D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Micah Sweet]

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.

If the player's goal is to achieve an objective with the social interaction, all of that stuff obfuscates the issue and if anything reduces the chances of success.

 

[Oofta]

If the player's goal is to achieve an objective with the social interaction, all of that stuff obfuscates the issue and if anything reduces the chances of success.

Getting insight rolls and advantage reduce the chance of success at a DC the DM sets? That's a unique spin. I disagree totally, but still. Unique spin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Getting insight rolls and advantage reduce the chance of success at a DC the DM sets? That's a unique spin. I disagree totally, but still. Unique spin.

I said if anything. Having the best person roll with advantage from anyone else is always going to be the surest path to success. Making it any more than that will either do nothing or make that chance go down. I think you underestimate how many people focus on getting the "W' in these situations. Same reason folks maximize their damage, or to hit chance, or AC.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

The DMG doesn't give advice, examples, or rules on how to do any of that. It's mostly "You are the DM, you fix it. You figure it out. If someone is not involved but wants to be, you fix it. With stuff and things I'm not going to explain or elaborate on".

This is why 1e and 2e didn't emphasize Charisma. If you're not going to explain how to Use Charisma then don't use Charisma.

This is why 4E had an official rule for group conversations and social interactions because they wanted to have rules for charisma and does explain the entire process of it.

Fifth edition mostly went "rely on your experience from older editions, go watch Twitch or YouTube, or listen to Spotify or Apple."

I mean even having an official D&D Videos with explanations on how to play and how to DM would have been great.

 

[Minigiant]

I said if anything. Having the best person roll with advantage from anyone else is always going to be the surest path to success. Making it any more than that will either do nothing or make that chance go down. I think you underestimate how many people focus on getting the "W' in these situations. Same reason folks maximize their damage, or to hit chance, or AC.

Especially when you got some DM who out there ready to inflict some huge penalty or punishment on the party who fails.

I had a DM where almost any failed social check turned into a fight, locked door, or loss of gold.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Especially when you got some DM who out there ready to inflict some huge penalty or punishment on the party who fails.

I had a DM where almost any failed social check turned into a fight, locked door, or loss of gold.

Why? I mean sure, sometimes the situation might be super tense to begin with, so it could escalate, but most of the time it should just be: "Sorry mate, I can't do what you ask," or perhaps "I can't do that right now, but maybe if you do me this HUGE FAVOUR we can talk."

 

[Xetheral]

I said if anything. Having the best person roll with advantage from anyone else is always going to be the surest path to success. Making it any more than that will either do nothing or make that chance go down. I think you underestimate how many people focus on getting the "W' in these situations. Same reason folks maximize their damage, or to hit chance, or AC.

The surest path to success for the players is to change the situation that required a roll so that they automatically succeed instead of having to roll. The character best able to change the situation to produce an automatic success won't necessarily be the character with the highest bonus.

If that isn't possible, maximizing the odds of success requires both maximizing the bonus on the roll and driving down the DC by influencing the situation in a way that makes the task easier. The best statistical odds of success may come from the character who is best able to influence the situation to get the lowest DC, even if they don't have the highest bonus.

So even when taking a strict optimizing approach to social interaction, characters without the highest bonus have an important role to play. If truly optimizing, the only way the highest-bonus character will do all the work is if the player of that character is also always the one with the best ideas for how to influence every given situation in the party's favor. (Or, in some cases, if the party has a telepathic bond up and can collectively scheme during a social encounter and feed strategy to the character with the highest bonus. But with a telepathic bond everyone gets to participate anyway, regardless of bonus.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

The surest path to success for the players is to change the situation that required a roll so that they automatically succeed instead of having to roll. The character best able to change the situation to produce an automatic success won't necessarily be the character with the highest bonus.

If that isn't possible, maximizing the odds of success requires both maximizing the bonus on the roll and driving down the DC by influencing the situation in a way that makes the task easier. The best statistical odds of success may come from the character who is best able to influence the situation to get the lowest DC, even if they don't have the highest bonus.

So even when taking a strict optimizing approach to social interaction, characters without the highest bonus have an important role to play. If truly optimizing, the only way the highest-bonus character will do all the work is if the player of that character is also always the one with the best ideas for how to influence every given situation in the party's favor. (Or, in some cases, if the party has a telepathic bond up and can collectively scheme during a social encounter and feed strategy to the character with the highest bonus. But with a telepathic bond everyone gets to participate anyway, regardless of bonus.)

Unnecessary in the vast majority of cases. A socially specialized PC almost never fails anyway, especially with advantage, unless the DC is set unrealistically high according to the guidelines. The extra stuff you're talking about is generally not helpful enough to be worth the trouble. Also, many players just want the success so they can move on to some other part of the game they prefer, and aren't all that interested in "participating" anyway.

 

[Scribe]

Unnecessary in the vast majority of cases. A socially specialized PC almost never fails anyway, especially with advantage, unless the DC is set unrealistically high according to the guidelines. The extra stuff you're talking about is generally not helpful enough to be worth the trouble. Also, many players just want the success so they can move on to some other part of the game they prefer, and aren't all that interested in "participating" anyway.

So, I dont think you are wrong here, but clearly, very very clearly, there are some folks who play differently, some DM's who DM differently, and some players with different expectations and desires.

What some may call unnecessary, could just BE THE GAME to others.

Meanwhile, I'm sliding into an existential crisis, because I think I may need to be a Wizard in my next game and I just dont know that I'm ready for that stage of my life.

 

[Oofta]

I said if anything. Having the best person roll with advantage from anyone else is always going to be the surest path to success. Making it any more than that will either do nothing or make that chance go down. I think you underestimate how many people focus on getting the "W' in these situations. Same reason folks maximize their damage, or to hit chance, or AC.

Getting the "W"?