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

[Ralif Redhammer]

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 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.

I dunno, if a PC wants to make a Stealth check sneak up on a guard in a chamber, I think the game becomes infinitely more evocative and interesting if they say "I dart from pillar to pillar when the guard isn't looking to try to sneak up on them" instead of "I want to roll Stealth to hide from the guard."

A person doesn't need to go into a long dialog scene on a check to persuade an NPC, but putting in a little effort to describe what your character is doing for any check makes the game better.

It can be as simple as "I try to convince the guard to let us past by bluffing that we're late guests to the party" or it can be the PC roleplaying how they thought it was a costume party and got all dressed up, then realized it wasn't and had to take everything off and put on a new set of clothes and that's why they're arriving so late and please just let us past so we don't get yelled at by Count Gofus....

 

[soviet]

What I'm looking for is not 'the player does the thing the PC is trying to do' but 'the player describes evocatively the thing the PC is trying to do'.

So in a social conflict situation I'm not asking the player to really intimidate or persuade me, but to give enough of a sense of the scene that if you succeed on the roll, it makes sense.

Similarly if the PC makes an attack roll, a search roll, or an athletics roll, I'm not really expecting the player to land a punch on me, find my hidden cash, and jump out my window. But some description of the approach taken is needed. 'I attack', 'I search', or 'I jump' are absolutely not enough.

 

[Piperken]

...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...

The PC fighter knows how to fight. The burden on an attack is choosing which attack options are optimal.

The PC rogue knows how to hide and how to spike damage on single targets. The burden for either is choosing where and when to undertake said actions, and declare them when they or others will benefit from that opportunity most.

One can possess gobs of charisma and know how to employ it; attempt to intimidate a suicide bomber to give up the goods with death? Laughable.

 

[MGibster]

What I'm looking for is not 'the player does the thing the PC is trying to do' but 'the player describes evocatively the thing the PC is trying to do'.

A big problem I used to have with my players was when they tried to play coy when gathering information. What I mean by that is they would try to get information from NPCs without revealing that they were looking for that particular information. i.e. They're looking for a man named Bob, but they won't come out and tell the bartender they're looking for Bob. I assume for the most part they've had DMs punish their characters in the past, but my players know I don't roll like that.

One can possess gobs of charisma and know how to employ it; attempt to intimidate a suicide bomber to give up the goods with death? Laughable.

And this is one I kind of struggle with. I like to tell my players, social skills aren't mind control. You're not going to give a rousing speech talking the big bad evil villain from abandoning his plans for world domination. You might be able to bluff him or persuade him in some ways, but he's not just going to fundamentally alter who he is just because you're good at persuading others. The key to persuading people is to understand them.

I've told this one here before, but I was running a 1930s game set in New York where two of the PCs, police detectives, were trying to get information from a mid-level mobster. One of the PCs threatened the NPC with arrest, but as seasoned detectives, I let them know threat of arrest wouldn't motivate him to sing. The PCs tried another tact and were able to get the information they needed.

It's sometimes difficult to get a party to keep all the NPCs straight let alone keep track of their motivations. But knowing the NPCs motivations, at least for important NPCs, make social interactions a lot better.

 

[soviet]

One can possess gobs of charisma and know how to employ it; attempt to intimidate a suicide bomber to give up the goods with death? Laughable.

I'm not sure it should be impossible.

 

[MGibster]

I'm not sure it should be impossible.

Generally speaking, I would agree. When I think of an important NPC, I usually try to have some idea of what's motivating them. And if the PC figures out what that motivation is or blunders onto it by accident, it'll make attempts at persuasion less difficult. Maybe the bomber is worried about who will look out for their family once they're gone. Maybe the bomber doesn't really want to be there but feels as though he's got no choice. There are potentially a lot of different reasons why the bomber is motivated to do what they do. On the flip side, maybe they're a true believer and talking them out of it is going to be nigh impossible.

 

[jasper]

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.

I had had players like this and do approve of this play style. I see no problem Hopeless jasper can't speak to people dice play a face man. Hopefully Jasper would give more information than black coin.