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

[soviet]

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.

I'd rather just have a fun and engaging game. If the only way to accommodate people who literally cannot pretend to have a conversation is to reduce all game play to dice rolls, I am happy just to not play with such people.

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.

Don't play bad systems, I agree. But yes a good performance should aid or replace the dice roll, and a failure can be about the NPC's choice of how they react or some other circumstances rather than because the PC messed up.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

I am pretty much in agreement with you - to my mind, it does a disservice to PCs that have specialized in social skills if someone can just RP really well and not have to roll.

And honestly, even the suavest person sometimes just says the wrong thing, or the listener takes it the wrong way. Sometimes being too glib can raise people's hackles. It happens in real life all the time.

 

[Quartz]

Then, all ready for some scintillating interactions, it just goes horribly wrong.

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.

A key maxim is that you only roll when the result is in doubt.

I gave this a lot of thought when trying to square how those fighters with modest mental stats became kings.

 

[jolt]

I sometimes feel like my entire life has been a Charisma check gone wrong.

 

[Laurefindel]

I sometimes feel like my entire life has been a Charisma check gone wrong.

This is funny and sad and relatable all at the same time

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A key maxim is that you only roll when the result is in doubt.

I gave this a lot of thought when trying to square how those fighters with modest mental stats became kings.

With social checks, I also ask myself the question of whether the two (or more) people involved have different desired outcomes. If the answer is no, it's not a check. If the answer is yes, it is a check.

 

[Piperken]

At my table the party's main face character has the worst Charisma out of the group; the PC has social anxiety and finds it challenging speaking in front of groups. But the PC recognizes this; it is something they've set as goal to improve, and work on by agreeing to be the main spokesperson most times.

Re: Checks to Persuade (Seduce?), Intimidate or Deceive. I feel like there should be space for the NPC/monster that does not comply/relinquish whatever the PCs are attempting to get from them, even when you roll a natural 20.

e.g. I convince the red dragon not to instantly kill me with dragon breath because it caught me sneaking into its lair!

Maybe a 20 is the red dragon is feeling a bit peckish, so rather than just incinerate the 1st level PC then, it decides it will just eat them... later.

Likewise, if you roll a 1, rather than the PC catastrophically flubbing, resulting in a tight-lipped, unconvinced NPC, they get:

 

[MGibster]

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.

I don't expect any player to be as charismatic, intelligent, strong, or as beautiful as their character, but I'd like to see them put in a little effort in the role playing department. If a PC is trying to intimidate someone, then please say or do something in a menacing manner. If your character is performing for some patrons, I don't expect you to sing, though that would be nice, but at least describe the kind of song you're singing and what mood you want to put your audience in. But if the best they can do is speak in third person, then I'm with you, that's okay too. None of us are aspiring thespians. Most of us aren't. Okay, some of us aren't.

I will sometimes reward or penalize rolls based on how the player character behaves versus what they're trying to accomplish. If they know the bartender aches for the touch of another human being, I'll give them advantage on their Persuasion roll if they whisper sweet nothings in her ear. If they're trying to convince someone to give them a concession, but are treating that NPC like garbage, I'll have them make a Persuasion roll at disadvantage.

I sometimes feel like my entire life has been a Charisma check gone wrong.

With such a natural high bonus you don't even need to roll.

 

[Hussar]

but I'd like to see them put in a little effort in the role playing department.

At the end of the day, this is how I feel as well. I don't care if you only speak in 3rd person or whatever. That's fine. I certainly don't expect Shakespeare. But, show a bit of effort. Put a bit of energy into it. That's all I'm asking.

 

[lall]

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.

In that vein, I plan on using Wish so that for certain Influence actions, the NPC is always Willing, never Hesitant nor Unwilling. Of course, the wish may not be granted or there could be monkeypaw.

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.

I just need the person playing the rogue to describe how they’re attempting to hide behind the object. I just need the person playing the druid to describe how they are attempting to diagnose the illness with their medicine check. I just need the person playing the fighter to describe how they are attempting to hit the enemy with their sword. I just need the person playing the monk to describe how they are attempting to make the wisdom save. Many/most DMs put an extra burden on CHA checks that usually aren’t there for other skill checks, attacks, and saves. Charming PCs know how to charm, rogues know how to hide well, fighters know how to fight, druids know stuff about medicine, and those subjected to wisdom saves have a good idea on how to fight those off. The players at the table often don’t. They usually know what they want to do (not necessarily how) and they know how to roll dice. If the norm was that I got a lesson in combat techniques every time our characters fought from the player playing the fighter and I felt like I could enroll in medical school from what I learned from other players making medicine checks, I’d have no problem with the expectation that players should know how to be suave when making a CHA check. Until then, when I DM, I won’t place an extra burden on one particular type of d20 test.