I'm about to DM my first campaign (using quarantine to fill that New Years resolution). My most experienced player has been playing for 3 weeks now. I'm also not super experienced, and will be using the 5e starter set, with some slight changes. I have prepared (maybe overprepared?) as much as possible, but a few questions have occurred to me.
1. Several of my players are excited that they made their characters more charm over brawn. I want to support them in being charming b*stards and look forward to the first time they talk themselves out of trouble. BUT: is there anything that prevents them from just making CHA check after CHA check? What rule do I use or cite for why the goblins in the hideout they discovered are not going to negotiate despite their good roll, and will instead shoot at them? Whats the difference between railroading and saying 'no, this is a combat encounter'?
2. How do other DMs strike a balance between making sure players are observing their environment without making them so paranoid EVERYONE needs to run a perception check EVERY time before they do ANYTHING?
3. Lastly, how do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition? Or just having everyone make the same check to flout a failure? ex: a PC makes an inisght check to see if an NPC is lying, and rolls badly. But now all the other players also want to see if they're lying. And maybe no one rolls well, so the NEXT round starts with an insight check again. Obviously its different if the NPC is presented as shady, but basically: how do i keep players from doing the same thing over and over until their rolls succeed? Or is that just an unfortunate inevitability?
1. You let them only make 1 check, or with failures make the people they are talking to more hostile. If they want to talk out of everything let them, if it will work. You can't really talk sense into a gnoll, so let them walk fight into the camp and get eaten.
2. I haven't had this problem yet, but one way is only to call perception checks when necessary, or to make most things not evil so they will no be to paranoid.
3. I only allow one roll per character per check, and you can also ask them if they want to check at first, and do not let them check if they declined the first check. If they fail the check just smile and let out your most evil laugh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: So, you doomed the world by betting on dinosauer races instead of doing a quest.
Players: But we got money! Now we can do whatever we want.
Remember that rolling high on a skill check is not a guaranteed success, there are some persuasions/intimidation that have no chance of success, especially for low-level characters. In those cases its best not to call for rolls and instead try and portray this through roleplay - it might be worth reminding your group of this as well if they keep wanting to try!
They can't go up to a shopkeeper, call a charisma check and roll a nat 20 + bonus and expect to get all their items for free, or for guards to let them go, or for evil/hostile creatures to bend to their will.
1. If the goblins aren’t going to negotiate, don’t let the players roll. Only call for rolls when there’s a chance of success and a chance for failure. If there’s no chance of success, there’s no need for a roll. You get to decide whether or not there’s a chance of success. The rule you can cite here is the entire DMG because that is literally the DM’s job.
2. This one’s tough, I think you really just have to play it by feel. There are definitely situations in which the PCs SHOULD look around before doing things. But it’s generally best to limit it to a single character’s check or a group check (in which everyone rolls and if half or more succeed, everyone succeeds). Which leads into number three nicely.
3. Don’t let them try repeatedly, and don’t let every other player make their roll after the first one fails. Remember that it’s your role as the DM to call for rolls. The players can’t roll without your approval. If they want to all have a chance to contribute to the success of the task, let them make a group check as described above. Otherwise limit it to one character. If they have the time and there’s not actually any consequence to failure (i.e. if they’re in a situation where they’re tempted to just roll over and over again until they succeed), still only allow one roll, but make the effect of that roll how long it takes to succeed. For example, if they’re looking around for a secret door and roll poorly, they still find the door, they just take forever to do it and now the monsters are better prepared.
is there anything that prevents them from just making CHA check after CHA check?
Yes. YOU.
The players do not get to decide when a check is to be made; the DM does. In some cases, a check would not be possible, and you simply don't call for one. The players are not allowed to say, "I'm making a Charisma check against this NPC." Instead, they explain what they are doing, RP what they are saying, and then, if you think the situation calls for it (i.e., they RPed well enough), you can say, "Make a Charisma check." This is the same as any other skill check. You wouldn't let the players say, "I make a perception check for secret doors," would you? (I hope not!). Rather, the players say, "I look around the room and particularly exam the walls for irregularities," and you, as a DM, say something like, "Make a perception check." You make the call -- not the players. They describe what they are doing -- YOU decide what gets rolled and what the DC is and whether there is advantage/disadvantage based on circumstances.
What rule do I use or cite for why the goblins in the hideout they discovered are not going to negotiate despite their good roll, and will instead shoot at them?
The rule to cite comes from the "ability checks" section of PHB (p. 174 if they don't want to believe you): "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
Note the wording, specifically.
The DM (not the players, THE DM) calls for an ability check. If the DM doesn't call for one, no check can be made. Period.
The check occurs when the action has a chance of failure (which can also be read as "a chance of success"). No roll is called for when failure is guaranteed, such as if someone says, "I want to punch through this stone wall to the other side of the mountain with my fist." No, you don't ask for a strength check. It's a preposterous situation.
Now as for the goblins. Maybe the goblins are instructed to shoot on sight. If so, why would they listen to the players, absent a charm person spell? Nope, they just shoot. Sorry. Charisma is not an "I win" button.
Whats the difference between railroading and saying 'no, this is a combat encounter'?
It's not about whether this is a combat encounter or not. It's about how the NPCs would reasonably react. In some cases negotiation is possible. In some cases it just flat out isn't. It is not railroading the party when the DM roleplays the NPCs. If the NPCs would not realistically negotiate, then they don't. End of story.
How do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition? Or just having everyone make the same check to flout a failure? ex: a PC makes an inisght check to see if an NPC is lying, and rolls badly. But now all the other players also want to see if they're lying.
That is simply not allowed. A character gets ONE chance to make a skill check, and should not be allowed to make the same check about the same thing again, unless circumstances change. I would at least require a long rest before checking something again, and maybe longer than that depending on circumstances. If it wouldn't be in-character to re-check, I wouldn't allow it ever.
As far as other characters checking, my question to them would be, how do you know your friend failed his insight check? How do you know he rolled badly? That is using OOC information IC. Not allowed.
Make it a table rule if you have to: Checks may not be repeated, and if multiple members of the party want to do something, they can help, giving ONE person advantage, but only one person may do the check. Otherwise, it sounds like your players are gaming the system -- again, not allowed to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm about to DM my first campaign (using quarantine to fill that New Years resolution). My most experienced player has been playing for 3 weeks now. I'm also not super experienced, and will be using the 5e starter set, with some slight changes. I have prepared (maybe overprepared?) as much as possible, but a few questions have occurred to me.
1. Several of my players are excited that they made their characters more charm over brawn. I want to support them in being charming b*stards and look forward to the first time they talk themselves out of trouble. BUT: is there anything that prevents them from just making CHA check after CHA check?
The players don't get to decide when they make "checks". They get to say what their characters DO, and then you as DM get to decide what check, if any, is necessary to determine whether the action succeeds or fails. You only need to make a check when what they're doing has a reasonable chance of success and a reasonable chance of failure.
What rule do I use or cite for why the goblins in the hideout they discovered are not going to negotiate despite their good roll, and will instead shoot at them?
The rule is that the DM decides what the NPCs and enemies do in this game! If they're not up for negotiating, perhaps no check is good enough to change that. Figure out what makes sense of those specific goblins.
Whats the difference between railroading and saying 'no, this is a combat encounter'?
If you've decided that it's a combat encounter just because, just for the sake of it being a combat encounter, and are just automatically discounting any other ways of solving it, sure, that's not great. But if there's a problem out there, violence is one possible solution, and the players just haven't come up with another solution that actually makes sense then it's perfectly fine to say that approaches that don't make any sense, fail.
2. How do other DMs strike a balance between making sure players are observing their environment without making them so paranoid EVERYONE needs to run a perception check EVERY time before they do ANYTHING?
Going back to the basics - the players describe what their characters do, and the DM is the one that decides whether a check is necessary for whether they succeed or not. In general, if the players are describing their characters walking carefully, observing their surroundings, etc, that's fine! If that gets to be too much boring detail, just tell them you're assuming they're always on guard (unless they're explicitly doing something else) and don't have to narrate that, just like they don't have to narrate tying their shoes in the morning. Call for perception checks on the cadence that you yourself think is reasonable. Or just use their passive perception score.
3. Lastly, how do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition?
If the characters are attempting something over and over and there's no penalty for failure, it's something they can try over and over again, then just narrate that they succeed. Why wouldn't they? They can just keep trying. If the time taken matters, have the players make a check and have the check determine how many tries it takes the characters succeed (how long).
But if the time doesn't matter, and the characters can keep trying until they succeed, then no need to roll anything at all.
(Note - I'm trying to be very deliberate here in my phrasing. The players are the ones that "make checks" and "do rolls". The characters are the ones doing in-game things like kicking down doors and looking around.)
Or just having everyone make the same check to flout a failure? ex: a PC makes an inisght check to see if an NPC is lying, and rolls badly. But now all the other players also want to see if they're lying. And maybe no one rolls well, so the NEXT round starts with an insight check again. Obviously its different if the NPC is presented as shady, but basically: how do i keep players from doing the same thing over and over until their rolls succeed? Or is that just an unfortunate inevitability?
Players should only be making rolls when the DM tells them they're necessary, because the action their characters are taking has some chance of success and some chance of failure. Sometimes it makes sense for every player to make a check, representing the fact that every character in the game is trying to do something, and each might succeed or fail. Sometimes it makes sense for only one of the players to make a check - e.g. if only one character is talking to the NPC, they're probably the only one in a reasonable position to see whether he's lying or not!
Sometimes checks make sense to repeat - e.g. if a character is trying to climb a slippery slope, on a fail they take damage, end up at the bottom, and get to try again. Sometimes it does not make sense to repeat a check - in this case, the character trying to determine if an NPC is trustworthy is one whole task, and after they've made up their mind (the player made a check, that was translated into what the character can tell about the NPC's motives in-game) they don't get a redo unless some new information comes up that would make their character actually reassess their conclusion.
Watch the 1973 Three Musketeers. There's a scene where they steal food from a restaurant. They've got Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, and Oliver Reed, but they still can't just charm the guy into giving them free food. What they do instead is steal from him in a completely charming way.
3. Lastly, how do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition?
Welcome to this side of the DM's Screen!
In answer to question 3, if there is little or no cost for multple attempts then don't roll. Just say, 'It takes a few minutes but you succeed."
More generally, refer to the core mechanic of a roleplaying game.
1. The GM describes a scene.
2. The players tell the GM what their characters are trying to achieve (the GOAL) and how (the APPROACH).
3. The GM decides whether the approach chosen is (a) automatically successful, or (b) automatically unsuccessful, or (c) has a chance to succeed or fail.
3(c) The GM or players determine success, usually by rolling dice.
4. The GM and players narrates the OUTCOME (which includes the success or failure) and paying the COST (time, money, health, items, points, slots, whatever).
See AngryGM's Adjudicate Actions like a — Boss! Warning, Angry's abrasive style is not for everyone. His content is, just not his style.
Watch the 1973 Three Musketeers. There's a scene where they steal food from a restaurant. They've got Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, and Oliver Reed, but they still can't just charm the guy into giving them free food. What they do instead is steal from him in a completely charming way.
1. Charm is good enough to convince the goblins not to attack, but no amount of 20+ rolls will convince them to let the heroes into their base. Some checks are impossible! (They might be able to gain quite an advantage over the goblins, though.) Plus, players don't get to declare social checks like they do attacks: they have to role-play the whole social interaction, and then you ask for the check. Try not to let people say "I roll Perception" or "I roll Persuasion"...instead, they should say, "I search the area" or "Hello, good goblin, I'm but a poor traveler and you seem strong and brave, might I pass safely by?" Then you can ask for the roll.
2. Try placing rewards in your environment instead of traps. Maybe there are bags of gold, minor magic items, maps of the dungeon, scraps of lore, hints of what lies ahead, or whatever else you can imagine hidden in nooks and crannies across your dungeon!
3. Yeah...this is another time when it's important to remind players that they only get checks when you ask for them. As a rule, never let more than two PCs roll the same check; if it's a check that wouldn't make sense (the cleric fails his religion check, so the rogue wants to make one) I would't even allow two. Otherwise, you get the "oh, I also roll, yeah, and I also roll," and half the time the least capable character succeeds. Oh yeah, and with Insight, maybe try you making the players' Insight rolls from behind the screen, so they don't know if they succeed or not...that keeps up the mystery around a shady NPC!
As a rule, never let more than two PCs roll the same check
Another thing you can do is offer a choice: Either you can each roll 1d20 for your roll, or one can "assist" the other and give that person advantage. Then that person rolls both dice and picks the higher of the two for the one, and only one, check you get. Matt Mercer does this on Critical Role and it works pretty well. It's functionally the same either way... 2d20 are going to be rolled and the higher one will be the one that has the chance, if any, of succeeding at the check. Whether it's Joe and Bob each rolling, and Bob's 18 succeeds and Joe's 3 fails, or whether Joe rolls a 3 and an 18 and you take the 18, it's the same result.
I would allow co-searching or assisting as described above. I do would not allow a check "because Joe rolled low." How would your character know that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Long story short, distilling down what others have said: Charisma isn't mind-control. You can't just charm someone into doing something that person would never do. You as the DM always have the freedom to say "no you don't get to roll for that."
Another thing you may want to have up your sleeve is the "ultra-high-DC." If your player wants to roll for something that you're pretty sure is impossible but you want to give them however small of a shot at, just set the DC at 30 or higher.
One last thing to remember: don't get carried away preventing them from rolling charm for everything to the point where they can't talk their way out of anything, then it comes off as you just counteracting their characters for the sake of it and fosters a "player vs DM" mentality which doesn't make for a great time. If you're still in the character creation stages, you might even want to warn them that charisma=/=mind control, and they shouldn't bank on always being able to charm their way out of everything.
is there anything that prevents them from just making CHA check after CHA check?
Yes. YOU.
The players do not get to decide when a check is to be made; the DM does. In some cases, a check would not be possible, and you simply don't call for one. The players are not allowed to say, "I'm making a Charisma check against this NPC." Instead, they explain what they are doing, RP what they are saying, and then, if you think the situation calls for it (i.e., they RPed well enough), you can say, "Make a Charisma check." This is the same as any other skill check. You wouldn't let the players say, "I make a perception check for secret doors," would you? (I hope not!). Rather, the players say, "I look around the room and particularly exam the walls for irregularities," and you, as a DM, say something like, "Make a perception check." You make the call -- not the players. They describe what they are doing -- YOU decide what gets rolled and what the DC is and whether there is advantage/disadvantage based on circumstances.
What rule do I use or cite for why the goblins in the hideout they discovered are not going to negotiate despite their good roll, and will instead shoot at them?
The rule to cite comes from the "ability checks" section of PHB (p. 174 if they don't want to believe you): "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
Note the wording, specifically.
The DM (not the players, THE DM) calls for an ability check. If the DM doesn't call for one, no check can be made. Period.
The check occurs when the action has a chance of failure (which can also be read as "a chance of success"). No roll is called for when failure is guaranteed, such as if someone says, "I want to punch through this stone wall to the other side of the mountain with my fist." No, you don't ask for a strength check. It's a preposterous situation.
Now as for the goblins. Maybe the goblins are instructed to shoot on sight. If so, why would they listen to the players, absent a charm person spell? Nope, they just shoot. Sorry. Charisma is not an "I win" button.
Whats the difference between railroading and saying 'no, this is a combat encounter'?
It's not about whether this is a combat encounter or not. It's about how the NPCs would reasonably react. In some cases negotiation is possible. In some cases it just flat out isn't. It is not railroading the party when the DM roleplays the NPCs. If the NPCs would not realistically negotiate, then they don't. End of story.
How do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition? Or just having everyone make the same check to flout a failure? ex: a PC makes an inisght check to see if an NPC is lying, and rolls badly. But now all the other players also want to see if they're lying.
That is simply not allowed. A character gets ONE chance to make a skill check, and should not be allowed to make the same check about the same thing again, unless circumstances change. I would at least require a long rest before checking something again, and maybe longer than that depending on circumstances. If it wouldn't be in-character to re-check, I wouldn't allow it ever.
As far as other characters checking, my question to them would be, how do you know your friend failed his insight check? How do you know he rolled badly? That is using OOC information IC. Not allowed.
Make it a table rule if you have to: Checks may not be repeated, and if multiple members of the party want to do something, they can help, giving ONE person advantage, but only one person may do the check. Otherwise, it sounds like your players are gaming the system -- again, not allowed to do that.
This is also something you should 100% explain to your players before you start the game, maybe cover it in session 0 while going over the basics. They should understand specifically how these rulings work, because otherwise they may feel cheated out of doing the cool stuff they think they should be able to do, which again might foster that adversarial relationship.
It might actually not be a bad idea to just show them this whole thread. Players should know this stuff too.
Otherwise, it's a great opportunity to remind the players that there are many specific spells for charming, compelling, controlling humanoids; smooth talking doesn't replicate or reproduce or replace an actual spell. With this in mind, absolutely encourage these players to adjust their spell lists and prep these for this exact purpose, then, let them go nuts using a proper mechanical device to achieve their desired results.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Boldly go
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello!
I'm about to DM my first campaign (using quarantine to fill that New Years resolution). My most experienced player has been playing for 3 weeks now. I'm also not super experienced, and will be using the 5e starter set, with some slight changes. I have prepared (maybe overprepared?) as much as possible, but a few questions have occurred to me.
1. Several of my players are excited that they made their characters more charm over brawn. I want to support them in being charming b*stards and look forward to the first time they talk themselves out of trouble. BUT: is there anything that prevents them from just making CHA check after CHA check? What rule do I use or cite for why the goblins in the hideout they discovered are not going to negotiate despite their good roll, and will instead shoot at them? Whats the difference between railroading and saying 'no, this is a combat encounter'?
2. How do other DMs strike a balance between making sure players are observing their environment without making them so paranoid EVERYONE needs to run a perception check EVERY time before they do ANYTHING?
3. Lastly, how do you resolve actions that will definitely be solved eventually, just through repetition? Or just having everyone make the same check to flout a failure? ex: a PC makes an inisght check to see if an NPC is lying, and rolls badly. But now all the other players also want to see if they're lying. And maybe no one rolls well, so the NEXT round starts with an insight check again. Obviously its different if the NPC is presented as shady, but basically: how do i keep players from doing the same thing over and over until their rolls succeed? Or is that just an unfortunate inevitability?
1. You let them only make 1 check, or with failures make the people they are talking to more hostile. If they want to talk out of everything let them, if it will work. You can't really talk sense into a gnoll, so let them walk fight into the camp and get eaten.
2. I haven't had this problem yet, but one way is only to call perception checks when necessary, or to make most things not evil so they will no be to paranoid.
3. I only allow one roll per character per check, and you can also ask them if they want to check at first, and do not let them check if they declined the first check. If they fail the check just smile and let out your most evil laugh.
DM: So, you doomed the world by betting on dinosauer races instead of doing a quest.
Players: But we got money! Now we can do whatever we want.
DM: You are all dead, you can't spend your money!
Players: Oh.
Remember that rolling high on a skill check is not a guaranteed success, there are some persuasions/intimidation that have no chance of success, especially for low-level characters. In those cases its best not to call for rolls and instead try and portray this through roleplay - it might be worth reminding your group of this as well if they keep wanting to try!
They can't go up to a shopkeeper, call a charisma check and roll a nat 20 + bonus and expect to get all their items for free, or for guards to let them go, or for evil/hostile creatures to bend to their will.
1. If the goblins aren’t going to negotiate, don’t let the players roll. Only call for rolls when there’s a chance of success and a chance for failure. If there’s no chance of success, there’s no need for a roll. You get to decide whether or not there’s a chance of success. The rule you can cite here is the entire DMG because that is literally the DM’s job.
2. This one’s tough, I think you really just have to play it by feel. There are definitely situations in which the PCs SHOULD look around before doing things. But it’s generally best to limit it to a single character’s check or a group check (in which everyone rolls and if half or more succeed, everyone succeeds). Which leads into number three nicely.
3. Don’t let them try repeatedly, and don’t let every other player make their roll after the first one fails. Remember that it’s your role as the DM to call for rolls. The players can’t roll without your approval. If they want to all have a chance to contribute to the success of the task, let them make a group check as described above. Otherwise limit it to one character. If they have the time and there’s not actually any consequence to failure (i.e. if they’re in a situation where they’re tempted to just roll over and over again until they succeed), still only allow one roll, but make the effect of that roll how long it takes to succeed. For example, if they’re looking around for a secret door and roll poorly, they still find the door, they just take forever to do it and now the monsters are better prepared.
Yes. YOU.
The players do not get to decide when a check is to be made; the DM does. In some cases, a check would not be possible, and you simply don't call for one. The players are not allowed to say, "I'm making a Charisma check against this NPC." Instead, they explain what they are doing, RP what they are saying, and then, if you think the situation calls for it (i.e., they RPed well enough), you can say, "Make a Charisma check." This is the same as any other skill check. You wouldn't let the players say, "I make a perception check for secret doors," would you? (I hope not!). Rather, the players say, "I look around the room and particularly exam the walls for irregularities," and you, as a DM, say something like, "Make a perception check." You make the call -- not the players. They describe what they are doing -- YOU decide what gets rolled and what the DC is and whether there is advantage/disadvantage based on circumstances.
The rule to cite comes from the "ability checks" section of PHB (p. 174 if they don't want to believe you): "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
Note the wording, specifically.
Now as for the goblins. Maybe the goblins are instructed to shoot on sight. If so, why would they listen to the players, absent a charm person spell? Nope, they just shoot. Sorry. Charisma is not an "I win" button.
It's not about whether this is a combat encounter or not. It's about how the NPCs would reasonably react. In some cases negotiation is possible. In some cases it just flat out isn't. It is not railroading the party when the DM roleplays the NPCs. If the NPCs would not realistically negotiate, then they don't. End of story.
That is simply not allowed. A character gets ONE chance to make a skill check, and should not be allowed to make the same check about the same thing again, unless circumstances change. I would at least require a long rest before checking something again, and maybe longer than that depending on circumstances. If it wouldn't be in-character to re-check, I wouldn't allow it ever.
As far as other characters checking, my question to them would be, how do you know your friend failed his insight check? How do you know he rolled badly? That is using OOC information IC. Not allowed.
Make it a table rule if you have to: Checks may not be repeated, and if multiple members of the party want to do something, they can help, giving ONE person advantage, but only one person may do the check. Otherwise, it sounds like your players are gaming the system -- again, not allowed to do that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The players don't get to decide when they make "checks". They get to say what their characters DO, and then you as DM get to decide what check, if any, is necessary to determine whether the action succeeds or fails. You only need to make a check when what they're doing has a reasonable chance of success and a reasonable chance of failure.
The rule is that the DM decides what the NPCs and enemies do in this game! If they're not up for negotiating, perhaps no check is good enough to change that. Figure out what makes sense of those specific goblins.
If you've decided that it's a combat encounter just because, just for the sake of it being a combat encounter, and are just automatically discounting any other ways of solving it, sure, that's not great. But if there's a problem out there, violence is one possible solution, and the players just haven't come up with another solution that actually makes sense then it's perfectly fine to say that approaches that don't make any sense, fail.
Going back to the basics - the players describe what their characters do, and the DM is the one that decides whether a check is necessary for whether they succeed or not. In general, if the players are describing their characters walking carefully, observing their surroundings, etc, that's fine! If that gets to be too much boring detail, just tell them you're assuming they're always on guard (unless they're explicitly doing something else) and don't have to narrate that, just like they don't have to narrate tying their shoes in the morning. Call for perception checks on the cadence that you yourself think is reasonable. Or just use their passive perception score.
If the characters are attempting something over and over and there's no penalty for failure, it's something they can try over and over again, then just narrate that they succeed. Why wouldn't they? They can just keep trying. If the time taken matters, have the players make a check and have the check determine how many tries it takes the characters succeed (how long).
But if the time doesn't matter, and the characters can keep trying until they succeed, then no need to roll anything at all.
(Note - I'm trying to be very deliberate here in my phrasing. The players are the ones that "make checks" and "do rolls". The characters are the ones doing in-game things like kicking down doors and looking around.)
Players should only be making rolls when the DM tells them they're necessary, because the action their characters are taking has some chance of success and some chance of failure. Sometimes it makes sense for every player to make a check, representing the fact that every character in the game is trying to do something, and each might succeed or fail. Sometimes it makes sense for only one of the players to make a check - e.g. if only one character is talking to the NPC, they're probably the only one in a reasonable position to see whether he's lying or not!
Sometimes checks make sense to repeat - e.g. if a character is trying to climb a slippery slope, on a fail they take damage, end up at the bottom, and get to try again. Sometimes it does not make sense to repeat a check - in this case, the character trying to determine if an NPC is trustworthy is one whole task, and after they've made up their mind (the player made a check, that was translated into what the character can tell about the NPC's motives in-game) they don't get a redo unless some new information comes up that would make their character actually reassess their conclusion.
Watch the 1973 Three Musketeers. There's a scene where they steal food from a restaurant. They've got Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, and Oliver Reed, but they still can't just charm the guy into giving them free food. What they do instead is steal from him in a completely charming way.
Welcome to this side of the DM's Screen!
In answer to question 3, if there is little or no cost for multple attempts then don't roll. Just say, 'It takes a few minutes but you succeed."
More generally, refer to the core mechanic of a roleplaying game.
1. The GM describes a scene.
2. The players tell the GM what their characters are trying to achieve (the GOAL) and how (the APPROACH).
3. The GM decides whether the approach chosen is (a) automatically successful, or (b) automatically unsuccessful, or (c) has a chance to succeed or fail.
3(c) The GM or players determine success, usually by rolling dice.
4. The GM and players narrates the OUTCOME (which includes the success or failure) and paying the COST (time, money, health, items, points, slots, whatever).
See AngryGM's Adjudicate Actions like a — Boss! Warning, Angry's abrasive style is not for everyone. His content is, just not his style.
Great reference!
"Not all those who wander are lost"
1. Charm is good enough to convince the goblins not to attack, but no amount of 20+ rolls will convince them to let the heroes into their base. Some checks are impossible! (They might be able to gain quite an advantage over the goblins, though.) Plus, players don't get to declare social checks like they do attacks: they have to role-play the whole social interaction, and then you ask for the check. Try not to let people say "I roll Perception" or "I roll Persuasion"...instead, they should say, "I search the area" or "Hello, good goblin, I'm but a poor traveler and you seem strong and brave, might I pass safely by?" Then you can ask for the roll.
2. Try placing rewards in your environment instead of traps. Maybe there are bags of gold, minor magic items, maps of the dungeon, scraps of lore, hints of what lies ahead, or whatever else you can imagine hidden in nooks and crannies across your dungeon!
3. Yeah...this is another time when it's important to remind players that they only get checks when you ask for them. As a rule, never let more than two PCs roll the same check; if it's a check that wouldn't make sense (the cleric fails his religion check, so the rogue wants to make one) I would't even allow two. Otherwise, you get the "oh, I also roll, yeah, and I also roll," and half the time the least capable character succeeds. Oh yeah, and with Insight, maybe try you making the players' Insight rolls from behind the screen, so they don't know if they succeed or not...that keeps up the mystery around a shady NPC!
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Another thing you can do is offer a choice: Either you can each roll 1d20 for your roll, or one can "assist" the other and give that person advantage. Then that person rolls both dice and picks the higher of the two for the one, and only one, check you get. Matt Mercer does this on Critical Role and it works pretty well. It's functionally the same either way... 2d20 are going to be rolled and the higher one will be the one that has the chance, if any, of succeeding at the check. Whether it's Joe and Bob each rolling, and Bob's 18 succeeds and Joe's 3 fails, or whether Joe rolls a 3 and an 18 and you take the 18, it's the same result.
I would allow co-searching or assisting as described above. I do would not allow a check "because Joe rolled low." How would your character know that?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Long story short, distilling down what others have said: Charisma isn't mind-control. You can't just charm someone into doing something that person would never do. You as the DM always have the freedom to say "no you don't get to roll for that."
Another thing you may want to have up your sleeve is the "ultra-high-DC." If your player wants to roll for something that you're pretty sure is impossible but you want to give them however small of a shot at, just set the DC at 30 or higher.
One last thing to remember: don't get carried away preventing them from rolling charm for everything to the point where they can't talk their way out of anything, then it comes off as you just counteracting their characters for the sake of it and fosters a "player vs DM" mentality which doesn't make for a great time. If you're still in the character creation stages, you might even want to warn them that charisma=/=mind control, and they shouldn't bank on always being able to charm their way out of everything.
This is also something you should 100% explain to your players before you start the game, maybe cover it in session 0 while going over the basics. They should understand specifically how these rulings work, because otherwise they may feel cheated out of doing the cool stuff they think they should be able to do, which again might foster that adversarial relationship.
It might actually not be a bad idea to just show them this whole thread. Players should know this stuff too.
Otherwise, it's a great opportunity to remind the players that there are many specific spells for charming, compelling, controlling humanoids; smooth talking doesn't replicate or reproduce or replace an actual spell. With this in mind, absolutely encourage these players to adjust their spell lists and prep these for this exact purpose, then, let them go nuts using a proper mechanical device to achieve their desired results.
Boldly go