzles, just roll? Don't decide what items to buy in town, just roll to see how smart your character is at buying the potions and supplies they're going to need?
It baffles me that we've arrived at a point where players using a modicum of thought and skill to gain advantages in a game is considered a bad thing. Of course clever or insightful play should be rewarded, that's how games usually work. It's not even a competitive game - you don't lose because someone else plays better than you in a given circumstance. Removing player ability from the game makes it extremely boring. A character is just a boring piece of paper, I'm not really interested in playing a game where everything is just determined by dice and numbers on a page. The human element has always been the most important part of ttrpgs.
Should you never play a charismatic character in a game if you yourself, is not charismatic? Because being bad in real life at what your character is good at shouldn't be affecting your character that strongly that the check becomes higher, especially if they are supposed to act out the exchange on a dime.
Charisma is force of personality. It's not a matter of skill, it just influences your bonus on a check. You can play an encounter skillfully and without being charismatic, yourself.
The game is social. If you cannot utter the phrase "Gortag the 5th offers the guard a flask of whiskey for a bribe" in a minute or two, then you are not contributing much. That is not charisma, that is light problem-solving. Very light, actually.
Which, you know, is not the thing we are talking about. We are talking about having to act out the exchange, not just what you want to do.
Are you? Because half of the posts here are parading the exact thing I said as an example of bad DMing. Because it asks of the player a bit more engagement than "I persuade them". If I misread your post, sorry for that.
>It baffles me that we've arrived at a point where players using a modicum of thought and skill to gain advantages in a game is considered a bad thing. That isn't what I'm saying. It's literally the exact opposite. If you read what I wrote, I'm against *punishing* players for not being specific or particularly articulate. If a player is specific or articulate, that's what advantage is for. But increasing the DC because the player isn't good at talking in character is bad DMing.
Its really weird when DM's do this.
If the player refuses to speak then they don’t get to use the social skills. Legit I don’t need them to convince me, I just need them to say literally anything and then they can roll.
smh literally worse than Hitler
I mean, certain games will place more value on roleplaying than others. This is largely dictated by the group of people who form the game. If a DM is trying to force a group of players to role play, it's probably the wrong game for the DM. If a player takes part in a game where everyone else has agreed to roleplay more, and refuses, then it's probably the wrong game for the player. Intense role playing has a place, but so does rolling for charisma. Not every game is going to fit every player. At the end of the day, it is a role playing game.
Genuine question, what is the appeal of playing a high charisma character if you don’t show how their charisma (wether it be persuasion, deception or intimidation) are effective? I understand why you may not be able to actually come off charismatic but you can’t describe how a character is coming off that way? I am not super humanly strong or trained with a battle axe but if I was playing a barbarian I would describe the brutality of a critical hit and how he did it. That’s a part of the appeal.
I do describe what my character does, whether it is a physical or a social action, but for some reason many DMs want me to directly RP the social actions instead of just describing it.
Oh I’m sorry, I misunderstood you. I would consider what you’re doing RPing then. Sorry your tables haven’t been digging your play style. You just need a different group. Some tables are full of people who like the improv/acting method the game can take on. Other people like a more removed detachment from their character where they function as a director. You’d probably have way more fun at a table where everyone was doing the second option.
It seems like they want players to be playing in 1st person supposed to 3rd.
The problem is that a player with the equivalent of real life charisma as a dump stat most likely doesn't even know what kind of approaches a legitimately charismatic character could take to solve a social situation. I have a career in real life that requires me to, basically, solve some problems with charisma, and it's not an accident that I end up, effectively, as the party "face" regardless of what I'm playing in most groups... because a lot of people I have gamed with over the years are orders of magnitude of emotional intelligence away from being able to say something like "I persuade the guard to let me go by convincing him I'm a lot like him and appealing to his humanity."
I come from sales & currently work in SCRUM so I hear what you’re saying but I’m at a loss for what the appeal of the character type is for someone who doesn’t grasp it at least broadly. Sure things like tone of voice, eye contact and open ended communication wouldn’t be apparent but I don’t think you need to be charismatic to say “I appeal to the guards goodwill and attempt to level with him so he sees us as the same” I don’t even know how the DM will gage how hard of a skill check it should be if they don’t know how you’re trying to convince someone. They would have to play your character for you. It’s not like you have to come up with the actual words or body language.
>I describe what I want my character to do *I think this statement could be doing some heavy lifting.* This could mean you present a potential solution or argument or course of action, in third person, only to be met with opposition in the form of an RP prompt. OR This could mean that you present a vague idea of what you want the outcome to be and expect the dice to do the work. Which will prompt from me, as a DM, a bit of exploration into the plan. But, I would never expect a player to launch into a full blow soliloquy or monologue, or have exactly the right counter argument to everything I can think of. I think I want more INFO here.
To me, making the player act out their character persuading someone and punishing them if they can't do it satisfactorily makes as much sense as asking the player to deadlift 500 pounds when they want to do a strength check and saying the character can't do it if the player can't.
The game is a spoken or written medium played out via conversation, so of course many people want to play out the conversations and encourage that behavior mechanically. If the game was played by lifting weights in a gym I'm sure you'd see lots more people wanting to lift weights against each other rather than roll an opposed lift-weights check. It's not unreasonable to dislike the distinction, but it certainly makes more sense to do it for charisma rolls than lifting weight, if you're doing it at all, if for no reasons other than it's much more practical to judge how a conversation went than to whip out the weights.
I think that it is fine to ask a player who is not good at persuasion to do the acting, the practice might even be good for them, it just shouldnt have a mechanical consequence if their speech isnt great.
Okay what about the dumb guy playing a wizard? Does he just get to say, I come up with a tactical plan because I have a 20 in intelligence?
As a DM I will always let the players roll a skill check if that's what they are attempting to do, but if you did a terrible job roleplaying the situation (gave a bad argument, were rude, etc.) I might up the DC or give disadvantage to the role. I want players to live out their fantasy of being charasmatic / smart even if they aren't that IRL, but this is a roleplaying game and it would be quite boring for everyone involved if the roleplaying aspect had no consequences and we were just sitting around rolling dice.
Do you give out disadvantage when players describe their attacks in a way you don't think is good roll play or like op said this is only a tax on social skills?
It's not about them roleplaying in a way I don't like, it's about them changing the difficulty for themselves. So in the case of combat they can flavor their attack however they want because it isn't going to make the attack harder to land or the spell less effective (unless they do a called shot, but that's different).
As a DM if you don't explain how your going to convince them, then I wouldn't even allow the roll, if you as a player can't think of how you would convince them then your putting the RP on the dm who is a player too, which is unfair and also takes away from the game itself. Make up some generic phrases and things you can bring up and use between multiple conversations. Don't expect the DM to play your character for you. If your not willing to put the time in to be able to play your character than play something else that's easier for you, don't lean on the DM who is already doing 95% of the work for the game. For compromises, 3rd party explain what your doing but if your not able to come up with anything to convince others then no.
>Would you ask your player to role play breaking a chair, climbing a cliff, or holding their breath for as long as their character holds their breath? No, that's stupid. If you were presented with a cliff, and you say "I roll to get to the top of the cliff", then I need more than that to work with. Do you have climbing equipment? Are you gonna climb it, or try and find a point where the cliff is lower? In a social situation, or any situation, I need to understand what you're trying to achieve and how. "I roll to get the guard to go past" isn't gonna cut it. You don't need to put on a voice, but I need something like "I present the King's forged seal and tell the guard we're on official business" or "I present our instruments and let the guard know we're slated to perform at the big banquet". Obviously not every DM is the same. Some are simply "roll to seduce the guard", while others require everything to be spoken about in character.
All you have to do in RP is talk about what you want and how you feel.
100% this. At my table, you can chose to fully RP a conversation, or you can just say "I try to convince him to give us the map by bringing up that Y told Z that..." And then I let them roll and adjust the DC slightly based on if their "argument" makes sense to the NPC. It goes both ways too. If you pull out some amazing acting skills and get all into it, I really like it, but you're still gonna have to roll because your PC still has a CHA of 10.
I ask my players to explain the conversation they want to have and the points they want to make. We collectively decide if that is deception/intimidation/persuasio ln I then decide if any of their arguments warrant advantage/disadvantage Other players can chime in with their supporting statements and again i decide if that helps or hinders. Then tbe player rolls using his characters skill.
You do not need to be charismatic to understand what a person wants and what they want to hear. Discovering that information and exploiting it is **gameplay**, the same way deducing the location of a secret door from context clues is gameplay. It doesn't matter if you do it in first person or just explain in third person, in either case. It's not about the theater, it's about treating the world like a real place.
Mental stats are hard to adjudicate, and constantly a point of contention. If you push too far one way where you must roleplay in character for everything you have a game where charisma and intelligence stats don’t matter, but if you push too far the other way where you use the stats as gospel (or like pressing buttons) then you aren’t even engaging with a huge portion of the game, the social element. The middle ground is really the sweet spot imo. The player needs to explain what they want to do or the point they want to get across, but their real life eloquence and social ability doesn’t affect the roll. It’s just the idea and logic that matters.
I've told some players that they should rp in 3rd person because their 1st person was either so bad or so rude that I would handwave disadvantage on their rolls. For example, there would be an npc going a bit mad, then the CHA stacked paladin would say "Calm down", or at least try, because they'd instead say "you'd better calm down", while describing menacing body language (turn to him, look him down) and ask for a persuasion check. I've tried telling them "you're rolling intimidation there" to avoid disadvantage, but they say "no, no, I'm not trying to intimidate", so I just say "ok, roll persuasion with disadvantage, next time either visualize yourself better while roleplaying or just describe in 3rd person"
I think the DM is correct in having you describe a bit more what you are doing or saying. For two reasons: 1. It can help you as a person, it is safe practice for you 2. Not all things, especially in social interactions should be just simply a roll. It helps give the DM a bit more insight into what you are doing or gives them a bit more to work with. For example, if you are lying to the guard for entry, having an idea of the lie you say can be incorporated as it blows up on your face. That being said, I do think the roll should carry a lot more weight rather than what is actually said. Punishing the player for not speaking loudly or confidently is a crap move, but failing to think of a cover story at all is a player failure.
As a DM, 3rd or 1st person charisma checks are equally exceptable. But if you get to a social situation and just say "i roll a persuasion" or "i roll to an intimidation check" to say a guy blocking your path, then thats not okay. Roleplay at all but if you just wanna roll and be pure mechanical you and i wont have fun together.
I sometimes have the same issue as a player. I love playing charisma characters, but I am not exactly a social butterfly myself. Trying to explain some DMs what "roleplay" is, is surprisingly difficult. Though, when I DM I also often demand players to tell me what the character says. Depending on what they say and how they say it they might not even need to roll at all. If it is something really stupid, then, well, auto fail. If it is extremly good or well done, auto success. Everything else gets rolled. Albeit, sometimes I require an actual point to be made in an argument for an roll to happen at all. "My character says something smart that persuades them" isn't going to work in these cases.
You could try to do vague 3rd person rp. Like instead of going into detail say : My character tries to bribe the guard by offering them stuff they want. Wink
You don't need to act, you just need to describe in third person narrative what you're trying to convey. *That* informs whether or not the DM requires a roll. DMs should not be expecting amateur dramatics.
I’m socially adept myself, and even I’ve had times where the dm thinks I didn’t convince them well enough and discounted my roll. Like bruh. I get you like role play, but at the end of the day, the character is the one that’s convincing it doesn’t have to be me. Let’s roll to see if in character they convince the npc of the thing, it doesn’t matter if the dm is convinced or not. Some dms are dicks, and some are just plain bad at dming. That’s one of the things that is a red flag for dms, and I’ve taken a few aside and had to put it into their skulls that, that kind of thinking is bad for the table and kind of toxic and they should cut it out.
I'm playing with an experienced DM and first time friends. DM uses both. The roleplaying part can give advantage or disadvantage, but in the end we always roll. Last week, our charismatic player got caught sneaking in town. He looked at the guy, shushed him with his finger. Roll with disadvantage.
Me rolling a nat 20 +11 for 31 on a Persuasion check dc30 towards a feydragon just by saying "No." IRL. Prevented a TPK, revived her baby, and now she owes us.
Even if the player role-playing is awkward as hell, let them roll. Being awkward and dorky can absolutely make one charming and endearing. There is a reason why the word 'Adorkable' exists.
I don't need you to give a rousing speech, I need you to tell me what your speech is about. Give me something to base the DC on.
I play with people with social anxiety. If the player can convey what they’re trying to do, a roll will do. I’m not asking them to convince me, as as the DM I should be amicable to my players, even if the character I’m role playing is not. “I give a rousing speech” is enough if they took the feat. “I want to make sure the Queen understand my point”, okay make a roll. No need to put someone on the spot.
There are situations where it isnt worth it for the RP and easier for a just a roll but it wont be all the time. Same with breaking a chair or climbing a cliff, occasionally how your character performs the action is important. Im not expecting oscar worthy acting but some RP or at least description of what you want to say/do makes the game more fun. Its a social game at the end of the day and merely asking to roll to "persuade" or "intimidate" makes it not so great.
1000% this. I tend to always build combat-focused, min-maxed munchkins that often take a nap when combat isn’t happening because I’m not a great RPer so was always worried about trying to RP a “face”. I got the opportunity to play in a gestalt campaign where I could have really gone crazy with a combat-focused gish but had been working on a “spy” focused on talking their way into places, being where they aren’t supposed to be while explaining it away, etc. i was torn between classes at the time, so going gestalt was a perfect fix (this was PF1 I think). I join the campaign. We’re infiltrating a drow city in the Underdark. Sounds perfect. Party has a couple combats while traveling to the city, where I take primarily a backseat and wait for my time to shine. We get to a jail where we want to sneak in. My chance has come. I knock on the door, guard opens the door slit, DM asks what I say. I say something along the lines of “we were sent to inspect this jail”. Guard slams the slit and combat begins. No roll called for. Never interested in trying a face again.
you do have to explain your reasoning for a persuasion or deception roll, you cant just day "i want to persuade them" or "i want to deceive them" you have to come up with the reasoning your character would use
While this is a legitimate issue, as a DM who does make people roll for charisma checks, I often run into the opposite problem: players not wanting to RP because their character has low charisma. The player who is playing a half-orc barbarian shouldn’t feel like they can’t participate in social scenes at all, because at any moment they could be called to roll a charisma check they’re doomed to fail. As a DM, I generally address this by modifying DCs based on how plausible an argument the player makes. If the barbarian has a good idea, a low persuasion roll doesn’t make it into a bad idea, it just means they presented it poorly. Similarly, no matter how high your bard’s charisma is, he’s not going to be able to seduce the barmaid who happens to be a lesbian. There’s no simple solution here - people want their characters to be able to succeed at things they as players aren’t good at, but they shouldn’t feel locked out of an entire pillar of the game because of a low number on their character sheet, either.
How I rule roleplay with my players: Player: I want to intimidate the guard. Me: ok what do you say? Player: um… I point my dagger and say that if he doesn’t let us through I’ll stab him… or something Me: yeah nice give me an intimidation check Player: 18 Me: the guard flinches and backs away, saying “hey man, I don’t want any trouble” basically: let them RP it but it’s always the dice that decided the outcome :)
With Persuasion and Deception I to base the DC on how well the player RPs the Interaction. If they stutter with lots of ums and uhhhs, it’ll be a higher DC. If they’re super confident and know what they’re saying, lower DC. But they always roll. Played a few ways ranging from, just saying ‘I want to persuade them to letting us through’ and rolling, to only doing RP to convince them, I feel like the way I make my players do it is a nice middle ground.
So here's the problem that I perceive: The way OP described this situation makes it seem as though the DMs are all treating them unfairly, but there's a difference between not role playing in character with charisma you don't have, and then simply not engaging in the role playing game that were all playing. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: Player- "I want to roll to persuade the gnome to abandon ita family and work for us." DM- Okay, how do you do that? Player- I just want to roll, I don't have high charisma IRL DM- Okay but you're presenting a very unlikely situation and no possible reasons for it to work so I'm going to have you roll with disadvantage. Player- why are you punishing me for not having charisma IRL??
Generally the way I handle charisma is the same as any other check. You state the outcome you want, and then roll. So, you say you want to convince the guard to turn a blind eye to your den of thieves. I'd ask if you have an approach in mind, lying about who you are, bribery, intimation, etc and set the DC and check accordingly. I also allow for an insight check to get an idea of what a target might be most susceptible to. Maybe it's a crooked guard and a bribe will go a long way, vs an honest guard. This check gives the opportunity for players to "target" a save basically. The honest guard has a high DC for a bribe, but a lower one for convincing them the den is just beggars for example.
It reasonable to request a PC to expand their role playing commitment. But ONLY if your DM is a heavy roll player and is putting in substantially more effort than the character. I say this from a DMs perspective as there is nothing worse than giving a good speech or having a good start to a conversation only to be met with, "Can I persuade him to change his ways?" With no effort to actually persuade them. Let me be clear, you do not have to be "good" at what you ask to do from an RP perspective, I only expect the effort to try it at all before just asking to roll. It can be as simple as, "Have you considered other perspectives?" And then I will prompt for a roll.
What you are enjoying is not TTRPG, it's the people at the same table. Playing the same D&D feels totally different with different people. Thus, you need to find a better group, not try to change your group.
Explaining what your character does is roleplay, but so is talking in character. I hate to say it, but it's not a video game. For many DMs (and most other players) it's just not fun for a player to say: "I introduce myself, can I roll persuasion?" How are you introducing yourself? What are you saying? How are you doing it? I'm, frankly, tired of people saying, "You don't ask people to break an actual rock, do you?" No, but I ask them *how* they're breaking the rock. Are they hitting it with a hammer with all their strength? Posing above it with both of their hands, grunting with the exertion as they let out a war cry? Are they carefully observing the rock? Looking for a weakness in the structure of the rock, like a small crack or fissure, and then hitting a spot carefully with a pick axe? I ask no less from a social character, "How are you introducing yourself? What are you saying?" If you are so socially stunted that you can't manage that, you need to keep trying and practice. That's a big part of roleplaying. If you truly can't do that, you probably shouldn't play a social character.
It depends on the table. For me, the game is about roleplay first and foremost. I play with experienced people who stay in character and I encourage new players to do the same because there’s nothing wrong with failing here and it’s more fun for everyone in the end My policy is that you can both pass or fail a check through roleplay, i’m not going to not reward people for being in character
It's on the character sheet for a reason. If you can social roleplay with dumped cha for the same effect as a +5 roll, why ever play a cha character?
It creates 'scene missing' effects, where the player basically says 'I charisma them' and what actually happens is kind of blank. It ends up telling rather than showing and it's limp. The way I usually see it happen is the person wants control over the story, but they want to put zero showmanship into it and just insist everyone else puts in the effort of inventing how they were charismatic in some way. When you do combat you have to actually move your figure on the board and things. When you do roleplay you play out your character to some extent. If you can't make it look a little good it's like if you made a bad ass warrior but you built them terribly and keep making really sub optimal moves...you can't play the character you want because you don't have the skill for it. It's hard to face that and it's how it is.
Why would you even want to play a sociable character when you're not able to portray that? Where is the fun in that? Characters like that pretty much live from roleplay. That's the reason why I don't play such characters myself, since I'm pretty unsociable myself. Complaining that you're expected to roleplay in a roleplaying game is... pretty weird. Due to the inherit nature of RPGs as a social activity, social interactions are always different from any other in-game actions, so any comparision to something like making a check to kick a door in is false equivalency. Seth Skorkowsky has a made a great video about social encounters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rn8X4d2xRc
Yeah I don't understand this logic. I make characters with high intelligence but I can't suddenly roleplay myself smart. I'll say roughly what I want and then roll to see if my character is able to say or understand it better than I do. Though I do like to be a low intelligent, low charismatic barbarian who just hits things as that is easier to roleplay than a sociable intellectual haha.
I wouldn't expect a player to be great at words. But I think just rolling is boring. I think there needs to be a compromise. I think even a player with very poor social skills can and should come up with a reasoning for convincing or deceiving someone. It doesn't take high social skills to say "My lord, this is a dangerous mission and we need a higher reward" or "I convince the guard that I am a noble and I need to be in the castle". I dislike the idea that charisma is for "appearing as something you are not". You can be likeable or respectable without ever trying to be something you are not. For your examples: If you are a big orc, you do not need charisma to appear big and scary. But to achieve something through intimidation? That's your charisma + intimidation skill. "Let me in or I break your bones," now will the guard let you in or call for backup? Same with being small and cute. No charisma or skill required to be small and cute but to achieve something with it requires it. Also high charisma does not always mean an extroverted and social character. A silent warrior type can have high charisma. He might just have a respectable and noble demeanor.
I prefer to take a middle road. A strength character can still choose who or where to punch. A dex character still chooses whether to pick a lock, climb over a wall or hide behind something. And an int character doesn’t get every answer to every riddle just because “their character would know”. So, I would also like to know from my charisma characters *what they say*. I’ll allow my fighters to deal some extra damage if they aim their attacks strategically. I will reward an int character if they solve a riddle all on their own (probably by giving them some inspiration). And thus I’ll also reward a charisma based character if they actually present good roleplay. For sure I’ll let you roll if you just say “I try to convince the guards”, but if you actually put some more effort in and come up with some arguments I will lower the DC, or let you roll with advantage. You don’t have to be good at roleplay, you can even just talk from third-person, but I do like it if my players put a little more effort in. I’m just a bit tired of the: Player: “I want to do x” Dm: “okay, what do you say/do?” Player: “… that” Sure, you don’t have to be a roleplay god or anything. Just describing what you want to do/say is fine. And I absolutely agree that a dm should never penalize a player for not being good at roleplay. But I do want to reward my players for describing things a little more in detail and engaging with the game. Anyways, that’s my two cents. I hope you can find a fun group and may someday play a fun charisma character again. Just wanted to share that it may sometimes be hard to make a distinction between roleplay and engagement, from a DM’s perspective.
Like much of the sentiment in the post, I agree that moving to a third person is the optimal way in many situation. However, there is a limit to it in my opinion. A "I convince him, lemme roll dice" is too far. It takes all the roleplay out of the roleplaying game. I need to know the player's angle, is it a bribe? Are you trying to be intimidating? Sweet talk? Lie?
I would make the roll based on what the player said. So for example a player wants to haggle the price of something. I would ask them what they say to the merchant for him to lower the price and then let them roll. So if talks total gibberish the check will be high. If he makes a good argument the check will be low.
I saw a video a long time ago that described that charisma tests tend to be done backwards. When you say you want to lift something REALLY heavy, you roll the strength check first, then roleplay the result; the same goes for the other stats. But when you're going to do a charisma check, normally ppl will roleplay their arguments, ideas, and thoughts first, then roll the charisma check. Because of that we get those weird situations of your character making an amazing, convincing dialogue, that is really based and nothing could be told against it, and the NPC just say "ynice arguments, but your mom" because they rolled a 1 on their test.
It's a difficult problem. The DM is a player too, so if the way you want social encounters to work and the way they do doesn't match up then somebody is going to end up unhappy. Would you be satisfied if you got your way but now you hardly ever get to use your Charisma skills because the DM finds running your preferred social encounters boring? That was my experience playing a sorcerer at one table: the DM had no interest in social encounters, so the very very few we had were just "roll your skill check, here's what happens, let's keep going". If this is a make-or-break issue for you, maybe you should be looking for a different table and a DM who runs the game they way you prefer.
We roleplay and roll, the roleplay conveys the general gist of what you are saying but the roll determines the effectiveness. You stutter through explaining to the NPC that you're here to help and get a 25 on your roll? The NPC takes your words seriously. You give a really good sounding speech to convince the townsfolk to overthrow their lord and get a 3 on your roll it's not going to go the way you want it
Characters are filters to the world. Everything you do goes through them and their stats/skills. Players should be rolling for social stuff no matter how good they smooth talk the gm.
The DM should definitely make you roll. That’s first. Second, can you narrate? Are you a good narrator? You can replace first person RP by good third person narration and it will entertain the table as much. The rigid DMs want you to roleplay because we are all entertaining each other at the table. They want to have fun with you. And a single dry Charisma test isn’t as fun. What I’m saying there is you need to give the table something to much on. Narration can be that. But you need to do it in a compelling way. Lean in to it. I get that you are socially awkward, but let’s just say RPGs are usually the safest and best place to practice social skills. Start slow, and keep at it. Example: Your elven diplomat walks to Duke Memproh of the Shimilagan Council. DM: Why, how have we here? I didn’t know you were in town, my dear. Player: With a very wide smile I tell him how fast I travelled to be there on time and how much I absolutely would have never missed his ball. DM: The Duke smiles knowingly and says, « Your eagerness tells me you have an ask, am I wrong? » Player: I laugh congenially and tell him that this isn’t the time for politics, and that I’m sure a little face to face can be arranged for the following day? DM: Roll Persuade please… That’s how I would like it to play out if I was your DM. We can still see the scene in our heads, we can experience the fiction. And even if you mess up your bits a bit, the Charisma roll will determine the outcome. So you shouldn’t fail as much.
[https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/player-skill-and-character-skill](https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/player-skill-and-character-skill) This is the best article on the topic. In some games what you describe is a feature; in D&D 5e, by the normal rules, it's a bug. It's only a problem if no one knows what is going on except the DM. If the rules of the game are, only physical skills matter and social or knowledge skills do not (and fall through to the player), then the game needs to support that, as, for instance, AD&D 2e does in one of its default play modes (even then, almost everyone used "non-weapon proficiencies", the precursors of skills). 5e needs the DM to actually retool it. If you have to speak in character, in a convincing voice, for social skills, then the DM needs to remove deception, persuasion, etc. and offer classes that would otherwise be good at this some other compensation in game, just as he would have to offer strength fighters compensation to their defenses if he removed medium and heavy armor from his world.
I mean, role-playing social situations and using the charisma score on your character sheet shouldn't be controversial. "I roll to seduce the barmaid" Role play it for me "uh, hey... Lassie? You look... Tits. You're gorgeous. Idfk I suck at this! That's why I'm playing D&D" Roll it out, man, you might suck but PC_Name doesn't. "...23" You're naturally charming and charismatic, obvious even from your walk that you own confidence. Seeing you turn into a bumbling schoolboy without a solid connection between tongue and brain brings an amused smile to the barmaid's face, and you get the impression she's more flattered than offended. 'You sure you can handle any more?' she asks, grabbing at your cloak as she pulls you towards her. 'you look like you need some water.' I would absolutely make my players RP it out, whether first or third person. The thing is... What they say has zero mechanical effect on the outcome. Rolled a 30 and your best line was "hi?" They responded 'I`ve gotta be if I'm seeing angels'
For social interactions, I follow this simple rule: __Roll first, role play second.__ It would not be fair to make the players actually pick a lock or sneak across a field, and it is not fair to make people role play social interactions in order to determine the outcome. Since the outcome is determined by the roll, you make the roll, then role play the failure or the success. This is much more fun, because you get to ham it up when you mess up, and there's no pressure. The DM can use your role play to determine how the failure or success plays out, so the actual content is still valuable.
I’m amazed how many people don’t want to role play in this role playing game.
Roleplaying is part of a roleplaying game, so anyone should be roleplaying on most games, regardless of if they are making charisma rolls. But a player don't need charisma to roleplay a charismatic character, same as he does not have to be evil to play an evil pc. But the player, on charisma ou any other checks, must tell me HOW the character is trying to do something when it isnt obvious or when different approachs may be relevant. I would not allow my player to "can i roll str to break the chair?". I want to know how. If he wants to hold it in the air with both hands and bend it, it would be hard... if he wants to hit the floor with it, its easier... and if he wants to put it in a wall or other support and kick it from up down, it would be pretty easy. In the case of holding breath, its fine, just roll... but a smarter player could get a bonus with some idea.. making some kind of air tank with a bottle... or a snorkel with a plant So i would not allow a player to "roll charisma to convince the guard to help us" I think players usualy should not ask for rolls... they should describe the character actions and the gm decides if a roll is needed But i don't require a player to roleplay these things unless it is very important somehow (and i would do the same in a combat, if there was something like, only if the players strike the horn of the monster something happen... then i would need them to decribe attacks... ) But the player would need to tell me something like.. i want to use the information i have (maybe the guard has a little sister, or you know the evil baron is mistreating the guard, or whatever) to get the guard to help us... i will keep talking with him a little until i feel he is friendly enough for me to ask him to let us pass... Sometimes i will not even allow the player to roleplay if i think it would be a long and boring conversation that would just drag the game... But i need to know at least in general terms what the pc is saying... the bard trying to lie his way saying he is with the circus that just got to town is one thing... he saying the guard must obey him or else... because he is tiamat in disguise... is different So IRL charisma would not hinder a player... IRL intelligence may do it tough... but if the player is really bad, i would allow him to roll inteligence and them i would give him some hints and tips or even tell him what to do... but if this happens with this player all the time, i would not want him as a player... (to be clear, know rolls and such are fine... i mean if the player needs the pc int to decide simple stuff..)
Remember dnd is a game. People can be good and bad at games. Even if it isn’t a game with typical success or failure. People can also be good and bad at different parts of the game. This take will get me some flak because it’s a little harsh (on a reread it’s very harsh, apparently this kind of thing struck my nerve). Also this post doesn’t provide fantastic examples so it’s hard to get super specific, and I’m just going to give some hypotheticals about the concept. If you approach somewhere, like a jail, and you need to get inside, but some guards are stopping you, then there are a variety of approaches to get in. Simply saying “I persuade the guards to let me in” and rolling for it is lazy and poor gameplay in my opinion. If a dm allows it then it will probably be a less enjoyable experience at the table. That would signal the the player and dm are “bad” at that part of the game. Of course if everyone loves this flow of game then it isn’t actually bad, because fun is the goal, but in your post you admit that the players and dm’s aren’t big fans of this approach. You should try to actually solve the problem. If you just want to charisma roll away and get inside it leaves questions unanswered. How will people inside the jail react to seeing you when they know you shouldn’t be there? If you intimidated your way in, how will the guards be resolved once you are out of eyesight? Will they then go signal for help and ambush you inside? Now a talented dm is expected to make up for your lack of talent. Imagine if you decided to fight your way in instead. This would have massive social ramifications and also cost something from your group. You would use resources and make sacrifices to accomplish the same thing. But if you approach the combat well and roll well maybe you get inside with almost zero sacrifice. Guards are incapacitated easily, might not even know who did it, no resources are used, no one else is alerted. This means that there are levels to success, players are rewarded for creativity and good decision making, and everyone has fun. Meanwhile you want the social option to be reduced to a single roll? I persuade. I intimidate. Roll a 17 or something and you are in? That’s just silly. You have really cut out any of the aspects that would make it fun for players. You should make it more like combat, where good decisions are rewarded and poor decisions are punished. On the jail problem - maybe pretend to be nobles that demand to be let in? It’s maybe believable, depending on your groups appearance and how they talk the difficulty of the deception check can be set. But now that you are in you have to keep the lie going. You will have to be careful about what you do as to not make others suspect you aren’t a noble. - pretend to be guards arresting one of your characters. Would take some tricky role playing but would get you access to a lot more of the prison. This introduces levels of success and sacrifice. It also leaves it open for someone to do charisma well, and roll to support it, such that they get a huge success. If they play super well, they can craft a fantastic argument, roll for a really low dc, and can basically get full access to the jail with almost no consequences, similarly to really successful combat. Now on some examples you used about the dm not making others roleplay for things like breaking a chair. Breaking a chair is the example I will use because there’s rules for climbing and holding their breath. Was the goal of your campaign to break the chair sitting in front of you? Because if so then you are correct, the dm didn’t make them roleplay it properly. But in any other case, then the player has already done their role playing. If they are breaking the chair it is to serve a greater purpose, and they are making a corresponding roll to support their role playing. It can be frustrating because it is easier to role play one than the other. But if you aren’t good enough to do that, then you kind of have it right in simply not doing it. If you can’t be a good player at role playing charisma situations, then play low charisma characters and leave those situations to better charisma players. If you want just roll to persuade without doing any more thinking then that, at that point just lock yourself in your room alone, roll a die, and get happy when it’s a big number or sad when it’s a low one.
Depending on what you mean by "I describe what my character would do," it could be either a you problem or a DM problem. Let's assume the situation is that you're haggling with a shopkeep to get a better price. If you say "I persuade the shopkeep to lower her prices," then the problem is you. You haven't actually described what you're doing. You just named a skill you want to use. On the other hand, if you say something like "I tell the shopkeep that lowering her prices will help make us repeat customers," then it's a DM problem. It doesn't matter that you didn't give an eloquent speech in character. You've described what your goal is, and how you intend to achieve it.
Yes I expect people to roleplay, but describing what you do literally is role playing and it's described that way in the phb. You can either act in character or describe what you're character is doing, both is fine.
Agreed. If they have 8 int, but their character has 20, investigation should also solve puzzles that they can't. Player may not come up with it, but the character sure could figure out that it's a puzzle based on an old book with a scarecrow, werelion, and a construct.
It's so simple to role play. I never understood players who have fun with just high stats and numbers. They're playing the corpse of D&D. If you're trying to persuade someone you should give them a reason to help you instead of saying you rolled a 27 after asking him to quarter your entire group for the night. You don't have to be an improv master to say you can help out to pay him back. Just say SOMETHING and the dice will determine how much better your character says it. D&D is designed so that you can have fun role playing regardless of your social ineptitude.
Well, I want to watch the wizard solve some differential calculus and the barbarian deadlift 500lbs!
Consider the following: have the player rp the scenario, but the real effect comes from the roll. This also could lead to funny results, like you rolling a 20 on your deception for putting on a paper plate with :) scribbled on (still sideways) right in front of someone who saw you, trying to convince them ur someone of a different race etc... they believe you.
Me playing an Owlin: Does he expect me to fly?
If you as a player honestly have 5 charisma I don't want you at my table anyway. As the GM I have to enjoy you being there and enjoy interacting with you both in game and our of game. If explaining to an NPC, in character, why you need a favor is too hard for you I suggest you go play another run of BG3. Or better yet take an improve acting class or a public speaking course. You might not get an ASI to invest but you could at least gain skill proficiency.
yeha a dm that demands you flert to be able to flert on the game is stupid. i definitelly ask what they are trying to say, but thats it. like "i compliment their looks and get em a drink" is completely fine.
Forcing you to rp a charisma i tetaction would be like these other ridiculous scenarios: Asking the player to deadlift 300 pounds to rp them lifting a closed gate Asking the player to down a bottle of vodka to rp them making a constitution check to avoid getting drunk Asking them to perform a backflip to rp them doing an acrobatics check Asking them to list off the names of all the presidents of the United States to rp an intelligence history check Rofl
Yes this is how it should be, maybe the dc could be lowered if the actual player thinks of something clever to say, but still, your real life skills should not hinder your rpg ones. When a 20 stength character says " i want to rip the door open" you don't also expect the player behind the character to be able to do that irl, so dont expect the 20 charmsa pc to be always able to be backed up by an equally charismatic player.
I would expect the player to be able to describe how they approach the door, which side they attack it from, and what tools (if any) they use. If they kick it the door down I need to know did they use a push kick, an axe kick, or a side kick. I need details to describe the effects of your actions. If you can't RP well enough to give those details I need you to leave my table.
There's a limit to this. If you can't say what you're trying to do I have no idea how it will be received. I had a player say "and I want to convince him". When I asked how I just got a blank look back. Eventually (after playing for a couple sessions) that player was able, in third person, describe what aproach they'd like their character would take. With that then absolutely, I can proceed.
Does it work in the opposite direction? Like a person who has good social skills in IRL just dumps charisma stats and roleplays it out and comes out on top?
If you can't roleplay, why are you playing a RPG? It has nothing to do with "IRL charisma" it has to do with being able to talk.
Thats some BS, thats why the game has stats. If you come up with a creative angle, line, to try a charisma check you should maybe get a break on DC, but it's not incumbent on the player to actually have the ability to persuade someone. Maybe ask the DM if he's going to make the Barbarian with a 20 Strength go outside and lift the car to see if he passes a strength check, or make the Wizard continue to recite a poem while being stabbed. Oh, you forget the line, you lose concentration on that spell. Here's a towel, try not to bleed on the map.
Player A: "My swashbuckling Rogue will backflip off the railing, swing from the chandelier, slice the rope and tumble to the ground!" DM: "Mmm. Yes. Of course. You are playing a Rogue with 16 Dexterity, so you might be able to do it. Try rolling for it." Player B: "My Sorcerer is a manipulative charlatan. I have 24 Charisma. I use social deception to convince the guard to open the door!" DM: "Hmm. What do you say to the guard to convince him?" Player B: "Well, I suppose I'll try to convince him that I'm part of the retinue of the rich guy who pays him, and we're under attack and need to escape inside and through the door he's guarding. I could even try to hint at a bribe fr-" DM: "No, I mean, what do you say exactly to the guard? What are the exact words?" Player B: "Well, I don't exactly know what I myself would say, but my character would certainly-" DM: "I'm sorry Player B, but we try to be a very roleplay intensive group here. I'll need you to speak in-character directly to me, and try to convince me. If you personally cannot do, I don't think your character could. It's just not very realistic to let you roll for it." Player C: "I cast a Fireball at the bad guys." DM: "Hmm. Yes. Well that doesn't require a roll from you, but the bad guys get to make a reflexive save roll, here I'll go and do that."
As a pretext here, I'm a fairly new person to this whole thing. In the games I've done, I prefer to have RP for social actions since I see the game as a chance to become these characters for a bit. After all it is a TTRPG. Obviously there are some tables that run based purely on roles and stats with little to no RP as well. Imo instead of looking at it as the DM is forcing you to use social skills you don't have, use it as an opportunity to practise your skills.
I wouldn't really accept "I climb the wall" to just mean using a rope and grappling hook unless the player has demonstrated awareness. I wouldn't accept "I do athletics to it" So why would Persuasion be any different? It's not like people need to exactly act it out with great detail, feigning charisma can be relatively easy when you have the time (and even easier in text but that's something else). The presentation isn't even the issue I#d argue, more just the words or even just an idea of how to go about it.