D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Crimson Longinus]

And?

The barbarian's argument and the bard's argument are 90% of the time both
A single Charisma (Skill) vs Wisdom (Skill) check

No. Because what your argument is matters. And if the barbarian's player comes up with good argument, then they're one who need to say it, thus they're the one who is rolling.

The point is that the DCs are too high for single checks.

Are they? Then talk with the NPC longer, learn about them so you can make an argument that is likelier to convince them and thus has lower DC. And the great part is that anyone who comes up with a good question can ask it!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think you are missing what I am saying. The roll is determined by what is said. The DM adjudicates this most of the time during social encounters. If the barbarian says something that requires a roll, then so be it. A conversation can involve more than two people.

I guess I can put it like this: When your group is involved in combat, is only one person interacting with the enemies because they do the most damage? Or, when your group is exploring, is only the person with good perception interacting with the environment?

I guess I can put it like this. When in combat the play is turn based and we all act on our turns. When exploring we leave most of the scouting to the expert and then they have backup.

 

[Minigiant]

No. Because what your argument is matters. And if the barbarian's player comes up with good argument, then they're one who need to say it, thus they're the one who is rolling.

And 90% of the time the argument is a Cha vs Wis check unless you use optional, variant or house rules.

Are they? Then talk with the NPC longer, learn about them so you can make an argument that is likelier to convince them and thus has lower DC. And the great part is that anyone who comes up with a good question can ask it!

Not in the rules.
Not in the advice.

You are using advice and rules not in the books to make the rules work.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. Because what your argument is matters. And if the barbarian's player comes up with good argument, then they're one who need to say it, thus they're the one who is rolling.


Are they? Then talk with the NPC longer, learn about them so you can make an argument that is likelier to convince them and thus has lower DC. And the great part is that anyone who comes up with a good question can ask it!

Barbarian more or less at best can get advantage via role playing.

We had a ten charisma wizard player want to do diplomacy and I was the celestial warlock trained in persuasion.

After he blew his rolls a few times he kinda got moved on from the job.

If you have a skill focus bard, Eloquence bard or both yeah.......

If the player wanted to do it properly should have picked a better class or at least proficient in it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. Because what your argument is matters. And if the barbarian's player comes up with good argument, then they're one who need to say it, thus they're the one who is rolling.


Are they? Then talk with the NPC longer, learn about them so you can make an argument that is likelier to convince them and thus has lower DC. And the great part is that anyone who comes up with a good question can ask it!

None of that is required by the rules, unfortunately. All you have to do is make the roll and meet the DC, usually quite simple for a specialist.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And 90% of the time the argument is a Cha vs Wis check unless you use optional, variant or house rules.

It literally is not. Lying might involve bluff vs insight contested check, but most of the time skill checks use DCs set by the GM.

You are using advice and rules not in the books to make the rules work.

It is rules in the book that the GM is supposed to set the DC for the task according the difficulty of the task. But yes, the game should do better job explaining what that entails.

 

[Minigiant]

It literally is not. Lying might involve bluff vs insight contested check, but most of the time skill checks use DCs set by the GM.

Deception vs Insight IS a Cha vs Wis check.

It is rules in the book that the GM is supposed to set the DC for the task according the difficulty of the task. Yes, the game should do better job explaining what that entails.

It's not in the rules that additional arguments lower the DCs.
It's the opposite.

The rule is

"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who's leading the effort--or the one with the highest ability modifier--can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action.

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone. For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task. Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive. Some tasks, such as threading a needle, are no easier with help."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Deception vs Insight IS a Cha vs Wis check.

Yes it is. And you don't roll that if you're trying to persuade someone. You roll your persuasion vs the DC set by the GM.

It's not in the rules that additional arguments lower the DCs.

I didn't say it is. I said it is the rule that the GM sets the DC to represent the difficulty of the task. How do you judge the difficulty? You need to take into account the factors I mentioned earlier and more. So not every argument will have the same DC. The players might keep the conversation going to get a better read of the NPC. Some insight rolls might be involved (keyed to different ability than persuasion, so the best persuader might not be the one who succeeds.) Then the player who thinks they have an argument they believe would convince the NPC makes their pitch. So they're the one who is rolling.

Also a conversation might involve several lies and arguments, so it is perfectly possible that several rolls are made.

Like I get the idea of having a face character. If you already have a clear read of the situations and a straightforward request with a clear pitch it makes sense for them to do it. But more complicated social situations just don't work that way.

Furthermore, this is roleplaying game, not a competitive game. The point is to do what makes sense for your character. So just have conversation in-character like real people. It is not about winning. Hell, I loved playing an irreverent barbarian who often said things that annoyed NPCs. Might not have been optimal, but it was fun.

And yes, all this certainly is me extrapolating beyond what the books offer advice for. Because, frankly, the books are rubbish at that. I wish they were better, but they aren't. Good thing that a big part of newer gamers are familiar with Critical Role and other such shows so that they can get an idea of how it is done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes it is. And you don't roll that if you're trying to persuade someone. You roll your persuasion vs the DC set by the GM.



I didn't say it is. I said it is the rule that the GM sets the DC to represent the difficulty of the task. How do you judge the difficulty? You need to take into account the factors I mentioned earlier and more. So not every argument will have the same DC. The players might keep the conversation going to get a better read of the NPC. Some insight rolls might be involved (keyed to different ability than persuasion, so the best persuader might not be the one who succeeds.) Then the player who thinks they have an argument they believe would convince the NPC makes their pitch. So they're the one who is rolling.

Also a conversation might involve several lies and arguments, so it is perfectly possible that several rolls are made.

Like I get the idea of having a face character. If you already have a clear read of the situations and a straightforward request with a clear pitch it makes sense for them to do it. But more complicated social situations just don't work that way.

Furthermore, this is roleplaying game, not a competitive game. The point is to do what makes sense for your character. So just have conversation in-character like real people. It is not about winning. Hell, I loved playing an irreverent barbarian who often said things that annoyed NPCs. Might not have been optimal, but it was fun.

And yes, all this certainly is me extrapolating beyond what the books offer advice for. Because, frankly, the books are rubbish at that. I wish they were better, but they aren't. Good thing that a big part of newer gamers are familiar with Critical Role and other such shows so that they can get an idea of how it is done.

I get that you want that, and that's great for you, but I'm playing a game, not putting on a show.

 

[Oofta]

And 90% of the time the argument is a Cha vs Wis check unless you use optional, variant or house rules.


Not in the rules.
Not in the advice.

You are using advice and rules not in the books to make the rules work.

I don't use any optional, variant or house rules. Reading what you're saying, I have to wonder what the last time you read the DMG on social interactions. Because it states that you may want to chat with the NPC in order to get insight checks to uncover their characteristics, that the DM sets the DC, that anyone who has participated in the conversation can make the check, that if another PC substantially contributes to the check the persuasion check can be made with advantage, there may even be multiple checks depending on the situation. There's also advice on targeting specific players so that they have a chance to participate "If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others." All from the rules.

Could it be better? Of course, and I hope the 2024 edition does a better job. Then again, I don't envy them because no matter how often they state "The rules are not in charge, you [the DM] are" some people will take any example they give as the one true way that the game must be played. There will never be enough advice to cover every situation. But discussing how the DMG should be rewritten is a whole other topic.