For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some https://9apps.ooo/ players are just better at roleplaying than others)
Though not official in 5e, there is an optional rule to “take a 10” - basically give every single skill a “passive” check equal to 10 + bonus to that skill.
Personally, I don’t like to do that - but my groups tend to enjoy the uncertainty rolls provide as they would rather have to scramble to mitigate failure rather than have everything handed to them (particularly at high levels when the bonuses get big).
Instead of giving auto successes for roleplaying, I’ll increase or decrease the value of the check and/or add advantage, depending on what was said. Say something elegant and persuasive? You might get the difficulty significantly reduced. Specifically target something you learned about the character from prior investigations (i.e. appealing to a specific desire you learned about through talking to their maid), you’ll probably get advantage. Do both? Both advantage and lower difficulty.
If you did decide to do it by letting folks succeed for roleplay reasons, to make it fair you’ll need to apply the same to other skills. Face skills have more roleplay elements than others, which could easily turn them into tests of a player’s skill, nor their characters. That is why a blanket “you can take a ten” rule, applying to things like stealth or slight of hand, makes it a bit more fair - everyone has access to auto successes, so they don’t feel left out because someone’s player can talk themselves into an auto success.
So long as it's agrees beforehand, it's fine. I generally do a hybrid - they roleplay what they say, I then assess what skill applies and have them roll. If they make a strong case (in terms of fact and evidence presented, not oral skill) then they get advantage on the roll, if it's really weak, then they get disadvantage.
However, the DM can use any method they like. It could be based on how many times you can hop in ten seconds, if that's what is wanted. However, I'd never base the result on personal skill - ineloquent players aren't punished and eloquent players are not rewarded. A lot of DMs will use role play instead of rolling dice...but I have an aversion to bypassing a character's abilities and relying on the player's.
Regardless, it's up to the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would define with the group in the session 0 if social test would be resolve with rolls or roleplay, and follow for that, mix the two always made problem in my experience
if you the player says something excellent but the character you play wouldn’t I would consider making them roll to see how well your character delivers the idea. If you are a 8 charisma barb giving an impassioned speach you wrote for 3 hours, I would ask for a roll. Chance are they wouldn’t have come up with what you did (unless story reasons give this some merit)
if you are playing someone with enough charisma to come up and deliver it in the way you did I may absolutely just give it to them.
For me you are playing your character. You can describe what they do but it should reflect your character. If you describe something they logically could just do, then absolutely no rolls needed. If it is a bit more of a stretch then a roll to see if they can perform I think is fine
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
It's a tough call. As a DM, I like rewarding the party's Clever Plans, but people also like rolling dice
This actually sort of came up in yesterday's session. The group was exploring a mysterious forest that had a LOT of birds in it. The ranger cast Speak With Animals to talk to them and try to get them to scout ahead for the party. The paladin decided to help with the convincing by pulling out her Rod of Cake (a homebrew magic item that basically does this) and turning a chunk of a nearby dead tree into a yummy seed cake, which the birds promptly devoured
I still had the ranger roll a Persuasion check, but I decided the attempt was going to succeed no matter what -- the roll was just to determine how many birds were going to volunteer
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If I thought they’d done a good job with the RP and felt inclined I’d probably just let them roll with advantage.. if it’s not a particularly important situation them I’d let it go through without a roll as it keeps the game moving.
I always consider good arguments of roleplaying, depending on how "stubborn" the npc(s) are on the topic. If it's totally logical that the npc would agree/comply i forgo a roll, else i use the argument to either lower the DC a few points or give the player advantage on the roll, if the motiv of the npc is rather weak anyway.
A DM shouldn’t ask for a roll if the results are not in doubt. You should not roll to walk without falling down, open an unlocked door nor should you roll to convince an NPC of something if Dm believes they’re readily agreeable or the RP was just so stellar. All in all the DM should be making decisions on if a roll is needed or not based largely on if there’s a chance of failure or not AND largely on what is fun for the group.
I would argue a party of high level players shouldn’t bother rolling to defeat a single Kobold, nor should (for example) a bard need to roll to persuade a mermaid yo swim.
Leave rolls for when the results are truly in doubt, when the results will be dramatic and interesting, for things that really matter…
A good argument is not roleplaying, it's logic and reason. It does favor those who are more logical and intelligent though. I think a more fair rule would be to allow the take 10 rule mentioned by others. I may not be smart, but my wizard has a 20 intelligence. It's unfair to limit my character by my personal limitations.
Good roleplaying / logic and reasoning can be rewarded with Inspiration.
Good roleplaying / logic and reasoning can be rewarded with Inspiration.
Inspiration is just advantage...that mysteriously can be used at any time other than as a consequence of the action that merited it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
I'd say it depends. If it's for something trivial, then I'd say let it slide. If it's for a magic item and they're doing a massive discount request, I'd say roll with advantage.
One thing for me, that I noticed - is that if someone roleplays, it brings others to try and do the same. I run a game for work some people at work who had never played D&D except for two of them - the others had played World of Warcraft and such. So the WoW players had started by treating D&D like an MMO - asking "How do I get aggro away from the cleric?" And over time, they realized D&D wasn't an MMO - and the other two players who had played D&D overall did the majority of roleplay - and overtime, the others stopped analyzing the game as a way to "defeat an encounter" - and began to roleplay more and more.
So I always encourage roleplay, because it helps everyone around the table to try stay in the game.
I don't even let players say how much HP they have during combat - they say say if they're not bloodied, bloodied (half HP), or looking really bad (somewhere below bloodied). This helps stop players from knowing how bad someone is off, and relies on imagination on how they're describing their wounds or how they feel. And now that they're level 7, they don't know what one another's max HP is. (They may outside of the game, but during the game I discourage saying how much anyone has for HP).
Good roleplaying / logic and reasoning can be rewarded with Inspiration.
Inspiration is just advantage...that mysteriously can be used at any time other than as a consequence of the action that merited it.
Player: "I explain to the nobleman that we are working under the orders of the king and that helping us would put them into the kings favor."
DM: "Roll a persuasion check with advantage"
That's not Inspiration though, that's just giving advantage on the roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There are two things to be cautious of in this scenario. First, letting your players play their own attributes rather than their characters attributes. This happens most commonly where a gregarious player dumps Charisma or a clever player dumps Intelligence and then doesn’t downplay their natural abilities, essentially giving them a free pass on their dumped stats. Second is taking the random nature of the game out of the game. Dice rolls are unpredictable. This unpredictability can enhance the game and challenge peoples’ creativity. Even the suavest suave dude strikes out every now and then. The chance of a bad roll mimics this possibility. *Natural 1* Hmmm, what went wrong so that lovely and compelling argument didn’t gain any traction?
I don’t think either of these considerations have immediately negative repercussions, it’s more a matter of how you and your players feel about them. Just be aware that it can be very unfun to play alongside someone with a dumped charisma who happens to talk a good game IRL so ends up being the party leader instead of the resident bard, sorcerer or paladin—played by players who are not good talkers IRL but want to pretend otherwise for a few hours a week.
Yeah, that's why I don't let people just roleplay through social encounters. I'll reward them for thinking about the person and engaging with the story, but it's not going to be the main thing deciding the fate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Original post doesn’t say the RP was superb, or even good. Just says a good point was made in it. I do t care if your RP is Oscar worthy or you’re giving minimal effort, there are times when the right point will be made to make a NoC agree without a roll. It could be proving the world is round, it could be offering an unbelievable deal, sometimes things are just done deals.
Original post doesn’t say the RP was superb, or even good. Just says a good point was made in it. I do t care if your RP is Oscar worthy or you’re giving minimal effort, there are times when the right point will be made to make a NoC agree without a roll. It could be proving the world is round, it could be offering an unbelievable deal, sometimes things are just done deals.
Well, I’d suggest the roll represents everything about the interaction that weren’t the actual words coming out of the character’s mouth. Did the character stare at the queen’s breasts the whole time they were talking to the king? Did they mistake the memorial sippy cup for the memorial spittoon when it was offered to them upon meeting the clan’s chief?
My group really embraces the random nature of the dice roll. Generally we’ll say the jist of what we want to say, roleplay it out if it seems fun (depends on the player, some like to RP more than others) and then roll the dice to determine the success. In the case of a bad argument with a good roll, they just liked you for some reason. Maybe they think you’re attractive or you have an impressive grasp of their weird formal court etiquette… Conversely, there is the possibility of a great argument just not making the cut on a bad roll. Maybe you had broccoli stuck in your teeth the whole time or that local phrase you used show off how much your appreciate the culture doesn’t mean exactly what you think it does…
It’s fun to figure out why the results don’t always reflect the RP. I also like the opportunity for the tongue-tied to really shine on a good roll and have the silver-tongued taken down a peg or two by a bad roll. YMMV of course. Cheers!
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some players are just better at roleplaying than others)
The DM calls for a roll when the DM feels a roll is warranted. If the course of action the player is declaring stands no reasonable chance of failure in the DM's eyes, there's no reason to roll.
A lot of people hate rewarding "roleplaying', but also get 'roleplaying' confused with 'acting'. One can play a role vcery effectively without resorting to in-character speech, i.e. "my bardic boy Jacoby brings up the mayor's past failures in protecting the town and reminds him that he owes our adventuring team pretty big for rescuing the kidnapped farmers, and he should really pay attention when we tell him he needs to fortify the town because there's a bandit raid coming" is playing a role without acting.
Now I also believe that there's nothing wrong with rewarding good acting if doing so does not enkindle resentment at the table, because good acting can enhance the game and make it more fun for everybody. Why try to discourage or arbitrarily limit those times when a player gets into the role and delivers an exciting or engaging piece of improv? Yes yes, the whole "the 8 CHA barbarian shouldn't be giving eloquent speeches" bit, but I'd argue that's pretty poor acting if the player isn't portraying their character properly or consistently. There's a difference between over-rewarding unwarranted soliloquy and rewarding a player for enhancing the tale.
I still had the ranger roll a Persuasion check, but I decided the attempt was going to succeed no matter what -- the roll was just to determine how many birds were going to volunteer
In my opinion, this is the best way to handle situations like this. You want to reward your players for being clever, so you tell them that they've succeeded but are going to roll simply to see how well they succeed.
Degrees of success/failure in general should be utilized more in social and exploration encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For example: A PC has high enough charisma, and is actually making a good point in his RP, so the DM just accepts he convinced the NPC with his arguments instead of asking for a persuasion check. Would this be considered unfair, since the DM is personally evaluating the action instead of rolling dice? (And also considering some https://9apps.ooo/ players are just better at roleplaying than others)
Though not official in 5e, there is an optional rule to “take a 10” - basically give every single skill a “passive” check equal to 10 + bonus to that skill.
Personally, I don’t like to do that - but my groups tend to enjoy the uncertainty rolls provide as they would rather have to scramble to mitigate failure rather than have everything handed to them (particularly at high levels when the bonuses get big).
Instead of giving auto successes for roleplaying, I’ll increase or decrease the value of the check and/or add advantage, depending on what was said. Say something elegant and persuasive? You might get the difficulty significantly reduced. Specifically target something you learned about the character from prior investigations (i.e. appealing to a specific desire you learned about through talking to their maid), you’ll probably get advantage. Do both? Both advantage and lower difficulty.
If you did decide to do it by letting folks succeed for roleplay reasons, to make it fair you’ll need to apply the same to other skills. Face skills have more roleplay elements than others, which could easily turn them into tests of a player’s skill, nor their characters. That is why a blanket “you can take a ten” rule, applying to things like stealth or slight of hand, makes it a bit more fair - everyone has access to auto successes, so they don’t feel left out because someone’s player can talk themselves into an auto success.
So long as it's agrees beforehand, it's fine. I generally do a hybrid - they roleplay what they say, I then assess what skill applies and have them roll. If they make a strong case (in terms of fact and evidence presented, not oral skill) then they get advantage on the roll, if it's really weak, then they get disadvantage.
However, the DM can use any method they like. It could be based on how many times you can hop in ten seconds, if that's what is wanted. However, I'd never base the result on personal skill - ineloquent players aren't punished and eloquent players are not rewarded. A lot of DMs will use role play instead of rolling dice...but I have an aversion to bypassing a character's abilities and relying on the player's.
Regardless, it's up to the DM.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would define with the group in the session 0 if social test would be resolve with rolls or roleplay, and follow for that, mix the two always made problem in my experience
The answer for me is it depends.
if you the player says something excellent but the character you play wouldn’t I would consider making them roll to see how well your character delivers the idea. If you are a 8 charisma barb giving an impassioned speach you wrote for 3 hours, I would ask for a roll. Chance are they wouldn’t have come up with what you did (unless story reasons give this some merit)
if you are playing someone with enough charisma to come up and deliver it in the way you did I may absolutely just give it to them.
For me you are playing your character. You can describe what they do but it should reflect your character. If you describe something they logically could just do, then absolutely no rolls needed. If it is a bit more of a stretch then a roll to see if they can perform I think is fine
It's a tough call. As a DM, I like rewarding the party's Clever Plans, but people also like rolling dice
This actually sort of came up in yesterday's session. The group was exploring a mysterious forest that had a LOT of birds in it. The ranger cast Speak With Animals to talk to them and try to get them to scout ahead for the party. The paladin decided to help with the convincing by pulling out her Rod of Cake (a homebrew magic item that basically does this) and turning a chunk of a nearby dead tree into a yummy seed cake, which the birds promptly devoured
I still had the ranger roll a Persuasion check, but I decided the attempt was going to succeed no matter what -- the roll was just to determine how many birds were going to volunteer
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If I thought they’d done a good job with the RP and felt inclined I’d probably just let them roll with advantage.. if it’s not a particularly important situation them I’d let it go through without a roll as it keeps the game moving.
I always consider good arguments of roleplaying, depending on how "stubborn" the npc(s) are on the topic. If it's totally logical that the npc would agree/comply i forgo a roll, else i use the argument to either lower the DC a few points or give the player advantage on the roll, if the motiv of the npc is rather weak anyway.
It is fair.
A DM shouldn’t ask for a roll if the results are not in doubt. You should not roll to walk without falling down, open an unlocked door nor should you roll to convince an NPC of something if Dm believes they’re readily agreeable or the RP was just so stellar. All in all the DM should be making decisions on if a roll is needed or not based largely on if there’s a chance of failure or not AND largely on what is fun for the group.
I would argue a party of high level players shouldn’t bother rolling to defeat a single Kobold, nor should (for example) a bard need to roll to persuade a mermaid yo swim.
Leave rolls for when the results are truly in doubt, when the results will be dramatic and interesting, for things that really matter…
A good argument is not roleplaying, it's logic and reason. It does favor those who are more logical and intelligent though. I think a more fair rule would be to allow the take 10 rule mentioned by others. I may not be smart, but my wizard has a 20 intelligence. It's unfair to limit my character by my personal limitations.
Good roleplaying / logic and reasoning can be rewarded with Inspiration.
Inspiration is just advantage...that mysteriously can be used at any time other than as a consequence of the action that merited it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Player: "I explain to the nobleman that we are working under the orders of the king and that helping us would put them into the kings favor."
DM: "Roll a persuasion check with advantage"
I'd say it depends. If it's for something trivial, then I'd say let it slide. If it's for a magic item and they're doing a massive discount request, I'd say roll with advantage.
One thing for me, that I noticed - is that if someone roleplays, it brings others to try and do the same. I run a game for work some people at work who had never played D&D except for two of them - the others had played World of Warcraft and such. So the WoW players had started by treating D&D like an MMO - asking "How do I get aggro away from the cleric?" And over time, they realized D&D wasn't an MMO - and the other two players who had played D&D overall did the majority of roleplay - and overtime, the others stopped analyzing the game as a way to "defeat an encounter" - and began to roleplay more and more.
So I always encourage roleplay, because it helps everyone around the table to try stay in the game.
I don't even let players say how much HP they have during combat - they say say if they're not bloodied, bloodied (half HP), or looking really bad (somewhere below bloodied). This helps stop players from knowing how bad someone is off, and relies on imagination on how they're describing their wounds or how they feel. And now that they're level 7, they don't know what one another's max HP is. (They may outside of the game, but during the game I discourage saying how much anyone has for HP).
Check out my publication on DMs Guild: https://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?author=Tawmis%20Logue
Check out my comedy web series - Neverending Nights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wr4-u9-zw0&list=PLbRG7dzFI-u3EJd0usasgDrrFO3mZ1lOZ
Need a character story/background written up? I do it for free (but also take donations!) - https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?591882-Need-a-character-background-written-up
That's not Inspiration though, that's just giving advantage on the roll.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There are two things to be cautious of in this scenario. First, letting your players play their own attributes rather than their characters attributes. This happens most commonly where a gregarious player dumps Charisma or a clever player dumps Intelligence and then doesn’t downplay their natural abilities, essentially giving them a free pass on their dumped stats. Second is taking the random nature of the game out of the game. Dice rolls are unpredictable. This unpredictability can enhance the game and challenge peoples’ creativity. Even the suavest suave dude strikes out every now and then. The chance of a bad roll mimics this possibility. *Natural 1* Hmmm, what went wrong so that lovely and compelling argument didn’t gain any traction?
I don’t think either of these considerations have immediately negative repercussions, it’s more a matter of how you and your players feel about them. Just be aware that it can be very unfun to play alongside someone with a dumped charisma who happens to talk a good game IRL so ends up being the party leader instead of the resident bard, sorcerer or paladin—played by players who are not good talkers IRL but want to pretend otherwise for a few hours a week.
Yeah, that's why I don't let people just roleplay through social encounters. I'll reward them for thinking about the person and engaging with the story, but it's not going to be the main thing deciding the fate.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Original post doesn’t say the RP was superb, or even good. Just says a good point was made in it. I do t care if your RP is Oscar worthy or you’re giving minimal effort, there are times when the right point will be made to make a NoC agree without a roll. It could be proving the world is round, it could be offering an unbelievable deal, sometimes things are just done deals.
Well, I’d suggest the roll represents everything about the interaction that weren’t the actual words coming out of the character’s mouth. Did the character stare at the queen’s breasts the whole time they were talking to the king? Did they mistake the memorial sippy cup for the memorial spittoon when it was offered to them upon meeting the clan’s chief?
My group really embraces the random nature of the dice roll. Generally we’ll say the jist of what we want to say, roleplay it out if it seems fun (depends on the player, some like to RP more than others) and then roll the dice to determine the success. In the case of a bad argument with a good roll, they just liked you for some reason. Maybe they think you’re attractive or you have an impressive grasp of their weird formal court etiquette… Conversely, there is the possibility of a great argument just not making the cut on a bad roll. Maybe you had broccoli stuck in your teeth the whole time or that local phrase you used show off how much your appreciate the culture doesn’t mean exactly what you think it does…
It’s fun to figure out why the results don’t always reflect the RP. I also like the opportunity for the tongue-tied to really shine on a good roll and have the silver-tongued taken down a peg or two by a bad roll. YMMV of course. Cheers!
The DM calls for a roll when the DM feels a roll is warranted. If the course of action the player is declaring stands no reasonable chance of failure in the DM's eyes, there's no reason to roll.
A lot of people hate rewarding "roleplaying', but also get 'roleplaying' confused with 'acting'. One can play a role vcery effectively without resorting to in-character speech, i.e. "my bardic boy Jacoby brings up the mayor's past failures in protecting the town and reminds him that he owes our adventuring team pretty big for rescuing the kidnapped farmers, and he should really pay attention when we tell him he needs to fortify the town because there's a bandit raid coming" is playing a role without acting.
Now I also believe that there's nothing wrong with rewarding good acting if doing so does not enkindle resentment at the table, because good acting can enhance the game and make it more fun for everybody. Why try to discourage or arbitrarily limit those times when a player gets into the role and delivers an exciting or engaging piece of improv? Yes yes, the whole "the 8 CHA barbarian shouldn't be giving eloquent speeches" bit, but I'd argue that's pretty poor acting if the player isn't portraying their character properly or consistently. There's a difference between over-rewarding unwarranted soliloquy and rewarding a player for enhancing the tale.
Please do not contact or message me.
Degrees of success/failure in general should be utilized more in social and exploration encounters.