D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Oofta]

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.

So that whole chapter on running the game isn't about advice or rules? Good to know. Even if the obvious hyperbole were true, people have more advice and options at their fingertips than ever before if they need it. Besides, nobody reads the DMG.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Getting the "W"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Getting the "W"?

Wiener, obviously.

 

[Oofta]

Wiener, obviously.

Oscar Meyer or Ballpark?

 

[Xetheral]

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.

First, I disagree with your claim. Unless your definition of "social specialists" is confined to 13th level characters with expertise (11th level for Rogues), the variance in a d20 roll is too large to "almost never fail" on even DC 20 ("Hard") checks.

Second, even assuming your claim is true, if the characters are encountering situations they they would "almost never fail" before engineering the situation to their own advantage, then the PCs are clearly setting their sights way too low, and could easily be choosing harder and more rewarding goals.

Third, if your players aren't all that interested in participating in social encounters anyway, then why does it matter if their characters are capable of doing so?

 

[Oofta]

First, I disagree with your claim. Unless your definition of "social specialists" is confined to 13th level characters with expertise (11th level for Rogues), the variance in a d20 roll is too large to "almost never fail" on even DC 20 ("Hard") checks.

Second, even assuming your claim is true, if the characters are encountering situations they they would "almost never fail" before engineering the situation to their own advantage, then the PCs are clearly setting their sights way too low, and could easily be choosing harder and more rewarding goals.

Third, if your players aren't all that interested in participating in social encounters anyway, then why does it matter if their characters are capable of doing so?

Funny thing is, my wife decided her rogue with reliable talent (can't get less than 10 on a skill roll) because "it was boring".

 

[tetrasodium]

First, I disagree with your claim. Unless your definition of "social specialists" is confined to 13th level characters with expertise (11th level for Rogues), the variance in a d20 roll is too large to "almost never fail" on even DC 20 ("Hard") checks.

Second, even assuming your claim is true, if the characters are encountering situations they they would "almost never fail" before engineering the situation to their own advantage, then the PCs are clearly setting their sights way too low, and could easily be choosing harder and more rewarding goals.

Third, if your players aren't all that interested in participating in social encounters anyway, then why does it matter if their characters are capable of doing so?

No he's completely on the mark. Players in social situations tend to operate as a group Some of the replies @Micah Sweet @Minigiant have been getting seem to be less about actual real time play than some kind of asynchronous play by post or multi isolated character gamelit hypothetical scenario.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Getting the "W"?

The win. Succeeding on the check.

 

[Micah Sweet]

First, I disagree with your claim. Unless your definition of "social specialists" is confined to 13th level characters with expertise (11th level for Rogues), the variance in a d20 roll is too large to "almost never fail" on even DC 20 ("Hard") checks.

Second, even assuming your claim is true, if the characters are encountering situations they they would "almost never fail" before engineering the situation to their own advantage, then the PCs are clearly setting their sights way too low, and could easily be choosing harder and more rewarding goals.

Third, if your players aren't all that interested in participating in social encounters anyway, then why does it matter if their characters are capable of doing so?

Not all players at a table like the same things.

 

[Minigiant]

So that whole chapter on running the game isn't about advice or rules? Good to know. Even if the obvious hyperbole were true, people have more advice and options at their fingertips than ever before if they need it. Besides, nobody reads the DMG.

Yes it's full of bad advice that barely works because it runs on the simplistic core rules.

1. DM determines a starting attitude
2. DM allows for Insight check if player initates to pick up a characteristic
3. CHARISMA CHECK!
4. Repeat?

That's okay if your game is hack and slash and barely has social interaction.

It's okay to say the DMG is junk. Even WOTC does.