The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[TiQuinn]

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?

Let the bonuses and penalties on ability scores come out in the actual rolls. Player 1 may really, really want to connive his way past the guard with some sort of BS story, but if they have a -1 to their CHA, well...roll. See if the -1 comes into play. If the player seems really invested in their idea, and it's a solid plan, give them advantage, but it's still at a -1.

For Player 2, it really depends on how they interact with the game. If they're having fun, I'm not going to try to fix a problem that may not be there. Or, they may have an idea, but I'm not going to press them to roleplay it out - that's what the die roll is for. They can describe their idea as much or as little as they want.

 

[kenada]

The maths of Advantage/Disadvantage are kind of peculiar, and depend to some extent on what the basic chance of success before it applies.

That was a problem for my players when I ran 5e. The math of advantage is unintuitive: the effective bonus it provides is greater when the DC is near the average. At the extremes, it’s much smaller. A plain bonus is easy to understand: you have X% greater chance to succeed, and that’s it.

Edit: AnyDice

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.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Consider stats only when making the checks in the end. Use a social system that does not reward or penalize acting ability, gregariousness, or whatever.

See, it's not about acting ability or gregariousness, it's about whether the player comes up with an idea that would work well given the situation (though acting ability or character skill might help "sell" it). By not giving any reward or penalty for the idea, aren't you penalizing the idea? "Whatever idea you come up with has no effect whatsoever. Roll."

My preference would be to give a bonus for the good idea, but then also apply any +/- modifiers for character high/low skills/stats.

 

[Wolfpack48]

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.

Not in my recent experience.

 

[Reynard]

See, it's not about acting ability or gregariousness, it's about whether the player comes up with an idea that would work well given the situation (though acting ability or character skill might help "sell" it). By not giving any reward or penalty for the idea, aren't you penalizing the idea? "Whatever idea you come up with has no effect whatsoever. Roll."

This is a function of the D&D system not giving you options. In combat, there is positioning and choices between multiple options, from class abilities to system wide maneuvers. The social pillar in 5E has no such options and is usually relegated to a single roll. If instead there were social maneuvers and positioning, as well as specific abilities based on class or background or feats or whatever, then player choices would actually matter in social situations. As it is, it is all playacting and GM fiat.

 

[payn]

See, it's not about acting ability or gregariousness, it's about whether the player comes up with an idea that would work well given the situation (though acting ability might help "sell" it). By not giving any reward or penalty for the idea, aren't you penalizing the idea? "Whatever idea you come up with has no effect whatsoever."

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. Some posters in this thread have demonstrated some interesting ideas. I have also seen them post about kicking their player in the nuts hard mechanically for not living up to their idea of a "good" idea. So, I get why folks are dubious of the approach.

Ideally, you want a mechanical system that provides a guideline for this activity. Something along the lines of making the check a little easier/harder based on GM interpretation. Otherwise, you get random handwaves in one way or the other of the rules system in which players stop playing the game and just play for the GMs approval.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is a function of the D&D system not giving you options. In combat, there is positioning and choices between multiple options, from class abilities to system wide maneuvers. The social pillar in 5E has no such options and is usually relegated to a single roll. If instead there were social maneuvers and positioning, as well as specific abilities based on class or background or feats or whatever, then player choices would actually matter in social situations. As it is, it is all playacting and GM fiat.

I guess I am more used to BRP at this stage, which has plenty of levers for social skills. But doesn't 5e use CHA in some limited capacity for social rolls? We used to roll against stats themselves if there wasn't a specific skill listed. But I see Persuasion, Performance, Intimidation and Deception as skills on the 5e sheet, do the rules for those need to bolstered a bit?

 

[Reynard]

I guess I am more used to BRP at this stage, which has plenty of levers for social skills. But doesn't 5e use CHA in some limited capacity for social rolls? We used to roll against stats themselves if there wasn't a specific skill listed. But I see Persuasion, Performance, Intimidation and Deception as skills on the 5e sheet, do the rules for those need to bolstered a bit?

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.

 

[payn]

I guess I am more used to BRP at this stage, which has plenty of levers for social skills. But doesn't 5e use CHA in some limited capacity for social rolls? We used to roll against stats themselves if there wasn't a specific skill listed. But I see Persuasion, Performance, Intimidation and Deception as skills on the 5e sheet, do the rules for those need to bolstered a bit?

I think the complaint, if I understand it correctly, is that the skill system is essentially binary pass/fail. Intimidate a guy? One roll. Deceive someone? One roll. Where as in combat you have initiative, move actions, attack actions, spells, etc.. It's nuanced and interesting and everyone gets to react as the situation develops. There is no outline for social pillar at all besides you say; GM decides.

Edit; ninja'd

 

[Wolfpack48]

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.

Wouldn't you just assign a DC to the action ("Convincing the guard is a Medium 15 DC"), apply skill bonuses and modifiers for ideas, and then just roll? We assign AC to monsters and give bonuses for clever actions, why wouldn't you just assign a DC to a social encounter and run it in a similar way? I'm not seeing where the GM fiat is entering into it.