How to balance charisma

[Dark Ass4ssin 1]

So in my recent game that I am DMing I have come across an old problem yet again. One of my players is playing a bard with (obviously) a high charisma. RP is always a decent size of my games and I encourage letting players use their stats to RP things they themselves cannot. I am fine with a bard using charisma to persuade an NPC to do something or the fighter flexing his muscles to scare another. The problem comes when these stats are used to talk down planned combat encounters (especially with any BBEG's) Now, I am a firm believer in multiple solutions to a problem, and find joy when I am outsmarted by a players cockamamie idea. I do, however, have am issue with somebody trying to talk their way out of a bandit camp where the leader wants them dead and a couple of DM crippling rolls says he can. At that point I blatantly lie and say he didn't go for it, outright tell the player no, or let it happen.

How should I handle this and similar situations,that may even involve other stats besides charisma.

[Dimers]

Say to all the players before anyone can roll, "For plot reasons I'd like this one to be a fight. Everyone okay with that?" Listen to their responses and deal with them appropriately, with everyone agreeing that your game experience and each of theirs are all important.

[BurgerBeast]

How about just add it to the description that this person will not be talked down for any reason. That's totally fine. Sometimes it doesn't matter how persuasive you are.

Just consider the motives of the NPC involved. The reason there is a DM is so that the dice don't have to resolve everything. A human brain is better at making those decisions. If you're not going to set the realm of possibility for actions (including some actions that always succeed without a roll and some that always fail without a roll), then you're really not needed.

[Azedenkae]

I think it shouldn't have been an issue. If the bandits wanted them dead that much, the DC for that check should have been so high that they woulf have most likely failed.

[Uneasy Goat]

It's your world, and there's nothing wrong with having a DC that is too high for them to succeed or outright telling them that it's unsuccessful. I've always played with DMs who would allow me to roll for anything (since it's always alright to try) but that doesn't mean that I'll always succeed.

Example: They're trying to persuade a High Chancellor that his plan won't succeed and to simply turn himself in. Think of it from this character's point of view, where he couldn't be convinced against his belief. I would absolutely let my player roll for it, because to tell him no makes his choice worthless. There are countless examples of people attempting to convince someone else of something to no avail. But here is where as a DM you have to choose how you want things to play out. Give the situation a high DC (say... 35, especially if the charisma is overpowering) which means that if they actually pass the DC it could be said that they were feasibly convincing, or if they fail it simply means that the NPC wasn't convinced.

On the other hand, don't forget your role as storyteller, and don't let your players sabotage your story. If what they want to do will break a quest, then let them roll the check and you can just say that it didn't work.

You don't have to be cold or rude to tell your players no, but keep in mind that it is your story that they're playing in.

[Pex]

Use the high Persuasion as an excuse to avoid a TPK. There's going to be a fight no matter what, but if for some reason things go badly for the party the Persuasion was enough to have the BBEG not want to kill the party, at least right away. It was that successful Persuasion check that had the party become captive instead of killed. Even if only one party member was "killed" and the rest had to retreat the party member is instead captive.

[Sigreid]

I think you're simply not acknowledging that in order for someone to be talked down or persuaded, they first have to be willing to listen. The bandit leader isn't going to listen to his flowery words at all.

On top of that, if not everyone can be persuaded, then the bard doesn't fall into the trap of becoming a rather boring one trick pony.

[Dimers]

It's your world, and there's nothing wrong with having a DC that is too high for them to succeed or outright telling them that it's unsuccessful.

Lots of players disagree. Taking away player agency without a discussion? Come on, this isn't 1980, RPGs don't all have a dominator-GM paradigm any more. If PC actions can't actually make a difference, at least don't pretend that they do by having them roll and then automatically calling it a failure.

EDIT: It's like, I'll give a homeless guy a few bucks for a meal, but if he tried stealing a few bucks from me, I'd be pissed. Tell the players what you want and get them to buy in -- don't insinuate they have a chance when you're really refusing it.

[Sigreid]

Lots of players disagree. Taking away player agency without a discussion? Come on, this isn't 1980, RPGs don't all have a dominator-GM paradigm any more. If PC actions can't actually make a difference, at least don't pretend that they do by having them roll and then automatically calling it a failure.

I disagree that the player should always have a chance with the skill of their choice. But I do agree that if they have no chance, don't have them roll. Simply state something like "The bandit leader shouts at you 'Shut Up!" and backhands you in the mouth" or whatever is appropriate. It is then clear that he is in no mood to talk.

[Dimers]

I disagree that the player should always have a chance with the skill of their choice.

No argument there. I've seen the twisted ridiculousness that 4e 'skill challenges' can bring. Sometimes what you have on your sheet is just NOT what you should be rolling for a given situation. "I impress the owlbear with my manly physique, so I'm rolling Endurance as a social skill!" Ugh, no, you're not. :smallyuk:

[Uneasy Goat]

Lots of players disagree. Taking away player agency without a discussion? Come on, this isn't 1980, RPGs don't all have a dominator-GM paradigm any more. If PC actions can't actually make a difference, at least don't pretend that they do by having them roll and then automatically calling it a failure.

And that's fair, but not the way I learned the game. I don't believe in pandering to my players, as I wasn't catered to when I was a player. It was absolutely the DM's world and I just had the opportunity to play in it.

So to the topic, I don't see rolling for an impossible DC that the DM made as "pretending". I think every player has the right to try, and frankly I'm not in the business of telling my players what my DCs are. it should be a journey together, not a numbers game where meta is the standard. What would your character do in the situation given, not knowing anything about what the "DM" has planned? Would you try to bluff your way out or convince someone to set you free, even if you knew the chances were slim to none?

If I wasn't clear, I'm not saying remove all success chance, but if I see a player making pure roleplay decisions, I'm more obliged to give them something for their attempt. However, if I see someone sulking because they know they can't succeed in a persuasion check, they get nothing because they didn't even think it was worth the effort.

In the words of my first DM, "You can always try."

[Sigreid]

"I impress the owlbear with my manly physique, so I'm rolling Endurance as a social skill!" Ugh, no, you're not. :smallyuk:

"Unfortunately for you, it's mating season and you have, in fact, impressed the owlbear..."

[Uneasy Goat]

"Unfortunately for you, it's mating season and you have, in fact, impressed the owlbear..."

-shudders-

[ad_hoc]

It sounds like the mistake you are making is allowing Charisma checks to work like mind control.

Take this example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3f/7e/f0/3f7ef02d6f685ab8fecf8b7e3b2d51dd.jpg

My response to that sort of situation would probably be along the lines of having the NPCs be a bit confused. They might not attack right away and they would be wary. They might guard the PCs and call for back up or something like that.

The most practical use of the deception would be to provide a distraction to the still hidden rogue to do something.

They certainly wouldn't lead strangers with weapons in to kill their entire band.

[Specter]

First of all, there's the matter of DC. If the bandit really plans to kill them, that's at the very least a DC25 Persuasion check. Even at full Charisma and Expertise, there's a nice chance to blow it.

Second, nowhere in the rules does it state that one check decides the entire outcome of a conversation. If the PC's in a cage, there can be a roll for the bandit to want to approach the cage, and another for him to be willing to listen. As the chances of failing rise, the less the party relies on Mr. Charming.

And finally, consequence. If he fails his checks by a large margin, the situation should be worse than when the talk began. Kinda like striking out with a hot chick; you can't just start over, and now she thinks you're a creep.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

How should I handle this and similar situations,that may even involve other stats besides charisma.

I usually like to use a "levels of success" style of system, where I ad-hoc rule as appropriate.

Get a natural 20 or other high roll against a villain who desperately wants your party dead? That's a resounding success: now he wants everyone ELSE in your party dead, but wants to keep you alive. Whether it's because he likes your chutzpah or because he wants a survivor to spread the word may not be immediately apparent.

In short, a good check should improve things, a bad one should make them worse. How far this goes in either direction is up to you as the DM. Temper your decisions by what the player said/did, how the NPCs would realistically respond, and so forth.

[BrianDavion]

just because you have a silver tounge doesn't mean you can always talk your way out of things, sometimes they just gotta kill you and a nat 20 might just result in a "nothing personal, just busniess" comment. also make your bar RP it out, if he;s gonna try talking this guy down at least insist he RP out convincing the enemy.

[Malifice]

So in my recent game that I am DMing I have come across an old problem yet again. One of my players is playing a bard with (obviously) a high charisma. RP is always a decent size of my games and I encourage letting players use their stats to RP things they themselves cannot. I am fine with a bard using charisma to persuade an NPC to do something or the fighter flexing his muscles to scare another. The problem comes when these stats are used to talk down planned combat encounters (especially with any BBEG's) Now, I am a firm believer in multiple solutions to a problem, and find joy when I am outsmarted by a players cockamamie idea. I do, however, have am issue with somebody trying to talk their way out of a bandit camp where the leader wants them dead and a couple of DM crippling rolls says he can. At that point I blatantly lie and say he didn't go for it, outright tell the player no, or let it happen.

How should I handle this and similar situations,that may even involve other stats besides charisma.

Never let a player roll for something if there is no chance of success. As DM you're well within your rights to say 'The NPC wants you dead, no bull****ting is going to get you out of it' just like its OK to say 'Dont bother with an Athletics check to jump, the Moon is too far away for you to reach'.

Try and lie your way into being released from custody for murder from your average cop. No amount of lying, charm or anything else is going to convince even a street cop to let you go free for a serious charge.

Persuading him to let you go for a low level offence (he might not be bothered with the paperwork, and might decide to give you a warning) is one thing. But some attempts to decieve or persuade a person (even a low level street cop or town guard) is simply impossible.

[Mjolnirbear]

Roll only when there's a chance of success, a chance for failure, and a risk or consequence of failure.

No risk? Keep trying till you get it. No failure? Then no need to roll, let him have it. No success? Don't waste his time.

It's not removing player agency to inform him it's impossible to hit the moon with an arrow. It's not removing player agency to tell him it's impossible to convince the bandit to let him live either.

Look. The bandit has a reason to kill him. That reason is the obstacle the player needs to overcome. The bandit can't appear weak which would happen if he let you go. The bandit cannt surmount his hatred of the players race or class. The bandit is a bloodthirsty monster. The bandit is hungry.

You determine the motivation. That's your job. It's the players job to overcome it. That's what makes it agency. There's no agency if you leave it to chance. Agency comes with choices and decisions and consequences.

Don't be a **** and say all npcs have invincible wills and can only be overcome by combat. THAT is removing agency because all choices are now the same.

Maybe the bandit is susceptible to bribery. Flattery. Séduction. Negotiation. Blackmail. Maybe his second in command is ambitious. His mate is pregnant and in need of care. His men need refuge from the shérif. You happen to know of particularly great score. You have knowledge to sell or skills to negotiate with.

Your not wrong about letting them roll for things they can't roleplay. We don't roleplay cat-like reflexes. But you're not right either, and it may be cheating them of an amazing story.

Your bandit has a reason. Decide on the reason, or use a reason suggested by a character in play. Decide how strongly the bandit feels about it, and set a DC to it, which can be impossible, or more correctly, impossible unless they (bribe him/amuse him/threaten him/etc) ... They can roll the DC or find out what "unless" means.

[Giant2005]

"Woah! Let's not let this little confrontation get a little too carried away. Sure I may have cut your wife's face off so I could use it as a mask, but in my defense she was a very beautiful woman - it is only natural to want such beauty for yourself. And sure, I do think your mother's legs are quite nice too and will probably add them to my collection once this conversation is through, but really, what would violence accomplish here? I think we would all have a much more pleasant time if we instead shared a drink and talked of our most favorable memories of your wife. I'll even let you go first, even if my story of cutting off her face is probably much more interesting than anything you can muster."

Charisma isn't mind control. You can't talk your way out of everything.

[AmayaElls]

I am that annoying player talking my way out of things in my current game (Lvl 6 bard with expertised persuasion, I get a +10 I think). Personally I wouldn't mind if I found out the hard way that a task was impossible, ie after I rolled for it. I actually told my DM that exact fact. I'm a tiefling trying to convince people in a slightly racist country to listen to me, that's what I expect. But I enjoy trying to roleplay out trying to get someone to listen to me even if it's a nigh impossible task. Also I think some DMs need to be reminded that RAW crit fails and crit successes don't matter for skill checks. Even if I roll a 20, if you've set the DC at 35 I'm not going to get my desired result, hell 35 might not have given me a desired result.

Maybe I'm different from a lot of players, but I really don't mind a task being impossible, or the response to my efforts not being anything close to what I had planned. But let me roleplay it out and have my character realise she can't do it, cause she doesn't know yet, so I don't really need to know yet.

So there's my two cents.

[Regulas]

Aside from simply using harsher DC's or making things impossible which can be fair, there's also other cases if that isn't enough: Use intervention events:



The Bandit leader is about convinced but unfortunately one of his men gets uppity and shoots an arrow at the party causing chaos and combat before the leader can stop his band. Maybe even the leader wastes some rounds trying to calm his men or even doesn't fight at all as a bonus for your PC's success.

Just come up with an event that will either change the BBEG's mind back ("my lord did you forget what happened to your beloved you can't possibly allow these fools to escape...") or that will result in combat starting.




If it is impossible, to make it more meaningful for your players you can also roleplay cognitive dissonance. Maybe the villain is convinced and now wishes that he could let them all live but feels for whatever reason he has to go on anyway. "I'm sorry... but I have gone too far... there is no turning back for me now" type cliche's.

[rollingForInit]

Persuasion isn't magical coercion. Sometimes people just won't be talked down. If you are dead set on having a combat encounter, and if it makes sense for the NPC to really want to fight, then just don't allow the players to roll Persuasion. If they want to try and come up with a good argument in-game, let them. If you know that the BBEG won't accept that reason, just say "The BBEG looks unimpressed and rushes at you. Roll for initiative!"

Only ask for a roll when there's a chance of success.

[KorvinStarmast]

On top of that, if not everyone can be persuaded, then the bard doesn't fall into the trap of becoming a rather boring one trick pony. This point is well made.

"Unfortunately for you, it's mating season and you have, in fact, impressed the owlbear..." Heh, now that's funny.

As DM you're well within your rights to say 'The NPC wants you dead, no bull****ting is going to get you out of it' just like its OK to say 'Dont bother with an Athletics check to jump, the Moon is too far away for you to reach'.


Maybe I'm different from a lot of players, but I really don't mind a task being impossible, or the response to my efforts not being anything close to what I had planned. But let me roleplay it out and have my character realise she can't do it, cause she doesn't know yet, so I don't really need to know yet.
No harm in trying.

[SharkForce]

yeah, the key with making checks is that you don't use them just because someone wants. as noted above, you use checks when there is a chance of failure or success, and the consequences are meaningful.

sometimes you just can't persuade people. just find a nice long thread (pretty much anything will do) in this subforum and see how many people are simply not going to be persuaded, no matter how many times or how many people try.

sometimes a check just doesn't even happen because the desired outcome isn't even possible.

if you want the bandit leader to back down, you'd better present the bandit leader with something that could make him plausibly back down. if you have no carrot and no stick, then the bandit leader is going to do what the bandit leader wanted to do in the first place, no matter how well you phrase your offer of him doing what you want and getting nothing for it.

[Socratov]

It sounds like the mistake you are making is allowing Charisma checks to work like mind control.

Take this example:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3f/7e/f0/3f7ef02d6f685ab8fecf8b7e3b2d51dd.jpg

My response to that sort of situation would probably be along the lines of having the NPCs be a bit confused. They might not attack right away and they would be wary. They might guard the PCs and call for back up or something like that.

The most practical use of the deception would be to provide a distraction to the still hidden rogue to do something.

They certainly wouldn't lead strangers with weapons in to kill their entire band.
Well, the fun part is that the druid had several things going for him: 1 druids are usually a neutral bunch and are more concerned with nature then civilisation, and thus rarely a nemesis for hobgoblins. The fact that he has a clever thought and spun it into a story with a bit of luck, to get past the rabble to the chieftain, makes for a great story. Did it go as planned? No. Dit it inspire a bit of fun in teh game, I would definitely think so.

I am that annoying player talking my way out of things in my current game (Lvl 6 bard with expertised persuasion, I get a +10 I think). Personally I wouldn't mind if I found out the hard way that a task was impossible, ie after I rolled for it. I actually told my DM that exact fact. I'm a tiefling trying to convince people in a slightly racist country to listen to me, that's what I expect. But I enjoy trying to roleplay out trying to get someone to listen to me even if it's a nigh impossible task. Also I think some DMs need to be reminded that RAW crit fails and crit successes don't matter for skill checks. Even if I roll a 20, if you've set the DC at 35 I'm not going to get my desired result, hell 35 might not have given me a desired result.

Maybe I'm different from a lot of players, but I really don't mind a task being impossible, or the response to my efforts not being anything close to what I had planned. But let me roleplay it out and have my character realise she can't do it, cause she doesn't know yet, so I don't really need to know yet.

So there's my two cents.

And this is when character growth happens: you hit a limit (and I really recognise this situation as I too am an argumentative and sometimes sly 'Richard'.

On to the problem at hand:

I think that the true way of happiness lies somewhere in the middle. Is it ok to allow characters to get out of anything with a silver tongue? No, not even when it's sterling and only then on a natural 20 and maybe not even quite. Is it okay to just say 'no' to a player when you don't like the solution? No.

Some people have offered the solution of a twist, ranging from arousing an owlbear in heat to becoming the predetermined sole survivor.

Also, please remember that while skills can go a long way, they are not magic. Persuasion is not suggestion or even geas, stealth is in no way invisibility (though a well hidden rogue won't turn up on see invisibility), Athletics is in no way fly. Sure the skills can go superhuman, but remember that superhuman does not automatically equal magic and can only get you so far. It's the very reason why skills can't critical hit/miss. Think of it this way: if skills would be magic, would it be fun for everyone? If at your table it would, then go ahead, if not, then well, it shouldn't.

[uraniumrooster]

I'll throw in another recommendation for the "degrees of success" method someone mentioned above.

Since you know you have a high charisma character who likes to talk their way out of combat situations, plan for that while you do your prep. While designing the encounter, jot down a few possible outcomes of the social encounter before the combat starts - catastrophic failure, failure, no change, success, resounding success. I usually require the character in question to beat the DC or opposed check by more than 10 in order to achieve a resounding success, which isn't always possible depending on their skill mod.

As others have pointed out as well, even resounding success on a persuasion check doesn't amount to mind control. In your case, a resounding success might mean the Bandit Captain is personally persuaded, but consider the power dynamics of a bandit gang - it's likely that, for the sake of appearances, he simply can't let himself be talked down in front of his men, even if he sees reason in what the bard is saying. The result of a resounding success might, in this case, cause the leader to feel conflicted, ordering his men to kill the party while he stands back, staying out of combat for the first round. It allows the bard to still get some value out of their good skill roll, without derailing your planned encounter.

[Sigreid]

I am that annoying player talking my way out of things in my current game (Lvl 6 bard with expertised persuasion, I get a +10 I think). Personally I wouldn't mind if I found out the hard way that a task was impossible, ie after I rolled for it. I actually told my DM that exact fact. I'm a tiefling trying to convince people in a slightly racist country to listen to me, that's what I expect. But I enjoy trying to roleplay out trying to get someone to listen to me even if it's a nigh impossible task. Also I think some DMs need to be reminded that RAW crit fails and crit successes don't matter for skill checks. Even if I roll a 20, if you've set the DC at 35 I'm not going to get my desired result, hell 35 might not have given me a desired result.

Maybe I'm different from a lot of players, but I really don't mind a task being impossible, or the response to my efforts not being anything close to what I had planned. But let me roleplay it out and have my character realise she can't do it, cause she doesn't know yet, so I don't really need to know yet.

So there's my two cents.

This is the right attitude. :)

[SharkForce]

i disagree with those saying you should never say no.

sometimes you don't like a solution because it just feels silly. if the bandit king who never leaves any survivors has you outnumbered and surrounded, it is perfectly fine to just say no because there is no chance you're going to persuade this guy. anything you can offer he can take by force.

now, if you manage to hold your own in a fight, don't look too badly hurt, and KO a bunch of bandits and *then* you want to talk about non-violent solutions, the bandit king might be open to hearing what you have to say. if nothing else, it gives his own troops time to tend to their wounded while you're talking.

but no, i don't care if you rolled a natural 20 on your skill check, it isn't mind control. you as the DM would not force the players to obey an NPC that rolled a natural 20 on a skill check. they don't get to force NPCs to obey them just because they rolled a natural 20. if you felt there was a chance of success, then sure a natural 20 is high enough. but no, you don't *have* to give the character something just because they rolled well on a social skill check any more than you have to give them partial success just because they rolled well on any other impossible check. sometimes things just aren't possible, no matter how hard you try.

[coredump]

Lots of players disagree. Taking away player agency without a discussion? Come on, this isn't 1980, RPGs don't all have a dominator-GM paradigm any more.


That is a *huge* jump. Just because you don't let a player talk down a murderous Bandit isn't taking away player agency. It is the DM's job to assign DCs and sometimes they are high, and sometimes you have to "outright tell them its unsuccessful". That has *nothing* to do with a "dominator-GM paradigm".


Never let a player roll for something if there is no chance of success..

I disagree with this. While there are plenty of times I will just say it auto-fails or auto-succeeds, sometimes they have to roll anyway. Sometimes I don't want to *players* to know that it was automatic, but other times its okay. Sometimes its more obvious than other times. Anytime they want to search for a secret door, I have them roll. There may not be a secret door in the room....but if I say "no roll needed, you don't find any" then the PC and player *know* there isn't one there. If they roll...maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

[Uneasy Goat]

I think I'm seeing a pattern in the difference of opinion in this thread, that being the difference of the GM asking for a roll and the player.

The way I play, unless it's an event in which my players have to roll a save or defend against something sudden, it's their choice to use a skill. If there's a noise heard faintly in the distance, they have to actively choose to roll a perception (which I use as listen/spot from 3.5) to discern what or where the sound is coming from. If they say they want to try to persuade a bandit king, it's their decision not mine. I will always allow my players to attempt whatever it is that they want, the success of which is unknown until they do so. This is mostly because the world I create can evolve around their choices, and even the silliest of skill checks against the silliest of enemies/allies can get my mind thinking of interesting results.

Example A: Approach Chancellor Gherard, he has the city watch armed and standing against the party. PC is an Orc who has a very nice Intimidate chance, but because he knows that my DC is 30, he doesn't attempt to use it (even though his character in the moment might). Large fight ensues, maybe the party wins, maybe they don't. End scene.

Example B: Approach Chancellor Gherard, he has the city watch armed and standing against the party. PC is an Orc who has a very nice Intimidate chance, and in the moment decides to tell the Chancellor, "No matter how many of your corrupted guard that you send against us, we will prevail." He rolls a Nat 20, but the Chancellor scoffs and sends his men into combat anyway. After the battle, because the Chancellor in this situation is extremely proud and happily sits back to watch the combat, when the party approaches him, Gherard has effectively given up and surrenders whatever information is necessary now that he sees that the Orc's words are true.

Example C: Approach Chancellor Gherard, he has the city watch armed and standing against the party. PC is an Orc who has a very nice Intimidate chance, and in the moment decides to tell the Chancellor, "No matter how many of your corrupted guard that you send against us, we will prevail." He rolls a 10, so the Chancellor scoffs and sends his men forward. This was a failed roll, obviously, but he tried. Perhaps a few of the men in the guard hear his words and decide that they are convinced they cannot win, so they join the fight against their own men.

Example D: Nat 1. Fumble. As he attempts to step forward to give his short little speech, he slips and falls on the ground. At this point I may give one of his party members the opportunity to reflex to catch him from hitting the ground and being prone on the first turn.

This is by no means a ruling, but simply how I play the games I run. Success chance shouldn't matter when you're "in-character". I don't think about what the Persuasion DC is of convincing my boss to give me a day off. So neither should my characters.

[Dimers]

That is a *huge* jump. Just because you don't let a player talk down a murderous Bandit isn't taking away player agency. It is the DM's job to assign DCs and sometimes they are high, and sometimes you have to "outright tell them its unsuccessful". That has *nothing* to do with a "dominator-GM paradigm".

It certainly does -- because what's setting that 'DC too high to succeed' or what's deciding that the attempt is outright unsuccessful is the DM. The phrase "It's your world" really set me off. Maybe it's a world the GM created, but without players, there's not much point to that, is there?

Anyway, what I first suggested is that the GM could just say, out of character, what she wants. No need to manipulate the players, no need to waste thought on how ridiculously high a DC should be to prevent players from actually being able to make meaningful choices ... If you're going to take the choice away, do it to their faces.

I've played in games where the GM got player buy-in, and I've played in (lots of) games where the GM instead applied rule 0 to get her way without mentioning what she wanted. And my experience is that the former is better, for both the players and the GM. They don't have to fight each other and nobody's being misled.

[MrStabby]

So I have to say as a DM this is still a situation I find tough. Handling charisma checks is one of the areas I am trying to improve on, although a lot of my beliefs are similar to ones others have mentioned here.

For me there is a second issue - that of timing and where attention lies. In 5th edition if things go south, blades are drawn and violence is chosen then there is an activity that the whole party can take part in. Yes, murderhobo games may have a lot of problems but at least each character has their place in initiative order and can take part. Too often conversation gets dominated by one player who makes the next 5 to 10 minutes all about them and no one else at the table does much then. This isn't a problem from time to time and there will always be circumstances where one player is the focus, but this seems to happen much more often with Cha skills and more often happens at the player's instigation.

Part of this is that i do actually ask for an RP element to conversations. You want the bandit leader who surrounds you, outnumbers you and takes no prisoners to let you go without a fight? Fine - chose those words that you actually think will persuade them. The DC of the persuasion/intimidate/bluff check does not represent a more abstract chance of success but represents the difficulty of achieving success with the words/approach that the player has chosen. I find that this helps reduce resentment about high DCs - if the players have to find the words that would reasonably persuade someone in the situation in which they find themselves then they themselves will have difficulty if it is a nearly impossible task.

[Uneasy Goat]

It certainly does -- because what's setting that 'DC too high to succeed' or what's deciding that the attempt is outright unsuccessful is the DM. The phrase "It's your world" really set me off. Maybe it's a world the GM created, but without players, there's not much point to that, is there?

Anyway, what I first suggested is that the GM could just say, out of character, what she wants. No need to manipulate the players, no need to waste thought on how ridiculously high a DC should be to prevent players from actually being able to make meaningful choices ... If you're going to take the choice away, do it to their faces.

I've played in games where the GM got player buy-in, and I've played in (lots of) games where the GM instead applied rule 0 to get her way without mentioning what she wanted. And my experience is that the former is better, for both the players and the GM. They don't have to fight each other and nobody's being misled.

"It's your world" is not a phrase used to remove players, but on the same turn, without a strong story or environment then it's simply anarchy. I choose to play with people who love that idea, because I'm more than a little egotistical. I'm a writer, and creating a deep world for the people who are in my games is the single most important thing to me because it's a chance to make myself vulnerable and let them in. It's also important to the players I have because they expect it.

My phrasing and way of DM-ing shouldn't set anyone off, as I've never considered myself an "expert" on how to run games. Offering advice from a different DM perspective I think was what the OP wanted, whether or not he chooses to agree is entirely his decision. The players I've got under me have been playing with me for *years* the same way, so I'm a little set in the way I do things. None of us have ever had fights at the table over dice rolls or decisions, so it confuses me to see so much of that when I joined this website.

In the end, DM-ing for me is just a group storytelling experience, not about winning or losing. Maybe I'm just weird, but my group has always had an understanding.

To bring it back to topic, my previous DM preferred "roleplay vs roll" on anything that wasn't a physical action. It was very "in-character" discussion heavy, and he was pretty ruthless if you didn't clarify that something was said OOC. Maybe it is an old-school mentality to be brutal and unforgiving, but I've never had a bad experience doing so. I think you should go with whatever way you think makes the process smooth *without* sacrificing certain plot elements. Don't let them ruin your story, but that doesn't mean don't let them change the direction somewhat.

[Vogonjeltz]

So in my recent game that I am DMing I have come across an old problem yet again. One of my players is playing a bard with (obviously) a high charisma. RP is always a decent size of my games and I encourage letting players use their stats to RP things they themselves cannot. I am fine with a bard using charisma to persuade an NPC to do something or the fighter flexing his muscles to scare another. The problem comes when these stats are used to talk down planned combat encounters (especially with any BBEG's) Now, I am a firm believer in multiple solutions to a problem, and find joy when I am outsmarted by a players cockamamie idea. I do, however, have am issue with somebody trying to talk their way out of a bandit camp where the leader wants them dead and a couple of DM crippling rolls says he can. At that point I blatantly lie and say he didn't go for it, outright tell the player no, or let it happen.

How should I handle this and similar situations,that may even involve other stats besides charisma.

If they can provide a reason for the Bandit leader to not want them dead, then that's great.

If they can't...well, that's problematic.

In either case, here's what the DMG has to say on social interactions, specifically with a hostile creature (starting attitude) on page 244:

"a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically."

Conversation might lead to the creature eventually changing its attitude toward the players without a roll. The rules on 244-245 should help resolve any attempts to talk the enemy out of a fight.

Generally speaking, you can play it by ear fairly easily. Did the characters say the right things or not? The roll should only come after they've made a pitch in the conversation, to see how the NPC responds to the request.

[RickAllison]

Here are my general criteria for charisma checks:

Base DC is 30.

Neutral dispositions reduce the DC by 10, and friendly disposition reduce it by 20.

Convincing arguments can lower the DC by up to 5, while arguments that incite a negative response could raise it by up to 5.

Beneficial or negative effects of an outcome can also raise or lower the DC by up to 5.

Major resource expenditure can increase the the DC by 10, minor by 5, and essentially no cost keeps the DC the same. Meanwhile, minor resource gains like a favor could reduce the DC by 5 and major ones could reduce it by 10.

So a hostile bandit chief (30) with the potential for a big haul (+5) would be all but impossible to dissuade. Convincing arguments (-5) would make it possible and a bribe (-5) could put it within reach. Yielding a great treasure (another -5) and showing sufficiently bad negative effects of the robbery (-5) could make convincing that bandit rather easy. After all, he already has treasure without any risk!

On the other side of the scale, a friend who was forced into a life of crime is trying to mug you (10). He stands to make a great fortune, enough to clear his debts (+5). The rather socially inept half-Orc (8 Charisma) then makes a quip about how he could just bail the friend out again, which reminds the friend about his jealousy toward the PC. The choices of the PC have rendered the friend unamenable to to standard persuasion by the socially challenged half-Orc.

[stenver]

Say to all the players before anyone can roll, "For plot reasons I'd like this one to be a fight. Everyone okay with that?" Listen to their responses and deal with them appropriately, with everyone agreeing that your game experience and each of theirs are all important.

Way to break immersion..

If you want it to be a fight 100%, then just make it so. Even on rolls like 35, the old bandit king will just say in his dark voice that has had too many drinks:
"Cute. Kill them."

[Christian]

Lots of players disagree. Taking away player agency without a discussion? Come on, this isn't 1980, RPGs don't all have a dominator-GM paradigm any more. If PC actions can't actually make a difference, at least don't pretend that they do by having them roll and then automatically calling it a failure. ...
Anyway, what I first suggested is that the GM could just say, out of character, what she wants. No need to manipulate the players, no need to waste thought on how ridiculously high a DC should be to prevent players from actually being able to make meaningful choices ... If you're going to take the choice away, do it to their faces.

I've played in games where the GM got player buy-in, and I've played in (lots of) games where the GM instead applied rule 0 to get her way without mentioning what she wanted. And my experience is that the former is better, for both the players and the GM. They don't have to fight each other and nobody's being misled.

That's not maintaining player agency. That's maintaining GM fiat by persuasion rather than dictatorial ruling.

Player: "My expert mountaineer is going to climb the ice wall to get around the defenses, then open the gates for the rest of the party."

DM: "OK, roll Climb."

Player: "32."

DM: "The DC for the first 100' was 30; after that, if got a lot harder and the DC was 100. You fall and take 42 points of damage, then slide into a crevasse and take another 87 points. I need a Fortitude save versus instant death."

:smallfurious:

****************

Player: "My expert mountaineer is going to climb the ice wall to get around the defenses, then open the gates for the rest of the party."

DM: "Oh, man, that'll bypass some really cool encounters with lots of XP and some really cool treasure. Plus, you won't meet an NPC that will really help you out later. Can you not do that?"

:smallconfused:

****************

Player: "My expert mountaineer is going to climb the ice wall to get around the defenses, then open the gates for the rest of the party."

DM: "Looking at the wall, you realize that the upper reaches are much more treacherous than the seem at first glance. Even with your skill, you don't think you could safely reach the top."

:smallsmile: This lets him know without breaking out of the narrative that the path he's looking at isn't one of the adventure branches, and without stealing the thunder of his expertise in the Athletics skill. (Sure, it's not letting him climb the wall, but it let him know that it couldn't be climbed safely; knowing what you can't do is part of being an expert, right?)

Even better, of course:

**********

Player: "My expert mountaineer is going to climb the ice wall to get around the defenses, then open the gates for the rest of the party."

DM: "Looking at the wall, you realize that the upper reaches are much more treacherous than the seem at first glance. Even with your skill, you don't think you could safely reach the top without some specialized gear or magical assistance."

:smallcool: Hey--it's a new sub-adventure, and meaningful choices. Do we have time to go try to find the right gear? Does the wizard know spells that can help, or know someone who does? How does this compare with the risk of trying to fight our way through the main gate of the frozen mountain fortress?

I picked Athletics to get away from the morass of the social skills arguments. The skills are more nebulous, and the rules a bit wonky. But the general principles still apply! Nobody thinks it's stealing player agency to tell Thog the Barbarian's player that his 24 Strength and net +13 Athletics roll (with advantage if he's raging!) won't let him shimmy right up the sheer glass wall, angled inward and coated with fine mineral oil. But for some reason, it's not fair to Brangelina the Bard that they can't walk up to King Olaf the Wise and Persuade him out of the keys to the kingdom with one good roll.

[Saeviomage]

I always treat the social skills as follows:

Persuasion allows you to get the target to treat a plan as if it were presented by their best friend.

Intimidation allows you to get the target to treat your threat as something that you can and will do.

Deception allows you to get the target to treat your lie as if you have good evidence to prove it.

So: if you try to persuade the bandit king to let you off when you've transgressed to the point where he's wanting to kill you? Would he let his best friend off? I've seen plenty of movies that say he wouldn't. But he might give you a good burial. Or send a letter to your family. Or be unable to murder you personally, giving you a chance to escape or survive. Or he might keep you working on his pirate ship, saying each day "I'll most likely kill you in the morning".

You try to persuade the bandit king's henchman to let you off when the king is out for your blood... maybe? If it's not going to come back to him? But let you wander through the camp? Nope.

You try to intimidate the zealot with threats of torture and killing? He thinks you'll do it... but will that actually make him talk?

The goblin believes you when you say you're a dungeon inspector... so he sends word to his boss, and delays you as much as possible so his buddies can bring the dungeon up to code... So now you have a full dungeon of alert troops and a goblin boss who thinks his underling is a moron.

In short: these skills change how your opponent perceives you, and they are then free to act appropriately. They don't let you dictate actions. A good DM will have them react in interesting and unexpected ways.

[RickAllison]

I always treat the social skills as follows:

Persuasion allows you to get the target to treat a plan as if it were presented by their best friend.

Intimidation allows you to get the target to treat your threat as something that you can and will do.

Deception allows you to get the target to treat your lie as if you have good evidence to prove it.

So: if you try to persuade the bandit king to let you off when you've transgressed to the point where he's wanting to kill you? Would he let his best friend off? I've seen plenty of movies that say he wouldn't. But he might give you a good burial. Or send a letter to your family. Or be unable to murder you personally, giving you a chance to escape or survive. Or he might keep you working on his pirate ship, saying each day "I'll most likely kill you in the morning".

You try to persuade the bandit king's henchman to let you off when the king is out for your blood... maybe? If it's not going to come back to him? But let you wander through the camp? Nope.

You try to intimidate the zealot with threats of torture and killing? He thinks you'll do it... but will that actually make him talk?

The goblin believes you when you say you're a dungeon inspector... so he sends word to his boss, and delays you as much as possible so his buddies can bring the dungeon up to code... So now you have a full dungeon of alert troops and a goblin boss who thinks his underling is a moron.

In short: these skills change how your opponent perceives you, and they are then free to act appropriately. They don't let you dictate actions. A good DM will have them react in interesting and unexpected ways.

As an example of this philosophy, my morally-questionable Aarakocra monk tried to Intimidate a secretary to a scholar so the party could ask the wise man about the imminent apocalypse. And it worked, sort of. The rest of the party was able to slide into his office while my bird-man was fleeing the scene, leaving the guards chasing after him alone. Made for quite the fun RP as he basically got to play Ezio, discreetly tearing down wanted posters while conducting his thievery.