D&D 5E 5e completely nerfed charm - for YOU, anyway

[Fanaelialae]

Now you're fully missing my point.Which is better: bland and repetitive or eccentric? I'll follow the lead of a good fiction and go 'eccentric' - or at least with a notable personality - every time.

There is a huge difference between randomly giving enemies defences to thwart PCs on the fly and establishing depth for the NPCs that the players are engaging.

Let's say that the PCs walk up to a guard at a city gate. Prior to that session I had not expected them to go to that city. I had not considered what the gate situation would be. However, their unexpected course of action is putting me into an improvisation mode. As they apprach the gate the sorcerer casts charm person on the guard... who I have only described as, "... a lone human guard in tattered armor sitting on a makeshift stool with a weathered crossbow on his lap." All I know about the town is that they're paranoid about recent werewolf attacks, really.

What is the correct answer as to how this situation should be resolved?

I say there is no one correct answer. Your answer seems to be saying there is unless the DM is effectively cheating, there should be a typical person personality template applied.

In my game, the second the PCs decide to interact with that guard I decide on a personality for him. I don't expect him to be a main character, so I treat him like a secondary character. In most movies, tv, or novels a secondary (or minor) character is given one or two significant personality traits to distinguish them. I can either just pick one or two at random from my brain (or randomly roll them up if I have a table - there are plenty of tables out there), or I can do what I actually do. I think of a minor character from some book, movie, or tv show that was in a similar position and let the guard emulate that character.

I might pick one of the vicious Gold Cloaks from a scene in the Game of Thrones tv show. I might pick a thug from some cop show. I might pick Ted Raimi's minor character from Army of Darkness ("You can count on my steel."). Instant personality. And that instant personality gives me something to play off of on a charm person, or other social interaction.

Gold Cloak: "Eh, now what have we here? Good to see you didn't get torn up out there. Dangerous out there tonight with the wolves so active. I've been told to keep the gates closed til morning. You can hang out here with me - I wouldn't mind the company."

Thug: "What the heck you doing out there, fool? You're going to get killed. It ain't safe with the recent attacks. I'm not supposed to be letting anyone in the city, but... if you have a few coins for me to bribe my boss if he catches us, I can get you in safe now. Interested?"

Ted: "Hail and well met! I'm glad to see fellow brave heroes ready to defend the town. You're here to join me on watch I take it? I don't need the backup, obviously, but if you're here anywa... WHAT WAS THAT... oh, you have a cat. I, uhhh ... it just caught me off guard."

I suggest giving the Critical Role podcast a listen for other examples of on the fly personality (although he also prepares a lot more detail than most DMs).

Pulling back to charm person: If you have one generic personality for minor characters, maybe it will be the 'auto-win' you fear. In my experience, that does not need to be true, nor does it result in complaints from players when it isn't an autowin.

I'm really not missing your point. And I listen to Critical Role all the time.

I never said that you have to create a single, bland, generic personality to use with improvised NPCs. I said that they should generally behave in a typical manner.

Let's say 90% of real world people would accept a hot beverage from a friendly co-worker (a friendly acquaintance). If a significantly higher percentage of your guards refuse that hot beverage on the basis of paranoia (or whatever) then you're distorting the NPC personalities to foil the PCs. They're not realistic reactions and sooner or later your players will notice the pattern. Sure, Lawfulevil City might have a blanket rule that guards may not accept hot beverages while on duty, but if every little town and village has the same rule it begins to strain credulity.

I knew at least one DM back in the day who pulled this kind of stuff on a regular basis. He wasn't considered to be a very good DM and eventually got kicked from the group.

Sure, you can base an NPC on a character from fiction (or even the real world). Handy improvisation tool. But if you find that the personalities you pull from that hat disproportionately nullify what the PCs intend, you might be subconsciously biasing the selection process. And you may want to check that habit before you wreck your game.

There are people out there who won't give the time of day to a friendly acquaintance, but they are few and far between. As long as your request is reasonable, or better yet framed as being helpful towards the target, most people are inclined to go along with it.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm really not missing your point. And I listen to Critical Role all the time.

I never said that you have to create a single, bland, generic personality to use with improvised NPCs. I said that they should generally behave in a typical manner.

1.) You dont need to quote an entire post if you're not addressing eveything in it.

2.)A typical manner means similarly... which results in single, bland generic.

I knew at least one DM back in the day who pulled this kind of stuff on a regular basis. He wasn't considered to be a very good DM and eventually got kicked from the group.

And I've known a lot of GMs that use the methods I describe above. And, apparently, you know of at least one because I see Mercer do it a lot. In my experience, they're good DMs.

Sure, you can base an NPC on a character from fiction (or even the real world). Handy improvisation tool. But if you find that the personalities you pull from that hat disproportionately nullify what the PCs intend, you might be subconsciously biasing the selection process. And you may want to check that habit before you wreck your game.

Note that you made assumptions that you say might mean something. As you are noting, there are bad ways to do something like what I suggest which are just DMs crushing down PCs. However, if you try the way I suggest, you're not doing that at all.

There are people out there who won't give the time of day to a friendly acquaintance, but they are few and far between. As long as your request is reasonable, or better yet framed as being helpful towards the target, most people are inclined to go along with it.

Objection, your honor. Relevance?

We're not playing a simulation. We're playing an RPG - a role playing game. We're working, as DMs, with players, to tell a darn good story. Darn good stories have good characters in them. The main characters should have depth and nuance. However, as I note above, minor characters in good stories tend to have one or two exagerrated characteristics, but not be fully fleshed out or behave like 'typical' people.

And I'm not so sure you can simplify people people so easily, anyways. It isn't really relevant to a good story, as I note above, but if you interviewed 100 random people and asked them what they'd do if their best friend asked them to borrow $100 so that they could bribe their way into a concert, I don't think that 90% would give the same answer. I think there would be a spectrum with lots of nuances. However, it isn't really relevant what real people would do when we're talking about characters in a story. We only care about what makes a good story.

 

[Fanaelialae]

1.) You dont need to quote an entire post if you're not addressing eveything in it.

2.)A typical manner means similarly... which results in single, bland generic.And I've known a lot of GMs that use the methods I describe above. And, apparently, you know of at least one because I see Mercer do it a lot. In my experience, they're good DMs.Note that you made assumptions that you say might mean something. As you are noting, there are bad ways to do something like what I suggest which are just DMs crushing down PCs. However, if you try the way I suggest, you're not doing that at all.Objection, your honor. Relevance?

We're not playing a simulation. We're playing an RPG - a role playing game. We're working, as DMs, with players, to tell a darn good story. Darn good stories have good characters in them. The main characters should have depth and nuance. However, as I note above, minor characters in good stories tend to have one or two exagerrated characteristics, but not be fully fleshed out or behave like 'typical' people.

And I'm not so sure you can simplify people people so easily, anyways. It isn't really relevant to a good story, as I note above, but if you interviewed 100 random people and asked them what they'd do if their best friend asked them to borrow $100 so that they could bribe their way into a concert, I don't think that 90% would give the same answer. I think there would be a spectrum with lots of nuances. However, it isn't really relevant what real people would do when we're talking about characters in a story. We only care about what makes a good story.

I know how to snip a post quote. In cases like this, however, I prefer to quote the whole thing so it's easier to follow the conversation without having to scroll back and forth. I'd put quote blocks, but I'm on my phone and it's more trouble than it's worth.

Typical means reasonably normal, not generic. Most of the people I know I consider to be pretty normal, but I wouldn't ever describe them as generic, because they aren't.

At this point I think it is you who isn't understanding me. I never said that improvising personalities is bad DMing. I said that constantly giving NPCs personalities/capabilities specifically designed to foil your PCs is bad DMing. If you pay attention to Critical Role, that's not what Mercer does. At the beginning of season 2, are the guards at the inn so hyper-paranoid that they feel the faces of everyone leaving the inn just in case someone casts disguise self? No. In fact, I would say that most of his non-enemy NPCs are more helpful (or at least pleasant) than not.

I think that for a story to be good the characters generally need to behave in a plausible manner. In other words, believable characters. That isn't to say you can't have over-the-top characters, but if that's every character and this isn't a Wonderland story then I'm going to put the book down and walk away. YMMV.

I wouldn't consider borrowing $100 from a work friend to be reasonable. Borrowing $5 for the snack machine because they forgot lunch would be a reasonable request, and in that scenario I'd probably offer to loan them $20 so they could buy real food.

I have to disagree. A good story has believable characters. That's not to say that you can't have exceptional characters in the story, but you need normal characters to denote them. To put it another way, most people will enjoy a good dish that has been properly seasoned with salt, but pretty much no one would ever want to eat a plate of salt.

 

[jgsugden]

...

I think we'll agree to disagree. Good luck.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Best of luck to you as well.

 

[the Jester]

I think it's worth reiterating that the charmed condition prevents you form intentionally harming the charmer. I think that's getting overlooked by some of the discussion here. That alone is worth a 1st level slot, in my judgement.

 

[MechaPilot]

I think it's worth reiterating that the charmed condition prevents you form intentionally harming the charmer. I think that's getting overlooked by some of the discussion here. That alone is worth a 1st level slot, in my judgement.

Good point. It's basically like a single-target version of Sanctuary, if you look at it that way.

 

[Seramus]

You forgot the strongest part, which is that it causes the creature(s) to regard you as a friendly acquaintance. That, by itself, should allow you to automatically succeed in many situations.

You know what else makes someone a friendly acquaintance? A skill check. And that doesn’t come with a guaranteed realization that they have been charmed afterwards. Or potentially visible V and S components.

The spell doesn’t create memories. They have no recollection of you being their bosom friend for the past 10 years. You wouldn’t risk your job for someone you just met even if you do like them. You might answer some questions or do a minor favor, but nothing really serious.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You know what else makes someone a friendly acquaintance? A skill check. And that doesn’t come with a guaranteed realization that they have been charmed afterwards. Or potentially visible V and S components.

The spell doesn’t create memories. They have no recollection of you being their bosom friend for the past 10 years. You wouldn’t risk your job for someone you just met even if you do like them. You might answer some questions or do a minor favor, but nothing really serious.

Yeah, IMO that's the feature. It doesn't obviate skill usage, it supplements the social skills. Don't have time to befriend the guard by conventional means? Charm him. Rolled a natural 1 trying to befriend the guard? Charm him. It's going to be more expedient in most cases than a skill check, and moreover can act as a safety net to the skill check. Also, if you suspect you need a high roll to succeed and/or might make the target violently hostile by your request, charming in advance will help with those issues.

I never suggested that someone would do major favors for someone who has charmed them. My go-to example was of accepting a hot beverage from them, which just happens to be heavily dosed with tranquilizers. As I said then, when that person wakes up the fact that they know they were charmed will be probably the least of your worries.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

At this point I think it is you who isn't understanding me. I never said that improvising personalities is bad DMing. I said that constantly giving NPCs personalities/capabilities specifically designed to foil your PCs is bad DMing. If you pay attention to Critical Role, that's not what Mercer does. At the beginning of season 2, are the guards at the inn so hyper-paranoid that they feel the faces of everyone leaving the inn just in case someone casts disguise self? No. In fact, I would say that most of his non-enemy NPCs are more helpful (or at least pleasant) than not.

I think that for a story to be good the characters generally need to behave in a plausible manner. In other words, believable characters. That isn't to say you can't have over-the-top characters, but if that's every character and this isn't a Wonderland story then I'm going to put the book down and walk away. YMMV.

I wouldn't consider borrowing $100 from a work friend to be reasonable. Borrowing $5 for the snack machine because they forgot lunch would be a reasonable request, and in that scenario I'd probably offer to loan them $20 so they could buy real food.

I have to disagree. A good story has believable characters. That's not to say that you can't have exceptional characters in the story, but you need normal characters to denote them. To put it another way, most people will enjoy a good dish that has been properly seasoned with salt, but pretty much no one would ever want to eat a plate of salt.

Building on this, a game world works on a set of assumptions that the table has to share and that must be made available if queried. We accept that a common understanding of how gravity and momentum work are essential to playing the game. The same applies to human behaviour. If for no other reason than to ease player interface with an imaginary world.

And a level of reasonable assumption is also critical for the occasional eccentric/quirky NPC to exist - its not possible to act against type if there is no 'type'!