D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Clint_L]

Reliable talent or not, a nat 1 is always a fail at my table because it's super entertaining, and my players insist on it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't use any optional, variant or house rules. Reading what you're saying, I have to wonder what the last time you read the DMG on social interactions. Because it states that you may want to chat with the NPC in order to get insight checks to uncover their characteristics, that the DM sets the DC, that anyone who has participated in the conversation can make the check, that if another PC substantially contributes to the check the persuasion check can be made with advantage, there may even be multiple checks depending on the situation. There's also advice on targeting specific players so that they have a chance to participate "If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others." All from the rules.

The new Influence Action speaks to that advice a bit, with more codification. Hopefully the advice on the above will also be much clearer, and be referenced in the PHB.*

Could it be better? Of course, and I hope the 2024 edition does a better job. Then again, I don't envy them because no matter how often they state "The rules are not in charge, you [the DM] are" some people will take any example they give as the one true way that the game must be played. There will never be enough advice to cover every situation. But discussing how the DMG should be rewritten is a whole other topic.

And we know they are aware of the deficiency and aim to correct it, so I find the verve with which some folks are decrying the 2014 core books at this point kinda pointless.

The DMG doesn't give advice, examples, or rules on how to do any of that. It's mostly "You are the DM, you fix it. You figure it out. If someone is not involved but wants to be, you fix it. With stuff and things I'm not going to explain or elaborate on".

This is why 1e and 2e didn't emphasize Charisma. If you're not going to explain how to Use Charisma then don't use Charisma.

This is why 4E had an official rule for group conversations and social interactions because they wanted to have rules for charisma and does explain the entire process of it.

Fifth edition mostly went "rely on your experience from older editions, go watch Twitch or YouTube, or listen to Spotify or Apple."

I mean even having an official D&D Videos with explanations on how to play and how to DM would have been great.

The “mostly” there technically makes this more truth than hyperbole, and as I’ve said before, my biggest criticism of 5e is the garbage guidance in the books.

That said, even with a better DMG…it’s still in a separate book that I’ve seen a lot of DMs just…never purchase or read. I really wish that we could leave behind the 3 core book model and just have a game rules book and a world book (with enemies and maps and worldbuilding and all that).

I know that will never happen, of course. Still, I’d love to see a series of videos on DDB and YouTube that act as a sort of video DMG, with different D&D celebs hired to explain different things, and a round table discussion at the end of each group of videos.

 

[Oofta]

Yes it's full of bad advice that barely works because it runs on the simplistic core rules.

1. DM determines a starting attitude
2. DM allows for Insight check if player initates to pick up a characteristic
3. CHARISMA CHECK!
4. Repeat?

That's okay if your game is hack and slash and barely has social interaction.

It's okay to say the DMG is junk. Even WOTC does.

You do this a lot. You claimed "the DMG doesn't give advice, examples, or rules on how to do any of that. " in Post in thread 'The Crab Bucket Fallacy' https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-crab-bucket-fallacy.699952/post-9146124 which is obviously not true.

Now it's just that it's bad advice. That's fine, it's your opinion. No one I know of disagrees. So why are you now trying to make it sound like I, or anyone else, disagrees?

Social and exploration being "hack and slash"? That aspect of the game has pretty much always been what you make out of it. Luckily there are plenty of examples out there just a search away if anyone actually needs or wants it.

 

[Scott Christian]

If the player wanted to do it properly should have picked a better class or at least proficient in it.

Wait, so in order to roleplay, a player needs to pick a class that is charisma based?

That sounds ridiculous.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wait, so in order to roleplay, a player needs to pick a class that is charisma based?

That sounds ridiculous.

No, but if they want the best chance of success in making Charisma-based rolls...

 

[Scott Christian]

Seeing this debate, I now understand so many other arguments on this forum.

You literally have a group that segregates all the pillars of play. And then, when they segregate those pillars, they specifically only allow the best character to contribute to the scene.

It is no wonder there are so many debates about fighters and warlocks on here. When you forcefully remove everyone from the exploration and roleplaying pillars based on your style of gameplay, you are bound to have some resentment towards specific classes.

 

[Scott Christian]

No, but if they want the best chance of success in making Charisma-based rolls...

They force everyone else to not participate. Got it.

Player one has a 15% greater chance of persuading = everyone else shutup during the RP session.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They force everyone else to not participate. Got it.

Player one has a 15% greater chance of persuading = everyone else shutup during the RP session.

They can do what they want (if they in fact want to), but unless they let the high scorer make the roll, the party is intentionally weakening themselves.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They force everyone else to not participate. Got it.

Player one has a 15% greater chance of persuading = everyone else shutup during the RP session.

This isn't universal with all skills, but its commonly seen that a failed roll with a social skill will tend to make a situation higher. In a way, its similar to the situation with stealth skills. And its not limited to the D&D sphere.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wait, so in order to roleplay, a player needs to pick a class that is charisma based?

That sounds ridiculous.

When you want to be the parties face and keep blowing checks when you have a trained diplomat in the party....