D&D General Charisma Checks gone Horribly Wrong - Can you Relate?

[Laurefindel]

i'd rather rely on social skill checks with a chance of players zero effort roll-playing than straight up ignore what characters are built for and use RP to decide everything above table, what's that you say? the 5 CHA barbarian managed to run rings around the conversation against a professional negotiator because jack at the table has the gift of gab and managed to convince the GM? awful!

edit: this doesn;t mean i wouldn't be grateful for an improved social system that is less swingy and inconsistent.

Though I have to say, in my modest gaming experience, naturally ‘glib’ players tend to play high-charisma characters, or at least not 5 Int barbarians.

And when they do, they tend to exaggerate the dumbness

 

[briggart]

I love that Schmurple is back.

 

[Eric V]

Can't groups just do "Roleplay it out, if the table loves the performance get a bonus to the CHA roll?

 

[Koloth]

If you are going to make the player running a character trying a seduction attempt to 'play it out' then be fair, and make the player running a character trying the cinematic tumble over the table, stand up behind the barbarian and stab said barbarian in the back to 'play it out' using that table right over there. Why should the 300+lb player running the high dex rogue get away with a simple die roll when you make the IRL social klutz running a high chr bard painfully play out a social encounter? Games have skill rolls for a reason.

 

[Distracted DM]

edit: this doesn;t mean i wouldn't be grateful for an improved social system that is less swingy and inconsistent.

I've read good things about Draw Steel!'s social/negotiation system. 5e-related, @Steampunkette 's recent Martial Artistry has a social mechanic in it iirc but I only skimmed it, couldn't tell you the particulars without the book in front of me.

 

[Hussar]

I agree 100%, though in Viva La Dirt League’s defense, it wouldn’t make for a very funny sketch if the DM ran it this way. In general, a lot of the humor in their D&D Logic series stems from what I would call poor or at least inexperienced DMing technique. I still find them very relatable because, while it’s not how I do things anymore, it’s often mistakes I have made in the past.

Yeah, it was obviously being played for laughs.

I'm torn to be honest. I want the players to play it up a bit, but, OTOH, I want the character sheet to matter as well. I keep trying to hammer into my player's heads to give me statments of intent rather than asking questions, fishing for what they should do. Don't ask me what the bartender is like, just tell me what you want from the bartender and let's go from there.

 

[Retros_x]

Well, in one of those games you have an engagingly roleplayed scene, and in the other you have a mumbled statement of intent and a dice roll.

Stating action and intent is roleplay! What you enjoy is acting it out. I personally would rather play at the table where all players all welcome to play whatever character they want. We have thin nerds play barbarians why not let play shy nerds eloquent bards without them forcing to actually try to be eloquent.

What I always find hilarious but also a bit weird if somebody is acting out a scene really good and have convincing arguments - than rolling a nat 1 on persuasion. If a table gets pulled out of the narrative by that I recommend to roll first and than act it out. Or I try to let the nat 1 not mean that the pc actually stumbled over their words, but that the NPC just reacts completely different than excpected.

 

[Minigiant]

What I always find hilarious but also a bit weird if somebody is acting out a scene really good and have convincing arguments - than rolling a nat 1 on persuasion. If a table gets pulled out of the narrative by that I recommend to roll first and than act it out. Or I try to let the nat 1 not mean that the pc actually stumbled over their words, but that the NPC just reacts completely different than excpected

I always say that the PC just literally didn't say what the player said.

I mean.

If Bob "says" Angor the Barbarian stabs the dreadknight in the face and rolls a 2, Angor didn't stab the dreadknight in the face.

He missed or the knight parried the blow effortlessly.

Same for conversation

If Bob "says" Angor the Barbarian tell the noble that he should send troops to the North by convincing the nobles of the danger of the horde and rolls a 2, Angor didn't tell the noble that he should send troops to the North by convincing the nobles of the danger of the horde.

He forgot to mention the danger, said something wrong, or brought up something else that the noble used to lessen the urgency (the horde's lack of mounts and slow speed).

 

[cranberry]

As long as you keep in mind that CHA isn't magic, and could never compel someone to do something they don't want to do, I have no problem with CHA checks...and I don't need RP for every attempt.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I just need intent and a description of HOW they are going to do something.

Trying to seduce someone, what do you do? Bring flowers, compliment them etc...
Trying to intimidate? Are you threatening violence, blackmailing their family?
Trying to persuade? What are you offering? Is what you're offering valuable to the NPC?

I just need the basics.
To me, what's important is:

• the NPC's motivations (sometimes intimidation works better than seduction, reducing the DC but the method of intimidation might reduce it more (blackmail vs threats of violence).
• The PCs approach. Some approaches may not work at all - no roll necessary, it fails. Some approaches auto-succeed.

If the players want to rp it out, I'm still looking for those for those two key things. Being more charismatic probably won't change anything during the rp. Being less charismatic during the rp won't change much as long as you touch on the key points. Whether you describe what you do or role play what you do, I'm looking for those touch points.

We can describe success or failure after the roll, regardless of how well the rp it out.

On a side note: I usually start with a single roll to see how the NPC reacts to the character which may influence DCs. I also don't have a single roll mean failure. If there's multiple approaches to influencing an NPC, and the PCs want to try leveraging it, they can - as long as it makes sense. At a certain point, an NPC will stop engaging.