D&D General Charisma and Roleplay, or who can talk to the NPC.

[Mind of tempest]

I do tend to as a player default to giving the task to who ever is best at it and I like monks so it is rarely me so you might be on to something.

 

[Oofta]

I want player's choices to matter, even ability scores and proficiencies. That low charisma PC can still contribute and in many cases will contribute to the conversation which will affect the target DC or grant advantage/disadvantage based on what points they make.

I also set up situations now and then where charisma is not the best option. A dwarven NPC warrior may not care about pretty words but can be convinced by a PC with masonry skill that the fortification will not hold against giants that will be attacking soon. An NPC sage might find a bit of history a worthy trade and so on.

I personally enjoy running low charisma PCs now and then that don't really know when to keep quiet. If I feel like my PC would speak up, I do. If a player with a low charisma PC speaks up about something important to their PC it's an opportunity for me to reward inspiration.

 

[Stalker0]

You can never FAIL a social interaction. You can only SUCCEED at turning it into a combat!

Can this just get quoted somewhere....or everywhere!

 

[Stalker0]

I like this HR, its simple and effective at doing what your group wants to do. I wouldn't use it for every campaign or even every session but its got cool merit.

I can also see it as a nice for "laying the groundwork". For example, the bard has been doing the social thing behind the scenes. So when its time for the "meeting" the whole party gets the fruits of the bard's labor by having the bard bonus of their rolls. That's another way to implement this which is also cool.

 

[Minigiant]

I've always ben a fan of "Doesn't matter which player thinks it up, the Party Face says it, the Party Gruff can only screw it up, and everyone one else can decide to help."

The high Cha character gets to use the combined charisma of all the players. But there has to be more than one roll and if a PC rolls twice in a row, they suffer a penalty to the roll.

I also have deep Language fluency and accent rules so spreads the spotlight.

 

[CubicsRube]

I actually lower or raise the difficulty based on the NPCs biases of the PCs main class.

Most guards will be more inclined to be persuaded by a fighter or barbarian, most nobles a bard (unless that particular noble hates bards due to a dalliance with their wife a summer ago!), most academics might be much more inclined to listen to a wizard.

On the other hand, a bard in a barbarian camp might have a difficult time being convincing, although still has a chance to overcome with their charisma. Don't fancy the wizards chances though.

 

[Campbell]

The larger problem here is the idea of the face being a thing. Success in social encounters should be just as dependent of fictional positioning as how skilled someone is. There should be NPCs who are more likely to weigh the words of a knightly warrior than a foppish minstrel regardless of skill level. The other issue is that PCs should be much more broadly skilled than they currently are.

 

[iserith]

The larger problem here is the idea of the face being a thing. Success in social encounters should be just as dependent of fictional positioning as how skilled someone is. There should be NPCs who are more likely to weigh the words of a knightly warrior than a foppish minstrel regardless of skill level. The other issue is that PCs should be much more broadly skilled than they currently are.

Yes, and it doesn't help the situation that many social interaction challenges presented by DMs are some talking followed by a single check. That just further pushes the group to put forward a specialist PC to deal with it. If the social interaction challenge is more complex, veers into areas where a range of skill proficiencies may apply, and allows for some failure without completely going wrong, then the pressure to send the specialist forward while everyone else dummies up is reduced.

Even in the context of D&D 5e's social interaction rules, the expectation is that Wisdom (Insight) checks might resolve attempts to discern an NPC's ideal, bond, or flaw which can then be used to impart advantage on any subsequent rolls to resolve influencing the NPC's attitude. Useful lore could also reasonably be recalled in some situations to discern the NPC's agenda or characteristics or to put together details to make a solid argument that could appeal to the NPC, thereby opening up Intelligence-based checks for tasks that have an uncertain outcome.

Taken together, this means at least half of the ability scores might be relevant in a complex social situation. A DM that follows the "middle path" of adjudication balances the use of dice against deciding on success, encouraging players to shoot for success without rolling (or at least advantage on the check or a lower DC). Inspiration becomes a means to further increase the odds of success and by earning Inspiration, the players are often portraying their characters in more meaningful ways, especially in social interactions. Soon enough, in my experience, the "face" issue just goes away.

 

[payn]

This variant sounds reasonable if it helps bring your table to life. I dont think you need social skills just to talk to NPCs, but I have known players who do.

This topic makes me wish designers would consider options in all three pillars for every character. I'd expand the social tier into a background system that allows for a variety of social interactions. Things that make more sense for the character, like the big word wizard mentioned in the thread. Tie that with the personable bard and the experienced fighter or whatever. There should be less universal social skills and more situational ones, IMO.

Last thing I need to get off my chest is that, If you want to be a butt fugly low charisma character who everyone hates, thats fine, but a low charisma doesnt necessitate an unbearably annoying personality.

 

[Krachek]

Damn it’s a game, lets talk everybody!