The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[payn]

I'm actually thinking differently. The DC would be set ahead of time (if not specifically listed as part of the adventure, then Medium 15 - after all, the monsters all have their ACs predefined). A "good idea" would modify the roll, not the DC.

Yeap, I think the rules indicating this is the way is important. Also, it helps when the rules dont do it anyway like (dis)advantage does.

Yep, but let's widen it a bit. Suppose there were multiple approaches, but the group/referee really wanted to allow the current path to proceed. Should there be room for that?

Not sure I follow. As a player, if my approach fails, I attempt another. As GM, I'd likely have some reaction, or perhaps proactive move by NPCs.

 

[bloodtide]

So thought exercise:

Player 1 is extroverted, enjoys the improv part of roleplay and often comes up with ideas during play. They are playing a character with low INT, CHA and social skills.

Player 2 is introverted, doesn't prefer the improv part of roleplaying and rarely comes up with ideas during play. They are playing a character with high INT, CHA and social skills.

How do you run the game without penalizing either player?

Just play a normal game. As a DM you present a neutral game world. Though this question is really the age old split between "book learning" and "street smarts". Because what are each ability. You can have a scientist type that can do advanced math, but they can't be creative or come up with ideas. You can have a mechanic that can be creative and come up with ideas, but they can't do advanced math. So who has the higher INT?

You do not "need" to come up with ideas, improv or even role play to play a game like D&D...if you don't want too.

Though it is really best to find a DM/Group that fits your game style.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Anyway, what I wasn’t sure about is how people are playing today. Are they fishing for advantage all the time? I don’t know.

I've so heard. Or at least its common.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They are a single point of action. You pick an approach and try and convince the GM to let you roll and then the GM uses fiat to decide whether you rolled high enough. That isn't how combat works. Combat has a lot more nuance, which means player choices matter more. Player choices should matter more in social situations.

Part of it, as you referenced earlier, is that its a multi-stage process. One roll isn't winner take all, so you have a chance to access the tactics you're using and try something new, invest limited resources and do other things.

Most social rolls in most games are one roll; even if you had some choices in how you approached them, you never get a chance to adjust.

 

[Wolfpack48]

One way it can be handled is similar to a Climb test. A simple failure doesn't necessarily mean a fall to death or injury, but possibly a slip that has chance(s) for recovery with Luck, DEX, Climb or othersuch. Levels of success are also helpful here. BRP has crit success, special success, success, failure and fumble.

 

[Pedantic]

Part of it, as you referenced earlier, is that its a multi-stage process. One roll isn't winner take all, so you have a chance to access the tactics you're using and try something new, invest limited resources and do other things.

Most social rolls in most games are one roll; even if you had some choices in how you approached them, you never get a chance to adjust.

To be clear, it is not really an improvement to simply add more rolls. You need more design to get there: discrete social actions that lead to different results, variable impacts, different targetable defenses, all that.

I'm largely unpersuaded that social interactions get better with more involved systems. PCs really just need a defined scope of available action (what can I get this person to do/believe) and then a roll to see if they get what they want.

 

[Wolfpack48]

To be clear, it is not really an improvement to simply add more rolls. You need more design to get there: discrete social actions that lead to different results, variable impacts, different targetable defenses, all that.

I'm largely unpersuaded that social interactions get better with more involved systems. PCs really just need a defined scope of available action (what can I get this person to do/believe) and then a roll to see if they get what they want.

I do like a system that is consistent throughout, however. The system for resolving a social dynamic shouldn't be radically different from opening a trapped chest or fighting an orc.

 

[Lanefan]

That said, should there be times when the adventure needs to move forward, and there is a decision to just proceed? The VLDL video is actually pretty illustrative of the issue, even if it was hanging on a puzzle. What if it hung on a roll, and the party couldn't get through the door according to the roll? Should there be room for a ruling to simply move ahead?

No.

Instead, the GM should prepare to deal with the fallout of their not being able to move ahead; and be ready for them to either keep bashing their heads against the wall, or abandon the mission in favour of something else, or fall to fighting among themselves, or whatever. Just because you prepped something doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get to run it.

And to your question about the extroverted and introverted players each playing a character not suited to their own personalities, I'd have a word with the extrovert if he was playing his character beyond its stats while quietly asking myself why - when the whole basis of the game is a) socializing (in and-or out of character) and b) in-character roleplaying - the introvert is there in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

For some folks that might be considered neutral. Its not the GM's job to arbitrate your ideas into bonuses or penalties; thats what the rules do.

Now, I do want to encourage my players to come up with ideas and apply them in game. Though, im also careful because I know how subjective and fickle that can be.

Indeed. Add to that the ever-present risk of DM favouritism (be it real or perceived), and it quickly becomes a minefield.

 

[Wolfpack48]

No.

Instead, the GM should prepare to deal with the fallout of their not being able to move ahead; and be ready for them to either keep bashing their heads against the wall, or abandon the mission in favour of something else, or fall to fighting among themselves, or whatever. Just because you prepped something doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get to run it.

And to your question about the extroverted and introverted players each playing a character not suited to their own personalities, I'd have a word with the extrovert if he was playing his character beyond its stats while quietly asking myself why - when the whole basis of the game is a) socializing (in and-or out of character) and b) in-character roleplaying - the introvert is there in the first place.

This calls for another video.

I was going to say for the 2 players, consider calling attention to the fact they have chosen characters very different than themselves, and asking whether they are ready to play to that type. Player 2's case is more challenging, but I'd hope to encourage them to enjoy participating even if it's counter to their preferred mode.

Indeed. Add to that the ever-present risk of DM favouritism (be it real or perceived), and it quickly becomes a minefield.

On this, I'll just disagree and leave it at that. Been playing this way a long time and haven't encountered said minefields or favorites.