Crazy Amazon Sales going on right now! Snag a new book and support the channel at the same time. Player's Handbook: 54% off - amzn.to/2CEUoWx Dungeon Master's Guide: 58% off - amzn.to/2s12SRA Monster Manual: 58% off - amzn.to/2SqHukz Volo's Guide to Monsters: 58% off - amzn.to/2Sopl6H Xanathar's Guide to Everything: 58% off - amzn.to/2RnUASi Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes: 58% off - amzn.to/2SojMVZ Dragon Heist: 58% off - amzn.to/2Rko9UN Dungeon of the Mad Mage: 37% off - amzn.to/2RkoQxn Starter Set: 40% off - amzn.to/2BHqpeS
I would say that being creative with your Bluff check or whatever is part of the system. Thinking of a lie to weave or an arguement to Diplomacy a guy helps paint a picture in the DM's brain and help them figure out the scene. We don't have to go into detail about a Jump check or a Climb check because the group doesn't need the flavor to imagine it. A dude got hops. But conversations are way more dynamic and varied.
I remember an amazing argument about intelligence that applies here with charisma. A character with post-12 mental stats is probably far beyond any player at a table in that quality, just as with any other stat. So for characters with high int the argument was put forward that a *party* should be able to think for the character. That a communication between party members could produce the output of 1 heroic stat seems reasonable. I think the same would work with charisma, and you could, in a pinch, have them roll, then provide a *line of reasoning* or a fact that (if true) would work, as GM, then the player can use that line of reasoning to construct a lie. I'm a huge fan of this collective storytelling idea, so I thought I'd pass on the argument.
Are these the books with the new errata released Nov 2018? I want to get a second PHB with all the updated language, but wasn't sure about this particular deal.
WHAT ABOUT THIS: A person roleplays their persuasion, deception, etc. Then, based on the GM's judgement on how good a job the player did on the roleplay aspect, the DC of the check can change. This takes into account both the skills of the role player making a great or poor attempt at deception AND still adds the character's roll/skill bonus to the equation. Let me know what you think, y'all. I'm definitely inputting this in my next game! Thanks for the inspiration. I'll subscribe now:)
@@janbydzovsky7693 _Bard convinces the deputized witches to help them buy a birthday present for the local governor, causing everybody to forget their misdeeds._
As far as the "not mercenaries!" To the guard argument. If he doesnt believe without a dice check, allow follow up. Like if the guard says "You are clearly well equipped" the charismatic one could say "Ah yes, thats the ruse. Our equipment IS our wares. We wear them to look like rough and tumble mercenaries in order to trick thieves into not trying to attack!"
Alternatively, use the preamble to the dice roll as a softcap to ease the DC required by the roll. A neat way to percieve the roll is in the subtlties of body language. Maybe a sound argument on the players side is sabotaged by the dice roll because it indicates an accidental tell in the characters deception.
@@pwnyboy9714 this is near what I have always done. As long as the deception isn't too crazy for someone of average charisma and intelligence to believe, I don't require rolls on them. But trying to convince a guard that well armored, heavily armed group of adventurers are merchants, I'll ask for a base statement of what they plan on telling the guard, ask for a roll based on a DC I've determined, and have them role-play it from there. Failing the roll isn't necessarily a fail in my campaign so long as the player gives a decent effort. In this example, the guard may let them through, but because the roll failed, and the player was smart about what they said, the guard may keep an eye on them. The party may be under a little more scrutiny than normal. Other guards may harass them a tad when they realize they aren't selling wares, but instead are roaming the town. I TRY to give the players a "reward" for their effort. But a failed roll, and a bad line of of deception could mean they still got through the gate, and are just setting themselves up to be arrested and questioned. LOL It has to be fun, no matter what. And being flexible allows me or any GM to go off script, and add a small encounter that provides a memorable "Hey, do you remember that time...." moment in the game. I still talk about the time I convinced a guard his service is to his Lord were being terminated so that we could get through a gate. GM had the guard break down and start crying about not being able to provide for his wife and 3 small children, and no longer feeling like an honorable man to his Lord. He threw done his helm, began to walk into the wilderness sobbing, and 5 days later, we ran into him; camped in the woods, living off the land. Still funny, yet I still sometimes wonder what became of him and his family. LOL All because I was cunning enough to keep up good rolls and a smart line of talk. Ruined that guy's life.
"i'm gonna throw the Javelin at him" "Do an attack roll with disadvantage" "Why disadvantage?" "Because i've never seen you throw a fucking spear before"
Years ago I had a DM tell me my character couldn't realistically deadlift an unconcious fellow PC unless I could prove it could be done by a relatively average person (myself). After deadlifting and fireman carrying a fellow player, the DM allowed my character to perform the task.
I do other checks "backwards" as well. "I want to push that log." "Describe how you push it." There is no reason why players shouldn't get bonuses/penalties for going about physical activities in clever/dumb ways.
I don't really understand when it goes anyother way. It's a collaborative storytelling games, keeping it generic make in practice the GM generate all the story. It doesn't always need to be very specific but you have to frame in wich way any abilities is used.
We do most things the other way round. "Tell me what you're doing, and I'll tell you what to roll when the time comes," is our general approach to everything. Go out of your way to lift with your back, and you're gonna have a bad time. Try to use your quarterstaff as a pole vault, and you might get a bonus in the athletics check to get over the wall.
I've tried playing quick-witted con artist characters a number of times but I've totally given up on it now. It ALWAYS relies on the player being quick witted to some extent. It's like playing a character who can bench 450kg and being asked to bench 150kg just to demonstrate what your character is doing; I get that some people would find that relatively easy, but I can't bench 150kg. Don't ask me to do it to show how strong my character is! 🙁
I would argue that all stats should be rolled like Charisma, and I've seen it done: 1. Player wants to do something. 2. Dm asks "how do you approach the matter?" 3. Player describes in an appropriate amount of detail their method, approach or, in the case of Charisma, wording. 4. Dm evaluates, among various factors, how hard the task would be with that method, decides if player needs to roll (e.g. no one is ever asked to roll Strenght to pick up a twig); if the solution is particularly clever or fun, the Dm may award advantage on the roll; if the solution is dumb or extremely implausible, they may give disadvantage. 5. Dice is Rolled, the end. A different approach can even change the stat rolled: the good old climbing with Athletics vs Acrobatics for example, depends entirely on how you describe your actions. Of course, everyone should be allowed not to roleplay their task if they feel uncomfortable doing it (just saying "I climb the wall" or "I lie to the guard"), but that boils down to player preference. Creative thinking, in my opinion, should always be allowed to make ANY task easier in roleplaying, we just do it a lot more often with Charisma because it's the simplest stat to act out (while most of the others are usually described). Example: Barbarian trying to force open an heavy stone door 1. Brb: I try to open the door. 2. Dm: How do you do it? 3. Brb: I push with my mighty muscle! (DC20 Strenght) VS I find a big piece of wood to use as a lever. (DC18 Athletics) etc... Not that different from the Charisma roll, just shorter.
I partly agree/disagree. "I find a big piece of wood to use as a lever" is the same as "I try to convince the guard to let me enter the inner city district because I am an adventurer and here to help the people of the city." That is a reasonable amount of effort you should expect from your players. Expecting them to roleplay the entire conversation on the fly and punishing them if they don't come up with a clever and eloquently told story is too much in my opinion. I would let the players roleplay and if they come up with a reasonable way of solving the problem but the player can't convincingly roleplay with good arguments on the fly I let them roll the dice and see if the character did come up with good arguments / if the bad arguments of the player were told convincingly by the character.
But of course, if the player doesn’t feel like roleplaying the whole conversation and just gives a reasonable argument OOC that would still cover point 3 nicely. No one should be forced to play a certain way, just encouraged to engage with the game and enjoy it fully. This is about rewarding effort and smart thinking, not acting skills.
I'm with @@TailorBO on this. In several decades of RPGing I've never been at a table where the DM actually gauges success of CHA skills on the PLAYER's ability to roleplay a spontaneous speech -- that *is* crazy backwards! IMHO just like in the video's example a player might say "I want to roll the log down the hill to build part of my trap" and the DM would have them roll, I'd expect players to tell me what they want to do (e.g. "try to convince guard I'm here to help the people of the city") and then roll to see if they succeed. I don't expect them to compose the speech any more than I expect them to engineer the log trap* -- that relies too much on the player's stats and not the character's. Sure, those are fun to RP so have at it (and if a player wants to bring a in log to carry around while RPing their awesome STR that's fine too) but all that is just flavor**... at the end of the day it's just like every other ability check: tell me what you want to do, and we'll roll to see if you were able to do it. * Note that at some point engineering the trap and inventing a clever lie might both cross over into INT/WIS territory, which we rarely expect players to RP faithfully. ** And yes, I might give a good RP bonus to _any_ roll, and CHA rolls are a good opportunity for players to ham it up
I remember once I was playing a Star Wars based D&D game as a "face" character, an information thief that was a stowaway pretending to be part of the army on board. Everything was going great until I rolled bad on one of my lies and everything crumpled around me. xD It made for great roleplay though.
I use "fails" because they do add flavor and narrative interest in the combat. You roll a nat 1, you get to choose between: You suffer a minor wound such as twisting an ankle or something similar. Disadvantage for the rest of that combat, you are fine after. Your weapon breaks. Lose your grip on your weapon, but it otherwise fine You fall prone You lose your next attack. (this attack misses, the next one is regaining your footing) Armor is damaged, -2 to armor class until fixed.
I feel like a good way of handling this would be to, in the event of a player giving a lie that couldn't possibly be believed, tell them "Your character has a good enough charisma and deception skill to know that lie wouldn't be believable at all"
I like that. it kinda borrows from some roll playing video games that give you speech options And a chance of success or failure of them. ie., something a high charisma character would certainly know. great point.
Or, "They believe you truly believe it, but you aren't convincing them. They look at you like they look at a child pranked into confronting someone over things they know nothing about."
I ask the Player to think up a persuasive argument. if they have time before-hand to think it out -Advantage on the roll. If they are placed on the spot i give them 2 minutes realworld time to think up their characters immediate reply. Works out pretty well. My friend Alanna gave me a 2 Minute hourglass as a gift had to put it to use.
@@DyrgeAfterDark yeah, I think this is a great way to simulate increased charisma or intelligence. The player might have to pause to think of a witty reply, but because their character has high cha, their character doesn't pause. For int, the same could be done for trying to think of a solution to a puzzle, or think of tactics, etc
Getting the players to clearly tell you what it is they are actually trying to accomplish is essential regardless if they roleplay by acting it out or roleplay in first or third person. And just for the record, acting =/= roleplaying. One player might roleplay to the hilt despite never spouting in-character dialogue. Another player might do a professional-level accent while totally failing to convey a believable character.
When I run games, I run Charisma checks like this: 1) Player tells me their goal 2) I Determine base (maximum) difficulty of the roll 3) Charisma check roll by player, WITHOUT telling the player the difficulty 4) Have player role play the encounter 5) Adjust difficulty of the roll down by how well the role play goes. This method allows player that are not inventive or charismatic themselves to still play the Charisma-based characters without being negatively affected but also allows me to give a bonus to players when they role play the encounter well. I always write down the base difficulty and tell players that this is how I run the checks at the beginning of ANY and ALL campaigns so they know that they can play whatever without being penalized for the player's inability but can still be rewarded for their good play. This also prevents the game from devolving into a solely dice-based game unless the group prefers that play style.
Sam Holden if the player can give me a good reason like using an improvised lever or role playing that he/she is psyching himself up to get his/her adrenaline flowing, absolutely! Good role play should be rewarded.
That's technically how it was supposed to work in at least 3rd edition. How trusting the other person was and how convincing the lie was did effect the dc or at least it was supposed to
that's what inspiration is for in 5e, to reward PCs that RP their characters well. Our shy cleric never describes her actions histrionically, but randomly, she will come up with an uproariously perfect, totally on brand idea. Quiet as a mouse, but we can't help but want her to succeed.
We always run it as "Your check determines how believable what you said is, or how close you get to it" player *gives the Gettysburg Address* "Okay roll" "1" "You actually mumble through Whoopity Scoop by Kanye"
It's actually entirely plausible to play out the result of the Gettysberg Address as a failed Oration roll. A great many members of the crowd couldn't hear the President's words (he wasn't known as a powerful speaker). Many of the members of the crowd were disappointed with the President's brevity, and many even of the journalists present felt that Lincoln's brief speech was just a foot note compared to the more traditional long rhetoric presented by the key note speaker of the day (who had spoke for like an hour). It was only later as people began to reflect on the meaning of the words that the real skill in composing them began to shine through, and the value of the brevity was really appreciated. Just a few members of that audience walked away impressed, and probably none of them realized that they had just heard what is now considered the finest bit of rhetoric in the English language.
That's a great point and is relatable to real life. Just because you intend to fast talk a guard, doesn't mean you actually get that out of your mouth. High charisma people in real life are more adept at putting their ideas through the filter of their own brain and mouth, so that's what the skill should reflect. Just like strength isn't only pure raw muscle, it's also a measure of your fighting education and experience with being physical. A Str 16 and 18 could both benchpress the same Max weight, but their life experience is what makes one better. Same with talking.
Vazzaroth, good points. Except there is a difference between people with str 16 & 18. In real life the guy with str 16 might know more & thus be able to do more. But not in game setting.
Back in the early 1980s, in my first computer job, I was learning to use a word processor called Magic Wand. The tutorials consisted of editing a hypothetical draft of "The Gettysburg Address". For example, there was a long preamble and that got deleted to show how to delete a block of text. I suspect that whoever wrote the tutorials had a great time doing so. As I progressed through the tutorials, I could see the speech tightening up nicely. I do not like charisma checks, because they are so freewheeling. Succeed on a strength check and something happens that usually is not of great consequence. On a charisma check, the difference between success and failure can be very different indeed.
@@CurlyFromTheSwirly I think he meant the exact opposite: that a str18 represents both knowledge and experience on top of the raw force a person can exert at str16.
Advantage swings the odds by almost 25%. IMO you'd be better off adjusting the DC in most cases, unless you are big into RoC and moving the game at a quick pace.
Same here. I don’t care if it influences probability nearly as much as I care that it encourages PC interaction and cultivates player immersion at the table... To be fair, I prefer descriptions of what character is doing for breaking down doors or what they’re focusing on looking for prior to determining DCs for Strength or investigation checks as well. Crowbar or mule kick at the latch, ADVANTAGE or DC LOWERED... (thank you for not just throwing dice for success and expecting me as DM to do all descriptive lifting)
Actually, it's not our of order. I provide action, roll check, GM describes reaction. Ex: Me: "I punch the wall with gusto!" GM: "Roll strength" (1) GM: "The wall punches back, with even more gusto." The reason it feels backward is because players rarely add flavor to other actions.
Bingo. I said it already elsewhere, but it just feels that way because you're *more likely* to be mid-RP when a CHA check comes up, as opposed to the single sentence you might have just uttered in an attempt to trigger a STR or WIS check (keeping in mind, of course, that a player does not usually request a check directly, but rather narrates their actions until the DM stops them to roll).
The problem is that "provide action" hides the complexety of the information conveyed. How do you play a high charisma character if you lack the ability in real life to come up with even halfway convincing story or lie?
Agreed. Players can do the “easy” part of the action for free: punching a wall, firing an arrow, saying words. The roll then determines the success of the action. You support characters who are more charismatic than their players by letting the players describe what they’re trying to do with their words. We can imagine that a high charisma roll meant the character used more convincing words, body language, or confidence than the player.
Precisely, Landon. Then comes the roll, which should come with no bonuses or penalties from what the player did. The roleplaying shapes the encounter, but the skill check is still just a skill check. I wouldn't give a character a bonus to a strength check because his player was buff, after all.
@@davidforrest1665 True, if I catch the D6 does that mean the Dungeon Master is defeated and I win all of Dungeons and Dragons? I mean if we're basing our character abilities on our own does this mean my character has harnessed the power of Fate itself?
Isn't this actually how all checks are supposed to be? The PC pushes against the rock, they make an Athletics check, and the rock reacts by moving or not moving. The PC lies to the guard, they make Deception check, the guard reacts by accepting the lie or not accepting the lie. The PC scans the horizon for enemies, they make an perception check, they react by either noticing something unusual or not noticing something. A checks failure doesn't change what the PC did, only the result of it, so the roleplay should always happen first. This goes with the unwritten (actually is it written?) rule that only the DM calls for rolls, not the players. Players don't explain their intentions, they make actions! And the DM determines how the world reacts to these actions. We only notice it with Charisma checks because charisma is also something that people have and can represent in their characters.
Point is, DMs expect the players themselves to be able to think of something themselves before they roll. Pushing a log, DM just asks you to roll and if you pass, you pass. Making a charisma check, if you yourself can't think of the lie, but still say you want to make the action... DM just doesn't let it work.
@@YourCrazyDolphin I would argue that the details of other checks should also be important to their chances of success. "Push against the log" is different from "roll the log" or " "lift and pull the log" and adding in detail to the check should be rewarded (or penalized) according to the advantages it brings. If a PC is trying to open a barred door and they just say "I push" then I'd just say "you fail" because that's exactly the kind of thing a barred door exists to prevent. If instead they take crowbar they'd had all game and try to pry the door off at the hinges, then I'd let them roll on it. If a PC wants to, i don't know, seduce a barmaid and they just say "I seduce her" then I'd just say "you fail" because everyone's hitting on the barmaid, it's a trope in and of itself. If instead they brag about being an adventurer, slaying dragons, yadda yadda yadda, then I'd let them roll on it (still with a high DC because every bloke in the tavern will say they're an adventurer). Coming up with weird plans and ideas is half the fun of skill checks, and if you just state your goal and either succeed or fail, there isn't much game there. Even most text based adventure games are more complicated than that. Ultimately if an obstacle is as straightforward as "make this check to progress" then it's not very interesting from a game design perspective.
@@MrJethroha ya but for an example like pc wants to hit on barmaid, if the character has high charisma, you roll for it, all of a sudden the unimpressed out of his league barmaid can be wooed That's the point of the game. Maybe im not charismatic and I don't know how to woo a barmaid, but my character does.....this is exactly what the dm is there for. To help us role play our characters. To require charismatic role playing to achieve anything from our charisma stat means it's a useless stat. Yes ideally your group will all have elaborate stories and clever unique solutions to problems....ideally....and if they do, all the more reason to roll before you come up with the scene so you know what your aiming for. Alright I want to go hit on the barmaid, roll charisma, you rolled low but your charisma is high, and seems mildly interested which is saying a lot because you've watched her turn down the advances of every one else. She asks you blah blah blah Instead of I walk up to the barmaid and enthrall her with a tale of my success! And now the dm is like well....that doesn't seem very charismatic..it seems douchey...ok I'm going to make it so he needs to roll really high or else she's going to throw her beer in his face. Now my characters charisma means nothing because I couldn't convince my dm. It's no longer a game, it's a competition for my dm' s approval
I can only speak for 5th Edition, but yes it is a written rule, not unwritten. page 174 of the Player's Handbook, "the DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) which has a chance of failure." "for every ability check, the DM determines which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task." also... you say that characters "don't explain their intentions , they make actions!" well strictly speaking that is not true according to the rulebook :V from page 6 of the PHB, "How to Play": 1. The DM describes the environment 2. The players describe what they WANT to do [capitals mine] 3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. these are the 3 rules that every other rule in the entire book are hanging from
@@YourCrazyDolphin What you say true, but that's literally not "the point" that Kai is making. This video does actually seem to argue that the process for a strength check is: PC describes intention -> dice roll -> GM describes PC behavior [GM PLAYING A PC KLAXON!], but for a charisma check: PC describes behaviour -> dice roll -> GM describes NPC/environmental response [RAW DnD], and that is supposedly "backwards". The true observation that active roleplaying of social tasks is more difficult than the narrative roleplaying of physical ones doesn't change the logical flaw in the initial premise, where "description" is used to illogically conflate two different things. Any dice check in reaction to player activity should have the same logical flow. The problem is not that charisma checks follow a backwards logic. It's that D20 systems encourage GMs to ruin social roleplay with needless dice rolling.
Not just to confirm whether it’s the right skill, but sometimes your player might say something so well, or something so poor, that they get advantage or disadvantage to persuade.
@@eddiemate That's kind of the point of the video though. The charismatic character should be able to come up with a believable lie or appealing flattery even when a socially awkward player controls them, who may not have thought of the best thing to say to save the situation. Giving disadvantage for the player saying something poorly implies that their character has already failed to make the right decision without taking the characters strength and weaknesses into account
Just one more video Yeah, I guess I overlooked that bit. Which is stupid because I’m one of those socially awkward players who couldn’t come up with anything on the spot.
Quite. Also, we expect people to come up with creative ways of playing uncharismatic and unintelligent characters for verisimilitude, so why not expect clever characters to be obsessive, wise characters to be circumspect, charismatic characters to be charming, lawful characters to debate ethics, etc? If you play Yuan-ti with charisma 4 who tells a disgusting dirty joke and gets the punchline wrong, but you roll a nat20, they still seduce a beautiful human barkeep, and why ever not? Turns out you caught them in the mood for a potty-mouthed reptile. Plus, if a deception check is passed for a ludicrous lie, it's up the GM to reconcile it. Maybe, the NPC doesn't believe a word, but is nevertheless charmed by the chutzpah of the liar and laughs, then gives the PC some kind of concession to their needs. The poor GM has to concoct a reason for all sorts of weird stuff to happen and has 5 of those implausible things to reconcile in pretty much every session; being a GM can be like juggling flaming torches while treading water. From a GM's perspective, expecting a supposedly charismatic PC to come up with the occasional plausible lie isn't too much to ask.
It can also be kindof hilarious to have a good lie and roll terribly if your DM has a sense of humor. "Why should we bow to you?" "Because I am Arthur, King of the Britains!" Rolls a 3 "Well, I didnt vote for you"
Charisma based skills, at our table at least, are the only skills that might NOT need a roll. That’s what makes them different. A plausible or convincing lie/argument might, with the right support or background, forego the need for a roll. Town guards have a lot on their plate. Claiming to be a worried parent searching for one’s child might be plausible enough to distract a guard. Looking battered and bruised because of poor decisions might be enough to claim you’ve been mugged and your friend needs help. Communication is a two way deal. Sometimes all you need is to get the target thinking in s plausible direction. The problem comes when players try outlandish lies with zero evidence or plausibility. The same goes for persuasion. What is the mood or outlook of the target? What evidence can you bring to bear? How do you approach the problem? That’s why p244-245 of the DMG are so important. Combat is AC/DC. Simple. Armor Class or Difficulty Check. A number. Social encounters involve a lot of complexity, and that complexity might require a roll, or with enough preparation or set-up, none at all. We handle Charisma differently because it is different. And intelligence check means you either know or don’t know. A dexterity check means you fall or you don’t.. But Charisma? Charisma is the long play. It’s a conversation. It’s s bluff. It’s a Disguise. It’s complex. If it wasn’t complicated then politics would be easy.
Not needing a roll on a convincing lie to an unintrested person is like not needing a roll to step over a small fence yes technically you may fail but your character probaply cant.
As a DM, if there is no consequence of failure, there shouldn't be a roll. If my player is trying to con a guard and provide a good description, I'd award the player a bonus to the roll for clever thinking, as I would for clever utilization of any skill. In play, however, I've swiped skill challenges from 4e in these instances because as you said it's a longer play. I'm gonna try a roll before the action to try it, but if the conversation sways thereafter a follow up might be needed, situationally.
@@GrugTheJust "If there's no risk of failure there shouldn't be a roll" 90 times out of a 100 I agree. The other 10 are me, the DM, rolling hidden rolls behind my screen for no particular reason. If my players ask I just say "oh, nothing" with a devilish grin. In truth I'm just creating tension. It can help contribute to a certain mood, if one wants to do that.
Also, if a player want to "go over and push the boulder so that it rolls down the hill and crushes some of the enemies", that is different from one who wants to "go over and use my crowbar to push the boulder so it rolls down the hill and crushes some of our enemies", the latter being a much easier roll, or for a strong enough character, possibly not needing a roll.
As somebody who has read a lot of comments and watched a lit of videos, but has not played dnd. I would say that needless showboating should definitely require a roll, but the penalty should be relatively mild if they fail. Want to do a triple clockwise rotation mid backflip? That'll be a 23 DC dexterity roll. They succeed, reward them with a description of the crazy thing and have any nearby townsfold applaud them, maybe throw them some copper or silver pieces. If they fail? They face plant, people laugh, they take 1 damage, and they get like 3 copper as pity.
Yeah , you are right one of my dm would make riddles and we had to solve the riddle ourselves as much as possible. We would choose one player ( obviously the one with the higher int. It was only for the stat purpose of the system the dm put in place) and we had his int mod hints available to us . It was really fun and challenging.
This is precisely why I hate dungeons in dungeons and dragons. Too often their is a riddle or a puzzle of some description, and it is what I as a player am always awful at. Put a Sudoku puzzle in front of me and I'll destroy it. A puzzle game, I'll get there in the end. But a riddle? I'm never going to solve that.
The way I work is that I set a DC for the Charisma check and if the player tells me what he said and I judge it convincing, I'd lower the DC. Sort of a bonus to the trying player.
Yup. You do it with other rolls too. Tell me how you're doing the task, and I'll work out the difficulty and costs of success and failure. Persuading a guard or searching a room, _how_ you're doing something matters.
3:20 I disagree with this example... for the following reason... When a player makes a strength check, or agility check, or stealth check, the players have a general idea of how difficult the action is, and the DM even more so. Oh a fallen tree is blocking the road, preventing the carriage you've been hired to protect from proceeding. The players then *decide a course of action* to remove the obstruction. The DM takes account of how difficult their planned course of action will be (Lifting the entire log would need a higher roll than using an axe to chop the log into a couple pieces and rolling them out of the way.) Player decides to cross a stampeding herd of horses to rescue a child... HOW? Dance through their legs? Leap across their backs? Player decides to deceive the guard?.... HOW? What lie will you tell? Are you actually trying to convince him what you say is true, or are you telling an obvious lie in a joking manner? These actions factor in to how difficult the skill check needs to be. The player doesn't have to roleplay the deception. They could instead state their intent to deceive the guard, and how they intend to do it. For example, "I am the king's personal knight" said in a lofty manner with a hint of steel. This lie might make a village guard tremble in awe at a roll of 8, and wet himself with a roll of 17. On the Captain of a Duke's personal guard though, a roll of 8 might have him immediately attack the character for their impertinence, and a roll of 17 might have him laugh in the character's face at the audacity of his statement before turning him away.
This is correct. In order to not require charisma, I take the following as equivalent. Suppose the characters are trying to deceive a guard that there is nothing suspicious about them carrying an unconscious body. A charismatic player says "We drape his arms over our shoulders. I pull out a wineskin to pass around and ramble about how I was 'this close' with the cute tavern maid before this idiot threw up on her shoes." A less charismatic player says "The guards didn't see me whack him on the head. We act like he's drunk and we're getting him home." Either way, I set the same DC. No one gets to say "I lie to the guard to get him to go away." This is because, the "this is my drunk friend lie'" is different than the "we're bounty hunters with a royal commision" lie or "Is it worth crossing the assassins guild for 3 silver a day?" In addition, if a player doesn't specify their lie, I ask questions or may suggest a reasonable option.
This is really insightful, and I think it gives a good framework for how *all* skill checks should be handled. In reality, in order to move something heavy you usually need more than just brute strength; you also need an idea of *how to apply* that strength. This goes for any attribute. The player's job isn't necessarily to prove that they themselves are good at some skill, but it is their job to know how to apply their character's skills in the best way possible, whether it's how to lift a log efficiently or what sort of lie to craft and deliver.
I like what all of you are saying....but have to disagree completely. Your examples are great in that they engage the players and let them really use their brains......but they also make it so that your not playing a game with dice anymore. Forcing your players to be the ones that determine wether or not they have a chance of succeeding and not allowing them to have advantage based on their ability to create a character takes half of the fun of the game out. I shouldn't have to come up with a clever plan if I built a character that specializes in a particular type of encounter. If I can, more power to me, but half of the fun is creating a character that is not you. The DM is the only one who can say what flys and what doesn't. If I'm the DM and anything I throw at them can be overcome simply by them outwitting me than the game will seem stale and unrewarding. Likewise if they can't ever seem to come up with a decent enough plan for me to give them easier rolls then the whole game will feel like im being a Dick. By your logic, a barbarian with no charisma controlled by a smart player could still fool highly perceptive gaurds easily...that's not fair or fun.... Throwing the roll before the contents of the scene gives the DM and the player a framework from which to tell the story. Parameters to meet. Your highly charismatic archer just rolled a 4 on convincing the gaurd, the scene is set how do we want it to look. Instead of, alright how do you want to convince the gaurd (insert clever story) oh wow that's a good one, that would succeed if you got a 8, so a 4 for you because of high charisma let's see if it works.... The same analogy of chopping the wood, why let the player hash out the entirety of their plan to remove the log if they could fail the entirety of their plan at the end if they fail the roll. after they explained in detail how they want to chop it in half and throw a rope over a tree and use it as a pulley to move the log using berserker rage. Why not see if they have any chance on each action That's the difference. Charisma checks are instantaneous game changers. If a player comes up with a quirky way to use their dex it's fun and can be controlled by the DM pretty easily. If you let your players run your game with elaborate charisma attempts that actually affect their chances of success you leave socially awkward players in a tough position and highly social players in supreme advantage. Ok rant over
And of course it's a balancing act between letting things unfold naturally and having more structure I just think there is no point in giving your character a charisma value if ultimately you have to be the same level of intelligence or charisma as your character in order for it to matter lol
I think this happens because the call for a roll doesn't come directly, instead they come indirectly as a consequence of role-playing. Sometimes a player didn't think at first about trying to lie his way through the guard, but a feed lines of dialog in she just says something that, to the ears of the dm, sounds like an opportunity for a roll. I don't think that's wrong, it's more like a chance to have the role play affect the game more directly. And if it happens that a player doesn't shine on these situations because he is shy or something, just talk to the player prior to the game and be like "hey I know this is hard for you so whenever you want to do something like this, just say that what you wanna do and we'll go from there".
They key is to impress upon the players the need for them to clearly declare their actions. Yeah, if the player just jumps right into the interaction in-character and starts telling absurd lies, there's probably going to be a problem. Get them to clearly state to you what their character is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.
@@nickwilliams8302 Honestly I'd find that to interrupt the flow of the roleplay. If someone at the table blows me away with an amazing bluff, a truly malicious threat or an incredibly persuasive argument, I tend to waive the roll and let them succeed because they roleplayed it incredibly well. Most commonly, my players will walk up to an NPC and start talking, and if they start lying, persuading or threatening the NPC, I may require a die roll depending on how the RP turns out. I'm generally opposed to requiring them to state that they are going to interact with someone socially, roll for their interaction, and then force them to act like complete buffoons because they rolled a natural 1 on their persuasion. More so than most physical skills, failing on social skills can really kill the feel of a character. If someone makes a smooth-talking, suave James Bond-esque bard and has a really bad roll streak on their charisma checks they'll just come across as bumbling dummies. You can explain failed DEX and STR rolls by attributing the character's failure to the environment, like the character slipping on wet moss, dust getting in someone's eyes etc, but failure when it comes to social skills is entirely on the character. If they make a faux pas and unwittingly insult a character it still comes across as that character being incompetent at the skill they're attempting. I usually ask for a roll for social skills when players aren't up to roleplaying their conversations, or when I need to decide whether a reasonably roleplayed line was effective or not. I've had other DMs reward good roleplay with advantage on the roll, bonuses to the roll, lower DCs and such, but when the DM sets things up for success like that they might as well just let them succeed. It REALLY stinks if you fail even with such great odds in your favour, on top of a really well RPed argument. More than anything I think charisma checks should be taken on a case-by-case or player-by-player basis. A player in my campaigns tends to roll charisma checks in advance and then roleplay accordingly, acting like a complete tool if he rolled low, and acting rather charming and competent on a high roll. It's not how I'd want to play my own character, but it's his preferred approach. If I make a charismatic character I don't want that character to repeatedly commit social suicide and ruin the entire character concept because I rolled abysmally low several times in a row. On the other end, our newest member isn't into the whole "acting out your character" thing, at least not yet. She doesn't speak as her character, but prefers to tell me what her character wants to do. In her case, requiring checks is really the only way to go because she's literally not saying anything as her character.
Pewtersprite First of all, I think I need to point out that your player who isn't into the acting style of RP isn't necessarily not RPing. The core of roleplay is making the decisions that your character would make if they and their world were real. Accents and dialogue are just icing on the cake. I do agree that if a player comes up with a plan that can't fail (whether they act it out in a funny voice or not) then there's no need to roll. Same thing if they come up with a plan that can't succeed. But this is where declaring actions comes in. By the player making it clear to the DM what they are trying to do and how they intend to do it, the DM can adjudicate the action mach more easily. Take the example Cody used of a player trying to convince a guard that a heavily-armed group of expert murderers were actually a harmless group of merchants. That interaction could definitely benefit from a DM quickly advising the player that they'd better have a _fucking good reason_ why they don't have any trade goods as well as (if appropriate) pointing out that the city employs adventurers to do all sorts of stuff and they probably don't need some "clever" plan to walk through a fucking gate. To put it another way, there are a whole host of problems that crop up in RPGs due to players not understanding things that their characters would. The opportunity to explain such things is just one of the advantages of having players declare actions. As someone whose games have benefited _enormously_ from employing this practice, I can assure you that it doesn't slow down the RP at all. If anything, it stops you from having to interrupt the RP with questions. Questions like, "What the fuck are you actually trying to do here you fucking lunatic, get the whole party arrested or something?" Because that's the kind of question that _does_ put a brake on the RP. Look, it's not my idea, just one my DMing has benefited from. I'll link you to the source of it here: theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/ I'd also be interested in your thoughts regarding this (more specific to the topic of the vid): theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/ Essentially, the latter article builds from the author's observation that any encounter is a scene in which conflict of some kind exists. The PCs want something and something stands in their way. A "social encounter" is no different. If the PCs want something, are asking for it, yet the NPC they are asking won't acquiesce, then that NPC has a reason for that. A social encounter therefore is a process of the PCs dealing with the reasons the NPC objects to what they want.
I think that as a DM, it's important to be patient and roll with less than perfectly thought out lies and persuasion. That's what the check's for - to allow the character to be more charismatic than the player. If the lie is particularly good that's awesome, handle it like any other good RP and give them inspiration (or what I'd do and just tell them to roll at advantage). If someone's truly incredibly introverted and uncomfortable with that that's fine, not every build is for every player. If you're someone new and the litany of spells to choose from's intimidating, maybe don't play a spellcaster. I never play a bard because at our table we usually do little musical or poetic performances and that's not something I'm good at. And that's totally fine!
@@ChineseCookingDemystified I agree, but there's the issue of whether the approach _can_ achieve the desired outcome. I don't expect my players to be able to blag like a professional conman (even if that's what their PC actually is), but I _do_ expect them to come up with a basic strategy that is somewhat plausible and doesn't completely disrespect the game world. Some players can act out the dialogue of blackmailing a noble. Other players might just tell me that they are using that information they found last session to blackmail the noble. Or anywhere in between. That's all cool. The important thing is that I know what the player is trying to do (get the noble to cooperate with them) and how they are trying to do it (threaten to reveal information). But if a player tries to blackmail a noble in a way that reveals the blackmail material to the people the noble wants it kept from (say by confronting the noble in front of the fucking King), then the PCs can go fuck themselves. You can't threaten to reveal information that you've already revealed. A great example from film (to continue the blackmail analogy) is "Mulholland Falls". The FBI attempts to warn Nick Nolte's character off a case with blackmail. Their mistake is to send the photos of his infidelity to the character's home. The character's wife sees the pictures. As Nolte contemptuously tells the agents: "I don't _care_ about anyone else." It literally doesn't matter what sounds the agents make with their mouth holes at that moment. They've blown it.
Personally, I believe all checks should be like the charisma check. Therefore, I now decree that D&D should never be played without ready access to dumbbells, treadmills, iq tests and blood pressure cuffs.
You forgot the juggling paraphernalia, card tricks and having the players do five finger fillet with an actual stiletto for sleight of hand and reaction saves! Also, have a rattlesnake handy for poison saves(!) 😜
Michiel Helvensteijn well, IQ tests would be for wisdom, and degrees, diplomas, trivias, book reports, essays, school tests, etc. would be for intelligence
It actually makes me feel really disadvantaged as a role player. I'm not shy, but I'm not also especially logical on my feet. I prefer some time to think about all angles. So as a think on your feet charisma player, I feel like I let my DM or fellow players down. But I am a creative problem solver. I don't think anyone thinks I'm dumb, but I do feel disadvantaged by the dissonance you're talking about. I think a roll would allow me time to process my thinking and allow me to be clever OR act out a REALLY bad lie. I would love to have the opportunity to make a bad argument too for roleplay sake instead of just having a fail state be determined by my roll. Those moments can be particularly fun. And in character, by just being given the time instead of acting it out on the fly, I think I'd be much more comfortable and it would allow me more creativity in my response. Even if fail. I'd rather have a moment of the roll of dictate whether I should be bumbling OR brilliant as guidance to my RP. This was a lovely video to think on and I look forward to talking over one aspect of playing with my DM to enhance my roleplaying experience and comfort that I hadn't thought about before. Thank you for the illumination.
Nice. i really like the idea of using the dice as guiding our roleplaying. something that definitely happens naturally. sometimes if i roll pitifully (this happens quite often) i like to have fun describing my utter failure in a way that makes sense for my character and situation. especially if the DM isn't one to do these descriptions themselves. nothing wrong with using the dice for guidance in our imaginations. even if just to narrow the field of possibilities and focus our brains down a general path. Great Idea! I wonder how DM's would feel about this as a general play method? describing actions only after dice rolls, specifically. hmmm... i'm not even sure it would be noticeably different in my game. though i don't have much experience to draw on. (i'm a newbie in my first game, level 3 character). I'm guessing it would depend on the DM and player culture of the group, but mostly it would be welcome and probably not a very noticeable change. very interesting.
I think that a good solution would simply be for you to take time to think before you speak. I know you probably don't want to hear that, but if you're a creative problem solver and you think a simple dice roll would give you more time to think, then maybe you should just take a short time to think so that your words come out right. A good party won't make you feel pressured for taking a little time. Others have also suggested saying more general things in a narrative way like, "I try to convince the guard that I am justified in carrying in these weapons." Then you can roll and feel less pressure if you want to add the actual dialogue after the roll's outcome.
Same here. Sometimes I have to remind the DM that my character is bard who has a +9 on Deception and has been telling lies for a living since he was 5 … and I’m not.
If a player makes a great argument, I may give them advantage on the roll. Even the most introverted players seem to shine in these moments. I think it's healthy!
It's both. Like everything. We shouldn't change how it is approached, but how it's executed. We should let people say "I want to lie to the guard" and then the DM asks for a deception roll like any other check, but if a player is more comfortable or if things just naturally spiral in the "backwards" direction where the player makes the lie and you need them to roll to see how the deception pans out than that is fine. But I think the solution is actually that you should make a roll based on the outcome at hand, the method shouldn't be the instigating factor. The conversation initially arose with the need for something to happen. As a DM you need to determine if the desired outcome is a possible outcome. Then the player initiates what they say and you determine "How is the player attempting to convince the guard" it's either a persuasion, a deception or an intimidation. You have them roll the accompanying roll and then determine whether or not it passes. Here's the key bit though, that roll shapes the reality of what's happening. Let me explain, as a player I say "Hey you, uhh, guard, we are a band of, uhh, merchants, let us pass!" the DM understands that I am trying to lie to the guard in order to gain passage. The DM calls for a deception roll. If I fail the roll then my character was caught in the lie, maybe my voice quivered or that verbal hiccup even more pronounced, maybe I was a bit more quiet or more boisterous, it doesn't matter because I failed my roll. However, I might have just passed the roll. Say I needed a 10 and I got a 10, well maybe the guard is just convinced, the verbal hiccup I made wasn't noticed or the guard didn't care so we gained passage for passing and things played out as if that's what I said. BUT maybe I got a very good roll, I didn't only beat the DC but I obliterated it, and this is the important part because now even though when I made the verbal hiccup while talking to the DM my character didn't, my character was smooth, he probably used a bit of flowery language, and the guard became putty in his hands. Because I'm not charismatic, my character is, so my character shouldn't be limited by my shortcomings. I stumble over my words, I'm slow with my comebacks and I'm bad at making good conversation, but my character isn't. I portray my character to the best of my abilities but in the reality of the game my player is leaps and bounds better, so even if I failed in properly expressing myself doesn't mean that my character did, too.
Well said, this is how I see it as a DM. The dice roll determines the outcome based on stats and skill bonuses. Either I decide that the guard is easy or hard to affect and make a number, or I decide a number based on the wisdom stat of the guard to see if the guard can "resist" the charisma of the character. I make the guard act on the roll. I think it's important to throw the dice and make a check so the player understands it's not me who needs to be convinced. Even a stupid idea can work, if the character has the stats and makes a good roll and even the best attempt can fail if you run out of luck with the dice. For me it's a dice game too, not just roleplaying and there should always be those chances for critical failures or success... And no, you don't have to make up a lie. Just saying "I lie to the guard" (deception) will do and then we roll the dice. However, if you make up a brilliant lie, I as a DM can give you a inspiration because of acting out your character, especially if you act out your character's personality traits or flaws, or I can straight out decide that you roll it with an advantage. Same goes with a brilliant idea on how to use your strenght or other stats or skills. That's what the inspiration rule is there for. Bad luck with the dice and you still fail. I can say it to the players that it hurts as a DM to see you fail after so good idea, but hey, you still fail. Giving out those inspirations to the players is a good thing, because if they don't want to use it, they can reward each other for good acting and great ideas. If I as a DM think something is a bad idea and will be very difficult, but another player think it's a good idea and gives out the inspiration to another player's roll, it should be a cue for me too that I should maybe make it an easier roll. Just because I'm the DM doesn't mean that I should be deciding everything on how I feel is good. I give the dice a good chance to affect the outcome and that's the wacky and fun part of the game, as a DM I just have to accept that unbelieveable crazy things happen and I'm there to describe that. It's very surprising what can happen in a fantasy world!
I think the only change I would make to your methods is, if a player says "I want to lie to the guard," I'm going to ask more detail about what they lie about and what they try to convince them. Telling the guard "We're nobles from the Kingdom of Arstotzka" will have very different results than saying "The king hired us as additional security for tonight's ball, in case someone tries to assassinate him", or "We're the new maids that were just hired to have more staff for the feast". Personally, I don't see this as any different than asking what weapon a player's barbarian is using when they say "I attack the hydra". Naturally, there may only be one obvious answer (if the party had previously purchased rich silk outfits in the colors of Arstotzka's coat of arms and had another NPC forge documents proving their identity as nobles, I'd pretty safely assume what lie they're telling the guard; if the barbarian had dropped his bow to draw his greataxe and charge the turn before, I could probably assume what weapon he's using), but if not, I don't see anything wrong with asking for details for the check.
The tricky thing is that the player might not come up with the lies that the character in the game does. The guard might just have a bad day and let them in confused and by accident and then spend a while wondering who those people actually were and were they supposed to get in. And then the guard might not care about it enough to do something about it and simply forgets it and goes back to thinking what's for dinner. It might not need to be an event with further consequences. While I agree that a DM can ask the players to act or describe their actions further, it's not necessary for the player to come up with something. Or they can roll the dice first and then be asked what they said now that the guard reacts in a certain way determined by the player's charisma roll. Not all players enjoy acting and while some love acting, for others a more descriptive playing style is more comfortable. There is a reason why a socially awkward person wants to play a charismatic character and in those cases I think the DM needs to help their characters come up with stuff they normally wouldn't, help them play a charismatic personality when in reality they're not. It's a similar situation when a player does a succesful investigation check, the DM can put the pieces of a puzzle together without the player making the connections with the given clues. It doesn't have to be the player who gets it, it's the character who does and the DM just describes the reasoning.
@@hannuback that's exactly what inspiration is for! Coming up with a good explanation for why the roll succeeded is essentially in the DMs ball-park. The player may offer to help by providing an excellent lie or even belt out a really outrageous one, it shouldn't matter if the dice have spoken. Maybe they met the one guard in the king's retinue that is especially gullible or the guard was distracted by personal problems and didn't really listen and waved them through...
Either acting it out if you are good at it or just tell me the jist of what you want. I want to convince (lie) to the guard that (insert general lie) to get into the party. I don't tend to encourage people that are extremely introverted, socially awkward, etc to play high charisma characters. I not saying I would deny them but it's going to be rough. To be fair, the strength character has to tell me how they want to cross a ravine. They don't just say hey... uh... strength is my highest stat. I want to use that. Are you felling a tree to make a bridge? Throwing rope across? There's a riddle, I kinda expect them to solve it... I allow them to use INT/WIS rolls to essential get hints but not outright solve them. I USE THE POWER OF MAH BRIAN TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE!!! Otherwise each character with a good stat or two and nothing is interesting. It's supposed to be an interactive adventure. You can just roll 1000 d20s and write a book if you have to come up with absolutely everything as the DM.
Honestly I like it, I'm actually becoming more charismatic in real life because my dm makes me come up with convincing arguments. Acting out the charismatic characters has brought me out of my shell a bit
This reminds me of an experience with my original group of players (I was the DM) in 3.0 (not long after it came out). We had this sorcerer who was discussing a situation with an important Outsider NPC and trying to get leverage to get them to teach them new magic (i.e.: a new spell). After trying to word something eloquent properly for a few minutes and the other players getting annoyed waiting on this, the sorcerer's player got fed up with it and straight up asked me "How can I ask in role play to get more spells? Can I just make a roll and get on with it?". That kind of shocked me at first, but it really brought up an interesting question that I spent much time thinking about afterwards. Why don't we just roll it and then rp it out? Now we are nearly two decades later and in my group (and with this player specifically) we still mention sometimes the inside joke of "how do I get more spells in role play?" when the players just can't figure out how to say something from their character's perspective (especially for those with high INT/CHA that would be *FAR* more eloquent than the players themselves). Similarly for those with high INT, I will often dialogue with that player when their PC is considering actions, acting as that PC's high intellect. None of us nowhere near qualifies for 20 INT, but I also don't want the players to fall into meta gaming, so instead I role play their internal dialogue with them which allows the PC to stay true to itself and the player to think things through like someone with such a high intelligence would. Seems to work well enough. Anyway, amazing video on something we can easily take for granted until we stop and think about it. My player's question in that game really made me think about this!
I like this idea. It's both an interesting, additional RP opportunity, and a sort of way to tutor one another to improve. I might just need to experiment with this. :)
This happenend in my first game ever. i didn't know how the game worked exactly, and half way through my character trying to do something i just stopped and blurted out "something charming, etc. etc., whatnot and what have you... can i just roll?" i was feeling under the weather and my brain just wasn't functioning well in the world of putting words together. everybody laughed and we got on with it. it was kinda great. And a good lesson learned.
Wait a second... this is the Disco Elysium approach! Roleplay as that character's skill and give him suggestions. I mean, it probably has to be toned down a lot compared to Disco Elysium, but it's a great idea!
If it's what it takes, then this. Some people are just going to be better at acting on the spot than others. This actually brought me back to an issue earlier this month where I was trying AL for the first time, and because I'd skipped out on the first social interaction due to how the scene played out, the ranger basically decided to let me handle the next encounter since I was the group bard. What he didn't realize was that, as a player, I'm horribly awkward at making conversation, so even with a 17-22 on a performance check and a decent diplomacy check immediately afterwards, I was at such a loss for words that the Ranger felt he had to prompt me to get me to say *anything*, which in-turn kinda came across as him trying to play my character even if the rational side knew he probably meant well.
@@fawn8347 In my experience, you can often tell how players prefer to approach Charisma checks by how they frame their interaction. Do they just go up and start talking? They probably like the role play approach. But if a player says something along the lines of "I want to go up to the guard and Persuade him to let us through", then they might prefer the "non-backwards" method. Best way to find out? Respond with "is there anything in particular you want to say?" The question is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily demand anything from the player, while still giving them a chance to either role play or at least specify certain points. The most important thing to remember though is that these systems are interchangeable. Sometimes your role player is just having an off day, sometimes your introvert wants to go out on a limb. Use the method that suits the player, and sometimes the situation (you don't HAVE to role play EVERY guard interaction), even if it means there are multiple methods at the table. People will likely not even notice, and are even less likely to care.
@Gen Eric Some people are terrible at playing up their dump stat, but I tend to take the approach of reminding them that their 7 INT character has the general intelligence of a sensible domesticated animal and that certain things they simply *just don't know* and move on from there. But people who tend to play out of RP aren't playing D&D to enjoy the RP they're playing to either meta-game or kill some shit and leave, the RP type tend to play their dump-stat well but the former two.....I honestly don't even want them in my games if i'm being honest it dampens the experience for everyone else at the table.
@@QuestionQuestionMark I personally have to disagree with that comparison for 7 INT. While I do agree that 7 Intelligence is well below average, they're not bestial. Personally I see 7 INT as trying to use big words to sound smart and just coming off as a buffoon to anyone else (if they've got low WIS to compliment that intellect) or being well aware of their stupidity and choosing not to bother with learning *anything* outside of the scope of their daily lives. A good example of a low INT character played *beautifully* is Critical Role's Grog. And, as a DM, if they're having fun and you're alright with how they're playing the stupidity angle, sometimes you just gotta toss them a bone. Sometimes standing single-file *is* how you slip into a monster's blind-spot, as incoherent a plan as it sounds.
For me rolls are for performance only, and can't change your actions. If a player said his character jump in the water and cross a river, I will ask for an athletics check. A success won't make the character do something else like using a rope, or building a bridge, he just crossed the river using his strength. But if the player specify before that he is using a rope to secure himself, I will make the athletics check easier. A character trying to intimidate a band of goblin saying "Run or I'll rip your face off" will need a intimidation check, it won't change what the player said to them, but the way the character is saying it. A success won't make the character say something else, but he will be very convincing with his intonation and attitude. Charisma rolls are not backward at all, they work exactly like every other check.
The way most people handle them is backwards. Or if not backwards per se then skewed in the favor of different steps in the process than other stat checks which just makes them seem like they're doing it backwards
@@PsykotikDragon In my opinion, most people think it's backwards just because they take rolls for something they are not. You will always be rewarded for a good setup. It can be a good battle strategy, a clever way to find a secret door, an effective way of using your tools, a very believable lie or a smart way to hide your group for the night. It's a role-playing game, this is what it's all about. Of course you need to reward players for their ideas.
@@WallySketch I totally agree with you. If a player saysthey are looking under the rug to see if there is a hidden trap, you don't ask for a Perception check to see if there is a trap underneath, you just describe what's underneath. But if the player just says he's checking for traps in the room, you might ask for a Perception check. As you said, the player describes what they want to do, and then you ask for a check. Following this logic, we also reward smart players and it might seem unfair to players not that smart but playing smart characters. But that's part of the game, otherwise it's just dice check and stats. Smart thinking, thought-out plans and strategies would all go out the window. You would just say to the rogue "Roll your Investigation check, your character is smart enough to check for them before going any further" and the players don't even have to think anymore.
@@julienweber390 so its cheating when the barbarian can just beat any door down because of their power level? If strength in game is not affected by the players actual strength why are charisma based characters stats determined by how intelligent they are.
The best terms I've heard for the difference you are talking about is the "intent" (what you want to happen) and the "approach" (how you go about it). And I agree, if you think about these two parts to a player doing something then nothing seems backwards.
As a GM, I tend to set the DC, based on the way an extrovert player RPs it, but for introvert players or newer players, I tend to treat it more like how you said, asking intent first. Also, usually, introvert players and socially challenged players often only make one roll, while I don't usually tell more extrovert players if they succeed or fail, but rather, I RP the result, and a failure or narrow success might warrant a subsequent roll, based on their response.
I can vibe with this I see a ton of comments unknowingly saying that if the players aren't creative enough they will fail no matter how they built the character. We are supposed to be role playing a character we created, not playing ourselves with a different name and stats that don't matter. If that was the case I would never put a point in charisma and just be a super strong fast tank that also somehow always had the most clever ideas.....
I feel like that comparison is a bit wrong. it isnt "I attempt to convince him of X", it's "I attempt to convince X". when you roll a strength check, it isnt "I attempt to move this by doing X".
@@alicebnuuy6155 If you're going that route then to compare apples with apples it should be "I attempt to use athletics on X" and "I attempt to use persuasion on X", in which case Strength would be indiscriminate; after the roll you could do whatever you wanted with whatever it is you'd overcome with strength, which is game-breaking. E.g. "I use athletics on that log", DM weighs log, determines DC15, roll succeeds, player says "I toss the log into space and break the moon." My point is that the situational specifics should affect the DC.
If you have a good DM, he would still encourage you to describe a situation, you will always get the roll and the result might not be different, but its much more fun. I let the female Bard in my group always describe how she casts her spells and how exactly she inspires someone. Sometimes it's just a: come on, you got this! but over time, this will improve. Rolepaying better is a skill any player can develop.
@@greybearddnd2417 my only complaint on describing spells or other commonly used feature is when you have to do it every single time. I've had a DM who required you to describe exactly what words a caster would say for each and every spell, including cantrips, every time you cast it and you had to stay consistent. It got old for everyone at the table about 2 sessiongs in
Here's the argument from ine of my fellow GMs that got me thinking. "If a player has the 'gift of gab' why would he allocate points in social traits of his character if he [the player] can persuade/outwit/con anyone?". And her's where it got interesting to me because the same can be said about anything else. I know a lot about guns, my friend knows a lot about programming and cybersecurity, someone else will have extensive medical knowledge. Now should my character be able to disassemble a rifle just because I as a player can explain in great detail how to do it even though my character has no skill representating that knowledge? Should my friend be able to crack a gov database just because she actually knows how to do it even though her character has no skills reflecting the subject? Should an experienced paramedic be allowed to simply explain how her character helps a victim of multiple stubbing even though the character has only basic knowledge of first aid? I see roleplayers dismissing some arguments for and against certain styles of skill testing depending on the something I call a "hands on" aspect of the skill. If your character doesn't know how to drive a car it doesn't matter if you, a player, are a professional driver. Your character won't drive a car. If you are a rally driver should your character be allowed to make movie-like car maneuvers during a chase just because the player could do it? But somehow it's a different thing when it comes to charisma, intelligence and so on. We as players are playing characters. They can be smarter than us, dumber than us, prettier than we are or skilled in things we are not. That's what in its core rpg is to me. A way of getting into the shoes of someone I as a person am not. And to circle back the the quote from the beginning I think that if you wish your players to use their talents to progress in the game (which is perfectly fine with me) drop the skills/attributes that describe the characters proficiency in those fields.
Agreed 100%, I once played a Gilderoy Lockhart/Miles Gloriosus type who spoke with GRAND PRONOUNCEMENTS about how AMAZING HE WAS as the GREATEST PILOT IN THE GALAXY and it was utterly exhausting to try to RP that the whole time. Initially he was a lot of fun, but at some point I realized just didn't have it in me to continuously "do the voice" and act like a comedically self-centered buffoon who took every opportunity to show off and sing his own praises - at some point, even I was getting annoyed with him, and was running dry on creative ways to self-congratulate even though the character himself never would have. (Worse still, if I had TRIED to continuously roleplay that, I very easily could have aggravated the rest of the players and ruined their fun as well as my own.) Eventually we settled on this approach: "Miles says, '(3-second INTRODUCTORY ROLEPLAY where I DO THE VOICE!),' and then he says something like '(my normal voice explaining what I'm actually trying to communicate, interspersed with THE VOICE when I think it's important or relevant or genuinely amusing.)'" The way I see it, we're engaged in collective storytelling. If we were writing a book, we would have the opportunity to sit down, contemplate what would be said and how it would be said and get the sequencing and pacing exactly right, and then produce the finished product of many minutes (or hours, or days) of writing and re-writing. But with RPing, it's all improv, and sometimes - by insisting that everything be roleplayed - we might easily miss out on the more dramatically appropriate things just because the player is trying to keep the game flowing. They might even do something out of character just because they felt rushed or hit a creative block, and it seems a little silly to have that result in in-game consequences.
I completely agree! A big part of the game is roleplaying AS THAT CHARACTER, and not as yourself. That character has certain skill sets mapped out, and certain strengths and weaknesses, that you as a player may not have. While good RPing should always be encouraged, you shouldn't be able to RP your way out of anything. Failure is also part of the game, and helps enrich the experience when things DO go right.
this is so ridiculous hahaha roleplaying is tied to charisma. that's the game. charisma the stat is a problem because it is trying to quantify the amount of charisma we want to give our characters, but it also is restricted by every other skill they possess and it serves as a freaking spellcasting number. that's why charisma is stupid in 5e. not the other way around. you play rpgs to exercise your charisma in different forms (characters).
Had a very similar debate with a DM about this subject. I was on the side of "My character can lift large amounts of weight as a dice roll, but I can't do it myself; the same should be true if my bard is charming and I am not."
A DM that requires "good roleplaying" for Charisma-based checks, even from introvert players is really not footing a balanced game. It will lead to the extroverts hogging all the game time and getting to shine at the expense of less spotlight-hungry players. You can't turn a silent, taciturn individual into Josephine Baker, dancing on the table with a banana skirt, just by playing D&D.
Metallkopf If you By-Pass role playing with dice you shouldn’t be playing a role playing game. D&D is not a game for introverts, it is basically a giant social experience where you’re constantly having to meet new people talk and develop yourself as a person. This is why we deem D&D to be a role play game and not just a turner based combat with choices.
that's why I'm so bad at playing a charisma-based character; I'm not smooth, or clever, or deceptive, or anything like that, so it makes it hard for me to come up with cunning ideas that might or might not work...
Same. I'm very shy and introverted and have a hard time role-playing, so it's hard for me to play the talker of the group. However I like making charismatic characters because I love the idea of someone who can talk their way out of situations.
I’m the same when it comes to Charisma based characters. I like the idea of playing them, hell theyre probably the most interesting in the game, but I couldn’t smooth talk to save my life.
I don't think it's required to be charismatic in real life for your rolls to succeed. Example that we got was "just bad". I think that if you uncomfortable with coming up/unable to come up in time with clever lie, good persuasive argument or a powerful intimidation, yet you play charismatic character it then would be the best to talk with your group and ask DM to not judge your Charisma rolls too harshly. Or, alternatively to rolling Charisma check before saying anything, you maybe could roll Insight check/use passive Insight to determine what would be the right words to say to the person for better outcome (DM would tell you what topic or personality trait of the opponent you could use to your advantage). And i would say that it's fine to just use logic of "i try to persuade him with my incredibly charming personality" and that's it for roll to work, as long as DM is okay with filling in blanks for you.
@@Nick_Vendel but that still punishes players who aren't very charismatic or deceptive in real life. For example, I want to play a character that's not very attentive to his surroundings and gets into a lot of trouble because of that but he can talk himself out of trouble because he's just so convincing. According to your rules, I'd have to first role a weakness of my character with a pretty high failure chance just so that i can succeed in my strong parts. Even if you my character is middle-ish in insight, I need to pass two rolls while charismatic players only need to pass one roll.
It's a good rule, but you should also only call for rolls when there is a chance of success. Look at it this way. If a PC tries to jump a 1ft chasm, they succeed. If a PC tries to fly by flapping their, they fail. Only if the stated action falls in the range of what the PC _could_ do but also _could_ fail at, do you need a roll. Interaction checks should be no different. If a PC tells someone something that is actually true ("I'm looking for a good inn.") in order to convince an NPC to do something they have no reason to refuse to do (ie. tell the PC where a good inn is) then no roll is necessary. If a PC tells someone something that is obviously bullshit ("I'm the King of the Moon!") in order to convince an NPC to do something they have very good reason to refuse to do (ie. let the PC into an area they have been ordered to guard) then no roll is necessary. You only need a roll if the stated strategy is something that could plausibly be believed _and_ actually deals with the NPCs reasons for non-compliance. For example, telling a guard that they should be let into the palace because they have an urgent message for the King that the safety of the land hinges upon. The guard has orders to keep unauthorised people out, but messengers are authorised. Moreover, the guard's primary concern is the safety of the King and the land, which may be in peril. So, if the guard believes the PC is a Roal messenger, they will let the PC in. The problem is not how social interaction is handled in particular, it's how checks are being handled in general.
The way it is usually done is a roll is called for when there is a chance for failure and success. One could definitely be higher than the other (duh), but if one of those chances are 100% then a roll is not necessary, as it wouldn’t impact anything.
This is a huge problem for me right now. I thought I would love playing as a bard (and it's been pretty fun for a lot of the more obvious stuff like performances and that kind of thing), but I have a ton of trouble getting my dm to even let me roll for persuasion, intimidation, or deception. I go up and do something risky, but apparently not obvious enough and he will punish me for it by having the guy not believe me or call for help and stuff without even rolling to see if it worked. I just don't think I'm comfortable enough yet to do be super charismatic at the table since I'm still pretty new to the game. Edit: Actually, I think the thing that annoys me the most is even if I tell him I want to attempt a deception check or something he makes me say my lie first before he determines if I need to roll or if it was just terrible in general
Well then ask him what he thinks Charisma is actually for, then, if he doesn't really use it. Or offer to DM yourself if you feel comfortable with it. That may lead to conflict though, if he is an authority-driven alpha control freak. He may not wish to suffer any other gods beside himself.
The believability of your lie alters the dc of the check. I don't understand the confusion here. Choosing an ineffective action always has a higher dc than an effective action. The DM needs to know the your choice to determine how effective it was. Imagine saying "I roll deception!* DM says "Go for it!" You say "I got a 15! Do I succeed?" DM says "Good job! What did you say?" You say "I told him he's a fish!" Is he supposed to suddenly believe he's a fish because you rolled a 15? No, it doesn't work like that, sorry.
That often depends on what the check is. In the case of Charisma checks, all except Performance demand that the player be just as good at deceiving or persuading as their player is. In the case of Wisdom and Intelligence, for example a Medicine check would first be rolled and then after that it would be determined what the character was able to do, even if the player was a professional doctor or if they didn't know the first thing about bloody noses.
In critical role, the character Caleb is smart and Liam often jokes that he is smarter than his player. Because of this Caleb remembers things about the game that Liam doesn’t. Liam will occasionally argue that his character would remember something he’s read and the DM will agree because Caleb has a high intelligence and a feat that allows that to happen
Assign advantage or disadvantage depending on how it’s roleplayed, for every check. You want to push that boulder up the hill? Tell me how you are doing it
I can see both. With deception as the example, if the player lies first, they get to be clever, and the DM can reward the player by having the DC adjust based on what the player actually says (or maybe give the guard disadvantage on their insight check). However, if the player had to roleplay the result after the deception roll was made, what they say might better fit the result. if they roll an 8 on deception, they might roleplay a more commical lie like how some characters is movies and TV shows make obvious lies that might be funny.
A check is only necessary if the outcome is in doubt. If a PC attempts such an absurd lie that it would never be believed by the person their speaking to, you don't need to roll; just like you wouldn't need to roll an Athletics check if the PC attempted to make a single high jump from the Earth to the moon. Likewise, you don't need to make someone roll a strength check to lift a glass of wine or a charisma check to convince a total stranger the PC's name is Robert (assuming that's a normal sounding name in the location the NPC is encountered). How you do something matters. Look at the example of a Strong character trying to lift a heavy log. Sure, that's pretty easy. If their Strength score is high enough, and there's no time crunch on the action, I might let them do it without a check. But, if you have a 24 strength and you tell me you want to lift that log with just your pinkie finger, I might decide you automatically fail, or I might give you disadvantage on the check, or I might make failing by 5 or more result in some kind of injury (or disadvantage and a fail by 5 or more consequence).
You're right in everything you said, but you're missing the point I think. For STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, your character's capability is what determines what's a glass of wine and what's a jump to the moon. With CHA, it's the _player's_ capability. Example. You are a rogue. Your gear is obviously 100% assassin. You are not good at roleplaying/speaking parts for your character. In game, you are sneaking into the mayor's manor to steal a deed back that was unrightfully taken. Acrobatics/athletics to get in the window - you're proficient, success! Stealth check to sneak around - success! You hear a guard, you stop, hide behind a stand with a vase, you go unseen. You stand back up - your DM makes you roll stealth again, but you roll low. Oh no, you bump the stand. Dex check to catch the vase! You roll low again! *CRASH* the guard comes to you immediately as he was just around the corner ahead. Now you're in a social situation. Guard: Who are you?! Why are you here?Full Assassin Guy: I uhhh, I'm a butler.DM: He's doubtful, roll for deception. If you were a more convincing liar in real life (nothing to do with your character) Guard: Who are you?! Why are you here?Full Assassin Guy: There's a double agent working here, the mayor hired me to find them. DM: He believes you (no roll necessary)
I totally agree, Lilith2014. I was looking through the comments to make sure someone else made this point before I did. Knowing how a player character is going about a task is important for determining whether a role is needed, what skill (if any) to use, and what the difficulty of the roll is. When a player says, "I look for clues," you'll probably ask how and where they look for clues before determining whether they need to make an Investigation check and whether it's DC10 or DC20. If a PC is pushing a boulder off a cliff, they may say, "I brace myself against the cliff-face and push the boulder off with my legs," or "I grab a nearby branch and use it as a lever to pry and force the boulder over the edge." These differing descriptions may or may not change the rolls necessary, and function the same as different roleplaying approaches for charisma-based actions.
@@kaldo_kaldo The thing is, the way you have portrayed the social interaction between the guard and the assassin points up the need for the DM to adjust the playstyle to match the player. If the player has the gift of the gab and usually acts out social interactions, sure, start an interaction in-character so they can respond. If, on the other hand, the player usually roleplays by narrating their characters actions in the third person, address them in that way rather than putting them on the spot. So, it really is more of a case of giving each kind of roleplayer the opportunity to play to their strengths. Personally, I find both your example lies equally preposterous. I actually can't think of any sounds a player could possibly make with their mouth hole (short of a spell) that would help in that situation.
@@kaldo_kaldo In getting to the social situation of "uhhh, I'm a butler." I think you described the single most poorly DM'd stealth situation I've ever seen or heard described. 1) Why are there two stealth checks? Nothing broke the character's initial stealth; forcing a second roll at that point is simply increasing the chances of failure for no reason. And, if you're having the player make the stealth rolls before the character's stealth is challenged, which you shouldn't (see below), why was there no roll when sneaking up to the house? Or a roll to remain stealthy while climbing? 2) Why is the character making the stealth check before there's a chance of failure? The player shouldn't know how well-stealthed they are until the instant it's opposed. Letting them see the result of the check before they encounter anything that opposes the check gives them the agency to do something else if they get a bad roll. If you're fighting a guy in plate and a guy in leather armor, you don't get to roll your attack and then choose to apply your total roll to the enemy you think that roll can hit. Letting a sneaking character know their stealth roll before hand is no different; it gives the chance to go do something else in a non-stealthy manner for 5 minutes and then come back and try get a better roll. 3) The assassin's player doesn't need to be a great liar, or quick thinking. Any rogue who's worth their salt will consider "what do I say or do if someone sees me?" and "what's my escape plan if things go south?" These aren't genius things, they're the result of basic experience when learning and failing to be sneaky. And, any DM who has a player who is bad at roleplaying persuasion and deception, or a player who's new at the game, should ask those questions of the player beforehand. Presumably, if the PC is skilled in stealth they have had to practice it enough to know that they might need a plan in case they get spotted. Look, it's not that I don't get what you're saying, because I do. The thing is, being a DM for someone who plays a charismatic character but who is themselves not charismatic is extra work. When the awkward player tries to be smooth and says something so truly absurd it wouldn't be believed, you either need to let the player know "hey, you're character is a bit better of a liar than that. Maybe take a minute and try to think of something else, something more believable from the NPC's point of view" or you need to find a way to roll with the absurdity. Maybe the second guard in your example starts laughing uproariously because he thinks the assassin guy is actually secret backup who's ribbing him by pretending to be some awkward schmoe. I prefer to do the former, not the latter, if only because I think it trains players to be better at playing their characters. It may not make them any less awkward or more charismatic, but maybe it helps them develop the ability to look at a situation from someone else's shoes when trying to figure out what's a reasonable lie. And that's a process we've all been through. We've all been the kid who broke a lamp (or something) and said we found it that way because we didn't want to get in trouble. And if you do that when you were the only one home when the lamp got broke, you get in trouble and learn to lie better next time. If you're really great, you learn to take responsibility for what you do instead of lying about it, but most kids aren't like that. Hell, most adults aren't like that these days.
@Lilith2014 You're bang on the money with your comment here. Get the players to declare their actions properly (what are they trying to do; how are they trying to do it) and a huge number of RPG problems just vanish. It is as legitimate in terms of roleplay to describe a general strategy (Thongor will try to threaten the guard so he doesn't raise the alarm) as it is to act it out ("If you want to keep breathing, you'll be still and very quiet my friend."). The only relevant facts the DM needs to know is what the player is trying to accomplish (preventing the guard from raising the alarm) and how they are trying to do it (threatening the guard). This lets the DM know what success (quiet guard) and failure (loud guard) look like as well as what kind of a check will be required (in this case CHA[Intimidation]) if you need to roll dice at all For players who enjoy acting out their PC's dialogue, the opportunity to do so is it's own reward.
If you treat charisma checks differently, you need to understand that you are affecting the difficulty of the game. Getting proficiency in a skill comes at the cost of not getting proficiency in a different skill. If your decision to call for a roll is dependent on a character's ability to roleplay, you've made the game more difficult for players who invest in charisma skills and easier for players who don't.
@@uaenruotel I see nothing wrong with giving advantage to a player who says something clever. That's the same as using a pulley to help with a strength check. Negating the roll entirely, though, feels like punishing players for choosing that skill. This is a role-playing GAME, after all.
@@uaenruotel try thinking of it in a different way. The player is saying something (sometimes utterly stupid) and the effectiveness of what is said is modified by the roll. It's not always words that are convincing but who's saying them.
I’ve had amazing results running my table’s Charisma checks with basic modifiers. 1) Call for Charisma Check 2) Player LARPS out their action, which the DM (me) then assigns a modifier: 0, +2, or +5. 0 and +2 are the most common, with +5 reserved for incredibly convincing RP. 3) The player learns their RP modifier, rolls their charisma check and applies the result. I’ve found that this lets players feel that their RP has a real impact while validating character investments in CHA and CHA skills. The table cheers when they hear, “that was amazing; +5 for that,” and the person RPing feels like an IRL hero. I tend to rule a bit softer for newer and more introverted players, often giving them the +2 bonus when they push themselves out of their comfort zone. Overall, Charisma checks are where your Actor-style players shine, and giving them the spotlight (within moderation) often leads to a memorable session.
It seems to me that you - and several commenters, from what I gather at a glance - are focused on the problem that these backwards Cha checks keep the characters from being more charismatic than the players. But there’s a flip side to this issue: they also can’t be less charismatic than their players. Suppose a PC gives a well-thought-out argument that should be able to persuade the NPC, given the circumstances. The GM makes the mistake of asking for a roll; perhaps they silently assign a generous bonus. Then, the die rolls a 1, and the cumulative bonus doesn’t meet the DC set by the rules. This is what persuaded me to treat Charisma checks the same as any other check. Your roll tells you, the player, what your character was able to come up with. This prevents a convincing argument from being “wasted” on a failed roll.
Noah Hathaway as a dm, I typically like to hear the deception or persuasion first and then base the dc off of how convincing the player was. In the event of the horrible roll but well thought out statement, you can always wave the dc and have it pass or have the player roll with advantage because they were clever.
If they give you a solid speech, you might want to give them advantage or a DC reduction. Even if the check fails regardless, you can still play it out in the narrative that the particular NPC is not easily swayed by your view, no matter how logical and sensible their arguments might be to the circumstances. Put one extreme left and one extreme right wing supporter in a room and throw in a controversial topic for them to discuss. No matter how many good arguments they might throw at eachother, I doubt anything outside of a natural 20 would make either think twice about what the other says.
I get what you are saying in that an uncouth barbarian isn't going to charm the dress of the princess by being suave. I have a simple rule that if you act against character you will be making a dice roll with disadvantage to discourage bad roleplaying. However if said barbarian walks up to the princess and rips his shirt off and starts flexing his huge muscles trying to sway the princess, and I feel that the princess could be swayed by this, then I allow a roll or if the description was really well done I say it succeeds without a roll. I want players to be creative because if makes the game more fun most of the time.
Same way with intelligence in many ways. I can dump int for anything that doesn't require the actual stat (like wizards and spell casting). Then just play smart. As long as I don't actually have to roll Int then I'm fine. I've never had a GM say anything about this. Same way with people that are naturally charismatic, they dump Cha and as long as a spell ability (like Bards) doesn't require they go around being themselves. Yet nobody would allow someone that was buff and could bench 300 lbs dump Str and then roleplay picking up logs and breaking open doors. I've said this to people before, I don't mind a bonus being handed out if something is roleplayed well. However penalizing a roll, or not allowing it because the player isn't charismatic while the character is, is bullshit. If you as a GM are going to do that, then bring a deadlift bar and weights over and require your fighter, barbarian, whoever to deadlift some weight and then assign your penalties when they can't, or don't allow the character to do it.
This is a strange interpretation. The way my tables have always run it is that players exactly describe what they want to do, I determine what they roll, and then I (The DM) describe how well they perform said task
I love when a player gives an absurd argument with a high roll. It's fun for me as a DM to roleplay why that NPC believes it. I also almost always allow a roll, and while I do adjust the DC on occasion due to how it is worded, it's usually only a small amount. So in a way, it's not too different from doing the roll first, it just gives more opportunity for roleplaying and having fun.
"The guard's pretty sure you're lying. But he's also had a long day, was just denied a raise, and is going through some trouble with his wife, who h'es pretty sure is sleeping with his boss. He waves you through with a 'yeah whatever'."
@@Thosecursedeyes This is an excellent point and one I think many people are missing. There can be external variables that have nothing to do with a character that can affect the outcome of a check. Yes, a bard with expertise in persuasion can fail in their lie to a guard. The low roll could represent the guard being especially alert for some reason, ticked off he has to work a double shift, it could be anything. It may not even mean they don't believe the character, they just deny entry to be an ahole. Brilliant exposition by the player who then rolls a 1? Guard slowly focuses on the character and says "Sorry, wasn't listening. Bugger off, I'm busy."
It’s because of this I don’t play charisma based characters even if I have an interest or what I think would be a good character idea. I feel like some stats do get pushed onto the player. /I/ am not a highly intelligent wizard or some wise cleric, so how do you expect me to know all the intriguing details/histories of what’s happened? I feel like asking for players to BE charismatic if they’re playing one of those characters isn’t fair.
You should be able to play an incredible Genius or a charismatic femme fatale no problem - if your DM will only let you... Talk to him about it and how the application of certain mechanics limits your ability to participate. Not forcing a player to convincingly display lightning-fast intellect or the glibness of a thousand devil's tongues every time something involving INT or CHA is attempted, is an essential first step in this and unless your DM totally disregards you as a person, he should at least understand where you are coming from. Everything in life has a learning curve. Playing (and running) D&D is no exception.
I always feel bad when I see people think as you do Maddie. Not that it is your fault. You shouldn't feel restricted about what kind of character you want to play because of your own personality. Metallkopf is dead on here. If you want to play a CHA based character but don't want to RP being charming or persuasive then talk to the DM about it and how they can accommodate that. Being able to persuade an NPC shouldn't require you to be able to talk well yourself and as much as you coming up with a persuasive argument shouldn't require your character to have high CHA. If you're DM doesn't want to compromise, then I feel they are a bad DM (my opinion) and you should think about looking for another that is more agreeable with yourself. If a player wants to be very charismatic and RP that then it is a bonus to them. But if not, then you should be allowed to make a quick description of what you want it to do and leave it to a roll to decide.
@@GoblinUrNuts I'm not as good as my Fighter is at swinging a sword to hit an exposed weak-spot, so do i roll to see if my character can do it? yes i'm not as good at disarming complicated traps as my thief character is, so do i roll to see if my character can do it? yes i'm not as good at lying as my charlatan bard who grew up his entire life conning people out of their money, so do i roll to see if my character can successfully con someone? yes you dont have to know exactly what you do or say as a character, you just have to know what the character is trying to do, for example " I swing my sword at the monsters head" "I attempt to disarm the pressure plate with my thieves tools" or "I attempt to convince the guards that I am a guest at this banquet and that there must be a mistake with the guest list" a general statement of intent is more than good enough, its a GAME after all. Third person RP is still RP
PieManiac is this an RPG or is it an LARPG? Obviously you don’t need to know how to swing a sword to swing one in the game, however you do say what your character will do correct. It’s not like you say I don’t know how to swing a sword so I want my fighter to swing his sword. Then wait for the DM to fill in the rest. You direct them and put them into the place you want, you dictate what it is they do. Same thing with the traps you don’t just walk into a room and say disarm traps please. You have to go investigate and find the trap In The room before you can do anything about it. So how can you expect to just walk up to a guard and just say “lie to yourself please” and expect the DM to fill in the blanks. I understand that not everyone is an amazing liar, but you have to put in at least some of the work to persuade. The way I personally run it is what the player says is setting the DC for the guard, if the player says something that is big, waaay over the top, or just cannot be true the DC goes up, if the tell a little lie the DC is much lower. As an example one of my players played a game as an alien warlock. And they would say things like “hello fellow humans” “can’t wait to enjoy this human food because i am obviously a human as well.” So the DC for her character to lie was pretty high, not many people believed her character. Or even if they did they thought her character was strange. Which I think is a reasonable expectation because of the outlandish thing coming from your mouth. I understand everyone plays differently but it sounds pretty boring to just say “I would like to swing my sword” wait for DM to fill in the rest. “I would like to go shopping and get these items” wait for DM to tell you about the people you met and how much you spent. “I would like to lie to this guard” wait for the DM to tell what an excellent lie you told to the guard to get you into the city. It sounds incredibly boring and I would feel bad for your DM because they are having to work much harder to fill in the blanks for you. Obviously I am over-exaggerating but I hope you get my point.
I made this comment over a year ago and my stance has shifted in some ways, especially as I have grown as a player and dipped my toes into charisma based characters. I feel like everyone's comment have something important to say but I think what really matters is what play style the group enjoys most. Some people don't care for the RP and just want combat so they skip dialog or only get the important information, now that type of play might not be fun for some people but I believe as long as everyone at the table is having their own version of fun, who are we to judge them. Anyways, I've grown to love CHA based characters and depending on the people I'm playing with, setting, and system, it can be a lot of fun. Each class has their own difficulties when it comes to playing their main ability score. Again, all of this also relies on whether the DM or group is the type to have players truly play out their ability scores. You as a player might have a smart battle strategy but you have a lower INT score, would it make sense for them to say it? Or would that be considered meta-gaming if you mention it OOC? Personally, I think the reliance on having players stick to their scores is limiting. But again, if that's how your table likes to play things, then more power to you! But don't dismiss other people's play styles just cause you don't agree with it or find it fun :)
I'm not aiming to just resolve the debate with a single observation, but I do note that the reason for most players to treat charisma as their dump stat isn't because it doesn't give enough advantages, but because it can easily be substituted by the charisma of the player - usually without either the player or the DM noticing what happens - in 90% of the cases. (Also, as an introvert, can't say I really appreciate the condescension)
This is a problem. Introverted players that tend not to role-play "in character" as much as extroverts are likely to be at a disadvantage in games where the DM favours role-playing performance for charisma checks. It doesn't matter if it happens through auto-passing because of smooth talking in character or by making the roll easier. The introvert player will always play uphill if social interaction depends on the players' ability or willingness to role-play as their character. Same holds for INT checks. It's easy to play stupid if you're reasonably smart, but the other way round is much harder. Being able to roll for INT gives players of average intelligence the possibility to play Genius-level characters that can outsmart NPCs even if they themselves could not.
One problem is that I think people are slightly unclear on exactly what Charisma implies. Charisma is not necessarily your ability to make a reasonable argument or come up with a clever deception, or just be good-looking and likable. In its most base form, Charisma describes a character's ability to intuitively make themselves do what they want on a very granular level. To expand on that, Charisma is the character's ability to look at a person, notice subtle details about them, and subtly adapt their own behavior to put across what this character wants the other person to think of them, depending on the situation, without having to think about it too much. So like, imagine that you roll your diplomacy check after saying all the right stuff, but you roll like a 6, he says all that stuff, but for whatever reason he's off his game, and his body language is very off-putting and possibly a little suspect, like he's licking his lips frequently in the middle of talking, scratching under his eye in the middle of the conversation, just stuff like that where they're like, "Yeah, that sounds good, but something seems off about this guy, I don't know if we can trust him." Obviously for deception, that means you're letting slip a lot of tells, whereas successful deception is covering up or consciously suppressing your tells. And with intimidation, it's, again, body language, and subtle things, like, the difference between saying, "I'm gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck," while giving exaggerated pro-wrestler crazy-eyes and flexing like a brute to the point it looks like your shirts about to rip, and just kind of saying it while looking normal and maybe stumbling on it just slightly, to the point it loses all impact. I think another good thing to point out about Charisma is that it's the key ability score for Sorcerers who draw magic from inside themselves and push it out, and obviously they have to practice it to *really* do it to the extent the player class does, but think about it. I described Charisma as being intuitive control of one's self. Something tells me that would be a useful mental trait when trying to tap into a supernatural force that exists deep in your bloodline that you shouldn't naturally have a built-in reflex for.
Ooh yeah I really like this explanation. I’ve been trying to work through, myself, how I can describe my players failures in combat. This is somewhat related to this as I think about it. Say they miss, it’s either their fault, or the environment’s fault or even more likely the enemy’s fault. I can say they just missed or let go of the string with the arrow off or what have you, or I can say as they shoot the arrow the enemy saw it coming and was able to dodge it luckily or whatever. Either way I’m letting the dice decide, and though I haven’t had an incredible amount of social interactions outside of the party yet (still a new dm), I’d imagine it would make sense to use charisma the same way. If there’s a failure either the player messed up, or the target caught on/avoided their charisma. I can describe it either way and it doesn’t change the rolls. I think it would be good to mix it up as I do now because I don’t necessarily want the players thinking the enemies are always quick or that they’re always missing. Sometimes saying they were dead on but the enemy evaded just in time seems better than you just missed.
@@Bilbobobpie you're entirely correct, IMHO. An attack that fails because of high AC could not really miss, it just doesn't do any damage to the enemy, sliding harmlessly off heavy armor. Nimble foes could duck and weave like a kung-fu fighter (I believe the Monk still gets to stack his WIS modifier to his dex-bonus for AC when unarmored, although this has been debuffed a bit in comparison to earlier editions). Likewise, a solid hit doesn't necessarily have to draw blood, but may just knock some wind out of the enemy, there is a whole discussion about how people handle actual hit point damage. There's quite a lot of wiggle-room in describing combat and skill rolls apart from "you connect with your mighty blow" or "your sword narrowly misses by an inch", dependiing on the nature of the foe's AC and personal flavour preferences. :)
I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes. We absolutely are gimping charismatic players by handling it that way, and I will change how I handle it in future. We have all played with people who suffer from social anxiety or significant introversion, and we should absolutely let them be able to play vicariously as well. (this might explain at least some of why there's so much hate for bards - they are just not fun to play if you aren't extroverted enough)
but you don't need to make them fail or succeed based on their roleplay, but you should let them roleplay nonetheless. but if their roleplay don't affect the outcome that much, it may actually make them more comfortable to try, it may even help people with social anxiety. what is important is that if you are GMing a fun game and not a fair one, you should know your player and know what kind of lenience you should give them. also there are situations that roleplaying do matter. if the player ask something absurd then the DC should be very high or impossible. but if he first asks to do something that needs a charisma roll and succeeds the DC, then he can roleplay it the way he wants, even asking/saying absurd things that would require a much higher DC.
Solid criticism! I've never really given this much thought but I never expected my players to be charismatic. Most game masters I've ran with though totally do this.
Player: I use strength to break the door and I got a 27 GM: Okay describe how you break down the door Player: I'm not a professional door breaker, stop making these unrealistic demands of me!
Lol GM:... sorry I thought you'd want to, ya know roleplay your character... Alright guys so Bobby kicks the door down Player: MY CHARACTER WOULDN'T KICK IT HE WOULD SHOULDER CHARGE WITH BETTER POSTURE
I mean, is it really backwards? The Charisma check isn't to see if you *can* be deceptive or persuasive or intimidating, it is to reflect *how* deceptive or persuasive or intimidating the NPC sees you. You're ultimately seeing how strong the words are to their perception, not if you're going to fumble your words. You can say the same exact line to persuade two different guards in two separate cities, your Persuasion check is to see how well it influences the guard and how they are receptive to your Charisma. It's the same as you exemplified, pushing a stone means you roll Athletics to see how effective you are at pushing it, or rolling History for how effective you are at recalling lore about dragons. It seems that people are too focused on Charisma checks being "I'm rolling to see if I jumble my words" and less on "I'm rolling to see if the baron really believes I'm his long lost cousin."
@@DougVehovec I mean,when you roll you are playing with luck. The odds may be in your favour but if the guard is smartass or doesn't thrust anyone you are not gonna convince him
but its just how he said earlier in the video the big problem is that many/most dms dont even consider the characters charisma stat until after everything is said and done; in other words if your bad at conversations fucks you how dare you try to play a charismatic character
@@thunderborn3231 I don't know if I'm understanding something wrong here, but I don't let any one make a roll if it seems impossible, and I feel that knowing what your character is saying (even if the player is shy) should affect the DC. I feel that you should assign difficulty depending on what you are trying. For example: a character tries to break a wall and rolled a 17 and has a +5. If breaking the wall was really hard, it might be a difficulty 25 of even 30. You wouldn't say he found a weaker spot just because he rolled high. The same should apply to charisma
I feel like it's done this way so the DM can set the DC based on what was said, because Chr checks seem to be the ones least prepared for, so hearing what is being said to deceive/Persuade/Intimidate first would help determine how easy it is to succeed
The problem here is that we don't, for example, set the DC for a roll based on the fact that the player works out at the local gym, or is really good at juggling, or aced their last test. The player and the character are different entities, and just because the player succeeded at being charismatic doesn't necessarily mean the character should.
@@MegiDolaDyne Well with this, players are unlikely to go to the gym in most 5e settings, but if they are training, most games I've played, and in the one I DM, if you want to learn something in free time via training, you do need to roll to see how successful you are, with Juggling I will make them make a dex check (or performance if they want) just because the event in which they fail could be funny, and if they succeed really well, it could impress some passersbys for example and they could throw some coins there way. With a test, those are closer to puzzles, and players are usually the cap for that no matter how good they are at roleplaying.
@@MegiDolaDyne, yes. If I could up-vote this more than once, I would. This is a fantasy. The player and character are two separate entities. The fact that I as a player cannot bust down a heavy door should in no way affect whether my character could do it. The same with charisma checks. A player with a high charisma should not be able to pass a charisma check any better than a player with a low charisma. It's the characters' charisma that should matter. That being said, I still find the roleplay fun, and should be done (as long as it's enjoyable), but it shouldn't affect the result.
I would say the line should effect the difficulty of the roll A good lie with a health dollop of BS should make the charisma check easier Indifferent effort should make 0 effect Bad lying or table stupidity should increase difficulty
I've seen it where some DMs rarely call for dice roles in all cases. If a DM knows the characters being played there are a lot of things which should just be roleplayed without the check. What's the point of a strength check to move a log for a character which is crazy strong? Or rope check for a character who is super skilled with rope skills? It's kind of like just taking 20 with many skill checks so the focus is on the story and not on 15 million dice rolls. Of course, there are times when a check should still be called for as the possibility of rolling something that shifts the outcome adds to the story [especially when it's a crit success or crit fail]. When to call for a check and when to just move the story along is a good DM skill. DMs who are inconsistent with what and when they call for a check, or who demand a check for every little action are super frustrating to players.
My DM sometimes lets me skip stealth checks... But it is mainly because he knows it is literally impossible for me to fail them in many cases thanks to reliable talent.
First, I definitely agree with the general premise, and, as a player, I've been frustrated when a DM expects me to be as smart, wise, or charismatic as my character. (Why can't I just make an intelligence roll to solve the puzzle? I mean, I get that you spent time coming up with the puzzle, but not being able to solve the puzzle undermines a core ability of my character) On the other hand, it isn't so different from other checks. If a player is making an attempt to hide, the DM might as how they're going to try to hide (blend in with a crowd? Crouch behind a barrel? Try to melt into a shadowy corner?), and the DM might adjust the difficulty of the roll, or even make it an automatic success or fail. And even with something like an attack action, the player needs to specify how they're attacking, and with what. Asking the player for specifics about the lie/argument/flattery that they're attempting is essentially asking for the tactical expression of attempt.
With a puzzle, an INT-roll could prompt clues or hints from the DM. Or a bad INT-roll just increases the time spent on solving the puzzle if you, as a player, just intellectually ripped it apart. If DMs expect players to role-play mental skills and especially Charisma and reward a glib tongue by giving a bonus to the roll or reducing target DC they should also do it for attacks if people lavishly describe their fencing... Strangely enough, I know of no DM that has ever reduced the AC of a foe because a player came up with an especially good description of attack moves and how he counters the enemy's defense.
@@metallkopf988 Well, in 3e, catching your target flat-footed would deny them their dex bonus to AC, which is essentially the same thing. I've also had games where a target might have a weak spot that has a lower AC, if players are savvy enough to choose it as a target. Although 5e has moved away from too many bonuses and penalties to giving advantage/disadvantage. Still, in 5e, what the player attacks with needs to be considered when regarding foe immunity and resistances. And if you think of "what lie do you tell the guard" as being equivalent with "what weapon do you attack the guard with", it makes a little more sense.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 But surprise & being caught flat-footed had clearly defined game mechanics and requirements and didn't depend on the "quality" of one's role-playing performance, didn't they? Not "essentially the same thing". Not even remotely.
@@metallkopf988 What is wrong with you? This isn't about the quality of role playing. I don't know why you insist on saying that. When a players says, "I want to persuade the bouncer to let me into the VIP area", and the DM asks, "how do you try to persuade the bouncer?" The player can might say "I compliment him on his hat" (which the DM may decide the bouncer is particularly proud of, so he's receptive to it) Or maybe the player uses his association with an order of paladins, which the player knows many people respect (but the DM knows that the bouncer doesn't like goody-two-shoes, so that hurts the attempt). These are tactical decisions, not role playing. And it makes sense to adjust the DC in these cases just because the player doesn't necessarily have the information to know how effective these social paths are. Unless you demonstrate an understanding of what I'm saying, I'm no longer going to respond to you.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 I could ask the same question, because I happen to fully agree with the relevant main part of your original comment above. Apparently that got lost in the kerfuffle. Probably my fault, for not sufficiently expressing myself. Sorry if that is the case. It shouldn't matter how intelligent, well-worded or wise the _player_ is when the _character_ has a stat that does clearly indicate that he/she/whatever is. That's precisely my point. A DM asking for more specific stuff _before_ a check gets made and who then adjusts the difficulty of the check according to the skill or quality of that role-playing contribution. Which means that people who just say "I try to swindle my way past the guards" and roll may get a tougher check than those who are able to come up with a story that the DM finds especially convincing. And if the DM isn't convinced at all, the check may get tougher, or not allowed at all. I agree with you that that is not really a fair way to treat character stats. Yeah, I know most people like to have at least some amount of in-character experience that probably also includes social interaction, but forcing a player to be able to do what his character clearly usually can achieve because of his high charisma is simply bogus. Someone in a different comment argued along the lines of "Well, maybe socially inept players shouldn't play high charisma characters then if they're not going to have fun role-playing!" - which I personally consider to be an elitist bullshit position. Now I've not accused _you_ of maintaining that position, so there's really no need to get your panties all up in a knot here. I'm kind of a "roll first, then ask: 'How do you want to do this?'"-DM. And I think that Charisma is no different than Strength or Dexterity in this regard and should not be treated differently. That way, players who happen to feel uncomfortable acting out social engagements may still achieve success running a socially competent character, even if they themselves lack social panache. After all, my job as a DM is to ensure that _everyone_ at the table has fun. Not only the people who happen to enjoy social conversation and are good at it. So that's essentially what's "wrong" with me, I guess. But frankly, I'm gladly "wrong", if the alternative means excluding or penalizing players based on their aptitude for social skills. Which I don't think _you_ want to do, but which in my opinion is inherent in taking Charisma checks "backwards"!
I'm DMing for a party right now that has an Elf Swashbuckler with a Charisma score of 18, expertise in Persuasion and Deception, pretty much a lovechild between Jack Sparrow and Legolas. The PC for this elf was pretty shy when we started playing. Now, only about 10 sessions later, she's blossomed into a confident roleplayer and really loves being clever and charismatic in the game. I think that the standard 5e style for Charisma checks is perfectly fine, in fact, I enjoy it and I actually do it for other checks, like Intelligence. I want to see the gears in my PCs' minds whir as they try to figure out a dastardly trap, or as they search a clearing for goblin tracks. Overall, I like the 5e system for Charisma checks.
Player: "Good sir. We are not a threat. We are thespians travelling town to town entertaining locals with our theater of war." DM : "Roll a charisma check." Player: "I rolled a 5, modifier -1, so a 4." DM: " You prepare your explanation and when ready with an elegant explanation of being thespians you spit out: "We thesilions! Ignore our props of killing. We just come to have a war." IMO: Charisma checks are done if the best parts of RPG. It creates a distinction in the psychology of a character of how they think of themselves and how the world sees them.
If this happened to me as a player I'd be pissed. Not because I failed the check, but because the DM took control of my character's personality. If I want a character that thinks they are elegant but in reality they are always completely misunderstood then I want to be the one to RP that. After that interaction, that character is no longer my own :-(
@@Kyle-ly6bt Do you feel the same when you try to hit something in combat? Would you be less pissed if after failing the roll you got to roleplay how you actually conveyed your message?
@@JustinRock For combat I don't. If I hit or miss that's entirely up to the dice which I am fine with. Bad rolls are bad rolls and they happen. As for being able to RP a failure myself, definitely. I'm happy for the DM to prompt something but I'd like to RP myself how I failed. I'd find that way more fun and I think anyone who embrace failures/flaws in their characters would too. That is just me though, I quite enjoy the RP side of DnD and I can see people who don't RP a lot not really caring too much.
I absolutely agree. I love RPing failures. I've played with quite a few who don't and just want to play the victories. My frustration is when players use their charisma and not their characters while min/maxing their characters and use it as their dump stat. I love charisma checks and players RP their failures as well as their successes. If a player struggles that's when the GM should step in, IMO. I agree though, the GM did take over in my example. The player did get upset in that situation. The players all lived it because the player wasn't playing their low charisma character.
@@JustinRock if your problem is with players, then speak to the players directly. If you're the dm, you should never take control of a character in the way you described in your example. Player control characters are controlled by the player. If they do something in game that warrants consequences, the consequences should be handed down. But the entire concept of the game is that the players control their characters, and the dm controls everything else. Tell me, what's the point in this person playing if they're allowed to play their character.
This is one of the main reasons I tend to use Charisma as a dump stat.... As an introverted and socially awkward player, my arguments and "convincing" ideas rarely mesh up with what a DM might consider reasonable... I've been breaking out of the shell more recently in attempting to play more charismatic characters but I do feel very under powered when my 20 charisma bard fails a negotiation check because I as a player can't develop a convincing reason as to why my party should be paid just a little bit extra for the magical loot we attempt to sell. Very frustrating at times when I want to be more suave and have fun with the role-playing.... only to come up short due to my own psychological quirks. Bleh.
@@TheRodentMastermind not necessarily...he could still be likeable & erudite but the reason his CHA's so low is they're hideous which is the aspect of that stat that most look at. "Oh, low CHA? You must be ugly" CHA is supposed to apply fairly equally between personality & appearance as they both affect how charismatic you are as a character
At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you how to play your character, I would recommend having him/her be the sort to take Refuge in Audacity--- your character tells the truth, no matter how absurd, usually very blunt and matter-of-factly. NPCs are normally charmed or amused by your deadpan directness that things just tend to go as desired (provided the dice agree, of course). Just because your character is oozing with charm, doesn't mean they (or by extension, you) HAVE to embody the silver-tongued snake oil salesman cliche.
@@jjbb84x yeah, charisma is just being likeable. All the looney toons are charismatic but only bugs bunny is the "silver tongue master of disguise" guy
This makes me think about the possibility of running other things backwards. Maybe give an option to do some pushups to improve strength chances, try and balance something for agility or solve a riddle for perception.
Of course the key word here is "optional". I think it could add to the immersion and investment, especially among closer friends but I see how valuable the numbers and sheets are to some and playing just straight that way shouldn't be penalized.
Agreed!!! I was thinking the same thing man, because it could be greatly described and encourages the Role Playing thematics of the game. Maybe that’s what 5th edition is more about than the other ones, ya know?
I'm currently playing a rogue mastermind with a pretty good charisma. Around my table are other players who have a lot of charisma of their own, and their characters do too. I make no bones about the fact that they can think faster than me in the social interactions than I can, but I try, and if either myself or one of the other folks make a great social play, the DM may make us do the roll, but will also leave it up to the role play. If I'm having a hard time coming up in the RP side of things, I can fall back to the roll play, and see how it turns out. I see both sides of this argument, and try to rely on my own wits, but like having the option of relying on my dice if I need to. Just my 2 cents.
I had a game where I was playing a high charisma warlock and another player was a bard. The other play was just naturally much more socialy skilled than me. The dm had a rule of role play only on charisma, and I was left feeling useless and inept even though my character was supposed to be more charismatic than even the bard because of my own shortcomings. That number ended up being as useful as constitution out side of combat and I wound up having very little fun.
Charisma checks are treated opposite, imho, because they work more like a check on WHO we’re trying to convince. Sort of like we imprint our charisma stat onto the target and have them check what we did. Anyone, for any reason, could say something slick, but that in no way may be convincing to the listener. RP wise you could say something amazing, but dice roll low, and that doesn’t have to be incongruent with what occurs, it could just mean that the guard, let’s say, thinks: “ look at this wise-guy” and deny you. The DM could now run with it and write down that the guard hates people that talk too much, and prefers no-nonsense persuasion. Let’s say the slick persuasion has a DC 15, but a no-nonsense persuasion would have a DC 8. Maybe too extreme a range, and maybe frustrate the bard, but could be fun
GREAT video. awesome analysis. Really making me rethink how I will run my table. Perhaps playing it both ways. Reward player cleverness with easier DC's, and don't punish players who can't come up with an "impressive" lie/story by setting a reasonable DC regardless of their lie. Would LOVE to see a video on illusions because they have the SAME issue. A GREAT illusion could & should radically affect enemies, but thinking up something clever can be so difficult. I would LOVE to play a great illusionist who practically warps reality with his amazing illusions, but most DM's just won't work that way. Just like a 20 charisma character who is still hamstrung by my feeble real-world mind.
That is actually the way I run my tables. Because asking for the rolling prior to the interaction can break the pace of the roleplay especially if conversation was already had. I ultimately make the DC easier depending on the way they present their discussion. Like trying to get into town and being stopped by guards "We are refugees that simply found this gear on our way here." DC 15 perhaps while "We are nobles of the town that left the city limits to investigate so happenings." DC 25. Ultimately it always comes down to circumstance and what not, but the more outlandish the lie/persuasion the higher the DC.
As a DM to Starfinder I encourage our group to act it out. If I am having a good laugh or having fun I like to throw out a low DC check. I only make harder DC checks if it is getting out of hand or extremely outlandish but my group is good and are fun ti play with.
@@derekadams961 The difference between DC 15 and 25 is pretty stark, is that the typical difference between what you consider a good social role play and a poor one? +10 in DC can be half a dozen player levels difference in difficulty (depending on edition)
What you need to remember, is that it is a game, and therefore you should have fun. But you also need to be fair, so every player should be leveled to the same standard. I've seen not that "charismatic" or "wise" players try and fail to play what they want because it's too different from them, and it's a real struggle that can lead to frustration and finally acting the character completely differently. And I find that stupid, as a person who's struggled a lot with these stuff as I'm quite introvert but been doing some work to try and express myself better. But one problem I have is that I'm slow. I need to plan things in advance and can't come up with quick solutions on the spot. The first things that come to my mind are usually stupid and/or contradictory and silly. Having that point of view, my way of doing it as a GM is like this: - I talk to my players, they tell me what they want to do and do whatever is at my disposition to help them achieve the idea of that character. - All of those checks are rolled, I don't ask for people to come with quick, wise, or charismatic responses, only that they want to do it. IF they roleplay it, and it enhances the atmosphere, the fun that they have is all the reward they need. If they come with a fantastic solution, they might have an advantage, as it's heavily contributing with the roleplaying. But if they can't, I don't penalize them, since now I'm judging the player, not the character. So, putting effort into making the game cooler is a plus, but never a hinderance. - If they are new or their character is about to do something because the player is kinda reckless, I as a DM have the obligation to warn him "Watch out, that's not something your character might do in this situation. Are you sure about it?" If after a moment to think about it they decide to do it anyway, then it's their decission, but I was involved in tryint to make the character what they want without interfering too much. - If I see them struggling with it, I'll help them. If they put the effort, I'll make sure that they'll get more chances to try and encourage them in the right path. If they don't, then I might suggest that they change their character, since they're clearly not enjoying it despite all our efforts. In short, roleplaying charisma and intelligence checks should be completely optional and be done for the fun of the table, not to prove anything. Those who do should do it for the fun and adding interesting ideas to the table, not as a requirement of success. You as a DM should closely follow those players who might need your help, veteran or newbies. You're responsible for your table's entretainment and the well being of your players during the sessions, to make sure they're having the best experience possible.
I think that all other ability checks would be backwards too, if they weren’t simple.. Let’s say the player wants to move a bolder. The DM asks for a strength check and, well, you know the rest. But if there were multiple ways to move the bolder. Like the player asked to move it with, lets say, his nose. Then the DM most likely wouldn’t let him throw a strength check after he heard what the player wants to do. So if there were multiple ways to do something, and the obvious way wasn’t the way of the player, then the procedure would be also backwards. And that’s why I think the charisma rolls are backwards. Because there’s no standard or obvious way to do something that needs charisma. There are thousand lies you could tell to deceive someone, but everyone expects only one way of moving a bolder (or doesn’t really care how you do it). So my opinion is, backwards is the right way, but is usually not needed for the simple stuff, and rightfully so.
So, if you were to to do something unconventional, you would do it backwards, and because charisma checks usually don’t have conventional ways, they are always backwards? Seems legit actually.
dwil0311 Exactly! You actually explained it better than me :p ... so, every ability check has a ‘’how?’’ in it. But in some cases the ‘’how?’’ is left out because it’s obvious or doesn’t matter. But in charisma checks, the how does matter because it’s important for the roleplaying. The things you say and how you say them create the soul and personality of your PC.
@@dwil0311 Yep say you do give a very convincing argument but you roll poorly causing you to fail. That can be described as you did give this argument but you kept stuttering through it while looking around nervously. Just like they could say they want to use a log as a lever to move the boulder which would drop the dc and fails the roll and it can be said that well they got the lever all set up but in the process of moving the boulder the log broke as it was rotten on the inside.
For most checks I call for I first ask how they do it like “I will shimmy across that ledge but I use the rope for balance” ok make a DEX check with advantage “13” you shimmy across half but your hand slips now make another check to see if you fall
"Why do we, the dungeon masters, wait to see how convincing a lie the player's come up with before we determine if they can even make a role with a possible chance to succeed?" For the same reason we tell players "no" when they ask for the Athletics DC to rip open a hole in reality with their bare hands, to a player attempting to hide in plain sight by holding up a treebranch, and to a player trying to start a regular (non-magical, non-alchemical) fire while actively underwater. The situation that leads to the roll should first consider whether or not an action is actually possible; any time the d20 leaves a player's hand, even with advantage, it is an acknowledgement that there is the real possibility of a successful outcome. For instance, I'm not going to call for athletics when a player attempts to put a nail into a wooden board using a hammer, or even to set pitons down for the purpose of climbing. They have the tools for a basic function, and I would hope that a group of adventurers would be at least competent enough to do so without specializing/showing proficiency in the specific skill *just* to drive a nail. Now, if they want to punch a nail into stone without a hammer, they really need to convince me. Are they a monk who specializes in using their fists as though they were as strong and fast as steel weapons? Yeah, sure, I'll give them a chance. Are they a barbarian who thinks a warhammer (or even a steel club) can get the job done? Go for it. Are they a rogue who is convinced that they can somehow drive the nail without any tools at all? Sorry, but... no. You can't do that. I don't care how strong your character is; impossible is impossible. tl;dr They should roleplay or otherwise explain *how* they are attempting to do something, before rolling to determine the outcome, potentially gaining advantage or disadvantage depending on the roll. However, it should also be remembered that the moment a d20 is in play, it is no longer impossible to do something, nor is it impossible to fail. If you want (or don't want) something to work, then... maybe just keep the dice out of it for that moment.
I get where you're coming from with that, and for the most part I agree with you. Sometimes I'll bend this a little bit, not to see if they succeed, but to see what the outcome of their attempt it, if it is something where something beneficial may happen, even if the pie in the sky outcome is impossible. In particular for History or Religion checks on lost knowledge. Whether or not they will get the full story is moot; they will not. But a good enough roll might get them *something*. Or if I'm feeling mischievous I might make them roll, not to see if they succeed on a physical activity, but to see if their attempt is bad enough that something bad/funny happens (like triggering traps or falling down a well, etc).
That's a big thing at my table. Searching a room, I will ask if they are looking for specifics. Grant a small bonus (+2 or the like) if it falls in that wheelhouse. But it won't negatively impact the roll if there's something else to be found. "No, you did not find a secret door or safe, however, you do locate a ledger, outlining some recent activities." Same with charisma rolls. I don't need specifics. How do you bluff past the bouncer? "I just want to convince him we're not dangerous." That is a fairly believable thing to say. "We're with the band" is not. "I want him to think we're high rollers." I can work with all that. Sure, flash him a $20 wrapped around a wad of $1s. You can be clever to me, or just give me an avenue to empower the cleverness of your character. Either way, a player lives vicariously through that roll.
Will you accept "I make my bluff by... Using knowledge I gained from a lifetime of living a bardic school"? I am not charismatic. I am not a fast talker. I guess I'm just not allowed to play one in your campaign? Can't take a knowledge I don't have IRL. And boy, I sure don't know how to rewrite reality with magic.
@@calemr The second half of your reply was never said (and I don't believe even implied) by my comment. Someone doesn't themselves have to be anything to play a role. I'll use each of your examples as a breakdown: "I make my bluff by... Using knowledge I gained from a lifetime of living a bardic school"? - The problem with this is that it doesn't at all show what you want to happen in this circumstance. It explains why you already have (presumably) a decently high Bluff and perhaps your class itself. It doesn't tell me what you want the target of the bluff to do as a result of your bluff. A better wording would be, "I want to convince this guard that he's needed in another part of the jail." Simple, short, and to the point. "Can't take a knowledge I don't have IRL." Shit, I wish I knew how to do half the things my characters do. But that being said, in order for knowledge to be used in game (other than the basic "roll for knowledge"), it tends to be phrased as a question. "Hey, GM, I have knowledge religion. Do I recognize any of the symbols painted on the walls?" "Hey, GM, I have knowledge of alchemy. Do I recognize the plants he's putting in the tea?" "Hey, GM, that looks arcane to me. Do I know what is going on?" You, as a player, don't have to know this stuff. In fact, a lot of it is unknowable, and simply fantasy. But you as a player have to be able to clearly state (at bare minimum) the intent of your characters actions; that is literally the entirety of your job as a player.
@@calemr I'm not asking for you to be charismatic. I'm asking you the direction you're taking the tale. The avenue of deception. Again, it's looking for some form of hook. Tell me where you're taking the action. At least in some form. I ask you... What would your lie have him believe?
I 100% handle in the second way. If you want to role play it out great. But, I will need you to make a check to let me know how well it was received by the NPC. Otherwise I think it is very unfair to shy players or players with poor social skills.
@@evannibbe9375 If you make a barbarian do pushups on every strength check, it is a good chance to develop physical fitness. If he likes this idea - great. If he doesn't, who are you to decide it for him?
I always have players describe their charismatic action before the roll and then based on the roll I determine its effect. That way when a player says a really absurd lie it builds up suspense and then when they still succeed everyone gets a huge laugh out of it. If they fail though I normally describe something the npc notices that gives the player away.
Honestly, I've never had that happen. Even my most shy player will say something like "it wasn't me." Or other generic lies. I probably would fill in for them though if they decided they wanted to lie but didn't have one in mind. I find it best to treat players based on the way they act. Similar to how some players use their character's voice whilst others just say what their character is going to say.
I think we should do both, if a player knows what to say or wants to try something than roll after - but set a culture to give the player the option of rolling first if their character would be able to do something, but as a player they don’t know how to approach it
The thing to remember in this debate is that you are not your character. If your character has low charisma, accept that. No matter what *you* as a player might be able to say, your character would likely act differently. To compare it to another skill - intelligence... I am a fairly intelligent guy (not hugely, but intelligent enough to get by). But my maths sucks. If I play an intelligence 18 high elf, I would get stumped by a maths puzzle that my character would think is a distraction for children. In the same way, my charisma 8 half orc is going to be less successful at flirting with a barmaid for information than I am. Making the role *before* my half-orc tries to chat up the barmaid will give me roleplaying cues to work with. Of course, this works in conjunction with the DM. A good DM will know when to require a roll. Not every door has to be strength checked before being kicked in, and not every barmaid needs a charisma check before putting out.
But you are. Thats the point Role-playing. You play the role of your character. The Intelligence stat is also an interesting example, if the game contains a riddle how do you handle it? Role Play it out with the chance that the 18 Int Elf does not have any idea while the 8 int barabrian solves it? Or just have everyone roll intelligence effectively skipping the puzzle itself. And what about less obvious situations, what if a low int character has a great idea, or what if a high Int Characters player never thinks out of the box? Those stats which affect the (Role)player more then the character are really a double edged sword, but handling them like any other is not the right solution because it would really make the game much more boring.
You might be the one playing the role, but you really are not the character. Any more than James McAvoy is actually Professor Charles Xavier. This goes back to what I said about a good DM knowing when to ask for a roll. If it is vital that the player or party succeeds, either don't ask for a roll, or do not rule that a roll results in failure. D&D is a team-based co-operative game, where even the DM is part of the team.
I’m intentionally escalating this to 10 right now: this was the Most pivotal dnd vid i’ve watched. This truly intriguing Q is making me rethink my DM style in a new perspective, in a great way. I think either approach (description of actions then roll/ roll then description of actions) is legit, just be consistent! Love this vid!
Two points: The DM controls the DC of all these rolls. E.i.: some rolls might not be nessicary because your "passive charisma" or something is high enough. Where other rolls can be made at DC:40 or higher, possible? Yes but only under the most extreme of circumstances. Also, the players should try to use the their clever tactics beyond charisma, why say I'm going to lift this log up the hill, when I can have a rig system put up and THEN use my strength to do that. It drastically changes the roll. Use your ingenuity to see alternative actions to simply throwing your stats at it. As a DM I always reward the player who think outside, and find new ways to use old tools.
I super freak out when Im asked to lie or persuade someone in roleplay. It feels like it doesn't matter what I say sometimes because the dice will decide. It should kind of depend on the player for a DM, I think. Ask players if theyd like to roleplay it first or just roll and explain after.
It does matter what you say. Persuasion checks are not mind control. And based on the lie or persuasion used the dm will determines the DC. (The more believable the lower the dc) You can’t persuade someone to do something that is against their core values not even on a natural 20.
TheRodentMastermind I’d say yeah you can make your case but I the circumstances of infiltration deception checks, the slightest thing could give your character away. Regardless of how suave you think you are just because you think your good at talking
I played with a very backwards and quiet teen once. Our party of five, mostly mid 20s and 30s guys were largely less socially awkward than he was, but none of the rest of us were playing charisma characters. The teen though was playing the groups bard. He almost never handled any negotiation with NPCs, never haggled for better prices, never got us out of tight spots with persuasion. Why? Because every time he tried to role play what he would say the few times he did (I can only think of three times he even tried) he made the situation much worse and the DM didn't allow him to even make a roll since what he said was so awkward or very unconvincing. Meanwhile the rest of us would try actively make reasonable arguments with NPCs, and would then get typically allowed rolls or wouldn't have to make them, but if we did would usually fail because none of the rest of us even had proficiency in persuasion and left charisma a dump stat. I do feel like this is sort of unfair generally compared to the other checks, although I'm sure it varies by DM. If you always abstract conversation I could also see it detracting from the game, but maybe the other players or the DM could help with details after the roll succeeds. If you have someone who wants to play a charisma character and they are backward, I do think DMs should be mindful of trying to help that player out with checks and possibly narration.
Even though I'm an amature player, I've experienced both versions of both sides. Not only Charisma RP being done before and/or after the check, but also situations where the player will describe the specific action they want to perform (for example, a spinning leap over an ally to hit the enemy on the other side of them) and then a check is called for. I think its entire situational and can even be hybridized: The player gives some specifics of what they want to do then based on the roll gives extra flair to the description
I like having my players make their case before they roll because I like seeing their ideal solutions and stuff, but also like a lot of people say I can slightly adjust the roll based on their argument. And, even if their argument at the table is sound but they roll a 1, I'll just be like "You're saying some of the right things, and it makes sense to your party members who understand some of your speech idiosyncrasies and jumbled words, but the [NPC] doesn't know you personally and isn't following your thought process" or the classic "[NPC] is incredibly stubborn and doesn't care about your strong argument" Idk, I feel like there's always a way to explain why good RP can be undone by a bad roll.
But then you don't let your players play their characters. Isn't that the point of Role-Play? You do not need to be speech impaired in order to be unconvincing.
@@franzferdinand2389 I'm not saying they're speech impaired, just that even the smoothest talker can misspeak if the situation is bad enough (i.e. only a nat 1 crit fail situation). I still let them say what they want and roleplay the situation, but if the dice really don't line up with their plan, that's what I do. It works for them and it works for me.
Probably, but the COULD be an actually mercenary company with a base of operations and don't kill unless they need to. I've played in games similar to that where killing is kept to a minimum, but we're still all heavily armed.
I think the Charisma check should happen after the roll play, because how you have the conversation should determine the DC. It would be a lot easier to convince a merchant who is passing through town, than trying to convince a guard, that you are prince from another land.
That's the point if a person is not great at making up a believable deception on the spot it should not affect their characters ability to deliver that message in the confines of the game.
I think that the way that every skill check should be (whether charisma or not) is that the method you specify before the roll affects the DC of the check. The specifics of what you decide to investigate should affect an Investigation/Perception roll (if you’re prioritizing a specific thing you’re looking for, then that will affect how likely you are to find what you want), and the lie that you tell should affect how believable it is (so if it’s a more obvious lie, you need to roll higher, for example). This is just my personal opinion on the topic.
I have not yet had the opportunity to try this, but I feel like the way I would solve this as a player is to roll my charisma checks first, regardless of whether the DM has asked for it yet, then use that number to decide what I'm going to say. That way, if the DM asks for the roll, I can give them the number and they can decide if it works, and if they don't then it doesn't matter. I'll admit that it probably does have flaws, but one big advantage is that it'd give me more time to think of what to say and have it be interesting or funny without breaking the flow, even if the roll isn't good. I would, however, at least check with the DM that it's okay to do it this way.
That allows for a lot of roleplay...you roll low, flub your smooth talk but still pass the check? They could've just laughed it off as you being nervous/awkward without necessarily saying you're lying to me so off to jail with you. I like it, even then though, it still places a lot of strain on someone to be charismatic IRL because they're playing a high CHA character. I think, if you insert enough details into your idea to show me you've been paying attention, roleplay isn't necessary. If you want to you're welcome to, but not forced into it
You will probably have a lot of trouble convincing a DM that secret rolls you made without them knowing/asking for it are valid. For people who take all this (too?) seriously, thats effectively "cheating", because you can just choose not to act at all if you have a bad roll, or just keep secretly rolling until you have a number you like. Not saying that is what you *would* do, but it's why we all try to keep pur rolls well and truly out on the open.
The sequence you describe for rolling a log down a hill is exactly the same as the sequence you describe for lying to a guard. 1. The player tells the DM what they want their character to do (convince the guard that the party is not dangerous) and how (by telling him they are traveling merchants) 2. The DM determines if an ability check needs to be made to be successful, and calls for a roll if necessary - Either there is no possibility the guard believes the lie (no check necessary) the guard doesn’t believe that the party is dangerous despite obviously being a group of heavily armed mercenaries (no check necessary), or the guard may or may not believe the lie, depending on how convincing they find the lie (Deception check). 3. The player rolls their check (If necessary), and the DM, and sometimes the player, describe what happens next - roleplaying the Guard’s reaction. If the procedure looks backwards to you in one scenario, it is because you are conflating steps 2 and 3. If you are concerned that the player needs to be a good liar in the lying to the guard scenario but doesn’t need to be strong in the rolling the log down the hill scenario, it is because you are neglecting to consider the player’s goal and character’s approach when determining whether a roll is needed to be successful in one or both scenarios. The player does not need to tell a convincing lie in the lying to the guard scenario, they only need a valid goal and approach. This can be determined through roleplaying in 1st person, or by describing in 3rd person that they want to convince the guard they aren’t dangerous by lying and telling him they’re merchants. Likewise, the player attempting to roll the log down the hill still needs a valid goal and approach. Usually, this is done by describing what they want to do (get the log to the bottom of the hill) and how (by pushing on it), but there’s no reason the player couldn’t act this action out, say by pantomiming it, if they wanted to. In either case, the player doesn’t need to be strong.
Yep the words used to convince the guard would set the dc just like saying you want to push the log would have say a dc of 15 but if they said they were going to use a level to move the log it would change it to say 12.
TheGreatDrake Exactly. Although I would say it’s not even so much about the words they use, as it is about their approach. For example, I’m not going to give the player a higher DC simply because they were nervous and stammered when they described pushing the log, nor a lower DC simply because they gave a detailed description of pushing the log. Similarly, I’m not going to set the DC of a Deception check based on the specific wording the player uses, but rather based on how they’re trying to deceive. “I tell him we’re merchants” is sufficient, just as “I push the log” is sufficient. A lower DC would be earned not by smoother talking, but by a different approach, such as “I slip him 20 gold” or “I tell him we were traveling with a merchant caravan as protection, but became separated from them.” Not by a better description of pushing the log, but by declaring the use of a lever.
This is exactly how I do it. It just feels natural to treat most checks this way. I even do it for combat. The player has a bow and arrow, he could say where specifically he is aiming. If the check is high enough above the AC I give the enemy a small debuff. Shoot a goblin in the leg, hit it and he might move a bit less in his turn. I really want to reward clever play beyond: 'I hit the enemy.' 'You hit, deal damage' It's the same for all other checks. Award clever play, even if the charismatic elf says it in a roundabout way.
This is what I was thinking. I've heard DM's in response to a nat 1 say along the lines of, "well, that's what you intended to say, but all the guard heard was akin to baby noises, as your companions pulled you away, apologizing profusely."
I've pointed this out to friends many times before, and it also applies to the other 2 mental checks. A player playing a 18 int wizard is most probably not as smart as their character, and should not be expected to act that way, and same thing applies to a player making a very naive decision on a really wise character - the DM can ask them to roll a wisdom check, and if they succeed, give them a tip and allow them to reconsider. This, I think, also eases the way in for new players, as they know that it's their character that they play and that they are not expected to play to an experience level that they lack.
I would ask the players about what they are trying to play. A good exemple would be the other way around. Our old DM (a very Charismatic guy, doing a lot of DMing and Improv and acting) was playing a low charisma low intel character. Well, even if the player came up with a good concept or speech, I would ask if the character could think of that himself. In case of an argument I would rely on a roll. On the other hand, if an introvert player would like to play the Paladin Leader of the group but the player lacks the quick thinking and verb. I would let the player taylor something if he wants but just asking for a roll would be enough. I would fill in the gap for that player "speech". It really depends in the players. Do they want to roll dice or improv with their character, or both. Adjust accordingly.
Yeah, I agree, and I think it's important to focus on the character's own ability than the players'. Yes, the player may be extremely eloquent and come up with a lie that would convince anyone, but if it's being said by a half-orc barbarian with 7 Charisma, it's probably going to come out with a lot of stuttering, mispronounced words, awkward pausing, and so on.
I'd say the reason to do it backwards is to not break the flow of roleplay. You don't need to make a CHA check just to talk to someone, but if, while in the middle of talking to them, you try to persuade, deceive, or intimidate them, then you would need to make a check. It might be more jarring to suddenly stop conversation and say, "I want to deceive this person," so instead you use your RL charisma to try and slip something in without the DM calling for a check. Things run more smoothly, and the DM only needs to call for a check when it's _really_ needed, instead of for every small request or slight exaggeration. Again, it's not the player's place to call for a check, instead they player says they want to do something, and the DM either allows, forbids, or asks for a check. In the case of RP, telling a lie or making a request _are_ the player stating what they want to do, and the DM must then decide whether or not that particular request or lie requires a check or not.
But that's not backwards, that's how all checks function. Checks don't determine your actions, but the outcome of actions. An attack roll isn't to determine that you swung your sword, but to see if it hit. A charisma check isn't to determine what lie you told, but how well you sold it. Dice don't solve problems, they determine the outcome of an already stated approach in solving the problem. If you roll first, you may as well remove the players. It may be roleplaying, but it's a very dull *game* when the dice a more significant than the players own choices.
This is it exactly. The example he uses for strength, would be roleplayed the same way. DM "You see a tree trunk on the ground." 20 str barbarian, "I push it off the cliff." At that point, the DM determines if a check is needed. 20 str, probably don't need one at all. If the 15 str paladin were the one to do it, he's got a check. No different than roleplaying a social interaction, except actually roleplaying someone pushing a log off would interrupt the flow.
I feel like as strange as it sounds explained out, it makes perfect sense to be done this way. While you may look at it and say it seems backwards, the fact that the scenario involves another living being makes it more complicated. Simply rolling an 18 and deceiving someone and then having the character say something obviously not deceptive isn't very realistic, I feel like it makes more sense for them to attempt to deceive, make their choice of words and then roll, and then as a DM the determination of the roll is where the DM decides WHY the character believes or does not believe. Perhaps your Insight against their Deception rolled low and your NPC being deceived is having a bad day or has something else on their mind and cant be bothered to think about whether it's genuine or not. Perhaps they had a fight with their leading officer and doesn't care (potential bonuses to the modifiers on the roll? I would) or they just got a promotion and are being more scrutinous. I feel like this kind f thing really shines with the DM and how much they want to flush out the world for their characters to be immersed in.
another perspective on this is when you say you wanna push a log or kick it down, you are saying what you are trying to do and then roll, similarly when you say your lie (it is obvious contextually that) you are trying to deceive the guard into letting you in and then you roll. the assessment of the dm is to know that a strong character can probably push that log with his muscles and technique, and that the deceptive rogue can lie to the guard with his charm, wit and underground experience, not taking at face value of what they say for example: the strong fighter says i push the log and rolls a 1 he slips and fucks it up, or rolls a 20 and pushes it with 1 hand or rolls a 10 and barely struggles to get it out of the way, similarly the rogue rolls a 1 and the guard sees through his lie or rolls a 20 and the guard offers some assistance letting them through toll free, or rolls a 10 and the guard suspiciously but uncaringly just rolls his eyes takes the toll and moves on with his life. its not that WE are doing it backwards, its the dms job to be unbiased with how to interpret rolls rather than calling for anything and everything or taking someones real life inability to express something their character is very likely to be able to do as a failure.
TL;DR: Role-playing-based Checks are reactive to what a player has specifically attempted, whereas plain Checks are proactive to what a player wants to attempt in general. Both absolutely have their place & happen with all Skill Checks. I'd say that the best way to think about this is that this is just a side-effect of Charisma often being a more role-playing-triggered Roll. However - _this absolutely does happen with other Skills, but just not as often._ A couple examples: A Bard wants to make an Acrobatics Check when attempting to do a back handspring and snatch something out of the air. That's something described before making a Roll, helping to set the DC of how hard it is to achieve. Whereas an Acrobatics Check to jump and grab something out of the air would be more simple, and a high roll may allow it to be narratively described as a back handspring. We often have low Intelligence characters make rolls when attempting to explain a complex idea, where the _player_ has a good plan for the party, but the _character_ may not be as sharp in concocting or communicating those ideas, which makes for fun pitfalls in tactics and also helps to have players help one another out when there're varying levels of experience playing D&D, without falling too deep into problematic meta gaming habits. If players are role-playing well (and sometimes making their own Check DCs a little tougher as a result) I like to reward that with minor advantages when the checks pan out in their favor a tiny bit beyond just what they planned as a way to help them get used to the risk & rewards of doing so, likewise slightly softening the blow a tiny bit of they fumble something they came up with as a player. (Usually just compare how close the regular DC would be compared to their description, and have a DM-margin of error) Understanding and leveraging that dynamic is a great tool to help new players get used to _playing a role_ & not just feel like they're stuck _playing to roll._
Consider using different stats for the same problem for different players. In the situation when they walk into the bar, the charismatic bard may be convincing with CHA, the Wizard may have used INT to remember to conceal any obvious magic paraphernalia, the rogue may use DEX to hide behind the bard, the cleric may use WIS to recall a local custom the locals practice when encountering friends, etc Each character should be able to use their abilities in different situations. This also helps to prevent certain stats from seeming unimportant.
yes 100% its an RPG Tabletop, not a video game lets play and have fun using skills in different ways is breaking the wall on what a character can do as a DM / Player I use this a lot and it leaves all of us with a remember when and to me a remember when is the best thing you can do
Actually recalling a local custom would use INT as it is a memory test =D But looking at other clients in the bar and analyzing their local custom would be a WIS check.
@@WallySketchI see you acquired the +1 keyboard of rules lawyering the comment section :) You are probably correct, but I will leave that to another passerby.
@@WallySketch I have 3 others: ruclips.net/user/7dsystem ruclips.net/user/questgivers and Drawing Worlds which is small and where I just waffle on about my art. There are 12 others, but they're not me in the hot seat :)
Does it make that much difference? Hear me out, I swear I’m not having a go at one or the other conclusion! So, our players say something in game... an intimidation check, let’s say. “I am going to go through this gate, and you, little man, aren’t going to stop me. You can try, but you’ll fail.” Fairly vanilla stuff. But this is a nine foot tall Goliath. Now, if a four foot gnome said it to a bouncer you’d have a different situation. But because it’s charisma we roleplay it then rollplay it. Same Goliath says that he wants to break the door down. Now - here’s the thing. Do we ever ask how? Not often. We just roll a die. Now, we could ask them to describe how they break the door... “I flex my muscles and heft my maul after spitting on both hands. I unleash a roar and swing at the door”. Again, a gnome hitting the door with his fist... totally different situation. The point here is that we are doing a charisma check in “reverse” out of habit only. We could easily roleplay every check. But charisma is the single skill (as you quite rightly point out) where the player can truly bleed their personality into their character, either because they’ve built a self-insert character or because they enjoy role playing. The end result either way, is the same. But I think that the only actual reason we do “charisma in reverse” is both because of habit and because of that bleed, that fusion between player and character. So, as far as the point raised by this video goes, we could just as easily say why don’t people describe what their character does when leaping across a chasm, examining a runic engraving on a tomb or breaking down a door. Just a thought.
I personally hate using ability checks at all for Charisma (but recognise that it is a necessary evil many times). I mean, I was playing an 18 strength Goliath barbarian/knight whose goal in life was to unflinchingly face down the greatest threat he could find, but he wasn't particularly 'charming'. In the party was a squishy halfling bard that was in no way threatening. She asked the GM to intimidate me into giving her all of my gold by staring me down, and the GM asked for contested Charisma (Intimidation) checks. As I had a -1 and she had huge boosts to Cha, she won easily... Even though it didn't make sense for either character or fit the situation. (Fyi, we were going through a breakup at the time irl, which actually explains a lot)
Andrew Fullerton: sorry to hear that. The mechanics sometimes make no sense at all, and that’s a good (if sad) example of real-life bleeding into a game and of how roleplay should be used, especially in a pvp situation.
Consider: Charisma isn’t your ability to come up with a good lie; thinking on your feet like that is arguably Intelligence. Charisma is your ability to tell a bad lie convincingly. But a REALLY bad lie is less believable, which would raise the DC. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is clad in mail hauling 2-handers on their shoulders might raise the DC by 5 or add 5 to the opposed Insight check. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is wearing traveling clothes and has a wagon of goods (illusory or otherwise) might subtract 5. Then the PC rolls to see how well they tell the lie, not how good the lie is.
Also consider: failing a check doesn’t just mean you just lose instantly. Sometimes drawing a bit of suspicion can make for even better roleplay. Feeling ‘betrayed by the dice’ misses the point. You don’t just lose... What’s your next line when he doesn’t believe you? The game is designed to put you into bad situations for drama sometimes. You win by enjoying where that takes you. Also I think “Thinking on your feet” is wisdom. Probably not Charisma though.
Crazy Amazon Sales going on right now! Snag a new book and support the channel at the same time.
Player's Handbook: 54% off - amzn.to/2CEUoWx
Dungeon Master's Guide: 58% off - amzn.to/2s12SRA
Monster Manual: 58% off - amzn.to/2SqHukz
Volo's Guide to Monsters: 58% off - amzn.to/2Sopl6H
Xanathar's Guide to Everything: 58% off - amzn.to/2RnUASi
Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes: 58% off - amzn.to/2SojMVZ
Dragon Heist: 58% off - amzn.to/2Rko9UN
Dungeon of the Mad Mage: 37% off - amzn.to/2RkoQxn
Starter Set: 40% off - amzn.to/2BHqpeS
I would say that being creative with your Bluff check or whatever is part of the system. Thinking of a lie to weave or an arguement to Diplomacy a guy helps paint a picture in the DM's brain and help them figure out the scene.
We don't have to go into detail about a Jump check or a Climb check because the group doesn't need the flavor to imagine it. A dude got hops. But conversations are way more dynamic and varied.
I remember an amazing argument about intelligence that applies here with charisma. A character with post-12 mental stats is probably far beyond any player at a table in that quality, just as with any other stat. So for characters with high int the argument was put forward that a *party* should be able to think for the character. That a communication between party members could produce the output of 1 heroic stat seems reasonable. I think the same would work with charisma, and you could, in a pinch, have them roll, then provide a *line of reasoning* or a fact that (if true) would work, as GM, then the player can use that line of reasoning to construct a lie. I'm a huge fan of this collective storytelling idea, so I thought I'd pass on the argument.
Are these the books with the new errata released Nov 2018? I want to get a second PHB with all the updated language, but wasn't sure about this particular deal.
My poor broke ass is blessing you right now. 0:,)
WHAT ABOUT THIS: A person roleplays their persuasion, deception, etc. Then, based on the GM's judgement on how good a job the player did on the roleplay aspect, the DC of the check can change. This takes into account both the skills of the role player making a great or poor attempt at deception AND still adds the character's roll/skill bonus to the equation. Let me know what you think, y'all. I'm definitely inputting this in my next game! Thanks for the inspiration. I'll subscribe now:)
"We are not a group of heavily armed mercenaries"
Rolls
"That's fine, I'm not a corrrupt guard either"
_(Steals their gold as they pass through the gate.)_
@@IrvingIV *Rogue steals it back and causes a witch hunt on party*
@@janbydzovsky7693
_Bard convinces the deputized witches to help them buy a birthday present for the local governor, causing everybody to forget their misdeeds._
@Valkcori
The ol' let's eat grandma manouvre.
Irving IV how easy it is to start a new adventure
As far as the "not mercenaries!" To the guard argument. If he doesnt believe without a dice check, allow follow up. Like if the guard says "You are clearly well equipped" the charismatic one could say "Ah yes, thats the ruse. Our equipment IS our wares. We wear them to look like rough and tumble mercenaries in order to trick thieves into not trying to attack!"
Genius. Stay Awes9me
Alternatively, use the preamble to the dice roll as a softcap to ease the DC required by the roll. A neat way to percieve the roll is in the subtlties of body language. Maybe a sound argument on the players side is sabotaged by the dice roll because it indicates an accidental tell in the characters deception.
PwnyBoy Exactly! The target could be given disadvantage when a successful charisma roll is made for example.
Guys I found the bard!
@@pwnyboy9714 this is near what I have always done. As long as the deception isn't too crazy for someone of average charisma and intelligence to believe, I don't require rolls on them. But trying to convince a guard that well armored, heavily armed group of adventurers are merchants, I'll ask for a base statement of what they plan on telling the guard, ask for a roll based on a DC I've determined, and have them role-play it from there. Failing the roll isn't necessarily a fail in my campaign so long as the player gives a decent effort.
In this example, the guard may let them through, but because the roll failed, and the player was smart about what they said, the guard may keep an eye on them. The party may be under a little more scrutiny than normal. Other guards may harass them a tad when they realize they aren't selling wares, but instead are roaming the town.
I TRY to give the players a "reward" for their effort.
But a failed roll, and a bad line of of deception could mean they still got through the gate, and are just setting themselves up to be arrested and questioned. LOL
It has to be fun, no matter what. And being flexible allows me or any GM to go off script, and add a small encounter that provides a memorable "Hey, do you remember that time...." moment in the game.
I still talk about the time I convinced a guard his service is to his Lord were being terminated so that we could get through a gate. GM had the guard break down and start crying about not being able to provide for his wife and 3 small children, and no longer feeling like an honorable man to his Lord. He threw done his helm, began to walk into the wilderness sobbing, and 5 days later, we ran into him; camped in the woods, living off the land. Still funny, yet I still sometimes wonder what became of him and his family. LOL
All because I was cunning enough to keep up good rolls and a smart line of talk. Ruined that guy's life.
This settles it, from now on before I'll let someone roll a strength check they have to do 10 reps on a bench press
JOKES ON YOU!
You didnt give a minimum weight!
BAHAHAH
Floop The Volcano your stereotypical D&D player wouldn't even be able to do ten reps of the bar.
"i'm gonna throw the Javelin at him" "Do an attack roll with disadvantage" "Why disadvantage?" "Because i've never seen you throw a fucking spear before"
@@theskyisteal8346 I'd certainly hope they would be able to lift the bar
Years ago I had a DM tell me my character couldn't realistically deadlift an unconcious fellow PC unless I could prove it could be done by a relatively average person (myself). After deadlifting and fireman carrying a fellow player, the DM allowed my character to perform the task.
I do other checks "backwards" as well. "I want to push that log." "Describe how you push it." There is no reason why players shouldn't get bonuses/penalties for going about physical activities in clever/dumb ways.
I don't really understand when it goes anyother way. It's a collaborative storytelling games, keeping it generic make in practice the GM generate all the story. It doesn't always need to be very specific but you have to frame in wich way any abilities is used.
We do most things the other way round. "Tell me what you're doing, and I'll tell you what to roll when the time comes," is our general approach to everything. Go out of your way to lift with your back, and you're gonna have a bad time. Try to use your quarterstaff as a pole vault, and you might get a bonus in the athletics check to get over the wall.
Not only that but I as the DM might tweak the DC for the players' check if the way they're going is about it is particularly sensible not not
I allowed a player to tame wolves by feeding them, and conditioning them
I've tried playing quick-witted con artist characters a number of times but I've totally given up on it now. It ALWAYS relies on the player being quick witted to some extent.
It's like playing a character who can bench 450kg and being asked to bench 150kg just to demonstrate what your character is doing; I get that some people would find that relatively easy, but I can't bench 150kg. Don't ask me to do it to show how strong my character is! 🙁
I would argue that all stats should be rolled like Charisma, and I've seen it done:
1. Player wants to do something.
2. Dm asks "how do you approach the matter?"
3. Player describes in an appropriate amount of detail their method, approach or, in the case of Charisma, wording.
4. Dm evaluates, among various factors, how hard the task would be with that method, decides if player needs to roll (e.g. no one is ever asked to roll Strenght to pick up a twig); if the solution is particularly clever or fun, the Dm may award advantage on the roll; if the solution is dumb or extremely implausible, they may give disadvantage.
5. Dice is Rolled, the end.
A different approach can even change the stat rolled: the good old climbing with Athletics vs Acrobatics for example, depends entirely on how you describe your actions. Of course, everyone should be allowed not to roleplay their task if they feel uncomfortable doing it (just saying "I climb the wall" or "I lie to the guard"), but that boils down to player preference.
Creative thinking, in my opinion, should always be allowed to make ANY task easier in roleplaying, we just do it a lot more often with Charisma because it's the simplest stat to act out (while most of the others are usually described).
Example: Barbarian trying to force open an heavy stone door
1. Brb: I try to open the door.
2. Dm: How do you do it?
3. Brb: I push with my mighty muscle! (DC20 Strenght) VS I find a big piece of wood to use as a lever. (DC18 Athletics)
etc...
Not that different from the Charisma roll, just shorter.
This This This. That's how i try to handle all checks.
You're 100% right that it is just easiest to act out.
I partly agree/disagree. "I find a big piece of wood to use as a lever" is the same as "I try to convince the guard to let me enter the inner city district because I am an adventurer and here to help the people of the city."
That is a reasonable amount of effort you should expect from your players. Expecting them to roleplay the entire conversation on the fly and punishing them if they don't come up with a clever and eloquently told story is too much in my opinion.
I would let the players roleplay and if they come up with a reasonable way of solving the problem but the player can't convincingly roleplay with good arguments on the fly I let them roll the dice and see if the character did come up with good arguments / if the bad arguments of the player were told convincingly by the character.
But of course, if the player doesn’t feel like roleplaying the whole conversation and just gives a reasonable argument OOC that would still cover point 3 nicely. No one should be forced to play a certain way, just encouraged to engage with the game and enjoy it fully. This is about rewarding effort and smart thinking, not acting skills.
As a DM, I use your first method for most skill and stat checks.
I'm with @@TailorBO on this. In several decades of RPGing I've never been at a table where the DM actually gauges success of CHA skills on the PLAYER's ability to roleplay a spontaneous speech -- that *is* crazy backwards! IMHO just like in the video's example a player might say "I want to roll the log down the hill to build part of my trap" and the DM would have them roll, I'd expect players to tell me what they want to do (e.g. "try to convince guard I'm here to help the people of the city") and then roll to see if they succeed. I don't expect them to compose the speech any more than I expect them to engineer the log trap* -- that relies too much on the player's stats and not the character's. Sure, those are fun to RP so have at it (and if a player wants to bring a in log to carry around while RPing their awesome STR that's fine too) but all that is just flavor**... at the end of the day it's just like every other ability check: tell me what you want to do, and we'll roll to see if you were able to do it.
* Note that at some point engineering the trap and inventing a clever lie might both cross over into INT/WIS territory, which we rarely expect players to RP faithfully.
** And yes, I might give a good RP bonus to _any_ roll, and CHA rolls are a good opportunity for players to ham it up
"... only to watch the dice betray me"
This is my experience with all aspects of RPGs.
Then you are either playing RPGs with bad resolution mechanics or you invest your ressources into the wrong aspects of your character.
I remember with advantage rolling two Nat 1s when trying to talk/calm down two adult bears...was almost gonna be a fun time 😅
That's the roll of the die. Everyone usually has at least a slight chance for failure in a fairly balanced game.
I remember once I was playing a Star Wars based D&D game as a "face" character, an information thief that was a stowaway pretending to be part of the army on board. Everything was going great until I rolled bad on one of my lies and everything crumpled around me. xD It made for great roleplay though.
I use "fails" because they do add flavor and narrative interest in the combat. You roll a nat 1, you get to choose between:
You suffer a minor wound such as twisting an ankle or something similar. Disadvantage for the rest of that combat, you are fine after.
Your weapon breaks.
Lose your grip on your weapon, but it otherwise fine
You fall prone
You lose your next attack. (this attack misses, the next one is regaining your footing)
Armor is damaged, -2 to armor class until fixed.
I feel like a good way of handling this would be to, in the event of a player giving a lie that couldn't possibly be believed, tell them "Your character has a good enough charisma and deception skill to know that lie wouldn't be believable at all"
I like that. it kinda borrows from some roll playing video games that give you speech options And a chance of success or failure of them. ie., something a high charisma character would certainly know. great point.
That is actually a very good idea and I will use it, thanks!
Or, "They believe you truly believe it, but you aren't convincing them. They look at you like they look at a child pranked into confronting someone over things they know nothing about."
I handle charisma checks in both ways. If someone it's comfortable roleplaying it, I let them. If they aren't, I ask them what they are trying to do.
Best way to go about it...
I ask the Player to think up a persuasive argument. if they have time before-hand to think it out -Advantage on the roll.
If they are placed on the spot i give them 2 minutes realworld time to think up their characters immediate reply. Works out pretty well. My friend Alanna gave me a 2 Minute hourglass as a gift had to put it to use.
@@DyrgeAfterDark yeah, I think this is a great way to simulate increased charisma or intelligence. The player might have to pause to think of a witty reply, but because their character has high cha, their character doesn't pause. For int, the same could be done for trying to think of a solution to a puzzle, or think of tactics, etc
Getting the players to clearly tell you what it is they are actually trying to accomplish is essential regardless if they roleplay by acting it out or roleplay in first or third person.
And just for the record, acting =/= roleplaying. One player might roleplay to the hilt despite never spouting in-character dialogue. Another player might do a professional-level accent while totally failing to convey a believable character.
which i think is the best way to do it. you should not pushing people for not being good at RP but you still should reward people who are.
When I run games, I run Charisma checks like this:
1) Player tells me their goal
2) I Determine base (maximum) difficulty of the roll
3) Charisma check roll by player, WITHOUT telling the player the difficulty
4) Have player role play the encounter
5) Adjust difficulty of the roll down by how well the role play goes.
This method allows player that are not inventive or charismatic themselves to still play the Charisma-based characters without being negatively affected but also allows me to give a bonus to players when they role play the encounter well.
I always write down the base difficulty and tell players that this is how I run the checks at the beginning of ANY and ALL campaigns so they know that they can play whatever without being penalized for the player's inability but can still be rewarded for their good play. This also prevents the game from devolving into a solely dice-based game unless the group prefers that play style.
Do you also adjust the difficulty of strength checks according to how well the barbarian role plays opening a stuck door?
Sam Holden if the player can give me a good reason like using an improvised lever or role playing that he/she is psyching himself up to get his/her adrenaline flowing, absolutely! Good role play should be rewarded.
That's technically how it was supposed to work in at least 3rd edition. How trusting the other person was and how convincing the lie was did effect the dc or at least it was supposed to
that's what inspiration is for in 5e, to reward PCs that RP their characters well. Our shy cleric never describes her actions histrionically, but randomly, she will come up with an uproariously perfect, totally on brand idea. Quiet as a mouse, but we can't help but want her to succeed.
@@samholden5758 actually, yes! Good descriptions often earn inspiration
We always run it as "Your check determines how believable what you said is, or how close you get to it"
player *gives the Gettysburg Address*
"Okay roll"
"1"
"You actually mumble through Whoopity Scoop by Kanye"
It's actually entirely plausible to play out the result of the Gettysberg Address as a failed Oration roll. A great many members of the crowd couldn't hear the President's words (he wasn't known as a powerful speaker). Many of the members of the crowd were disappointed with the President's brevity, and many even of the journalists present felt that Lincoln's brief speech was just a foot note compared to the more traditional long rhetoric presented by the key note speaker of the day (who had spoke for like an hour). It was only later as people began to reflect on the meaning of the words that the real skill in composing them began to shine through, and the value of the brevity was really appreciated. Just a few members of that audience walked away impressed, and probably none of them realized that they had just heard what is now considered the finest bit of rhetoric in the English language.
That's a great point and is relatable to real life. Just because you intend to fast talk a guard, doesn't mean you actually get that out of your mouth. High charisma people in real life are more adept at putting their ideas through the filter of their own brain and mouth, so that's what the skill should reflect. Just like strength isn't only pure raw muscle, it's also a measure of your fighting education and experience with being physical. A Str 16 and 18 could both benchpress the same Max weight, but their life experience is what makes one better. Same with talking.
Vazzaroth, good points.
Except there is a difference between people with str 16 & 18.
In real life the guy with str 16 might know more & thus be able to do more. But not in game setting.
Back in the early 1980s, in my first computer job, I was learning to use a word processor called Magic Wand. The tutorials consisted of editing a hypothetical draft of "The Gettysburg Address". For example, there was a long preamble and that got deleted to show how to delete a block of text. I suspect that whoever wrote the tutorials had a great time doing so. As I progressed through the tutorials, I could see the speech tightening up nicely.
I do not like charisma checks, because they are so freewheeling. Succeed on a strength check and something happens that usually is not of great consequence. On a charisma check, the difference between success and failure can be very different indeed.
@@CurlyFromTheSwirly I think he meant the exact opposite: that a str18 represents both knowledge and experience on top of the raw force a person can exert at str16.
As a general rule, I give advantage when players give good descriptions on checks
just adjust the DC
Advantage swings the odds by almost 25%. IMO you'd be better off adjusting the DC in most cases, unless you are big into RoC and moving the game at a quick pace.
Excellent! this is exactly what adv/disadv mechanic is for.10/10 crunch vs fluff ruling.
I do this and/or change the dc
Same here. I don’t care if it influences probability nearly as much as I care that it encourages PC interaction and cultivates player immersion at the table...
To be fair, I prefer descriptions of what character is doing for breaking down doors or what they’re focusing on looking for prior to determining DCs for Strength or investigation checks as well. Crowbar or mule kick at the latch, ADVANTAGE or DC LOWERED... (thank you for not just throwing dice for success and expecting me as DM to do all descriptive lifting)
Actually, it's not our of order. I provide action, roll check, GM describes reaction.
Ex:
Me: "I punch the wall with gusto!"
GM: "Roll strength" (1)
GM: "The wall punches back, with even more gusto."
The reason it feels backward is because players rarely add flavor to other actions.
Bingo. I said it already elsewhere, but it just feels that way because you're *more likely* to be mid-RP when a CHA check comes up, as opposed to the single sentence you might have just uttered in an attempt to trigger a STR or WIS check (keeping in mind, of course, that a player does not usually request a check directly, but rather narrates their actions until the DM stops them to roll).
The problem is that "provide action" hides the complexety of the information conveyed. How do you play a high charisma character if you lack the ability in real life to come up with even halfway convincing story or lie?
Agreed. Players can do the “easy” part of the action for free: punching a wall, firing an arrow, saying words. The roll then determines the success of the action.
You support characters who are more charismatic than their players by letting the players describe what they’re trying to do with their words. We can imagine that a high charisma roll meant the character used more convincing words, body language, or confidence than the player.
Precisely, Landon. Then comes the roll, which should come with no bonuses or penalties from what the player did. The roleplaying shapes the encounter, but the skill check is still just a skill check.
I wouldn't give a character a bonus to a strength check because his player was buff, after all.
@@AugustHahn You might not give them a bonus for irl strength, but if they describe a very efficient use of strength that could result in a bonus.
Whenever someone has to make a dexterity save, throw a d6 at them. If they don't dodge it they fail instantly.
Use that d100 for it. There is no other use for it anyways
Johannes Rueter *cries in wild magic*
What if they catch it? Because I've always been more of a catcher rather than a ducker.
@@TheMento98 catching it means the other guy is out. Right?
@@davidforrest1665 True, if I catch the D6 does that mean the Dungeon Master is defeated and I win all of Dungeons and Dragons? I mean if we're basing our character abilities on our own does this mean my character has harnessed the power of Fate itself?
Isn't this actually how all checks are supposed to be? The PC pushes against the rock, they make an Athletics check, and the rock reacts by moving or not moving. The PC lies to the guard, they make Deception check, the guard reacts by accepting the lie or not accepting the lie. The PC scans the horizon for enemies, they make an perception check, they react by either noticing something unusual or not noticing something. A checks failure doesn't change what the PC did, only the result of it, so the roleplay should always happen first.
This goes with the unwritten (actually is it written?) rule that only the DM calls for rolls, not the players. Players don't explain their intentions, they make actions! And the DM determines how the world reacts to these actions. We only notice it with Charisma checks because charisma is also something that people have and can represent in their characters.
Point is, DMs expect the players themselves to be able to think of something themselves before they roll.
Pushing a log, DM just asks you to roll and if you pass, you pass.
Making a charisma check, if you yourself can't think of the lie, but still say you want to make the action... DM just doesn't let it work.
@@YourCrazyDolphin I would argue that the details of other checks should also be important to their chances of success. "Push against the log" is different from "roll the log" or " "lift and pull the log" and adding in detail to the check should be rewarded (or penalized) according to the advantages it brings.
If a PC is trying to open a barred door and they just say "I push" then I'd just say "you fail" because that's exactly the kind of thing a barred door exists to prevent. If instead they take crowbar they'd had all game and try to pry the door off at the hinges, then I'd let them roll on it. If a PC wants to, i don't know, seduce a barmaid and they just say "I seduce her" then I'd just say "you fail" because everyone's hitting on the barmaid, it's a trope in and of itself. If instead they brag about being an adventurer, slaying dragons, yadda yadda yadda, then I'd let them roll on it (still with a high DC because every bloke in the tavern will say they're an adventurer).
Coming up with weird plans and ideas is half the fun of skill checks, and if you just state your goal and either succeed or fail, there isn't much game there. Even most text based adventure games are more complicated than that. Ultimately if an obstacle is as straightforward as "make this check to progress" then it's not very interesting from a game design perspective.
@@MrJethroha ya but for an example like pc wants to hit on barmaid, if the character has high charisma, you roll for it, all of a sudden the unimpressed out of his league barmaid can be wooed
That's the point of the game. Maybe im not charismatic and I don't know how to woo a barmaid, but my character does.....this is exactly what the dm is there for. To help us role play our characters. To require charismatic role playing to achieve anything from our charisma stat means it's a useless stat. Yes ideally your group will all have elaborate stories and clever unique solutions to problems....ideally....and if they do, all the more reason to roll before you come up with the scene so you know what your aiming for.
Alright I want to go hit on the barmaid, roll charisma, you rolled low but your charisma is high, and seems mildly interested which is saying a lot because you've watched her turn down the advances of every one else. She asks you blah blah blah
Instead of I walk up to the barmaid and enthrall her with a tale of my success! And now the dm is like well....that doesn't seem very charismatic..it seems douchey...ok I'm going to make it so he needs to roll really high or else she's going to throw her beer in his face.
Now my characters charisma means nothing because I couldn't convince my dm. It's no longer a game, it's a competition for my dm' s approval
I can only speak for 5th Edition, but yes it is a written rule, not unwritten. page 174 of the Player's Handbook, "the DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) which has a chance of failure." "for every ability check, the DM determines which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task."
also... you say that characters "don't explain their intentions , they make actions!" well strictly speaking that is not true according to the rulebook :V from page 6 of the PHB, "How to Play":
1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe what they WANT to do [capitals mine]
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.
these are the 3 rules that every other rule in the entire book are hanging from
@@YourCrazyDolphin What you say true, but that's literally not "the point" that Kai is making.
This video does actually seem to argue that the process for a strength check is:
PC describes intention -> dice roll -> GM describes PC behavior [GM PLAYING A PC KLAXON!],
but for a charisma check:
PC describes behaviour -> dice roll -> GM describes NPC/environmental response [RAW DnD],
and that is supposedly "backwards".
The true observation that active roleplaying of social tasks is more difficult than the narrative roleplaying of physical ones doesn't change the logical flaw in the initial premise, where "description" is used to illogically conflate two different things. Any dice check in reaction to player activity should have the same logical flow. The problem is not that charisma checks follow a backwards logic. It's that D20 systems encourage GMs to ruin social roleplay with needless dice rolling.
I always handle amsirahc checks backwards.
Mildly clever... deserves my like
I want to make a charismatic bad guy named Amsirahc now.
"Give me a dyslexai check." (Rolls a 51 on a D20) "Made it!"
Would have been a new level of awesome had you wrote that entire sentence backwards. 🤠👍
...Reaction: Dyslexic Surge. As a reaction, you can reverse the numbers of any saving throw or attack roll you make(IE a 13 becomes a 31).
I see what they want to say first, because sometimes players say something that they think is persuasion, but it's definitely deception
Not just to confirm whether it’s the right skill, but sometimes your player might say something so well, or something so poor, that they get advantage or disadvantage to persuade.
If the pc believes what they’re saying, no matter how true or false the actual statement is, I would roll persuasion
@@eddiemate That's kind of the point of the video though. The charismatic character should be able to come up with a believable lie or appealing flattery even when a socially awkward player controls them, who may not have thought of the best thing to say to save the situation.
Giving disadvantage for the player saying something poorly implies that their character has already failed to make the right decision without taking the characters strength and weaknesses into account
Just one more video
Yeah, I guess I overlooked that bit. Which is stupid because I’m one of those socially awkward players who couldn’t come up with anything on the spot.
@@ShengFink oooh. good point. i wouldn't have thought of that!
Coming up with a bad lie after you got a bad role would be fun though.
Quite. Also, we expect people to come up with creative ways of playing uncharismatic and unintelligent characters for verisimilitude, so why not expect clever characters to be obsessive, wise characters to be circumspect, charismatic characters to be charming, lawful characters to debate ethics, etc?
If you play Yuan-ti with charisma 4 who tells a disgusting dirty joke and gets the punchline wrong, but you roll a nat20, they still seduce a beautiful human barkeep, and why ever not? Turns out you caught them in the mood for a potty-mouthed reptile.
Plus, if a deception check is passed for a ludicrous lie, it's up the GM to reconcile it. Maybe, the NPC doesn't believe a word, but is nevertheless charmed by the chutzpah of the liar and laughs, then gives the PC some kind of concession to their needs. The poor GM has to concoct a reason for all sorts of weird stuff to happen and has 5 of those implausible things to reconcile in pretty much every session; being a GM can be like juggling flaming torches while treading water. From a GM's perspective, expecting a supposedly charismatic PC to come up with the occasional plausible lie isn't too much to ask.
@@johnbehan1526 this! Very much this!
@@johnbehan1526 Y E S
It can also be kindof hilarious to have a good lie and roll terribly if your DM has a sense of humor.
"Why should we bow to you?"
"Because I am Arthur, King of the Britains!"
Rolls a 3
"Well, I didnt vote for you"
Charisma based skills, at our table at least, are the only skills that might NOT need a roll. That’s what makes them different.
A plausible or convincing lie/argument might, with the right support or background, forego the need for a roll.
Town guards have a lot on their plate. Claiming to be a worried parent searching for one’s child might be plausible enough to distract a guard.
Looking battered and bruised because of poor decisions might be enough to claim you’ve been mugged and your friend needs help.
Communication is a two way deal. Sometimes all you need is to get the target thinking in s plausible direction.
The problem comes when players try outlandish lies with zero evidence or plausibility.
The same goes for persuasion. What is the mood or outlook of the target? What evidence can you bring to bear? How do you approach the problem?
That’s why p244-245 of the DMG are so important.
Combat is AC/DC. Simple. Armor Class or Difficulty Check. A number.
Social encounters involve a lot of complexity, and that complexity might require a roll, or with enough preparation or set-up, none at all.
We handle Charisma differently because it is different.
And intelligence check means you either know or don’t know. A dexterity check means you fall or you don’t..
But Charisma? Charisma is the long play. It’s a conversation. It’s s bluff. It’s a Disguise. It’s complex. If it wasn’t complicated then politics would be easy.
Not needing a roll on a convincing lie to an unintrested person is like not needing a roll to step over a small fence yes technically you may fail but your character probaply cant.
As a DM, if there is no consequence of failure, there shouldn't be a roll.
If my player is trying to con a guard and provide a good description, I'd award the player a bonus to the roll for clever thinking, as I would for clever utilization of any skill.
In play, however, I've swiped skill challenges from 4e in these instances because as you said it's a longer play. I'm gonna try a roll before the action to try it, but if the conversation sways thereafter a follow up might be needed, situationally.
@@GrugTheJust "If there's no risk of failure there shouldn't be a roll" 90 times out of a 100 I agree. The other 10 are me, the DM, rolling hidden rolls behind my screen for no particular reason. If my players ask I just say "oh, nothing" with a devilish grin.
In truth I'm just creating tension. It can help contribute to a certain mood, if one wants to do that.
Also, if a player want to "go over and push the boulder so that it rolls down the hill and crushes some of the enemies", that is different from one who wants to "go over and use my crowbar to push the boulder so it rolls down the hill and crushes some of our enemies", the latter being a much easier roll, or for a strong enough character, possibly not needing a roll.
As somebody who has read a lot of comments and watched a lit of videos, but has not played dnd.
I would say that needless showboating should definitely require a roll, but the penalty should be relatively mild if they fail.
Want to do a triple clockwise rotation mid backflip? That'll be a 23 DC dexterity roll.
They succeed, reward them with a description of the crazy thing and have any nearby townsfold applaud them, maybe throw them some copper or silver pieces.
If they fail?
They face plant, people laugh, they take 1 damage, and they get like 3 copper as pity.
This also holds true partially for intelligence/wisdom in puzzlesolving, riddles and so on, depending on how the DM runs it
Elliegrine headed here to write exactly that 😂
Yeah , you are right one of my dm would make riddles and we had to solve the riddle ourselves as much as possible. We would choose one player ( obviously the one with the higher int. It was only for the stat purpose of the system the dm put in place) and we had his int mod hints available to us . It was really fun and challenging.
This is precisely why I hate dungeons in dungeons and dragons. Too often their is a riddle or a puzzle of some description, and it is what I as a player am always awful at. Put a Sudoku puzzle in front of me and I'll destroy it. A puzzle game, I'll get there in the end.
But a riddle? I'm never going to solve that.
The way I work is that I set a DC for the Charisma check and if the player tells me what he said and I judge it convincing, I'd lower the DC. Sort of a bonus to the trying player.
Thats basically how 3.5 worked it was good
Yup. You do it with other rolls too. Tell me how you're doing the task, and I'll work out the difficulty and costs of success and failure. Persuading a guard or searching a room, _how_ you're doing something matters.
3:20 I disagree with this example... for the following reason...
When a player makes a strength check, or agility check, or stealth check, the players have a general idea of how difficult the action is, and the DM even more so.
Oh a fallen tree is blocking the road, preventing the carriage you've been hired to protect from proceeding. The players then *decide a course of action* to remove the obstruction. The DM takes account of how difficult their planned course of action will be (Lifting the entire log would need a higher roll than using an axe to chop the log into a couple pieces and rolling them out of the way.)
Player decides to cross a stampeding herd of horses to rescue a child... HOW? Dance through their legs? Leap across their backs?
Player decides to deceive the guard?.... HOW? What lie will you tell? Are you actually trying to convince him what you say is true, or are you telling an obvious lie in a joking manner?
These actions factor in to how difficult the skill check needs to be. The player doesn't have to roleplay the deception. They could instead state their intent to deceive the guard, and how they intend to do it. For example, "I am the king's personal knight" said in a lofty manner with a hint of steel. This lie might make a village guard tremble in awe at a roll of 8, and wet himself with a roll of 17. On the Captain of a Duke's personal guard though, a roll of 8 might have him immediately attack the character for their impertinence, and a roll of 17 might have him laugh in the character's face at the audacity of his statement before turning him away.
Quarnozian Came to make this comment.
This is correct. In order to not require charisma, I take the following as equivalent. Suppose the characters are trying to deceive a guard that there is nothing suspicious about them carrying an unconscious body.
A charismatic player says "We drape his arms over our shoulders. I pull out a wineskin to pass around and ramble about how I was 'this close' with the cute tavern maid before this idiot threw up on her shoes."
A less charismatic player says "The guards didn't see me whack him on the head. We act like he's drunk and we're getting him home."
Either way, I set the same DC.
No one gets to say "I lie to the guard to get him to go away." This is because, the "this is my drunk friend lie'" is different than the "we're bounty hunters with a royal commision" lie or "Is it worth crossing the assassins guild for 3 silver a day?"
In addition, if a player doesn't specify their lie, I ask questions or may suggest a reasonable option.
This is really insightful, and I think it gives a good framework for how *all* skill checks should be handled.
In reality, in order to move something heavy you usually need more than just brute strength; you also need an idea of *how to apply* that strength. This goes for any attribute. The player's job isn't necessarily to prove that they themselves are good at some skill, but it is their job to know how to apply their character's skills in the best way possible, whether it's how to lift a log efficiently or what sort of lie to craft and deliver.
I like what all of you are saying....but have to disagree completely.
Your examples are great in that they engage the players and let them really use their brains......but they also make it so that your not playing a game with dice anymore. Forcing your players to be the ones that determine wether or not they have a chance of succeeding and not allowing them to have advantage based on their ability to create a character takes half of the fun of the game out.
I shouldn't have to come up with a clever plan if I built a character that specializes in a particular type of encounter. If I can, more power to me, but half of the fun is creating a character that is not you.
The DM is the only one who can say what flys and what doesn't. If I'm the DM and anything I throw at them can be overcome simply by them outwitting me than the game will seem stale and unrewarding. Likewise if they can't ever seem to come up with a decent enough plan for me to give them easier rolls then the whole game will feel like im being a Dick.
By your logic, a barbarian with no charisma controlled by a smart player could still fool highly perceptive gaurds easily...that's not fair or fun....
Throwing the roll before the contents of the scene gives the DM and the player a framework from which to tell the story. Parameters to meet. Your highly charismatic archer just rolled a 4 on convincing the gaurd, the scene is set how do we want it to look.
Instead of, alright how do you want to convince the gaurd (insert clever story) oh wow that's a good one, that would succeed if you got a 8, so a 4 for you because of high charisma let's see if it works....
The same analogy of chopping the wood, why let the player hash out the entirety of their plan to remove the log if they could fail the entirety of their plan at the end if they fail the roll. after they explained in detail how they want to chop it in half and throw a rope over a tree and use it as a pulley to move the log using berserker rage. Why not see if they have any chance on each action
That's the difference. Charisma checks are instantaneous game changers. If a player comes up with a quirky way to use their dex it's fun and can be controlled by the DM pretty easily. If you let your players run your game with elaborate charisma attempts that actually affect their chances of success you leave socially awkward players in a tough position and highly social players in supreme advantage.
Ok rant over
And of course it's a balancing act between letting things unfold naturally and having more structure
I just think there is no point in giving your character a charisma value if ultimately you have to be the same level of intelligence or charisma as your character in order for it to matter lol
I think this happens because the call for a roll doesn't come directly, instead they come indirectly as a consequence of role-playing. Sometimes a player didn't think at first about trying to lie his way through the guard, but a feed lines of dialog in she just says something that, to the ears of the dm, sounds like an opportunity for a roll.
I don't think that's wrong, it's more like a chance to have the role play affect the game more directly. And if it happens that a player doesn't shine on these situations because he is shy or something, just talk to the player prior to the game and be like "hey I know this is hard for you so whenever you want to do something like this, just say that what you wanna do and we'll go from there".
They key is to impress upon the players the need for them to clearly declare their actions.
Yeah, if the player just jumps right into the interaction in-character and starts telling absurd lies, there's probably going to be a problem. Get them to clearly state to you what their character is trying to do and how they are trying to do it.
@@nickwilliams8302 Honestly I'd find that to interrupt the flow of the roleplay. If someone at the table blows me away with an amazing bluff, a truly malicious threat or an incredibly persuasive argument, I tend to waive the roll and let them succeed because they roleplayed it incredibly well.
Most commonly, my players will walk up to an NPC and start talking, and if they start lying, persuading or threatening the NPC, I may require a die roll depending on how the RP turns out.
I'm generally opposed to requiring them to state that they are going to interact with someone socially, roll for their interaction, and then force them to act like complete buffoons because they rolled a natural 1 on their persuasion.
More so than most physical skills, failing on social skills can really kill the feel of a character. If someone makes a smooth-talking, suave James Bond-esque bard and has a really bad roll streak on their charisma checks they'll just come across as bumbling dummies.
You can explain failed DEX and STR rolls by attributing the character's failure to the environment, like the character slipping on wet moss, dust getting in someone's eyes etc, but failure when it comes to social skills is entirely on the character. If they make a faux pas and unwittingly insult a character it still comes across as that character being incompetent at the skill they're attempting.
I usually ask for a roll for social skills when players aren't up to roleplaying their conversations, or when I need to decide whether a reasonably roleplayed line was effective or not. I've had other DMs reward good roleplay with advantage on the roll, bonuses to the roll, lower DCs and such, but when the DM sets things up for success like that they might as well just let them succeed. It REALLY stinks if you fail even with such great odds in your favour, on top of a really well RPed argument.
More than anything I think charisma checks should be taken on a case-by-case or player-by-player basis. A player in my campaigns tends to roll charisma checks in advance and then roleplay accordingly, acting like a complete tool if he rolled low, and acting rather charming and competent on a high roll.
It's not how I'd want to play my own character, but it's his preferred approach. If I make a charismatic character I don't want that character to repeatedly commit social suicide and ruin the entire character concept because I rolled abysmally low several times in a row.
On the other end, our newest member isn't into the whole "acting out your character" thing, at least not yet. She doesn't speak as her character, but prefers to tell me what her character wants to do. In her case, requiring checks is really the only way to go because she's literally not saying anything as her character.
Pewtersprite
First of all, I think I need to point out that your player who isn't into the acting style of RP isn't necessarily not RPing. The core of roleplay is making the decisions that your character would make if they and their world were real. Accents and dialogue are just icing on the cake.
I do agree that if a player comes up with a plan that can't fail (whether they act it out in a funny voice or not) then there's no need to roll. Same thing if they come up with a plan that can't succeed. But this is where declaring actions comes in. By the player making it clear to the DM what they are trying to do and how they intend to do it, the DM can adjudicate the action mach more easily.
Take the example Cody used of a player trying to convince a guard that a heavily-armed group of expert murderers were actually a harmless group of merchants. That interaction could definitely benefit from a DM quickly advising the player that they'd better have a _fucking good reason_ why they don't have any trade goods as well as (if appropriate) pointing out that the city employs adventurers to do all sorts of stuff and they probably don't need some "clever" plan to walk through a fucking gate.
To put it another way, there are a whole host of problems that crop up in RPGs due to players not understanding things that their characters would. The opportunity to explain such things is just one of the advantages of having players declare actions. As someone whose games have benefited _enormously_ from employing this practice, I can assure you that it doesn't slow down the RP at all. If anything, it stops you from having to interrupt the RP with questions. Questions like, "What the fuck are you actually trying to do here you fucking lunatic, get the whole party arrested or something?"
Because that's the kind of question that _does_ put a brake on the RP.
Look, it's not my idea, just one my DMing has benefited from. I'll link you to the source of it here:
theangrygm.com/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/
I'd also be interested in your thoughts regarding this (more specific to the topic of the vid):
theangrygm.com/systematic-interaction/
Essentially, the latter article builds from the author's observation that any encounter is a scene in which conflict of some kind exists. The PCs want something and something stands in their way. A "social encounter" is no different. If the PCs want something, are asking for it, yet the NPC they are asking won't acquiesce, then that NPC has a reason for that. A social encounter therefore is a process of the PCs dealing with the reasons the NPC objects to what they want.
I think that as a DM, it's important to be patient and roll with less than perfectly thought out lies and persuasion. That's what the check's for - to allow the character to be more charismatic than the player. If the lie is particularly good that's awesome, handle it like any other good RP and give them inspiration (or what I'd do and just tell them to roll at advantage).
If someone's truly incredibly introverted and uncomfortable with that that's fine, not every build is for every player. If you're someone new and the litany of spells to choose from's intimidating, maybe don't play a spellcaster. I never play a bard because at our table we usually do little musical or poetic performances and that's not something I'm good at. And that's totally fine!
@@ChineseCookingDemystified
I agree, but there's the issue of whether the approach _can_ achieve the desired outcome.
I don't expect my players to be able to blag like a professional conman (even if that's what their PC actually is), but I _do_ expect them to come up with a basic strategy that is somewhat plausible and doesn't completely disrespect the game world.
Some players can act out the dialogue of blackmailing a noble. Other players might just tell me that they are using that information they found last session to blackmail the noble. Or anywhere in between. That's all cool. The important thing is that I know what the player is trying to do (get the noble to cooperate with them) and how they are trying to do it (threaten to reveal information).
But if a player tries to blackmail a noble in a way that reveals the blackmail material to the people the noble wants it kept from (say by confronting the noble in front of the fucking King), then the PCs can go fuck themselves. You can't threaten to reveal information that you've already revealed.
A great example from film (to continue the blackmail analogy) is "Mulholland Falls". The FBI attempts to warn Nick Nolte's character off a case with blackmail. Their mistake is to send the photos of his infidelity to the character's home. The character's wife sees the pictures. As Nolte contemptuously tells the agents: "I don't _care_ about anyone else."
It literally doesn't matter what sounds the agents make with their mouth holes at that moment. They've blown it.
Personally, I believe all checks should be like the charisma check. Therefore, I now decree that D&D should never be played without ready access to dumbbells, treadmills, iq tests and blood pressure cuffs.
You forgot the juggling paraphernalia, card tricks and having the players do five finger fillet with an actual stiletto for sleight of hand and reaction saves!
Also, have a rattlesnake handy for poison saves(!) 😜
@@metallkopf988 Really, I was trying to go for the six main stats... but I'm not sure how to measure wisdom. 😂
@@mhelvens just keep meditating to open those chakras. When you finally make that wisdom roll, you shall be the Buddha!
@@mhelvens have one of those eyesight charts on your wall and whatever line they get to is their roll
Michiel Helvensteijn well, IQ tests would be for wisdom, and degrees, diplomas, trivias, book reports, essays, school tests, etc. would be for intelligence
It actually makes me feel really disadvantaged as a role player. I'm not shy, but I'm not also especially logical on my feet. I prefer some time to think about all angles. So as a think on your feet charisma player, I feel like I let my DM or fellow players down. But I am a creative problem solver. I don't think anyone thinks I'm dumb, but I do feel disadvantaged by the dissonance you're talking about. I think a roll would allow me time to process my thinking and allow me to be clever OR act out a REALLY bad lie. I would love to have the opportunity to make a bad argument too for roleplay sake instead of just having a fail state be determined by my roll. Those moments can be particularly fun. And in character, by just being given the time instead of acting it out on the fly, I think I'd be much more comfortable and it would allow me more creativity in my response. Even if fail. I'd rather have a moment of the roll of dictate whether I should be bumbling OR brilliant as guidance to my RP. This was a lovely video to think on and I look forward to talking over one aspect of playing with my DM to enhance my roleplaying experience and comfort that I hadn't thought about before. Thank you for the illumination.
Nice. i really like the idea of using the dice as guiding our roleplaying. something that definitely happens naturally. sometimes if i roll pitifully (this happens quite often) i like to have fun describing my utter failure in a way that makes sense for my character and situation. especially if the DM isn't one to do these descriptions themselves.
nothing wrong with using the dice for guidance in our imaginations. even if just to narrow the field of possibilities and focus our brains down a general path. Great Idea!
I wonder how DM's would feel about this as a general play method? describing actions only after dice rolls, specifically.
hmmm... i'm not even sure it would be noticeably different in my game. though i don't have much experience to draw on. (i'm a newbie in my first game, level 3 character). I'm guessing it would depend on the DM and player culture of the group, but mostly it would be welcome and probably not a very noticeable change. very interesting.
I think that a good solution would simply be for you to take time to think before you speak. I know you probably don't want to hear that, but if you're a creative problem solver and you think a simple dice roll would give you more time to think, then maybe you should just take a short time to think so that your words come out right. A good party won't make you feel pressured for taking a little time.
Others have also suggested saying more general things in a narrative way like, "I try to convince the guard that I am justified in carrying in these weapons." Then you can roll and feel less pressure if you want to add the actual dialogue after the roll's outcome.
Same here. Sometimes I have to remind the DM that my character is bard who has a +9 on Deception and has been telling lies for a living since he was 5 … and I’m not.
If a player makes a great argument, I may give them advantage on the roll. Even the most introverted players seem to shine in these moments. I think it's healthy!
It's both. Like everything. We shouldn't change how it is approached, but how it's executed. We should let people say "I want to lie to the guard" and then the DM asks for a deception roll like any other check, but if a player is more comfortable or if things just naturally spiral in the "backwards" direction where the player makes the lie and you need them to roll to see how the deception pans out than that is fine.
But I think the solution is actually that you should make a roll based on the outcome at hand, the method shouldn't be the instigating factor. The conversation initially arose with the need for something to happen. As a DM you need to determine if the desired outcome is a possible outcome. Then the player initiates what they say and you determine "How is the player attempting to convince the guard" it's either a persuasion, a deception or an intimidation. You have them roll the accompanying roll and then determine whether or not it passes. Here's the key bit though, that roll shapes the reality of what's happening.
Let me explain, as a player I say "Hey you, uhh, guard, we are a band of, uhh, merchants, let us pass!" the DM understands that I am trying to lie to the guard in order to gain passage. The DM calls for a deception roll. If I fail the roll then my character was caught in the lie, maybe my voice quivered or that verbal hiccup even more pronounced, maybe I was a bit more quiet or more boisterous, it doesn't matter because I failed my roll. However, I might have just passed the roll. Say I needed a 10 and I got a 10, well maybe the guard is just convinced, the verbal hiccup I made wasn't noticed or the guard didn't care so we gained passage for passing and things played out as if that's what I said. BUT maybe I got a very good roll, I didn't only beat the DC but I obliterated it, and this is the important part because now even though when I made the verbal hiccup while talking to the DM my character didn't, my character was smooth, he probably used a bit of flowery language, and the guard became putty in his hands.
Because I'm not charismatic, my character is, so my character shouldn't be limited by my shortcomings. I stumble over my words, I'm slow with my comebacks and I'm bad at making good conversation, but my character isn't. I portray my character to the best of my abilities but in the reality of the game my player is leaps and bounds better, so even if I failed in properly expressing myself doesn't mean that my character did, too.
Well said, this is how I see it as a DM. The dice roll determines the outcome based on stats and skill bonuses. Either I decide that the guard is easy or hard to affect and make a number, or I decide a number based on the wisdom stat of the guard to see if the guard can "resist" the charisma of the character. I make the guard act on the roll. I think it's important to throw the dice and make a check so the player understands it's not me who needs to be convinced. Even a stupid idea can work, if the character has the stats and makes a good roll and even the best attempt can fail if you run out of luck with the dice. For me it's a dice game too, not just roleplaying and there should always be those chances for critical failures or success...
And no, you don't have to make up a lie. Just saying "I lie to the guard" (deception) will do and then we roll the dice. However, if you make up a brilliant lie, I as a DM can give you a inspiration because of acting out your character, especially if you act out your character's personality traits or flaws, or I can straight out decide that you roll it with an advantage. Same goes with a brilliant idea on how to use your strenght or other stats or skills. That's what the inspiration rule is there for. Bad luck with the dice and you still fail. I can say it to the players that it hurts as a DM to see you fail after so good idea, but hey, you still fail. Giving out those inspirations to the players is a good thing, because if they don't want to use it, they can reward each other for good acting and great ideas. If I as a DM think something is a bad idea and will be very difficult, but another player think it's a good idea and gives out the inspiration to another player's roll, it should be a cue for me too that I should maybe make it an easier roll.
Just because I'm the DM doesn't mean that I should be deciding everything on how I feel is good. I give the dice a good chance to affect the outcome and that's the wacky and fun part of the game, as a DM I just have to accept that unbelieveable crazy things happen and I'm there to describe that. It's very surprising what can happen in a fantasy world!
I think the only change I would make to your methods is, if a player says "I want to lie to the guard," I'm going to ask more detail about what they lie about and what they try to convince them. Telling the guard "We're nobles from the Kingdom of Arstotzka" will have very different results than saying "The king hired us as additional security for tonight's ball, in case someone tries to assassinate him", or "We're the new maids that were just hired to have more staff for the feast". Personally, I don't see this as any different than asking what weapon a player's barbarian is using when they say "I attack the hydra". Naturally, there may only be one obvious answer (if the party had previously purchased rich silk outfits in the colors of Arstotzka's coat of arms and had another NPC forge documents proving their identity as nobles, I'd pretty safely assume what lie they're telling the guard; if the barbarian had dropped his bow to draw his greataxe and charge the turn before, I could probably assume what weapon he's using), but if not, I don't see anything wrong with asking for details for the check.
The tricky thing is that the player might not come up with the lies that the character in the game does. The guard might just have a bad day and let them in confused and by accident and then spend a while wondering who those people actually were and were they supposed to get in. And then the guard might not care about it enough to do something about it and simply forgets it and goes back to thinking what's for dinner. It might not need to be an event with further consequences.
While I agree that a DM can ask the players to act or describe their actions further, it's not necessary for the player to come up with something. Or they can roll the dice first and then be asked what they said now that the guard reacts in a certain way determined by the player's charisma roll. Not all players enjoy acting and while some love acting, for others a more descriptive playing style is more comfortable. There is a reason why a socially awkward person wants to play a charismatic character and in those cases I think the DM needs to help their characters come up with stuff they normally wouldn't, help them play a charismatic personality when in reality they're not. It's a similar situation when a player does a succesful investigation check, the DM can put the pieces of a puzzle together without the player making the connections with the given clues. It doesn't have to be the player who gets it, it's the character who does and the DM just describes the reasoning.
@@hannuback that's exactly what inspiration is for! Coming up with a good explanation for why the roll succeeded is essentially in the DMs ball-park. The player may offer to help by providing an excellent lie or even belt out a really outrageous one, it shouldn't matter if the dice have spoken. Maybe they met the one guard in the king's retinue that is especially gullible or the guard was distracted by personal problems and didn't really listen and waved them through...
Either acting it out if you are good at it or just tell me the jist of what you want. I want to convince (lie) to the guard that (insert general lie) to get into the party. I don't tend to encourage people that are extremely introverted, socially awkward, etc to play high charisma characters. I not saying I would deny them but it's going to be rough. To be fair, the strength character has to tell me how they want to cross a ravine. They don't just say hey... uh... strength is my highest stat. I want to use that. Are you felling a tree to make a bridge? Throwing rope across? There's a riddle, I kinda expect them to solve it... I allow them to use INT/WIS rolls to essential get hints but not outright solve them. I USE THE POWER OF MAH BRIAN TO SOLVE THE PUZZLE!!! Otherwise each character with a good stat or two and nothing is interesting. It's supposed to be an interactive adventure. You can just roll 1000 d20s and write a book if you have to come up with absolutely everything as the DM.
Honestly I like it, I'm actually becoming more charismatic in real life because my dm makes me come up with convincing arguments. Acting out the charismatic characters has brought me out of my shell a bit
This reminds me of an experience with my original group of players (I was the DM) in 3.0 (not long after it came out).
We had this sorcerer who was discussing a situation with an important Outsider NPC and trying to get leverage to get them to teach them new magic (i.e.: a new spell). After trying to word something eloquent properly for a few minutes and the other players getting annoyed waiting on this, the sorcerer's player got fed up with it and straight up asked me "How can I ask in role play to get more spells? Can I just make a roll and get on with it?". That kind of shocked me at first, but it really brought up an interesting question that I spent much time thinking about afterwards. Why don't we just roll it and then rp it out?
Now we are nearly two decades later and in my group (and with this player specifically) we still mention sometimes the inside joke of "how do I get more spells in role play?" when the players just can't figure out how to say something from their character's perspective (especially for those with high INT/CHA that would be *FAR* more eloquent than the players themselves).
Similarly for those with high INT, I will often dialogue with that player when their PC is considering actions, acting as that PC's high intellect. None of us nowhere near qualifies for 20 INT, but I also don't want the players to fall into meta gaming, so instead I role play their internal dialogue with them which allows the PC to stay true to itself and the player to think things through like someone with such a high intelligence would. Seems to work well enough.
Anyway, amazing video on something we can easily take for granted until we stop and think about it. My player's question in that game really made me think about this!
I like this idea. It's both an interesting, additional RP opportunity, and a sort of way to tutor one another to improve. I might just need to experiment with this. :)
This happenend in my first game ever. i didn't know how the game worked exactly, and half way through my character trying to do something i just stopped and blurted out "something charming, etc. etc., whatnot and what have you... can i just roll?" i was feeling under the weather and my brain just wasn't functioning well in the world of putting words together. everybody laughed and we got on with it. it was kinda great. And a good lesson learned.
Wait a second... this is the Disco Elysium approach!
Roleplay as that character's skill and give him suggestions. I mean, it probably has to be toned down a lot compared to Disco Elysium, but it's a great idea!
I feel like the obvious solution to this conundrum is to simply use the method that best fits a particular player.
If it's what it takes, then this. Some people are just going to be better at acting on the spot than others.
This actually brought me back to an issue earlier this month where I was trying AL for the first time, and because I'd skipped out on the first social interaction due to how the scene played out, the ranger basically decided to let me handle the next encounter since I was the group bard.
What he didn't realize was that, as a player, I'm horribly awkward at making conversation, so even with a 17-22 on a performance check and a decent diplomacy check immediately afterwards, I was at such a loss for words that the Ranger felt he had to prompt me to get me to say *anything*, which in-turn kinda came across as him trying to play my character even if the rational side knew he probably meant well.
@@fawn8347 In my experience, you can often tell how players prefer to approach Charisma checks by how they frame their interaction. Do they just go up and start talking? They probably like the role play approach. But if a player says something along the lines of "I want to go up to the guard and Persuade him to let us through", then they might prefer the "non-backwards" method.
Best way to find out? Respond with "is there anything in particular you want to say?" The question is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily demand anything from the player, while still giving them a chance to either role play or at least specify certain points.
The most important thing to remember though is that these systems are interchangeable. Sometimes your role player is just having an off day, sometimes your introvert wants to go out on a limb. Use the method that suits the player, and sometimes the situation (you don't HAVE to role play EVERY guard interaction), even if it means there are multiple methods at the table. People will likely not even notice, and are even less likely to care.
@Gen Eric Some people are terrible at playing up their dump stat, but I tend to take the approach of reminding them that their 7 INT character has the general intelligence of a sensible domesticated animal and that certain things they simply *just don't know* and move on from there. But people who tend to play out of RP aren't playing D&D to enjoy the RP they're playing to either meta-game or kill some shit and leave, the RP type tend to play their dump-stat well but the former two.....I honestly don't even want them in my games if i'm being honest it dampens the experience for everyone else at the table.
@@QuestionQuestionMark I personally have to disagree with that comparison for 7 INT. While I do agree that 7 Intelligence is well below average, they're not bestial. Personally I see 7 INT as trying to use big words to sound smart and just coming off as a buffoon to anyone else (if they've got low WIS to compliment that intellect) or being well aware of their stupidity and choosing not to bother with learning *anything* outside of the scope of their daily lives. A good example of a low INT character played *beautifully* is Critical Role's Grog. And, as a DM, if they're having fun and you're alright with how they're playing the stupidity angle, sometimes you just gotta toss them a bone. Sometimes standing single-file *is* how you slip into a monster's blind-spot, as incoherent a plan as it sounds.
For me rolls are for performance only, and can't change your actions.
If a player said his character jump in the water and cross a river, I will ask for an athletics check. A success won't make the character do something else like using a rope, or building a bridge, he just crossed the river using his strength. But if the player specify before that he is using a rope to secure himself, I will make the athletics check easier.
A character trying to intimidate a band of goblin saying "Run or I'll rip your face off" will need a intimidation check, it won't change what the player said to them, but the way the character is saying it. A success won't make the character say something else, but he will be very convincing with his intonation and attitude.
Charisma rolls are not backward at all, they work exactly like every other check.
The way most people handle them is backwards. Or if not backwards per se then skewed in the favor of different steps in the process than other stat checks which just makes them seem like they're doing it backwards
@@PsykotikDragon In my opinion, most people think it's backwards just because they take rolls for something they are not.
You will always be rewarded for a good setup. It can be a good battle strategy, a clever way to find a secret door, an effective way of using your tools, a very believable lie or a smart way to hide your group for the night. It's a role-playing game, this is what it's all about. Of course you need to reward players for their ideas.
@@WallySketch I totally agree with you. If a player saysthey are looking under the rug to see if there is a hidden trap, you don't ask for a Perception check to see if there is a trap underneath, you just describe what's underneath. But if the player just says he's checking for traps in the room, you might ask for a Perception check. As you said, the player describes what they want to do, and then you ask for a check.
Following this logic, we also reward smart players and it might seem unfair to players not that smart but playing smart characters. But that's part of the game, otherwise it's just dice check and stats. Smart thinking, thought-out plans and strategies would all go out the window. You would just say to the rogue "Roll your Investigation check, your character is smart enough to check for them before going any further" and the players don't even have to think anymore.
@@julienweber390 so its cheating when the barbarian can just beat any door down because of their power level? If strength in game is not affected by the players actual strength why are charisma based characters stats determined by how intelligent they are.
The best terms I've heard for the difference you are talking about is the "intent" (what you want to happen) and the "approach" (how you go about it). And I agree, if you think about these two parts to a player doing something then nothing seems backwards.
As a GM, I tend to set the DC, based on the way an extrovert player RPs it, but for introvert players or newer players, I tend to treat it more like how you said, asking intent first. Also, usually, introvert players and socially challenged players often only make one roll, while I don't usually tell more extrovert players if they succeed or fail, but rather, I RP the result, and a failure or narrow success might warrant a subsequent roll, based on their response.
I can vibe with this
I see a ton of comments unknowingly saying that if the players aren't creative enough they will fail no matter how they built the character. We are supposed to be role playing a character we created, not playing ourselves with a different name and stats that don't matter.
If that was the case I would never put a point in charisma and just be a super strong fast tank that also somehow always had the most clever ideas.....
I see it more like this.
STR CHECH: “I attempt to move X”
CHA CHECH: “I attempt to convince him of X”
In BOTH cases the difficulty level depends on X.
I feel like that comparison is a bit wrong. it isnt "I attempt to convince him of X", it's "I attempt to convince X". when you roll a strength check, it isnt "I attempt to move this by doing X".
@@alicebnuuy6155 Actually, I think "I attempt to move this by doing X" is a better principle
@@alicebnuuy6155 If you're going that route then to compare apples with apples it should be "I attempt to use athletics on X" and "I attempt to use persuasion on X", in which case Strength would be indiscriminate; after the roll you could do whatever you wanted with whatever it is you'd overcome with strength, which is game-breaking. E.g. "I use athletics on that log", DM weighs log, determines DC15, roll succeeds, player says "I toss the log into space and break the moon." My point is that the situational specifics should affect the DC.
As someone who is bad at RP/acting/improv, but who loves Paladins, I appreciate this message.
If you have a good DM, he would still encourage you to describe a situation, you will always get the roll and the result might not be different, but its much more fun. I let the female Bard in my group always describe how she casts her spells and how exactly she inspires someone. Sometimes it's just a: come on, you got this! but over time, this will improve. Rolepaying better is a skill any player can develop.
@@greybearddnd2417 my only complaint on describing spells or other commonly used feature is when you have to do it every single time. I've had a DM who required you to describe exactly what words a caster would say for each and every spell, including cantrips, every time you cast it and you had to stay consistent. It got old for everyone at the table about 2 sessiongs in
Just smite'em
Here's the argument from ine of my fellow GMs that got me thinking. "If a player has the 'gift of gab' why would he allocate points in social traits of his character if he [the player] can persuade/outwit/con anyone?".
And her's where it got interesting to me because the same can be said about anything else. I know a lot about guns, my friend knows a lot about programming and cybersecurity, someone else will have extensive medical knowledge. Now should my character be able to disassemble a rifle just because I as a player can explain in great detail how to do it even though my character has no skill representating that knowledge? Should my friend be able to crack a gov database just because she actually knows how to do it even though her character has no skills reflecting the subject? Should an experienced paramedic be allowed to simply explain how her character helps a victim of multiple stubbing even though the character has only basic knowledge of first aid?
I see roleplayers dismissing some arguments for and against certain styles of skill testing depending on the something I call a "hands on" aspect of the skill. If your character doesn't know how to drive a car it doesn't matter if you, a player, are a professional driver. Your character won't drive a car. If you are a rally driver should your character be allowed to make movie-like car maneuvers during a chase just because the player could do it? But somehow it's a different thing when it comes to charisma, intelligence and so on.
We as players are playing characters. They can be smarter than us, dumber than us, prettier than we are or skilled in things we are not. That's what in its core rpg is to me. A way of getting into the shoes of someone I as a person am not. And to circle back the the quote from the beginning I think that if you wish your players to use their talents to progress in the game (which is perfectly fine with me) drop the skills/attributes that describe the characters proficiency in those fields.
Agreed 100%, I once played a Gilderoy Lockhart/Miles Gloriosus type who spoke with GRAND PRONOUNCEMENTS about how AMAZING HE WAS as the GREATEST PILOT IN THE GALAXY and it was utterly exhausting to try to RP that the whole time. Initially he was a lot of fun, but at some point I realized just didn't have it in me to continuously "do the voice" and act like a comedically self-centered buffoon who took every opportunity to show off and sing his own praises - at some point, even I was getting annoyed with him, and was running dry on creative ways to self-congratulate even though the character himself never would have.
(Worse still, if I had TRIED to continuously roleplay that, I very easily could have aggravated the rest of the players and ruined their fun as well as my own.)
Eventually we settled on this approach:
"Miles says, '(3-second INTRODUCTORY ROLEPLAY where I DO THE VOICE!),' and then he says something like '(my normal voice explaining what I'm actually trying to communicate, interspersed with THE VOICE when I think it's important or relevant or genuinely amusing.)'"
The way I see it, we're engaged in collective storytelling. If we were writing a book, we would have the opportunity to sit down, contemplate what would be said and how it would be said and get the sequencing and pacing exactly right, and then produce the finished product of many minutes (or hours, or days) of writing and re-writing. But with RPing, it's all improv, and sometimes - by insisting that everything be roleplayed - we might easily miss out on the more dramatically appropriate things just because the player is trying to keep the game flowing. They might even do something out of character just because they felt rushed or hit a creative block, and it seems a little silly to have that result in in-game consequences.
I completely agree! A big part of the game is roleplaying AS THAT CHARACTER, and not as yourself. That character has certain skill sets mapped out, and certain strengths and weaknesses, that you as a player may not have. While good RPing should always be encouraged, you shouldn't be able to RP your way out of anything. Failure is also part of the game, and helps enrich the experience when things DO go right.
this is so ridiculous hahaha roleplaying is tied to charisma. that's the game. charisma the stat is a problem because it is trying to quantify the amount of charisma we want to give our characters, but it also is restricted by every other skill they possess and it serves as a freaking spellcasting number. that's why charisma is stupid in 5e. not the other way around.
you play rpgs to exercise your charisma in different forms (characters).
@@pseudolemon8272 you lost me at "role-playing is tied to charisma" 🤣🤣🤣
Had a very similar debate with a DM about this subject. I was on the side of "My character can lift large amounts of weight as a dice roll, but I can't do it myself; the same should be true if my bard is charming and I am not."
The irony is that your real-life charisma affected how well this argument worked.
A DM that requires "good roleplaying" for Charisma-based checks, even from introvert players is really not footing a balanced game. It will lead to the extroverts hogging all the game time and getting to shine at the expense of less spotlight-hungry players.
You can't turn a silent, taciturn individual into Josephine Baker, dancing on the table with a banana skirt, just by playing D&D.
@@metallkopf988 I like the cut of your jib, but I think that analogy got away from you
@@SteveNeubauer you bet. It literally danced away!
Metallkopf If you By-Pass role playing with dice you shouldn’t be playing a role playing game. D&D is not a game for introverts, it is basically a giant social experience where you’re constantly having to meet new people talk and develop yourself as a person. This is why we deem D&D to be a role play game and not just a turner based combat with choices.
that's why I'm so bad at playing a charisma-based character; I'm not smooth, or clever, or deceptive, or anything like that, so it makes it hard for me to come up with cunning ideas that might or might not work...
Especially when it’s on the spot, that’s the worst part
Same. I'm very shy and introverted and have a hard time role-playing, so it's hard for me to play the talker of the group. However I like making charismatic characters because I love the idea of someone who can talk their way out of situations.
I’m the same when it comes to Charisma based characters. I like the idea of playing them, hell theyre probably the most interesting in the game, but I couldn’t smooth talk to save my life.
I don't think it's required to be charismatic in real life for your rolls to succeed. Example that we got was "just bad". I think that if you uncomfortable with coming up/unable to come up in time with clever lie, good persuasive argument or a powerful intimidation, yet you play charismatic character it then would be the best to talk with your group and ask DM to not judge your Charisma rolls too harshly. Or, alternatively to rolling Charisma check before saying anything, you maybe could roll Insight check/use passive Insight to determine what would be the right words to say to the person for better outcome (DM would tell you what topic or personality trait of the opponent you could use to your advantage). And i would say that it's fine to just use logic of "i try to persuade him with my incredibly charming personality" and that's it for roll to work, as long as DM is okay with filling in blanks for you.
@@Nick_Vendel but that still punishes players who aren't very charismatic or deceptive in real life. For example, I want to play a character that's not very attentive to his surroundings and gets into a lot of trouble because of that but he can talk himself out of trouble because he's just so convincing.
According to your rules, I'd have to first role a weakness of my character with a pretty high failure chance just so that i can succeed in my strong parts. Even if you my character is middle-ish in insight, I need to pass two rolls while charismatic players only need to pass one roll.
I only call for rolls when there is a chance of failure. Helps avoid un-wanted Rolls. Keeps gameplay fast-paced and friendly.
It's a good rule, but you should also only call for rolls when there is a chance of success. Look at it this way.
If a PC tries to jump a 1ft chasm, they succeed.
If a PC tries to fly by flapping their, they fail.
Only if the stated action falls in the range of what the PC _could_ do but also _could_ fail at, do you need a roll.
Interaction checks should be no different. If a PC tells someone something that is actually true ("I'm looking for a good inn.") in order to convince an NPC to do something they have no reason to refuse to do (ie. tell the PC where a good inn is) then no roll is necessary.
If a PC tells someone something that is obviously bullshit ("I'm the King of the Moon!") in order to convince an NPC to do something they have very good reason to refuse to do (ie. let the PC into an area they have been ordered to guard) then no roll is necessary.
You only need a roll if the stated strategy is something that could plausibly be believed _and_ actually deals with the NPCs reasons for non-compliance. For example, telling a guard that they should be let into the palace because they have an urgent message for the King that the safety of the land hinges upon. The guard has orders to keep unauthorised people out, but messengers are authorised. Moreover, the guard's primary concern is the safety of the King and the land, which may be in peril. So, if the guard believes the PC is a Roal messenger, they will let the PC in.
The problem is not how social interaction is handled in particular, it's how checks are being handled in general.
Nick Williams The rules of jumping already state that jumping a horizontal distance
@@evannibbe9375 wait so you're telling me a 12 strength character can standing jump 6 feet into the air no check required?
@@BosesBjorn no, it's 3 + Str modifier
The way it is usually done is a roll is called for when there is a chance for failure and success. One could definitely be higher than the other (duh), but if one of those chances are 100% then a roll is not necessary, as it wouldn’t impact anything.
This is a huge problem for me right now. I thought I would love playing as a bard (and it's been pretty fun for a lot of the more obvious stuff like performances and that kind of thing), but I have a ton of trouble getting my dm to even let me roll for persuasion, intimidation, or deception. I go up and do something risky, but apparently not obvious enough and he will punish me for it by having the guy not believe me or call for help and stuff without even rolling to see if it worked. I just don't think I'm comfortable enough yet to do be super charismatic at the table since I'm still pretty new to the game.
Edit: Actually, I think the thing that annoys me the most is even if I tell him I want to attempt a deception check or something he makes me say my lie first before he determines if I need to roll or if it was just terrible in general
Guy is just a dick.
Yea no, that’s just a shit DM. Nothing to do with you.
Well then ask him what he thinks Charisma is actually for, then, if he doesn't really use it.
Or offer to DM yourself if you feel comfortable with it. That may lead to conflict though, if he is an authority-driven alpha control freak. He may not wish to suffer any other gods beside himself.
Your DM sounds like he may be a bit thick skulled. Hope things get better.
The believability of your lie alters the dc of the check.
I don't understand the confusion here. Choosing an ineffective action always has a higher dc than an effective action. The DM needs to know the your choice to determine how effective it was.
Imagine saying "I roll deception!*
DM says "Go for it!"
You say "I got a 15! Do I succeed?"
DM says "Good job! What did you say?"
You say "I told him he's a fish!"
Is he supposed to suddenly believe he's a fish because you rolled a 15?
No, it doesn't work like that, sorry.
But intelligence, wisdom and resourcefulness also requires that the players are those things.
Or like a player who isn't very smart rolling a 20 on their Wizard's Arcana check and completely understanding the magical puzzle.
That often depends on what the check is. In the case of Charisma checks, all except Performance demand that the player be just as good at deceiving or persuading as their player is. In the case of Wisdom and Intelligence, for example a Medicine check would first be rolled and then after that it would be determined what the character was able to do, even if the player was a professional doctor or if they didn't know the first thing about bloody noses.
In critical role, the character Caleb is smart and Liam often jokes that he is smarter than his player. Because of this Caleb remembers things about the game that Liam doesn’t. Liam will occasionally argue that his character would remember something he’s read and the DM will agree because Caleb has a high intelligence and a feat that allows that to happen
@@k.g.7591 Keen Mind
Assign advantage or disadvantage depending on how it’s roleplayed, for every check. You want to push that boulder up the hill? Tell me how you are doing it
Really thought provoking video. Going to have to ponder this a bit. Might be fun to experiment between the differences here.
I can see both. With deception as the example, if the player lies first, they get to be clever, and the DM can reward the player by having the DC adjust based on what the player actually says (or maybe give the guard disadvantage on their insight check). However, if the player had to roleplay the result after the deception roll was made, what they say might better fit the result. if they roll an 8 on deception, they might roleplay a more commical lie like how some characters is movies and TV shows make obvious lies that might be funny.
A check is only necessary if the outcome is in doubt. If a PC attempts such an absurd lie that it would never be believed by the person their speaking to, you don't need to roll; just like you wouldn't need to roll an Athletics check if the PC attempted to make a single high jump from the Earth to the moon. Likewise, you don't need to make someone roll a strength check to lift a glass of wine or a charisma check to convince a total stranger the PC's name is Robert (assuming that's a normal sounding name in the location the NPC is encountered).
How you do something matters. Look at the example of a Strong character trying to lift a heavy log. Sure, that's pretty easy. If their Strength score is high enough, and there's no time crunch on the action, I might let them do it without a check. But, if you have a 24 strength and you tell me you want to lift that log with just your pinkie finger, I might decide you automatically fail, or I might give you disadvantage on the check, or I might make failing by 5 or more result in some kind of injury (or disadvantage and a fail by 5 or more consequence).
You're right in everything you said, but you're missing the point I think. For STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, your character's capability is what determines what's a glass of wine and what's a jump to the moon. With CHA, it's the _player's_ capability.
Example. You are a rogue. Your gear is obviously 100% assassin. You are not good at roleplaying/speaking parts for your character. In game, you are sneaking into the mayor's manor to steal a deed back that was unrightfully taken. Acrobatics/athletics to get in the window - you're proficient, success! Stealth check to sneak around - success! You hear a guard, you stop, hide behind a stand with a vase, you go unseen. You stand back up - your DM makes you roll stealth again, but you roll low. Oh no, you bump the stand. Dex check to catch the vase! You roll low again! *CRASH* the guard comes to you immediately as he was just around the corner ahead. Now you're in a social situation.
Guard: Who are you?! Why are you here?Full Assassin Guy: I uhhh, I'm a butler.DM: He's doubtful, roll for deception.
If you were a more convincing liar in real life (nothing to do with your character)
Guard: Who are you?! Why are you here?Full Assassin Guy: There's a double agent working here, the mayor hired me to find them.
DM: He believes you (no roll necessary)
I totally agree, Lilith2014. I was looking through the comments to make sure someone else made this point before I did. Knowing how a player character is going about a task is important for determining whether a role is needed, what skill (if any) to use, and what the difficulty of the roll is. When a player says, "I look for clues," you'll probably ask how and where they look for clues before determining whether they need to make an Investigation check and whether it's DC10 or DC20. If a PC is pushing a boulder off a cliff, they may say, "I brace myself against the cliff-face and push the boulder off with my legs," or "I grab a nearby branch and use it as a lever to pry and force the boulder over the edge." These differing descriptions may or may not change the rolls necessary, and function the same as different roleplaying approaches for charisma-based actions.
@@kaldo_kaldo
The thing is, the way you have portrayed the social interaction between the guard and the assassin points up the need for the DM to adjust the playstyle to match the player. If the player has the gift of the gab and usually acts out social interactions, sure, start an interaction in-character so they can respond. If, on the other hand, the player usually roleplays by narrating their characters actions in the third person, address them in that way rather than putting them on the spot.
So, it really is more of a case of giving each kind of roleplayer the opportunity to play to their strengths.
Personally, I find both your example lies equally preposterous. I actually can't think of any sounds a player could possibly make with their mouth hole (short of a spell) that would help in that situation.
@@kaldo_kaldo
In getting to the social situation of "uhhh, I'm a butler." I think you described the single most poorly DM'd stealth situation I've ever seen or heard described.
1) Why are there two stealth checks? Nothing broke the character's initial stealth; forcing a second roll at that point is simply increasing the chances of failure for no reason. And, if you're having the player make the stealth rolls before the character's stealth is challenged, which you shouldn't (see below), why was there no roll when sneaking up to the house? Or a roll to remain stealthy while climbing?
2) Why is the character making the stealth check before there's a chance of failure? The player shouldn't know how well-stealthed they are until the instant it's opposed. Letting them see the result of the check before they encounter anything that opposes the check gives them the agency to do something else if they get a bad roll. If you're fighting a guy in plate and a guy in leather armor, you don't get to roll your attack and then choose to apply your total roll to the enemy you think that roll can hit. Letting a sneaking character know their stealth roll before hand is no different; it gives the chance to go do something else in a non-stealthy manner for 5 minutes and then come back and try get a better roll.
3) The assassin's player doesn't need to be a great liar, or quick thinking. Any rogue who's worth their salt will consider "what do I say or do if someone sees me?" and "what's my escape plan if things go south?" These aren't genius things, they're the result of basic experience when learning and failing to be sneaky. And, any DM who has a player who is bad at roleplaying persuasion and deception, or a player who's new at the game, should ask those questions of the player beforehand. Presumably, if the PC is skilled in stealth they have had to practice it enough to know that they might need a plan in case they get spotted.
Look, it's not that I don't get what you're saying, because I do. The thing is, being a DM for someone who plays a charismatic character but who is themselves not charismatic is extra work. When the awkward player tries to be smooth and says something so truly absurd it wouldn't be believed, you either need to let the player know "hey, you're character is a bit better of a liar than that. Maybe take a minute and try to think of something else, something more believable from the NPC's point of view" or you need to find a way to roll with the absurdity. Maybe the second guard in your example starts laughing uproariously because he thinks the assassin guy is actually secret backup who's ribbing him by pretending to be some awkward schmoe.
I prefer to do the former, not the latter, if only because I think it trains players to be better at playing their characters. It may not make them any less awkward or more charismatic, but maybe it helps them develop the ability to look at a situation from someone else's shoes when trying to figure out what's a reasonable lie. And that's a process we've all been through. We've all been the kid who broke a lamp (or something) and said we found it that way because we didn't want to get in trouble. And if you do that when you were the only one home when the lamp got broke, you get in trouble and learn to lie better next time. If you're really great, you learn to take responsibility for what you do instead of lying about it, but most kids aren't like that. Hell, most adults aren't like that these days.
@Lilith2014
You're bang on the money with your comment here. Get the players to declare their actions properly (what are they trying to do; how are they trying to do it) and a huge number of RPG problems just vanish.
It is as legitimate in terms of roleplay to describe a general strategy (Thongor will try to threaten the guard so he doesn't raise the alarm) as it is to act it out ("If you want to keep breathing, you'll be still and very quiet my friend."). The only relevant facts the DM needs to know is what the player is trying to accomplish (preventing the guard from raising the alarm) and how they are trying to do it (threatening the guard). This lets the DM know what success (quiet guard) and failure (loud guard) look like as well as what kind of a check will be required (in this case CHA[Intimidation]) if you need to roll dice at all
For players who enjoy acting out their PC's dialogue, the opportunity to do so is it's own reward.
If you treat charisma checks differently, you need to understand that you are affecting the difficulty of the game. Getting proficiency in a skill comes at the cost of not getting proficiency in a different skill. If your decision to call for a roll is dependent on a character's ability to roleplay, you've made the game more difficult for players who invest in charisma skills and easier for players who don't.
Well said Jay!
true but if you take interaction with NPC's away from players it stops being a roleplaying game
@@uaenruotel I see nothing wrong with giving advantage to a player who says something clever. That's the same as using a pulley to help with a strength check. Negating the roll entirely, though, feels like punishing players for choosing that skill. This is a role-playing GAME, after all.
@@uaenruotel try thinking of it in a different way. The player is saying something (sometimes utterly stupid) and the effectiveness of what is said is modified by the roll. It's not always words that are convincing but who's saying them.
Do you think that this treatment of the charisma roll causes a tendency to murder hobo one's way through a game?
I’ve had amazing results running my table’s Charisma checks with basic modifiers.
1) Call for Charisma Check
2) Player LARPS out their action, which the DM (me) then assigns a modifier: 0, +2, or +5. 0 and +2 are the most common, with +5 reserved for incredibly convincing RP.
3) The player learns their RP modifier, rolls their charisma check and applies the result.
I’ve found that this lets players feel that their RP has a real impact while validating character investments in CHA and CHA skills. The table cheers when they hear, “that was amazing; +5 for that,” and the person RPing feels like an IRL hero. I tend to rule a bit softer for newer and more introverted players, often giving them the +2 bonus when they push themselves out of their comfort zone. Overall, Charisma checks are where your Actor-style players shine, and giving them the spotlight (within moderation) often leads to a memorable session.
It seems to me that you - and several commenters, from what I gather at a glance - are focused on the problem that these backwards Cha checks keep the characters from being more charismatic than the players. But there’s a flip side to this issue: they also can’t be less charismatic than their players.
Suppose a PC gives a well-thought-out argument that should be able to persuade the NPC, given the circumstances. The GM makes the mistake of asking for a roll; perhaps they silently assign a generous bonus. Then, the die rolls a 1, and the cumulative bonus doesn’t meet the DC set by the rules.
This is what persuaded me to treat Charisma checks the same as any other check. Your roll tells you, the player, what your character was able to come up with. This prevents a convincing argument from being “wasted” on a failed roll.
Noah Hathaway as a dm, I typically like to hear the deception or persuasion first and then base the dc off of how convincing the player was. In the event of the horrible roll but well thought out statement, you can always wave the dc and have it pass or have the player roll with advantage because they were clever.
If they give you a solid speech, you might want to give them advantage or a DC reduction. Even if the check fails regardless, you can still play it out in the narrative that the particular NPC is not easily swayed by your view, no matter how logical and sensible their arguments might be to the circumstances. Put one extreme left and one extreme right wing supporter in a room and throw in a controversial topic for them to discuss. No matter how many good arguments they might throw at eachother, I doubt anything outside of a natural 20 would make either think twice about what the other says.
I get what you are saying in that an uncouth barbarian isn't going to charm the dress of the princess by being suave. I have a simple rule that if you act against character you will be making a dice roll with disadvantage to discourage bad roleplaying. However if said barbarian walks up to the princess and rips his shirt off and starts flexing his huge muscles trying to sway the princess, and I feel that the princess could be swayed by this, then I allow a roll or if the description was really well done I say it succeeds without a roll. I want players to be creative because if makes the game more fun most of the time.
If they make a good argument you can give them advantage on the toll which mitigates the risk of a bad roll
Same way with intelligence in many ways. I can dump int for anything that doesn't require the actual stat (like wizards and spell casting). Then just play smart. As long as I don't actually have to roll Int then I'm fine. I've never had a GM say anything about this. Same way with people that are naturally charismatic, they dump Cha and as long as a spell ability (like Bards) doesn't require they go around being themselves. Yet nobody would allow someone that was buff and could bench 300 lbs dump Str and then roleplay picking up logs and breaking open doors.
I've said this to people before, I don't mind a bonus being handed out if something is roleplayed well. However penalizing a roll, or not allowing it because the player isn't charismatic while the character is, is bullshit. If you as a GM are going to do that, then bring a deadlift bar and weights over and require your fighter, barbarian, whoever to deadlift some weight and then assign your penalties when they can't, or don't allow the character to do it.
This is a strange interpretation. The way my tables have always run it is that players exactly describe what they want to do, I determine what they roll, and then I (The DM) describe how well they perform said task
I love when a player gives an absurd argument with a high roll. It's fun for me as a DM to roleplay why that NPC believes it.
I also almost always allow a roll, and while I do adjust the DC on occasion due to how it is worded, it's usually only a small amount. So in a way, it's not too different from doing the roll first, it just gives more opportunity for roleplaying and having fun.
"The guard's pretty sure you're lying. But he's also had a long day, was just denied a raise, and is going through some trouble with his wife, who h'es pretty sure is sleeping with his boss. He waves you through with a 'yeah whatever'."
@@Thosecursedeyes This is an excellent point and one I think many people are missing. There can be external variables that have nothing to do with a character that can affect the outcome of a check. Yes, a bard with expertise in persuasion can fail in their lie to a guard. The low roll could represent the guard being especially alert for some reason, ticked off he has to work a double shift, it could be anything. It may not even mean they don't believe the character, they just deny entry to be an ahole. Brilliant exposition by the player who then rolls a 1? Guard slowly focuses on the character and says "Sorry, wasn't listening. Bugger off, I'm busy."
It’s because of this I don’t play charisma based characters even if I have an interest or what I think would be a good character idea. I feel like some stats do get pushed onto the player. /I/ am not a highly intelligent wizard or some wise cleric, so how do you expect me to know all the intriguing details/histories of what’s happened? I feel like asking for players to BE charismatic if they’re playing one of those characters isn’t fair.
You should be able to play an incredible Genius or a charismatic femme fatale no problem - if your DM will only let you... Talk to him about it and how the application of certain mechanics limits your ability to participate.
Not forcing a player to convincingly display lightning-fast intellect or the glibness of a thousand devil's tongues every time something involving INT or CHA is attempted, is an essential first step in this and unless your DM totally disregards you as a person, he should at least understand where you are coming from.
Everything in life has a learning curve. Playing (and running) D&D is no exception.
I always feel bad when I see people think as you do Maddie. Not that it is your fault. You shouldn't feel restricted about what kind of character you want to play because of your own personality. Metallkopf is dead on here. If you want to play a CHA based character but don't want to RP being charming or persuasive then talk to the DM about it and how they can accommodate that. Being able to persuade an NPC shouldn't require you to be able to talk well yourself and as much as you coming up with a persuasive argument shouldn't require your character to have high CHA. If you're DM doesn't want to compromise, then I feel they are a bad DM (my opinion) and you should think about looking for another that is more agreeable with yourself.
If a player wants to be very charismatic and RP that then it is a bonus to them. But if not, then you should be allowed to make a quick description of what you want it to do and leave it to a roll to decide.
@@GoblinUrNuts I'm not as good as my Fighter is at swinging a sword to hit an exposed weak-spot, so do i roll to see if my character can do it? yes
i'm not as good at disarming complicated traps as my thief character is, so do i roll to see if my character can do it? yes
i'm not as good at lying as my charlatan bard who grew up his entire life conning people out of their money, so do i roll to see if my character can successfully con someone? yes
you dont have to know exactly what you do or say as a character, you just have to know what the character is trying to do, for example " I swing my sword at the monsters head" "I attempt to disarm the pressure plate with my thieves tools" or "I attempt to convince the guards that I am a guest at this banquet and that there must be a mistake with the guest list" a general statement of intent is more than good enough, its a GAME after all.
Third person RP is still RP
PieManiac is this an RPG or is it an LARPG? Obviously you don’t need to know how to swing a sword to swing one in the game, however you do say what your character will do correct. It’s not like you say I don’t know how to swing a sword so I want my fighter to swing his sword. Then wait for the DM to fill in the rest. You direct them and put them into the place you want, you dictate what it is they do. Same thing with the traps you don’t just walk into a room and say disarm traps please. You have to go investigate and find the trap In The room before you can do anything about it. So how can you expect to just walk up to a guard and just say “lie to yourself please” and expect the DM to fill in the blanks. I understand that not everyone is an amazing liar, but you have to put in at least some of the work to persuade. The way I personally run it is what the player says is setting the DC for the guard, if the player says something that is big, waaay over the top, or just cannot be true the DC goes up, if the tell a little lie the DC is much lower. As an example one of my players played a game as an alien warlock. And they would say things like “hello fellow humans” “can’t wait to enjoy this human food because i am obviously a human as well.” So the DC for her character to lie was pretty high, not many people believed her character. Or even if they did they thought her character was strange. Which I think is a reasonable expectation because of the outlandish thing coming from your mouth. I understand everyone plays differently but it sounds pretty boring to just say “I would like to swing my sword” wait for DM to fill in the rest. “I would like to go shopping and get these items” wait for DM to tell you about the people you met and how much you spent. “I would like to lie to this guard” wait for the DM to tell what an excellent lie you told to the guard to get you into the city. It sounds incredibly boring and I would feel bad for your DM because they are having to work much harder to fill in the blanks for you. Obviously I am over-exaggerating but I hope you get my point.
I made this comment over a year ago and my stance has shifted in some ways, especially as I have grown as a player and dipped my toes into charisma based characters. I feel like everyone's comment have something important to say but I think what really matters is what play style the group enjoys most. Some people don't care for the RP and just want combat so they skip dialog or only get the important information, now that type of play might not be fun for some people but I believe as long as everyone at the table is having their own version of fun, who are we to judge them.
Anyways, I've grown to love CHA based characters and depending on the people I'm playing with, setting, and system, it can be a lot of fun. Each class has their own difficulties when it comes to playing their main ability score. Again, all of this also relies on whether the DM or group is the type to have players truly play out their ability scores. You as a player might have a smart battle strategy but you have a lower INT score, would it make sense for them to say it? Or would that be considered meta-gaming if you mention it OOC? Personally, I think the reliance on having players stick to their scores is limiting. But again, if that's how your table likes to play things, then more power to you! But don't dismiss other people's play styles just cause you don't agree with it or find it fun :)
I'm not aiming to just resolve the debate with a single observation, but I do note that the reason for most players to treat charisma as their dump stat isn't because it doesn't give enough advantages, but because it can easily be substituted by the charisma of the player - usually without either the player or the DM noticing what happens - in 90% of the cases.
(Also, as an introvert, can't say I really appreciate the condescension)
This is a problem. Introverted players that tend not to role-play "in character" as much as extroverts are likely to be at a disadvantage in games where the DM favours role-playing performance for charisma checks. It doesn't matter if it happens through auto-passing because of smooth talking in character or by making the roll easier. The introvert player will always play uphill if social interaction depends on the players' ability or willingness to role-play as their character.
Same holds for INT checks. It's easy to play stupid if you're reasonably smart, but the other way round is much harder. Being able to roll for INT gives players of average intelligence the possibility to play Genius-level characters that can outsmart NPCs even if they themselves could not.
@@GonzoTehGreat Yes, that is a way to put it, and I agree. Ability checks are supposed (RAW) to all be the same thing, mechanically...
As an introvert and bad with social situations, that would be the best change we could ever make
Role-playing is exercise for becoming better with social situations.
One problem is that I think people are slightly unclear on exactly what Charisma implies. Charisma is not necessarily your ability to make a reasonable argument or come up with a clever deception, or just be good-looking and likable. In its most base form, Charisma describes a character's ability to intuitively make themselves do what they want on a very granular level. To expand on that, Charisma is the character's ability to look at a person, notice subtle details about them, and subtly adapt their own behavior to put across what this character wants the other person to think of them, depending on the situation, without having to think about it too much. So like, imagine that you roll your diplomacy check after saying all the right stuff, but you roll like a 6, he says all that stuff, but for whatever reason he's off his game, and his body language is very off-putting and possibly a little suspect, like he's licking his lips frequently in the middle of talking, scratching under his eye in the middle of the conversation, just stuff like that where they're like, "Yeah, that sounds good, but something seems off about this guy, I don't know if we can trust him." Obviously for deception, that means you're letting slip a lot of tells, whereas successful deception is covering up or consciously suppressing your tells. And with intimidation, it's, again, body language, and subtle things, like, the difference between saying, "I'm gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck," while giving exaggerated pro-wrestler crazy-eyes and flexing like a brute to the point it looks like your shirts about to rip, and just kind of saying it while looking normal and maybe stumbling on it just slightly, to the point it loses all impact.
I think another good thing to point out about Charisma is that it's the key ability score for Sorcerers who draw magic from inside themselves and push it out, and obviously they have to practice it to *really* do it to the extent the player class does, but think about it. I described Charisma as being intuitive control of one's self. Something tells me that would be a useful mental trait when trying to tap into a supernatural force that exists deep in your bloodline that you shouldn't naturally have a built-in reflex for.
Ooh yeah I really like this explanation. I’ve been trying to work through, myself, how I can describe my players failures in combat. This is somewhat related to this as I think about it. Say they miss, it’s either their fault, or the environment’s fault or even more likely the enemy’s fault. I can say they just missed or let go of the string with the arrow off or what have you, or I can say as they shoot the arrow the enemy saw it coming and was able to dodge it luckily or whatever. Either way I’m letting the dice decide, and though I haven’t had an incredible amount of social interactions outside of the party yet (still a new dm), I’d imagine it would make sense to use charisma the same way. If there’s a failure either the player messed up, or the target caught on/avoided their charisma. I can describe it either way and it doesn’t change the rolls. I think it would be good to mix it up as I do now because I don’t necessarily want the players thinking the enemies are always quick or that they’re always missing. Sometimes saying they were dead on but the enemy evaded just in time seems better than you just missed.
@@Bilbobobpie you're entirely correct, IMHO. An attack that fails because of high AC could not really miss, it just doesn't do any damage to the enemy, sliding harmlessly off heavy armor. Nimble foes could duck and weave like a kung-fu fighter (I believe the Monk still gets to stack his WIS modifier to his dex-bonus for AC when unarmored, although this has been debuffed a bit in comparison to earlier editions).
Likewise, a solid hit doesn't necessarily have to draw blood, but may just knock some wind out of the enemy, there is a whole discussion about how people handle actual hit point damage.
There's quite a lot of wiggle-room in describing combat and skill rolls apart from "you connect with your mighty blow" or "your sword narrowly misses by an inch", dependiing on the nature of the foe's AC and personal flavour preferences. :)
I hadn't thought about it that way, but yes. We absolutely are gimping charismatic players by handling it that way, and I will change how I handle it in future. We have all played with people who suffer from social anxiety or significant introversion, and we should absolutely let them be able to play vicariously as well. (this might explain at least some of why there's so much hate for bards - they are just not fun to play if you aren't extroverted enough)
but you don't need to make them fail or succeed based on their roleplay, but you should let them roleplay nonetheless. but if their roleplay don't affect the outcome that much, it may actually make them more comfortable to try, it may even help people with social anxiety. what is important is that if you are GMing a fun game and not a fair one, you should know your player and know what kind of lenience you should give them.
also there are situations that roleplaying do matter. if the player ask something absurd then the DC should be very high or impossible. but if he first asks to do something that needs a charisma roll and succeeds the DC, then he can roleplay it the way he wants, even asking/saying absurd things that would require a much higher DC.
Solid criticism! I've never really given this much thought but I never expected my players to be charismatic. Most game masters I've ran with though totally do this.
Player: I use strength to break the door and I got a 27
GM: Okay describe how you break down the door
Player: I'm not a professional door breaker, stop making these unrealistic demands of me!
Lol
GM:... sorry I thought you'd want to, ya know roleplay your character... Alright guys so Bobby kicks the door down
Player: MY CHARACTER WOULDN'T KICK IT HE WOULD SHOULDER CHARGE WITH BETTER POSTURE
The lie to say that y’all are bodyguards vs the lie to say you’re all merchants should have different DCs.
I mean, is it really backwards? The Charisma check isn't to see if you *can* be deceptive or persuasive or intimidating, it is to reflect *how* deceptive or persuasive or intimidating the NPC sees you. You're ultimately seeing how strong the words are to their perception, not if you're going to fumble your words. You can say the same exact line to persuade two different guards in two separate cities, your Persuasion check is to see how well it influences the guard and how they are receptive to your Charisma. It's the same as you exemplified, pushing a stone means you roll Athletics to see how effective you are at pushing it, or rolling History for how effective you are at recalling lore about dragons. It seems that people are too focused on Charisma checks being "I'm rolling to see if I jumble my words" and less on "I'm rolling to see if the baron really believes I'm his long lost cousin."
So in a way, rolls are helping to determine the game world itself. You're making a roll to see: is this baron the sort of person who can be duped?
@@DougVehovec I mean,when you roll you are playing with luck. The odds may be in your favour but if the guard is smartass or doesn't thrust anyone you are not gonna convince him
If that were true then shouldnt it be the gaurd making a charisma save?
but its just how he said earlier in the video the big problem is that many/most dms dont even consider the characters charisma stat until after everything is said and done; in other words if your bad at conversations fucks you how dare you try to play a charismatic character
@@thunderborn3231 I don't know if I'm understanding something wrong here, but I don't let any one make a roll if it seems impossible, and I feel that knowing what your character is saying (even if the player is shy) should affect the DC. I feel that you should assign difficulty depending on what you are trying. For example: a character tries to break a wall and rolled a 17 and has a +5. If breaking the wall was really hard, it might be a difficulty 25 of even 30. You wouldn't say he found a weaker spot just because he rolled high. The same should apply to charisma
I feel like it's done this way so the DM can set the DC based on what was said, because Chr checks seem to be the ones least prepared for, so hearing what is being said to deceive/Persuade/Intimidate first would help determine how easy it is to succeed
I agree, I always set DC and give out advantage and disadvantage based on the roleplay.
That's a good point. Giving the player choice in some situations gives the player back autonomy while the DM handles the DC of the choice.
The problem here is that we don't, for example, set the DC for a roll based on the fact that the player works out at the local gym, or is really good at juggling, or aced their last test.
The player and the character are different entities, and just because the player succeeded at being charismatic doesn't necessarily mean the character should.
@@MegiDolaDyne Well with this, players are unlikely to go to the gym in most 5e settings, but if they are training, most games I've played, and in the one I DM, if you want to learn something in free time via training, you do need to roll to see how successful you are, with Juggling I will make them make a dex check (or performance if they want) just because the event in which they fail could be funny, and if they succeed really well, it could impress some passersbys for example and they could throw some coins there way. With a test, those are closer to puzzles, and players are usually the cap for that no matter how good they are at roleplaying.
@@MegiDolaDyne, yes. If I could up-vote this more than once, I would. This is a fantasy. The player and character are two separate entities. The fact that I as a player cannot bust down a heavy door should in no way affect whether my character could do it. The same with charisma checks. A player with a high charisma should not be able to pass a charisma check any better than a player with a low charisma. It's the characters' charisma that should matter.
That being said, I still find the roleplay fun, and should be done (as long as it's enjoyable), but it shouldn't affect the result.
I would say the line should effect the difficulty of the roll
A good lie with a health dollop of BS should make the charisma check easier
Indifferent effort should make 0 effect
Bad lying or table stupidity should increase difficulty
I've seen it where some DMs rarely call for dice roles in all cases. If a DM knows the characters being played there are a lot of things which should just be roleplayed without the check. What's the point of a strength check to move a log for a character which is crazy strong? Or rope check for a character who is super skilled with rope skills? It's kind of like just taking 20 with many skill checks so the focus is on the story and not on 15 million dice rolls.
Of course, there are times when a check should still be called for as the possibility of rolling something that shifts the outcome adds to the story [especially when it's a crit success or crit fail]. When to call for a check and when to just move the story along is a good DM skill.
DMs who are inconsistent with what and when they call for a check, or who demand a check for every little action are super frustrating to players.
My DM sometimes lets me skip stealth checks... But it is mainly because he knows it is literally impossible for me to fail them in many cases thanks to reliable talent.
First, I definitely agree with the general premise, and, as a player, I've been frustrated when a DM expects me to be as smart, wise, or charismatic as my character. (Why can't I just make an intelligence roll to solve the puzzle? I mean, I get that you spent time coming up with the puzzle, but not being able to solve the puzzle undermines a core ability of my character)
On the other hand, it isn't so different from other checks. If a player is making an attempt to hide, the DM might as how they're going to try to hide (blend in with a crowd? Crouch behind a barrel? Try to melt into a shadowy corner?), and the DM might adjust the difficulty of the roll, or even make it an automatic success or fail.
And even with something like an attack action, the player needs to specify how they're attacking, and with what. Asking the player for specifics about the lie/argument/flattery that they're attempting is essentially asking for the tactical expression of attempt.
With a puzzle, an INT-roll could prompt clues or hints from the DM. Or a bad INT-roll just increases the time spent on solving the puzzle if you, as a player, just intellectually ripped it apart.
If DMs expect players to role-play mental skills and especially Charisma and reward a glib tongue by giving a bonus to the roll or reducing target DC they should also do it for attacks if people lavishly describe their fencing...
Strangely enough, I know of no DM that has ever reduced the AC of a foe because a player came up with an especially good description of attack moves and how he counters the enemy's defense.
@@metallkopf988
Well, in 3e, catching your target flat-footed would deny them their dex bonus to AC, which is essentially the same thing. I've also had games where a target might have a weak spot that has a lower AC, if players are savvy enough to choose it as a target.
Although 5e has moved away from too many bonuses and penalties to giving advantage/disadvantage. Still, in 5e, what the player attacks with needs to be considered when regarding foe immunity and resistances. And if you think of "what lie do you tell the guard" as being equivalent with "what weapon do you attack the guard with", it makes a little more sense.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 But surprise & being caught flat-footed had clearly defined game mechanics and requirements and didn't depend on the "quality" of one's role-playing performance, didn't they?
Not "essentially the same thing". Not even remotely.
@@metallkopf988
What is wrong with you? This isn't about the quality of role playing. I don't know why you insist on saying that.
When a players says, "I want to persuade the bouncer to let me into the VIP area", and the DM asks, "how do you try to persuade the bouncer?" The player can might say "I compliment him on his hat" (which the DM may decide the bouncer is particularly proud of, so he's receptive to it) Or maybe the player uses his association with an order of paladins, which the player knows many people respect (but the DM knows that the bouncer doesn't like goody-two-shoes, so that hurts the attempt). These are tactical decisions, not role playing. And it makes sense to adjust the DC in these cases just because the player doesn't necessarily have the information to know how effective these social paths are.
Unless you demonstrate an understanding of what I'm saying, I'm no longer going to respond to you.
@@ogrejehosephatt37 I could ask the same question, because I happen to fully agree with the relevant main part of your original comment above. Apparently that got lost in the kerfuffle. Probably my fault, for not sufficiently expressing myself. Sorry if that is the case.
It shouldn't matter how intelligent, well-worded or wise the _player_ is when the _character_ has a stat that does clearly indicate that he/she/whatever is.
That's precisely my point. A DM asking for more specific stuff _before_ a check gets made and who then adjusts the difficulty of the check according to the skill or quality of that role-playing contribution. Which means that people who just say "I try to swindle my way past the guards" and roll may get a tougher check than those who are able to come up with a story that the DM finds especially convincing. And if the DM isn't convinced at all, the check may get tougher, or not allowed at all.
I agree with you that that is not really a fair way to treat character stats. Yeah, I know most people like to have at least some amount of in-character experience that probably also includes social interaction, but forcing a player to be able to do what his character clearly usually can achieve because of his high charisma is simply bogus.
Someone in a different comment argued along the lines of "Well, maybe socially inept players shouldn't play high charisma characters then if they're not going to have fun role-playing!" - which I personally consider to be an elitist bullshit position. Now I've not accused _you_ of maintaining that position, so there's really no need to get your panties all up in a knot here.
I'm kind of a "roll first, then ask: 'How do you want to do this?'"-DM. And I think that Charisma is no different than Strength or Dexterity in this regard and should not be treated differently. That way, players who happen to feel uncomfortable acting out social engagements may still achieve success running a socially competent character, even if they themselves lack social panache.
After all, my job as a DM is to ensure that _everyone_ at the table has fun. Not only the people who happen to enjoy social conversation and are good at it.
So that's essentially what's "wrong" with me, I guess. But frankly, I'm gladly "wrong", if the alternative means excluding or penalizing players based on their aptitude for social skills. Which I don't think _you_ want to do, but which in my opinion is inherent in taking Charisma checks "backwards"!
I'm DMing for a party right now that has an Elf Swashbuckler with a Charisma score of 18, expertise in Persuasion and Deception, pretty much a lovechild between Jack Sparrow and Legolas.
The PC for this elf was pretty shy when we started playing. Now, only about 10 sessions later, she's blossomed into a confident roleplayer and really loves being clever and charismatic in the game.
I think that the standard 5e style for Charisma checks is perfectly fine, in fact, I enjoy it and I actually do it for other checks, like Intelligence. I want to see the gears in my PCs' minds whir as they try to figure out a dastardly trap, or as they search a clearing for goblin tracks.
Overall, I like the 5e system for Charisma checks.
Player: "Good sir. We are not a threat. We are thespians travelling town to town entertaining locals with our theater of war."
DM : "Roll a charisma check."
Player: "I rolled a 5, modifier -1, so a 4."
DM: " You prepare your explanation and when ready with an elegant explanation of being thespians you spit out:
"We thesilions! Ignore our props of killing. We just come to have a war."
IMO: Charisma checks are done if the best parts of RPG. It creates a distinction in the psychology of a character of how they think of themselves and how the world sees them.
If this happened to me as a player I'd be pissed.
Not because I failed the check, but because the DM took control of my character's personality. If I want a character that thinks they are elegant but in reality they are always completely misunderstood then I want to be the one to RP that. After that interaction, that character is no longer my own :-(
@@Kyle-ly6bt Do you feel the same when you try to hit something in combat? Would you be less pissed if after failing the roll you got to roleplay how you actually conveyed your message?
@@JustinRock For combat I don't. If I hit or miss that's entirely up to the dice which I am fine with. Bad rolls are bad rolls and they happen.
As for being able to RP a failure myself, definitely. I'm happy for the DM to prompt something but I'd like to RP myself how I failed. I'd find that way more fun and I think anyone who embrace failures/flaws in their characters would too. That is just me though, I quite enjoy the RP side of DnD and I can see people who don't RP a lot not really caring too much.
I absolutely agree. I love RPing failures. I've played with quite a few who don't and just want to play the victories. My frustration is when players use their charisma and not their characters while min/maxing their characters and use it as their dump stat. I love charisma checks and players RP their failures as well as their successes. If a player struggles that's when the GM should step in, IMO.
I agree though, the GM did take over in my example. The player did get upset in that situation. The players all lived it because the player wasn't playing their low charisma character.
@@JustinRock if your problem is with players, then speak to the players directly. If you're the dm, you should never take control of a character in the way you described in your example. Player control characters are controlled by the player. If they do something in game that warrants consequences, the consequences should be handed down. But the entire concept of the game is that the players control their characters, and the dm controls everything else. Tell me, what's the point in this person playing if they're allowed to play their character.
This is one of the main reasons I tend to use Charisma as a dump stat.... As an introverted and socially awkward player, my arguments and "convincing" ideas rarely mesh up with what a DM might consider reasonable... I've been breaking out of the shell more recently in attempting to play more charismatic characters but I do feel very under powered when my 20 charisma bard fails a negotiation check because I as a player can't develop a convincing reason as to why my party should be paid just a little bit extra for the magical loot we attempt to sell. Very frustrating at times when I want to be more suave and have fun with the role-playing.... only to come up short due to my own psychological quirks. Bleh.
@@TheRodentMastermind not necessarily...he could still be likeable & erudite but the reason his CHA's so low is they're hideous which is the aspect of that stat that most look at. "Oh, low CHA? You must be ugly"
CHA is supposed to apply fairly equally between personality & appearance as they both affect how charismatic you are as a character
At the risk of sounding like I'm telling you how to play your character, I would recommend having him/her be the sort to take Refuge in Audacity--- your character tells the truth, no matter how absurd, usually very blunt and matter-of-factly. NPCs are normally charmed or amused by your deadpan directness that things just tend to go as desired (provided the dice agree, of course).
Just because your character is oozing with charm, doesn't mean they (or by extension, you) HAVE to embody the silver-tongued snake oil salesman cliche.
@@jjbb84x yeah, charisma is just being likeable. All the looney toons are charismatic but only bugs bunny is the "silver tongue master of disguise" guy
@@cractor6307 Exactly ;)
This makes me think about the possibility of running other things backwards. Maybe give an option to do some pushups to improve strength chances, try and balance something for agility or solve a riddle for perception.
Hahaha!
Of course the key word here is "optional". I think it could add to the immersion and investment, especially among closer friends but I see how valuable the numbers and sheets are to some and playing just straight that way shouldn't be penalized.
how about martial knowledge to increase chances at hitting in combat?
Agreed!!! I was thinking the same thing man, because it could be greatly described and encourages the Role Playing thematics of the game. Maybe that’s what 5th edition is more about than the other ones, ya know?
I like it!... Turn the game about your party into a party game by making people juggle... Lol
I'm currently playing a rogue mastermind with a pretty good charisma. Around my table are other players who have a lot of charisma of their own, and their characters do too. I make no bones about the fact that they can think faster than me in the social interactions than I can, but I try, and if either myself or one of the other folks make a great social play, the DM may make us do the roll, but will also leave it up to the role play. If I'm having a hard time coming up in the RP side of things, I can fall back to the roll play, and see how it turns out.
I see both sides of this argument, and try to rely on my own wits, but like having the option of relying on my dice if I need to. Just my 2 cents.
I had a game where I was playing a high charisma warlock and another player was a bard. The other play was just naturally much more socialy skilled than me. The dm had a rule of role play only on charisma, and I was left feeling useless and inept even though my character was supposed to be more charismatic than even the bard because of my own shortcomings. That number ended up being as useful as constitution out side of combat and I wound up having very little fun.
Charisma checks are treated opposite, imho, because they work more like a check on WHO we’re trying to convince. Sort of like we imprint our charisma stat onto the target and have them check what we did. Anyone, for any reason, could say something slick, but that in no way may be convincing to the listener. RP wise you could say something amazing, but dice roll low, and that doesn’t have to be incongruent with what occurs, it could just mean that the guard, let’s say, thinks: “ look at this wise-guy” and deny you. The DM could now run with it and write down that the guard hates people that talk too much, and prefers no-nonsense persuasion. Let’s say the slick persuasion has a DC 15, but a no-nonsense persuasion would have a DC 8.
Maybe too extreme a range, and maybe frustrate the bard, but could be fun
GREAT video. awesome analysis. Really making me rethink how I will run my table. Perhaps playing it both ways. Reward player cleverness with easier DC's, and don't punish players who can't come up with an "impressive" lie/story by setting a reasonable DC regardless of their lie.
Would LOVE to see a video on illusions because they have the SAME issue. A GREAT illusion could & should radically affect enemies, but thinking up something clever can be so difficult. I would LOVE to play a great illusionist who practically warps reality with his amazing illusions, but most DM's just won't work that way. Just like a 20 charisma character who is still hamstrung by my feeble real-world mind.
That is actually the way I run my tables. Because asking for the rolling prior to the interaction can break the pace of the roleplay especially if conversation was already had. I ultimately make the DC easier depending on the way they present their discussion. Like trying to get into town and being stopped by guards "We are refugees that simply found this gear on our way here." DC 15 perhaps while "We are nobles of the town that left the city limits to investigate so happenings." DC 25. Ultimately it always comes down to circumstance and what not, but the more outlandish the lie/persuasion the higher the DC.
As a DM to Starfinder I encourage our group to act it out. If I am having a good laugh or having fun I like to throw out a low DC check. I only make harder DC checks if it is getting out of hand or extremely outlandish but my group is good and are fun ti play with.
@@derekadams961 The difference between DC 15 and 25 is pretty stark, is that the typical difference between what you consider a good social role play and a poor one? +10 in DC can be half a dozen player levels difference in difficulty (depending on edition)
What you need to remember, is that it is a game, and therefore you should have fun. But you also need to be fair, so every player should be leveled to the same standard.
I've seen not that "charismatic" or "wise" players try and fail to play what they want because it's too different from them, and it's a real struggle that can lead to frustration and finally acting the character completely differently. And I find that stupid, as a person who's struggled a lot with these stuff as I'm quite introvert but been doing some work to try and express myself better. But one problem I have is that I'm slow. I need to plan things in advance and can't come up with quick solutions on the spot. The first things that come to my mind are usually stupid and/or contradictory and silly.
Having that point of view, my way of doing it as a GM is like this:
- I talk to my players, they tell me what they want to do and do whatever is at my disposition to help them achieve the idea of that character.
- All of those checks are rolled, I don't ask for people to come with quick, wise, or charismatic responses, only that they want to do it. IF they roleplay it, and it enhances the atmosphere, the fun that they have is all the reward they need. If they come with a fantastic solution, they might have an advantage, as it's heavily contributing with the roleplaying. But if they can't, I don't penalize them, since now I'm judging the player, not the character. So, putting effort into making the game cooler is a plus, but never a hinderance.
- If they are new or their character is about to do something because the player is kinda reckless, I as a DM have the obligation to warn him "Watch out, that's not something your character might do in this situation. Are you sure about it?" If after a moment to think about it they decide to do it anyway, then it's their decission, but I was involved in tryint to make the character what they want without interfering too much.
- If I see them struggling with it, I'll help them. If they put the effort, I'll make sure that they'll get more chances to try and encourage them in the right path. If they don't, then I might suggest that they change their character, since they're clearly not enjoying it despite all our efforts.
In short, roleplaying charisma and intelligence checks should be completely optional and be done for the fun of the table, not to prove anything. Those who do should do it for the fun and adding interesting ideas to the table, not as a requirement of success. You as a DM should closely follow those players who might need your help, veteran or newbies. You're responsible for your table's entretainment and the well being of your players during the sessions, to make sure they're having the best experience possible.
Absolutely. All of this.
I think that all other ability checks would be backwards too, if they weren’t simple..
Let’s say the player wants to move a bolder. The DM asks for a strength check and, well, you know the rest.
But if there were multiple ways to move the bolder. Like the player asked to move it with, lets say, his nose. Then the DM most likely wouldn’t let him throw a strength check after he heard what the player wants to do.
So if there were multiple ways to do something, and the obvious way wasn’t the way of the player, then the procedure would be also backwards.
And that’s why I think the charisma rolls are backwards. Because there’s no standard or obvious way to do something that needs charisma. There are thousand lies you could tell to deceive someone, but everyone expects only one way of moving a bolder (or doesn’t really care how you do it).
So my opinion is, backwards is the right way, but is usually not needed for the simple stuff, and rightfully so.
So, if you were to to do something unconventional, you would do it backwards, and because charisma checks usually don’t have conventional ways, they are always backwards?
Seems legit actually.
Manolito Duck well, maybe not always. But I think you get the point.
dwil0311 Exactly! You actually explained it better than me :p ... so, every ability check has a ‘’how?’’ in it. But in some cases the ‘’how?’’ is left out because it’s obvious or doesn’t matter. But in charisma checks, the how does matter because it’s important for the roleplaying. The things you say and how you say them create the soul and personality of your PC.
@@dwil0311 Yep say you do give a very convincing argument but you roll poorly causing you to fail. That can be described as you did give this argument but you kept stuttering through it while looking around nervously. Just like they could say they want to use a log as a lever to move the boulder which would drop the dc and fails the roll and it can be said that well they got the lever all set up but in the process of moving the boulder the log broke as it was rotten on the inside.
For most checks I call for I first ask how they do it like “I will shimmy across that ledge but I use the rope for balance” ok make a DEX check with advantage “13” you shimmy across half but your hand slips now make another check to see if you fall
"Why do we, the dungeon masters, wait to see how convincing a lie the player's come up with before we determine if they can even make a role with a possible chance to succeed?"
For the same reason we tell players "no" when they ask for the Athletics DC to rip open a hole in reality with their bare hands, to a player attempting to hide in plain sight by holding up a treebranch, and to a player trying to start a regular (non-magical, non-alchemical) fire while actively underwater. The situation that leads to the roll should first consider whether or not an action is actually possible; any time the d20 leaves a player's hand, even with advantage, it is an acknowledgement that there is the real possibility of a successful outcome.
For instance, I'm not going to call for athletics when a player attempts to put a nail into a wooden board using a hammer, or even to set pitons down for the purpose of climbing. They have the tools for a basic function, and I would hope that a group of adventurers would be at least competent enough to do so without specializing/showing proficiency in the specific skill *just* to drive a nail.
Now, if they want to punch a nail into stone without a hammer, they really need to convince me. Are they a monk who specializes in using their fists as though they were as strong and fast as steel weapons? Yeah, sure, I'll give them a chance. Are they a barbarian who thinks a warhammer (or even a steel club) can get the job done? Go for it. Are they a rogue who is convinced that they can somehow drive the nail without any tools at all? Sorry, but... no. You can't do that. I don't care how strong your character is; impossible is impossible.
tl;dr They should roleplay or otherwise explain *how* they are attempting to do something, before rolling to determine the outcome, potentially gaining advantage or disadvantage depending on the roll. However, it should also be remembered that the moment a d20 is in play, it is no longer impossible to do something, nor is it impossible to fail. If you want (or don't want) something to work, then... maybe just keep the dice out of it for that moment.
I get where you're coming from with that, and for the most part I agree with you. Sometimes I'll bend this a little bit, not to see if they succeed, but to see what the outcome of their attempt it, if it is something where something beneficial may happen, even if the pie in the sky outcome is impossible. In particular for History or Religion checks on lost knowledge. Whether or not they will get the full story is moot; they will not. But a good enough roll might get them *something*.
Or if I'm feeling mischievous I might make them roll, not to see if they succeed on a physical activity, but to see if their attempt is bad enough that something bad/funny happens (like triggering traps or falling down a well, etc).
That's a big thing at my table. Searching a room, I will ask if they are looking for specifics. Grant a small bonus (+2 or the like) if it falls in that wheelhouse. But it won't negatively impact the roll if there's something else to be found. "No, you did not find a secret door or safe, however, you do locate a ledger, outlining some recent activities."
Same with charisma rolls. I don't need specifics. How do you bluff past the bouncer? "I just want to convince him we're not dangerous." That is a fairly believable thing to say. "We're with the band" is not. "I want him to think we're high rollers." I can work with all that. Sure, flash him a $20 wrapped around a wad of $1s. You can be clever to me, or just give me an avenue to empower the cleverness of your character. Either way, a player lives vicariously through that roll.
Will you accept "I make my bluff by... Using knowledge I gained from a lifetime of living a bardic school"?
I am not charismatic. I am not a fast talker. I guess I'm just not allowed to play one in your campaign?
Can't take a knowledge I don't have IRL.
And boy, I sure don't know how to rewrite reality with magic.
@@calemr The second half of your reply was never said (and I don't believe even implied) by my comment. Someone doesn't themselves have to be anything to play a role.
I'll use each of your examples as a breakdown:
"I make my bluff by... Using knowledge I gained from a lifetime of living a bardic school"? -
The problem with this is that it doesn't at all show what you want to happen in this circumstance. It explains why you already have (presumably) a decently high Bluff and perhaps your class itself. It doesn't tell me what you want the target of the bluff to do as a result of your bluff. A better wording would be, "I want to convince this guard that he's needed in another part of the jail." Simple, short, and to the point.
"Can't take a knowledge I don't have IRL."
Shit, I wish I knew how to do half the things my characters do. But that being said, in order for knowledge to be used in game (other than the basic "roll for knowledge"), it tends to be phrased as a question.
"Hey, GM, I have knowledge religion. Do I recognize any of the symbols painted on the walls?"
"Hey, GM, I have knowledge of alchemy. Do I recognize the plants he's putting in the tea?"
"Hey, GM, that looks arcane to me. Do I know what is going on?"
You, as a player, don't have to know this stuff. In fact, a lot of it is unknowable, and simply fantasy. But you as a player have to be able to clearly state (at bare minimum) the intent of your characters actions; that is literally the entirety of your job as a player.
@@calemr I'm not asking for you to be charismatic. I'm asking you the direction you're taking the tale. The avenue of deception. Again, it's looking for some form of hook. Tell me where you're taking the action. At least in some form. I ask you... What would your lie have him believe?
I 100% handle in the second way. If you want to role play it out great. But, I will need you to make a check to let me know how well it was received by the NPC. Otherwise I think it is very unfair to shy players or players with poor social skills.
James Embry D&D would be a great way for them to have a chance to develop their social skills in my opinion to require them to play it out.
@@evannibbe9375 If you make a barbarian do pushups on every strength check, it is a good chance to develop physical fitness. If he likes this idea - great. If he doesn't, who are you to decide it for him?
@@madcake5638 That's a really bad analogy and who said anything about forcing them
@@izaco1016 The part where he literally says "require them to play it out"
I always have players describe their charismatic action before the roll and then based on the roll I determine its effect. That way when a player says a really absurd lie it builds up suspense and then when they still succeed everyone gets a huge laugh out of it. If they fail though I normally describe something the npc notices that gives the player away.
Honestly, I've never had that happen. Even my most shy player will say something like "it wasn't me." Or other generic lies. I probably would fill in for them though if they decided they wanted to lie but didn't have one in mind. I find it best to treat players based on the way they act. Similar to how some players use their character's voice whilst others just say what their character is going to say.
I think we should do both, if a player knows what to say or wants to try something than roll after - but set a culture to give the player the option of rolling first if their character would be able to do something, but as a player they don’t know how to approach it
The thing to remember in this debate is that you are not your character.
If your character has low charisma, accept that. No matter what *you* as a player might be able to say, your character would likely act differently.
To compare it to another skill - intelligence... I am a fairly intelligent guy (not hugely, but intelligent enough to get by). But my maths sucks. If I play an intelligence 18 high elf, I would get stumped by a maths puzzle that my character would think is a distraction for children. In the same way, my charisma 8 half orc is going to be less successful at flirting with a barmaid for information than I am.
Making the role *before* my half-orc tries to chat up the barmaid will give me roleplaying cues to work with.
Of course, this works in conjunction with the DM. A good DM will know when to require a roll. Not every door has to be strength checked before being kicked in, and not every barmaid needs a charisma check before putting out.
But you are. Thats the point Role-playing. You play the role of your character. The Intelligence stat is also an interesting example, if the game contains a riddle how do you handle it? Role Play it out with the chance that the 18 Int Elf does not have any idea while the 8 int barabrian solves it? Or just have everyone roll intelligence effectively skipping the puzzle itself. And what about less obvious situations, what if a low int character has a great idea, or what if a high Int Characters player never thinks out of the box? Those stats which affect the (Role)player more then the character are really a double edged sword, but handling them like any other is not the right solution because it would really make the game much more boring.
You might be the one playing the role, but you really are not the character. Any more than James McAvoy is actually Professor Charles Xavier.
This goes back to what I said about a good DM knowing when to ask for a roll. If it is vital that the player or party succeeds, either don't ask for a roll, or do not rule that a roll results in failure.
D&D is a team-based co-operative game, where even the DM is part of the team.
I’m intentionally escalating this to 10 right now: this was the Most pivotal dnd vid i’ve watched. This truly intriguing Q is making me rethink my DM style in a new perspective, in a great way. I think either approach (description of actions then roll/ roll then description of actions) is legit, just be consistent! Love this vid!
Two points:
The DM controls the DC of all these rolls. E.i.: some rolls might not be nessicary because your "passive charisma" or something is high enough. Where other rolls can be made at DC:40 or higher, possible? Yes but only under the most extreme of circumstances.
Also, the players should try to use the their clever tactics beyond charisma, why say I'm going to lift this log up the hill, when I can have a rig system put up and THEN use my strength to do that. It drastically changes the roll. Use your ingenuity to see alternative actions to simply throwing your stats at it. As a DM I always reward the player who think outside, and find new ways to use old tools.
From my experience, the DM asks what I say and depending how believable it is, the DC will be higher or lower.
I super freak out when Im asked to lie or persuade someone in roleplay. It feels like it doesn't matter what I say sometimes because the dice will decide. It should kind of depend on the player for a DM, I think. Ask players if theyd like to roleplay it first or just roll and explain after.
as a DM I make my players make their case first so I can adjust the difficulty of the roll according to how reasonable the argument was
@@uaenruotel That again allows the player to bypass the character.
It does matter what you say. Persuasion checks are not mind control. And based on the lie or persuasion used the dm will determines the DC. (The more believable the lower the dc)
You can’t persuade someone to do something that is against their core values not even on a natural 20.
TheRodentMastermind I’d say yeah you can make your case but I the circumstances of infiltration deception checks, the slightest thing could give your character away. Regardless of how suave you think you are just because you think your good at talking
I played with a very backwards and quiet teen once. Our party of five, mostly mid 20s and 30s guys were largely less socially awkward than he was, but none of the rest of us were playing charisma characters. The teen though was playing the groups bard. He almost never handled any negotiation with NPCs, never haggled for better prices, never got us out of tight spots with persuasion. Why? Because every time he tried to role play what he would say the few times he did (I can only think of three times he even tried) he made the situation much worse and the DM didn't allow him to even make a roll since what he said was so awkward or very unconvincing. Meanwhile the rest of us would try actively make reasonable arguments with NPCs, and would then get typically allowed rolls or wouldn't have to make them, but if we did would usually fail because none of the rest of us even had proficiency in persuasion and left charisma a dump stat.
I do feel like this is sort of unfair generally compared to the other checks, although I'm sure it varies by DM. If you always abstract conversation I could also see it detracting from the game, but maybe the other players or the DM could help with details after the roll succeeds. If you have someone who wants to play a charisma character and they are backward, I do think DMs should be mindful of trying to help that player out with checks and possibly narration.
I have a very very socially awkward tiefling wizard. As an already socially inept person, this makes for some very... Interesting interactions..
Snap! Socially awkward tiefling wizard here too!!
Whoo!
Even though I'm an amature player, I've experienced both versions of both sides. Not only Charisma RP being done before and/or after the check, but also situations where the player will describe the specific action they want to perform (for example, a spinning leap over an ally to hit the enemy on the other side of them) and then a check is called for. I think its entire situational and can even be hybridized: The player gives some specifics of what they want to do then based on the roll gives extra flair to the description
I like having my players make their case before they roll because I like seeing their ideal solutions and stuff, but also like a lot of people say I can slightly adjust the roll based on their argument. And, even if their argument at the table is sound but they roll a 1, I'll just be like
"You're saying some of the right things, and it makes sense to your party members who understand some of your speech idiosyncrasies and jumbled words, but the [NPC] doesn't know you personally and isn't following your thought process" or the classic "[NPC] is incredibly stubborn and doesn't care about your strong argument"
Idk, I feel like there's always a way to explain why good RP can be undone by a bad roll.
But then you don't let your players play their characters. Isn't that the point of Role-Play? You do not need to be speech impaired in order to be unconvincing.
@@franzferdinand2389 I'm not saying they're speech impaired, just that even the smoothest talker can misspeak if the situation is bad enough (i.e. only a nat 1 crit fail situation). I still let them say what they want and roleplay the situation, but if the dice really don't line up with their plan, that's what I do. It works for them and it works for me.
Heavily armed mercenaries?
Oh, you mean murder hobos!😹
Probably, but the COULD be an actually mercenary company with a base of operations and don't kill unless they need to. I've played in games similar to that where killing is kept to a minimum, but we're still all heavily armed.
I think the Charisma check should happen after the roll play, because how you have the conversation should determine the DC. It would be a lot easier to convince a merchant who is passing through town, than trying to convince a guard, that you are prince from another land.
That's the point if a person is not great at making up a believable deception on the spot it should not affect their characters ability to deliver that message in the confines of the game.
I think that the way that every skill check should be (whether charisma or not) is that the method you specify before the roll affects the DC of the check. The specifics of what you decide to investigate should affect an Investigation/Perception roll (if you’re prioritizing a specific thing you’re looking for, then that will affect how likely you are to find what you want), and the lie that you tell should affect how believable it is (so if it’s a more obvious lie, you need to roll higher, for example). This is just my personal opinion on the topic.
I have not yet had the opportunity to try this, but I feel like the way I would solve this as a player is to roll my charisma checks first, regardless of whether the DM has asked for it yet, then use that number to decide what I'm going to say. That way, if the DM asks for the roll, I can give them the number and they can decide if it works, and if they don't then it doesn't matter. I'll admit that it probably does have flaws, but one big advantage is that it'd give me more time to think of what to say and have it be interesting or funny without breaking the flow, even if the roll isn't good. I would, however, at least check with the DM that it's okay to do it this way.
That allows for a lot of roleplay...you roll low, flub your smooth talk but still pass the check? They could've just laughed it off as you being nervous/awkward without necessarily saying you're lying to me so off to jail with you. I like it, even then though, it still places a lot of strain on someone to be charismatic IRL because they're playing a high CHA character. I think, if you insert enough details into your idea to show me you've been paying attention, roleplay isn't necessary. If you want to you're welcome to, but not forced into it
You will probably have a lot of trouble convincing a DM that secret rolls you made without them knowing/asking for it are valid. For people who take all this (too?) seriously, thats effectively "cheating", because you can just choose not to act at all if you have a bad roll, or just keep secretly rolling until you have a number you like. Not saying that is what you *would* do, but it's why we all try to keep pur rolls well and truly out on the open.
The sequence you describe for rolling a log down a hill is exactly the same as the sequence you describe for lying to a guard.
1. The player tells the DM what they want their character to do (convince the guard that the party is not dangerous) and how (by telling him they are traveling merchants)
2. The DM determines if an ability check needs to be made to be successful, and calls for a roll if necessary - Either there is no possibility the guard believes the lie (no check necessary) the guard doesn’t believe that the party is dangerous despite obviously being a group of heavily armed mercenaries (no check necessary), or the guard may or may not believe the lie, depending on how convincing they find the lie (Deception check).
3. The player rolls their check (If necessary), and the DM, and sometimes the player, describe what happens next - roleplaying the Guard’s reaction.
If the procedure looks backwards to you in one scenario, it is because you are conflating steps 2 and 3. If you are concerned that the player needs to be a good liar in the lying to the guard scenario but doesn’t need to be strong in the rolling the log down the hill scenario, it is because you are neglecting to consider the player’s goal and character’s approach when determining whether a roll is needed to be successful in one or both scenarios.
The player does not need to tell a convincing lie in the lying to the guard scenario, they only need a valid goal and approach. This can be determined through roleplaying in 1st person, or by describing in 3rd person that they want to convince the guard they aren’t dangerous by lying and telling him they’re merchants. Likewise, the player attempting to roll the log down the hill still needs a valid goal and approach. Usually, this is done by describing what they want to do (get the log to the bottom of the hill) and how (by pushing on it), but there’s no reason the player couldn’t act this action out, say by pantomiming it, if they wanted to. In either case, the player doesn’t need to be strong.
Yep the words used to convince the guard would set the dc just like saying you want to push the log would have say a dc of 15 but if they said they were going to use a level to move the log it would change it to say 12.
TheGreatDrake
Exactly. Although I would say it’s not even so much about the words they use, as it is about their approach. For example, I’m not going to give the player a higher DC simply because they were nervous and stammered when they described pushing the log, nor a lower DC simply because they gave a detailed description of pushing the log. Similarly, I’m not going to set the DC of a Deception check based on the specific wording the player uses, but rather based on how they’re trying to deceive. “I tell him we’re merchants” is sufficient, just as “I push the log” is sufficient. A lower DC would be earned not by smoother talking, but by a different approach, such as “I slip him 20 gold” or “I tell him we were traveling with a merchant caravan as protection, but became separated from them.” Not by a better description of pushing the log, but by declaring the use of a lever.
This is exactly how I do it. It just feels natural to treat most checks this way. I even do it for combat. The player has a bow and arrow, he could say where specifically he is aiming. If the check is high enough above the AC I give the enemy a small debuff. Shoot a goblin in the leg, hit it and he might move a bit less in his turn. I really want to reward clever play beyond: 'I hit the enemy.' 'You hit, deal damage'
It's the same for all other checks. Award clever play, even if the charismatic elf says it in a roundabout way.
^ All of this.^ I don't know why you don't have more likes, I guess people just take the talking head's voice as gospel.
This is what I was thinking. I've heard DM's in response to a nat 1 say along the lines of, "well, that's what you intended to say, but all the guard heard was akin to baby noises, as your companions pulled you away, apologizing profusely."
Talking20: is talking about smooth characters
"... Captain Jack ..."
Me: is expecting "Harkness"
Talking20: "... Sparrow"
Me: wtf?
But you heard of him.
@@IceBen4444 nicely done.
I've pointed this out to friends many times before, and it also applies to the other 2 mental checks. A player playing a 18 int wizard is most probably not as smart as their character, and should not be expected to act that way, and same thing applies to a player making a very naive decision on a really wise character - the DM can ask them to roll a wisdom check, and if they succeed, give them a tip and allow them to reconsider. This, I think, also eases the way in for new players, as they know that it's their character that they play and that they are not expected to play to an experience level that they lack.
I would ask the players about what they are trying to play.
A good exemple would be the other way around. Our old DM (a very Charismatic guy, doing a lot of DMing and Improv and acting) was playing a low charisma low intel character. Well, even if the player came up with a good concept or speech, I would ask if the character could think of that himself.
In case of an argument I would rely on a roll.
On the other hand, if an introvert player would like to play the Paladin Leader of the group but the player lacks the quick thinking and verb. I would let the player taylor something if he wants but just asking for a roll would be enough. I would fill in the gap for that player "speech".
It really depends in the players. Do they want to roll dice or improv with their character, or both. Adjust accordingly.
Yeah, I agree, and I think it's important to focus on the character's own ability than the players'. Yes, the player may be extremely eloquent and come up with a lie that would convince anyone, but if it's being said by a half-orc barbarian with 7 Charisma, it's probably going to come out with a lot of stuttering, mispronounced words, awkward pausing, and so on.
this!
I'd say the reason to do it backwards is to not break the flow of roleplay. You don't need to make a CHA check just to talk to someone, but if, while in the middle of talking to them, you try to persuade, deceive, or intimidate them, then you would need to make a check. It might be more jarring to suddenly stop conversation and say, "I want to deceive this person," so instead you use your RL charisma to try and slip something in without the DM calling for a check. Things run more smoothly, and the DM only needs to call for a check when it's _really_ needed, instead of for every small request or slight exaggeration. Again, it's not the player's place to call for a check, instead they player says they want to do something, and the DM either allows, forbids, or asks for a check. In the case of RP, telling a lie or making a request _are_ the player stating what they want to do, and the DM must then decide whether or not that particular request or lie requires a check or not.
But that's not backwards, that's how all checks function. Checks don't determine your actions, but the outcome of actions.
An attack roll isn't to determine that you swung your sword, but to see if it hit.
A charisma check isn't to determine what lie you told, but how well you sold it.
Dice don't solve problems, they determine the outcome of an already stated approach in solving the problem.
If you roll first, you may as well remove the players. It may be roleplaying, but it's a very dull *game* when the dice a more significant than the players own choices.
This is it exactly. The example he uses for strength, would be roleplayed the same way. DM "You see a tree trunk on the ground."
20 str barbarian, "I push it off the cliff."
At that point, the DM determines if a check is needed. 20 str, probably don't need one at all. If the 15 str paladin were the one to do it, he's got a check.
No different than roleplaying a social interaction, except actually roleplaying someone pushing a log off would interrupt the flow.
I feel like as strange as it sounds explained out, it makes perfect sense to be done this way. While you may look at it and say it seems backwards, the fact that the scenario involves another living being makes it more complicated. Simply rolling an 18 and deceiving someone and then having the character say something obviously not deceptive isn't very realistic, I feel like it makes more sense for them to attempt to deceive, make their choice of words and then roll, and then as a DM the determination of the roll is where the DM decides WHY the character believes or does not believe. Perhaps your Insight against their Deception rolled low and your NPC being deceived is having a bad day or has something else on their mind and cant be bothered to think about whether it's genuine or not. Perhaps they had a fight with their leading officer and doesn't care (potential bonuses to the modifiers on the roll? I would) or they just got a promotion and are being more scrutinous.
I feel like this kind f thing really shines with the DM and how much they want to flush out the world for their characters to be immersed in.
Exactly what I was thinking.
another perspective on this is when you say you wanna push a log or kick it down, you are saying what you are trying to do and then roll, similarly when you say your lie (it is obvious contextually that) you are trying to deceive the guard into letting you in and then you roll.
the assessment of the dm is to know that a strong character can probably push that log with his muscles and technique, and that the deceptive rogue can lie to the guard with his charm, wit and underground experience, not taking at face value of what they say for example: the strong fighter says i push the log and rolls a 1 he slips and fucks it up, or rolls a 20 and pushes it with 1 hand or rolls a 10 and barely struggles to get it out of the way, similarly the rogue rolls a 1 and the guard sees through his lie or rolls a 20 and the guard offers some assistance letting them through toll free, or rolls a 10 and the guard suspiciously but uncaringly just rolls his eyes takes the toll and moves on with his life.
its not that WE are doing it backwards, its the dms job to be unbiased with how to interpret rolls rather than calling for anything and everything or taking someones real life inability to express something their character is very likely to be able to do as a failure.
TL;DR: Role-playing-based Checks are reactive to what a player has specifically attempted, whereas plain Checks are proactive to what a player wants to attempt in general. Both absolutely have their place & happen with all Skill Checks.
I'd say that the best way to think about this is that this is just a side-effect of Charisma often being a more role-playing-triggered Roll. However - _this absolutely does happen with other Skills, but just not as often._ A couple examples:
A Bard wants to make an Acrobatics Check when attempting to do a back handspring and snatch something out of the air. That's something described before making a Roll, helping to set the DC of how hard it is to achieve. Whereas an Acrobatics Check to jump and grab something out of the air would be more simple, and a high roll may allow it to be narratively described as a back handspring.
We often have low Intelligence characters make rolls when attempting to explain a complex idea, where the _player_ has a good plan for the party, but the _character_ may not be as sharp in concocting or communicating those ideas, which makes for fun pitfalls in tactics and also helps to have players help one another out when there're varying levels of experience playing D&D, without falling too deep into problematic meta gaming habits.
If players are role-playing well (and sometimes making their own Check DCs a little tougher as a result) I like to reward that with minor advantages when the checks pan out in their favor a tiny bit beyond just what they planned as a way to help them get used to the risk & rewards of doing so, likewise slightly softening the blow a tiny bit of they fumble something they came up with as a player. (Usually just compare how close the regular DC would be compared to their description, and have a DM-margin of error) Understanding and leveraging that dynamic is a great tool to help new players get used to _playing a role_ & not just feel like they're stuck _playing to roll._
Consider using different stats for the same problem for different players. In the situation when they walk into the bar, the charismatic bard may be convincing with CHA, the Wizard may have used INT to remember to conceal any obvious magic paraphernalia, the rogue may use DEX to hide behind the bard, the cleric may use WIS to recall a local custom the locals practice when encountering friends, etc
Each character should be able to use their abilities in different situations. This also helps to prevent certain stats from seeming unimportant.
yes 100% its an RPG Tabletop, not a video game lets play and have fun using skills in different ways is breaking the wall on what a character can do as a DM / Player I use this a lot and it leaves all of us with a remember when and to me a remember when is the best thing you can do
Actually recalling a local custom would use INT as it is a memory test =D
But looking at other clients in the bar and analyzing their local custom would be a WIS check.
@@WallySketchI see you acquired the +1 keyboard of rules lawyering the comment section :) You are probably correct, but I will leave that to another passerby.
@@TheDMGinfo it's a cursed item if you ask me =D
I took a look at your channel, you got some nice tutorials !
@@WallySketch I have 3 others: ruclips.net/user/7dsystem ruclips.net/user/questgivers and Drawing Worlds which is small and where I just waffle on about my art. There are 12 others, but they're not me in the hot seat :)
Does it make that much difference? Hear me out, I swear I’m not having a go at one or the other conclusion!
So, our players say something in game... an intimidation check, let’s say. “I am going to go through this gate, and you, little man, aren’t going to stop me. You can try, but you’ll fail.”
Fairly vanilla stuff. But this is a nine foot tall Goliath. Now, if a four foot gnome said it to a bouncer you’d have a different situation. But because it’s charisma we roleplay it then rollplay it.
Same Goliath says that he wants to break the door down. Now - here’s the thing.
Do we ever ask how?
Not often. We just roll a die. Now, we could ask them to describe how they break the door... “I flex my muscles and heft my maul after spitting on both hands. I unleash a roar and swing at the door”. Again, a gnome hitting the door with his fist... totally different situation.
The point here is that we are doing a charisma check in “reverse” out of habit only. We could easily roleplay every check. But charisma is the single skill (as you quite rightly point out) where the player can truly bleed their personality into their character, either because they’ve built a self-insert character or because they enjoy role playing.
The end result either way, is the same. But I think that the only actual reason we do “charisma in reverse” is both because of habit and because of that bleed, that fusion between player and character. So, as far as the point raised by this video goes, we could just as easily say why don’t people describe what their character does when leaping across a chasm, examining a runic engraving on a tomb or breaking down a door.
Just a thought.
I personally hate using ability checks at all for Charisma (but recognise that it is a necessary evil many times). I mean, I was playing an 18 strength Goliath barbarian/knight whose goal in life was to unflinchingly face down the greatest threat he could find, but he wasn't particularly 'charming'.
In the party was a squishy halfling bard that was in no way threatening. She asked the GM to intimidate me into giving her all of my gold by staring me down, and the GM asked for contested Charisma (Intimidation) checks. As I had a -1 and she had huge boosts to Cha, she won easily... Even though it didn't make sense for either character or fit the situation.
(Fyi, we were going through a breakup at the time irl, which actually explains a lot)
Andrew Fullerton: sorry to hear that. The mechanics sometimes make no sense at all, and that’s a good (if sad) example of real-life bleeding into a game and of how roleplay should be used, especially in a pvp situation.
Consider: Charisma isn’t your ability to come up with a good lie; thinking on your feet like that is arguably Intelligence. Charisma is your ability to tell a bad lie convincingly. But a REALLY bad lie is less believable, which would raise the DC. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is clad in mail hauling 2-handers on their shoulders might raise the DC by 5 or add 5 to the opposed Insight check. “We’re just merchants,” when everyone is wearing traveling clothes and has a wagon of goods (illusory or otherwise) might subtract 5. Then the PC rolls to see how well they tell the lie, not how good the lie is.
Also consider: failing a check doesn’t just mean you just lose instantly. Sometimes drawing a bit of suspicion can make for even better roleplay. Feeling ‘betrayed by the dice’ misses the point. You don’t just lose... What’s your next line when he doesn’t believe you? The game is designed to put you into bad situations for drama sometimes. You win by enjoying where that takes you.
Also I think “Thinking on your feet” is wisdom. Probably not Charisma though.