D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

Online games tend to emphasize performance over practicality by the rules (see literally every episode of Critical Role). I don't generally see them as realistic to the experience for most folks.

Nah. That seems like perfectly normal way to play to me. We may not be as good at it than professional actors, but that's how I and everyone I know has always played.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. That seems like perfectly normal way to play to me. We may not be as good at it than professional actors, but that's how I and everyone I know has always played.

Different strokes then. I see the sort of thing you're talking about as occasional flashes of cool roleplaying. Most of the time, the G in RPG takes precedence.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Different strokes then. I see the sort of thing you're talking about as occasional flashes of cool roleplaying. Most of the time, the G in RPG takes precedence.

That sounds unfortunate.

 

[Minigiant]

This single line explains a lot of the differences in our opinions/perception. I can't imagine a game where the person with the highest charisma is always the one talking, taking the lead, etc. I can't imagine a story like that either. It seems foreign to me, to have the other characters just sit there and be quiet, even though they may have something important to say. Or, even worse, that part of the story is about them, but they let someone else do most of the RP.

Because after the barbarian and his 9 Charisma talks and rolls a 5, insulting the target's nation or mama, the party might tell them to shut up.

Personally I also expect multiple to speak up, depending on the situation the guy with the super high charisma may not be the best choice. In other cases it's just simply apparent from the situation who should be speaking. In all cases, what the player says, what points are brought up to persuade the NPC matter.

Typically for the person with the super high Charisma to not be the person to talk.... you typically need to use advice not in the DMG or house rules not in the DMG.

Well there is language which is core and used to be the way to get everyone involved. But many groups skip it. And the core language rules have their own problems.

The best option tokeep every play involved in social interaction is to not use the default 5e social interaction rules.

If you run social interaction as a real organic conversation, you really cannot do that. The one who comes up with an idea or an argument during the conversation is the one who needs to say it. You cannot just pause the conversation and pass your ideas to a character with a better bonus. Also, sometimes arguments are personal, and may not make sense coming from someone else.

Furthermore, several people participating is beneficial, as then someone can make a supporting argument and provide an advantage for helping.

You can have conversations where only one person talks and the rest stand around and say yes.

And if the game defaults to a single check, this is the best strategy.
And if the game's default DC is 15, this is the best strategy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That sounds unfortunate.

Not really. People like games. Performance doesn't have to trump play.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You can have conversations where only one person talks and the rest stand around and say yes.

But then you have only one person coming up with the argument, and they might not have one that can reasonably convince the NPC. And then there is no possibility to have someone else to help and provide an advantage.

And if the game's default DC is 15, this is the best strategy.

It doesn't. The GM is supposed to set the DC according the difficulty of the task. In case of social interaction this would mean how likely the argument provided is to convince the person in question. For example does it appeal to the values of the NPC? Do the facts known by the NPC support the argument? Is there benefit for the person to do what the PC asks? Does the NPC need to risk something to go along with the demand?

 

[Neonchameleon]

This single line explains a lot of the differences in our opinions/perception. I can't imagine a game where the person with the highest charisma is always the one talking, taking the lead, etc. I can't imagine a story like that either. It seems foreign to me, to have the other characters just sit there and be quiet, even though they may have something important to say. Or, even worse, that part of the story is about them, but they let someone else do most of the RP.

On the other hand the highest charisma/training character should be taking the lead on most of the pre-planned situations with other people backing them up.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because after the barbarian and his 9 Charisma talks and rolls a 5, insulting the target's nation or mama, the party might tell them to shut up.

I think you are missing what I am saying. The roll is determined by what is said. The DM adjudicates this most of the time during social encounters. If the barbarian says something that requires a roll, then so be it. A conversation can involve more than two people.

I guess I can put it like this: When your group is involved in combat, is only one person interacting with the enemies because they do the most damage? Or, when your group is exploring, is only the person with good perception interacting with the environment?

 

[Minigiant]

But then you have only one person coming up with the argument, and they might not have one that can reasonably convince the NPC. And then there is no possibility to have someone else to help and provide an advantage.

And?

The barbarian's argument and the bard's argument are 90% of the time both
A single Charisma (Skill) vs Wisdom (Skill) check

If two people talk it's still the same check with advantage.

That's the problem. It's just the same check over and over so the party is encouraged to have the same person with the highest charisma/prof modifier to roll over and over.

It doesn't The GM is supposed to set the DC according the difficulty of the task. In case of social interaction this would mean how likely the argument provided is to convince the person in question. For example does it appeal to the values of the NPC? Do the facts known by the NPC support the argument? Is there benefit for the person to do what the PC asks? Does the NPC need to risk something to go along with the demand?

The point is that the DCs are too high for single checks.

I think you are missing what I am saying. The roll is determined by what is said. The DM adjudicates this most of the time during social encounters. If the barbarian says something that requires a roll, then so be it. A conversation can involve more than two people.

I guess I can put it like this: When your group is involved in combat, is only one person interacting with the enemies because they do the most damage? Or, when your group is exploring, is only the person with good perception interacting with the environment?

Combat has Hit Points as a meter of success. Multiple meters of HP.
Perception only needs a single check to succeed and failures don't impact group success.

This is why many DMs use skill challenges or metacurrency or other house rules to shore up 5e's basic rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you are missing what I am saying. The roll is determined by what is said. The DM adjudicates this most of the time during social encounters. If the barbarian says something that requires a roll, then so be it. A conversation can involve more than two people.

I guess I can put it like this: When your group is involved in combat, is only one person interacting with the enemies because they do the most damage? Or, when your group is exploring, is only the person with good perception interacting with the environment?

Exploration? Mechanically yeah, outside of the Help action. Combat is different, because the more people do damage, the faster the enemies die. Its a tough way to look at it, and its not my preference, but its simple and gets results.

You don't have everybody roll for every action usually, because it virtually guarantees success.