Problem Player: Charisma Bully

[ZenBear]

To the DMs,

How do you deal with players who try to control the rest of the party through Charisma skill checks? My thoughts are to simply disallow PvP skill checks, but I know some people are against what they call "player knowledge" superseding the character's realistic response to persuasion/intimidation.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Charisma skill checks are not to be used against PCs, by anyone, ever. Short of magical domination, no one should be telling a player how their character acts.

[Celcey]

I would say that they can't make a skill check for it. They can try and convince the others to do it, but they would have to do it wit their own natural charisma, not a check.

[Malifice]

While I partly agree with the sentiment above, it's equally **** roleplaying when a player disregards a charisma based skill check on them. Another PC rolls a 20+ for a persuasion check? It should be roleplayed appropriately.

That said (just like in real life) people tend to notice when they're being manipulated all the time (or worse - lied to) and equally tend to wind up not listening to that person anymore - or worse.

I'd allow the check, and would expect it to be role played accordingly. Failed checks to also have RP repercussions.

[Slipperychicken]

It's an OOC problem. Ask him to cut it out. Also, you don't need skill rolls to determine PCs' social actions; that's what the players are for.

[rhouck]

Charisma skill checks are not to be used against PCs, by anyone, ever. Short of magical domination, no one should be telling a player how their character acts.

Yup.

IMO they're even overused by most DMs against NPCs. IMO, players should roleplay their attempts and the DM should simply adjudicate most NPC reactions based on the roleplay. If he's not sure, or thinks it will be a tough sell, then call for a roll. Nothing pulls me out of immersion faster than someone saying "I intimidate him" /groan.

[Person_Man]

D&D is a team game. If a player is working against other players in any way, they're not playing D&D. Furthermore, a player can't be forced to do anything unless they are magically compelled. For example, even if an NPC successfully uses Deception on a player's character, the player themselves can still decide to react however they want. There is nothing wrong or metagamey about this. Players get to decide what type of characters they're playing and what their characters do, not the results of social Skill checks.

[Shining Wrath]

I had to say "no" to a player who rolled > 30 on a persuasion check last night - no, you can't talk the Baroness into forgoing taxes on the party, because by that logic you ought to also be able to persuade her into turning the fief over to the party.

There's got to be limits on the power of the social skills or the game is toast.

I have never required a player to be controlled by a social skill roll. I might tell them that "the officer just tried to intimidate you and rolled well - how do you feel about that?", but the players get to play their characters.

If another player was trying to run the party using social skills, I'd tell the rest of the party right out they were not obligated to obey. If he kept trying, I'd say "The rest of the party has caught on to you, all your social rolls against them are now with Disadvantage and they get a Wisdom save".

[goto124]

I thought this thread was going to be about player who build PCs with insanely high Charisma, and try to talk their way through every single situation with any NPC. (The difference: it's used on NPCs. All of them.)

Not relying on combat and being able to use Diplomancy is one thing, using nothing but Diplomancy in a combat-focused system such as DnD though... especially when the use of the skill is hamfisted (I Diplomance the king!) and doesn't allow other players to have a try in dealing with situations.

Now, how do we solve that problem?

[Malifice]

Surprised by the comments in this thread. You would all no doubt allow a strength check to move a player against his will, or a dexterity check to steal from one - why not allow a charisma check to get him to hand it over willinglly or move where you want him to go?

How does one check overule player agency anymore than the other checks?

Also - I assume you would allow a PC wizard to cast charm on the PC (or dominate person) to remove agency. Why not allow the charismatic bard to do so without Magic?

I would expect the player to roleplay the deception/ persuasion check result in character (having regard to his alignment, history with the Pc in question, thing he's being asked to do, intelligence and so forth). On a failed check, he's aware he is being manipulated, and can react accordingly. Eventually the DC will get harder as a result of repeated manipulation and the PC in question risks alienating his (former) friends.

I would allow it but simply enforce consequences for it (both failures and successes).

[Millface]

Charisma skill checks are not to be used against PCs, by anyone, ever. Short of magical domination, no one should be telling a player how their character acts.

The problem with that is that in any case with a character at 16+ charisma the character is going to be far more suave than the player can possibly mimic. I might not be convinced of something because John at the table tried to talk me into it, but odds are I might change my tune if his Half-Elf bard with 20 charisma sweet talked me a bit.

When a player wants to make a persuade or intimidate check against a fellow party member I do a roll off. The intimidate check vs. the other party members Int, Wis, or Cha (whichever is highest) plus their proficiency bonus.

Each time the bully's ideas lead the party down a dangerous or troubled road I make a little mark and eventually start giving party members advantage, because they know he's a moron and they shouldn't listen.

I've only faced this once, but that solved it.

[goto124]

You would all no doubt allow a strength check to move a player against his will, or a dexterity check to steal from one

Erm, no.

I believe many of us outright ban PvP. If there's any PLAYER antagonism, we'll talk it out OOCly. PvP spirals out of control very easily, and players tend to argue plenty enough even without the help of PvP.

PvP requires a really mature group of close friends. It's not for everyone.

DnD isn't a good system for PvP anyway.

[Celcey]

I had to say "no" to a player who rolled > 30 on a persuasion check last night - no, you can't talk the Baroness into forgoing taxes on the party, because by that logic you ought to also be able to persuade her into turning the fief over to the party.

There's got to be limits on the power of the social skills or the game is toast.

I had a similar situation the other day, where my party was trying to get a werewolf to give them something she needed to remove her curse. They rolled a nat 20, but they had no chance at actually convincing her.

[goto124]

I think this has been discussed in greater detail elsewhere, but when the player is unconvinced yet the character is 'supposed' to be convinced to do something (or vice versa), not only is verisimilitude shattered into a million pieces, the player loses agency to a team member. You're supposed to be working together. Really?

How many people would actually swallow this sort of thing anyway?


They rolled a nat 20, but they had no chance at actually convincing her.

Isn't this a case of 'don't roll, because it's 0% chance' ?

[DireSickFish]

The difference between holding down someone with a strength check or casting charm person is that those have in game cause and effects based off of there stats. The skill checks are vaguely defined and are heavily based on the character and ideas being pushed. It also undermines the core principle of everyone being in control of there own character. Skill rolls can be used to convince other player of things but only if the players who's characters mind has to be changed allows it.

If one says there character "has to believe them" or "is scared of me now" they aren't playing the character anymore they are playing someone else character.

[Eisenheim]

there are systems in which social skill use against other PCs is kosher and well handled by the mechanics. D&D is not one of them. There is no good way to mechanize the effects of the charisma check, so, unless both players are happy relying on the dice to decide if one character persuades another, it's best just not to use such skills on another PC.

[rhouck]

Surprised by the comments in this thread. You would all no doubt allow a strength check to move a player against his will, or a dexterity check to steal from one - why not allow a charisma check to get him to hand it over willinglly or move where you want him to go?

How does one check overule player agency anymore than the other checks?

Err really? :smallconfused: You don't see a difference between someone being forced to PHYSICALLY do something, versus someone being told how their character FEELS and THINKS? Those are not even remotely the same. With the former, the character is free to hatch a plan to retaliate; with the latter, you're telling them that that is what they wanted to and they can't do anything about it.

Players should be roleplaying. That means that the gruff fighter can be stubborn, but should recognize that the bard is a charismatic leader (even if the player IRL is not) and that he should respond accordingly. Reminding him of that is fine. Telling him "you believe the bard and want to do what he says" is not.

[Draz74]

When my players ask to make social skill checks against each other, I just tell the "defending" player that they get to set their own DCs for these checks.

(Then, they also get to interpret what "success" and "failure" mean. One of them set a pretty high DC for the newcomer to earn his trust, and he passed with a natural 20 + high Charisma, but although that meant the "defending" PC let him join the party, there's still not much friendly behavior between those two particular PCs.)

[rhouck]

When my players ask to make social skill checks against each other, I just tell the "defending" player that they get to set their own DCs for these checks.

(Then, they also get to interpret what "success" and "failure" mean. One of them set a pretty high DC for the newcomer to earn his trust, and he passed with a natural 20 + high Charisma, but although that meant the "defending" PC let him join the party, there's still not much friendly behavior between those two particular PCs.)

This is a good idea for people who want to incorporate skill check roles for PvP. Although, personally, I'd probably encourage the "defending" player to just set the DC mentally rather than announce it, and just trust them to interpret the result accordingly.

[Flashy]

When my players ask to make social skill checks against each other, I just tell the "defending" player that they get to set their own DCs for these checks.

(Then, they also get to interpret what "success" and "failure" mean. One of them set a pretty high DC for the newcomer to earn his trust, and he passed with a natural 20 + high Charisma, but although that meant the "defending" PC let him join the party, there's still not much friendly behavior between those two particular PCs.)

You know, I actually really like this approach.

[Naanomi]

It's a tough position in the rules... Someone doesn't have to be strong to play a strong character; but in some ways they do have to be charismatic to play a charismatic one... Works to a lesser degree with wisdom and intelligence as well. It doesn't matter if you have 20 INT and WIS, if you make bad, poorly thought out decisions they will still be bad. If you tell grossly obvious lies then your Charisma on the paper won't matter.

Is there a solution? Not an easy one, and some of my worst roleplaying memories come from GMs forcing real life abilities to supersede character stats (I quit playing a bard once because the GM kept asking me to come up with the songs I was singing whenever I used performance; another when my genius wizard lost at chess to a barbarian because he made us play the game IRL and we both were mediocre and I lost in a very sloppy game)

I will say that I very rarely (but sometimes do) let PCs use social skills on eachother, for example Deception along with a disguise kit to prevent other players from recognizing him; and I will harp on players who metagame social situations too much (the thief stole that necklace from the queen when you weren't there, quit trying to get through his 'deception' about knowing nothing about it)

[ruy343]

I don't allow my players to make persuasion checks on each other, because then you invariably get one character telling the team what to do, and it's more of an "Ah ha! Now you have to do it!" than it is a "You know, my character is OK with that reasoning".

However, sometimes, a party is caught at an impasse, moral dilemma, fork in the road, etc. where the act of making a decision is taking forever and stalling the fun. In those circumstances, try having the contesting characters perform a skill challenge (each side rolls a skill check; higher wins), with both utilizing their persuasion skill. If they have party members who agree with their side, allow those members to take the "help" action, granting advantage on the check. Have only the character with the highest persuasion score make the rolls and apply their bonus to each.

Remember, only do this when both sides have been argued, and either no one is willing to make a firm decision, or each side has firmly made their decision to go one way or another. Make sure that all sides understand that now it's up to the characters to persuade each other, and that players shouldn't get upset at the outcome of the dice. The adventure must go on!

The results of the die roll essentially will dictate which side won the argument, and the losing side will (perhaps grudgingly) go along. Perhaps later, they can remind their teammates, "I told you so."

[Joe the Rat]

My players' characters are continuously abusing one another. No killing, no loot stealing (but surprise deposits are allowed), the small-sized characters can be tossed (unless they escape with those ridiculous dex checks) and if the situation warrants social checks, respect the results and respond accordingly. But remember that short of actual control spells, PCs are subject to changes of emotion, and opinion, and sometimes information. But they are not required to respond to the situation in a particular way. If the DM can't dictate your character's behavior, neither can another player.

Someone Intimidates you: You are convinced he is capable of doing something horrible and painful and possibly mint-scented to you. Respond Accordingly. Cower in fear and comply. Lie. Run away. Attack preemptively. Use the Warlock as a Halfling shield.

You beat his Deception roll: He's hiding something. Respond Accordingly. Accuse. Try to trap them in a Lie. Browbeat them. Zap them. Smile and let it slide, so he knows that you know that he lied.

She knows you're lying. Respond Accordingly. You don't have to tell the truth. You could just shut up. Or run. Run is always good. She's got little legs. Or maybe blame the Cleric.

But they are an exceptional group. We enjoy the banter and wacky antics. It is all in fun, and we know it. And if it ever gets too far out of hand, I will defuse the situation. With monsters.

[Naanomi]

How are people handling Charm effects on a PC? On the one hand, it is clearly magical manipulation; but on the other it falls on Social Skill rolls to actually do something

[coredump]

I had to say "no" to a player who rolled > 30 on a persuasion check last night - no, you can't talk the Baroness into forgoing taxes on the party, because by that logic you ought to also be able to persuade her into turning the fief over to the party.

There's got to be limits on the power of the social skills or the game is toast..Why did you have the player roll?

The way the game is designed

PC: I tell the Baron that we are really nice guys, and should be allowed to keep our taxes, because we will do lots of good deeds with them and help his barony.

Now the DM decides how the baron will react, or if there is uncertainty. The player *only* rolls if there is uncertainty.
Further, the uncertainty may not even be what the player expects.
Ex. Could be a DC 15 check, success means he doesn't have you flogged as a lesson to others.


Shorter: Players should not be rolling until the DM decides there is uncertainty and calls for a roll.

[Shining Wrath]

Surprised by the comments in this thread. You would all no doubt allow a strength check to move a player against his will, or a dexterity check to steal from one - why not allow a charisma check to get him to hand it over willinglly or move where you want him to go?

How does one check overule player agency anymore than the other checks?

Also - I assume you would allow a PC wizard to cast charm on the PC (or dominate person) to remove agency. Why not allow the charismatic bard to do so without Magic?

I would expect the player to roleplay the deception/ persuasion check result in character (having regard to his alignment, history with the Pc in question, thing he's being asked to do, intelligence and so forth). On a failed check, he's aware he is being manipulated, and can react accordingly. Eventually the DC will get harder as a result of repeated manipulation and the PC in question risks alienating his (former) friends.

I would allow it but simply enforce consequences for it (both failures and successes).

If a PC uses strength against another PC, the target PC gets to roll, too, for a strength contest.
If a PC uses dexterity to pick a pocket, the target gets a Perception check to notice.
If a PC uses Persuasion or Intimidation, then, to affect a fellow PC, there ought to be some sort of roll against it ... but the rules don't call for that, at all. Deception may be opposed by Insight, but Persuasion and Intimidation usually don't have an offsetting roll called for in the rules.

[FabulousFizban]

say that all PC interactions must be roleplayed unless it is magical domination. Easiest solution.

[Naanomi]

say that all PC interactions must be roleplayed unless it is magical domination. Easiest solution.
Does that extend to non-charisma interactions? Must play out chess game regardless of intelligence scores? And what about borderline cases like Charm and Enhance Charisma that are not Dominate but are clearly magically influential?

[FabulousFizban]

Does that extend to non-charisma interactions? Must play out chess game regardless of intelligence scores? And what about borderline cases like Charm and Enhance Charisma that are not Dominate but are clearly magically influential?

How I would do it: firstly, this about PC on PC interactions, not PC on NPC. if the interaction is inconsequential and would slow down the game (like a chess match) skill checks may be the way to go.

Charm person is a form of magical compulsion. I would (and have) still have them roleplay the interaction, but remind the charmed player that he views the casting character in the most favorable way.

If he is using enhance charisma to boost his charm save, fine. If he is trying to boost a skill check, no, because we are avoiding skill checks for social interaction between players. That's the other thing about a chess match, it isn't a social interaction.

Avoid skill checks for social interactions. skill checks for physical or purely mental (chess) interactions are okay.

[Naanomi]

If he is using enhance charisma to boost his charm save, fine. If he is trying to boost a skill check, no, because we are avoiding skill checks for social interaction between players. That's the other thing about a chess match, it isn't a social interaction.
It's an interesting distinction since mechanically they are almost identical (the main feature being advantage on social rolls)

[Coidzor]

Don't let them try to be a weasel and hide behind "the rules" to excuse their bad behavior.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't believe the rules allow players to use Charisma skills against each other.

[Naanomi]

Ideally a good role player will take other players' character's social skills into account even if they are not forced to by the rules; if someone stacks every random modifier and rolls a 70 Deception check, it breaks immersion a bit to have some other character come point out their disguise instantly for no reason than 'PCs are special'

[Mjolnirbear]

I must say, I like some of the solutions here for social interactions. It's made me think a lot. If I ever DM I think I might adopt some of these.

Generally our game is good at roleplaying. I once cast Friends, and told my drunk ally to dunk his head in the horse trough. We thought it was hilarious, so he did. We're good at taking hints like "this guy is *really* persuasive" or "you feel like someone is in your head... and he seems friendly." (Side note: our goblin thief listened to the friend in his head and jumped into a chasm whose bottom was filled with necrotic energy). And we don't really look too suspiciously at our DM when we roll a natural 20 and he says "you failed to convince him of anything." We trust each other.

I've got a good group. :)

[Hawkstar]

I had to say "no" to a player who rolled > 30 on a persuasion check last night - no, you can't talk the Baroness into forgoing taxes on the party, because by that logic you ought to also be able to persuade her into turning the fief over to the party.
But is being relieved of tax burden really on the same scale as turning a fief over to the party?

[lordshadowisle]

Players should almost always have control over their characters' actions. At the same time, players may not always be in control of their characters' feelings or attitudes.

I think that social interaction rolls can be used to influence the latter, but not (directly) the former. In other words, a player can't roll persuasion to command another player to, say, kill someone. However, it is entirely possible to roll deception to make another player believe that that someone is an enemy. What the player does after being influenced is still within his control, but he should roleplay according to his influenced beliefs.

Of course, if the bluff/deception is too ridiculous, an appropriate penalty/buff can be added to the check/contest. Also, even if a bluff/deception is successful, it doesn't mean a player is forced to act in a certain way; there can be several natural ways a player can respond. For example, even if you think someone is not lying, it doesn't mean that what he says is the truth; that guy could be a fool, or that guy could himself have been deceived.

[Shining Wrath]

But is being relieved of tax burden really on the same scale as turning a fief over to the party?

If you can get the Baroness to act absolutely against her own interests by asking nicely, why is there an upper limit on the GP value?

[Giant2005]

A charismatic person's force of personality isn't always a positive thing for them.
Sure you will always feel that force but that doesn't mean you will always appreciate it - if your character is always following this other character and noticing that because of it, they are getting themselves into situations they otherwise wouldn't want to be in, then that charisma bonus should be replaced by an equal and opposite charisma penalty. They are still being influenced by the same amount of force but that force is no longer admiration but resentment. We all know people like that in real life - you either love them or despise them, there is no in-between.
So yeah, let it work once or twice but as the characters smarten up, change that +5 Charisma bonus into a -5 Charisma penalty when interacting with them.

[Naanomi]

A charismatic person's force of personality isn't always a positive thing for them.
That is a tough one, no other stat comes with a penalty and disguise (via Deception) is a charisma skill, which is generally part of *not* being noticed, despite being Charisma based

[Malifice]

Err really? :smallconfused: You don't see a difference between someone being forced to PHYSICALLY do something, versus someone being told how their character FEELS and THINKS? Those are not even remotely the same. With the former, the character is free to hatch a plan to retaliate; with the latter, you're telling them that that is what they wanted to and they can't do anything about it.

Players should be roleplaying. That means that the gruff fighter can be stubborn, but should recognize that the bard is a charismatic leader (even if the player IRL is not) and that he should respond accordingly. Reminding him of that is fine. Telling him "you believe the bard and want to do what he says" is not.

Huh? I'm not telling them what to feel or think. Its up to the player to roleplay it maturely within the limits and personality of their character (taking into account his int, wis and Cha, personality, alignment etc). The character may very well realise they've been manipulated or deceived later on.

The player thinks 'what would my character do in this situation when faced with a really attractive character offering something that sounds totally like a good idea?'

Assume an NPC gets a 20 on an intimidate check vs a PC. The player then plays the character accordingly. In my session on the weekend out barbarian had just this happen to him. His bond was 'I never back down from a fight, and getting in my face only makes me mad'. He role played his character drawing a weapon (in town no less) and calling the dude out.

Our swashbuckler has 'I'm a sucker for a pretty face'. A persuasion check on him from a pretty girl would lead him to become infatuated (for example).

You're asking your players to roleplay their characters - having regards to the situation (be it a persuasive charmer, a master manipulator or a frightening intimidator) - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Even better, I can now award a mechanical reward (in the form of inspiration) for doing so.

When the smoking hot charisma 20 maiden seduces your intelligence/ wisdom/ charisma 8 fighter - you should roleplay it accordingly. Makes no difference if it's a PC or NPC doing it.

It's not the DM taking away agency to encourage roleplaying. If the player isn't roleplaying his character then we have a much bigger problem.

If we have a charisma 20 (expertise in social skills) PC in the party or a charisma 8 PC on the other hand - I expect the other PCs to roleplay their interactions with him or her accordingly - we don't even have to roll for it.

[lordshadowisle]

If you can get the Baroness to act absolutely against her own interests by asking nicely, why is there an upper limit on the GP value?

Different DCs are required depending on the difficulty of the task. There should be no cap on the DC; there certainly magnitudes of impossibility involved here.

[Malifice]

Ideally a good role player will take other players' character's social skills into account even if they are not forced to by the rules; if someone stacks every random modifier and rolls a 70 Deception check, it breaks immersion a bit to have some other character come point out their disguise instantly for no reason than 'PCs are special'

Yeah this.

[Sigreid]

Depends on the players. Best case scenario is Mr. Charisma makes his roll and the players take into account the roll when deciding what to do. Neither persuasion nor Charm person turns you into a lobotomized drone. And of course, his past track record will weigh heavily on the reactions of the party. If his ideas constantly wind up with them screwed, it doesn't matter how persuasive he is unless their characters are idiots.

[Malifice]

Depends on the players. Best case scenario is Mr. Charisma makes his roll and the players take into account the roll when deciding what to do. Neither persuasion nor Charm person turns you into a lobotomized drone. And of course, his past track record will weigh heavily on the reactions of the party. If his ideas constantly wind up with them screwed, it doesn't matter how persuasive he is unless their characters are idiots.

Exactly.

Our last group started following the Fighter in the wilderness (he kept rolling really high on Survival checks to navigate) and ignored the Druid (who had a +10 higher bonus to the skill) after the Druid got us lost on his first attempt.

The Druid is now learning how to navigate from the Fighter in his spare time (he's having a crisis, as it seems like the Fighter just kinda wings it).

It's the same when a high charisma character 'persuades' a fellow PC to do something. He gets inside his characters head-space, and role plays it accordingly - without fear or favor.

Admittedly you need mature players to do this, but our peer group is good like that. If a player tried to 'game' the results (refusing to do something to his characters detriment despite it making in game sense to do so, using metagame knowledge to his advantage and so forth) he wouldn't last long in our player group.

Same deal if a player excessively tried to manipulate other PC's. Eventually they (the characters) would get sick of it, and would not want to adventure with him anymore (with the character in question being told to either pull his head in or asked to leave the party - nearly the same practical result as the player himself being kicked out of the group).

Play your character, but expect consequences for your actions. You want to manipulate your fellow adventurers, and it carries consequences.

[Gurka]

Well, to boil it down to the most basic terms, I make sure that every game I run, there's unanimous agreement before the game starts regarding PvP interaction. Unless it's agreed upon by ALL players at the table, then it's outright off limits, because (as some other folks have stated) players will often take it too far and too personally.

If all agree, then the gloves are off, and the players can do pretty much whatever they want to, to each other. Even in that scenario, however, we rarely handle social interaction between players with dice rolls. When we DO, it's things like bluff vs insight, but even at that we keep it to a minimum. If there's social maneuvering going on between players, it ends up being a LOT of notes being passed back and forth so people DON'T have out of character knowledge.

It's slow sometimes, and tedious sometimes, and it's certainly more challenging as a DM in my experience, but it can also be really fun.

I disagree with some earlier posters though, in the assertion that D&D is universally and irrevocably a team-game. Any RPG can be as cooperative or uncooperative between the players, as the group wants it to be, as long as your players are mature enough to deal with the consequences. To try and say "there is only one way to play this game, and if it's not my way, it's wrong" is rather narrow minded, and detracts from what the game can be. Just because their fun is not your fun does not make it wrong.

[Malifice]

Echo the sentiments above. It's really down to the maturity of your players. Ergo it's pretty darn subjective.

As a DM I do like to reinforce character traits and flaws, even if my players don't. Dump stats hurt in my campaigns, and charming or smart characters get advantages vs NPCs and PCs alike.

It should never come down to a DM telling players how to play their characters. Nudging them along the path they've chosen is a differnt story though.

As a player I have no problem allowing a fellow PC to convince me of something his player was unable to convince me of by virtue of a persuasion check from his character or allow his PC to intimidate me where the player could not. I'd also ask for an insight check to determine if I was being manipulated, and if the thing he asked me to do led to me suffering an adverse consequence is certainly roleplay my reaction to that adverse consequence accordingly.

It just takes maturity and trust on the part of the players. Admittedly not all players have that maturity.

If a player (like the OPs example) was manipulating the other PCs willy nilly - he should expect to turn his friends into enemies very quickly and likely be turfed out of the party.

Just RP it. Situations like 'hey buddy can you help me (do something that helps my character while disadvantaging yours) - rolls persuasion check scores a 20' 'yeah sure mate' is fine. If that 'favor' isn't later reciprocated (or he fails the check and the PC in question realises he's being manipulated by a so called 'friend' then the consequences seem pretty clear.

[Jadzia Dax]

If another player was trying to run the party using social skills, I'd tell the rest of the party right out they were not obligated to obey. If he kept trying, I'd say "The rest of the party has caught on to you, all your social rolls against them are now with Disadvantage and they get a Wisdom save".

This is a really good idea. What if the DM is (manipulative prat's) friend?

[Warwick]

If he kept trying, I'd say "The rest of the party has caught on to you, all your social rolls against them are now with Disadvantage and they get a Wisdom save".

Eh. What's the point? I've honestly never understood the advice of throwing up arbitrary obstacles to try and stop a player from doing something you don't want them to do (and I see it a lot). At a certain point, if a player wants to do something disruptive or ridiculous, you just tell them that no. Now, you ought to have a good reason for just flat out refusing, but in this scenario, I'd feel the GM was perfectly justified in shutting this guy down.

If players want to roleplay their reactions to a high-charisma PC in terms of decision-making, that's their prerogative, but I'm generally pretty hostile to the notion of PvP in cooperative story-telling unless everyone is already on board with it.

[Malifice]

This is a really good idea. What if the DM is (manipulative prat's) friend?

Dude. Your group seems to not be able to make the distinction between characters and players. This is arguably a bigger problem!

[rollingForInit]

It's generally better to not have social rolls between player characters. Sometimes it can work, but ...

I'd only ever allow social checks between players if both of them were in on it. We've done it occasionally, when one person wants to know how convincing their own (or another's) character is. That is fine. But the important thing to keep in mind is that the player of the character subjected to a Persuasion roll should always be the one to decide if the character succeeds. Maybe the player sets a DC of their own. Maybe they wanna make a contested roll - but they always get to veto a Persuasion roll with "My character would never do that, ever".

That is, rolls between players, if they are used, should always be about how convincing another person appears. If the Bard gets a 25 on Persuasion roll against the Fighter, the Bard comes off as extremely persuasive, makes a really good argument ... or if it's an Intimidation roll, he comes off as seriously threatening ... but the player of the other character always gets to decide if they feel persuaded, if they feel scared, and how they act. If he crits a Performance roll, he's performed flawlessly, objectively - but the maybe the other characters don't like that type of music, so they aren't that impressed on a personal level.

Only exception is Deception, imo, since that usually a contested roll of Deception vs Insight. We do those whenever a PC genuinely tries to lie to another, and the player actually wants the PC to come off as lying, and the other players want to try and see through it.

[PoeticDwarf]

Charisma skill checks are not to be used against PCs, by anyone, ever. Short of magical domination, no one should be telling a player how their character acts.

That's true, we sometimes say that deception against insight checks are possible, because we like lying in our party.

[Millface]

The bottom line is this: You can't possibly do justice to your Bard's 20 Charisma as a vanilla person, or even as an exceptional person. It's a supernaturally high score. Additionally, the player and the character he/she is playing will often be at odds unless you just play a carbon copy of your own personality. If there's a fork in the road and the bard can't convince you to go left because he has a real life charisma of 9 then a persuasion check is valid. You get to roll against that check with your INT, WIS, or CHA (player choice). If you fail then its just one of many situations where your character wants something that you don't.

If trusting the Bard continually puts you in danger then his persuasion eventually stops working. I understand the hesitance to allow one player to force another player's decision, but what's really going on is one Character is persuading the other Character. Something that can't really be done realistically without the occasional roll off to account for our PCs supernatural attributes.

If one of the PCs at my table has 20 charisma and I say it's null and void when interacting with the people you interact with the most in a gaming session I'm giving him the short end. There are better ways to handle that.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I don't think people playing charisma-based classes should get such lopsided agency in dictating the party's actions. Everyone at the table should get equal say in the direction the game takes.

[Millface]

I don't think people playing charisma-based classes should get such lopsided agency in dictating the party's actions. Everyone at the table should get equal say in the direction the game takes.

I'm not saying that's wrong, it's just unrealistic. My players realize that if they play weak willed characters sometimes the characters they play won't be as adamant about what's happening as the player himself. They have fun playing to their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Keeping in mind that this is a 50/50 shot as long as the character being persuaded has a high INT, CHA, OR WIS. If you are fairly dimwitted though it stands to reason that you're more malleable.

If your table doesn't then by all means, disallow Charisma based checks against other players. It's all about everybody having fun at the end of the day. My table has more fun my way, that doesn't make it right for everyone!

I did want to show how I handled things and mention that, at least for me and mine, it works really well. As an option, not an end all solution to the overall problem. :-)

[Chen]

The problem with using Charisma (or intelligence and wisdom) checks against PCs is that you're essentially forcing the DM to think of your solutions for you. I mean consider a plan to get into a castle that the bard is favoring. You ask them to give you some reasons why it isn't a death sentence. They decide to roll Charisma to persuade you and succeed. So you get to the castle and ask the bard "ok, so all those reasons you gave me, lets implement them so we don't die horribly". How do you proceed? No actual reasons were created, it was solved via a die roll.

The same goes for an intelligence check replacing a cunning plan on how to break out of prison. At some point the game makes players make the decisions their characters are going to make. I mean sure my 20 intelligence wizard should be easily able to think his way out of this prison. Far easier than me, the player with significantly lower intelligence, would be able to. But then you don't have a huge part of the game. Go play a dice rolling board game at that point.

[EggKookoo]

D&D is a game of abstraction. The rules are there to help us figure out what happens because we need to model certain events or circumstances. But it's still all an abstraction.

The distinction between the player's mind and the character's mind is very hazy. In many ways, the game really encourages the PC to be a kind of mental/emotional hybrid of the character concept and the player. Otherwise you would never make any decisions as a player and make knowledge-type checks for everything. This is how passive entertainment like movies and books work -- the "audience" has no input and simply observes everything that happens. It's not how a game works.

A player can never force another player to make his or her PC do something, unless some kind of special or magical effect is in play. Ever. Even the DM can't. That destroys the entire point of the game.

Yes, this means PCs and NPCs operate using separate rules. That's because they're separate concepts within the game.

[Millface]

D&D is a game of abstraction. The rules are there to help us figure out what happens because we need to model certain events or circumstances. But it's still all an abstraction.

The distinction between the player's mind and the character's mind is very hazy. In many ways, the game really encourages the PC to be a kind of mental/emotional hybrid of the character concept and the player. Otherwise you would never make any decisions as a player and make knowledge-type checks for everything. This is how passive entertainment like movies and books work -- the "audience" has no input and simply observes everything that happens. It's not how a game works.

A player can never force another player to make his or her PC do something, unless some kind of special or magical effect is in play. Ever. Even the DM can't. That destroys the entire point of the game.

Yes, this means PCs and NPCs operate using separate rules. That's because they're separate concepts within the game.


Its not so black and white as that. You play your character up to your real life int/wis/cha and then for things that require you to tap into more of those attributes than you personally have, you have checks. If you were told the name of a villain and as a player you forget but your character wouldn't forget, thats a check. If you just remember and your character would remember there's no check. Just like if you try to convince Thogg that storming the castle from the back is better than storming the front.

Its not "everything is a check or nothing is".

Being persuasive isn't in how much information you communicate, its how you communicate that information. The DM never has to make up a plan, you say that the back has a secret door and its safer, Thogg says that the front has more battle and is more honorable. Persuasion doesn't change your argument from "back = safer" it implies that you make the same argument more eloquently because your character is better at presenting a case than you are, and in many cases Thogg is more open to persuasion due to his low int/wis/cha than the player playing him might be.

Over time if the Bard has generally good ideas the checks will vanish as the party learns to trust his wisdom, or alternatively the checks will vanish as the party learns that he is a nitwit when it comes to decision making. I also allow the possibility of Thogg to realize that he is often being manipulated, and persuading Thogg doesn't mean you persuade Varsuvius, who is wiser than Thogg. If you try to bully people the party polices that on its own with my system. Don't say never until you've tried it, because I promise it works and everybody has fun.

The point of the game is to be your character, that includes the flaws! But above all have fun, which is why this works for some, not for all.

[1Forge]

I cover this rather simpley, i figure their companions have learned the subtle ques that suggest they are trying to manipulate someone, so i give them advantage to the check. This discourages over use of RP PVP, though it still allows it if it gets necissary.

[EggKookoo]

Its not so black and white as that. You play your character up to your real life int/wis/cha and then for things that require you to tap into more of those attributes than you personally have, you have checks. If you were told the name of a villain and as a player you forget but your character wouldn't forget, thats a check.

I try not to make my players roll for things they can't possibly fail at. I'd just say "oh, you remember, his name is Evil Bob."

But otherwise you're saying a lot of what I'm saying. There's a fat, thick blurry line between player agency and character agency. This line is much sharper between DM agency and NPC agency. This is out of necessity, since the DM is very busy managing the game world and needs to "offload" a lot of NPC activity to the dice. Also, the player can't really screw much up by blending his or her own knowledge with his or her PC's knowledge. In the end, the "game engine" basically sees them as one entity. Or close enough to one entity for it not to matter.

But the DM can easily mess up the game by inadvertently revealing information that should be kept restricted. The DM needs to maintain a stricter control over what he or she knows and what a given NPC knows. This is why dice checks for things like CHA make sense when applied to NPCs, but are generally inappropriate when applied to PCs.

[foobar1969]

I had to say "no" to a player who rolled > 30 on a persuasion check last night - no, you can't talk the Baroness into forgoing taxes on the party
Aw, that's a shame. There are so many wonderful ways for the DM to say "Yes, but..." (http://gamemastersgametable.com/yes-but/)


go on a little errand for me as your payment. (insert adventure here)
you must kill Snow White and bring back her heart.
you're so charming! you have permission to marry my troublesome 3rd child. OR ELSE.

[Millface]

But otherwise you're saying a lot of what I'm saying. There's a fat, thick blurry line between player agency and character agency. This line is much sharper between DM agency and NPC agency. This is out of necessity, since the DM is very busy managing the game world and needs to "offload" a lot of NPC activity to the dice. Also, the player can't really screw much up by blending his or her own knowledge with his or her PC's knowledge. In the end, the "game engine" basically sees them as one entity. Or close enough to one entity for it not to matter.


How about this: If you have an int of 6 and a Cha of 8 and say "I deduce that the back door of the castle would be safer for entry, it is not as well guarded and the enemy is unaware of our knowledge concerning its location. I suggest that we take that route." Would you agree that the player's articulation is not adequately portraying what would be possible for his character? As the DM how would you handle that?

[georgie_leech]

How about this: If you have an int of 6 and a Cha of 8 and say "I deduce that the back door of the castle would be safer for entry, it is not as well guarded and the enemy is unaware of our knowledge concerning its location. I suggest that we take that route." Would you agree that the player's articulation is not adequately portraying what would be possible for his character? As the DM how would you handle that?

"Knug points out that 'there be less meanies in back.'"

[Millface]

"Knug points out that 'there be less meanies in back.'"

So you'd reword what he said? After the player says what he says you go

"Ok, you all hear Knug say 'Less meanies in back. Sneak sneak.'"?

On that same token at the very least if you see the opposite of that. A bard with 20 CHA being piloted by a socially awkward person. The player says "Guys, um, I heard something about, like... maybe around back?"

As the DM you have him roll persuasion and based on how high it is you say

"You all hear Elan say 'My sources tell me that there is an insecure entrance in the back, I believe it would be wise to avoid confrontation until it becomes absolutely necessary."

Same idea, but phrasing and confidence are key. If you don't do something then you're basically telling your less articulate players that they can't be Bards or Sorcerers, because they just can't realistically demonstrate the Charisma those characters would have.

You can put words in their mouths, you can allow persuasion rolls vs. other PCs, or you can punish a player for not being as astute as their character. You kind of have to pick one. I don't like putting words in their mouth because it comes off like "look at me! I'm the DM who is well versed in public speaking! Look at the girls I can flirt with!". So I allow CHA rolls vs. PCs, in a limited and controlled system that I tested and everyone enjoys.

[EggKookoo]

How about this: If you have an int of 6 and a Cha of 8 and say "I deduce that the back door of the castle would be safer for entry, it is not as well guarded and the enemy is unaware of our knowledge concerning its location. I suggest that we take that route." Would you agree that the player's articulation is not adequately portraying what would be possible for his character? As the DM how would you handle that?

Well, ok, let's break this down.

First, I wouldn't hold a PC's low CHA score against him if his player wanted to be articulate in phrasing a plan of action to me as the DM. It's not like the PC is talking to the DM. Although it might be funny to model his low INT as the PC actually talking to the sky as if he was trying to communicate with the person running the game.

If a low-CHA PC wanted to try to convince a guard of something with some smooth talk, I'd call for a roll. I don't think that's particularly controversial -- I'd probably call for a roll from a high-CHA PC unless it was obvious he'd succeed.

If a low-CHA PC tried to convince another high-WIS/INT PC to do something, I'd let the two players play it out. I would remind both players of their characters' stats and try to prod them to play it out in a way that's consistent with those stats, but in the end I'd let them do what they want. If the first player convinces the second player to have his PC do something, so be it. It's not the end of the world. If they stuck to their stats on their own, I might give them a carrot in the form of inspiration or extra EXP or whatever, but otherwise I'd let it go. It's more important to me that the players feel like they have agency than to adhere to strict rules. Remember that this only works if both players do it, otherwise the first PC just fails to convince the second.

If the low-INT PC comes up with a complex plan to break into a castle, I'd probably let it go. Even dimwitted people have flashes of brilliance from time to time. If the player began doing it consistently, I'd probably have an out-of-game talk with him about his character. Does he understand what it means to have a low-INT PC? Is he bored with that? Does he want his PC's INT boosted so he can play him smart? Maybe we need to come up with something in-game that justifies that, but the player would have to accept that there's a cost. Maybe he's been partly taken over by a sapient alien intelligence or accidentally drank an INT potion that could wear off at any time. Now the PC has a motivation (find more potions or learn more about the alien creature). I mean, this is the stuff of great games -- events that grow out of playing.

[georgie_leech]

So you'd reword what he said? After the player says what he says you go

"Ok, you all hear Knug say 'Less meanies in back. Sneak sneak.'"?

On that same token at the very least if you see the opposite of that. A bard with 20 CHA being piloted by a socially awkward person. The player says "Guys, um, I heard something about, like... maybe around back?"

As the DM you have him roll persuasion and based on how high it is you say

"You all hear Elan say 'My sources tell me that there is an insecure entrance in the back, I believe it would be wise to avoid confrontation until it becomes absolutely necessary."

Same idea, but phrasing and confidence are key. If you don't do something then you're basically telling your less articulate players that they can't be Bards or Sorcerers, because they just can't realistically demonstrate the Charisma those characters would have.

You can put words in their mouths, you can allow persuasion rolls vs. other PCs, or you can punish a player for not being as astute as their character. You kind of have to pick one. I don't like putting words in their mouth because it comes off like "look at me! I'm the DM who is well versed in public speaking! Look at the girls I can flirt with!". So I allow CHA rolls vs. PCs, in a limited and controlled system that I tested and everyone enjoys.

Don't read too much into it, it was a tongue in cheek response to the idea that the DM should be policing what a PC should or shouldn't say. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that the Player has full control over what is or isn't compelling to their character. If a 20 CHA Bard is trying to convince the Barbarian to sneak in the back way when the Barbarian wants to charge in to glorious combat, the fact that there are fewer enemies in the back isn't at all compelling. Congratulations, you've made a convincing case that there are fewer enemies in the back, and the Barbarian is even more convinced that that's the wrong choice.

[Millface]

Don't read too much into it, it was a tongue in cheek response to the idea that the DM should be policing what a PC should or shouldn't say. Ultimately, what it comes down to is that the Player has full control over what is or isn't compelling to their character. If a 20 CHA Bard is trying to convince the Barbarian to sneak in the back way when the Barbarian wants to charge in to glorious combat, the fact that there are fewer enemies in the back isn't at all compelling. Congratulations, you've made a convincing case that there are fewer enemies in the back, and the Barbarian is even more convinced that that's the wrong choice.

That's really the problem. Because a 20 CHA character would come up with something about "There are fewer enemies in the back, yes, but they are stronger! The enemies in the front are no match, no challenge for the mighty Thogg, yes? This way leads to the real challenge."

But a player isn't always going to be able to be as manipulative and persuasive as his character. Fighters don't have to have their players lift 500 pounds for their characters to do it, why do we suggest that our players be as clever or articulate as their characters for them to succeed in a persuasion?


Well, ok, let's break this down.
If the low-INT PC comes up with a complex plan to break into a castle, I'd probably let it go. Even dimwitted people have flashes of brilliance from time to time. If the player began doing it consistently, I'd probably have an out-of-game talk with him about his character. Does he understand what it means to have a low-INT PC? Is he bored with that? Does he want his PC's INT boosted so he can play him smart? Maybe we need to come up with something in-game that justifies that, but the player would have to accept that there's a cost. Maybe he's been partly taken over by a sapient alien intelligence or accidentally drank an INT potion that could wear off at any time. Now the PC has a motivation (find more potions or learn more about the alien creature). I mean, this is the stuff of great games -- events that grow out of playing.

This I agree with 110% The rest I still don't love, but I like that you don't mind reminding players in game of what's on their sheet. At least for me part of the game is the challenge of being someone I'm not, I don't mind being reminded if I start slipping in that regard and end up acting more like myself than my character, and as the DM I don't mind gently nudging my players when they start to do the same. They enjoy the challenge as well.

[AvatarVecna]

To the DMs,

How do you deal with players who try to control the rest of the party through Charisma skill checks? My thoughts are to simply disallow PvP skill checks, but I know some people are against what they call "player knowledge" superseding the character's realistic response to persuasion/intimidation.

In general, it depends on the game and players in question. For instance, if the players have talked about this OoC, and come to an agreement, there shouldn't be a problem with it coming up sometimes. Alternatively, if the game is focused around social manipulation, it would probably just be an assumed part of the game.

However, there's a difference between using the rules and abusing the rules. As is usually the case, try to solve the problem out of character first; talk with the problem player either 1 on 1 or as a group about how it's ruining other people's fun; try to convince them to at least talk with the other players about it OoC before trying to control the other player's characters; if they're in on the game, it might make it fun for them to play along. Hopefully, you'll be able to convince them of why what they've been doing is wrong. Alternatively, if that whole "being reasonable and arguing it out" thing doesn't work, that Charisma abuse can go both ways, and the DM can get higher bonuses than a player can.

[georgie_leech]

That's really the problem. Because a 20 CHA character would come up with something about "There are fewer enemies in the back, yes, but they are stronger! The enemies in the front are no match, no challenge for the mighty Thogg, yes? This way leads to the real challenge."

But a player isn't always going to be able to be as manipulative and persuasive as his character. Fighters don't have to have their players lift 500 pounds for their characters to do it, why do we suggest that our players be as clever or articulate as their characters for them to succeed in a persuasion?

Because they are attempting to persuade the other Player. If a player wants active participation from another Player, they are trying to convince the layer, not the character. A Character being able to convince another Character when the Player disagrees smacks of taking control of their character, however temporarily.

[EggKookoo]

But a player isn't always going to be able to be as manipulative and persuasive as his character. Fighters don't have to have their players lift 500 pounds for their characters to do it, why do we suggest that our players be as clever or articulate as their characters for them to succeed in a persuasion?

Succeed against NPCs or PCs? I agree, you would use your CHA check to convince an NPC.

I resist letting one PC use a CHA check to convince another PC of something that that PC's player doesn't want to do because it takes control over the PC out of the hands of the player. And it's not like "magic happened and now you think X." Non-magical, charisma-based persuasion is a slippery, fickle thing. Very subjective and flighty. Dice checks are way too crude from something that supple. Much better to let the players use their real brains to work it out, even if it means you're bending the game's "reality" a little.

Keep in mind that D&D is a team game. You're not supposed to be playing against the other members of your party. The rules weren't designed for that and therefore handle it poorly.

[EggKookoo]

At least for me part of the game is the challenge of being someone I'm not, I don't mind being reminded if I start slipping in that regard and end up acting more like myself than my character, and as the DM I don't mind gently nudging my players when they start to do the same. They enjoy the challenge as well.

Aha!

Ok, if you, as a player, choose to let another player make a CHA roll to see if his PC convinces your PC of something, great! That's worlds away from not wanting to believe/obey the other PC and the DM forcing a roll against your wishes.

[georgie_leech]

Aha!

Ok, if you, as a player, choose to let another player make a CHA roll to see if his PC convinces your PC of something, great! That's worlds away from not wanting to believe/obey the other PC and the DM forcing a roll against your wishes.

This. Just as it's the DM's purview to decide what an NPC can or can't be convinced to do ("I don't care how persuasive you are, you're not convincing the king to name you his rightful heir and then abdicate"), it the Player's choice as to what their Character can or can't be convinced to do.

[rollingForInit]

When the smoking hot charisma 20 maiden seduces your intelligence/ wisdom/ charisma 8 fighter - you should roleplay it accordingly. Makes no difference if it's a PC or NPC doing it.


It's still the player's choice whether or not the character even wants to be seduced, or is the type who would be. Not everyone would, after all. Maybe he isn't the type of guy who's overly sexual. Maybe he's got way more important things on his mind. Maybe there's some quirk about the maiden that he just dislikes and takes away from all the hotness.

I mean, it should be role-played. Probably makes for an awkward situation, and how the character turns her down (or is seduced) is really more interesting than whether or not the seduction works.


How about this: If you have an int of 6 and a Cha of 8 and say "I deduce that the back door of the castle would be safer for entry, it is not as well guarded and the enemy is unaware of our knowledge concerning its location. I suggest that we take that route." Would you agree that the player's articulation is not adequately portraying what would be possible for his character? As the DM how would you handle that?

That depends on how regularly it is. Even someone uncharismatic and unintelligent can come use clever words. Maybe the low-intelligent Barbarian has picked up words that the Wizard is using.

On the other hand, if a player were constalty playing a an Int 6, Cha 8 character as smart and charismatic, and I'd work it out with them. Perhaps they changed their minds, and realised it wasn't as fun to play a character that's uncharismatic and unintelligent. In that case, I'd allow them to maybe retcon and change around attributes, or maybe even roll up a new character. Or perhaps we could figure out why the character has such a low score. What does it represent? I once played an Int 8 Rogue, but she wasn't stupid or anything. She wasn't the best at numbers, though, and she had a very poor general education, so she sometimes ended up in awkward social situations because she didn't know things others saw as evident. Pieces of historical or geographical lore that should be evident, etc. That was what her Int 8 was for. Aside from that, she was skilled at Investigation, so she wasn't stupid.

[Millface]

Succeed against NPCs or PCs? I agree, you would use your CHA check to convince an NPC.

I resist letting one PC use a CHA check to convince another PC of something that that PC's player doesn't want to do because it takes control over the PC out of the hands of the player. And it's not like "magic happened and now you think X." Non-magical, charisma-based persuasion is a slippery, fickle thing. Very subjective and flighty. Dice checks are way too crude from something that supple. Much better to let the players use their real brains to work it out, even if it means you're bending the game's "reality" a little.

Keep in mind that D&D is a team game. You're not supposed to be playing against the other members of your party. The rules weren't designed for that and therefore handle it poorly.

In the case of Thogg and Elan, (this happened at my table, different names though) The player behind Thogg HAD to want to go up the gut because its in his character, and on the surface that seems more honorable. Elan knew the smart move, but was unable to articulate what he meant in a way that the player behind Thogg could reasonably adhere to. The Player wanted to be convinced, but Elan's player needed some help. I had him roll his persuasion Vs. Thoggs Wisdom, it was high, I told Thogg such, then wrote down a more clear way for him to say what he was trying to say, and told him he could use that if he wanted, but didn't have to. He read it in Elan's voice, Thogg agreed, and Elan's player lit up like a christmas tree.

Admittedly this is different from OPs problem, but in response to others saying characters should never roll CHA against other characters I say that I would have been wrong to handle that any other way. If you'd seen the guys face when he succeeded at something he normally sucks at in real life you'd agree. If I leave it up to him he will very rarely succeed, and while its not fun sometimes to have your character have to do something because of a botched roll, if you monitor it closely as the DM it's far more disheartening to see a real life insecurity leak into your Character, who you picture as this awesome guy that is everything you wish you could be.

[EggKookoo]

This. Just as it's the DM's purview to decide what an NPC can or can't be convinced to do ("I don't care how persuasive you are, you're not convincing the king to name you his rightful heir and then abdicate"), it the Player's choice as to what their Character can or can't be convinced to do.

You can build a case around it right up to the actual decision point.

P1: I want to convince P2 of something.
P2: I don't think that makes sense.
P1: [makes good CHA roll]
P2: [to DM] Do I have to believe P1 now?
DM: Well, P1 made a very good case based on that CHA roll. You have to admit he makes more sense now than he did earlier.
P2: But do I have to believe him?
DM: No, but he's pretty convincing. Even NPC3, who was listening in, is now nodding in agreement.
P1: I still don't think it makes sense.
DM: That's perfectly fine. P2, despite causing him to momentarily second-guess himself, you fail to convince P1.

Doing it this way retains all player agency, allows P1 to make his own decisions while being informed that he's almost going against his own gut feelings, and allows P2 to try to make a roll to affect the outcome. It also depends on your players trusting your as a DM, but there are no rules for that.

[georgie_leech]

In the case of Thogg and Elan, (this happened at my table, different names though) The player behind Thogg HAD to want to go up the gut because its in his character, and on the surface that seems more honorable. Elan knew the smart move, but was unable to articulate what he meant in a way that the player behind Thogg could reasonably adhere to. The Player wanted to be convinced, but Elan's player needed some help. I had him roll his persuasion Vs. Thoggs Wisdom, it was high, I told Thogg such, then wrote down a more clear way for him to say what he was trying to say, and told him he could use that if he wanted, but didn't have to. He read it in Elan's voice, Thogg agreed, and Elan's player lit up like a christmas tree.

Admittedly this is different from OPs problem, but in response to others saying characters should never roll CHA against other characters I say that I would have been wrong to handle that any other way. If you'd seen the guys face when he succeeded at something he normally sucks at in real life you'd agree. If I leave it up to him he will very rarely succeed, and while its not fun sometimes to have your character have to do something because of a botched roll, if you monitor it closely as the DM it's far more disheartening to see a real life insecurity leak into your Character, who you picture as this awesome guy that is everything you wish you could be.

And if Thogg's player decided they didn't think their character would budge on this? You've decided that you understand their character better than the player and so get to decide how they react. Again, if the player chooses to let a roll work, great, no problem. The objection is to having the mechanic forced.

[Millface]

You can build a case around it right up to the actual decision point.

P1: I want to convince P2 of something.
P2: I don't think that makes sense.
P1: [makes good CHA roll]
P2: [to DM] Do I have to believe P1 now?
DM: Well, P1 made a very good case based on that CHA roll. You have to admit he makes more sense now than he did earlier.
P2: But do I have to believe him?
DM: No, but he's pretty convincing. Even NPC3, who was listening in, is now nodding in agreement.
P1: I still don't think it makes sense.
DM: That's perfectly fine. P2, despite causing him to momentarily second-guess himself, you fail to convince P1.

Doing it this way retains all player agency, allows P1 to make his own decisions while being informed that he's almost going against his own gut feelings, and allows P2 to try to make a roll to affect the outcome. It also depends on your players trusting your as a DM, but there are no rules for that.

But it doesn't because odds are if I was behind the wheel of the high Cha character I could have come up with a better argument. I more than dabbled in debate in school, I'm more personally qualified to argue a point. That's not fair. It's the same character. What if that player played high CHA because he knew he wasn't good at it, so he needed his character to be what he cannot? Simply saying as the DM that "Oh, what he just said, exactly how he said it, is WAY convincing." Isn't going to solve it. Of course P2 still doesn't think it makes sense, the argument didn't change in his eyes.

Persuasion implies a better way to make the argument.

[EggKookoo]

In the case of Thogg and Elan, (this happened at my table, different names though) The player behind Thogg HAD to want to go up the gut because its in his character, and on the surface that seems more honorable. Elan knew the smart move, but was unable to articulate what he meant in a way that the player behind Thogg could reasonably adhere to. The Player wanted to be convinced, but Elan's player needed some help. I had him roll his persuasion Vs. Thoggs Wisdom, it was high, I told Thogg such, then wrote down a more clear way for him to say what he was trying to say, and told him he could use that if he wanted, but didn't have to. He read it in Elan's voice, Thogg agreed, and Elan's player lit up like a christmas tree.

Admittedly this is different from OPs problem, but in response to others saying characters should never roll CHA against other characters I say that I would have been wrong to handle that any other way. If you'd seen the guys face when he succeeded at something he normally sucks at in real life you'd agree. If I leave it up to him he will very rarely succeed, and while its not fun sometimes to have your character have to do something because of a botched roll, if you monitor it closely as the DM it's far more disheartening to see a real life insecurity leak into your Character, who you picture as this awesome guy that is everything you wish you could be.

I think we're tripping up over the use of the word "against." I'm assuming that one of the players is resistant to having his PC's actions influenced by another player/PC and a die roll.

What you just described is great. It's players asking for a mechanism to play out their PCs. I would reward the hell out of that kind of behavior, and I don't consider anyone playing "against" anyone. But as you say, this isn't what the OP was complaining about. It certainly doesn't smack of bullying.

[georgie_leech]

But it doesn't because odds are if I was behind the wheel of the high Cha character I could have come up with a better argument. I more than dabbled in debate in school, I'm more personally qualified to argue a point. That's not fair. It's the same character. What if that player played high CHA because he knew he wasn't good at it, so he needed his character to be what he cannot?

Then he can convince NPC's. Part of being a high-CHA character is recognising what other characters will or won't budge on and not needlessly belaboring the point.

[Millface]

Then he can convince NPC's. Part of being a high-CHA character is recognising what other characters will or won't budge on and not needlessly belaboring the point.

Which brings me back to that same question: A player doesn't have to be strong for his character to lift heavier things than other characters, why does a player have to be well versed in the art of debate (when his character IS) to convince a party member that his idea is more valid?

I'm getting a headache, because logic tells me that you shouldn't have to be persuasive in real life for your PC to be persuasive to other PCs, but you guys are making sense too.

Would it be wrong, if as the DM I can think of an argument that might work, to pass a note to the bard when he gets a high persuasion? Nudge him a little? That way the opposing player can still disagree, but at least he heard it articulated as well as can be expected of a high CHA character. I think it would work, but it seems terribly arrogant on my part, and that's why I haven't started doing it.

[EggKookoo]

Then he can convince NPC's. Part of being a high-CHA character is recognising what other characters will or won't budge on and not needlessly belaboring the point.

Yeah, I agree.

I think if you make a high-CHA character with the intent of persuading other PCs (instead of NPCs) of stuff, you're off on the wrong foot to begin with. The DM needs to reign that in and reset some expectations.

But even that aside, being high-CHA doesn't make you like the Superman of charisma. It just increases the likelihood that you can persuade a given person of something. There will always be that one person you can never move. Probably more than one.

You (Millface) seem to be at least partially chafing at the idea that the rules are different for PC/NPC interaction than they are for PC/PC interaction. But it has to be this way.

[EggKookoo]

Which brings me back to that same question: A player doesn't have to be strong for his character to lift heavier things than other characters, why does a player have to be well versed in the art of debate (when his character IS) to convince a party member that his idea is more valid?

There's something special about thinking. In real life, I can mostly think whatever I want, but if I'm not strong enough to lift 500lbs, that's just how it is. I have a mental freedom that isn't carried over to my physical body.


I'm getting a headache, because logic tells me that you shouldn't have to be persuasive in real life for your PC to be persuasive to other PCs, but you guys are making sense too.

Stretch! It helps with tension headaches. Seriously.


Would it be wrong, if as the DM I can think of an argument that might work, to pass a note to the bard when he gets a high persuasion? Nudge him a little? That way the opposing player can still disagree, but at least he heard it articulated as well as can be expected of a high CHA character. I think it would work, but it seems terribly arrogant on my part, and that's why I haven't started doing it.

I think anything you can do to convince your PCs to act a certain way is good. Use those debate skills. But in the end you have to let it be their choice, unless their choice has literally been removed within the game itself (mind control magic, or something).

[Millface]

Yeah, I agree.

I think if you make a high-CHA character with the intent of persuading other PCs (instead of NPCs) of stuff, you're off on the wrong foot to begin with. The DM needs to reign that in and reset some expectations.

But even that aside, being high-CHA doesn't make you like the Superman of charisma. It just increases the likelihood that you can persuade a given person of something. There will always be that one person you can never move. Probably more than one.

You (Millface) seem to be at least partially chafing at the idea that the rules are different for PC/NPC interaction than they are for PC/PC interaction. But it has to be this way.

I'm chafing at the idea of one of my players playing high CHA because its an insecurity of his in real life and the fact that if I let it play out with no dice he'd just get walked all over in the game just like he sometimes does in IRL. It rubs me as the exact opposite of what the game is supposed to be about.

I'm not saying (at least anymore, you guys make sense) that rolls are the way to go, but I AM looking for some way to make this work so that a low cha person can feel like a high cha character in PC interaction. I like the idea of giving the high cha pcs optional additional arguments to use, as long as it doesn't make me come off like a jackass.

[georgie_leech]

I'm not saying (at least anymore, you guys make sense) that rolls are the way to go, but I AM looking for some way to make this work so that a low cha person can feel like a high cha character in PC interaction.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of rolls, but it requires buy in from both parties. To continue the example, if the low-CHA Player is getting walked on, talk to the other Players that are walking over him.

The only problem is if the mechanic is forced to apply without consent. If a high-STR character grabs another, great, there's plenty of responses to that. The grab-ee can choose to get dragged along, can choose to try and squirm out, can stab the grabber... there's all sorts of choices, and the player can make the choice they want. Convincing someone though is saying "you choose to do X because you're convinced to." There is no choice anymore.

[EggKookoo]

I'm not saying (at least anymore, you guys make sense) that rolls are the way to go, but I AM looking for some way to make this work so that a low cha person can feel like a high cha character in PC interaction. I like the idea of giving the high cha pcs optional additional arguments to use, as long as it doesn't make me come off like a jackass.

Let's see if we can help with that.

First, have you spoken to the other players about this? They may be up for it. Ask them to consider that player's CHA rolls. Maybe let them know there might be a reward for them if they play their PCs in-character.

Second, make sure to give your party a healthy dose of NPCs that your "insecure" player can use his CHA on. Make sure those interactions are important to the party's goals and successes. That should go a long way toward building up that player's confidence.

Third, you may not have a problem at all. If your player is using his CHA to successfully manipulate or at least convince the other players in the party, and everyone knows this and enjoys it, success! Just keep doing what you're doing. This is what I mean when I said I don't see it as a situation where one player is playing "against" the others.

[Millface]

There's nothing wrong with the idea of rolls, but it requires buy in from both parties. To continue the example, if the low-CHA Player is getting walked on, talk to the other Players that are walking over him.

The only problem is if the mechanic is forced to apply without consent. If a high-STR character grabs another, great, there's plenty of responses to that. The grab-ee can choose to get dragged along, can choose to try an squirm out, can stab the grabber... there's all sorts of choices, and the player can make the choice they want. Convincing someone though is saying "you choose to do X because you're convinced to." There is no choice anymore.

Agreed. I think I'm going to handle it the same way I do the other intellectual stats. If a wizard with 20 int forgets the range of fireball, for example, I'll have him roll insight to see if his character's intelligence saves him from his player bumble, if he succeeds I explain his error to him and he can adjust, if he fails then it's a brain fart for his character.

In the same way if a character tries to convince another of something and fails, I can have him roll persuasion to see if his character's stat will impart any additional arguments to him, if so I will jot down a couple of points I think he's missing or should touch on, if not then he's having an off day and wasn't as persuasive as usual. Either way the opposing PC has to decide for themselves. No forcing, so no bullying in that system.

Seems to work.




Second, make sure to give your party a healthy dose of NPCs that your "insecure" player can use his CHA on. Make sure those interactions are important to the party's goals and successes. That should go a long way toward building up that player's confidence.


This I definitely do. I think every DM should include ways for each character in the party to shine from time to time. This I can control, and so I'm good at it. It's always been everyone's interaction with each other that's hard. It's a team game, but I let them play whatever kind of character they want, so long as they play the character, not themselves. My table is very PC personality driven, which is why there have to be contingencies for player shortcomings compared to character strengths. Which I think we've found, so thanks for chatting that out with me!

[EggKookoo]

Which I think we've found, so thanks for chatting that out with me!

Awesome. Sounds like you have a good group. Sorry if I contributed to any headaches.

[Millface]

Awesome. Sounds like you have a good group. Sorry if I contributed to any headaches.

I do, and often times it leads me to argue things in the Playground that are true from where I am, but not applicable to the average group, or a group of players who haven't all known each other for the better part of their entire lives.

I wanted a solution that covered all types of tables and players though, in case I eventually do recruit someone that would abuse the system in that way.

I allow PvP in my world so long as it actually makes sense, and yet I still have fewer problems than this. If someone in the party started intimidating others and bullying them the rest of the party would have a few choice words for that guy. They'd wrap it up in a heartbeat.

For OP, either disallow PvP or make sure the party is reacting appropriately when it occurs. If someone murders another party member in broad daylight the rest of the party is going to detain that person, for example. The party should be policing this kind of thing for you if they are reacting like characters really would react in that situation. Encourage deeper roleplay if you stick with PvP, and more thought into the characters they are playing and what they would do, and most importantly, why they would do it.

Good, realistic RP and a healthy ability to separate what happens in game from real life is the solution to 90% of the problems I see come up in the Playground. A bully just wouldn't last in a group that isn't full of other bullies, realistically. Are the other party members allowing it because they are afraid of making the Player behind the bully angry?

[Shining Wrath]

Aw, that's a shame. There are so many wonderful ways for the DM to say "Yes, but..." (http://gamemastersgametable.com/yes-but/)


go on a little errand for me as your payment. (insert adventure here)
you must kill Snow White and bring back her heart.
you're so charming! you have permission to marry my troublesome 3rd child. OR ELSE.


Well, like I told someone else, she rolled on her own initiative, not at my request. So I thought it was best to pretend it never happened.

Also, the party was just reporting back from having stopped a plague, so there's that. OTOH she paid them well to do it.

[Daishain]

Social checks should never dictate a player's response, at least not without the player's input.

With that stated, I do allow them with a system I think works well. I would rather leave it completely up to actual roleplay, but that breaks down as soon as you have characters who are much more eloquent than the players running them. In any case, here's how I run it:

Player A wants to convince player B of something. The former makes a roll, depending on the result, they can describe themselves as being as silvertongued as an angel, or choking on something before half done as appropriate. That's the most player A can do. At the same time, player B has a choice to make, just how stubbornly set are they on their course? If we're talking about a major violation of the character's ethics, chances are no speech is going to sway them. If they were already wavering, it might not take much persuading at all. In essence, player B chooses how high their own DC is for that particular topic.

This second determination is left in player B's hands as a matter of good faith. They know their character better than anyone else. Someone could abuse this system, but there are ways to deal with that if such becomes apparent.

[ZenBear]

Well I'm glad to see my thread has provided a source for such informative debate!

The exact scenario that sparked my question was that one player decided to start rolling Persuasion checks to order other players to "go through that door" and "kill that NPC" without prior DM consent. The DM let the target players choose whether or not they did as persuaded, and the other guy got mad.

I'm curious to hear different sides of the debate, since some here have proclaimed a preference for allowing PvP social skill checks and I wonder if this specific scenario might constitute an exception to that position.

Of course, please continue all other discussions on the larger subject. I really enjoy reading them!

[georgie_leech]

Well I'm glad to see my thread has provided a source for such informative debate!

The exact scenario that sparked my question was that one player decided to start rolling Persuasion checks to order other players to "go through that door" and "kill that NPC" without prior DM consent. The DM let the target players choose whether or not they did as persuaded, and the other guy got mad.

I'm curious to hear different sides of the debate, since some here have proclaimed a preference for allowing PvP social skill checks and I wonder if this specific scenario might constitute an exception to that position.

Of course, please continue all other discussions on the larger subject. I really enjoy reading them!

"Dance, my minions!" is about the most obvious example of the very thing I can't stand about intra-party social skill checks. :smallannoyed:

[Shining Wrath]

Well I'm glad to see my thread has provided a source for such informative debate!

The exact scenario that sparked my question was that one player decided to start rolling Persuasion checks to order other players to "go through that door" and "kill that NPC" without prior DM consent. The DM let the target players choose whether or not they did as persuaded, and the other guy got mad.

I'm curious to hear different sides of the debate, since some here have proclaimed a preference for allowing PvP social skill checks and I wonder if this specific scenario might constitute an exception to that position.

Of course, please continue all other discussions on the larger subject. I really enjoy reading them!

One DM to another - if the other players have less fun because of this, then it simply doesn't work, or doesn't work very well. If everyone is having fun, it works just fine.

[silverkyo]

Yup.

IMO they're even overused by most DMs against NPCs. IMO, players should roleplay their attempts and the DM should simply adjudicate most NPC reactions based on the roleplay. If he's not sure, or thinks it will be a tough sell, then call for a roll. Nothing pulls me out of immersion faster than someone saying "I intimidate him" /groan.

This is logic I am exclusively against that other people have pointed out for similar reasons later on. As an example, I once played a wizard in a one off and we had to solve a riddle. I got to roll for a hint, but I still had to solve it myself. Absolutely nothing broke me out of the game faster then my 300 year old 28+ int character not being able to figure out a riddle. The same thing applies to social skills and NPC interactions. The point of D&D is to play a character who is NOT yourself, and if you happen to be lacking in your real life charisma score why should that impact the character you're trying to be? I still have them RP it out just so I have something to work with, and sometimes if they do give really good RP i'll give them advantage or maybe lower the DC, but ultimately the dice need to be there for NPC interaction so people can play a character and sometimes to help you as a DM decide how someone might respond.


Isn't this a case of 'don't roll, because it's 0% chance' ?

I would still allow them to still roll simply because it gives away too much information and can inhibit the illusion of choice, which is important in a game all about choice. While most people wouldn't try to diplomacy a lich, and it would have 0% chance of success, I would still allow a player to try it if his character would want to, because even if it doesn't work it's still something their character would want to do. Saying "no, don't bother rolling" can make them feel like those skills are a waste even if there are legitimate uses for it because sometimes, even on a nat 20, a creature would just never do what you're trying to do.


When my players ask to make social skill checks against each other, I just tell the "defending" player that they get to set their own DCs for these checks.

(Then, they also get to interpret what "success" and "failure" mean. One of them set a pretty high DC for the newcomer to earn his trust, and he passed with a natural 20 + high Charisma, but although that meant the "defending" PC let him join the party, there's still not much friendly behavior between those two particular PCs.)

Now this is a fantastic system and I absolutely love it, along with the additions rhouck and ruy343 made down bellow about not telling the player the DC he has to make and limiting it to when the party is at an impass and it's impeding play. This is mostly coming from personal experience where another player in my party was a member of the kingsguard, but the character wasn't there and didn't believe us when we tried to convince them the king was a lich, and one series of unfortunate events later ended up with a complete splitting of the party, a TPK, and an end to a 3 year long campaign. It's times like this I wish I could use my characters charisma to help convince them.

[Malifice]

It's still the player's choice whether or not the character even wants to be seduced, or is the type who would be. Not everyone would, after all. Maybe he isn't the type of guy who's overly sexual. Maybe he's got way more important things on his mind. Maybe there's some quirk about the maiden that he just dislikes and takes away from all the hotness.

I mean, it should be role-played. Probably makes for an awkward situation, and how the character turns her down (or is seduced) is really more interesting than whether or not the seduction works.


I agree with this. Like I said - I allow charisma checks on PC's (even by other PC's). I explain the results and then trust the players to role play it accordingly (having regards to the Characters alignment, ideals, bonds, flaws, backstory, history and so forth). The player asks himself: 'How would my character honestly react to this request?'

Our party swashbuckler is a self identified ladies man. When a smoking hot female PC or NPC seduces him with a roll of 20+ I expect it to be played accordingly (even if this means - in fact especially if this means - to that PC's detriment).

I don't have to enforce this behavior on the player in question - its the expectation at our table.

Same deal should a PC persuade (check) another PC to 'loan' him some cash. Unless his character has a very good reason why he wouldn't loan some money to a good friend, the expectation (at our table) is that he would do it. Its really down to the social contract of the players and DM involved.

Or course, no one likes a manipulative friend who repeatedly borrows money from you, and should the 'favor' not be reciprocated I would reasonably expect the relationship to sour (and at the least make any future attempts to manipulate that PC by the social skill monkey in question difficult to the point of impossibility).

AS a DM in this situation, I would simply strongly remind the Player of the expectation to play his character, having regard to thee roll against him by the other PC and the favor being asked of him.

And then I award inspiration to the PC that played his character without fear or favor, particularly if he does so to his own characters detriment.

[silverkyo]

I think a lot of issues with this can be solved with players being able to separate themselves from their characters. Even if the player is playing and exact replica of themselves, they need to understand that eventually and NPC might convince them to do something they as a player don't want to do or know they don't want to do because the dice say so. This should be avoided at almost all costs, but eventually it will happen. Why should this be different for PCs, it's the same idea just from a different source that isn't the DM. How can you call it roleplaying if you aren't playing the roll?

This isn't to say that your actions can be forced to do something your character would just never do, and this should go for DM and PCs. You can't convince the paladin to murder children, i don't care if you rolled 80+ you aren't casting mind control. But this isn't to say rolls can never influence how your character thinks. Maybe the bard makes a really good case about lack of food, starving being a slow and painful death, and overpopulation issues (alright, this part is a bad example, because of the extreme case i choose, but you see the point). To go to a previous example, if you're playing a very stubborn barbarian with a INT of 8 and a CHA of 6, your character can still get convinced to do things it doesn't matter how stubborn he is. Regardless of if the character gets deceived or manipulated or is just too dumb to realize whats happening, you choose to dump INT and CHA, roleplay it. Maybe say you're going to leave through the front door, or they tell you this is actually the back door and the front door is on the other side, it just looks like the front door because their French and have a really expensive back door. But if the party decides something and you refuse to be convinced because your character is a stubborn barbarian, then suddenly you're the one forcing every other character to do something they wouldn't do. Eventually something needs to give and at that point you can opt to turn to the dice.

Lastly, as a quick side note, there is a huge difference between an occasional disagreement and abusing your rolls to force the party to do what you want, and it's really obvious to be honest. Really, you should be asking why you're playing with an abusive player.

[rollingForInit]

...


Seems like you've got a good routine going on. We do pretty much the same - expect people to role-play stuff, good or bad, and reward players who play according to their characters (using traits and flaws as a basis).



Another point in this debate, imo, is that everyone should be able to convince others, no matter their Cha. The PHB does suggest that you can use other ability scores instead. So where someone with high Charisma might pressure someone with a force of personality, someone with high Int might make a good Persuasion roll and just pour out extremely rational arguments (and if they roll badly, it just ends up being way too complex, maybe). Someone with high Wisdom can just impose their Voice of Reason on everybody. Someone with high Str could use it to be threatening.

So really, this shouldn't be limited to just Charisma and charismatic characters. Everyone have their own ways of convincing others.

[Millface]

Well I'm glad to see my thread has provided a source for such informative debate!

The exact scenario that sparked my question was that one player decided to start rolling Persuasion checks to order other players to "go through that door" and "kill that NPC" without prior DM consent. The DM let the target players choose whether or not they did as persuaded, and the other guy got mad.

I'm curious to hear different sides of the debate, since some here have proclaimed a preference for allowing PvP social skill checks and I wonder if this specific scenario might constitute an exception to that position.

Of course, please continue all other discussions on the larger subject. I really enjoy reading them!


The DM should explain to this player that even the best arguments will fall flat sometimes when you're dealing with a stubborn person. Especially in matters involving alignment, religion, and major personality traits. You will never, ever convince someone to abandon their god in one persuade roll, for example. From real life experience religious and moral views only change over large periods of time and several solid arguments.

That being said, I believe I've solved the problem as long as either the player OR the DM have reasonable debate skills. A successful persuade against another player simply results in the DM offering up better arguments, or potentially the opportunity for the player to think for a moment and rephrase his argument, but can never outright force someone to do something if they have good reasons not to.

The DM should also talk to the people being persuaded and make sure they have real, character driven reasons for not going through the door the persuader is suggesting they go through. If the players are unresponsive to his persuasion "just because", you also have a problem. I'm having trouble deciding from the information given who is doing it wrong here, but this shouldn't be an issue if everyone is playing their characters objectively and the players aren't just being stubborn and unreasonable.

[EggKookoo]

I think a lot of issues with this can be solved with players being able to separate themselves from their characters.

In our many, many years of playing D&D and similar games, neither I nor my friends have been able to completely do this. Our characters are always messy amalgams of our own knowledge, values, and personalities and those of the PC himself. We only run into problems when we try to enforce that line too sharply, like the time I was playing a LE PC in a mostly neutral-good-ish party. We only had fun as long as I played him "evil in name only" and the game actually broke the one time I tried to do one actual evil thing (steal the MacGuffin from the party for myself when we were camping -- although in the group's defense I probably could have been more smart about it).

Back in the stone age days, we actually had a player who would try to intimidate other players into doing things, and absolutely was not above making whatever CHA-like rolls he needed to force the issue. This was a problem at first because our GM at the time wasn't experienced enough to handle it and let it happen. It constantly broke our games where we'd dissolve into arguments, until we got another GM who didn't allow it. Suddenly, we were all having fun and it was that one player who was dissatisfied, even though the GM let him go nuts persuading NPCs.

It boils down to this. Every decision ("should I or shouldn't I?") should be up to the player, unless that ability has actually been removed from the character via some kind of mind-control magic or similar power. Every result ("can I or can't I?") should be resolved via a die roll or perhaps DM fiat if it's a simple situation. Can you lift that boulder? Die roll. Did that other character make a convincing argument? That's a choice. You choose to be persuaded. That's why it's persuasion, as opposed to mind-control or something. The persuader makes a rational argument that makes sense to you. No matter how good a salesperson he may be, if you outright refuse to accept his position (even to the point of being irrational yourself -- you have that right), he'll never convince you.

[Millface]

In our many, many years of playing D&D and similar games, neither I nor my friends have been able to completely do this. Our characters are always messy amalgams of our own knowledge, values, and personalities and those of the PC himself. We only run into problems when we try to enforce that line too sharply, like the time I was playing a LE PC in a mostly neutral-good-ish party. We only had fun as long as I played him "evil in name only" and the game actually broke the one time I tried to do one actual evil thing (steal the MacGuffin from the party for myself when we were camping -- although in the group's defense I probably could have been more smart about it).

Back in the stone age days, we actually had a player who would try to intimidate other players into doing things, and absolutely was not above making whatever CHA-like rolls he needed to force the issue. This was a problem at first because our GM at the time wasn't experienced enough to handle it and let it happen. It constantly broke our games where we'd dissolve into arguments, until we got another GM who didn't allow it. Suddenly, we were all having fun and it was that one player who was dissatisfied, even though the GM let him go nuts persuading NPCs.

It boils down to this. Every decision ("should I or shouldn't I?") should be up to the player, unless that ability has actually been removed from the character via some kind of mind-control magic or similar power. Every result ("can I or can't I?") should be resolved via a die roll or perhaps DM fiat if it's a simple situation. Can you lift that boulder? Die roll. Did that other character make a convincing argument? That's a choice. You choose to be persuaded. That's why it's persuasion, as opposed to mind-control or something. The persuader makes a rational argument that makes sense to you. No matter how good a salesperson he may be, if you outright refuse to accept his position (even to the point of being irrational yourself -- you have that right), he'll never convince you.

Alas, we disagree again. YMMV and it certainly seems to, but my players and I play this game so we can not be ourselves. If a character was LE in name only then I would talk to that player and over time change their alignment. We had a CE party member, for example, who couldn't really play to her alignment without the party kicking her, so she played "name only". After a while we spoke and she mentioned that her friendship with the druid in the party had shown her that not quite everything needs to burn, and that it was making her lean toward neutral.

She played a sorcerer, and at one point I wrote up an in depth dream where she was losing herself, losing sight of her long term goals. Some enemies from her past surrounded her, and she tried to draw on her magic but failed, because the hate and chaos that she had always used to power her magic was out of her reach. The dream hit her hard, and when she woke up she got back on track playing her character the way it was meant to be. Yes, eventually it put her at odds with the party, if you play evil it probably always will, but you know that going in and even though she had to re-roll @level 11 she had a blast and now gets to have fun watching her former creation wreak havoc as an evil NPC villain.

Some characters are hard to play, if you don't want the challenge don't roll the character that way. If you want to play yourself roll yourself. I don't understand putting all these things on your sheet just to ignore them. Why even bother? You need to communicate with your players as a DM and figure out just how much of a roleplay challenge they're looking for, if they don't want to be challenged urge them to roll something similar to them, if they do it's my job to make sure they stick to it and play it correctly.

Decisions should be up to the Character, and it's the players job to translate that based on that character's alignment, beliefs, and long and short term goals.


Edit: When I say separate, I mean that players need to understand that if my character doesn't like your character it doesn't mean that I don't like you. Confrontation happens, and it's fun as long as Players don't get mad at Players.

[EggKookoo]

I don't understand putting all these things on your sheet just to ignore them. Why even bother?

We don't ignore them. They're just optional. Kind of like, if I can't decide what I should have my character do, I check things on his sheet to help steer me.

Part of it is that people aren't nearly as consistent in their behavior as a game sheet might suggest. No one is one alignment all the time. No one is brilliant or stupid all the time. I could be intellectually lazy but actually quite bright. Most of the time I don't put a lot of mental effort in and so I effectively have a low INT. But get me motivated and suddenly I'm solving problems left and right. As creatures, we're way more flexible like that mentally than we are physically.

What it comes down to is that while we respect the character's mental and emotional parameters, we're not slave to them. The only time it would matter if there was an outside consequence, like a player playing a paladin but making him behave cruelly or otherwise not up to lawful good standards. There would be consequences to that in my game, but in the form of disapproval from his deity. I would never tell him he can't do it.


When I say separate, I mean that players need to understand that if my character doesn't like your character it doesn't mean that I don't like you. Confrontation happens, and it's fun as long as Players don't get mad at Players.

Oh, yeah, we never really have this problem. We all know "in game" from "out of game." Not an issue.

[Millface]

We don't ignore them. They're just optional. Kind of like, if I can't decide what I should have my character do, I check things on his sheet to help steer me.

Part of it is that people aren't nearly as consistent in their behavior as a game sheet might suggest. No one is one alignment all the time. No one is brilliant or stupid all the time. I could be intellectually lazy but actually quite bright. Most of the time I don't put a lot of mental effort in and so I effectively have a low INT. But get me motivated and suddenly I'm solving problems left and right. As creatures, we're way more flexible like that mentally than we are physically.

What it comes down to is that while we respect the character's mental and emotional parameters, we're not slave to them. The only time it would matter if there was an outside consequence, like a player playing a paladin but making him behave cruelly or otherwise not up to lawful good standards. There would be consequences to that in my game, but in the form of disapproval from his deity. I would never tell him he can't do it.



Oh, yeah, we never really have this problem. We all know "in game" from "out of game." Not an issue.

This is all why you can fail rolls. You're not brilliant all the time just because you have 20 int, sometimes you'll roll less than 5 and fail an insight or arcana check. As far as alignment goes... I may not be as good as possible all the time but I'm never just outright evil.

This is what short and longterm goals are for. You look at a decision in front of you, then at your alignment and goals. Will one direction help your goals more than the other? If you take that direction will you have to do something against your alignment, such as leave a group of slaves to die instead of saving them?

An evil character can do a good thing, of course. Especially LE. LE tends to be goal oriented, they have a plot. Doing the occasional good thing to gain the party's trust is not outside the alignment, but you do it for that reason, not because as a player it's what you feel like doing at the time.

It's ok to play that way, really, but its not roleplaying. Playing your alignment is not "optional". Making decisions through the eyes of the character you created is not "optional". Having a character flaw and choosing to ignore it when it's convenient is not "optional".

Having said that, if my players all wanted to play like you do I'd allow it, but to me it wouldn't really be roleplaying. You're just playing tabletop WoW at that point. Character depth, personality development, and learning to put yourself into someone elses shoes and do things as they would do, not as you would do, (especially then) are what makes roleplaying roleplaying.

One more time I'll ask... if you don't want to always adhere to something on the sheet, why put it on the sheet at all? Why not just create the character without that restriction or trait? From everything you've said you're just playing yourself when you play.

[Naanomi]

Someone mentioned puzzles above, and they are a point that always gets blurred between character and player. I played an idiot sorcerer once, whose party was at least half babysitter half party members (kept him around cause he liked blowing things up and they could direct it); but when they were in a dungeon with lots of puzzles they wanted my help solving them.

I knew the answers a few times but never helped, and after the third or so they struggled with they said 'even someone stupid is right once in a while', which I replied 'this stupid person would have solved three puzzles in a row, figure it out yourself or let me disintegrate the puzzle'

Separating yourself from your character can be tough, and if it does so to the detriment of other player's goals it can create frustration. Handling that dichotomy is a big part of maturity as a role player in my mind.

[Millface]

Someone mentioned puzzles above, and they are a point that always gets blurred between character and player. I played an idiot sorcerer once, whose party was at least half babysitter half party members (kept him around cause he liked blowing things up and they could direct it); but when they were in a dungeon with lots of puzzles they wanted my help solving them.

I knew the answers a few times but never helped, and after the third or so they struggled with they said 'even someone stupid is right once in a while', which I replied 'this stupid person would have solved three puzzles in a row, figure it out yourself or let me disintegrate the puzzle'

Separating yourself from your character can be tough, and if it does so to the detriment of other player's goals it can create frustration. Handling that dichotomy is a big part of maturity as a role player in my mind.

As far as I'm concerned if I'm putting up puzzles that only one player at the table can solve consistently the problem isn't that you're playing a low int character, the problem is that I'm not designing my content to be fun for everyone at the table.

That frustration is on the DM, not you. It's not your job to worry about other character's goals unless there is a friendship there in-game, and even then only insofar as to what your character is capable of doing to help. It's on the DM to make sure that he knows everyone's alignments and goals and creates scenarios that allow success despite character differences. I take it on myself to know each and every character at my table in as much detail as the players behind them do.

A quick solution would be to have insight/perception rolls from the high INT/WIS characters and give out hints on successes. Just because the players can't figure it out doesn't mean their characters wouldn't be able to, and vice versa.

[EggKookoo]

This is all why you can fail rolls. You're not brilliant all the time just because you have 20 int, sometimes you'll roll less than 5 and fail an insight or arcana check. As far as alignment goes... I may not be as good as possible all the time but I'm never just outright evil.

What's the difference between rolling dice to see if you have a flash of brilliance or you let your own mind create a flash of brilliance? Why are dice so important?

If my normally dimwitted character has a flash of genius because of a dice roll, that's rollplaying? But if if he has that flash of brilliance because, as a player, I was suddenly struck by a brilliant idea, that's not roleplaying? What if I get a flash of brilliance because I, as a player, decided to use an Inspiration die to beef up my roll? See how that kind of muddies the waters?

Roleplaying isn't about the specific method you use to get to the results. Roleplaying is about making meaningful choices and following through with them, and dealing with the consequences.


It's ok to play that way, really, but its not roleplaying. Playing your alignment is not "optional". Making decisions through the eyes of the character you created is not "optional". Having a character flaw and choosing to ignore it when it's convenient is not "optional".

What if it's not about it being more convenient but rather it's about it being more interesting? Again, I come back to asking why a dice roll is legit but a creative play decision is not?


Having said that, if my players all wanted to play like you do I'd allow it, but to me it wouldn't really be roleplaying. You're just playing tabletop WoW at that point.

Hey now, them's fightin' words!

I don't consider WoW true roleplaying mainly because I have such limited control over such decisions. I'm 100% slave to the game engine. WoW is an action game dressed up in RPG trimmings (don't get me wrong, I've been playing since vanilla, but I know what it is).

In my tabletop games, what's most important is that you can make unique choices not limited by a gaming convention like your class or race. Your choice might conflict with those conventions -- such as the paladin example above -- but you still get to make that choice. The other "most important" thing is that the results of your choice are specific to your choice, and the consequences affect later gameplay.

In order to play a game like that, I can't allow PC-on-PC interaction to be restricted by dice rolls. They can certainly include dice rolls, if the players are okay with that. But if a player with a low-INT PC comes up with something really brilliant, I'm going to let him act it out through his character. If dice mattered, I'd just pretend he rolled a 20.

If a player is trying to use his PC to persuade another PC of something, I'll let the second player make the decision if his PC is convinced. I allow this because it's entirely possible and believable that you accept my argument as sound and reasonable and still reject it simply because you don't feel like being persuaded by another person. That's what I mean when I say you choose to be persuaded.


Character depth, personality development, and learning to put yourself into someone elses shoes and do things as they would do, not as you would do, (especially then) are what makes roleplaying roleplaying.

I agree completely when it comes to physical tasks, or things like perception checks. There's a pretty clear line between the player's body and the character's body.

It's too fuzzy for me when it comes to mental or emotional tasks. There's too much ambiguity for the game system to model, so we bypass it. I encourage players to consider their PC's INT/WIS/etc. stats when making such decisions, but in the end I usually let their choices stand unless it's very clear they're making use of information that their PC would never have.


One more time I'll ask... if you don't want to always adhere to something on the sheet, why put it on the sheet at all? Why not just create the character without that restriction or trait? From everything you've said you're just playing yourself when you play.

I believe I answered that. They're guidelines. The player is usually rewarded when sticking to them but not explicitly punished otherwise.

[Millface]

I was saying that the game already has a built in system for the realism that is character bumbles and flashes of brilliance. Not necessarily that you can't manufacture those on your own, I can see benefits to both, but the system is already in place. Your character has a flash of brilliance when he has a 10 int but rolls a nat 20 on his insight check.

I like that better because in reality you don't get to just decide when you want to have a flash or brilliance or a brain fart. The rolls make it random, and that makes a ton of sense to me. Inspiration is there as a kind of reward that lets you decide one time that you get a flash when you need it most. The system seems to be built around my way of thinking on this.

When someone is playing a stupid character and they want to answer something they know they're probably too stupid to come up with I'll have them roll insight to account for the slight chance that this is, in fact, one of their moments of brilliance. The die rolls are there to defend against the very muddled lines between your INT/WIS/CHA and the characters that you're so worried about. It's all solved in the rules.

As far as your definition of roleplaying I agree, except that those meaningful choices and consequences should be made in the scope of the character you've created, otherwise, again, you're just playing yourself. Which is ok, but not why I or many others play the game. If you want to be you, but with magic, and see how you'd handle things in an adventure there's some real fun in that. That's how I played at first. Eventually I got bored with that and now I want to pretend to be someone else entirely. At that point you have to make decisions not as you, but as this person you've created. Not with your intelligence, but with theirs, not with your ability with words, but theirs.

Whether you're having to hold back, or you're not nearly good enough to demonstrate how miraculously talented they are there are dice rolls to fill the gaps. So yeah, having a stroke of brilliance because you decide to is not roleplaying and rolling the dice for it is. It's the difference between playing yourself and playing your character in instances where you personally have more INT than your PC does. You have strokes of brilliance more often than they do, so some need held back, dice rolls tell you which ones.

[EggKookoo]

I like that better because in reality you don't get to just decide when you want to have a flash or brilliance or a brain fart. The rolls make it random, and that makes a ton of sense to me.

Well, I don't really choose to have a flash of brilliance as a player, either. The idea just comes to me. I (and my players) find it much more fun if we're allowed to capitalize on those bursts of insight -- which again, are effectively random for us -- than to get the burst but not be able to use it because the die came up a 3.

It's similar to the old 3e version of a critical hit. You roll a 20... but don't get all excited there, kid. We still need to roll confirmation and... yeah, it's not a critical. You just got worked up over "normal." Hey, why are you fiddling with your iPhone..?

Why put someone through all that work just to let them down? Player flashes of brilliance aren't any more reliable than dice, but they feel genuine, because they are.


As far as your definition of roleplaying I agree, except that those meaningful choices and consequences should be made in the scope of the character you've created, otherwise, again, you're just playing yourself. Which is ok, but not why I or many others play the game. If you want to be you, but with magic, and see how you'd handle things in an adventure there's some real fun in that. That's how I played at first. Eventually I got bored with that and now I want to pretend to be someone else entirely. At that point you have to make decisions not as you, but as this person you've created. Not with your intelligence, but with theirs, not with your ability with words, but theirs.

I've probably been miscommunicating. It's not an either-or thing with me. You play a kind of managed hybrid.

See, my belief is you really play my way, you just categorize your concepts in a way that makes it not seem that way. When the DM asks "what do you do?" you are literally incapable of coming up with a response using your PC's brain. Your PC doesn't have a brain. He has some stats you can use as parameters for mental actions when certain very specific circumstances come up. But in a general "what am I intending to do about this?" kind of way, it's all you.

If you disagree, next time you play make sure to ask your DM to describe every single sensory detail that's hitting your character, down to subtle temperature and odor variations and how the air feels on your PC's skin. AT ALL TIMES. It won't take long for your DM to get annoyed, because he's expecting you to fill a lot of that detail in on your own using your own imagination. And rightly so. And once you do that, you've injected "yourself" into the game.

[Millface]

Well, I don't really choose to have a flash of brilliance as a player, either. The idea just comes to me. I (and my players) find it much more fun if we're allowed to capitalize on those bursts of insight -- which again, are effectively random for us -- than to get the burst but not be able to use it because the die came up a 3.



Then play high INT characters? Or at least slightly above average (12-14)

If you play a character of average intelligence then I don't require insight rolls when you have good ideas because you're playing a character with more or less the same intelligence as you have. The frequency of ideas is going to be comparable enough to let that go.

Of course you're inserted in the game, but you're being someone else. If you know the character well you don't need the sheet. You become this person. I have goals in mind. "What do you do?" like when I decide in real life what to do I pass that through my parameters of "How does this help me? Whats the easiest way to do this? How does this affect others?" I do the same thing only instead of comparing it to my beliefs and alignment and goals I line it up to my character's.

If my character is selfish I usually stop after "How does this help me and what's the easiest way?". You use your own intelligence/cha/wis up to the point where your character has more, this is where insight/perception/knowledge checks come in. If you have more than your character you have to weed out some of your ideas every now and then. If you don't like doing that you can just play 12 int/wis/cha characters. I don't see the need for misplaying the character when you literally make it from scratch. If you don't have fun playing to his weaknesses don't create one that has that weakness, if you do enjoy that kind of thing though as a DM I expect you want to be told when you're inserting too much of yourself into the character.

There's no reason in the world to play a 6 int character if you don't enjoy the challenge of being stupid when you're not.

[EggKookoo]

Then play high INT characters? Or at least slightly above average (12-14).

All the time, just so I can leverage an occasional flash of brilliance? I don't see that as any more realistic.

Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a improv class? While the point of improv is to act within the bounds of your character, it's also important to know how to grow your character beyond his initial definition. Character growth is an important part of storytelling, and that's second cousin to roleplaying.

I agree that you shouldn't be playing your character willy-nilly. But if my "dimwitted" character starts having moments of genius, then he's become a "dimwitted with moments of genius" character, which can be a lot more fun to play. But D&D doesn't model that particularly well, so my solution is to let it spill over into player choice. It works well for us.

The key is to grow the character in an internally-consistent way. If the PC has a fear of heights one day, he should have it the next day. But it's perfectly consistent to have a dimwit who has unpredictable flashes of genius. You agree; you just think those flashes should come only at the call of a die roll. I think they can either come at a die roll or at a true flash of insight on the part of the player.


If you have more than your character you have to weed out some of your ideas every now and then.

If it came close to ever breaking my game, I would. Maybe my players aren't brilliant enough for it to matter. :-)

Ok, we're kind of talking over each other. I need to be AFK for a bit anyway, so the floor's yours.

(I don't know about you but I'm loving this debate. It's rare to have one online that doesn't devolve into a shoutfest.)

[Millface]

All the time, just so I can leverage an occasional flash of brilliance? I don't see that as any more realistic.

Out of curiosity, have you ever taken a improv class? While the point of improv is to act within the bounds of your character, it's also important to know how to grow your character beyond his initial definition. Character growth is an important part of storytelling, and that's second cousin to roleplaying.

I agree that you shouldn't be playing your character willy-nilly. But if my "dimwitted" character starts having moments of genius, then he's become a "dimwitted with moments of genius" character, which can be a lot more fun to play. But D&D doesn't model that particularly well, so my solution is to let it spill over into player choice. It works well for us.

The key is to grow the character in an internally-consistent way. If the PC has a fear of heights one day, he should have it the next day. But it's perfectly consistent to have a dimwit who has unpredictable flashes of genius. You agree; you just think those flashes should come only at the call of a die roll. I think they can either come at a die roll or at a true flash of insight on the part of the player.

Then you're not playing a character with an int of 6, you're playing a character with an int of YOU. If the character has a flash of brilliance every time you do you're playing it as your intelligence, not his.

If you want to play like that there's no reason not to just make your characters have higher intelligence, because you clearly don't enjoy have the weakness that says "This character doesn't make connections and deductions as often as I do, therefore I can't speak up every time I have one".

This is why INT is so common a dump stat. People just play to their own intelligence no matter how low the character's is. Not speaking in big words doesn't make you stupid. Being unable to understand concepts and make logical connections makes you stupid. If your character is stupid he should be doing this far less than you, unless you are stupid in real life, but you clearly aren't.


Edit: I agree 110%, I'm glad that you're not taking my difference in opinion as an offense to you or how you play, that's rare. Civil debate is like, totally my favorite thing :P Plus as a DM it's always good to get other perspectives. My players think I'm great but I never want to stop improving for them.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, one last one for now...


Then you're not playing a character with an int of 6, you're playing a character with an int of YOU. If the character has a flash of brilliance every time you do you're playing it as your intelligence, not his.

That's true... up until I need to make an INT save and that 6 comes up and bites me in the ass. Or I find an item and try to make a check to identify it. Or any time the PC needs to actually dredge up some factual knowledge that the player doesn't have, which can be quite often. At that point I'm playing a hybrid, which has always been my position on it.

My thing is -- I generally only allow such saves when dealing with in-game threats, e.g. NPCs. I usually don't worry about it when it's PC-on-PC interaction. Again, unless both players want to go with dice.

Ok, be back later...

[Millface]

Ok, one last one for now...



That's true... up until I need to make an INT save and that 6 comes up and bites me in the ass. Or I find an item and try to make a check to identify it. Or any time the PC needs to actually dredge up some factual knowledge that the player doesn't have, which can be quite often. At that point I'm playing a hybrid, which has always been my position on it.

My thing is -- I generally only allow such saves when dealing with in-game threats, e.g. NPCs. I usually don't worry about it when it's PC-on-PC interaction. Again, unless both players want to go with dice.

Ok, be back later...


This could be a difference in our tables! My players get super into their characters. Feeling what they feel, connecting with NPCs and other players through the character's eyes, not so much their own.

In that case it's a bigger deal when your 6 int or 6 cha only come into play vs. NPCs or with saving throws and skill checks. The PCs change and grow often times based on their interactions with each other, and if your character acts like an INT of 12 in all matters but saving throws the party will perceive you as such, and therefore not get the same roleplay value as they might if your character was actually dimwitted. They enjoy seeing everyone's strengths and helping with or succeeding despite everyone's flaws. We sit down and start and it's 5 completely different people in a snap. My friends I've known for years become something else. Smart people turn stupid, impulsive people become patient and wise, the most kind hearted, optimistic girl I know turns sinister and jaded. Some of them have changed along the way, but in ways that make sense for their characters in the face of what they've been through.

An evil rogue who started as a spy for the big bad in the party (who had a lonely, desperate backstory) has been awed by some of the other's willingness to put themselves in harms way for her. Her view on the world has changed because of a dim witted but kind PC who, because he was too dumb to see her for what she was, extended a friendly hand to her. (the player knew she was evil, the character couldn't see it)

I see a hundred ways that my campaign could have lost so much depth and emotion if everyone hadn't played to the letter of their sheet, because that's the person they chose to play, good and bad, strengths and flaws.

Your stats, especially INT/WIS/CHA are a reflection of your character, and very much a part of who they are. If a character has lived with 20 STR and 6 INT for most of his life, it shapes him, it has been a deciding factor in who he is and what he focuses on and cares about. He could be mean because he was picked on, quick to jump to aggression because he's insecure about his intelligence and compensates with brute strength. Or he could be clueless and innocent, blissful in his ignorance and kind like only a child can be. He could look at the world with hate, or with wide eyes and wonder. All of it because he grew up less intelligent than most.

In this way if you don't play to those stats when they're low you aren't playing your character. At least not at my table. When we sit down to play who we walked in as takes a back seat and we become someone else. When we retire characters they seem more like old friends than pieces of paper or slightly altered affectations of ourselves.

This is going to sound supremely nerdy, but at a certain point you stop piloting the characters and the character starts piloting you.

[rollingForInit]

Then you're not playing a character with an int of 6, you're playing a character with an int of YOU. If the character has a flash of brilliance every time you do you're playing it as your intelligence, not his.


Just wanna point out that there's no definition of what an Intelligence score even means, beyond the modifiers on checks. Does 6 mean you're completely mentally disabled? Or does it mean that you're very bad at certain intellectual things? Perhaps you really, really suck at logical problem solving, mathematics, deductions, and so on, but sometimes you can still have more abstract strikes of genius, like coming up with a clever infiltration plan, or a good combat strategy.

Say that you're a level 5 character with Int 6. You've got proficiency in Investigation and History. That means you can still score 21 on Investigation and History checks. And you can score 18 on all other Intelligence checks. Which is a good roll, and the likelihood of scoring it isn't really that much less than that of an Int 10 human. All those average or above average skill checks that you can make can easily translate into flashes of brilliance outside of skill checks.

[Shining Wrath]

Just wanna point out that there's no definition of what an Intelligence score even means, beyond the modifiers on checks. Does 6 mean you're completely mentally disabled? Or does it mean that you're very bad at certain intellectual things? Perhaps you really, really suck at logical problem solving, mathematics, deductions, and so on, but sometimes you can still have more abstract strikes of genius, like coming up with a clever infiltration plan, or a good combat strategy.

Say that you're a level 5 character with Int 6. You've got proficiency in Investigation and History. That means you can still score 21 on Investigation and History checks. And you can score 18 on all other Intelligence checks. Which is a good roll, and the likelihood of scoring it isn't really that much less than that of an Int 10 human. All those average or above average skill checks that you can make can easily translate into flashes of brilliance outside of skill checks.

I think there's room for a low-INT character who has an intuitive understanding of combat tactics. My ranger has INT = 10, and probably couldn't spell "enfilade" if you spotted her both "e's", but when people were popping out from behind trees, firing, and returning to cover, she was smart enough to flank them - because I view a ranger (or fighter, or paladin) as having some sort of formal training in combat somewhere along the line ... that's implied, I think, by proficiency in martial weapons.

[Millface]

Just wanna point out that there's no definition of what an Intelligence score even means, beyond the modifiers on checks. Does 6 mean you're completely mentally disabled? Or does it mean that you're very bad at certain intellectual things? Perhaps you really, really suck at logical problem solving, mathematics, deductions, and so on, but sometimes you can still have more abstract strikes of genius, like coming up with a clever infiltration plan, or a good combat strategy.

Say that you're a level 5 character with Int 6. You've got proficiency in Investigation and History. That means you can still score 21 on Investigation and History checks. And you can score 18 on all other Intelligence checks. Which is a good roll, and the likelihood of scoring it isn't really that much less than that of an Int 10 human. All those average or above average skill checks that you can make can easily translate into flashes of brilliance outside of skill checks.

According to the PHB Intelligence measures Mental Acuity, Recall, and the Ability to Reason. 6 isn't crippling, but you aren't at all good at remembering things you've learned or making logical connections.

Point is that with an int of 6 you're going to have fewer ideas than you do in real life with your int of 10-16 and in my mind if you spout out ideas at the same rate as you have them you're not doing your lower intelligence justice. This character has had a low int for their entire life, their inability to solve problems as quickly or remember things as well as others should be a pretty big part of who they are. If you just use your intelligence instead, and have ideas at the same rate you do in RL, then none of that makes sense.

Can you forego rolls and just trash 4/5 of your problem solving ideas? Sure. But my players prefer to roll when they have a solution that they thought of with their intelligence of 12 to see if their character with 6 would have the same thought. Of course, my players embrace their flaws and even if they had an epiphany they probably wouldn't even ask to roll it because being slow, if they chose to be slow, is part of their character, they love their characters, and don't want them to be smart if being less intelligent was a factor in their personality or backstory. If your character is meant to be "Slow with occasional brilliance" then by all means, have a great idea now and then, but I'm used to that being on the character sheet because my players put tons of thought into these characters and who they want them to be before they ever even sit down to play for the first time.

[Millface]

I think there's room for a low-INT character who has an intuitive understanding of combat tactics. My ranger has INT = 10, and probably couldn't spell "enfilade" if you spotted her both "e's", but when people were popping out from behind trees, firing, and returning to cover, she was smart enough to flank them - because I view a ranger (or fighter, or paladin) as having some sort of formal training in combat somewhere along the line ... that's implied, I think, by proficiency in martial weapons.

This is a wonderful point. Lower intelligence means less recall, and your ranger is using most of their available brain space to remember details about nature, tracking, and combat mechanics.

It would track that this character would not be a great problem solver underground, or in social situations. If you did have a high Charisma but low intelligence then you play your charisma differently. Instead of being well spoken and eloquent you would be delightfully dumb or child like. You can always say the wrong thing or be awkward and still draw people to you.

10 int is a really fun space, because it allows you the mental capacity to be good at one or two things, but not everything. Higher INT means you can be more knowledgeable about more things. Lower means less. It's not that difficult to correctly represent when playing your character.

INT/WIS/CHA are not described with near enough diversity.

You can be stupid but good at something (instinct), you can be Charismatic and bad with words. When my players have high Charisma or Intelligence I always ask them "In what way are you smart? Book smarts, street smarts, both?" and "How are you charismatic? Well spoken? Gorgeous? Intimidating? Adorable?"

Then they play to that.

[EggKookoo]

Can you forego rolls and just trash 4/5 of your problem solving ideas? Sure. But my players prefer to roll when they have a solution that they thought of with their intelligence of 12 to see if their character with 6 would have the same thought. Of course, my players embrace their flaws and even if they had an epiphany they probably wouldn't even ask to roll it because being slow, if they chose to be slow, is part of their character, they love their characters, and don't want them to be smart if being less intelligent was a factor in their personality or backstory. If your character is meant to be "Slow with occasional brilliance" then by all means, have a great idea now and then, but I'm used to that being on the character sheet because my players put tons of thought into these characters and who they want them to be before they ever even sit down to play for the first time.

Just to be clear here, my players are generally the same. They'll take a look at their stats and try to play to them as much as they can. I just don't punish them for wanting to run with something even if it's slightly out of character. Rule of cool and all.


If your character is stupid he should be doing this far less than you, unless you are stupid in real life, but you clearly aren't.

Oh, give me time.

[TurboGhast]

One thing that could help with this to tell your idea to the group OOC, but ask someone else to have it be their idea IC. The idea is used and you can keep roleplaying to your low INT scores accurately.

[Jadzia Dax]

Dude. Your group seems to not be able to make the distinction between characters and players. This is arguably a bigger problem!

Gonna come clean here: I've never played a game in my life, despite really really wanting to. Parents forbid it for some weird reason. I only 'sorta' understand dnd at all. Any help is greatly appreciated.

[EggKookoo]

Gonna come clean here: I've never played a game in my life, despite really really wanting to. Parents forbid it for some weird reason. I only 'sorta' understand dnd at all. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Do you have people you could play with if they allowed it? Could you find out why your parents forbid it?

No shame in not playing. Keep your enthusiasm up and maybe someday you'll get to.

[Hawkstar]

Depends on the players. Best case scenario is Mr. Charisma makes his roll and the players take into account the roll when deciding what to do. Neither persuasion nor Charm person turns you into a lobotomized drone. And of course, his past track record will weigh heavily on the reactions of the party. If his ideas constantly wind up with them screwed, it doesn't matter how persuasive he is unless their characters are idiots.
Honestly, I could see a high-CHA PC being that kind of "Friend you really shouldn't follow, but do anyway". But, in this situation, it sounds like the party's not buying into that sort of game.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, I could see a high-CHA PC being that kind of "Friend you really shouldn't follow, but do anyway". But, in this situation, it sounds like the party's not buying into that sort of game.

True enough, and I think we all have those friends. If you don't, you probably are that friend. :tongue: But usually after a little experience you know what level of trouble you're getting yourself in for, how badly it's likely to go and know that he's not going to get you killed. That last one can be different from a typical D&D game.

[goto124]

I go by 'don't force people to roleplay'. If they're playing a 6 Int character, aren't being disruptive (which I handle separately), and act like a normal Int person, I would allow it.

'Let people roleplay' and 'forcing people to roleplay your way' are rather different. You can set up roleplay parameters before the game starts [no evil characters please]. You can have restrictions to prevent disruptive behavior.

But not allowing to act 'out-of-character' when the player is purposely doing it to to be non-disruptive?

Back to persuasion... I'm honestly surprised to see players who're alright with their chars being 'convinced' by other characters. Sounds like very close-knit groups made of the best of friends.

Why must a PC persuade another PC anyway? If the player wants an in-universe excuse to not perform a disruptive action, which would otherwise be 'out-of-character', that's fine. But why should my character act in a manner I don't get to choose, or do something when I don't want her to do it, when not doing that something is non-disruptive OOCly?

[Sigreid]

I go by 'don't force people to roleplay'. If they're playing a 6 Int character, aren't being disruptive (which I handle separately), and act like a normal Int person, I would allow it.

'Let people roleplay' and 'forcing people to roleplay your way' are rather different. You can set up roleplay parameters before the game starts [no evil characters please]. You can have restrictions to prevent disruptive behavior.

But not allowing to act 'out-of-character' when the player is purposely doing it to to be non-disruptive?

I never understood the ban on evil. I could see putting a ban on characters that are going to be disruptive, but usually if I play an evil character he or she is typically subtle evil. In other words they'll do whatever benefits them that they can get away with cleanly, be more brutal with enemies and rivals, work the angles, etc. On the flip side, they are interested in saving the world (to quote Starlord "I'm one of the idiots that lives there") and do understand the value of strong allies that will stand with them. And if they can bend their allies to their way of thinking all the better.

[goto124]

Everyone, about the evil argument, there's a thread called 'On evil PCs' in the generic Roleplaying Games section. To keep it short, there are DMs who'd had one too many bad experiences with 'evil' chars, and don't want to risk it. Maybe it's somewhat irrational, but again, off-topic and fits better in another thread.

On-topic, why does my PC have to be persuaded by another PC /with rolls/, without OOC agreement?

[rollingForInit]

According to the PHB Intelligence measures Mental Acuity, Recall, and the Ability to Reason. 6 isn't crippling, but you aren't at all good at remembering things you've learned or making logical connections.

Point is that with an int of 6 you're going to have fewer ideas than you do in real life with your int of 10-16 and in my mind if you spout out ideas at the same rate as you have them you're not doing your lower intelligence justice. This character has had a low int for their entire life, their inability to solve problems as quickly or remember things as well as others should be a pretty big part of who they are. If you just use your intelligence instead, and have ideas at the same rate you do in RL, then none of that makes sense.


But are you really going to have fewer ideas? Why? Brilliant ideas are generally more than just intelligence. If my Int 6 Fighter is a 50-year-old veteran Fighter, he'd probably come up with twice the amount of good combat plans, ambushes, and so on, than I would, since I've never even been in a fistfight. I see it as perfectly reasonable for such a character to come up with clever ideas out of sheer experience.

Now, if he wanted to start solving puzzles or connecting dots during a mystery, I'd buy that he should have fewer brilliant insights than me. Although we usually do problem-solving and such with actual Int rolls anyway, so no problem there.

[silverkyo]

I go by 'don't force people to roleplay'. If they're playing a 6 Int character, aren't being disruptive (which I handle separately), and act like a normal Int person, I would allow it.

'Let people roleplay' and 'forcing people to roleplay your way' are rather different. You can set up roleplay parameters before the game starts [no evil characters please]. You can have restrictions to prevent disruptive behavior.

But not allowing to act 'out-of-character' when the player is purposely doing it to to be non-disruptive?

Back to persuasion... I'm honestly surprised to see players who're alright with their chars being 'convinced' by other characters. Sounds like very close-knit groups made of the best of friends.

Why must a PC persuade another PC anyway? If the player wants an in-universe excuse to not perform a disruptive action, which would otherwise be 'out-of-character', that's fine. But why should my character act in a manner I don't get to choose, or do something when I don't want her to do it, when not doing that something is non-disruptive OOCly?

Forcing people to roleplay is definitely the wrong approach, you should never force a player to do anything thy don't want to because the ultimate goal of the DM is to facilitate fun, and being fun, and being forced is never fun. What I do is reward good roleplay of a character with either advantage or inspiration depending on the situation, because even people who dislike it will usually start to slowly try it. I find the major issue, especially with new players, is that they don't really grasp the concept of HOW to roleplay or be a character that isn't you.

[EggKookoo]

Timely post by The Angry GM.

http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-the-suckiest-ability-scores-ever/

[Millface]

I go by 'don't force people to roleplay'. If they're playing a 6 Int character, aren't being disruptive (which I handle separately), and act like a normal Int person, I would allow it.

'Let people roleplay' and 'forcing people to roleplay your way' are rather different. You can set up roleplay parameters before the game starts [no evil characters please]. You can have restrictions to prevent disruptive behavior.

But not allowing to act 'out-of-character' when the player is purposely doing it to to be non-disruptive?

Back to persuasion... I'm honestly surprised to see players who're alright with their chars being 'convinced' by other characters. Sounds like very close-knit groups made of the best of friends.

Why must a PC persuade another PC anyway? If the player wants an in-universe excuse to not perform a disruptive action, which would otherwise be 'out-of-character', that's fine. But why should my character act in a manner I don't get to choose, or do something when I don't want her to do it, when not doing that something is non-disruptive OOCly?


My table started off mostly as newbies, so of course I did teach them to play with my idea of the most fun and rewarding ways to do that in mind, but I definitely don't force them to play quirky characters or characters vastly different from themselves. If a player came to me with a 6 int character I would explain to them what that means, ask them the effect it had on their upbringing and personality, we would talk about what this would or would not mean to the character. After that, yes, the other players and myself expect you to roleplay that. I'm not a jackass if you don't, but I'll bring it up. If you absolutely can't or don't want to we'll just reroll you something different that you like better.

Technically I guess you can say I do force roleplay, but I don't force you to pick something that would be difficult or different from your own personality. My player who doesn't like RP as much usually plays characters very much like himself. I have no problem with that.

[Millface]

Timely post by The Angry GM.

http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-the-suckiest-ability-scores-ever/

He definitely agrees with you, lol.

I still hold that there's a middle ground and that low INT shouldn't be ignored when it can just be rolled as higher INT at creation. If you don't want to hold back ideas don't come to me with a 6 int character. My mind isn't really going to change on that one. When you create a character with low intelligence the assumption is that it's because you want to roleplay a low intelligence character. If that's not the case it tells me you're using INT as a dump stat because you can largely ignore it in order to get higher stats and abuse the system to alter the balance in your favor. Something I'm also not generally ok with.

As far as "hint rolls" are concerned in puzzles, I only do those if the party is stumped for long periods of time. Angry GM says it's not fun, what's not fun is being stuck on the same puzzle for hours. If you hand out hints at the very beginning that's a problem, you should let high INT characters try to solve it with the INT they have as a player first, only when that fails do you tap into the excess INT of the character.

[MadBear]

He definitely agrees with you, lol.

I still hold that there's a middle ground and that low INT shouldn't be ignored when it can just be rolled as higher INT at creation. If you don't want to hold back ideas don't come to me with a 6 int character. My mind isn't really going to change on that one. When you create a character with low intelligence the assumption is that it's because you want to roleplay a low intelligence character. If that's not the case it tells me you're using INT as a dump stat because you can largely ignore it in order to get higher stats and abuse the system to alter the balance in your favor. Something I'm also not generally ok with.

As far as "hint rolls" are concerned in puzzles, I only do those if the party is stumped for long periods of time. Angry GM says it's not fun, what's not fun is being stuck on the same puzzle for hours. If you hand out hints at the very beginning that's a problem, you should let high INT characters try to solve it with the INT they have as a player first, only when that fails do you tap into the excess INT of the character.

I find it more a problem of the stat's trying to represent too many things at once. What does a 6 intelligence really tell you? Is it that you're dumb? What if about a person who has a really good memory, but is crappy at applying it to solve problems? What if a person is really good at solving problems, but his memory is crap?

When we look back at what intelligence means in-game, it's usually used to represent knowledge that you have. What if I want my character to be a genius, but he's been sheltered and doesn't know squat. If I give him an 18 intelligence, he'll have a +4 to rolls that he shouldn't get.

Now this criticism works across all the stats. If I want a guy who has quick reactions, but isn't agile, there isn't a way to model that properly. Converselly, if I want a guy who can walk a tightrope, but his reaction time is awful, I can't really model that well either.

So I don't see a problem with a low intelligence character solving problems. Maybe that's not how the player see's the low intelligence mark.

in the end, if there's a problem like this, it should be solved ooc, and not have in-game consequences. that leads to a bad time for everyone involved.

As far as the OP's charisma bully, you can throw me into the camp of "PC's should not get to roll charisma checks against other PC's".

[Millface]

I find it more a problem of the stat's trying to represent too many things at once. What does a 6 intelligence really tell you? Is it that you're dumb? What if about a person who has a really good memory, but is crappy at applying it to solve problems? What if a person is really good at solving problems, but his memory is crap?

When we look back at what intelligence means in-game, it's usually used to represent knowledge that you have. What if I want my character to be a genius, but he's been sheltered and doesn't know squat. If I give him an 18 intelligence, he'll have a +4 to rolls that he shouldn't get.

Now this criticism works across all the stats. If I want a guy who has quick reactions, but isn't agile, there isn't a way to model that properly. Converselly, if I want a guy who can walk a tightrope, but his reaction time is awful, I can't really model that well either.

So I don't see a problem with a low intelligence character solving problems. Maybe that's not how the player see's the low intelligence mark.

in the end, if there's a problem like this, it should be solved ooc, and not have in-game consequences. that leads to a bad time for everyone involved.

As far as the OP's charisma bully, you can throw me into the camp of "PC's should not get to roll charisma checks against other PC's".

What a low intelligence means in regards to how a character is played is something I discuss with the player at creation. "Ok, you have a very low intelligence score, what does this mean for your character? How is that represented, and how does it affect his or her personality?"

A DM can accomplish a great deal just by opening up a dialogue at creation about what's on a character sheet and how the player wants that to translate into the roleplaying experience. It solves the INT problem cleanly.

[MadBear]

What a low intelligence means in regards to how a character is played is something I discuss with the player at creation. "Ok, you have a very low intelligence score, what does this mean for your character? How is that represented, and how does it affect his or her personality?"

A DM can accomplish a great deal just by opening up a dialogue at creation about what's on a character sheet and how the player wants that to translate into the roleplaying experience. It solves the INT problem cleanly.

Ok then, so a low intelligence doesn't necessarily entail that their incapable of solving problems then. That's only the case if you and the player agreed that's what it meant ahead of time.

[Millface]

Ok then, so a low intelligence doesn't necessarily entail that their incapable of solving problems then. That's only the case if you and the player agreed that's what it meant ahead of time.

Exactly. I would expect them to have some sort of quirk or trait as a result of a thinking stat being that low, but what that is isn't exactly set in stone. Typically you'd be pretty bad at problem solving, but not always. If you are a sort of puzzle savant you're probably not great with words, your plans are simple, if not outright silly, and you're impulsive and forget information quickly and often. (These are just examples of ways to play low INT without necessarily being terrible at puzzles)

It is a disadvantage though, a weakness if not a flaw, and that should be represented in some way when you're roleplaying the character.

[EggKookoo]

He definitely agrees with you, lol.

He goes one step further, I think. He seems to have disdain for mental stats entirely, and seems to think D&D would be improved if they were removed (while admitting it's probably impossible).

I'm like you in that I feel a low/high INT should mean something. I just feel that it's so hard to play, at least for my players in our experience and according to our expectations of fun, that I don't punish players for bypassing it. I reward them for adhering to it, though.

I remember as a "young" player often wondering how to deal with the "what's my INT and what's my character's INT?" problem. This was exacerbated because we had a very charismatic and intimidating player who always played charismatic and intimidating characters. After a while I learned not to worry about it so much. I came to understand (or decide) that the dice are just tools for moving the game along, and not some kind of RPG micro-deities that must always be honored. I don't remember the specific instance but I'm sure it was probably some situation where the GM at the time made a fiat decision that was clearly in defiance of the dice, yet our game was improved because of it.

As a GM myself, I try to let the dice reinforce the players' decisions, not make them for them.

[goto124]

If that's not the case it tells me you're using INT as a dump stat because you can largely ignore it in order to get higher stats and abuse the system to alter the balance in your favor.

I dunno... don't dump stats come with their own mechanical problems already? Do you make people with Low Str and High Int roleplay the stats? Low/High Wis? Dex? Luck?

But that's besides the point, really. I believe stats are almost purely mechanical. Int does not actually refer to intelligence, it purely does exactly what the mechanics have already covered, such as casting spells better. Nothing more.

Though that works better when Int is refluffed as 'Magic Mastery' or something.

I won't mind playing under ChrisBasken.

[Millface]

I dunno... don't dump stats come with their own mechanical problems already? Do you make people with Low Str and High Int roleplay the stats? Low/High Wis? Dex? Luck?

But that's besides the point, really. I believe stats are almost purely mechanical. Int does not actually refer to intelligence, it purely does exactly what the mechanics have already covered, such as casting spells better. Nothing more.

Though that works better when Int is refluffed as 'Magic Mastery' or something.

I won't mind playing under ChrisBasken.

We talk about stats at creation and the exceptionally low/high ones and what they might mean. I have a Wizard in the party who, at this point, has 21 INT. Can the player actually be that smart? Of course not, but being smarter than everyone else in the room almost all the time has an effect on your personality. He's always been smarter than everyone else, and when I say "Plays to his INT" I mean he's thought about what that means for him, and how that changes how he treats other people.

Same for High WIS/CHA. Wisdom can mean a few things, but generally speaking it makes you more patient and willing to understand different points of view. Less wisdom probably means you're more impulsive with your decision making. Last time I got to play I ran a Halfling Bard with a Wisdom of 8. He worshiped the Tymora (goddess of luck) and was very impulsive. The only filters he had for decision making were "Does it fit my alignment?" and "Would it be fun?" He fancied himself quite lucky, and if their were consequences Tymora would bail him out with a dash of good fortune. To me this meant that even if I knew something was dangerous (player) I jumped on it anyway if it would offer a new experience for him. That's playing to your Wisdom. I didn't always do what I wanted, but I sure as hell always did what he wanted.

My players come up with a concept for a character, roll stats, apply those stats to make minor or sometimes even major personality traits, then write up a backstory and set short and long term goals. Then, when they come together as a party, I have them think up some short and long term goals as a team. What does the party want in the future and what do YOU want in the future.

As far as Chris goes, I wouldn't mind playing under him either, he seems like a great DM. Though if you played with me, and saw how it works at my table, I promise you'd still have fun. I don't want to come across the wrong way, that is the number one goal of my sessions and my campaign. It's all just a matter of how much thought and effort you want to put in to being someone that you're not. For some, it's the cornerstone of the game (my table) for others its a fun backdrop but it's not the number 1 priority (most tables).