Charisma rules

[GoldenDwarf]

What if a character gives a wonderful speech but then he rolls, even with advantage, really low on persuasion. It is logical that people will still listen because his words were true, speeches aren't really luck (d20). How would you rule this, are charisma checks often just not right?

[AbyssStalker]

I'd say give it to him, dice are meant to represent uncertainty, if the character delivered a thrilling speech that you believe would certainly be able to sway the crowd, than it should probably sway the crowd.

[Malifice]

To accompany the hiding thread: he farts.

[Shining Wrath]

Nothing stops you from rewarding a player who gives a good speech with advantage on the roll.

[ad_hoc]

Rolls are only made when the outcome is in doubt in some form.

You could just decide that the person/crowd is favourable to the character already for whatever reason and then either not roll at all or roll for a variable success.

Just whatever you do, decide what the consequence of the roll will be before it is called for (if you call for it at all).

[Occasional Sage]

a great speech which is based on incorrect facts will not sway me
if I have a preexisting reason to dislike the speaker, a great speech will often not sway me
making a great speech and converting entrenched fear/ennui/comfort into uncomfortable action are not the same thing


Just some quick thoughts if you want to justify the roll.

[Inevitability]

I believe this was actually called out in the playtest. They gave the example of a player giving a rousing speech to convince several tribes to join against a common threat, then rolled a one. The advice they gave there was to just ignore the roll.

I myself suggest the 'yes, but...' approach.

Yes, the speech convinces the tribe, but one of their champions steps forward and states that he should lead the tribes instead. The PC who was speeching will have to beat him in a hard encounter.

Yes, you persuade the guard to let you pass, but you'll have to bribe him.

Yes, you convince the merchant to give you a discount, but only if you buy some other equipment from him, too.

[GoldenDwarf]

Nothing stops you from rewarding a player who gives a good speech with advantage on the roll.
Advantage can still be two low numbers

[JumboWheat01]

If he rolls super low, then have him say something completely detrimental on the side out loud, not realizing that he no longer needs his "speech" voice and should've whispered what he just said to himself.

[Douche]

Yeah I don't like how some DMs make you roll on persuasion attempts like that...

Like, if you're going to make me roll for it anyway, I might as well just say "My character delivers an inspiring speech" or "I attempt to barter with the shopkeeper" in the most deadpan voice I can muster. Why bother roleplaying something if it's going to come down to a number regardless? (Not saying I don't like roleplaying, I prefer it... but if the DM is more interested in dice rolls, I'm not going to humor him)

A more creative DM would reward you if you gave a good speech or have super convincing arguments, and only make you roll in instances where the NPC you're trying to persuade has a reason to disagree with you... In the case of giving a speech to some troops, if it's going to give them some sort of buff or morale boost, it'd be cool to roll to see how effective your boost is... but if you gave a good speech in the first place, then it shouldn't come down to what numbers have on your character sheet.

[Shining Wrath]

Advantage can still be two low numbers

If you define "low" as "5 or less", about 1 time in 16.

[LordFluffy]

There are two wills at work in a speech: the audience and the speaker.

We've all heard brilliant, eloquent politicians give heartfelt speeches that fall flat on the ears of their opponents due to the sheer thickness of their preconceptions. Mistrust of outsiders, racism, or sheer stupidity can thwart even the most skilled of orators.

Admittedly, this can be modified in the difficulty.

I prefer to use charisma rolls only where the subject's motives are in doubt or run contrary to the PC's or if the PC only gives the framework of the deception/persuasion, but doesn't compose the speech themselves, "i.e. I try to talk the guard into taking a bribe".

A bad roll could be interpreted as diminished results (you get some people convinced, but not as many as you would have hoped, despite your well spoken protests) or an unexpected complication (a rebuttal comes from someone in the crowd that is just as convincing).

Or you can ignore it, which is perfectly reasonable, if the DM thinks so.

[EvilestWeevil]

If the player can string together a good, coherent, non-rambling speech, then they don't even need to roll a die to sway the right crowd. The crowd is important in this instance, but in the case of pointing out a tyrant is taking advantage in an already powder-keg situation, why roll? Its all about circumstances and context.

[Douche]

At the same time, I think if the player himself is a charismatic person, but has his character with low charisma, he should be encouraged to play with low charisma... It's not very realistic to be playing with a real life radio talk-show host (or something like that), whose character has a -2 cha modifier, and he's somehow got the ability to deliver a rousing speech despite the fact that his character should be stuttering and going off on tangents that no one can follow. Might be fair to have him roll in that situation.

[JackPhoenix]

If you insist on rolling, you may also do it the other way: Roll it first, roleplay the result (obviously, not every player is capable of this). Nat 20? Use the great speech you have thought out in advance. Nat 1? Well, I'm pretty sure you can improvise what went wrong. Maybe use your speech, but overdo it at the end? http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0421.html

[Segev]

Are you playing a game wherein you want to have your PCs able to depict vastly different amounts of social skill than the players, themselves, do? If so, you want to take what the player SAYS his player says as a guideline, and modify the in-character delivery according to the die roll. If Smarmy Playerson is the most eloquent girl you've ever met IRL, and she can talk the pants on to the drunkest, horniest frat boy that ever barged into a cosplay contest, but she's playing Gruff McHafork the Rude, her low Charisma roll represents that it doesn't matter that she's able to deliver a wonderfully eloquent speech, because her character...isn't.

On the other hand, if Tonguetie McTwist is playing Enrico Suave the high-charisma half-elf bard, and he can barely string two sentences together, the high roll means when Tonguetie says "I want to make the king agree to give us a +1 firebrand sword," his character gives an eloquent and cleverly-worded explanation of the task they're undertaking which makes it clear to the king that that +1 firebrand may be the difference between success and failure of the mission and the kingdom's very fortunes.


If you don't want to play at that level, if you'd rather have PCs be the players in costume and let the players' social capabilities rule the day, then don't roll unless you're not sure whether the players' presentation would be persuasive or not.

[coredump]

This is a weird area....

If someone's character has an 8 Str, we don't let it lift more just because the player is really strong.
Likewise, we don't change a PC's knowledge success based on the players Intelligence.

So.... it seems odd to let the PC benefit from the players Charisma. I mean, one of my PCs has an 8 Cha, can I, as a player, just give a really good speech and expect my DM to ignore that stat?
Do you make an attack auto-hit, or a lock-pick auto succeed, if the player describes it very well?

On the flip side, should my 20 Cha bard be penalized because I am shy or a poor speaker? Should the Cha 10 fighter be better at persuasion than my bard just because the fighter *player* is a better speaker than I am? If so, can my bard do more damage because I am stronger than the fighter's player?


OTOH, its cool if players get more involved...... but I think that is best served via Inspiration.

How I would handle it:

PC just tells me he talks to the townspeople and tries to get them to help him attack the goblins.
The PC rolls..... DC 20

PC tells me he talks to the townspeople, providing 3 good reasons why they should help him attack the goblins. (money, land, revenge, etc)
The PC rolls....DC 16

PC tells me he talks to the townspeople, provides some good reasons, and at least one great reason. (The Goblins are drunk, or sick, or whatever)
The PC rolls.....DC 13

The player acts out the speech and does a particularly good job.
The PC may get inspiration, which can be used on this roll.


In general, what the PC does should effect the game.... it shouldn't matter if the player describes the action or if he acts it out.

[SwordChuck]

I believe this was actually called out in the playtest. They gave the example of a player giving a rousing speech to convince several tribes to join against a common threat, then rolled a one. The advice they gave there was to just ignore the roll.

I myself suggest the 'yes, but...' approach.

Yes, the speech convinces the tribe, but one of their champions steps forward and states that he should lead the tribes instead. The PC who was speeching will have to beat him in a hard encounter.

Yes, you persuade the guard to let you pass, but you'll have to bribe him.

Yes, you convince the merchant to give you a discount, but only if you buy some other equipment from him, too.

The and-but method of DMing is, so far, the best style I've seen.

Yes/No but...

Yes/No and...

Just like when you ask a question, you never want that to be the and of it, you want it to lead somewhere and keep the situation/conversation flowing.

[Ouranos]

Roll against it. Think of a high DC and roll, no bonuses, against it. 16+. If they succeed, the speech just isn't received well or the people were too dumb to listen to it, etc. Or even just have him reroll it, perhaps with "The audience wasn't receptive at first, but were willing to let you finish."

[HoarsHalberd]

Give advantage on account of good roleplaying. Then tell him how his character delivered the speech. Failure: "Just before you get into the meat of your speech, your voice starts to crack, and you swear by the end of it, half the people are counting the number of times you say umm and not really listening to what you say." Otherwise everyone who doesn't need cha would just dump it and deliver convincing speeches. The players ability to perform tasks has no bearing on what their characters are capable of.

[Drackolus]

Should have allowed him to "take 10". Don't gotta roll everything.
Charisma definitely plays a big role. Remember, a 3 on the d20 can still be a 16 on a character with expertise.

[SwordChuck]

Should have allowed him to "take 10". Don't gotta roll everything.
Charisma definitely plays a big role. Remember, a 3 on the d20 can still be a 16 on a character with expertise.

That isn't how 5e works. Of there is no chance of failure, then there is no roll.

[krugaan]

To accompany the hiding thread: he farts.

The Fart Lawyer strikes again!

[Gryndle]

If a player comes up with a cool speech that impresses and the situation is logical, I just give it to them. I only make them roll if they are half-assing it or if the chance of failure is high.

I also encourage my players to do things like this. If one of my players comes up with an innovative plan, an inspiring speech, a truly impressive bit of roleplaying or something that just makes me laugh until I can't breathe, then I give them a special d20 that they can roll and apply as either a bonus or penalty to any one roll at the table. Each player can have only one of these dice at a time. My players are always trying to earn one of these (and I usually keep them challenged enough that at least one is spent per session)

[Ruslan]

A die roll is a tool for the DM to decide what happens when he's not sure.

In case of a character walking up a normal flight of stairs, you don't ask "but what happens if he rolls very poorly on his Dexterity check?", do you? Of course not. There is no Dexterity check to begin with. The DM knows there is only one outcome possible to this action - the character reaches the top of the stairs - and narrates it accordingly.

In case of a character delivering an impassionate speech, the DM should ask himself - are there multiple outcomes possible? Is there any reason the speech should fail? Not the nebulous "he rolled badly on his Charisma check", but an ingame reason. Perhaps the character is offering too risky of a plan? Perhaps he could be shouted down by hecklers? Any other reason the crowd might not like the speech?

Once the DM has come up with such reasons, he can ask for a Charisma roll. If the roll fails, well, the DM is ready with an ingame justification of why they don't like the speech!

And if the DM can't come up with justifications why the crowd won't like the speech - well, he shouldn't be asking for a roll to begin with. If you think the crowd should accept the speech, they just accept it. They're NPCs under your control, after all.

[strangebloke]

I'm very fond of making characters play their own rolls. When you think about it, that's exactly how... every other skill check in the game works. "I try to climb the wall." *roll a 3* "Your grip slips and you fall on your butt."

"I try to convince them to help us." *roll a 2* "We need a bunch of expendable minions. You're up."

My bigger issue was when I had a party of players who were all lying to each other. OoC one player was a total open book. Nice guy, but he couldn't resist giggling quietly every time he lied in character. IC, though... he was a half-fey bard with ludicrous levels of persuade.

Very frustrating to some of the players there, and a real test of their gaming chops not to metagame and suspect him anyway.

[Theodoxus]

I'm sorry, but what was the DC, and how was it based? A group Intuit roll? Seems like a speech to Persuade isn't exactly what the skill is built for.

[Eisenheim]

I want to argue strongly against ignoring a role you would otherwise use to determine the outcome based on the player's performance.
Would you ignore the attack role for a great description of swordplay? Ignoring the role here is the same thing.

[Ruslan]

I want to argue strongly against ignoring a role you would otherwise use to determine the outcome based on the player's performance.
Would you ignore the attack role for a great description of swordplay? Ignoring the role here is the same thing.This is a false analogy.

D&D is a roleplaying game which has rules for simulation of combat.

The combat should be, and is, simulated. The roleplay should be real.

[SwordChuck]

This is a false analogy.

D&D is a roleplaying game which has rules for simulation of combat.

The combat should be, and is, simulated. The roleplay should be real.

Combat is not simulated through D&D. D&D combat is abstract. Also, D&D is an abstract combat game that has elements of role-playing.

Simulations tend to try to get things exact, D&D definitely does not do that.

[Dimolyth]

On my table, it depends a lot from situation.
There are examples when rolling is not that important - when a 100gp rich PC tries to persuade a taverner for 10% reduction because he is infamious hero. If the player roleplays in convincung matter and there is the zero level plot importence - player can roleplay. With my personal displeasure, but just "I`d like to convince the taverner for reduction" and roll - will work.

But if that is plot influencing actions, the both (RP + roll) will be definitely demanded.
First, that is roleplaying. For DM that is one of the most important component of constructing DC for future roll. With brilliant RP the DC can become 10 or even 5. In fact, there is also certain altitude of opposing side towards roleplayed character. RP of player + altitude of opposing side (+ sometimes other obstacles)= DC for check

Second, there is the roll. The main reason here, that the roll exist - is to make difference between Cha-monkeys and Cha-dumpers. Close second reason: making decision for roll, not for DM. Because when I know the motivation of that green dragon in disguise (of young lady), and one of my players want to convince him for something logical to a lady, not to a dragon... DC for such check could be 18, or even 22, and such rolls ought to be allowed (rather than a DM`s solo decision for fail).

As for advantage/disadvantage - those are external obstacles (by conditions, spells, unsual way of communication, etc, etc)

[Dimers]

D&D is a roleplaying game which has rules for simulation of combat. The combat should be, and is, simulated. The roleplay should be real.

I disagree with your "should"s. What D&D should be depends on what the group wants. My face-to-face group wants tactical combat, problem-solving, table talk, and dancing the fine line between ridiculous and straightlaced. Roleplaying is occasionally a component of that but certainly should not be first for us! The next PbP game I run will explicitly be about 70% combat scenarios, with nothing specifically put in to encourage roleplaying among the players. (Nothing to discourage it, either, but I'm telling the prospective players "come here if you like fighting".)

@OP: Think of the opposite situation, a player with a terrible stat, no proficiency, and disadvantage, nevertheless making a fantastic roll. Would you ignore the die roll in that case and say the character still fails? I don't think that's a good move -- it takes away agency, it takes away the player's interaction with the gameworld. That holds true for a terrible roll despite having every reasonable advantage. It says to the player, "No, don't bother playing, I have this all mapped out in my head already." Let the dice say what they say.

[Sitri]

To accompany the hiding thread: he farts.

Lol.........

[MeeposFire]

This hearkens back to the AD&D to 3e transition. Back before 3e rules for this sort of thing were minimal at best. Cha gave you an initial reaction adjustment which essentially told you how a person initially likes you or not before you even say or do anything.

Back in those times when you made a speech such as this a DM would decide whether it works or not. OFten this was done through the act of roleplaying though some would come up with their own rolling mechanics as well. In 3e this of course was changed to rolling a die and judging success primarily from that.

Both have key advantages and disadvantages. The advantage for the non-rolling side is that success and failure is based directly on the players creativity which encourages players to be creative in that fashion. The negative aspect is that success is more due to player ability than character ability. Rolling has the advantage where the character's ability actually determines success. High cha and making yourself a skilled speaker actually can be shown to work using this method regardless of how creative (or not) the player is. The negative is that since success is mostly derived from a roll weird things can happen due to roll that may not fit the narrative that you are doing (an example is this speech though of course we COULD make a failure work with it but clearly some are not happy with it) and it can lead to situations where people either don't roleplay the situations (they don't need to they can just roll) or refuse to participate since their character cannot make the roll so participating in that situation would only serve to hurt the group. Just to be clear it does not have to lead to this it just can.

I know a fair number of older players that really dislike having social skills that are to be rolled for this very reason. I can see both sides of the issue and you can try to take aspects of both to try to find a middle ground that work for you.

[Gignere]

Didn't read all of the posts so maybe double posting an opinion. However at my table, my players describe the action they want to take the outcome they expect and than roll, but no action has taken place yet. Based on the roll they role play. So if they roll a 1 they will role play that their character say something insensitive, offensive or just not persuasive.

This is basically how all the other checks are made anyway so I don't see why charisma should be done differently.

[Mjolnirbear]

Something to consider:

There are people who are very inept socially. It can be simple (depending on mood, sugar levels, and how tired I am, I can be incredibly stupid socially speaking, or brilliantly read the situation--usually stupid) or it can be significant (someone with Asperger's, for instance).

People in these circumstances should be able to simply roll. There should be no requirement to roleplay. you don't have to roleplay stupidity or wisdom or being very strong.

And as someone else says, it helps distinguish the cha-dumpers from the cha-monkeys. I pumped Charisma, why do I have the same chances to convince the innkeep to feed me for free as the guy with an 8 charisma?

That said, encouraging RP is of great value to our games. I would require the roll... but I would allow someone to get advantage if they do a great job RPing. I wouldn't impose disadvantage if they do a bad job. It's hard to be social when you have few social cues to work with (facial expressions, body language, understanding of the society, understanding of the social class, etc).

[Vogonjeltz]

What if a character gives a wonderful speech but then he rolls, even with advantage, really low on persuasion. It is logical that people will still listen because his words were true, speeches aren't really luck (d20). How would you rule this, are charisma checks often just not right?

The player had a good idea, but the character was unable to execute. A speechwriter may craft an excellent speech, but the orator might also be terrible at delivering it.

In this case your player came up with a great speech and the player themselves might have been charismatic, but their character was not.


Yeah I don't like how some DMs make you roll on persuasion attempts like that...

Like, if you're going to make me roll for it anyway, I might as well just say "My character delivers an inspiring speech" or "I attempt to barter with the shopkeeper" in the most deadpan voice I can muster. Why bother roleplaying something if it's going to come down to a number regardless? (Not saying I don't like roleplaying, I prefer it... but if the DM is more interested in dice rolls, I'm not going to humor him)

Rolling is appropriate for anything where the character is trying to influence someone else. If it's just Q&A, roleplay. If you're trying to get them to give something up that they might be reluctant to give, then that's a roll situation.

So good on the player for coming up with an inspiring Braveheart style speech, but if they have a bad roll it means that it just wasn't effective. Like, not everyone is going to inspire the troops when confronted by an overwhelming horde at the gates of Mordor, no matter what words are said.

If we reverse the idea: Character success should never be dependent on the player being able to be persuasive themselves.

[McNinja]

What if a character gives a wonderful speech but then he rolls, even with advantage, really low on persuasion. It is logical that people will still listen because his words were true, speeches aren't really luck (d20). How would you rule this, are charisma checks often just not right?I love that the player have a legitimately good speech and you STILL made him roll. As the DM, you are the NPCs. If you think it's a good speech, there's a very high chance they thought it was good too. A lot of the time I'll have my players simply talk to me instead of rolling charisma (whatever skill) because they're playing a role.

[Icewraith]

We had a campaign get completely derailed due to rolling a natural 3 and 4 (dat advantage) for persuasion on an npc that was supposed to be handing out plot points. It was a pregen adventure, and the clues we got were so obfuscated and generic they made no sense. After bonuses it was maybe a 9.

Depending on how you think CHA based rolls should be handled, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

You can give a player advantage due to good roleplaying, they can even have proficiency and a good CHA, and still flub a really important roll. The purpose of the dice is to inject chaos into the story and arbitrarily determine succcess or failure. If you don't want that, don't call for a roll.

[Tanarii]

Why is the player acting out the result of a successful check before making the check? The player should tell what action he's attempting, then roll for a result, then describe the result.

In the case of this Cha check, the action is 'try to give an inspiring speech', the check is made, then the result is either an inspiring impassioned speech, or a bomb that falls flat.

Player is trying to do things back to front. It's like describing how your attack chops off their head before making an attack roll, or how you flawlessly backflip over your opponent before you make an Acrobatics check. Describe what you're attempting, not what your success looks like.

[Tanarii]

Hers something worth reading on how to adjudicate rulings by AngryDM. It's on point for this discussion:

http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Especially relevant is the section on player declare actions, intentions and approaches.

[SwordChuck]

Hers something worth reading on how to adjudicate rulings by AngryDM. It's on point for this discussion:

http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/

Especially relevant is the section on player declare actions, intentions and approaches.

Whenevr I see his site I can't help but hear the "Angry Video Game Nerd" theme song as if it was his...

Fun times.

[mephnick]

I believe this was actually called out in the playtest. They gave the example of a player giving a rousing speech to convince several tribes to join against a common threat, then rolled a one. The advice they gave there was to just ignore the roll.

The developers actually said that?

Ugh...........why even play the game?

[mephnick]

I love that the player have a legitimately good speech and you STILL made him roll. As the DM, you are the NPCs. If you think it's a good speech, there's a very high chance they thought it was good too. A lot of the time I'll have my players simply talk to me instead of rolling charisma (whatever skill) because they're playing a role.

The roll isn't "to make a good speech". The roll is "to have my speech influence the king". You can make a good speech and still have an NPC completely unaffected by it. If there's a chance the king won't help you, you have to roll. That's the whole point of the system. If the king was going to help you anyway, you don't have to roll, in which case your speech wasn't necessary. Making a good speech, rolling a 3, and having the bull-headed king still tell you "NO" drives the game forward, not backwards. Why did he say no despite all the evidence you showed? Is he under duress? Does he have a secret motive? Weird rolls are your chance as a DM to twist the adventure. Of course this requires you react to players and rolls, rather than have an ironclad plot.

Edit: Everyone is obsessed with this "yes, and.." thing, but that applies to the rolls as well as the players. Ignoring rolls is lazy and counter-productive. If a roll provides a weird opportunity you say to yourself "Ok, I have to take this roll..how can I spin it?" Not, "Nah, doesn't make sense, do what you want."

[Tanarii]

The roll isn't "to make a good speech". The roll is "to have my speech influence the king".
Well said. I was trying to say the same thing, and linked basically the same thing, and even so I still fell into the trap of describing the how of the action (Give an inspiring speech ...) while leaving out an intended result (... to influence the goblins not to attack the town.)

'How' is only one part. It's an important part. But 'what', as in intended result, is also critical.

[PoeticDwarf]

I love that the player have a legitimately good speech and you STILL made him roll. As the DM, you are the NPCs. If you think it's a good speech, there's a very high chance they thought it was good too. A lot of the time I'll have my players simply talk to me instead of rolling charisma (whatever skill) because they're playing a role.

Well, D&D is still about the d20 and rolls, otherwise charismatic players would make charismatic characters, true that that doesn't always work but I'd say most of the time it is better to let them roll

[SwordChuck]

Well, D&D is still about the d20 and rolls, otherwise charismatic players would make charismatic characters, true that that doesn't always work but I'd say most of the time it is better to let them roll

Yeah, if Vin Diesel is playing D&D you would still expect him to roll his attack roll. The dude could Probabaly punch through half of all D&D nerds in one hit but his character would still need an attack roll.

I'm really surprised Vin Diesel isn't the "Chuck Norris" of the D&D community...

[AbyssStalker]

I'm really surprised Vin Diesel isn't the "Chuck Norris" of the D&D community...

I would ask what class he is. But then I remember gods typically don't have class levels.

[Sitri]

Yeah, if Vin Diesel is playing D&D you would still expect him to roll his attack roll. The dude could Probabaly punch through half of all D&D nerds in one hit but his character would still need an attack roll.

I'm really surprised Vin Diesel isn't the "Chuck Norris" of the D&D community...

Not surprising, in the video of him playing, he is a brute who hardly role plays.

As to the original question, unless the player was a charisma dumper, I probably would have never called for a roll; the approach was just that solid. Just like figuring out a way to bypass a physical threat, the players played well enough to diffuse the threat.

[SwordChuck]

Not surprising, in the video of him playing, he is a brute who hardly role plays.

Sooo he is the patron saint of AL members?

[Tanarii]

As to the original question, unless the player was a charisma dumper, I probably would have never called for a roll; the approach was just that solid. Just like figuring out a way to bypass a physical threat, the players played well enough to diffuse the threat.couldnt disagree more. Would you allow a player to automatically hit with an attack because they describe the way the blade arcs through the air, perfectly bypassing defenses and on an unstoppable course with his opponents neck ... ?

As a player, declare your approach and intention. But don't assume your overly specific and detailed narrative description reflects in-game reality. Especially for events that require a check to resolve. It's best to either wait until the check is done for that, or seamlessly weave it into the narrative at best you can, and let the DM pick it up and complete the scene once the result of the roll is known.

[Sitri]

couldnt disagree more. Would you allow a player to automatically hit with an attack because they describe the way the blade arcs through the air, perfectly bypassing defenses and on an unstoppable course with his opponents neck ... ?

I would allow them to roll boulders down a path into a door to break it down instead of using a strength check.

How they describe it isn't key, how solid the plan is matters. If the speech is that good, the plan is good for how to convince people.

[Tanarii]

I would allow them to roll boulders down a path into a door to break it down instead of using a strength check.

Would you allow them to describe the way the boulders smashed the doors open? Or let them describe how they attempt to lever them up onto the slope, have them make a Str check to lift them, then you describe how they dropped them on their toes?

[Tanarii]

How they describe it isn't key, how solid the plan is matters. If the speech is that good, the plan good.the speech isn't 'good' in-game, just because the player makes a good speech. That's the problem with your logic. The check is what tells you how good and effective the speech is in game. Not the way the player made the speech IRL.

[mephnick]

Yeah, that's honestly not how the system works.

But I mean, you can do anything you want, I guess.

[Sitri]

the speech isn't 'good' in-game, just because the player makes a good speech. That's the problem with your logic. The check is what tells you how good and effective the speech is in game. Not the way the player made the speech IRL.

Unless the characters don't say what you say they do, the same words are used. A solid argument is solid regardless if there are proper dramatic pauses. To tell a player, your nerves undermine your logic is silly and can promotes lame game play.

"I convince the town of x"
"How do you do that? "
"Who cares, I'll just roll. "

[Tanarii]

The 'logic' of a speech rarely has anything to do with the impact of the speech, and it's persuasiveness. It's almost always in the preconceptions in the mind of the hearer, or the delivery.

Regardless, if a player makes a speech tailored to his audience's preconceptions (including its 'logic'), that'd certainly make sense to adjust the target DC or give a bonus or some such. Assuming the player knows what those preconceptions are. But just giving it without a check is exactly the same thing as allowing a player to declare his attack hits by giving a 'logical' description of how he bypasses his opponents defense.

And your "lame game play" leaves out approach. It only includes intention. So of course it's lame.

Try "I attempt to convince the townspeople of 'x' by reminding them 'y', which we previously discovered they care about."

Edit: also the player in your lame example is making the same mistake as the big speech giving player. He's saying "I convince ..." Instead of "I attempt to convince ..." He's trying to dictate result, rather than approach and intention.

[Sitri]

DMG 236

IGNORING THE DICE
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some
DMs use them only during combat, and determine
success or failure as they like in other situations.
With this approach, the DM decides whether an action
or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the player:
make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or
other factors. For example, the players might describe
how they search for a secret door, detailing how they
tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger.
That could be enough to convince the DM that they
find the secret door without having to make an ability
check to do so.
...
THE MIDDLE PATH
...
Remember that dice don't run your
game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're
tools to help keep the action moving. At any
time, you can decide that a player's action is
automatically successful. You can also grant
the player advantage on any ability check,
reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the
character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan
or unfortunate circumstances can transform the
easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose
disadvantage.

It is one thing if you say you would run it different, it is another to say what I have described is wrong. Look above for some pretty clear proof you are severely overvaluing your opinion.

EDIT: And who really cares if they include the word "attempt?" Does this somehow improve gameplay? Does the DM somehow not realize it is merely an attempt?

[Tanarii]

It's one thing to ignore the dice when there's no chance of failure. But it's another to allow the player to dictate success of an action with a chance of failure.

Edit: actually, rereading that and ignoring your bolding, they aren't saying that, even in the first one. They're saying if the specifics of what the player's approach are sufficient that the action automatically succeeds, then the resolution has no chance of failure, so ignore the dice.

That's very different from a player giving a speech and then ignoring the dice because it's 'logical' enough, or well delivered by the player. That has nothing to do with the people perceiving it, or the character's delivery. Take my example instead. If the player were instead to give a speech which was tailored to his audience, then approach might mean that a check could be ignored, if there was no chance of failure as a result.

[Sitri]

It's one thing to ignore the dice when there's no chance of failure. But it's another to allow the player to dictate success of an action with a chance of failure.

Edit: actually, rereading that and ignoring your bolding, they aren't saying that, even in the first one. They're saying if the specifics of what the player's approach are sufficient that the action automatically succeeds, then the resolution has no chance of failure, so ignore the dice.

That's very different from a player giving a speech and then ignoring the dice because it's 'logical' enough, or well delivered by the player. That has nothing to do with the people perceiving it, or the character's delivery. Take my example instead. If the player were instead to give a speech which was tailored to his audience, then approach might mean that a check could be ignored, if there was no chance of failure as a result.

First, no one has advocated for allowing a player to determine success. And you were wrong earlier about saying the player needs to roll before deciding what to say in the speech, I can quote that for you too. It is allowing player agency, not player dictatorship.

As for the rest of what you have written, can you honestly say you believe that?

[mephnick]

Edit: Re: Sitri

So you're ok with punishing players who are not able to form as good a speech, regardless of their stats or rolls?

If the party face is played by a shy, quiet player, do you fiat all their charisma checks as failures?

Because making a good speech in person isn't role-playing, it's acting. You shouldn't reward or punish others based on their real life acting ability.

[Sitri]

Edit: Re: Sitri

So you're ok with punishing players who are not able to form as good a speech, regardless of their stats or rolls?

If the party face is played by a shy, quiet player, do you fiat all their charisma checks as failures?

Because making a good speech in person isn't role-playing, it's acting. You shouldn't reward or punish others based on their real life acting ability.

If the player simply doesn't make a good speech, I would then let the dice do the talking. When things are questionable I tend to err on the side of the player.

The only way I would "punish" a player would be if they actively said something that hurts their cause. E.g. "You are a bunch of dumb ****s if you don't do what I say. "

[Tanarii]

I do believe we're arguing against two different straw-men extremes, instead of each other. It sounds like you're saying: Don't pointlessly use the dice when the result should be obvious from the action being described. Is that right? While I'm saying players should be telling you Intent and Approach, not Result. Those aren't necessarily contradicts things.

I don think we're really disagreeing. I'm probably a little more dice-resolution oriented that's you, but I doubt either of us take it to an extreme. Also here's another angry-DM rant, saying a similar thing to what I think you're saying: http://theangrygm.com/angry-rants-cool-it-with-the-dice/

I believe was focusing too much on what my interpretation of a good speech by the player entails. Certainly the content of the speech is potentially relevant to declare before making a dice check. It's the presentation and reception that could well not be, and that's where a dice check should come in, if appropriate.

The problem with 'speeches' is part of it is appropriate before a any outcomes determining dice check (the content of the speech) and another part isn't (delivery of said content in game). I was jumping on the latter when I said the check should come first. But I think as long as the DM takes into account that the players delivery of the content isn't the same as the characters delivery, a check afterwards (if called for) works too.

TL;DR - k, you sold me that it can work fine. ;)

[mephnick]

If the player simply doesn't make a good speech, I would then let the dice do the talking.

But you're still giving a reward to a charismatic player that cannot be achieved by a different type of player. The absence of possible reward is just as unfair as punishment.

[Tanarii]

But you're still giving a reward to a charismatic player that cannot be achieved by a different type of player. The absence of possible reward is just as unfair as punishment.
Intelligent and Wise ones too.

If a DM is allowing a skipped check based on a good speech as a 'solid approach', he has to make allowances that the character is not the player. That includes delivery, grammar, ability to formulate thoughts, etc etc.

But that's true for anything in the game to a degree. From tactical thinking in combat based in player knowledge of the meta-game battle mechanics, to a player figuring out a puzzle and taking actions based on it, to a player communicating with other creatures. There are some points where the line between player and character must be blurry, because it's role-playing not change-personing. The DM can make allowances for that, but it's going to be a judgment call no matter what.

Either that or the players need to start rolling ability checks to see if they're smart & wise enough to take any in-game action. And that way lies madness.

[Sitri]

But you're still giving a reward to a charismatic player that cannot be achieved by a different type of player. The absence of possible reward is just as unfair as punishment.

I think you may find most aspects of life disappointing. Is it fair that the person who worked hard to be likable, smart, whatever isn't able to reap rewards for that effort? For the person it comes naturally for, should they be penalized because others aren't as naturally gifted? I'm not that much of a socialist.

I will try to give both types the chance to shine, but I do not subscribe to the idea that all are created equal. I lean more toward, none are created equal. And because people differ, I can create the better overall game experience by differentiating what I expect of them.

[mephnick]

But the system is based on mechanical stats and resolution of actions through rolling a d20. If you're going to ignore the character's sheet, why are you even using D&D at that point? There are plenty of systems that offer the resolution structure you propose in a much better way.

But, let's agree to disagree.

[Sitri]

But the system is based on mechanical stats and resolution of actions through rolling a d20. If you're going to ignore the character's sheet, why are you even using D&D at that point? There are plenty of systems that offer the resolution structure you propose in a much better way.

But, let's agree to disagree.

I just said why. Many times I would ask for the roll, but if what the player is doing is just that bad ass, I would let it be bad ass. Only one of the three DMing styles mentioned in the book wouldn't let this happen.

I would even go so far as to say most of the time I would want the dice in play. I played a WhiteWolf game a few years ago where we almost never picked up dice and I got bored quickly; fickle DM success or failure isn't fun.

But on the flip side, one of my most enjoyable experiences as a player was when we infiltrated a pirate ship and blew it up. The DM had no intention of us doing this as he had several key NPCs on board, but we plotted for over an hour and came up with a super complicated but all party members inclusive plan that made really good sense for what was happening on the boat. While we may have made two rolls for the whole thing, I am not even sure we did that. The plan was just so awesome and so sound, our DM just let most of it happen as feels right. I don't think I have ever seen something so important happen without dice in DnD......but if it happened often, it probably would feel like the WhiteWolf game I didn't like.

[Gignere]

I just said why. Many times I would ask for the roll, but if what the player is doing is just that bad ass, I would let it be bad ass. Only one of the three DMing styles mentioned in the book wouldn't let this happen.

I would even go so far as to say most of the time I would want the dice in play. I played a WhiteWolf game a few years ago where we almost never picked up dice and I got bored quickly; fickle DM success or failure isn't fun.

But on the flip side, one of my most enjoyable experiences as a player was when we infiltrated a pirate ship and blew it up. The DM had no intention of us doing this as he had several key NPCs on board, but we plotted for over an hour and came up with a super complicated but all party members inclusive plan that made really good sense for what was happening on the boat. While we may have made two rolls for the whole thing, I am not even sure we did that. The plan was just so awesome and so sound, our DM just let most of it happen as feels right. I don't think I have ever seen something so important happen without dice in DnD......but if it happened often, it probably would feel like the WhiteWolf game I didn't like.

Well if your group is anything like my group and has all 8 int, I would definitely not allow this kind of meta-gaming. Anyway sounds like we just do skills differently, I do them just like attack rolls, and my players role play the results. This way it doesn't matter what the player is good at, all that matters is that they mirror what their PCs are good at. Basically all my skill rolls happen before either the player or I narrate/roleplay out the results. This is way more consistent and we find way more fun, because the player might have an awesome speech planned but if they rolled poorly they would need to quickly somehow sabotage their own speech which is pure gold.

[rollingForInit]

I'd only call for a roll if there's a risk of failure. I'd allow the odd awesome speech to avoid a roll even there were a change of failure, no matter the character's Charisma. Anyone, even someone with Cha 8, can make a great speech, or say just the right thing. I wouldn't allow this to become a habit, even for a character with 20 Cha.

I don't think this gives an unfair advantage to a player who's naturally charismatic. Role-playing a great speech doesn't mean you have to deliver it yourself. You could just describe really well what your character is saying and how they're saying it. It could also be a smart character giving a very rational chain of arguments, or a stupid character pointing out something obvious that the others overlooked. It could be wise character giving some really great advice. D&D is a role-playing game. Good role-playing should be rewarded, and a speech can be role-played without the player being charismatic at all.

On a similar note, Persuasion (Wis/Int/Str/Dex/Con) are perfectly valid alternatives to Persuasion (Cha).

[Mjolnirbear]

A solid argument is solid regardless if there are proper dramatic pauses. To tell a player, your nerves undermine your logic is silly and can promotes lame game play.

"I convince the town of x"
"How do you do that? "
"Who cares, I'll just roll. "

Solidity of logic has little to do with the audience some times. Think anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Conspiracy theorists. Religious conservatives. Naturopath enthusiasts. All people who ignore either logic or science on a regular basis.

[Sitri]

Solidity of logic has little to do with the audience some times. Think anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Conspiracy theorists. Religious conservatives. Naturopath enthusiasts. All people who ignore either logic or science on a regular basis.

I agree with you.

Interchange whatever non-nice guy reason someone is convinced of something.

[MeeposFire]

But the system is based on mechanical stats and resolution of actions through rolling a d20. If you're going to ignore the character's sheet, why are you even using D&D at that point? There are plenty of systems that offer the resolution structure you propose in a much better way.

But, let's agree to disagree.

It is funny you feel that way as pre-3e D&D/AD&D essentially worked like this. Skills that fully determined how NPCs reacted were not really implemented until 3e. You will still find people that dislike social skills such as persuasion/diplomacy/etc in the game because of their impact on how you interact in the game (for instance a player playing a character with poor social skills will eventually learn that interacting with NPCs is a bad idea which means they lose out an an entire area of the game to have fun with). For instance in earlier D&D a fighter with average to decent cha would be a great character to have talk to a lord since fighters tend to be the characters that interact with people like lords well but in say 3e after just the first few levels a fighter would be a terrible idea for talking to that lord generally speaking because how the sklll system works. Of course others prefer character success to be determined much more by character ability rather than player ability. 5e does have the benefit of being a bit more forgiving with the DCs so that any character has a chance to succeed.

Regardless of which way you like to play D&D as a whole has plenty of tradition doing it both ways. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

[SwordChuck]

It is funny you feel that way as pre-3e D&D/AD&D essentially worked like this. Skills that fully determined how NPCs reacted were not really implemented until 3e. You will still find people that dislike social skills such as persuasion/diplomacy/etc in the game because of their impact on how you interact in the game (for instance a player playing a character with poor social skills will eventually learn that interacting with NPCs is a bad idea which means they lose out an an entire area of the game to have fun with). For instance in earlier D&D a fighter with average to decent cha would be a great character to have talk to a lord since fighters tend to be the characters that interact with people like lords well but in say 3e after just the first few levels a fighter would be a terrible idea for talking to that lord generally speaking because how the sklll system works. Of course others prefer character success to be determined much more by character ability rather than player ability. 5e does have the benefit of being a bit more forgiving with the DCs so that any character has a chance to succeed.

Regardless of which way you like to play D&D as a whole has plenty of tradition doing it both ways. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Pre 3e has nothing to do with D&D anymore as WotC has owned D&D starting with 3e...

Comparing word's games that have all worked one way with a previous owner's game that worked another way... Just doesn't work.

WotC has a pretty long standing history that dice rolls come first and then you roll play those dice rolls. 2e and before has no baring on this conversation as they are D&D in name only and not part of WotC's D&D.

[strangebloke]

Solidity of logic has little to do with the audience some times. Think anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Conspiracy theorists. Religious conservatives. Naturopath enthusiasts. All people who ignore either logic or science on a regular basis.

Are you suggesting that illogical people are somehow harder to influence? Just play into their assumptions and you're golden. It usually isn't that they're completely illogical, just that they've accepted some false premises.

So, yeah, if a guy tries to convince the crowd of low-grade cultists that they need to change their ways, however sound his logic is, and however well-spoken he is, he's going to have to roll real high.

If, however, he's just wants to convince them that, say, the will of their god is slightly different than what they might have thought, he's going to have to roll significantly lower.

That's the amount that I'd let the player determine the outcome of the roll. As I said, too, making them rp a stutter can be really fun.

[MeeposFire]

Pre 3e has nothing to do with D&D anymore as WotC has owned D&D starting with 3e...

Comparing word's games that have all worked one way with a previous owner's game that worked another way... Just doesn't work.

WotC has a pretty long standing history that dice rolls come first and then you roll play those dice rolls. 2e and before has no baring on this conversation as they are D&D in name only and not part of WotC's D&D.

First off WotC owns pre3e D&D so even if they did not write it they still can use it and in fact they have republished them.

Secondly AD&D was a major influence on how this game was made look at the articles describing how they came to make 5e (they also took influence form 3e and 4e of course on top of all the older versions).

There was an example in this thread where not rolling was used by a developer and in the book in certain situations. The idea having to roll all the time is just not true. The only question is how often and for what situations.

Lastly my comment was an answer to the comment that not rolling makes it not D&D. Even if you were to say that WotC does not believe in this (which I disagree) it is wrong to say that not rolling makes it not D&D as there are many versions of D&D that do not.

I would not say that this is even close to the default today. Most people (particularly those who started playing the past almost 20 years) will probably be more likely to roll for all social situations. There is nothing wrong to rolling or not rolling depending on what you enjoy and how you want the game to interact with your players and your characters.

[SwordChuck]

First off WotC owns pre3e D&D so even if they did not write it they still can use it and in fact they have republished them.

They didn't create it it so it has no baring on things they did create.

Its like saying that just because I get rich and buy Chevy that I'm the reason all their history is my history. Or that anything I do is connected to checy's past. I wasn't connected to Chevy in the past so those things have nothing to do with me (i just own them).

WotC may own 2e and before but nothing they have done it nothing that was done has any real meaning or substance.

Bringing up 2e D&D is a compete waste as 2e D&D isn't WotC d&d. WotC has shown over three editions (and two partial editions) how they like to do things and have been mostly consistent with HOW they do things (roll first, role play second) that the old style has no baring.

[Sitri]

They didn't create it it so it has no baring on things they did create.

Its like saying that just because I get rich and buy Chevy that I'm the reason all their history is my history. Or that anything I do is connected to checy's past. I wasn't connected to Chevy in the past so those things have nothing to do with me (i just own them).

WotC may own 2e and before but nothing they have done it nothing that was done has any real meaning or substance.

Bringing up 2e D&D is a compete waste as 2e D&D isn't WotC d&d. WotC has shown over three editions (and two partial editions) how they like to do things and have been mostly consistent with HOW they do things (roll first, role play second) that the old style has no baring.

This wasn't the article I was looking for but it says a lot of the same stuff. The article I was thinking of talked about how the original plan for D&D Next was to let players take whatever aspects they wanted from any edition and have them all work together. This was published prior to the game release, I am not sure how far they were in playtesting at the time. But anyway, here is this:

"From an anecdotal point, I will say it feels like more people who were holdouts on first and second edition have come in than I would’ve guessed, but from our research and polling what I’ll tell you is it’s pretty evenly split amongst all editions, and most of them say that it feels like their edition. So that goal was 100% met – to make players of all editions feel welcome, and feel like that they recognize this is their D&D."

You can see the full article for more similar quotes http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/

[SwordChuck]

This wasn't the article I was looking for but it says a lot of the same stuff. The article I was thinking of talked about how the original plan for D&D Next was to let players take whatever aspects they wanted from any edition and have them all work together. This was published prior to the game release, I am not sure how far they were in playtesting at the time. But anyway, here is this:

"From an anecdotal point, I will say it feels like more people who were holdouts on first and second edition have come in than I would’ve guessed, but from our research and polling what I’ll tell you is it’s pretty evenly split amongst all editions, and most of them say that it feels like their edition. So that goal was 100% met – to make players of all editions feel welcome, and feel like that they recognize this is their D&D."

You can see the full article for more similar quotes http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/04/15/new-dungeons-dragons-fifth-edition/

The only thing they took from 2e was bringing back to boring fighter (which looks more like their 3e fighter, so not even that) and backgrounds that resemble kits.

They didn't change their mechanics from 3e and 4e to resemble a more 2e style, even if they say they did or actually tried to do it.

All the mechanics of 5e is used the same way as it was in 3e and 4e, roll first and role play second.

[Sitri]

I honestly don't remember 2e rules very well. It was a long time ago and a computer suits my learning style much more than a book.

But if you mean the roll is more important than the role, I quoted this book saying that isn't true for everyone.

If you mean the roll comes before the role play, this book says this is always false.


2. CONVERSATION
Play out the conversation. Let the adventurers make
their points, trying to frame their statements in
terms that are meaningful to the creature they are
interacting with......

3. CHARISMA CHECK
When the adventurers get to the point of their
request, demand, or suggestion- or if you decide the
conversation has run its course- call for a Charisma
check. Any character who has actively participated in
the conversation can make the check. Depending on
how the adventurers handled the conversation.....


But if it suits your game, ok, but people would have a lot firmer ground to say you are not the true scottsman.