How to get better at roleplaying my characters

[Aurosman]

My first character is an aasimar celestial warlock, the problem I am having is how do I play a 20 charisma character when I am pretty bad at thinking what to say on the spot (I have been upgraded to the party face because our bard is not in our group anymore). I am fine in normal situations, it's more of the convince these bandits to lay down their arms type stuff I'm not good at.Would it be an issue to ask my dm if I can just say in general what I am trying to persuade or intimidate and such? Or is their a better way to handle that.

My second character is a warforged forge cleric. The interesting thing about him is that he has no memory from before the party found him. He has general knowledge, and his name, but that's it. He has only been awake for about a week, just learned to talk in current common(he is really old and has been "a sleep" for a long time). I know I can play him any way I want to because of that, but does anyone have any fun ideas? Right now he is the silent type that blindly follows orders/trusts the party. So any suggestions would be great help.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If roleplaying a high charisma character is difficult for you, don't worry, it's probably the most difficult role to play. Even naturally charismatic people might not be able to think on their feet in situations where a silver tongue could avoid bloodshed.

I can recommend 2 things for the first character:
-Just try talking in character a lot. You don't need a funny voice but it helps my mindset when I talk to my party members characters instead of the players. This approach might also help your teammates roleplay more, and if they're already strong roleplayers they'll likely help you along with this.
-If you're not comfortable with always talking in character, narrate your actions. This is the easier of the two because it's more or less you as a player telling a story about your character. If they're meant to be charismatic throw in your favorite adjectives even when they do a mundane action.

In my experience, it's not often that you can talk your way out of all the hostile encounters you face but your first goal should always be to figure out which approach is best between Flattering, Frightening or Flim Flamming.

As for the second character, I would recommend asking your DM to help you fill in the blanks. I've known some very well fleshed out characters who left a lot of their backstory open for interpretation and a DM given permission to use that usually uses it well.

[Lunali]

My first character is an aasimar celestial warlock, the problem I am having is how do I play a 20 charisma character when I am pretty bad at thinking what to say on the spot (I have been upgraded to the party face because our bard is not in our group anymore). I am fine in normal situations, it's more of the convince these bandits to lay down their arms type stuff I'm not good at.Would it be an issue to ask my dm if I can just say in general what I am trying to persuade or intimidate and such? Or is their a better way to handle that.

There are basically two ways to deal with your character having better persuasion than you do. One is to do it in abstract where you outline your argument and roll to see if it works. The other is to say it in character and roll for it to see if it works. The second method has the advantage of helping you to get more into character, but has the downside of poorly phrased arguments being completely successful which can bring everyone out of character a bit.

[guachi]

When trying to roleplay a high charisma (or basically anything) state a goal and an approach. If you have something cool to say, so much the better as it can make the gaming session more enjoyable.

But all you really need is a goal and an approach so the DM can adequately adjudicate your Action.

"I try to convince the guard to let us in to town quickly. I appeal to his sense of decency and point out that it's raining buckets and the longer we delay the wetter everyone gets."

There's a goal and an approach. If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain he has enough information from you to set a DC and have you roll.

That's really it. A goal and an approach.

[Galithar]

When trying to roleplay a high charisma (or basically anything) state a goal and an approach. If you have something cool to say, so much the better as it can make the gaming session more enjoyable.

But all you really need is a goal and an approach so the DM can adequately adjudicate your Action.

"I try to convince the guard to let us in to town quickly. I appeal to his sense of decency and point out that it's raining buckets and the longer we delay the wetter everyone gets."

There's a goal and an approach. If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain he has enough information from you to set a DC and have you roll.

That's really it. A goal and an approach.

This is the what I recommend my characters to do. And sometimes I kind of do it myself as a DM. For those moments when a character says something and I'm at a loss for what my silver tongued Noble Lord would say to their sudden Tom foolery. I just fall back on narrating because it's easier.

If you're group is okay with a slight slowdown to help you practice, try to word it how you think your character would even you can, and then narrate on top of it to make sure the point for across. Then after session ask a player or the DM if your acting and narrating have the same feel and intention. That way you can get feedback if your acting attempts are improving.

[Aurosman]

If roleplaying a high charisma character is difficult for you, don't worry, it's probably the most difficult role to play. Even naturally charismatic people might not be able to think on their feet in situations where a silver tongue could avoid bloodshed.

I can recommend 2 things for the first character:
-Just try talking in character a lot. You don't need a funny voice but it helps my mindset when I talk to my party members characters instead of the players. This approach might also help your teammates roleplay more, and if they're already strong roleplayers they'll likely help you along with this.
-If you're not comfortable with always talking in character, narrate your actions. This is the easier of the two because it's more or less you as a player telling a story about your character. If they're meant to be charismatic throw in your favorite adjectives even when they do a mundane action.

In my experience, it's not often that you can talk your way out of all the hostile encounters you face but your first goal should always be to figure out which approach is best between Flattering, Frightening or Flim Flamming.

As for the second character, I would recommend asking your DM to help you fill in the blanks. I've known some very well fleshed out characters who left a lot of their backstory open for interpretation and a DM given permission to use that usually uses it well.

I am still pretty new to dnd, so still unable to get into full character, but am trying more since I'm a charasmatic character. I think I am going to have to outline what my plan is and tell the FM and hope that is good enough for social encounter rolls.


As for my second character the dm already has full control. I gave a brief history of his before life, but that is in ancient past. And as for his god, he is the god, in the past he put all of his power and being into a warforged body because reasons. The stress partitioned his mind so the current mind is an empty slate. So he has knowledge on things, but no memories. I have no idea if he will ever know. I guess I can just see where he goes from the story and build his personality on that.

[Mr.Spastic]

To put it simply telling your DM the way you want to do something should be fine. If you have a crap DM who requires you to state what your character says, tell him that the person playing the fighter doesn't have to state the proper technique every time he swings his sword. Bit off topic but I find that when I play bards, or other high cha characters, there is this stigma that you have to act it out. You don't, so just tell your dm you are going to try. But also tell him that your not good at those things, so that if you flub on the spot it doesn't mean your character did.

[Lunali]

As for my second character the dm already has full control. I gave a brief history of his before life, but that is in ancient past. And as for his god, he is the god, in the past he put all of his power and being into a warforged body because reasons. The stress partitioned his mind so the current mind is an empty slate. So he has knowledge on things, but no memories. I have no idea if he will ever know. I guess I can just see where he goes from the story and build his personality on that.

Just to warn you, if you do this, his personality is likely to heavily reflect your own. If that isn't what you want, you should probably decide on some history that shaped his personality and have him retain that personality even though he can't remember why he is the way he is.

[Edenbeast]

My first character is an aasimar celestial warlock, the problem I am having is how do I play a 20 charisma character when I am pretty bad at thinking what to say on the spot (I have been upgraded to the party face because our bard is not in our group anymore). I am fine in normal situations, it's more of the convince these bandits to lay down their arms type stuff I'm not good at.Would it be an issue to ask my dm if I can just say in general what I am trying to persuade or intimidate and such? Or is their a better way to handle that.

High charisma is rather difficult. I myself am a rather quiet and shy person, and I dislike being the party face. But I have played a bard before, and it was one of my best roleplaying experiences.

There are two ways you can do it: either first mention your intend, you or or your DM rolls the dice and you act out the success or failure. Or you role-play first and then mention what your intend is and then you roll to see whether the NPC's are actually impressed by you. When you try to convince the bandits and it doesn't sound impressive and your DM responds to that, then he's not actually playing the game; he's responding to you, not your character. We have dice to help us out in these situations.


My second character is a warforged forge cleric. The interesting thing about him is that he has no memory from before the party found him. He has general knowledge, and his name, but that's it. He has only been awake for about a week, just learned to talk in current common(he is really old and has been "a sleep" for a long time). I know I can play him any way I want to because of that, but does anyone have any fun ideas? Right now he is the silent type that blindly follows orders/trusts the party. So any suggestions would be great help.

I'd suggest you watch Memento to get some inspiration.

[Maelynn]

I find that when I play bards, or other high cha characters, there is this stigma that you have to act it out. You don't, so just tell your dm you are going to try. But also tell him that your not good at those things, so that if you flub on the spot it doesn't mean your character did.

I hate it when people, especially DMs, want you to do It in character. "Okay, go on, so what do you say then?" Doesn't matter bud, you dont ask the Barbarian to lift the table just to prove his character is strong enough to break down the door either.

If you're not comfortable acting out a high charisma, or if you can't find the right things to say, then a DM should allow you to describe the general gist of it. "I try to persuade the guard to let us pass" should be just as sufficient as a Rogue saying "I try to open this lock with my tools" without having to go into details*. Any details or examples of what you'd say should only be meant as flavour, not as a bar for success. That's what we have dice for.

*of course, you can ask to specify the kind of persuasion (verbal by appealing to their kindness, or by flashing boobs if you're female), just like you would ask how someone uses their Acrobatics to cross a rickety bridge... meant to focus on not having to say exactly what your character would.

[DarkKnightJin]

When trying to roleplay a high charisma (or basically anything) state a goal and an approach. If you have something cool to say, so much the better as it can make the gaming session more enjoyable.

But all you really need is a goal and an approach so the DM can adequately adjudicate your Action.

"I try to convince the guard to let us in to town quickly. I appeal to his sense of decency and point out that it's raining buckets and the longer we delay the wetter everyone gets."

There's a goal and an approach. If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain he has enough information from you to set a DC and have you roll.

That's really it. A goal and an approach.

This is a good tip. If you can get in-character while you lay this out for the DM(or fellow players) to work with, all the better.

My 10 Cha Cleric once convinced a guy to give us a necklace he stole from a woman he (unwantingly, because possession by spooky ghost) murdered, to bring to the woman's uncle.
I RP'd out how I comforted the guy and calmed him down after the whole ordeal.

Result? The DM looked at me and went "You don't have to roll for that." Since there wasn't any possible way the guy wouldn't accept what I was requesting of him.

[Pelle]

I hate it when people, especially DMs, want you to do It in character. "Okay, go on, so what do you say then?" Doesn't matter bud, you dont ask the Barbarian to lift the table just to prove his character is strong enough to break down the door either.


That's a weird attitude to have. Being encouraged to embellish on what your character says is a reward, not a punishment. Yes, as guachi said, a goal and an approach is all that is required, but the game becomes much more enjoyable for everyone if you take this opportunity to do some characterization.

[Maelynn]

That's a weird attitude to have. Being encouraged to embellish on what your character says is a reward, not a punishment. Yes, as guachi said, a goal and an approach is all that is required, but the game becomes much more enjoyable for everyone if you take this opportunity to do some characterization.

It can be a reward, yes, but what I mean is when a DM expects you to display the same level of charisma as your character by forcing you to act it out. A shy, timid person will have great difficulty with thinking of what to say for a Persuasion check and how to word it, and they shouldn't be punished if they're bad at it. I hate those DMs who determine a success/fail based on the player's (in)competence. Another example of this would be a difficult puzzle, which the character should be able to solve as he's a Wizard with 18 INT - but the player isn't that smart and cannot for the life of him figure it out. That's a similar way of forcing a player to act out something they're bad at.

Encourage people, yes please. I love seeing people develop and bloom. I just loathe DMs who fail a check if the player can't match the character's skill. It's the exact opposite and can end up discouraging someone. I have a friend who never plays cha-based characters because of this. He just avoids them now, even though he would've liked to try out a Paladin.

[CorporateSlave]

That's a weird attitude to have. Being encouraged to embellish on what your character says is a reward, not a punishment. Yes, as guachi said, a goal and an approach is all that is required, but the game becomes much more enjoyable for everyone if you take this opportunity to do some characterization.

I think the point is it may not be a reward if the DM insists you act in character when you don't want to/can't...my character may have 18 CHA, but when a DM insists I talk it out in character and I'm a naturally shy person...then I fail my persuasion (or whatever) because I'm not personally quick with flowery words, the DM has effectively forced my character of 18 CHA to function with 8 CHA, and made the player uncomfortable in the process. That sounds like a) more punishment (for character and player) than reward, and b) some real crappy DM-ing.

To the OP, from a "talky" standpoint, I find role-playing is greatly helped by adopting an accent that is strong/silly, or both.

From a game mechanic-y standpoint, adopt the grim realization that your character may sometimes have to act in a way you as a player in the same situation clearly would not. Then play up those situations as much as possible. Example - your just awakened warforged...if he has really no memory speak in broken english ("common") and have him make up bizarre names for things he sees, leave it to the rest of the party to try and figure out what he means. He spots a black cat crossing the trail in front of the party? "HALT NOW AND RE-DIRECT. Limited archives indicate bad fortune result when future road intersected by travel path of small black jumping horse with talons. Travel path has been intersected. Bad fortune is not advised."

I do a variation of this with my low intelligence characters...I don't take notes and so I really can't remember much of those important details, then having to refer to past encounters or people with vague descriptions rather than actual names and places.

[Pelle]

It can be a reward, yes, but what I mean is when a DM expects you to display the same level of charisma as your character by forcing you to act it out. A shy, timid person will have great difficulty with thinking of what to say for a Persuasion check and how to word it, and they shouldn't be punished if they're bad at it. I hate those DMs who determine a success/fail based on the player's (in)competence.

That feels like a strawman DM to me, I doubt that ever really happens. The infamous DM who requires bard players to sing beautifully is just an urban legend that people like to imagine and get worked up about. Everyone understand that players who stutter and so on because they are socially insecure don't portray their high charisma characters accurately, and don't hold the performance against them. It could also be a misunderstanding/disagreement of what is possible with high charisma. "No, it is not because you stuttered that the king won't make you his heir, it's simply practically impossible."

What I see more often being difficult for socially challenged people is which topics to bring up, what they want to gain from the interaction and which arguments to use. Even if it is described out of character, they are less able to find good approaches to social situations. And for a DM to adjudicate, they need at least a goal and an approach, and that's the players job to come up with. It's really an unsolvable problem to me, and some aspect of the game needs to be compromised to make it work. What usually happens to me is that other players give suggestions on what the party face could say, but that verges on playing other peoples' characters for them, and what's acceptable depends on the group.

[Jophiel]

I'm all for players giving speeches or otherwise roleplaying their social attempts. I agree that it helps the feeling of story for the characters. However nothing is more demoralizing to me at the table than giving a speech and being told "roll Persuasion" then getting a 2. I guess it feels more personal since it was me coming up with the thoughts and words versus swinging a sword being more mechanical. After a couple failed checks like that, I'm ready to say "Screw it, I tell the guards to free the princess yadda yadda; here's my Persuasion roll."

I guess DMs can work around this with a number of options such as lowering DC, allowing advantage for player effort or even just declaring success much like solving a puzzle. I don't think that stuff like strength checks really feels the same since few people have experience with lifting a castle portcullis but virtually everyone can directly relate to talking to people. Mind you, I'm not opposed to people who just want to roll the dice, I just think that giving players incentive for roleplaying is a good thing.

As for roleplaying in general, I've been experimenting with doing it in third person and think I like it more. I feel more confident when I'm describing someone else's actions than when trying to project myself into it. I don't really need to feel like I'm personally a halfling paladin if I can help weave a fun story about a halfling paladin.

[Unoriginal]

Have you tried watching videos of characters somewhat similar to yours?

For a campaign of mine (which saddly never took of), I wanted the first arc villain to be a Black Dragon besieging a city with an army. I thought "what if he was played by Christopher Lee?" and it helped me visualize the feel and presence I wanted to give him, and how to roleplay him.

[KorvinStarmast]

That feels like a strawman DM to me, I doubt that ever really happens. The infamous DM who requires bard players to sing beautifully is just an urban legend that people like to imagine and get worked up about. Yeah. I've seen some rather bad DM's, but Pelle has the right of this.
Secondly: if you don't like a DM, why are you playing with them? Masochist?
Thirdly: A lot of games allow us to grow as people. I'll give you some examples.

Chess: teaches you to think a few moves ahead, and to think strategically.
Monopoly: at early ages, teaches some counting, estimating, and how to make change. As you play the game more, it is a great way to experiment with deal making. (Not sure how many of you have played in Monopoly tournaments, but it's a whole different way to experience the game).
Role Playing Games: you can play act things you wouldn't do IRL. That includes social interactions that are outside of your personality type.


So I make this appeal: players need to stop making the excuse that "I am a shy person." They are only hurting themselves by hiding behind that excuse in a role playing game, and they potentially reduce their contribution to the group effort.
Try stuff out in the RPG; sometimes, it will work, and sometimes it won't. Unlike RL, the consequences are bounded by the table and the game. RPG's are a great vehicle for trying things out.

Mike Mornard often makes this point regarding the RP aspect of RPG's: you (the player) don't get better at things if you don't do / try them.

Let the RP in an RPG be a chance for you, the player to grow. In the context of a game, failure isn't the end of the world. It's a chance to grow, learn, and sometimes have hilarious outcomes that you didn't expect. Games from the dawn of history have included the social experience, and the learning experience. (Counting games and rhyming games go waaaaaay back). (See also the game Marry Poppins has Jane and Michael Banks play to clean up their room).

And lastly, I encourage every RP player to try a character that is outside of their comfort zone. Stretch your muscles. (I say that figuratively). Stretch your imagination. Try on a new pair of boots, as it were, and walk in them for a while.

In D&D, with the variations of class, there's enough overlap to where you can still reach for the familiar with a new character class.

And also, gauchi's suggestion in most excellent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23462229&postcount=4).

Lastly: learn what Charisma is in D&D 5e. Understand that Charisma bonuses also work with Intimidation checks. You don't have to be a silver tongued devil. You can be a bully, or a boor, just as easily with a high Charisma. It's force of personality.

Charisma Measures: Confidence, eloquence, leadership Important for: Leaders and diplomatic characters page 8
A character with high Charisma exudes confidence, which is usually mixed with a graceful or intimidating presence. A character with a low Charisma might come across as abrasive, inarticulate, or timid. page 9
Charisma, measuring force of personality p. 57
Charisma
Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality.
You got to choose your ability scores. This is D&D 5e. Nobody made you select a high charisma. You didn't get stuck with a high charisma roll like we did in the olden days, when one rolled six stats in order. You Chose a High Charisma Character.
So, Embrace it! It's OK for not every attempt to go perfectly. That's Why We Roll The Dice. Failure can happen. Embrace that as well.

Lastly: Consider that Deception and Intimidation are skill areas that benefit from charisma.
Lie like a rug and wallow in it. :smallbiggrin:
And be prepared to fail; your next challenge is how to deal with "oops! that went horribly wrong" which is half the fun of D&D.

About Your Cleric
Love your concept. (warforged forge cleric).
The interesting thing about him is that he has no memory from before the party found him.
Maybe you change the back story: he got hit on the head by a hammer at the forge, memory shot. :smallbiggrin:

He has general knowledge, and his name, but that's it.
He has only been awake for about a week, just learned to talk in current common(he is really old and has been "a sleep" for a long time).
I know I can play him any way I want to because of that, but does anyone have any fun ideas?
Right now he is the silent type that blindly follows orders / trusts the party.
So any suggestions would be great help.
He needs to at least somewhat surprise the party (even the other players) when he stops doing the bolded part.
Make a suggestion, any suggestion, and then (initially) stubbornly stick to that course of action "since it seems right!" Iron will from an iron beating servant of the forge. (You can eventually accept the party consensus if they just won't put up with it due to it's being a bad idea, but that's a first step in getting out of that rut.)

Later on, try to fix something with a hammer that isn't normally fixable with a hammer. Choose the subject for comedic effect, or as an alternative when the party is a little stumped on "what to do next."

[Tanarii]

If you're not comfortable acting out a high charisma, or if you can't find the right things to say, then a DM should allow you to describe the general gist of it. "I try to persuade the guard to let us pass" should be just as sufficient as a Rogue saying "I try to open this lock with my tools" without having to go into details*. Any details or examples of what you'd say should only be meant as flavour, not as a bar for success. That's what we have dice for.The problem is, you've given half an Intent, but not the Approach, for the persuasion. You Intend to persuade the guard to let you pass. How? Even a simple Approach is sufficient. It may also turn it from a Persuasion check to something else, like Deception or Intimidation. It doesn't need to be detailed, but it does need to exist.

Meanwhile the Rogue has given both. He Intends to open the lock, and his Approach is to use his Thieves Tools to pick it. As opposed to using improvised tools to pick it, or bash it open with force.

[Unoriginal]

Maybe you change the back story: he got hit on the head by a hammer at the forge, memory shot. :smallbiggrin:


The hammer is still there.

[KorvinStarmast]

The hammer is still there. Beauty plot hook, right there.
Need to find that forge and the original hammer from that apprenticeship ... :smallcool:

[Randomthom]

My first character is an aasimar celestial warlock, the problem I am having is how do I play a 20 charisma character when I am pretty bad at thinking what to say on the spot (I have been upgraded to the party face because our bard is not in our group anymore). I am fine in normal situations, it's more of the convince these bandits to lay down their arms type stuff I'm not good at.Would it be an issue to ask my dm if I can just say in general what I am trying to persuade or intimidate and such? Or is their a better way to handle that.

My second character is a warforged forge cleric. The interesting thing about him is that he has no memory from before the party found him. He has general knowledge, and his name, but that's it. He has only been awake for about a week, just learned to talk in current common(he is really old and has been "a sleep" for a long time). I know I can play him any way I want to because of that, but does anyone have any fun ideas? Right now he is the silent type that blindly follows orders/trusts the party. So any suggestions would be great help.

This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8F8BpH8rkw) might help with your first character. Remember, sometimes convincing all the bad guys isn't an option but convincing some of them is! Perhaps you can't prevent the fight but you can spin out the conversation before it starts long enough that they drop some vital bit of information.

My favourite character I've played is Benzo the Magnificent, a halfling Bard. He is chaotic good and would never torture anyone but the guy strapped to the chair didn't know that, he played the part of an unhinged and eager torturer to scare the guy into spilling his secrets. Your Aasimar is probably a more serious character so you could play on his upper-planes heritage, Suggest that he has friends in "high" places who know just what to do with "scum like you".

The forge cleric has some great roleplay opportunities and gives you great scope for growing into them. Decide on a (true) backstory with some real memory trigger points, discuss with your DM about these as they might have suggestions for tweaks to make sure your "triggers" come up. Maybe you could choose to enter a catatonic state mid-combat for a round or two if your trigger occurs during combat. Perhaps even consider tying certain class abilities/spells behind these triggers (definitely discuss with DM so these come up) so you don't use them until then.

Personality-wise, I've never played a Warforged because I always imagined them as somewhat lacking in personality (I haven't read much about them so that may be unfair). You do have an opportunity here too though because, given that your character is learning baout his own past, he would have no reason to hide it from the party, until he does! Imagine the guy you are travelling with is gradually uncovering his past albeit with occasional fits/seizures then (over)sharing after the event about what he found out. Suddenly he has one such event and chooses to not say anything... intrigue! :)

[Maelynn]

The problem is, you've given half an Intent, but not the Approach, for the persuasion. You Intend to persuade the guard to let you pass. How? Even a simple Approach is sufficient. It may also turn it from a Persuasion check to something else, like Deception or Intimidation. It doesn't need to be detailed, but it does need to exist.

Meanwhile the Rogue has given both. He Intends to open the lock, and his Approach is to use his Thieves Tools to pick it. As opposed to using improvised tools to pick it, or bash it open with force.

Fair point. There has to be a bit of an angle that shows which direction the player wants their character to take things. Perhaps my earlier comment was a bit too firm, coloured by what I felt when my friend told me about his experience with having to act out his Persuasion check. The DM expected him to say it all in character and when my friend tried to, the response was something along the lines of "what, is that the best you can do?" and he told him he failed his roll. Of course, I'm paraphrasing here and I'm not sure how my friend was convinced the DM deliberately failed his roll, but it was the disheartened feeling he described that made me angry. The guy tried his best, he was bad at it, but it's the roll that should determine success and not his choice of words. In the same sense that a player doesn't have to be show he can lift a sofa just because he wants their character to push a boulder off his teammate's leg. I hope I explained my sentiment a bit better this time.

When you want someone to step out of their comfort zone, there's rewards and there's punishment. The experience my friend had is punishment, which I feel is the wrong way to go about it. I'd prefer a DM works with rewards instead: if someone is clearly roleplaying something out of their comfort zone, give them advantage, or lower the DC, or give them DM inspiration. Make them want to succeed, rather than fear to fail.

[GlenSmash!]

Likewise I found playing a high CHA character very stressful. I mostly don't do it anymore.

Still if I had to I would develop a few simple strategies for social encounters.

"My character tells a lie to get the NPC to do X"
"My character uses his charm to get the NPC to do X"
"My character threatens the NPC to get them to do X"

With those simple descriptions a DM can resolve the uncertainty.

If the DM asks for more details it's ok to say "I can't really come up with more details"

If I were the DM at that point, I would say "cool, roll a DC X Charisma (deception/Persuasion/Intimidaiton) check" and move on.

[Demonslayer666]

My advice is to try what you are comfortable with, and then follow up with describing your intentions to the DM.

Getting better takes practice.



As a side note, roleplaying should be encouraged, never required.

[Pelle]

Still if I had to I would develop a few simple strategies for social encounters.

"My character tells a lie to get the NPC to do X"
"My character uses his charm to get the NPC to do X"
"My character threatens the NPC to get them to do X"

With those simple descriptions a DM can resolve the uncertainty.


Sorry, but that is still only half an approach. Enough for the DM to know which Ability and Proficiency to apply, but not enough to set the DC and determine consequences. I see many different outcomes of those actions depending on how you lie, charm and threaten.

To be clear, this is not to be mean to you. The thing is, the DM can't assume what your character is doing, only you know that. So you need to help the DM understand what your character could be doing, so it is easy for the DM to apply the appropriate outcome. The DM doesn't necessarily know what is 'the best' to do in the situation either, so it is unfair to expect him to decide it for you.

If it was my game, I would need you to answer some follow-up questions, so that we together figure out what your character is doing in enough detail so that I as the DM know which consequences will be relevant. "Allright, you threaten to use violence, not against the NPC, but against the NPC's family. Cool, I don't need anymore than that, thanks for helping me". This is collaborative, so you need to collaborate with the DM. If you instead just give me the job of deciding what your character is doing, then I don't want any "my character would never do that!" afterwards...

[GlenSmash!]

Sorry, but that is still only half an approach. Enough for the DM to know which Ability and Proficiency to apply, but not enough to set the DC and determine consequences. I see many different outcomes of those actions depending on how you lie, charm and threaten.

To be clear, this is not to be mean to you. The thing is, the DM can't assume what your character is doing, only you know that. So you need to help the DM understand what your character could be doing, so it is easy for the DM to apply the appropriate outcome. The DM doesn't necessarily know what is 'the best' to do in the situation either, so it is unfair to expect him to decide it for you.

If it was my game, I would need you to answer some follow-up questions, so that we together figure out what your character is doing in enough detail so that I as the DM know which consequences will be relevant. "Allright, you threaten to use violence, not against the NPC, but against the NPC's family. Cool, I don't need anymore than that, thanks for helping me". This is collaborative, so you need to collaborate with the DM. If you instead just give me the job of deciding what your character is doing, then I don't want any "my character would never do that!" afterwards...

Solid. I could see working with that.

I still get players asking "Can I make a Perception check?" so there is a lot of room for improvement at my table.

[KorvinStarmast]

As a side note, roleplaying should be encouraged, never required. In a role playing game? Really? :smallconfused:
(not sure we are using the same definition of the term here)

[GlenSmash!]

In a role playing game? Really? :smallconfused:
(not sure we are using the same definition of the term here)

I have seen a lot of people conflate engaging in the social pillar of the game with role-playing.

To me just having your character pick up a sword and swing it is role playing. Specifically playing the role of a person swinging a sword.

[Demonslayer666]

In a role playing game? Really? :smallconfused:
(not sure we are using the same definition of the term here)

Yes really. It's not realistic to require method acting of your players, especially when some of your players don't enjoy acting out their characters. They want to play by telling you what they do, not acting it out.

[GlenSmash!]

Yes really. It's not realistic to require method acting of your players, especially when some of your players don't enjoy acting out their characters. Method active is not required for role-playing.
They want to play by telling you what they do, not acting it out.

Yes. That is called role-playing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes really. It's not realistic to require method acting of your players, especially when some of your players don't enjoy acting out their characters. They want to play by telling you what they do, not acting it out. See the bolded part. You and I are not using the same definition for the same term.
Method acting is not a synonym for role playing. At least, it isn't in my experience.
Maybe our experience differs.

[Tanarii]

Roleplaying at its most basic is making decisions for your character. Most people seem to prefer roleplaying as making in-character decisions for your character.

Method acting, or deeply getting into and thinking about your characters motivations (in 5e Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw, and possibly Alignment) is personally one of my favorites.

Speaking in character, and possibly doing funny voices and being loquacious and heavily descriptive, while sometimes a lot of fun, isn't required for any of those things.

[guachi]

Like others have said and alluded to, if you don't give an approach and and a desired outcome it makes it difficult for a DM to adequately adjudicate the player's action but it is also unfair to the DM.

It's unfair because it puts the DM in the role of deciding what the PC does.

"I investigate the statue. I roll a 24."
"Okay, as you move closer to the statue to investigate, it shoots a cloud of poison at you. Roll a save"
"I never said I moved towards the statue!!!"

"I persuade the guard to let us in. I roll a 24."
"How?"
"With persuasion!"

As opposed to something like:

"I observe the guard for a few minutes trying to see or hear anything of interest."
"Roll Perception. The higher you roll the more you get."
"I roll a 24."
"You hear him complain that he's 10 gp in debt at the local gambling house and needs the money by the end of the week."
"I approach and tell him if he lets us in he gets 5gp and another 5gp by the end of the week if he keeps letting you in."
"You get in. No roll."

Give the DM a goal and approach and you give the DM the excuse to let you succeed with no roll whatsoever.

[Demonslayer666]

See the bolded part. You and I are not using the same definition for the same term.
Method acting is not a synonym for role playing. At least, it isn't in my experience.
Maybe our experience differs.
Using roleplaying in its common term, to act out. Not as it's less common definition of playing a roleplaying game (which may or may not include acting).

Rolling a d20 and telling the DM your result, is not acting, and is only roleplaying by the less common definition of playing a roleplaying game.

It can be argued that never talking/gesturing/emoting like your character makes you a roll-player, and not a roleplayer. Both are accepted at our table, and what I am getting at when I say roleplaying should be encouraged, and never required.

I'm sure you have heard the sayings "Less combat, more roleplaying" and vice versa. I've heard this a lot recently at our table when discussing what players like and dislike about our games.

From my gaming experience, combat only games have no roleplaying, because you only make decisions that are not acted out. For example, games like Warhammer 40k and Zombicide have no roleplaying in them, even though you take on the role of a commander or a survivor. There's no call for acting out voices and emotions of your character, because you don't interact with people outside of combat, combat is all that matters. And even though you can act out like your character would, they are not considered roleplaying games.

D&D can be played where you only make decisions (act as), and never act out your character (talking like them, gesture, emote). But there is a call to act like your character in D&D, especially outside of combat, so it is called a roleplaying game.