Let's imagine that, in a moment of the game in which a social interaction takes place between a character and one or more NPCs or monsters, the player (role-playing the character) gives a very convincing speech - to the point that the DM thinks that if someone were to give that speech to him, he would be convinced, 100%, no doubt, he can't think of any reason why others might not be convinced.
In your opinion, in this circumstance, what should the DM do?
- Should the DM declare the success of the interaction without rolling dice? After all, he is convinced that the interaction should succeed, he doesn't see a single reason why it can't…
- Should the DM still require from the character an appropriate skill check? Deep down, the DM is convinced... but the NPCs or monsters might still think differently! (And in that case, should the DM at least grant advantage to the check? Or not even that?)
If the DM is 100% convinced the PC would succeed, and there's no way they could fail, then no, they shouldn't require rolling.
Otherwise that would be like asking someone to roll a Dex check to open an unlocked door. That said, in situations where rolls are (usually) required, there's also (usually) at least a small possibility of failure.
Player skills are not character skills - someone being good at something in the real world and being able to come up with a speech as a player does not mean their character would be good at delivering the speech. Frankly, I would go so far as to say this can sometimes be bad roleplay - if a charismatic player is playing someone uncharismatic and gives an inspiring speech, they’re doing a bad job playing their role.
Instead of making an auto succeed, good dialogue can result in the difficulty of the check being lowered, or with giving advantage on the role (either is fine and I personally use them both in slightly different ways).
And, if failure still occurs, the DM can easily explain that - “while your words were eloquent, your delivery was a bit stilted, making eye contact with the wrong individuals and undermining your own words through body language” or the like. Or there’s always the old “that is what you heard in your head, but it came out jumbled” if they role really poorly.
This is up to you as DM. If you feel that a character did a particularly good job convincing an NPC to do something, then you don't need to require a roll. That being said, if it were an important scene, many Dungeon Masters would just lower the difficulty of the check instead of just granting your players an auto-success. Again, both routes are valid, and it depends on the situation and style of play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Personally, I'd never let roleplay replace rolls. If they invested in Cha, then the roll will make that investment manifest. If they didn't...then roleplay does not cover that up.
Sure, if they do something that has no significant chance of failure, then I won't make them roll. However, roleplay won't ever swing things from a failure to a success (or vice versa).
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.
It's been a while since I started this thread. In the intervening time, I have also begun to assume the role of Dungeon Mistress from time to time, and re-reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, I have found that this provides a structured way to resolve a social interaction ('Chapter 8: Running the Game', section 'Resolving Interactions').
The 'structured way' takes into consideration the interlocutor's original disposition (categorized as friendly, indifferent or hostile) towards the characters and whether or not their request involves risks/costs for the interlocutor.
Through role-play, it is possible, in a limited way, to modify the interlocutor's original disposition (limited, because the modification can be of only one step: indifferent can become friendly, hostile no - at most it can become indifferent).
After that, based on the resulting disposition and the onerousness of the characters' request, a charisma check is performed (usually Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation).
So apparently the answer is that the role-play affects the outcome (since it affects the disposition, hence the difficulty of the check), but a check is almost always required, it shouldn't be avoided. Unless (the only possible exception that I seem to see) the disposition is friendly and the request is not onerous (no risk/cost) - in this case, in the explanation of the friendly disposition, it is written that a check should not be necessary ('For tasks or actions that require no particular risk, effort, or cost, friendly creatures usually help without question').
I'm posting the answer to my own question, now that I've found it, so that anyone reading this thread in the future will know about it.
I don't know if that really ties up the issue though, I think the tension will always exist between rewarding roleplay and respecting character investment and fairness.
If I'm eloquent IRL, should I have an easier time doing social challenges than someone who is more shy and reserved? This is my primary concern, as in my mind D&D is supposed to be a place where you can be something you're not, and if I can be a better bard than Sally can - assuming our characters are the same - that doesn't seem fair to Sally. Even worse if I'm a barbarian who dumped CHA but manage to lower the DC so far with my acting that I actually have a better chance of success than Sally's bard.
One important thing to distinguish here is that speaking in character or doing a funny accent is not what roleplaying is. Roleplaying is making observations and decisions through your character. An eloquent speech is only good roleplaying if the character is supposed to be eloquent. It's important to reward all kinds of roleplaying, not just flashy acting. That at least begins to level the playing field and give everyone a chance to feel good about roleplay.
I don't really subscribe to the "this is what the DM would do" train of thought. If you're asking me what I would do while DMing, I would still have them roll.
The DM isn't the character. Say the player, through his character, gives a speech about Fontroy the Flamboyant Fool as a cautionary tale against doing what the NPCs wish to accomplish. It's logical, funny, makes total sense. But the player rolls a Nat 1. Well, turns out that some of the NPCs served under Lord Fontroy who sacrificed his life to save theirs. It's no longer funny. It's mocking the person who allowed them to go home to their families.
To look at it another way, say the player was a professional musician and songwriter. She actually performs a brilliant original song based on the campaign, lore and characters. It's perfect. The entire table loves it. I'd still have her roll. She rolls a nat 1. Turns out the tavern audience just wants to hear something bawdy like "Scanlan Poops the Bed" and her show is just over their heads.
But I like to have Nat 1s be equally as memorable as Nat 20s are. That's just my preferred style of DMing.
I agree that player skills shouldn't affect what the character can achieve.
Particularly for things like the persuasive speech, I think one should roll first, and play it out worse if you rolled poorly. Not only does this keep player skills and character skill separate, but it always feels silly to narrate something impressive and cool, and then roll a 2.
This is trickier to do in a back-and-forth dialogue, but it's still possible.
In this situation, I go with what I call "Degrees of Success" on a check.
While the action can't fail, there's no promise how successful the success might be. So I have the player make the roll for their character and the higher the result the more overwhelming the success is. Rolling dice is fun and this lets the players who invest in a skill set for their character shine. It's kind of a win/win and challenges me to find a fun "You were so crazy successful that..." result.
On the roll-playing v verses role-playing front...
Is it any less roll-playing and more role-playing if I let a player say this to themselves?:
"Ah, I'm eloquent and articulate, I can dump my Charisma and invest more into my Dex, because I can put forth persuasive arguments/make menacing threats/etc so my Charisma being an 8 means next to nothing."
Personally, I prefer to reward good role-playing separately to their mechanical bonuses in a situation. That allows the character to be the one to decide if they succeed, rather than the player. It also means I can set the bar according to the player - the player that has few interpersonal skills can get those rewards just as easily as the Shakespearean actor. I can reward engagement and role-playing rather than eloquence and articulation.
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.
"player skills are not character skills" makes a lot of sense. however, that breaks down with riddles and puzzles. it would feel weird to narrow down a sphinx encounter to an int check speed bump.
but suppose we're suckers for a good DC. then what's the DC of the original post's 'convincing speech'? it depends, but if the audience were indifferent and asked to make a sacrifice then you're looking at a 20 DC by the book. but with advantage if one of the other characters were to lend a "o, wat gud a'vice" to the table. now, assume at this point the character hasn't spent their own breath beyond the initial 'my character speaks eloquently to the unwashed troglodytes,' and neither have they dumped their charisma. things are lookin about fifty-fifty. at this point here, would you roll the dice? yeah, probably so. okay, then before the roll let's ask the player to describe their actions. and here comes the speech. the convincing speech. oh, it all makes sense now!
...but what's really changed after that speech? three things spring to my mind that could have happened: 1.) the dm reevaluates the crowd to friendly which drops to 10 DC. still roll? 2.) the dm reevaluates the situation and finds failure to be uninteresting. still roll? 3.) the dm congratulates the speaker and gives them inspiration they can use next time. still roll.
unless you're using critical failure variant, situation 1 is now is a slam dunk or near enough. situation 2 explains itself. if either or both of those influence the dm then what's the roll for? is it wrong for the dm to change their mind? surely not. but if your dm lets you know (in session zero, perhaps) that i'll always be situation 3 every time... why bother making the speech? and then doesn't the whole table lose out? i think my conclusion, after thinking out-loud above (thanks for listening!) is that some things have to be a little nebulous, a little undecided. even if you lean towards 3, shouldn't it be fun for the table to think 1 or 2 might happen next time? keep an open mind! or pretend to, anyway!
Let's imagine that, in a moment of the game in which a social interaction takes place between a character and one or more NPCs or monsters, the player (role-playing the character) gives a very convincing speech - to the point that the DM thinks that if someone were to give that speech to him, he would be convinced, 100%, no doubt, he can't think of any reason why others might not be convinced.
In your opinion, in this circumstance, what should the DM do?
- Should the DM declare the success of the interaction without rolling dice? After all, he is convinced that the interaction should succeed, he doesn't see a single reason why it can't…
- Should the DM still require from the character an appropriate skill check? Deep down, the DM is convinced... but the NPCs or monsters might still think differently! (And in that case, should the DM at least grant advantage to the check? Or not even that?)
What do you think the DM should do?
This needlessly and pointlessly rewards those players who can do that - and similarly punishes those who cannot.
A good speach, or a description of how you'd form your arguments, should maybe give a bonus to the roll - advantage, I guess. But in the end, this game is decided by dice. What goes for social interactions goes precisely the same for combat. And there's no question in combat, is there? No matter how well I describe my attack, it never hits automatically. Same thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
"player skills are not character skills" makes a lot of sense. however, that breaks down with riddles and puzzles. it would feel weird to narrow down a sphinx encounter to an int check speed bump.
I agree, but I'd argue those are two different cases. A puzzle is something that expressly requires the players to solve it to progress the plot, whereas just having a major social interaction should move the plot forward in one direction or another. They're different tools for a DM, and so are handled in different ways. Basically, when the DM introduces a puzzle, particularly one framed in such a way that the players can't use features to circumvent it, they're implicitly inviting the players to step back from their characters and directly solve the problem.
"player skills are not character skills" makes a lot of sense. however, that breaks down with riddles and puzzles. it would feel weird to narrow down a sphinx encounter to an int check speed bump.
I agree, but I'd argue those are two different cases. A puzzle is something that expressly requires the players to solve it to progress the plot, whereas just having a major social interaction should move the plot forward in one direction or another. They're different tools for a DM, and so are handled in different ways. Basically, when the DM introduces a puzzle, particularly one framed in such a way that the players can't use features to circumvent it, they're implicitly inviting the players to step back from their characters and directly solve the problem.
I'm of the opinion that riddles and puzzles, due to this nature, rarely work well in-game, especially since there's usually at least one PC who is, on paper, smarter and more knowledgeable than any of the players (or the GM) are in reality. You've usually got this weird intrusion of the real world into the game, or something that ought to be trivial to the PCs, because they know vastly more about the world than the players ever can.
Mysteries, where the characters use their skills to get the players the necessary knowledge, work better, but are still tricky.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's imagine that, in a moment of the game in which a social interaction takes place between a character and one or more NPCs or monsters, the player (role-playing the character) gives a very convincing speech - to the point that the DM thinks that if someone were to give that speech to him, he would be convinced, 100%, no doubt, he can't think of any reason why others might not be convinced.
In your opinion, in this circumstance, what should the DM do?
- Should the DM declare the success of the interaction without rolling dice? After all, he is convinced that the interaction should succeed, he doesn't see a single reason why it can't…
- Should the DM still require from the character an appropriate skill check? Deep down, the DM is convinced... but the NPCs or monsters might still think differently! (And in that case, should the DM at least grant advantage to the check? Or not even that?)
What do you think the DM should do?
If the DM is 100% convinced the PC would succeed, and there's no way they could fail, then no, they shouldn't require rolling.
Otherwise that would be like asking someone to roll a Dex check to open an unlocked door. That said, in situations where rolls are (usually) required, there's also (usually) at least a small possibility of failure.
Player skills are not character skills - someone being good at something in the real world and being able to come up with a speech as a player does not mean their character would be good at delivering the speech. Frankly, I would go so far as to say this can sometimes be bad roleplay - if a charismatic player is playing someone uncharismatic and gives an inspiring speech, they’re doing a bad job playing their role.
Instead of making an auto succeed, good dialogue can result in the difficulty of the check being lowered, or with giving advantage on the role (either is fine and I personally use them both in slightly different ways).
And, if failure still occurs, the DM can easily explain that - “while your words were eloquent, your delivery was a bit stilted, making eye contact with the wrong individuals and undermining your own words through body language” or the like. Or there’s always the old “that is what you heard in your head, but it came out jumbled” if they role really poorly.
This is up to you as DM. If you feel that a character did a particularly good job convincing an NPC to do something, then you don't need to require a roll. That being said, if it were an important scene, many Dungeon Masters would just lower the difficulty of the check instead of just granting your players an auto-success. Again, both routes are valid, and it depends on the situation and style of play.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Do what you want.
Personally, I'd never let roleplay replace rolls. If they invested in Cha, then the roll will make that investment manifest. If they didn't...then roleplay does not cover that up.
Sure, if they do something that has no significant chance of failure, then I won't make them roll. However, roleplay won't ever swing things from a failure to a success (or vice versa).
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 go back to the "Only roll if failure is interesting" idea, so I could see going either way depending...
It's been a while since I started this thread. In the intervening time, I have also begun to assume the role of Dungeon Mistress from time to time, and re-reading the Dungeon Master's Guide, I have found that this provides a structured way to resolve a social interaction ('Chapter 8: Running the Game', section 'Resolving Interactions').
The 'structured way' takes into consideration the interlocutor's original disposition (categorized as friendly, indifferent or hostile) towards the characters and whether or not their request involves risks/costs for the interlocutor.
Through role-play, it is possible, in a limited way, to modify the interlocutor's original disposition (limited, because the modification can be of only one step: indifferent can become friendly, hostile no - at most it can become indifferent).
After that, based on the resulting disposition and the onerousness of the characters' request, a charisma check is performed (usually Persuasion, Deception, or Intimidation).
So apparently the answer is that the role-play affects the outcome (since it affects the disposition, hence the difficulty of the check), but a check is almost always required, it shouldn't be avoided. Unless (the only possible exception that I seem to see) the disposition is friendly and the request is not onerous (no risk/cost) - in this case, in the explanation of the friendly disposition, it is written that a check should not be necessary ('For tasks or actions that require no particular risk, effort, or cost, friendly creatures usually help without question').
I'm posting the answer to my own question, now that I've found it, so that anyone reading this thread in the future will know about it.
I don't know if that really ties up the issue though, I think the tension will always exist between rewarding roleplay and respecting character investment and fairness.
If I'm eloquent IRL, should I have an easier time doing social challenges than someone who is more shy and reserved? This is my primary concern, as in my mind D&D is supposed to be a place where you can be something you're not, and if I can be a better bard than Sally can - assuming our characters are the same - that doesn't seem fair to Sally. Even worse if I'm a barbarian who dumped CHA but manage to lower the DC so far with my acting that I actually have a better chance of success than Sally's bard.
One important thing to distinguish here is that speaking in character or doing a funny accent is not what roleplaying is. Roleplaying is making observations and decisions through your character. An eloquent speech is only good roleplaying if the character is supposed to be eloquent. It's important to reward all kinds of roleplaying, not just flashy acting. That at least begins to level the playing field and give everyone a chance to feel good about roleplay.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't really subscribe to the "this is what the DM would do" train of thought. If you're asking me what I would do while DMing, I would still have them roll.
The DM isn't the character. Say the player, through his character, gives a speech about Fontroy the Flamboyant Fool as a cautionary tale against doing what the NPCs wish to accomplish. It's logical, funny, makes total sense. But the player rolls a Nat 1. Well, turns out that some of the NPCs served under Lord Fontroy who sacrificed his life to save theirs. It's no longer funny. It's mocking the person who allowed them to go home to their families.
To look at it another way, say the player was a professional musician and songwriter. She actually performs a brilliant original song based on the campaign, lore and characters. It's perfect. The entire table loves it. I'd still have her roll. She rolls a nat 1. Turns out the tavern audience just wants to hear something bawdy like "Scanlan Poops the Bed" and her show is just over their heads.
But I like to have Nat 1s be equally as memorable as Nat 20s are. That's just my preferred style of DMing.
I agree that player skills shouldn't affect what the character can achieve.
Particularly for things like the persuasive speech, I think one should roll first, and play it out worse if you rolled poorly. Not only does this keep player skills and character skill separate, but it always feels silly to narrate something impressive and cool, and then roll a 2.
This is trickier to do in a back-and-forth dialogue, but it's still possible.
In this situation, I go with what I call "Degrees of Success" on a check.
While the action can't fail, there's no promise how successful the success might be. So I have the player make the roll for their character and the higher the result the more overwhelming the success is. Rolling dice is fun and this lets the players who invest in a skill set for their character shine. It's kind of a win/win and challenges me to find a fun "You were so crazy successful that..." result.
On the roll-playing v verses role-playing front...
Is it any less roll-playing and more role-playing if I let a player say this to themselves?:
Personally, I prefer to reward good role-playing separately to their mechanical bonuses in a situation. That allows the character to be the one to decide if they succeed, rather than the player. It also means I can set the bar according to the player - the player that has few interpersonal skills can get those rewards just as easily as the Shakespearean actor. I can reward engagement and role-playing rather than eloquence and articulation.
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 skills are not character skills" makes a lot of sense. however, that breaks down with riddles and puzzles. it would feel weird to narrow down a sphinx encounter to an int check speed bump.
but suppose we're suckers for a good DC. then what's the DC of the original post's 'convincing speech'? it depends, but if the audience were indifferent and asked to make a sacrifice then you're looking at a 20 DC by the book. but with advantage if one of the other characters were to lend a "o, wat gud a'vice" to the table. now, assume at this point the character hasn't spent their own breath beyond the initial 'my character speaks eloquently to the unwashed troglodytes,' and neither have they dumped their charisma. things are lookin about fifty-fifty. at this point here, would you roll the dice? yeah, probably so. okay, then before the roll let's ask the player to describe their actions. and here comes the speech. the convincing speech. oh, it all makes sense now!
...but what's really changed after that speech? three things spring to my mind that could have happened:
1.) the dm reevaluates the crowd to friendly which drops to 10 DC. still roll?
2.) the dm reevaluates the situation and finds failure to be uninteresting. still roll?
3.) the dm congratulates the speaker and gives them inspiration they can use next time. still roll.
unless you're using critical failure variant, situation 1 is now is a slam dunk or near enough. situation 2 explains itself. if either or both of those influence the dm then what's the roll for? is it wrong for the dm to change their mind? surely not. but if your dm lets you know (in session zero, perhaps) that i'll always be situation 3 every time... why bother making the speech? and then doesn't the whole table lose out? i think my conclusion, after thinking out-loud above (thanks for listening!) is that some things have to be a little nebulous, a little undecided. even if you lean towards 3, shouldn't it be fun for the table to think 1 or 2 might happen next time? keep an open mind! or pretend to, anyway!
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This needlessly and pointlessly rewards those players who can do that - and similarly punishes those who cannot.
A good speach, or a description of how you'd form your arguments, should maybe give a bonus to the roll - advantage, I guess. But in the end, this game is decided by dice. What goes for social interactions goes precisely the same for combat. And there's no question in combat, is there? No matter how well I describe my attack, it never hits automatically. Same thing.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I agree, but I'd argue those are two different cases. A puzzle is something that expressly requires the players to solve it to progress the plot, whereas just having a major social interaction should move the plot forward in one direction or another. They're different tools for a DM, and so are handled in different ways. Basically, when the DM introduces a puzzle, particularly one framed in such a way that the players can't use features to circumvent it, they're implicitly inviting the players to step back from their characters and directly solve the problem.
I'm of the opinion that riddles and puzzles, due to this nature, rarely work well in-game, especially since there's usually at least one PC who is, on paper, smarter and more knowledgeable than any of the players (or the GM) are in reality. You've usually got this weird intrusion of the real world into the game, or something that ought to be trivial to the PCs, because they know vastly more about the world than the players ever can.
Mysteries, where the characters use their skills to get the players the necessary knowledge, work better, but are still tricky.