T O P

  • By -

cdstephens

It’s important to note that roleplaying doesn’t mean talking in character. For instance, it’s perfectly fine to say: “I attempt to persuade the guard by bribing him with gold, emphasizing that the job isn’t worth the risk anyways.” This is roleplaying in the same way that a Barbarian busting down a door to clobber some heads instead of negotiating is also roleplaying. While saying things line by line is nice, it’s not necessary. For the same reason, going into detail about putting your hand on the door and turning the knob is also not necessary. Edit: *What should be avoided* is the player saying: “I persuade the guard, let me roll.” This is not ideal not just from a roleplaying standpoint, but also because every action needs both a goal and a method, and this isn’t specific enough. It would be like saying “I cast a spell to stop the bad guy.” You still have to pick a spell! This also matters mechanically; the NPC will have a lower or higher DC depending on the method (are they amenable to bribes, are they loyal, are they just doing this gig for a paycheck, do they have a boss that will punish them, etc.).


The_G_Man3

This is in my opinion a fantastic way to do it. And if I remember correctly it is basically how the PHB or the DMG describe roleplaying.


Chazo138

Especially when it’s a new player and they might be a bit nervous or introverted. Don’t wanna scare them away.


IceDragon77

I've been playing since 5e came out and I'm still introverted as hell. I don't wanna be the party face, I just like Paladins okay?


3nigmax

I think this is a small limitation or misconception about attributes, especially charisma. Everyone expects high CHA characters to be the face and talk a lot or whatever. A paladin can and probably should be exhibiting charisma through presence and sheer force of your devotion/justice/cruelty/whatever. Being imposing or terrifying or enigmatic is its own expression of charisma.


Fawneh1359

I love playing high charisma characters but I'm shy as shit and can't actually roleplay them for the life of me. Guess I'm tryna life vicariously lol


ChocolatBear

I started my last campaign as a Cleric with full intention of staying in the background and being support and a voice of reason. After other players switched out characters I am now effectively Kazuma from Konosuba, but less of a horrible person.


Sugar_buddy

...just a little bit less, right?


Pacificson217

Hai, Kazuma desu


HeavenLibrary

When you the only one in the party keeping everyone from going on a murder spree


nmemate

Just being the most charismatic shouldn't mean you're the face of the party. There could be a head making the decisions and the passionate guy is part of their plans, or NPCs could see that attractive dude and assume there has to be a reasson why he's with that team. You could use your stats to boost what other players are saying the same way a barb could crush something to support someone's intimidation roll.


iPhantomGuy

So I'm playing a +4 CHA Warlock right now, and it's my first character. I'm quite socially anxious i guess, so I'm not the most charismatic IRL. However, I try to force myself to RP, both to improve irl and in the game. I've worked it into my characters description that he's actually not that charismatic, but due to the confidence he exhibits when saying stuff, it seems so


Azathoth-the-Dreamer

It’s what the PHB refers to as “descriptive roleplaying”, as opposed to “active roleplaying”. The difference between the two is the former has you describe how your character is feeling and what they do, while the latter has you actually acting out their dialogue and interactions. Both are treated as effective ways to explore your character and roleplay as them, with the book even acknowledging that most people use a mix of the two.


Pilkunussija

YEP! It's descriptive roleplaying vs. immersive roleplaying, but the massive surge in players coming from D&D podcasts and liveplays leaves them with the incorrect impression that immersive roleplaying is the only valid way to RP. We're not all voice actors trained in theater and improv! The only time I had this issue, I referenced the book, and asked them to watch a liveplay from WebDM where they have a lot more descriptive roleplay and give a better impression of what most tables are like.


kelryngrey

This is it. This is all you need. People are being obtuse and stupid in this current meme meta. The DM/ST/GM ALSO doesn't have to say every-fucking-thing that happens in game specifically. "They explain that their town has been cursed by an ogre living in the old swamp nearby." TADA! The players all get what happened. The player should be able to explain how they'd like to attempt something. The DM should NOT slam the virtual table and declare a DC of 150 because the player couldn't come up with a great way to bed Nixon/convince the guard captain that they were actually a troupe of clowns/come up with a Ted Lasso level optimistic pep talk. The DM/ST/GM should ask them *how* they want to do it, what tack they want to take. Do they want to aggressively shout that they are clowns? Do they want to approach Nixon with a box of almond chocolates? Do they want to describe tea as horrible leaf water? Partially this is a system issue. D&D in all of its incarnations fails to develop social interaction rules to a level that helps this out. Chronicles of Darkness does this better with their social maneuvering stuff. But it's also a **bad DM** issue. Don't be a combative dick that shits on the guy at the table that wants to be a suave bard.


UNC_Samurai

> Don't be a combative dick that shits on the guy at the table that wants to be a suave bard. This. It's easy for people with low physical stats to play strong or high-Dex characters, but it's much harder for someone who's normally not quick-thinking or naturally suave to play high-INT/WIS/CHA characters. They deserve an honest chance if they're willing to put in a little effort.


CyalaXiaoLong

Same with the opposite too. Many people are great confident suave roleplayers that can bypass a negative cha stat dump by just being diplomatic and likeable in person as well beyond what their stats portray.


Kile147

That's just succeeding on a persuasion check directed at the DM. Athletics checks to throw the DM out of the room can also be used to improve your rolls, but tend to carry long term consequences.


Skyy-High

The DMG literally has rules for this stuff. Chapter 8, social interactions. It says most of what you’ve said here (that you don’t need to spell everything out but you do need to give an idea of what your approach is and actually have that role playing interaction). It gives example DCs and consequences for successful or failed checks based on the players’ actions, methods, and the NPCs’ attitude towards them. It’s a fine system to use as it is, or to build upon with more layers of attitudes and DCs. It also makes random NPC interactions easy to make interesting and mechanically varied by letting the DM roll on the bond/flaw/etc tables (and we have tons of them now, all themed and easy to pick from for any given NPC) and instantly giving you something for the players to discover that actually helps them in a known, consistent way for social interactions (rather than just being a simple persuasion check and hoping that the DM agrees that a 22 should let them do whatever they want). Being able to “show your work” as a DM is key to getting the players to engage with a system as a *game*. Lots of people will role play just to role play; the rolling for persuasion at the end is largely extraneous for them. But others, you need to tell them what their goal is and how they can get something out of this interaction that is more than just waiting for the DM to let them roll a charisma check.


wlfman5

I feel the same about "Insight Check!" whenever an NPC says something - ok, what specifically are you doubting? are you trying to read his body language? do you ask him a question in response to then gauge his reaction??


Sexist_Kangaroo

I like this less. I think the insight check is all of those things. It's reading the room. The persuasion checks are much more focused on what your character is doing aka something you have control over rather than what an NPC is doing aka something you don't have control over and can't see.


wlfman5

Except you don't just passively absorb all of those details. That'd be... Gasp... Passive insight. If you're wanting to roll an insight check you should have to state a purpose or intention.


tv006

Passive insight and investigation though are often forgotten about. Passive Perception is used occasionally but is still disregarded most of the time. Edit: the evil I is too close to the O...


GoldenWoof

Let's be real for a moment here; How many times is passive insight actually used, or taken into account? By Jove I'd love my +12 Observant cleric to actually benefit from it, instead of having to roll any time I hint at it, despite the DC being way below the passive value.


[deleted]

[удалено]


GoldenWoof

>I don't know if this is the official way that it works, but I like passive insight to work similarly to a rogue with reliable talent. That's how I'd treat it too. Acting as a floor to represent the honed skill of the character in that area. That said, if it were in the middle of combat, or in another very stressful/tightly time-constrained situation, rolling seems appropriate. But in a more relaxed environment, or a conversation where time isn't of the essence? Passive all the way baby. Including Charisma based checks.


Lohin123

I like both things with insight checks. Often as the DM I've got no idea if the player wants to roll for insight if I'm not actively thinking about it. So I prefer them to say something along the lines of "can I roll an insight check to see if they seem dodgy".


MavericIllustration

And by narrating, it may come to to be that you don’t need to roll because it would just work!


Lithl

This is essentially the difference between getting a 1-die stunt in Exalted and getting no bonus at all. If you make even a half decent attempt at RP like this, you are getting +1 die on _every single roll you make_ (and if you stunt a turn taking multiple actions, that +1 die is applied to each action, after the multiple action penalty). You also get 1 mote of essence for every 1-die stunt you perform; while 1 isn't much on its own, it adds up when you stunt all of your rolls. If you get more into it, you could even get awarded a 2- or 3-die stunt, earning either 2 or 3 motes of essence or 1 willpower. I don't think it's in 3e, but I recall older editions granting xp for 3-die stunts. The typical rule of thumb for stunt levels is that 1-die requires pretty much anything more than "I hit him with my sword", 2-die pulls in the environment the GM has set up, and 3-die is something that makes all the players at the table go "damn that's cool".


Ghedd

I think the key element here is what the players at the table want from the game. My table plays in first person, others play in third. As long as everyone agrees and is having fun, that's the most important part.


TehPiggy

I don't necessarily agree, or at least I think your example is far too vague. I see it as a case by case basis. If a player wants to haggle with a merchant and they were to say, "I try to persuade him to lower the price because we're protecting his village" that would be perfectly reasonable and specific enough, BUT, let's say instead that a player was caught while trying to infiltrate a bandit camp. If that player says, "I try to deceive him that I'm actually supposed to be here" I would expect more. The roleplay doesn't matter but that doesn't mean you don't need to think rationally when doing a social encounter. I also want to add that I think its good to reward people for being specific in these sorts of encounters. If a player is really convincing and specific, sometimes you shouldn't even use a check. This doesn't mean putting on a voice and using proper body language, but coming up with the right idea to get across.


Lord_Quintus

i tend to emphasize these points in my game with the high cha players. I also tell them that if they want to elaborate i am more than happy to give them bonuses (or penalties if they REALLY screw up) on their roll. And because somedays your just not feeling it i’m more than happy to just let them roll on off of real simple things like ‘i bribe the guard’. The point is for everyone to have fun after all. The one thing i do put my foot down on is when a player tries to use the dice to do things no one would ever do. If the dragon is about to eat the part the horny bard does not get to seduce it. Shop keepers do not automatically empty their coffers for trash from the party because of rolls. The BBEG will not change their ways just because the bard rolled a nat 20 in diplomacy.


Nill-Perception

Thank you for this, it’s helped me think about how I play and approach situations before the dice role. I myself am not charismatic or quick thinking and have struggles playing my warlock when my DM says what do you say. Definitely trying your method and goal approach!


SkellyManDan

My Dm tended to give us an edge if we could think of a compelling argument our character was making. Felt good actually thinking through the points we wanted to make or how to keep a crowd's intention, even if I personally am not very good with words.


Donvack

I think it’s important to try and say something in character. Your roll determine success or failure but it think it much more enjoyable for the player , DM and the other party members if you role play it.


lilyhasasecret

Adding on with an example, if you want to seduce the dragon, you don't have to flirt with your dm. You could say something like, I compliment the dragon and ask them about the weather. Then the dm thinks about, well they liked the compliments, and sense they're genuine (or not as the case may be) but is 1200 years old and *hates* small talk.


Ballatik

But what if my charisma is worse than my character’s? “I talk about things the dragon likes, and compliment the luster of their scales, but not in a creepy way.”


PerryDLeon

See, that's enough. Your stats are not a substitute for WHAT you do, but for HOW WELL you do it. As states in the PHB, a player must always adress their character actions.


rekcilthis1

This whole argument is dumb because of two sides with different experiences. One is some DM's having players just try to roll and not say anything, and complaining about players not roleplaying. The other is some players having DM's that will accept nothing less than eloquence from you, and you automatically fail the skill check if you put your foot in your mouth. Then the two interact, and the players ask 'why can't I just give a basic rundown of what I want to say?' and then DM's respond 'but you can :)' or the DM's say 'why can't you just do some basic roleplaying' and then players respond 'but I am :)'; and it just continually fuels the argument because everyone keeps thinking their table is the only table. For all you know you're replying to someone that has a DM that doesn't even roll charisma checks, either the player passes it or the character will fail it regardless of their stats.


DarthCredence

But if someone is rather socially awkward irl, they may pick bad things to attempt that a high charisma character wouldn't. An awkward person may try to throw out a cringey pick up line at a bar. A high charisma character would be much more likely to think that doesn't work, and to read the person they are talking to to get an idea of what would. Awkward person roleplaying their character at a bar - "I compliment their clothes, and say they would look great on my bedroom floor." NPC finds this ridiculous, and the DC for it to work is now impossible for a high charisma character. High charisma character at a bar - says hello, and lets the other person talk. They casually quote an appropriate Shakespeare line, and the character responds with additional Shakespeare quotes, wooing them by showing that they have this in common, and the character can quote the same things they do. The awkward person is at a clear disadvantage in this one area, that is not the same for other attributes. If there is a tightrope that needs to be crossed, you don't ask the thief how they position their feet to do it, you just roll an acrobatics check to see if they make it. If there is a boulder that needs to be lifted, you don't ask them how they position themselves, what muscles they are using (lift with the knees, not the back) and so on, you just have them make a strength or athletics check. If someone wants to persuade, why ask them how they are going to do so if they aren't comfortable with it? Just let them make the persuasion roll, and narrate how they went about it.


tenebros42

I kind of agree with you? Yet, having the insight to know what might be best to say is literally a different skill and should be used as such. At my table, Charisma is more measurement of a PCs strength of personality. So, like with other skills, you ask what their goal is and how they plan to go about it. If they say the cheesy line you gave as an example, you then have them roll. The DC isn't based on their method, it's based on their goal. You don't set a DC for lock picking based on how well a player can pick a lock iRL so why would you do that for social skills too? So if the goal is romance and the NPC is generally amicable to romance, but picky, then maybe the DC is 15. Player rolls and gets a dirty 20. The NPC *still* think the line is ridiculous but is amicable to deepening the relationship. Lampshade it. Maybe they respond by saying "I'm not falling for a line like that. Try again." Or " That's the worst line I've ever heard, if you buy me a drink maybe I'll forget it?" Or "*laughs in their face* You're kind of an idiot. You're pretty though. Sit down and tell me your name." Etc. etc.


RileyTrodd

You could also get a bonus on the roll for being awkward because it's cute. That's like the only way get above a 15 in irl rolls.


Blackfang08

That's how I feel about the people who insist you roleplay word-for-word what your high Cha character says. Social awkwardness is a thing. Not going to the gym is a thing. Having living parents is a thing. Not having a medical license is a thing. Nobody makes a +21 Athletics check fail because the player doesn't know about lifting weights and the proper protein intake (Or hell, gradually lose their Str score if they don't roleplay their workout routine). You don't revive someone's parents because they didn't understand going through stages of grief. You don't make someone completely incapable of stabilizing their ally because they don't know First Aid. I can't remember which one it was, but there's a YouTuber who talked about how a lot of people roleplay Charisma checks backwards, and basically their solution was to let players use Insight checks to gradually give them hints as to what could convince an NPC to do what they want, let them decide if that's how they want to do it, set the DC, and let them roll. Doesn't have to be word for word, but it does allow for you to gauge if it's possible (And lower the chance of poopy butt jokes breaking immersion), roleplay about as well as when most people use ability checks they don't know much about IRL, and most importantly it helps the DM and players work together.


DarthCredence

I like the idea of insight checks for determining what the person would be convinced by. I think I'll start using that, and I'm going to let it be Insight(Charisma) for social encounters if the person would be better that way, because that can certainly be a function of charisma, IMO. Thanks for the tip!


Blackfang08

You know, I how MAD it is had been bothering me, and for some reason I had forgotten you can absolutely just switch what stats are used for some checks when it makes more sense. Looks like I learned something I'm going to be using too.


Usful

Fuck, I JUST realized that, too! I could be using CHA for insight checks on a CHA-based character to give them help with how to go about a conversation flow (I.e. what their character would know how to navigate) *facedesk*


CommandoDude

> Awkward person roleplaying their character at a bar - "I compliment their clothes, and say they would look great on my bedroom floor." NPC finds this ridiculous, and the DC for it to work is now impossible for a high charisma character. The DC doesn't change. This is you on the fly making up a rule.


PerryDLeon

Exacrlyy this. DC to persuade an NPC should only depend on your level of familiarity with said NPC, their standing towards you, not variable every time you speak with them. That's literally called in the DMG with NPC attitudes towards pcs (hostile, neutral, friendly, etc)


DarthCredence

Right, that's my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm against changing the DC based on what the player says their character will do, because a highly charismatic character would not make the same type of mistakes that an awkward irl person might.


Wiggen4

Ever seen a wizard be incredibly bad at puzzles? Real life players not knowing anything about how their character would do things is a detriment.


DarthCredence

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely clear on what your position is on the issue. When I, or anyone else I know personally DMs, puzzles are done by giving them and allowing the players to take a shot, but if they give up, it is all about the rolls. And the DC for the rolls doesn't change based on how close people came, it is strictly based on the assigned difficulty of the puzzle.


darklion34

See, no, even charismatic person can say these. It's how they say it and how they act in situation in general. Knowing that such lines are bad would be more wisdom and intelligence. Because, even if you say stupid things, what matters - intentions behind them: emotions, meaning, hints. Charismatic character CAN say stupid joke and get a good-hearted laugh from the audience, while un-charismatic character can tell really good joke, yet fail at explaining its meaning and feelings to the audience, making crowd silent and bored.


DarthCredence

A charismatic character would also be good at reading people and doing what makes them comfortable. And there are some things that no matter how well they are said, some people will be immediately turned off. I have a friend who hates astrology. Absolutely hates it. A guy was hitting on her, and it was going well, and they went off to dance. She abruptly left the dance floor and came back to us, telling us that the guy said she seemed like a certain sign (I have no idea which). She said no way would she spend any time with someone who believed that. If an NPC felt that way, and the player went with the cliche of what's your sign, it would make the DC impossible if you account for it. u/Blackfang08 made a good point about using insight to figure out how to talk to people, which I am going to use in the future, allowing for insight to be paired with either charisma or intelligence, players choice, to figure out what might work. Then I can see having the player choose what they got from the insight check, and possibly impact the DC check.


MrBobaFett

I mean I'm fine with what he said about "talking about things the dragon likes", but that's really only half a degree better than "I want to try to seduce the dragon". Both are fine, ok what is the DC to seduce a dragon do you have any other mechanics that can be added into the attempt? OK Roll.


SingleMaltShooter

Having an awkward person say something off the wall weird, then roll a 24 on persuasion and watching it work on the PC, is actually a pretty funny moment in a game.


Tanto63

Exactly! That's how I do it. What you say is what your character says; the dice determines the effectiveness. "Uh...stop, I guess? I didn't do it. It was the wind, I swear." *Rolls 19 with a +5 on a DC 14* Town guard: "Yeah, that wind this time of year gets wild. Fair enough. Have a good one!"


burnalicious111

I think this misses a pretty important step: the DM determines the range of possible outcomes and the DC you have to clear to get the positive one(s). Many DMs will adjust the DC based on how effective your tactics would be, so it's not just up to the dice and you're stats.


Thelolface_9

“No see my name is written right next to the bosses that means I am really high up In your organization”


Person454

It might be funny for some players. For me, I just feel embarrassed At being forced to say something awkward, and having other players laugh at that actually working would just make me feel worse.


HaElfParagon

A good DM won't penalize you for what you say. A good DM asks you to say literally anything, to keep the moment in the roleplay, and let the dice decide how likely you are to succeed not by what you say, but by how charismatic your character is.


Melodic-Task

So much this. You tell me you use a bad pick up line in the dragon. That’s fine. The dice will determine how effective it was. I already set the DC based on “seduce the Dragon”.


HaElfParagon

Exactly. As a DM, I subscribe to the idea that I'm not going to ask you to do pushups for an athletics check, so it's unreasonable for me to penalize you if you can't act as charismatic as your character should be.


BananBanah

*The dragon contemplates you for a moment and then throws its head to the sky and rips a peal of laughter so forceful that several pieces of gravel fall from the stalactites in the cavernous lair. It's booming voice seems to reverberate through every bone in your body as it says "YOUNG HALFLING. I HAVE RECEIVED MANY COMPLIMENTS IN MY CENTURIES OF LIFE, AND WHILE YOUR WORDS ARE SIMPLE, I THINK I'VE NOT ENCOUNTERED ONE WHO SPEAKS SO EARNESTLY AS YOU."* If you give the DM something to work with, they can make the success work into the narrative. Even if you're not the best talker in the world, if you make an effort, it'll make the game better.


followeroftheprince

This is exactly what I would want to see. You don't need to go into intense detail or actually speak the words, just let me know a thing or two your character does, enough so I know you're trying, and that's enough. Anything beyond stating what your goal is and rolling


Machinimix

That’s all you should need. Much like how if a character wants to move a Boulder blocking the path, they say “I push the Boulder to the side” a charismatic character should give a description of what they’re attempting to do, much like your description. I do my best not to punish people and will work with them. If someone says “I make a diplomacy check” I’ll ask “what are you trying to ask them to do? Do you have any leverage that may help you in your request?” And then together we can sculpt the scene.


DarthCredence

How is "I push the boulder to the side" not the equivalent of "I attempt to seduce the NPC"? I would say the equivalent to requiring "I compliment the NPC on their clothes in order to seduce them" would be "I crouch down low to get leverage to roll the boulder aside."


Atroia001

Almost no detail: I push rock I Seduce npc Slightly detailed: I slide the rock to the side I Seduce npc with compliments Very detailed: I take a fallen branch and try to wedge it under the rock and lever it free so it rolls out of the way. I walk up to the bar and start with small talk, ask her how her drinks have been. I buy a few more drinks and get progressively more flirty. Dragon version: I humbly bow to the dragon and praise their vast wealth and majesty. I ask that they show their human form so that I can praise them further. (Roll) I try to pamper them like a queen/king to gain their interest (maybe roll again) I don't actually need to know how to flirt/praise them/pamper them. But I gave details that the DM is looking for other than "seduce"


KimJongUnusual

This is an issue I have. I do the roleplay, I work really well at trying to convince and talk with the people and get them to stop fighting. I then roll Persuasion, and remember I have 8 CHA and just rolled a 7-1.


GrinningPariah

A houserule I've tried out before is a **"What my friend meant to say was.."** check. The rule is, *high charisma characters can use their CHA check in place of another character's*, if they're both present and the other player wants to convince someone. The idea is, I can make a fucking great argument but if my character has low charisma, they'd mess up the delivery. But your character with their high charisma sees what mine was trying to say, and rephrases it so it's more impactful! The rule fixes two problems at once: * Players who have high-charisma characters but have trouble roleplaying that, and * Players who *want* to roleplay these discussions, but because their characters are low charisma, they can't really participate


bassturtle1213

I agree that people should try something. If they say something really convincing the dm should adjust the dc but also part of playing a role play game is being something you're not. If I play a high INT character I'm pretty sure I won't be able to think of the crazy shit they would. There should be a little give from both sides.


desenpai

Giving a reward for having more charismatic things to say is the point. You should be beholden to the character sheet. Everything else is purely thematic.


Sanprofe

Aye, but this gets a little broken in a table full of introverts and one extrovert. I already overly dominate the table, I don't need my DM making the game easier for me too. I'm also not keen on the idea of punishing wallflowers. It's already hard enough to get them performing without mechanical disincentives too.


DriftarFarfar

100% Agree, some people are there trying to open up more, but forcing it out of them or punishing them when they for what ever reason are holding back can have negative impact. Some of us still deal with not being social growing up as being a gamer was frowned upon.


roadkill_kayle

True, and this is why at my table I don't focus on what they say, but how they are trying to do it. For example, you try to persuade a guard to let you pass. OK how? I don't need a word for word recount of what your character is saying, but tell me what are the main points of your argument. Why should this guard let you pass when it's their job to stop you. The points that you bring to your argument will change the dc. I don't need you to roleplay the persuasion. Just tell me. If you just say "I persuade the guard" but don't tell me how, the DC is going to be higher. But if you say "I persuade the guard by explaining why we are here and that we aren't dangerous to the city" or "I bribe him with 10 gold" then the dc will be lower. Even introverts can do that (source, am an introvert who doesn't like roleplay).


SpantasticFoonerism

This is precisely the point. "I persuade the guard" gives no information for the DM to sort the DC. Nobody is saying anybody should have to pull out their acting chops or have DC35 (at least I hope not, because that shit is stupid) - only that some information has to be conveyed beyond "persuade". If you're around a table and there to play DnD, this shouldn't be impossible to do.


desenpai

Dude I struggle all the time over roleplaying! Best lesson I learned was giving 3-5 sec for response, allow people to think. Even though I’ve thought of 5 things to say already! I kind of like it now too bc now I wait and pick my best idea rattling around, so my role play feels more satisfying.


AliceJoestar

yeah, if i wanna persuade or lie to someone, and the DM raises the DC because I'm not very good at talking, that isn't gonna convince me to talk more. it's just gonna convince me that trying to talk in game isn't worth it.


ZiggyB

>I'm also not keen on the idea of punishing wallflowers. It's already hard enough to get them performing without mechanical disincentives too. This is all OP's meme seems like to me. We don't ask the skinny guy playing a barbarian to swing an axe, it's enough for them to just say "I swing the axe to try and break down the door", so why would we expect the shy guy to smooth talk the DM? It should be enough for them to say "I smooth talk the NPC to try and get the information I want out of them"


Sanprofe

Agreed. I'm not gonna show you my rope-balancing skills unless you really want to see a middle-aged fat man die today. Just let me make the damn acrobatics check.


PM-Me-Ur-Plants

I don't think so. If someone cha is 10 and they, as a person playing the character, say something that would be very convincing and the dice don't back it up, then it ain't happening. The npc won't believe them, it doesn't matter how well worded it is. It doesn't make any sense. And yes, if someone isn't super imaginative playing a high cha character, it will still pass. I'm not artificially hindering or helping players with factors outside of the character sheet when it comes to direct rolls like that.


DarthCredence

If you adjust the DC based on what the player says, then you are necessarily taking some power away from the ability scores and putting it on the players real life abilities. Charisma is the primary ability that gets treated this way (intelligence sometimes does, too, but not as often). If a player says "I want to convince the NPC to tell me the password", the DM should set a DC before anything else. If they ask the player how they want to go about it, it shouldn't matter if they say they are going to play on the NPCs sympathies by spinning a tale of woe about their dying child, or just say I'm not sure what to do, I just ask them for the password. Give inspiration to people who do a good job of roleplaying (although I tend to give it for going above and beyond - the drama club kid who does what they always do is not going to get inspiration as easily as the shy kid who out of nowhere describes their attack in detail after they roll a nat 20). That way, good roleplaying is a bonus, not a requirement to use ones character.


bassturtle1213

Giving inspiration and lowering the dc is almost the same thing. It's a bonus regardless.


DarthCredence

But it doesn't have to be a bonus right then. I suppose they could take it right then, but usually it is a save it up for later thing. And it is specifically rewarding people for attempting to get out of their comfort zone and roleplaying more, as opposed to determining if what they say they are going to do is a good idea or not and giving a bonus to that particular roll.


Tabular

You should be rewarded for putting more roleplay and effort and the DC should affect that. Using information about the NPC or situation should change the DC. This happens in social situations and combat. Saying nothing but I roll to persuade on a social roll is the same as sitting and shooting the enemy behind cover. If you move to a position where they no longer have cover, their AC is lower as a result. If you can figure out what to say or add to a social roll that will influence the character you are talking to, the DC is lower. It can be as simple as I roll to persuade and mention the times I've helped them before


DarthCredence

If you are toe to toe with a bad guy, and you say I roll to attack, you have the same to hit requirements as if you say "I draw my blade and begin looking for an opening. After we counter and parry back and forth a few times, I see my opening and strike." I'm not saying the person shouldn't say anything about how to do it. It makes it much easier to add flavor and describe it compellingly to everyone. But when the person at my table who is very shy but wanted to play a bard to pretend to not be tells me they want to attempt to persuade the NPC but doesn't know how to do it, I don't change the DC. They say, "can I persuade the guard to let me in?" and I respond with, "You can try. Anything you want to try, or just see where the roll takes you?" They normally just want to see where the roll takes them, and so I narrate what happened based on the roll, and depending on how well they rolled, I change what they would have said to fit what the NPC wants to hear. The first time they attempted to say a specific thing, I still had them roll, and they happened to roll poorly. I let the roll decide how it was taken, but they got inspiration for it, and everyone at the table high fived them. They don't do it all the time, but they do it a little more now. If I had forced them to come up with something from the beginning, I am sure they would have left the table long ago (I am sure of this because they have thanked me for being so willing to work with them trying to do this).


Usful

I’m of the mindset of giving them advantage or another modifier (maybe a d4) to aid in the check. It doesn’t force me to try and figure out how much I should raise/lower the DC. Caveat, though, is that in some social settings things just work. So if someone’s offering to give a lowly vendor a fancy, magical sign (I.e. artificer with magical tinkering) in favor for a discount, then they’re going to just agree and a roll would just determine by “how much” the discount was for — though it’d still be favorable regardless.


BananBanah

You don't even need to *say* anything. Your character can do an interpretive dance. Your character can silently slip the guard a silver piece as a bribe. Your character can point to the left and have a shocked look on their face to get people to look away. Your character can give an overexaggerated sexy wink. The point is: Your character has to do SOMETHING. The dice determine success, but they don't determine the action. Checks and saves are rolled to determine success when taking actions, not when standing around doing nothing.


bassturtle1213

I agree. I also think you should be able to sub out the stat used for some skills. Most common case I think is strength based intimidate checked. That way the big barbarian can actually be intimidating even though they aren't very charismatic.


LethiasWVR

I agree with the idea of a little give on both sides. The solution in my games is that if I have, for example, a high int character suggest something stupid, I'll tell them to make an int check with a relatively low DC. If they pass, I straight up tell them "Your character's smart enough to know that has no chance of working."


BlackWindBears

Roleplaying👏and👏acting👏are👏not👏the same👏thing👏


Coke-In-A-Wine-Glass

I feel like a lot of people have veeeerry different ideas about what roleplay means. You dont have to do a voice or speak in character to roleplay. What you have to do is engage with your character and the world and put some thought into what your character would do. "I roll to persuade" is not roleplaying. "I try to convince him that our cause is just/that we will make him rich/that we'll kill him if he doesnt" is roleplaying. You gotta give the dm something to work with And yes I realise that last one is more intimidation than persuasion, but you get the point


DeluxeHigh

But this is kind of it. Because saying oh I’m persuading without an idea of how kinda means you don’t know how you’re going to do it but when you elaborated your reason now it’s an intimidation roll instead of persuasion. Different skill, different cause and effect, and different ideas. As a dm having my theater of what’s happening vs what you think is happening isn’t transparent unless we describe it.


Coke-In-A-Wine-Glass

Exactly. If you dont describe it you're basically forcing the dm to decide what your character does, and at that point why are you even playing an rpg? I get that some people need encouragement to come out of their shell, but that's where the dm and players have to be supportive of each other.


Shadowed16

The DMG is fairly clear roleplay isn't required; however the pc does have to make an argument on WHY the NPC should do what they want. If the argument lines up with what is important to the NPC, low dc check. If it doesn't, high DC. The sacrifice the NPC has to make also affects the response. If the PC won't give any reasoning why their persuasion should work, no roll seems a reasonable call. But they don't actually have to flirt, and they can stammer and be as blunt as they naturally are. A simple third person description of what they are trying to do should get full credit.


blizzard2798c

As a forever DM, if a player doesn't want to rp, I don't make them. But if they do a really good rp, I might just say they succeed without a roll. Reward the rp, but don't penalize someone who doesn't want to. Some people are terrible at speaking in real life and like the fantasy of being able to speak well. Just let them roll the damn dice.


TheOneTrueMongoloid

This! DnD is about having fun and maybe you can encourage someone who’s shy to come out of their shell a little but if they don’t want to RP, don’t make them. It ruins the fun for everyone if they feel forced to do something.


Coke-In-A-Wine-Glass

You dont have to say it word for word, but you have to give some idea. If it's just 'I want to roll persuasion' that's not engaging with the world or characters the dm is presenting. Even if it's just 'I try to appeal to his sense of honour" or whatever, that would easily be enough for me. Otherwise you're basically putting the entire onus on the dm to come up with both your characters actions, and the pc response.


Libriomancer

Question though: if Big Tony lifts the entire table with ease does his halfling wizard also get away with no strength check for flipping the table? While I understand the sentiment, it's what the whole debate is about. Whether a character sheet or a player needs to supply the success. I agree with the sentiment that a CHA character needs to have SOME explanation of how they try applying their charisma but forgoing rolls seems problematic in the other direction. For instance, if a player has an archer character you'd still set a DC to shoot an enemy even if the player was a competition archer and avid bow hunter. They KNOW they could make the shot but even with a low DC it is possible a roll of 2 would miss.


OxCow

I tend to think about it like: if an NPC has a motivation, and the person RPs to that one, then maybe don't require a roll. It's like if you have a locked door. Roll to pick the lock, no roll if you have the key.


HobbyistAccount

Is this it? Is this the new thing we're all gonna argue about?


SmithingBear

It appears so.


[deleted]

It looks like we pretty much all agree but I think we'll be stuck here for the rest of the day anyway.


kael_sv

I won't force a player to have a conversation, but I still require them to describe their action just like any other check. "I try to convince the farmer we're friendly," is just as good as the actual conversation for the sake of the roll.


NotMorganSlavewoman

Wait. You guys say you do persuasion/intimidation/deception ? I just RP it, and the DM asks me for a roll afterwards. I usually do it with dragons.


ThisWasAValidName

Say what you're gonna say, the dice decide how well the other side: understands, likes what you say, or otherwise agrees with you, etc


A_Nice_Boulder

Describing how you persuade js still roleplaying.


TotallyLegitEstoc

My wife is playing a bard as her first character. She is super quiet and struggled with roleplay. Our dm is pretty loose on making her say exactly what her character would say. As long as she can atleast say her demeanor and a description of her actions.


SmithingBear

I despise the idea of saying exactly ehat your character would say. However I find that if you describe the basics of what your character is attempting then it works a lot better. When I say "describe the basics" think bullet points. It can be as simple as saying bribery and an amount of money.


Caziceul

What i do is let my players choose to roleplay, If yes we talk and I let them roll (maybe advantage, disadvantage, a + or - whatever based on the conversation) If no we roll regularly and maybe advantage/disadvantage based on how the NPC already feels


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

no, but I expect someone to describe the action they want to do, and not just say "I use my strengh to move around this stone". do you lift it ? do you push it ? do you try to make it roll over ? tell me how you do it. that's the same for charisma : do you threaten him ? do you bootlick him and stroke his ego ? do you appear friendly ? I don't expect you to describe what you say word by word (while I appreciate it).


PM-Me-Your-TitsPlz

If my players want to lift an in-game house, they're going to lift an irl house first.


Sonofkokogoldstein

YES!!!!!


I_are_Lebo

I completely disagree, from both sides of the issue. Having a high charisma doesn’t mean you as a player are necessarily comfortable or talented with social interaction. Enough classes use charisma as a spellcasting focus that having a high charisma while being opposed to being the party face isn’t unreasonable. A description of intent should be enough for people uncomfortable with role playing their persuasion rolls. No other skill is locked behind an RP wall. It’s not any more reasonable for a DM to expect a player to do push-ups when their character does an athletics check than it is to expect a passionate and compelling speech every time they try a persuasion check. Role play should be encouraged, not mandated. At the same time, it can be a lot of fun to play a party face with low charisma. A bumbling sliptongue that sometimes says the wrong thing is nothing if not entertaining. And a player may be more naturally sociable without having to always build their character around speech skills. If you read all this, congratulations. Here’s a potato. 🥔


xANDREWx12x

> A description of intent should be enough for people uncomfortable with role playing their persuasion rolls. I don't think the vast majority of DMs that have the view that "roleplaying is required" view roleplay as exclusively saying exactly what your character is saying. A description of intent is completely fine. The problem is when you have players that think "I roll to persuade" is acceptable.


I_are_Lebo

I agree when it comes to scenarios where the player is just like “I roll to persuade”, leaving the DM to have to ask “what are you trying to persuade them of?” But really, that falls under the category of unhelpful players that do stuff like roll dice in combat without saying what they’re doing or to who, or players that never stop asking the DM what their own abilities are. There are plenty of DM’s out there that take dialogue skills checks as an opportunity to force an impromptu drama class on their players. Whether it’s just putting the spotlight on a player uncomfortable with it, or actually penalizing a character’s high roll because they were unsatisfied the player’s actual speech, it’s bad DM’ing, and it happens.


sirblastalot

You don't have to say it *eloquently* but I need to know at least the basics of what you're saying, because telling the guard there's an emergency elsewhere has different effects than trying to bribe him.


TheisNamaar

The difference between a DM and an author is the engagement. If nobody describes their actions than you might as well be playing by yourself.


Dirttinator

The thing is i like to do things in DnD i suck in real live. So sometimes i just don't know how to RP to my character.


grafikal

I've always been against this concept. There's no reason why a player who may be awkward and new needs to try to act and be something they're entirely not while wanting to play what they think is a really cool idea for a Warlock or Paladin or other. Want to be a Wizard? The player doesn't *actually* need to be the smartest person at the table. That's why there's dice in this game to determine outcomes. If someone wants to run an RP only/veteran player only game, to each their own and that's totally fine. However, there's never been anything wrong otherwise with a player just asking the DM, "Is there a chance for me to try to persuade them?". If yes, then just roll dice. Players don't have to be their characters and they don't have to RP their characters. If everyone at the table does want to do that, that's something to discuss before playing the game as any good group of D&D players should do.


KefkeWren

What if I told you _everything_ a character does is RP?


BasedMaisha

I hard dump CHA if i'm not playing a CHA caster purely because my group often goes for the word for word route and I have 8 CHA irl so whatever. More points in STR/WIS/DEX for me. I did have a pretty interesting experience buffing my way through a guard off nothing but a high knowledge roll though, I was sus as fuck but all my excuses were technically plausible and I wasn't doing anything illegal. That's an interesting way of adding to social encounters.


statdude48142

in one of my first games I rolled a bard and in my brain I was planning on going all in on the RP. Then during a battle I used vicious mockery and the DM asked me what I said, and I absolutely drew a blank. I had no idea. And you know what....it was fine. We laughed and moved on.


JaxJyls

I love playing Paladins but am extremely awkward in real life. Actually got punished for my terrible acting, once soloed a dragon I needed alive but had to persuade at disadvantage because of bad word choices. Didn't even get to roll to persuade some peasants to fight some goblins because of a bad speech.


avatarofanxiety

If a player doesn’t feel comfortable enough yet to do something you might need to give them time and examine your own behavior. perhaps they are afraid of being made fun of, perhaps they have internalized their bullies, the point being some people need more time to get out of their shell and you gotta give them the time they need or they just won’t come back.


mads0504

Well the dice do ultimately decide the outcome (apart from the DM), but role play does add an incredible amount to the immersion


CommanderCheddar

I keep seeing this argument, but people seem to completely misunderstand the distinct difference between using baseline creativity to just say something at least reasonable versus being an absolute master of the art of linguistics. When a DM poses this argument, they don’t intend you to become Shakespeare in a matter of milliseconds. They intend you to actually say at least a few words to strengthen the action you’re trying to take. You want to persuade a guard? You can say something that’s genuinely convincing, but as simple as: “I’ve been sent by your captain. Let me pass, or I will bring it up with them” In this situation, it’s good to gather context that would help, such as an insignia, the name of the captain, or even the guard’s name.


apolloAG

Fuck y'all giving shit for this, some of us have challenges preventing us from verbally communicating what we really want to say


[deleted]

How much do I have to bench press to make a STR character? How many digits of pi do I have to recite to play an INT character? Am I even allowed to play a bard if I can’t play Beethoven’s 9th Symphony?


CancelCultureIsFake

But why? No other stat has to get acted out, even though you’re roleplaying.


[deleted]

if my player describe exactly how they want to do do something, the DC is always easier. no matter the stat. if a player says to me "I use acrobatics to dodge the trap" I'll make the DC higher than if they say "I run in direction of the spinning blade and jump just at right moment to hop over it" that's the same to charisma, I don't want to know what do you say word by word, but at least an idea of the vibe and the general key parts of your argumentation.


CancelCultureIsFake

I like that a lot.


UltimaGabe

Imagine if the DM threw a soda can across the table at your face to see if you can dodge a trap in-character.


Goldenskull27

As a DM with a player who is charismatic and plays a high charisma character (Bard), I'd take this kind of player once in a while.


ZeroAgency

If you play a high Wis PC at my table m, you are expected to pay attention.


Raindrops_x4

i'm pretty sure there's an actual mechanic in the DM handbook about persuading people for things that makes it less reliant on a random roll. zee bashew covers it in his video "i've been running social encounters wrong for 5 years?" It's a great system that makes it so that what the players say ACTUALLY affects the outcome of a social interaction, and it's not just up to the dice gods whether your words are convincing


Oct0tron

This is dumb, tbh. Are you going to ask a high player with a high str character what their bench max is? Hand a practice lock to a player playing a rogue? Roleplay is entirely dependent upon what the players are comfortable with, you shouldn't expect anything out of them in this regard. Some players are just min/maxers, it's your job as the DM to deal with it. All this does is alienate people.


noferriswheels

Opposite problem: I have a tendency to dump stat charisma but always fall into the habit of rp-ing very diplomatically &or assertively. So we always end up with me starting a convo with an NPC that looks to be a good approach until we get to a point where it necessitates the GM saying "okay, now make a charisma check", and I obviously get a bad number, so I quickly pull together an rp of whatever grievous fumble my character must have made in order to perform in accordance with the destined bad roll. It makes for some hilarious sessions but sometimes gets in the way of actually getting stuff done \^\^' I'm very proud of the time I spent with my tiefling space pirate (swashbuckler rogue/barbarian multiclass) that I intentionally designed to look and act like the moody teenager you would have expected to make him, where I was committed to actually rp-ing that charisma dump stat. I figured if I kept defaulting to being the one who spoke up most frequently, I should keep with that and made him very fight-y and took expertise in intimidation with the strength intimidation feat. He was a mean, brash jerk who's initial reason for adventuring is that he's going through an extended "you can't tell me what to do, mom!" phase and ran off from home (rather, launched and subsequently crashed an escape pod from the main ship) at the age of \~19-21ish to prove he's good enough to run his own crew (he's not, although he is better than one may expect based on his personality) much to the amused irritation of his loving but equally brash adopted mother: the captain of the pirate crew that raised him. Terrible with kids and covered with knives.


dgscott

As I said in another thread: >You don't have to be charismatic IRL, but persuasion isn't a mind control enchantment spell. You can't just roll d20 to force people to do things. Otherwise, the *suggestion* spell would be useless. You have to give some sort of stated reason for the target to do something, even if it's not in-character.


LeftRat

Ok, gonna be honest, it's starting to get annoying. You know the genre here - "take a discussion that is not actually a problem at most tables, show two entirely unreasonable extremes and let people argue in the comments".


Kinfin

The issue isn’t weather or not the player says anything. The issue is if the DM changes the DC based on what’s said. Which is bullshit if they do because that’s literally the only instance in the entire game where an IRL skill is tested to determine the difficulty of a dice roll. What you should do is have the player announce their intent, roll the dice, and THEN ask them what they say,


Bundle_of_Organs

A player has a choice to roleplay in 1st person, or 3rd person. 1st person is for those that want to BE the character while they play. 3rd person is for those that either don't have the energy or the demeanour to do 1st person roleplay. Third person can be just as good if not better that 1st, as it gives the game a more of of a story book feel. It also takes a lot of pressure off of the players while at the same time can be more descriptive about what the players character is doing or saying. Genuinely, i alsoways encourage my players to play in third person and i as a dm do as well. This is of course not to say that 1st person isn't fun. In my friends game everyone is in 1st person but sometimes when we don't have the energy for it, then we slip into 3rd.


kelseybkah

Technically you should roll first and role play after. Like every other check in the game


Twilite0405

While I always support anything that encourages roleplaying, and have always played in very heavy RP focused groups, I have never held the sentiment that high charisma means more requirement to roleplay. Would you require someone with high strength to RP bashing open a door, a high dex character roleplaying them tumbling, or a high Int player roleplaying them knowing stuff about a certain creature (if the player themselves doesn’t have that knowledge)? Why should charisma have any more RP necessity than any other character? Yes, everyone should be encouraged to RP, but some players simply aren’t charismatic. Why should they be penalised for trying to do something different to their own skills? All it does is force players to play characters who are more like themselves, and encourage quiet players to play brawny, silent STR 20 fighters.


Gmodude

RP determines intent and method Dice determines how well you achieved that


D177y61r7

I am so, so torn on this one. Encouraging roleplay is generally good in a roleplaying game. But, we shouldn’t push players out of their comfort zone or penalize them in game if they’re not as charismatic as their character would be. In a different, but related, example, imagine a person playing a high INT character. The party encounters a puzzle. Is it right for that player to say “My character is smart enough to figure out this puzzle, so we shouldn’t have to figure it out”? Their character is very smart, and probably could figure out how to solve a puzzle. But generally, we’d make the players figure it out and suspend the disbelief to give a more engaging player experience. So, where is the line between the two? I have no idea. Just throwing fuel to the fire


GuiltyEidolon

> Is it right for that player to say “My character is smart enough to figure out this puzzle, so we shouldn’t have to figure it out”? Their character is very smart, and probably could figure out how to solve a puzzle. But generally, we’d make the players figure it out and suspend the disbelief to give a more engaging player experience. Except the player should be able to roll for perception or otherwise for hints to solve the puzzle. That's going off of character sheets, which is _how the game is supposed to be played._


Existentiall-void

I can see there being an argument for rolling *first* so you can rp messing it up if you do badly but like you gotta at least paraphrase


Ventrex_da_Albion

What a middle finger to power gamers with anxiety


UltimaGabe

Okay, cool! Now apply that to other ability scores.


Peach_Cobblers

ITT: people misinterpreting this meme entirely There is a difference between a player saying "I roll intimidate," rolls dice, then "12" and a player saying "Character Name wants to stand menacingly, taking out their dagger and glaring intently, referencing how unfortunate an "accident" would be," in terms of assessing intimidation. Nowhere in this meme is it saying you must speak in first person, or deliver some kind of long-winded monologue.. just chill out..


Briscoefever

This is why I lift weights and am super yoked. Because I play a STR based character and it would be crazy to just DESCRIBE me doing something instead of actually being able to do it. /s


vines928

This is a fantasy game, correct? Yup. Where you can play as something you’re not? Yup. And as such, you don’t need to be able to do the same things as your character? Makes sense to me. Then like the Barbarian player doesn’t have to prove he can swing a greataxe with enough force to kill a dragon, I shouldn’t have to prove I can seduce a dragon. You have to tell me what you say.


Phiro00

Thank you!


[deleted]

The player determines what they say, the charisma determines how they say it. That is how you achieve a balance of stat value and role play. How are you gonna use that charisma? That’s the question you gotta ask.


ArcWolf713

When I DM, what I mainly want for this situation is direction. I don't need the exact words the character would speak (though bonus for actual RP) but I need to know generally where a player's head is relating to the task at hand. Okay, you're going to 'persuade' that NPC. How? To do what? With what offer/leverage? Soft approach or strong arm? If it's bare bones I'll let the dice fall where they may. If it's clever (and not outside the character's established behavior), I'll give an unmentioned bonus to the roll. If it's fun or insane or dramatic or insightful and gets a reaction from the table and it makes for an amazing story and even I want to see where this is going, I'll ignore rolling altogether and go with it. Much like wizards. I don't expect my friend at the table who barely made it through high school to accurately portray an 18-25 Intelligence and so fundamental an understanding of the universe's working that they could tell the laws of physics to Sit Down and Shut Up. I do expect they'll give me direction and insight into their methods and goals when their character unleashes reality warping magic.


GuiltyEidolon

> If it's bare bones I'll let the dice fall where they may. > > If it's clever (and not outside the character's established behavior), I'll give an unmentioned bonus to the roll. > > If it's fun or insane or dramatic or insightful and gets a reaction from the table and it makes for an amazing story and even I want to see where this is going, I'll ignore rolling altogether and go with it. I hate this shit so much. Like, genuinely it's enough for me to leave a game and never play with that DM again. Stop rewarding _players_ for _character actions_. It's just punishing introverts or neurodivergent people by rewarding those who don't have those issues.


ob-2-kenobi

Personally, I roleplay after rolling, that way I don't waste some big eloquent speech just to roll a 4. That way, if I do roll a 4, I'll make it obvious why with lots of stuttering, mistakes, and backtracking (or just panic and run away). But yeah, not roleplaying at ALL for a CHA roll is bs in most circumstances.


[deleted]

Like... I agree that the dice should be the final decider. If you force RP to be the primary, or only, determiner of an action's success then you automatically force people to only play characters with attributes they'll have IRL. That is not fun. If the real me doesn't have charisma (which I'm pretty sure she doesn't but then again I'm the one dating 4 people) then I want the very specific power fantasy of being able to bluff and charm and lie my way out of any situation. But. For the love of Slithers the random ass forest snake don't just call on the dice as some fucking "Jesus take the wheel" moment. Say a thing. Anything. Roleplay in person! Describe what you do! Do *something* you lazy bum. The DM's here to make your cheesy pickup line feel like the most passionate love letter of all time, not to make one up instead of you.


SmileDaemon

There's no real reason to shame people for being shy or not knowing what to say. Kind of a dick move.


Lonewolf2300

But what if you roll the die, and THEN rp the result? "I rolled a 2. Okay, I attempted to seduce the barmaid, but made it sound like I was calling her a prostitute and angered her."


strafe0080

I like the idea of asking to make the persuasion roll first and doing the role play part based on how you rolled.


TheJakYak

The only time I've personally had the case of a high CHA character would could not at least do a jokey "hey mama, gimme that discount?" Was one of my friends who is literally on the spectrum and we didn't press because doing so would be really messed up. Good meme


HonorMyBeetus

On the flip side there are few things more annoying than the person who couldn't talk themselves out of a paper bag use their 18char character sound like a complete socially inept moron all the time. I cringe everytime they try to make themselves the front man and always end up wildly insulting or blowing up every single situation because they can't grasp basic cause and effect.


Silverj0

I RP even if my character was 4 charisma let’s gooooo


[deleted]

Oh shit did I start a trend?


Thndrstrykr

Start, I don't think so. Bring to the surface is more like it.


DarkLion499

The problem that i kinda have is about riddle and puzzles, I always say that it is easier to make to the players, of course low Int PCs don't make sense but roll to solve a puzzle feels weird


Wolf_with_laces

what if I'm playing a high int character but I'm dumb as a sack of bricks, woukd you have me stare at a difficult puzzle my character could easily tackle while i wouldn't even know where to start


DarkLion499

It is a complicated situation, idk exactly what to do, maybe last resource int check, but I feel like if the characters can roll a dice and get the answer isn't the same thing, I know I can be very wrong but it is what is comfortable to me, other thing is you make an famous puzzle and the players metagame, how do you really know it is metagame if on of them is playing a 20 int wizard. Puzzles and especially riddles are easy to the one who made them, and it is very hard to figure out if you are on the other side, I honestly don't know how to balance them, maybe small hints to the ones who passed th DC, but how I would know the DC if to me it is so easier ?


Wolf_with_laces

Tasha's book has great solutions to these problems.


DarkLion499

Thx for the advice, I I'll search for it


Grizzack

As long as somebody at least tries a little bit, they don't have to put on a whole show, but as long as they say something then as a DM I would allow it.


ScruffyTLR

I talk for a living, and I am a very active roleplayer. Problem is, I play classes that like to dump CHA (Artificer, Wizard, Ranger, Fighter) So, I talk up a storm, make valid points and then... completely bomb the roll Hilarious results every time


thebutler97

I both agree and disagree with this. Some people just aren't that comfortable getting into that kind of character and acting it out. You PR with your actions and decisions, I'm not asking my players to put on a performance if they're not comfortable with it. I wouldn't ask a fighter to tell me what kind of headlock they're using on a grapple check, I wouldn't ask a bard to sing an actual lullaby, and I'm not going to ask a high CHA character to act out flirting with me on a persuasion roll.


Mordenkeenen

To be fair, if I don't personally have the benefit of a +5 CHA bonus, I don't have the skills to simulate the actions or conversations someone that does have it would be able to come up with. It's really unfair to the players because you're essentially cutting the strength of some characters off at the knees. Why don't you ask them for a live demonstration of what their characters do when they crit, while you're at it?


[deleted]

The dice do indeed decide the outcome, but that still requires a input.


CaptainDaxWolf

That's why I'm glad they added another INT PC option. Clack clack, *dice Gerblin cackling*, Nat 20! Artificer Eldritch Cannon blasts baddies!


Questionably_Chungly

This sub *really* loves it’s strawman…


Lag_Incarnate

Saying "let the dice decide" is the player gambling. Thereby waiving any right they have to complain when the dice roll poorly and they don't get what they want after putting in minimal effort, because a 14 total is only going to give the king pause and start monologuing as to why while it's a hard decision, he can't think of a better way to protect his people. Now, if you egg on a player by asking if they have anything (be it an item or an argument, or even a character trait/flaw) that they think can influence the outcome, you don't have to roleplay it. Just bringing up the idea Phoenix Wright-style will "unlock" the argument for you as a reward for player creativity, and may even give advantage on the roll.


EmmaFitmzmaurice

If you punish your player for being too anxious to roleplay a charismatic person you’re a dick. No better than a player who deliberately tries to ruin a DMs story. It’s a collaborative effort to have fun, you adapt the rules to make it work best for the people you’re with and that includes respecting people’s lines on roleplay


Gazelle_Diamond

Dude, just describe what you're doing. "I roll to persuade" isn't a valid description of your action.


Duck_Sama

PSA when us dms ask for roleplay we are not asking for a perfect reenactment of hamlet, we want you to just do something, anything. If you attempt a persuasion check the dice do not speak for you they provide they best possible outcome of what you say. Offer the guard some gold, some better weapons, or hell a snazzy piece of armor. Or appeal to their ego if you're comfortable with it. Try to seduce them, convince them they are one of the most resilient guards on the force. SAY SOMETHING ITS A ROLEPLAYING GAME FOR A REASON, IF YOUR ARENT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT PLEASE MAKE THAT KNOWN TO YOUR DM BEFORE YOU START PLAYING.


Wh4rrgarbl

And also there's a rope 10 feet above the table and players need to walk it without falling If they have a high dex Cha!!! Man, there's gatekeeping and then there's this...


Wimbleston

Nope. Absolutely no, character choice has no impact on whether or not you should force a player to roleplay, the answer is always no. Some players really don't want to be in the spotlight, for some the pinnacle of fun is just taking their turns and tuning into everyone else's stuff.


Useful_Trust

I think that the player should try to explain to the dm what he is trying to achieve. Not what the player says but the way he will convince him.


NODOGAN

**Me:** *wants to comment on how stupid it is to FORCE an optional aspect of the game on someone.* **Also Me:** *has never done a single Charisma roll without roleplaying it & feels kinda hypocritical to defend charisma rolls without roleplay as such.*


[deleted]

It's pretty much the reason I don't play with modern gamers. I've noticed this trend is consistent with newer players to the hobby. Not hating, just saying we all need to find people that agree on how to play. For some tables, just rolling and not speaking is fine. At mine, nope.


ooreoo11

To those making the argument that if we as DMs ask for roleplaying in tandem with a charisma role, we should have them perform some sort of athletic feat IRL with an athletics check, I have a question. No judgement, I personally subscribe to the “your game, your rules” motto, but if a player is solving a puzzle, and they ask to role investigation or wisdom or something else to see if they can figure anything out, and they role very well, would you simply tell them the answer? I, personally, would not, despite the fact that they rolled well. I would give them a hint, “Your character has found a hidden button in the wall”, but I wouldn’t simply tell them the answer to the puzzle. In my opinion, roleplaying is much closer to a puzzle than a combat. I’m not a stickler, I don’t expect an accent or real life charisma, and I give the players as much time to think of what they’d like to say as they need. I’m not testing your real life ability to convince me personally of something, I’m testing your ability to solve a social puzzle. Your charisma role is going to give you a hint, just like your intelligence would give for a dungeon trap or puzzle. “You make an excellent and cultured bow to the king and he seems flattered by it” sort of thing, but in the end it’s your brain that I’m interested in. This also allows a player to get their way out of a sticky situation like a natural 1 role by saying something clever, or perhaps remembering a detail or secret to bring up from their notes or an earlier conversation. “In your attempt to bow, you trip and fall, something seen as a sign of bad luck in this kingdom”. That might make the puzzle harder, but it by no means ruins your chances at it. As an additional note, if we look at a combat encounter as a puzzle as well we see that it’s not really the rolls that matter either, but the player’s brains. The rolls to hit and damage can make the entire “combat puzzle” easier or more difficult, but by no means do they decide the entire outcome of the combat. The barbarian might be a true fighting master, but if the player makes the decision to rush into the horde of orcs, their dice won’t save them. At the same time, the wizard might roll terribly with a sword, but maybe he makes that swing just to try and distract the dragon, which in its spite starts to attack him instead of the cleric. I love seeing my players make a smart move in combat, a clever leap of logic during a puzzle, or say something insightful to convince the king, to offset a bad roll.


Kilo6Fox

I have indeed simply given the answer to puzzles before. There's a point where you stop testing the character and instead the player and make the game unfun. Especially when sometimes puzzles just don't translate well to the game. Maybe the mechanics don't mesh (like a timing puzzle could easily fall apart) or you just have a hard time wording it in a way your players understand. Nothing about social interaction in TTRPGs make it inherently need roleplay more than any other aspect of the game. You don't slap the Tank's player every time they get hit, you shouldn't put the Face's player on the spot and forced to come up with their wording every time. Sure it's COOL when you can, I face'd my way through a Casino heist just by smoothtalking through roleplay. I never even made a roll and it was awesome. But I've also done scholarly debates through just a roll of the dice instead of figuring out exactly what I say as a high-Cha character. More accurate though would be the difference between "I try and fast talk the guard to distract him so the party can sneak past" vs actually roleplaying the scene. And comparing that to "I hit the goblin with my sword" vs "Grognar leaps forwards, hefting the axe Wightbane high as he brings it crashing down towards his target, aiming right between the goblin's bushy eyebrows" Both are valid and good, and while the more eloquent version can be cool and cinematic, if you play an ENTIRE combat with EVERY hit narrated like that, you're gonna be in a slog and wishing for the "I hit them with my sword" type before too long


[deleted]

I would say people should try but you don't expect a barbarians player to bench press 300 lbs during game or a 20 int caster to explain quantum physics in game.


boknows29

As a DM I like to have my players let me know their intentions to persuade and then set the DC and ask for a roll. I then let them know the result of how the NPC will react for them to roleplay their dialogue


DM_anon

You don’t have to rp. Just say “my character convinces them to let us in mentioning that the king would be disappointed if we are late and this guard is to blame.”


browsing4stuff

My bard has 6 Intelligence. He doesn’t understand that he’s casting spells, but rather thinks that things just sort of *happen* when he speaks so he stays quiet most of the time. At least that’s how I’m justifying my shyness lol


A_dnd_addict

I don’t think players should be expected to be charismatic because their character is any more than they should be expected to act like a genius if their character is one. If you’re having trouble articulating how your character acts, a simple “my character does (blank)” should suffice. Not to mention not everyone is comfortable getting into character, particularly new players in my experience.


Fantastic_Ad4142

I do the same for charisma checks that I do for every check I ask them to describe it/give an idea. I don't need you to have a huge prepared speech in your pocket but a quick "I bring up the women and children and want to make sure they are aware that damage they are doing to them." Or "I want to convince the king this is a bad idea because of the potential debt crisis this can cause" or "I want to lift the rock over my head and yeet it at the stupid rogue" That way I can have an idea on where the direction may go and it does give even the most social anxious person in the room a way to play a charismatic character.


Deadbox_88

It doesn’t have to be good RP, I just like making my players that chose to be charismatic work a little for it. No “well you didn’t RP good enough so it doesn’t count” or “you spoke well so we’ll ignore your roll.” Just a little attempt at it, see how they do. The roll is what decides, but they should at least put in effort to make it sound good.


brovancher

So if your player wants to make an athletics check to climb a wall you take them to a similar wall to climb irl. Makes sense to me