The Problem with Charisma in D&D (Ep.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Professor Dungeonmaster answers common questions on the most common dump stat--charisma. What do you do when a character is charismatic but the player is introverted? Why doesn't charisma work the same way the strength? Should the DM and player act out every social encounter? Answers at last!
Thumbnail art: Anna Steinbauer at annasteinbauer.com
Patreon: / dungeoncraftyoutube
Dungeoncraft Facebook : / 1620296361377654
Music:
"Fury of the Dragon's Breath" by Peter Crowley
Bandcamp : petercrowley.ba...
By Kevin Macleod: "Ice Flow," et al. All tracks are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommon...)
I am a super introveted person but i like to play charisma characters since that is what i would like to be in the real word . Since i started playing them i started super bad fumbleing lines sttutering ect ... But after a few months i improved a lot i helped me to be more charismatic IRL so thanks D&D you helped me a lot :) Sry for bad English :(
I love stories like yours! They truly encourage the hobby of roleplaying.
I love hearing stories like this. May all your rolls be 20s!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 if they were, I would ask to inspect your dice.
Aww, that's awesome. *sigh* I'm a bit shy but I want to find a group to play D&D with for the first time. Preferably face-to-face not online. And to be honest, I'm hoping it will also help me to open up a bit more. I already have D&D player's handbook, the D&D monster manual, character sheets, three sets of dice, and a dice tray. Sooo, I'm pretty much set.👍🏾
But I just know I'm going to be a bit nervous at first. 🤷🏾♀️
@@mardonram8673 Thanks! Yeah, I just moved to the DFW area of texas so there should be a lot of game stores up here with D&D groups. Hope to find one soon!😊👍🏾
In older editions NPCs had a status of friendly, neutral or hostile. Hostile creatures are immune to "sweet talk" although they might be persuaded to neutral. Enemies also had a morale stat.
the DMG may have something similar for 5e. renown
@@stevevondoom4140
Unfortunately I've never played 5e or gotten to read the dmg. I do still play AD&D 2nd and 3.5 with a couple of my high school buddies. I'd like to get into 5e but my older friends don't want to learn a new system and all the 5e games in my area are kids.
@@lyudmilapavlichenko7551 as i look closer the renown rules are cited in DMG as "optional" , but do seem like the fix to this issue and similar to older versions tracking systems...
5e still has those, called Attitudes:
hostile < unfriendly < indifferent < friendly < helpful
The NPC's attitude towards you determines what DC a charisma check has to meet in order to achieve certain things - and of course many favors are not at all possible when the attitude is really bad.
Beyond the morale stat, I do like the status of NPCs, might make interaction organization bit easier for DMs.
in my mind nat 20 is just the best possible outcome, not a supernatural miracle.
Same here, based opinion
A fair opinion, i just think the pc flashes gold during a nat 20 and then a maximum effort outcome happens
True. The best possible outcome could be a miracle.
@@lichenlich like a bard using lucky for a nat 20 to somehow charm a metallic dragon into letting the party each get a baby dragon
Yeah, a 20 doesn't mean you suddenly do the Jedi mind trick
There is a difference between role playing and speaking in character. (I've sen a couple channels cover that topic.) Although many players will be very uncomfortable or unable to speak convincingly in character, it is usually reasonable to expect someone to roleplay their character describing what they are attempting to do in the third person. "Ragnar is going to attempt to convince the prisoner that if he doesn't tell us where the hideout is, we'll hurt him very badly."
We usually were a mix of both styles.
Depending on the group, narration is quicker and easier to follow, but acting is far more fulfilling and immersive. Personally, I would never act out a love scene, preferring to speak of it vicariously like a bit of gossip or like combat descriptions. I'm still torn about portraying more than one NPC at a time through acting or narration without sounding schizophrenic.
@@commandercaptain4664 If you are in a group that only meets once in a while for 4 hours at a time...narration RP tends to be the best solution if you want to get anything done. You can either spend 2 hours of real time discussing, at length the merits of a particular solution to a problem you character has devised but the mayor isn't quite on board with...or you can just say that is what you do, make a roll and get on with your lives.
"I rolled 57 for stealth."
"You are in the Matrix training ground. There is no terrain, you are alone, and people are watching you on a computer. They know where you are."
"BUT MAH STEALTH CHECK! D:"
"Fine. They had to do a brief double take of the computer screen before seeing where you were at, because they had an itch in their eye and looked away for a brief moment. They breath a sigh of relief that you didn't actually disappear."
"Yus!" :D
"I have the Hide in Plain Sight ability."
Stealth is one of those things where you either can or cannot be seen. Hide in plain sight might allow you to hide...but if where you are hiding is obvious and you don't move...well sorry but they are going to do the natural thing and just come over to where they last saw you or blast that square. Just because you can't be seen doesn't mean people can't know you are there.
You can roll all you want, but tremorsense, blindsight/sense, and scent to name a few are all things that simply see right through stealth no matter how good you are at it. "I was hiding in an area of dim light which means I had concealment!" Yes, and the enemy has darkvison treating dim light like normal light so to them you are not in dim light at all you are just leaning against a wall like Kronk (my groups go-to for how dumb you look trying to hide there).
@@ShiningDarknes *"Just because you can't be seen doesn't mean people can't know you are there."*
As if moving wouldn't be the first thing I did after using Stealth....
*"tremorsense, blindsight/sense, and scent to name a few are all things that simply see right through stealth no matter how good you are at it."*
Lurker in Darkness feat: Creatures using unusual forms of sensory perception such as blindsight, greensight or tremorsense cannot automatically foil your use of Stealth; such creatures must make a Perception check as normal.
Granted, it's from the Psionics Bestiary by Dreamscarred Press, so you're free to disallow it, but we have the book, so we allow it in our games if you meet the prerequisites (Stealth 6 ranks). It also foils indirect detection, such as using Detect Magic to locate your magic items, but not powers that provide information about you instead of enhancing perception.
As for scent, that's what the spice bomb was for....
@@Kartissa TL;DR: No, fuck that feat. Literally is nondetection in feat form AND fools powerful nonmagic senses with a low level/rank requirement in a common skill. But that spice bomb idea is exactly how you are supposed to deal with scent.
That is precisely why dreamscarred is banned at my table, their books are full of stuff like that that just breaks the normal balance with zero effort (I am all for breaking shit with a lot of careful planning and exploitation, go nuts). That is way too low a level requirement for "Naw fuck you blindsight and tremorsense" two things that are very clearly designed to be hard for players to overcome/requires teamwork and/or planning if stealth is what they want to do. Silence more often that not fools blindsight since hearing is the most common form of it and flying or other means of not touching the ground while in the radius fools temorsense. Two things that require resource expenditure 95% of the time. So no, I don't think a third party feat that is clearly bullshit should be allowed. If it required like stealth 12...maybe but a 6th level character has no business being able to fool two powerful senses just by existing for a single feat investment. Alternatively requiring hide in plain sight as a prerequisite is another way I would call it balanced due to the very limited means of actually getting that ability permanently.
"As if moving wouldn't be the first thing I did after using Stealth..." AOE my guy. "How far could they have gone from the last place I saw them?" Many a time I have foiled and have been foiled by such thinking.
Actually no I just went and read the full description and no, fuck no. It ALSO fools indirect detection methods like detect magic to detect magic items on their person to find a location and that means it would ALSO somehow fools see invisibility/aura sight/arcane sight. No. Just no. That is all but a fucking nondetection in feat form.
If the feat allowed you to hide from see in darkness, darkvision, and low-light vision in areas of at least dim light, yeah, all day stealth 6, I would allow it because at that point it is poor man's hide in plain sight but THIS. Naw you can miss me with that shit if you seriously just brought this monstrosity of a 3rd party feat to the table as your argument for "those senses aren't that hard to deal with."
But yeah, that spice bomb thing? EXACTLY how you are supposed to deal with this sort of situation.
I’m on board... now to just convince the players that a 20 can’t move mountains.
YOU need to set the DC high enough that failure is not only possible but probable. I would set the move the mountain DC at around 35 or 40 on a D20 roll.
If they get finicky about the nat 20 thing tell them it requires five consecutive critical successes, a miracle equal to a Wish spell. ✅
@@swaghauler8334 Why even let them roll? If there's no chance of success, the players don't get to roll. If you let the players roll, and even on a nat 20 you still tell them they fail, then the players just feel cheated.
@@TheVertigo007 Some players simply WON'T accept that they cannot do something and will still feel cheated anyways. These are D&Ds "special snowflakes" and while they are rare, they do exist. The unachievable DC is something for those players to strive for.
Roll persuasion to see if you convince me. :-)
As a player I sometimes have the exact opposite problem. My character has high charisma but I had never planned for her to be the face of the group, so during character creation I didn't have her be proficient in persuasion. It turned out none of the other characters planned to be the face either and kept asking my character to handle every social encounter. Now I act in character and really get into it. If it's an important encounter I know is coming up I'll often write down an eloquent speech ahead of time. But I've had it before where charisma checks mess it all up.
For example. We were talking to a group of beloved allies whose leader is the father of a fellow player's character. My character gives at least a minute long speech. She is stressing to them that there is a great evil brewing to the North of their lands that wants to eat their children and so we're going to pass through their territory to keep their people safe. Is there anyone here who would like to join us on our quest (to, you know, STOP THE MONSTERS FROM KILLING THEIR CHILDREN?!)
Roll for Persuasion. ... Nat 1.
DM Your trusted allies now think you're making it all up to steal their lands. Also they're going to kill you for your treachery if you say one more word and don't leave immediately. Yes, the father will throw away 24 years of loving player character. You rolled a nat 1. That's just how it goes.
*Sigh* And this is why I hate leaving role play up to the dice. Because it doesn't matter then how good of an argument you make. If you didn't build your character to be the face then there's a good chance (usually 50/50 in our games) you will fail regardless of the role play.
Thank you for this insightful response. If we had money to hire writers, you’d be hired!
ok i know im a late response, but as a DM i think the thats just how it goes is the wrong way to do it, a nat one just means you look suspicious or stumble on your words a lot. if they were trusted allies then they wouldnt kill you on sight for saying something dumb or wrong, they might be suspicious and maybe weaken the trust a little, but thats just my two cents.
i explain that a natural 20 means you get the best POSSIBLE result.
To take the example of having the king give you the kingdom on a natural 20 what i might do is the king laughs and finds the player funny giving him a lower noble title and small patch of land to rule over.
Brilliant
I thought the result of a 20 in that case was the King laughs and lets them walk out of the throne room alive.
Skill rols dont use the nat 20 rules. Its a 20 like a 19 is a 19, Nothing special about it
@@jackmalin2528 A 20 is still the best possible outcome though, since it's higher than all of the others. It doesn't matter if critical successes don't count, as per the rules. XD
@@Keyce0013 it does in the since that somebody with a 10 modifier gets a 30 and someone with -2 gets a 18
imagine having to do bench presses when doing an athletics check
would get roleplayers pretty stronk.
The weight would have to scale based on how much the character can typically lift vs how much the player can. If they can only do 1/3 the weight of the character, a 100lbs weight becomes 33lbs for the player.
The way I use charisma, the player act and share what he wants to say. Depending on the NPC disposition, I increase or reduce the charisma DC if the player touch some sensitives subjects. This way, it is more of an informative way the player share the dialogue, then the roll represent how well it has been shared.
For exemple: If the character knows the mother of the NPC is sick, and he stack dialogue sharing empathy for sick relative, and the NPC is sharing deep concerned about it, I will reduce the charisma DC based of the following subject, since there is an openness to the conversation. If the NPC prefer speaking to men or woman, or to elves or dwarves,, this goes all in the relevency of the DC that is then decided by the roll.
Finally, my rule of thumb is to never accept a complete 180 degree of one's predisposition. A guard may never let someone pass through the gate, but he may, if he shares a good bond with a PC, share a moment and information where the character will be able to access more easily.
Sometimes I try to bridge the gap of the observed 'backwards' check and the role-play check. I have the player RP the conversation and then I'll stop and ask, "Was it your intention to deceive the NPC or are you trying to persuade them?"
If I felt the conversation felt like a deception but the player responds with persuasion, I'll raise the DC because they were getting different results than indented. But, if both the player and I are on the same page of what it sounds like I'll leave the DC as is or lower it if I felt convinced of the intended effect.
Very well done, Professor. Thank you for the insight.
Also, the plug at the end about you having published your own hack of D&D was a pleasant surprise. About time. 😉
Lastly, I ran a 2 hour session with your UDT and DMing principles last weekend for a 30th Birthday celebration culmination with resulted in a standing ovation. Cheers. 🍻
PS: Deathbringer is a gem. LOL
Here's how I handle charisma and similar stats (in other systems) at my table: if the player is playing in character and saying something that the NPC would find convincing, believable, etc. then I don't ask for a roll - the player's character succeeds if success is possible (like with your guard at Buckingham Palace example - some things just aren't possible). If the player is not comfortable playing in character or is playing a much more charismatic and intelligent character than themselves, I will ask them for what they are generally trying to achieve and let them roll.
what if they bomb their charisma stat? Would you let a cha 3 character run persuasion based on the player's abilities?
@@SenseiJae For starters, I would never let a player have a cha 3, reroll that shit xD
Second, if the most awkward, unthreating stick of the mood told you to not kill a baby, would you still kill it? Some times there is something so obvious that it doesn´t need a roll.
You don´t make 2 dex players to roll for tripping when they go down the stairs do you?
@@hmcloud8487 unless they were "taking 10 or 20", yes, I would.
Great video, and very important topic because, you said it best, some players can and others can't roleplay for their own reasons.
Our normal DM, Jarrett mixes it up depending on the scene, story, and stakes. His real world charisma is through the roof and can make almost any scene work.
Our up and coming DM (Cmike) is diagnosed with ADHD and shows a lot of the social limitations of being autistic, thus he struggles with Charisma, Wisdom, and sometimes Intelligence RP. He's talked about the pros and cons of both camps that you mentioned here. He problebly puts far more hours into the subject than anyone else would. He's also talked about it should be like landing it a hit, so a Charisma DC or a investigation DC for a mystery works more like an AC & HP, he calls it, "Cumulative DC" The reward of victory comes from doing multiple "hits" and the rolls add up over time until they over come the high DC. He also said he tided "Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws" to "charisma, intelligence and wisdom" - to help him have mechanical options to "unlock" information but more importantly, guide him with clear social goals.
For an example of the Sliding Scale of relationships look at Exalted 3rd Edition's Intimacy system/mechanics. Characters in this version of Exalted all possess a number of Ties (the character's attachments to people, organizations, objects, places, and other concrete entities) and Principles (a character's beliefs and ideals) collectively referred to as their Intimacies which are then spread across three levels as Minor, Major, and Defining.
Social maneuvering under this system means you can't just walk up and demand a king give up his crown as his position as king is likely a Defining Intimacy for the character. This means that in order for a character to get said king to give up his crown/position the character will either have to work to elevate some other conflicting Intimacy to a Defining level (whether an existing one or a new one that is created at a Minor level through social actions) or else work to degrade the existing Defining Intimacy of "I am the King" (for lack of better wording). This isn't a process that's a simple as 'roll a natural 20' or even 'get maximum possible bonus on check then roll 20'. It's a longer process of social actions and possibly manipulations which must be undertaken over a prolonged period as there's a requirement of time between being given an Intimacy, elevating an Intimacy, or degrading an Intimacy (basically a cooldown period).
It has been about a decade since I either played or DMd and I would have to say that I did it differently than how I was first introduced to the idea of role playing games. When I first learned I was at a card shop as a kid and the guy was probably using AD&D rules. He kind of just described a room and then let me ask questions and decide what to do. He never asked me questions so as to attempt to push me forward. As I proceeded more info came forth, new rooms and me asking more questions about maybe what my character maybe had or what things i could maybe do to deal with monsters that were in the next room. It actually took me back towards some RP I was doing as a kid. There was an older kid in the nieghborhood that did some RP with my siblings, which was kind of more like LARPing and so there was no dice but all about acting and actual social interaction and always pushing forward to ask the DM to flesh out more of the word as you pushed on its boundaries.
Once I was in the later highschool and early college years it was now time for me to DM and i kind of defaulted to dice rolls and sometimes asking for descriptions and gists with my introverted friends. There was only one friend I didn't really dice roll much with social stuff and it was because he was an old school been playing since he was a child and knew the AD&D rules and 3e rules as well and he loved acting it all out. It was fun interacting with him, but when it came to everyone else it was fairly hard to engage them into the game or into anything beyond, "roll for that please." And everything kind of quickly became an either major failure or a major success. There was little concept of just a little adjustment in likability. It was very different from my childhood where most everything was handled without dice and was instead more about imagination.
Don't know if I would be DMing again but this video really has me thinking of how to improve such sessions if they did every happen. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing, Andrew. The dice call. Time to pick them up again & return to the table in glory!
I do like the approach you take to introducing the NPCs, and how you interconnected them. Very useful.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention that there are a lot more opportunities for roleplay than just social situations, however. As an example, I played a Ghostwise Rogue a few years ago, and used his trap-finding skill as a chance to roleplay. How do you roleplay a skill like this, you might wonder? Keep reading (adapted using 5e rules):
"My rogue quietly takes a knee, and unrolls his kit, selecting first a hollow reed, and uses that on the 'usual' suspect places where someone might hide a magic sigil." (Perception Roll... no modifiers, no bonuses, or the like. Just the simple pleasure of roleplaying his actions) "From there (if a trap has been located) he employs a magnifying glass and other fine instruments useful in his disarming attempt, careful not to touch any sigils he may have located, to investigate any traps he may have found." (Investigation roll... again, no bonuses expected, other than those imposed by the DM) Success or failure is narrated by the DM, whom, if he is good at improv, will tie the description that you have provided into the result.
You help the DM by keeping the immersion intact and by providing something that he can use as an aid to describe the results of your actions. Remember, it is not just the DM's job to maintain the suspension of disbelief. Players need to do their parts, too. Some players may not like this kind of roleplay, but those players are not in the game to roleplay... they are simply there to "Roll Play"
I also toyed with an idea of when you enter a social encounter, you actually start another kind of combat where the opponents HP now becomes their ego. If you have a whole squad of people roll up into a master swordsmith's shop and convince the sword maker that his swords are not of the quality he once thought, you may be able to, as a group, bully him into giving you a discount. Unless his ego is huge. Dealing large amounts of emotional damage is difficult.
I use charisma a lot in as creative ways as I can think of. When a new player joins my game I usually have them roll a charisma saving roll and if it is high then they get an impressive description for their first impression but if they roll low then they get an awkward description of their first impression. For example a high strength fighter rolls high: you step out in front of this adventuring group, the sweat gleams off your bulging biceps and the wind gracefully blows through your hair making you look an impressive sight to the new group of hardy adventurers before you OR a low roll: the wind blows your long flowing hair in your face making it hard to see and as you spit your own hair out of your mouth half blinded you trip over a branch - make a dexterity saving throw to see if you fall on your face in the mud. I use charisma for other situations like during combat or during an acrobatic feat and I sometimes have players asking me if what they did looked cool because they know they can roll for it and even something great like killing a monster can have a comical unusual result which is nice to change up the narrative of combat a little bit. It definitely does add flavour to the game and my players are familiar with social awkwardness so it gives them something extra to work with during roleplay. When players encounter NPCs I usually have an idea of what the NPCs motivations are so based on what the players say could result in an automatic pass or fail but in situations where it is not absolutely certain then I have them roll for it. My players know that if they roleplay well through a situation then dice rolls may not be needed or that they get advantage for their rolls but I do have situations where players are not really convincing but I let them roll and on a high roll I take what they told me and present their character saying it in a more persuasive way or describe the visual aspects that the charisma would affect the mannerisms. For some players this is useful because they might want to do something like this but are not sure how to present it so demonstrating it like this sometimes gets such a player more active in roleplay because it helps to separate the personality of the player from the personality of the character.
I always use charisma to determine someone's disposition toward you going into the conversation. How attractive you are, how you hold yourself, if they're jealous, or willing to help, if they clash with your allegiances, would all have effects on their attitude toward you.
One thing I love about vampire the masquerade 5th edition is that there is an elaborate system for "social combat" which covers everything in this video. Its one of VTM's charms, its always been quite focused on political intrigue.
I handle Charisma checks based on the feel of the table. If the table is RPing then I will ask them what they want to say. If the table isn't as confident at RP, then I fill in the story.
Its easy to want players to RP, but understanding players is the most important. If a player is introverted and playing a charismatic character, I will try to fill in what they say the first time to see what their reaction is. If they are positive to my "telling of the story" then I keep doing it. If they don't like it, I will generally rely on class interactions such as " You begin speaking, and your words are eloquent, and resonate with the NPC." or "You let the NPC know your stance on the subject and they regard your words as a paladin as noble and stalwart.". I try to rewards developing RPers as much as possible, by giving them advantage for trying.
For RPers, I tend to lower the roll. If you convince me as the NPC with your words, The roll is inconsequential. You will still roll, and your number just affects the NPCS attitude. For example if you convince the King to go to war, but your roll is low it goes something like "Your words irritate the King. You come across as an arrogant paladin in pursuit of glory to him...yet...he knows that you are right. This fight must happen."
Charisma will always be a touchy subject for DMS because it's sort or reliant on players when roll playing. Its very much on the DM to work with their players to keep the game moving and interesting.
Solid advice from the Professor! I learned this one the hard way. Now I ask the players to give me the gist of what they want to accomplish then have them roll. If they want to roll play it, great. But I do not base the DC on their role play (unless its great, then I might lower the DC). This way, it's always working based on the CHARACTERS abilities, not the players.
What's funny about the mention of imagining a "sliding scale" when it comes to social encounters is that rule set is actually in the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide. It even has the rule that you can't move your relationship more than 1 tick per social encounter.
Unfortunately, it is a bit bare-bones seeing how it only has 3 levels for relationships with NPC's (friendly, neutral, and hostile).
Personally, I just added a couple more levels to the scale and have been enjoying using it since
I switched the way my group does Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom check after watching that Taking20 video. Been playing since 1984, it took that long for us to figure out a better way.
I agree that multiple checks are necessary to change someone's opinion of you or to make them more friendly towards you.
I also agree that some things are impossible regardless of the roll
I let players roleplay but the dice determine the result. Just like how I allow a puzzle to be solved by an Intelligence roll.
I try not to treat mental stats differently to physical stats. You describe your actions and I determine if what you are trying to do requires a roll, automatically succeeds or automatically fails.
The idea of default position is really great!
I'm not 100% sure about your videos in general but I have to give you full credit on this one. Well done. I mean I'm the introvert at a table and talking my way in will not likely go well unless I'm actually being the target of a con in the first place. I did like how you gave the players a chance to get back in on a failure, I know many talk about how bad rolls make a quest better or good rolls at times open up many more options for you to get yourself killed :) So again excellent video.
I believe it's "Cody" at Taking20, not "Cory", but I'm sure Cory is nice too.
well said, professor! Now here are some ways I also handle the Charisma stat. Now I only use the 1st edition rules (modified) of D&D but anyhow: Magic, for the Illusionist class, I allow a negative to an NPC savings throw for particular spells. for clerics & Paladins etc. I will allow a bonus for s special boon if they entreat their god for a special favor, spell ect. But! R/P still counts: A cleric prays for some form of "miracle" I still expect them to R/P and if they do well instead of a +1 to their roll I might allow a +2 ( because of high Cha) or whatever. Fighters will get a bonus if they try to rally their troops in combat or are trying to recruit militia from several nearby villages ( the fighter would give 1 speech & then just roll for the rest of the villages to keep the game moving). Now for those that are a bit more introverted, I allow a bonus because they may seem mysterious ( vs just odd) so when they speak, it captures the attention of those around them. I find after a while those players who may be shy, kind of warm-up after a few sessions and either learn to r/p a lot more or even play up the "Mysterious stranger" routine . Finally charisma can be a lifesaver in my campaign. I have players run into monster sometimes, they have no business fighting. My ex wife who played fantastic druid, had to speak to an ancient blue dragon to llearn about part of a quest she was trying to complete. She had a decent Cha & gave it her best to R/P ( which she was good at but she never thought she was) and I had her make a roll . With her Cha bonus, she had such a good roll ( 18+ I think?) The dragon was "amused" and actually gave her more information than she was hoping to get. The dragon also reminded her & the rest of the group, he was no one to trifle with, giving a big toothy grin as electricy popped & crackled cross his several inch fangs.
You can integrate both camps. What you do with combat rolls is to have the player declare how to go about it and then determine difficulty. The issue is, the with regards to combat rolls, most players choose the default option: 'I attack'. They do not target anything specifically and their goal is simply to inflict one regular blow. It is the role-playing equivalent of 'I talk'. You can do that with role-playing as well, if they talk you can have them roll and say 'it was a good conversation' or 'you didn't have a good conversation', depending on the pre-existing attitude (the social AC) of the one they talk to.
But like with combat, they players often try to reach a certain goal. To do so, they maneuver, clear out minions first etc, before they (can) assault the Big Bad. You can do the same for social encounters, and their role-play determines how tactically they do so. If they immediately attack (socially speaking) without regards to terrain, minions etc and expect the Big Bad to fold after one blow (apparently hoping for a lucky crit), then that is viable, but very rare. But if they build up their social attack plan, then you could have them progress step by step towards their goal.
You can have the players RP their social combat steps, or you can do it (for players less socially skilled) the same you would do for players who have difficulty describing their combat encounters.
Fair points. My impression is that a lot depends on context. Specifically, what is the main focus of your story.
It often is combat, and if that is the case simplify the representation of social interactions is advisable. If the essential ingredient is social interaction, then the combat may ask for some simplification. Prioritize everything is usually a bad strategy, but only take one thing in consideration and ignore all the rest does not seem to work well either; something in between has more chance to be fun for everybody.
one of the most frustrating things, and this is why a fair number of groups I been in, separated that old faithful social stat into: Charisma
Charisma is used to measure the character's air of confidence, persuasion and leadership in order to get others to see their point of view and want to help them. They use this to win friends and allies and to inspire people when things look bleak or come into question when a character tries to win another character’s sympathies or encourage others to trust her. If a character’s charisma hits zero they become completely unable to talk, and are essentially catatonic - unable to form their own opinions or assert their will, even to the point of survival-essential behavior.
Influence
Influence is used to measure the character's manipulation, fast-talk, railroad and bully to bend to his/her whim and to hide his/her true motivations. Where Charisma brings trust and allegiance Influence brings obedience in the present moment, with or without lasting affiliation. Hate can be a powerful motivator, and a skillful character can get even his/her enemies to do what they want by using subtle or deceptive methods. Whether or not the character in question actually like the other character is irrelevant (this is why Influence differs from Charisma).
Why? Simple really, one is used for the selfless part of the duality and the other is for the selfish part of the duality that is essentially the character in social combat. After that, there is relationship tiers, think more or less Dragon Age. Not all that hard to come up with fixes that can work, but hell.
Why do that when you can just sit a bitch about the problem each session right?
We generally run a method where you have to give the GM a general idea of what your character is trying to do to attempt the check, as there are modifiers involved, and then the check is made.
I love this video. That is such a great way of looking at it, my players always feel like a high roll = impossible things should happen.
The flip side of Charisma is when you have a very Charismatic player that chooses to dump their Charisma stat, but still uses their social gifts to dictate the game. They may waltz through social encounters without you (or the GM) for a roll and win NPC graces because outside the game - well, they’re Charismatic and that’s what happens. And check your bias at the door you’ve probably let this happen without even noticing it because, again, that’s what real Charisma is. It’s an exceptionally difficult stat to simulate because of how much influence it can have on the people playing the game. The fact that it is most often a stat with the least general benefit to the mechanics of the simulation make it exploitable.
To add to that one... Is when you have a odd player that falsely believes that they are very charismatic in real life but is not bright enough to realize that they are not. AKA dunning-kruger effect. So they dump their Charisma stat "hoping" their social gifts will dictate the game. What do ya do?
Go easy on them & use dice I hope.
The sliding scale idea works for the royal guard example. A natural 20 may not get them past the guard immediately, but maybe it opens the door to further off duty conversations. With enough successes, the players perhaps can bribe the guard to let them in. This is situation dependent, but I am thinking assassination attempts where there is at least some insider assistance. Even if the players just want to talk to the king, perhaps they find a guard who is planning on leaving anyway or is desparate for money so that is the day they quit and flee the kingdom.
Charisma is the social intelligence of the character. If someone has a CHA of 18 and sucks at roleplaying they still get reactions as though they are charming. That's why the attribute scores are there. The social skills of the player mean literally zero.
Preroll insight for npc ideals/bonds/flaws/lawful/chaotic hints the player can exploit, then have them state their conversation goal, shift npc disposition if hints are used well/horribly, roll skill, help player act out the dialogue so npc acts as the outcome table in dmg shows. If roll was bad the npc will not act with high risk, but may still perform a lesser act with less risk.
I've been running for half a year but I'm still such a noob (and thankfully my players are too) so I haven't had to deal with too many charisma checks. I didn't realize it until now, but part of the reason I've been avoiding more social-skill demanding/utilizing elements in adventures is actually because of how social checks are described and employed by most of the gms I've played with. (Thinking back I did have one gm who seemed to use your method, but it was so subtle I never picked up on it)
This more thought-out "Steps" approach just makes so much more sense and makes it much much more approachable from the GM side of things to add social dynamics to the game. This is genuinely inspiring me, thanks dude!!
Really enjoy your careful thoughts on D&D =) charisma has always been a tough one, this video gives me new insight into how to do it better!
I think Fantasy Craft uses it way better.
The main charisma-based skill is impress. A successful impress skill can improve the target NPC's disposition. Basically, it makes them more likely to help. The DM can then roll a d20 and check the disposition table. If the result is lower than the NPC's "Assistance" value, the NPC will help the party with anything that isn't unreasonable (An NPC's "Assistance" value is halved if asked to fight for the party).
Disposition has a range from -25 to +25, and it's applied to most social skill rolls.
When using impress (or intimidate) to convince someone to do something, there are BIG modifiers depending on risk and incentives. This is important because if the roll result is less than 0, it counts as an error (basically can result in a critical failure) so the players are discouraged from asking for ridiculous stuff. Also you can't make an NPC risk their life with impress, only with intimidate (also intimidate is wisdom).
Basically, if a character tries to convince a character who hates them to do something unreasonable, with no incentive, he pretty much has a -40 to the roll.
Bluff also has huge modifiers depending on the situation, and it's clearly stated that with a success the NPC believes the lie, but doesn't really have to do anything about it if he doesn't want to.
Also Charisma has several other uses:
- The charisma modifier is added to the DC of spells the characters use.
- It's used for the "Lifestyle" value. Short version, Lifestyle makes the character better at handling money, either getting a small money boost each adventure or being able to resist the urge to spend most of their money in useless stuff.
Your video was recommended to me by the RUclips algorithm, I have never seen any of your stuff before, so I nearly did a spit take when you mentioned Warhammer. I just Dudgeon Master'ed for the first time ever a few months ago, and it was with Warhammer RP 2nd edition.
Interesting... I think this is pretty spot on for role playing. However, I love to let players tell the story through their actions. I like to reward failure or punish success.
Players approach guard at the city gates. They have three options:
- talk their way in
- lie/bribe
- intimidate
First option success: Guard let's them in under the condition they check in with the captain first and pay a gold fee for a city permit. Possible quest as the captain mumbles about a murder or local crime gang.
First option failure: Guard refuses entrance, but tells them if they can join a guild to get a permit. He suggests an adventure guild rep in a nearby town. Complete a local quest (Owlbear!) and gain rep with the local noble for success.
Second option success: The guard accepts a small gold bribe to enter the city. This would setup that the guards are crooked and the city lord is corrupt. Guards now harass the players for gold from time to time. Players are encouraged to approach the theives guild or underground resistance to get around the city.
Second failure: Guard kicks the players out and reports their identities to the captain. Nearby smugglers see the players and offer a way into the city for a favour. Guards are not corrupt but players now work for the Thieves guild.
Third option success: Guard backs down and cowers. Players are able to enter the city but guards do not come to the aid of the players during important quest points. City captain is recently murdered and the local noble is incompetent. The city is very poor.
Third option failure: Guard threatens the players and refuses entry. Spies/agents from a nearby Provence approach the players with offers of gold and information if they agree to help with a mission to rob a stage coach. This splits into two possible quest lines. Betray the agent and save the coach for access to the city and the ire of the neighbouring Provence or rob the coach and the agent kills the occupants revealing a plot to kill the local noble.
In Gran Canaria (holiday island, Spain) I worked as a "social bouncer" for 2 years, I was the first to respond when a conflict escalated in order to calm things down, convince both parties that we were better off just partying and having fun rather than ruining the rest of the vacation. If I didn´t succeed the big guys would step in, I must have rolled 20s every single time because I didn´t fail once in those two years, people do respond to rationality even when drunk if they are presented with far worse consequences. Fortunately I never rolled a 1 and faced a psychopath.
I just played BG3 in it´s alpha state, it´s a mess of unrealistic rolls which outright lead the character to slaughter people he would never actually start a fight with just because he rolled low, it´s true what the video states, we are predisposed to a certain answer in most cases, in Solasta guards simply block your path in some cases, no rolls can be made which is realistic.
My current DM is a superb guy who understands social intricacies and tries his best to keep things realistic.
Great point, Spark! Thank you for taking the time to comment. New video at 5pm Eastern today. May all your rolls be 20s!
haha the king example was the exact example i gave when a player of mine complained when i didn't allow him to charisma check someone . anyway , what i do is i ask the players their intentions and the goal , then i decide the difficulty based on the character , after that i ask how they will say it , if i like what they come up with , ill give them bonuses . if not ,ill just roll at the difficulty . i have to say i usually scale the difficulty a bit to encourage those bonuses and tell their numbers to my players beforehand.
What my DM allows us to do is we announce what we want to do like persuade and make our case and then roll ( it doesn't matter what you say as long your roll is high enough which has led to some hilarious encounters ) but if it's a good enough case we'll roll with advantage.
Great advice! Definitely pairs well with the video you mentioned.
I never dm'd or really played dnd this just showed up on my recommended because I enjoy the lore. but, I would use charisma checks for things such as, increasing material gains, conflict avoidance and speeding quest completion. something like this:
Scenario1: A group of thugs hold you up for all your money. 1.Give money, 2. Fight them 3. CHA talk them into letting you go.
Scenario2:You must speak with a priority figure (eg. King,) but you must get the approval of from the maid. (say this is a task needed in order to complete the main story). CHA check to get approval. though this will be what I call a "soft CHA check" which can be decreased through giving a gift each day. (CHA drop Varies from type of gift).
Scenario3: You are trying to sell an item to a merchant CHA check to increase their offer by 20%. (also vice versa for buying)
Scenario4: You and an npc found found treasure and wants to split it with you CHA check to get the whole thing, or a higher value.
For a person who never really played, these are great insights. Become a DM!
Ah thanks man! I used to play a lot of rpgs, I guess they follow somewhat of the dnd format. I would totally try it but I have like zero knowledge of the game mechanics.. I think it would be best if I started off as pc. Where I would end up killing myself doing something stupid or possibly being killed by Mystra for attempting to do something even stupider... >.>
Consequently, how difficult do you think it would be for a human to mindlink with an elf?
Good vid, professor. I am new to DnD, and my aproach to Charisma based encounters is more depends of behavior of players and what they say to NPC`s.
i usually go with dialogue first, roll second. depending on how far I feel the player wants to go with this particular roleplay segment, I vary from acting out the conversation entirely, to simply asking my player to explain their conversational angle. example, a player wants to charisma the npc to gain whatever, and they seem unsure or unconfident of what to say exactly I would ask "are you going for flattery, seduction, just trying to act super friendly, something else?" and usually the player did have an idea what type of charismatic angle they had in mind, or is happy to choose one from that list and I choose a dc based on that angle and the npc's predisposition, then I narrate their actions and the subsequent results.
As a dungeon master, I have one rule for any checks... If you can roleplay or describe it well enough, you might get a small bonus to your rolls. What it means is, I often DM for new players who are shy or not ready to really talk their way through something or really describe what they want to do since they don't feel they would be able to voice correctly how the envision their actions. Pushing them to do it could ruin the experience for them and push them out of the game. My role as the DM is to help them be as confortable as possible, so I invite them and give them insentives to speak more and roleplay more, but I would never force them to do so. They'll do it on their own when they'll feel ready.
Since I started using that rule, I lost almost no new players and a lot of them came out of their shells faster than ever. When they are confortable enough, many even tell me they do not need the insentive anymore and just want to play by the rules, really experience it.
I definitely think this, along with improvising NPC motivations as a whole, is something i as a GM need to work on
My players know that a natural 20 is only good for critical damage. I use a similar approach where the NPC already has a default setting and act in a way that is believable for their station/function. I like your idea for handling the social encounters it make a lot more sense than just relying on a single roll.
The way I choose to go about this, and the one I find most satisfying and realistic, is a two step process similar to "option A" with one key difference:
First the player roleplays. However, this will not always call for a roll. Much like instead of calling for a roll you might say "I attempt to push steal their purse" and then I as GM can tell the player to make a sleight of hand check if it is at all possible they could steal the purse (and not call it if it is inevitable or impossible) then when a player makes an attempt to deceive an NPC I will look at their attempt and decide how it makes sense that the NPC would respond. Yes in 90% of circumstances a town guard would not allow anyone into the palace for an audience with the king- but a good GM knows never to underestimate a dedicated player's ingenuity. Sometimes it's not about roleplaying in a charismatic way, sometimes just the wit to pull on someone's strings can be enough and I think even introverted people can have a reasonable shot at that.
I think factors like luck, interpretation, and small details that could shift how the circumstances are perceived are tools which can color realistically the point of a roll.
I've always felt that persuasion and deception checks benefit really well from the Variant: Skills with different Abilities rule. If the wizard makes a really strong, soundly worded argument, I make it an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. If a player doesn't quite understand how to word their argument, I let them make an Intelligence or Wisdom check with the skill, and if they succeed, I give them some examples of some more persuasive things they could say.
I guess the important thing to remember is that Charisma checks aren't about *what* you say, but rather *how* you say it. It makes perfect sense that a better worded argument has a lower DC.
Much of what was said here should be also kept in mind when deterrminating limitations of charm person spell.
I rarely, if ever, call for Charisma checks. We always "talk it out" but the PC's Charisma score is always a major factor in determining success or failure.
I kind of handle it in a hybrid way: have the players declare they want to do a Charisma check of some kind, roll the die, then act out the die result. Alternatively, if the character has a low mental stat, but the player comes up with a genius idea or a good speech or something, I have all the players roll an appropriate check, and whichever character rolls highest says the thing.
This is why I have a set of weights by the table for strength checks, some throw mats ready for grapple checks, and a tennis ball to throw at anyone trying a dex/dodge roll.
I've always enjoyed it when DMs scale the DC for cha checks by the player's chosen dialogue or actions. That way proficiency and attributes still feature, but so does RP and thinking on your feet.
Yeah, this is basically how I've always done it. High Charisma is not mind control, though it can be very influential, it usually takes more than just a single conversation to move people. And the growth of relationships is pretty much how I've done it, though I usually play that by ear rather than formalize it (though I'm running some pretty heavy roleplay stuff currently and so I'm more inclined to kind of plot out relationship development. It's been three long sessions, no combat, they keep talking around things, pretty interesting.) so far that's worked. Sometimes player balk at it, but I usually come back with, "Okay, think of it like this, If I had the very charismatic NPC over here walk up to you and start telling you to go home, and give up on the quest you're on, in fact give up adventuring, would you want all that to hinge on one good Charisma roll? And do you think one conversation would do that, if he was successful?"
My problem is usually with min-maxers who reduce their charisma to minimum because they know the gm won't do anything if they just roleplay their way out the situation. So, roll first, then let them have their say. If their words and actions don't reasonably match the roll, as the gm, feel free to then explain to the character what actually happened. It would go something like this:
"OK, you try to sweet talk the princess in to going to the ball with you. You even bring her chocolates and flowers. What you thought was a gasp of admiration when she opened the chocolates was really suppressed horror at discovering someone had pressed a finger into each one to see what flavor they were. As you present the flowers, a bug flies out, lodging in between your teeth, where you start unconsciously working your tongue back and forth to dislodge it, all the while making the most ghastly sucking sounds."
At this point the player hopefully will realize one of two things. Either act more in character to prevent the gm from doing it or learn that playing negative traits can be fun too.
Good video, pretty much universally relevant to every D&D table or role playing game.
I haven't played in a decade or so, but in our ADnD 2e campaigns we used to do charisma roles as 'initial disposition' checks.. So, in the case of the guard, you're still not going to get in to see the king regardless of what you say, but if you say it poorly and you don't have a charisma score capable of 'improving' their perception of you they might call the rest of the guard and try to throw you in jail... If you manage to say it in a proper enough way, and they have a good disposition they might give you a polite enough 'I'll pass along your request, but I doubt you'll get in..' You're not getting in either way, but you can imagine that the follow ups are quite a bit different between 'Some band of adventures tried to sweet talk me, nice sorts but gots to do me job' to 'Bunch of blackguards tried to sneak passed me to kill the king, you bet we rushed 'em out of the palace, lucky they didn't end up on the gallows!'
I really liked this one. Gave me a lot to consider, especially rolling first or second.
I actually run social encounters much like you do.. Depending on how the conversation is going; I will occasionally call for a roll to see how a NPC is responding. It does force me to be creative extemporaneously though. So, if you steer the course of a conversation based on a couple of die rolls; be prepared to have the NPC offended, confused, curious, helpful, etc, etc..
My group aren't shoppers (don't roleplay shopping), but I do give them a charisma check if they request a discount.. Make the check, get 10% off..
Lastly, I had a thief go up to a shopkeeper he thought that he might be able to sell stolen goods to. He approached the shopkeep, said something in Thieves' Cant .. Then failed the roll miserably.. "Get out of my shop before I call the guard and have you thrown out." It was a great moment. :-)
DMs who want a detailed charismatic monologue everysingle time you want to use the social skills sounds so stupid to me
Its like "oh you wanna grapple that bear with your 20 strength barbarian? Ok drop down and give me 500 push-ups, then roll for athletics"
Very cool. Seems like this basic model could be applied to a variety of situations
That vest of yours today looks kind of like in the +3 area.. Definitely dressed sharper than I did today. Cheers Prof! Excellent.
When I was a kid playing Basic D&D, we treated Charisma as physical beauty. When I ran Shadowrun in college, I would have my players role play encounters, and then I would give them a bonus or penalty for their skill roll (ex. Negotiation) based on what they said.
I recognize the fantasy aspect of playing a character that is different than the player, but it is a role playing game. It’s a good opportunity for a shy person to explore social interaction in a less threatening situation
That's not the intent of the Charisma ability which is why AD&D 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana introduced Comliness.
It seems like a lot of people forget that a natural 20 only equates to guaranteed success on an attack roll (and death save where it counts as two successes). For ability checks, you just add your modifiers and compare the result to the DC set by the DM. If the DM sets the DC at 40 or higher (say, to convince the king to give up the throne), unless you're level 20 (+6 proficiency bonus), expertise, and a maxed out charisma, there's no chance of success (even with that, you're only looking at around +15 unless you managed to raise your CHA above 20, so max of 35).
I like to have my party roll cha before they talk as a first impression and then several more as they try to communicate with NPCs.
This is some excellent insight! I can definitely use this, thanks Professor.
I officially hate Charisma checks. I had an epiphany that Charisma discourages player participation when I realized my character had a +1 to Charisma checks, and another player had a +13 to Charisma checks, and so because of this, we all sat back and let him handle all the social interaction. We were essentially not playing the game anymore; we were having this one player play for us.
I want players to use their own creativity and wits to handle social interaction, and I want them to succeed or fail based on their own choice of words. I don't want a DM / GM using a die to decide the outcome when a player clearly made a good speech or a bad speech. Maybe for the in between speeches.
YES. THIS!
This is such a good point! Thank you for that video
D&D is a fantasy game. We play it because, among other reasons, we want to try out being someone other than who we are in the real world. Which means it's not uncommon to see a nerdy introverted player running (or wanting to run) a bard or other super-charisma character that is the center of attention in most social gatherings. And yes, that can get laid all the time.
Which is why when I'm DMing I don't force them to role play out their interactions with NPCs and decide from there what happens. If they don't know how to do that IRL, they also won't know how to do it in-game. I always "third-person" them into an interaction, get them to give me a die roll, and from there we both decide how things shake out. In other words, I do the exact same thing as when, for example, the thief wants to look for traps (I don't make the player explain to me in great detail HOW he's looking for traps).
For some situations, My old DM would have the player tell him a joke. If the player made the dm laugh, then he passes a charisma check. Worked.
I like the description of Charisma in LoTFP
@@TA-by9wv ruclips.net/video/2wLwJBPQEf8/видео.html this is it basically word for word
Players convincing a King to give up his crown. The players begin by explaining that a terrible plague will take the city if he remains King.
First natural 20: players say this, and aren’t ejected from the room immediately because the King finds them amusing.
Second natural 20: the King continues to listen.
Third natural 20: the King asks a question about the situation and if he hears a satisfactory answer, he will continue to listen.
Fourth natural 20 in a row: the King is looking concerned now.
Fifth natural 20 in a row: the King tells the party he must consult with his advisors about this.
I really enjoyed this video! Excellent synapsis of how to handle an often poorly done part of the game. Nice work!
Thank you, Trevis! New video today at 5pm Eastern. May all your rolls be 20s!
Funny, my players did not use Charisma as a dump stat. My Mages used Wisdom as a dump stat. My Clerics and Fighters used Intelligence as a dump stat. My Rogues used primarily Wisdom and some Intelligence as dump stats.
My how D&D has changed over the years. When I first started reading 5e after over a decade brake I thought... "Wow, now I'm gonna need a high Wisdom so nobody sneaks up on me". But it seems common for Wisdom to be the dump stat. It also seems Charisma does a lot of things that we thought Wisdom did in 2e. Back then Charisma was the dump stat. How wrong was I ?
@@inappropriateperson6947 Not very wrong at all. I started with AD&D (aka 1E). The main reason my Players wanted a high Charisma score is so that they can hire a lot of henchmen (I was too generous with rewarding g.p.) and bring a small army into my dungeons.
I prefer the method where the player narrates what they do, either speaking the words their character says or explaining what their character says whichever they are more comfortable with. And then I will have the world react like you describe. If the person's words are the type that would naturally sway the npc I'd let them succeed without a roll. If it depends on how smoothly or confidently you talk it'd need a charisma roll. I might make them also roll a relevant knowledge roll. If charisma is bad they might stumble the words but talk of the right stuff and get into the wizard's tower. If they fail the kbowledge they'd still talk so confidently that the guard might ignore the mistake.
But the thing that works for me does not necessarily work for others.
I think you are right about not being able to get past guards, unless of course you're William Horace de Vere Cole. Horace and a group of his friends including Virginia Woolf dressed up as a delegation a African dignatores and proceeded to bluff their way on aboard HMS Dreadnought, at the time the mightiest warship afloat. Horace was the "translater" and the rest of the party made up gobbledygook as they went along. And, when it began raining they were forced to dart inside for fear of their makeup running. And, HMS Dreadnought the mightest Battleship the world had ever seen was from then on known as Bunga Bunga, after one of the gobbledygook words. And, when Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi was caught in a "night club" wink wink nudge nudge it was reported in the newspapers as a bunba bunga party.
I usually try to avoid the charisma roll. I try to allow most conversation stuff to be dealt with without mechanics, I do keep the Charisma score in mind, a lot like how you talked about karma in a previous video. I keep rolls only for instances where responses could realistically go one way or another.
Your continued use of Warhammer makes me happy. All campaigns should be set in the World That Still Is. Don't @ me
I think a nat 20 charisma check on the guard would make him give you a hint on how to enter the castle or keep, rather than just letting you in. Or on a nat 20 strength to move a mountain a lich comes, curses you with immortality and you take a shovel and move the mountain over the next 10 000 years.
I'm super nervous to roleplay in front of strangers. As a kid I roleplay a lot but now it's just so embarrassing
I like the idea where the roll goes like this:
1. player states intent or method with little to no detail roleplay
2. DM prompts the roll
3. In reaction to how well or badly the roll did, the player now roleplays the situation
Critical Role is great and all, but there needs to be more groups that embrace narration as a viable means of roleplaying as well. Given how efficient narration is, entire adventures could be completed in two hour videos instead of four hour videos.
As said above, Nat 20 is optimal possible outcome.
Too many players think success means whatever they want to happen, happens.
"I'm going to attempt to jump to the moon..."
Now, unless the DM is a goofball, the PC can't do this, but not allowing a roll is denying player agency.
So... Nat 20 means the PC jumps higher than he or she has ever jumped, before. Clearly, not to the moon...
...but, a personal best.
It's perhaps time DMs start explaining this to players from the get-go
THIS
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1if it makes you feel better, I don't know a DM who doesn't get this from time to time...
Critical Role IS partially responsible.
Nat 20 was only supposed to be a thing on attack rolls.
Matt Mercer allowed for it to apply for skill checks.
Know what I notice is missing?
Critical fails
Great way to handel charisma thanks for the tip.
Role play, it's where players expect to use THEIR bright ideas their PC could never come up with. Roll play, when the player expect to get exactly the result their characters would get. Great DMing, when the players are expected to actually player as their characters.
Yup. Check out my new video on Tomb of Horrors: ruclips.net/video/giDPr296CAI/видео.html
As a GM, I prefer to have my players describe what they're doing before they roll. This goes for physical actions as well as mental. So if you are attacking someone with your weapon, describe it up until you know if it connects, then rolls. After seeing the result we describe the result.
One thing you can do is call for a roll, tell the result, then have them say what they want to based on that result. If the player is more charismatic then their character then that can be an issue too
I agree, Charisma is a mixed bag, and is better if the DM just does it on the fly. And yes I also agree, rolling a 20 doesn't mean you automatically get what you want. In a campaign of mine I had a player whos Character had a 16 Charisma, but the player kept making their Character say and do stupid things (like mouthing off to the King), so I ignored the 16 Charisma and made the NPCs behave as they should for someone that acted in that manner.
For me, I basically give them a chance to RP it out and if their words would resonate with the character they are talking to I would give them a bonus to their roll.
Great advice on handling socializing with some nuance. Though I don't know why one couldn't let their players roleplay conversations to an inflection point and then have them roll to see how it's going, and make full use of the Charisma stat while still having the fun of a roleplaying game. As GM you know your PC's Charisma to guide you for the first part of any conversation, then depending on the roll you can keep roleplaying from there.
I think charisma checks need as much explanation as strength checks. “I’m going to move the tree” “how do you do that?” “I put my back into it, and try to get some leverage”
“I’m going to convince the noble to hire me” “How do you do that?” “I give him my resume and show off my moves”
Charisma generally has more description because it is more involved, and depending on the argument different outcomes are possible.
Mountain? 3 nat 20s in a row and my DM will say go for it. House Chaos rule. Love it
As a 1st time *DM* for *5E,* I start with the chart on *pg 245* of the *DMG*
...
If the *pc* is trying to explain a complex plan and/or advanced concept to an *npc,*
(somthing one of my players likes to do alot,)
an npc a high
*intelignece (relitive knoledge)* will have a lower *DC* for the *pcs* *charisma (perswation) check* to explain the plan in a way the *n.p.c.* understands.
(Conversely, a dumb *NPC* will have a harder time understanding, making the *charisma D.C.* higher.)
...
For *deception,* the *DC* is based on the *npc's* *wisdom (insight.)*