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

[Hussar]

I dunno about you, but, I can totally relate to this. The player builds himself a "face" character. Has fantastic skills in the talky bits. Then, all ready for some scintillating interactions, it just goes horribly wrong. Mr. Suave is anything but. I get why we have social skills and I 100% support having them in the game. I wouldn't want to not have them. But, every now and again, it just makes me want to bang my head against the table repeatedly to make the pain stop.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

 

[soviet]

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!

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. I know which table I'd rather sit at.

 

[aco175]

I have not noticed any set of tools in the new edition that gives advantage to CHA checks. I'm not sure I like advantage on things like opening locks since you are trained and have thieves' tools, but also not sure if a chainmail bikini should give advantage on Deception.

Having moments of complete failure or opposite of what you plan is the parts of the game I seem to recall the most.

 

[Minigiant]

That's what Expertise and "Reliable talent" are for.

One of the great mistakes of 5e and D&D in general.

Skill checks should have ranks.

Rank 1: Bonus
Rank 2: Bigger bonus
Rank 3: Bigger bonus and "Take 10" under pressure
Rank 4: Bigger bonus, "Take 10" under pressure, and minimum check is Ability Score

But overall adventurers aren't static specialists. They need to level up to outmatch a diplomat regularly.

 

[AlViking]

I don't expect players of a charismatic character to be a professional actor. Meanwhile if it's an important social interaction the player does have to make it clear what they are saying and how. I encourage and prefer that they play it out but they can also speak in third person or simply state details of what they are saying. Meanwhile I don't care if you make a speech in person that leaves other players at the table alternately crying or cheering and your character has an 8 charisma I'm still going to base the target DC on the content of what you said and ask for a roll.

If the player is doing RP in a smarmy way or making others at the table uncomfortable, that's a completely separate issue that needs to be dealt with but rolling for checks has nothing to do with it.

 

[Seramus]

I assume a "Filter of Awesome" is being applied. If your roll is outstanding, then what your character says is probably far more eloquent and persuasive (or intimidating/deceptive/etc) than what you actually say. The same way I assume a player with amazing social graces OOC doesn't sound nearly as convincing IC if they roll poorly.

That said, I assume a fair amount of automatic success from the social specialists in the group, and only ask for a roll if the result would be interesting or if I just want a general idea of how well they do - possibly giving more information for exceptional rolls.

I also tend to use the Three Clue Rule (as a guideline), so even if there are no highly social characters in the party there are other ways to learn vital information.

 

[payn]

I think the issue is looking at info being gated like a room with a locked door. Simple roll, simple open. Simple diplo/intimi/bluff get info. For me its more of a social exploration experience. The opening check might simply be for the starting disposition of the NPC. The conversation still needs to play out. NPC might be afraid to help PCs, or the NPC might see the info as an opportunity to get something from the PCs.

It's also often framed as players who cant/wont role play and just chuck dice on the table and ask for a result. For some folks that might be their preferred method of play, but a lot of times they are following a GM's lead. If the GM isnt framing and role playing their NPCs and situations, the players might not either. Something which isnt often brought up as much as the "bad RP" player is.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I know not every table goes about these things the same way but here's how we do it in our 5e game which seems to have the benefit of avoiding the situations presented in the video.

DM sets up the scene in the tavern and the party believes the bartender may have some important info.

Player 1: My PC strides confidently up to the bar and says to the bartender "I hear you might have some information for me."

At this point, the player would not just roll a die unbidden. Instead, the DM would determine if the character's stated action has a chance of success or failure and if there is a meaningful consequence to a failure. I mean, the words of the PC in this first example seem a bit vague so the DM might roleplay the bartender to elicit some clarification about the PC's approach and goal - and have some fun with the scene and hint at the attitude and/or motivations of the bartender.

DM [roleplaying the bartender]: "About...?" or "What's it worth to you?" or "Why, hells yeah, I have information! We have a drink special on mead tonight... buy two pints, get the third free!"

Assuming the player then clarifies their intent, the DM can assess and decide if a roll is needed or not. If needed, we often find it helpful to provide the player with the DC or tell them it will be an opposed roll. We also find it helpful to define the stakes which could be binary or could scale with the magnitude of success or failure, depending on the situation. In this case, it seems the adventure relies on the PCs coming away with something here so, at worst, they will glean at least an obscure and/or dangerous lead for tracking more info about the Black Coin.

DM [determing a roll is necessary]: Ok, this will be a CHA(Persuasion) roll opposed by the bartender's WIS(Insight). Succeed and the bartender is going to provide some information to you, fail and she is likely going to think less of you and your friends and subsequent attempts to ply information may be more difficult. (or some such thing)

Unlike the video, at our table:

• the DM is not suggesting things for the players to do, as he does with the last PC. The players come up with what they want their charcters to do on their own.
• the players aren't just rolling to do the thing; they are providing a goal (e.g. to get info about the Black Coin) and an approach (e.g. appeal to the bartender's desire for gold); the DM determines if a roll is needed
• the DM doesn't call for a roll when the failure state is "nothing happens" like for the second PC who wants to notice something about the bar. Maybe a WIS(Perception) check would be appropriate with a failure state of the bartender getting anxious that the ranger is casing the joint and a success meaning an empty tip jar is noticed behind a bunch of dirty tankards... leading the PCs to perhaps remedy that situation and gain advantage, or even auto-success, on their next interaction with the bartender
• rollplaying doesn't have to be first person; a third person description that is reasonably specific is plenty

 

[Charlaquin]

I know not every table goes about these things the same way but here's how we do it in our 5e game which seems to have the benefit of avoiding the situations presented in the video.

DM sets up the scene in the tavern and the party believes the bartender may have some important info.

Player 1: My PC strides confidently up to the bar and says to the bartender "I hear you might have some information for me."

At this point, the player would not just roll a die unbidden. Instead, the DM would determine if the character's stated action has a chance of success or failure and if there is a meaningful consequence to a failure. I mean, the words of the PC in this first example seem a bit vague so the DM might roleplay the bartender to elicit some clarification about the PC's approach and goal - and have some fun with the scene and hint at the attitude and/or motivations of the bartender.

DM [roleplaying the bartender]: "About...?" or "What's it worth to you?" or "Why, hells yeah, I have information! We have a drink special on mead tonight... buy two pints, get the third free!"

Assuming the player then clarifies their intent, the DM can assess and decide if a roll is needed or not. If needed, we often find it helpful to provide the player with the DC or tell them it will be an opposed roll. We also find it helpful to define the stakes which could be binary or could scale with the magnitude of success or failure, depending on the situation. In this case, it seems the adventure relies on the PCs coming away with something here so, at worst, they will glean at least an obscure and/or dangerous lead for tracking more info about the Black Coin.

DM [determing a roll is necessary]: Ok, this will be a CHA(Persuasion) roll opposed by the bartender's WIS(Insight). Succeed and the bartender is going to provide some information to you, fail and she is likely going to think less of you and your friends and subsequent attempts to ply information may be more difficult. (or some such thing)

Unlike the video, at our table:

• the DM is not suggesting things for the players to do, as he does with the last PC. The players come up with what they want their charcters to do on their own.
• the players aren't just rolling to do the thing; they are providing a goal (e.g. to get info about the Black Coin) and an approach (e.g. appeal to the bartender's desire for gold); the DM determines if a roll is needed
• the DM doesn't call for a roll when the failure state is "nothing happens" like for the second PC who wants to notice something about the bar. Maybe a WIS(Perception) check would be appropriate with a failure state of the bartender getting anxious that the ranger is casing the joint and a success meaning an empty tip jar is noticed behind a bunch of dirty tankards... leading the PCs to perhaps remedy that situation and gain advantage, or even auto-success, on their next interaction with the bartender
• rollplaying doesn't have to be first person; a third person description that is reasonably specific is plenty

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.