Roleplaying charisma, etc

[Poe]

So, I've been reading and commenting on a thread today about the impact of stats, and it made me ponder something that I ponder from time to time. I didn't want to post this on that group, as I figured it was a little too off-track for that thread, so decided to start a new one, and get people's thoughts on it.

So often in RPGs (not just D&D) I see players attempt physical skills and the DM has them roll an ability check. All good, understandable. Then they want to chat with an NPC (maybe they're trying to impress them, get info from them, persuade them of something, etc) and the DM/GM says, "Roleplay it." Sometimes they'll allow the player to roll a skill check with a bonus if they roleplay it well.

Now, I'm all in favour of roleplaying whenever possible, and definitely in favour over just rolling a bunch of dice. Roleplaying is why I'm into the hobby. That being said, sometimes it can be very hard to roleplay if the character has skills or abilities you just don't possess. If I make a very persuasive bard or rogue character with a super high charisma, I just won't have the ability to pull that off successfully. I have a stutter, and am nowhere near as eloquent as I'd like. Definitely not as eloquent as that 18 charisma flirtatious charmer.

The same can be said for mental abilities. The DM may have given your group a few clues about the adventure. Perhaps some problems to solve. Your character has 16-18 wisdom and intelligence. They spot everything! But maybe the player just doesn't have the skills to put some of those connections together. As much as they try to, they just don't have the quick-thinking and problem-solving to portray their character the way they want without some additional help from the DM. Sure they make a perception check to spot physical clues, but the DM rarely seems to give clues as to how to solve a certain problem.

So, I guess my question is why do so many of us (I am guilty of it too!) seem to have the view that physical abilities
are different than mental and social skills as far as roleplaying go? Why do so many people think that mental and social abilities should be roleplayed, but physical ones need a dice roll? Now, obviously this doesn't apply to many skills where specific knowledge is required, such as medicine, lore, etc. And obviously, it's not that black and white. More often than not many DMs seem to be of the view (from my experience) of "Roleplay it, and I'll give you a modifier based upon that." But I have *never* seen a DM say "You want to bash open the door? Okay, hip and shoulder my front door, and I'll give you a modifier based upon your success." (okay, that one isn't serious) Or, perhaps more plausibly, "Jump between these two spots and I'll modify your roll based upon how you do."

I will probably not comment too much on this post (at least I'll try to restrain myself, unless I think it'll add to the discussion or people ask me direct questions) as I genuinely want to hear your views, more so than convincing anyone of my own. :)

[da newt]

A fair point - when was the last time anyone had a GM tell a player to act out the physical feat they wished their PC to perform? 'Go ahead, show me that parkour maneuver ...' 'How exactly will your goblin grapple the troll - Bill over there is 6'9" and 340 lbs, you are 5'4" and 135 lbs, go grapple him.'

I've also played with folks whose PC has a very high CHA and would like to play the face role, but the player just doesn't have the knack to figure out what they should say or how they should say it.

On the other hand, roleplay is a great no-harm/no-foul way to practice those skills that don't come naturally too.

In the end, I think it's something for the GM to keep in mind, and do all they can to keep it fair and fun (the success should be mostly determined by the PC's stats vice the player's inherent skills) while encouraging folks to roleplay as they feel comfortable.

[diplomancer]

The social interaction section of the DMG (page 244) deals with this. The roleplaying is to determine whether the attitude of the NPC towards the group changes during the interaction. This does not require a Cha roll, though an Insight roll at some point in the interaction helps. IF it has changed, for better or worse depending on how the group interacted with the NPC, the DC for the Cha checks, which happen at the END of the conversation, and what they can accomplish, changes as well.

In a way, it is to social interaction what, in combat, is figuring out what a monster's weaknesses and strengths are, or even making good tactical decisions. I have a friend who is an experienced player, but sometimes plays mid-level one-shots with newbies. He's always frustrated and amused by their lack of tactical smarts in combat. Should the DM make smarter decisions for them, because "that's how a 9th-level character would act in combat"? It's the same thing.

[Martin Greywolf]

Handle it the same way you handle combat. You don't ask your fighter to describe the attack exactly, their fighter may know to counter an imbrocata parry with a punta falsa, but your players likely aren't that well versed in medieval Italian swordsmanship (and two different styles clashing here, at that).

Don't require your intriverted guy playing a bard to exactly say what he's telling that guard. Something like "I approach and make small talk, try to get in his good graces by being interested in his hobbies," is perfectly serviceable. If the players do have the acting skill, or if there are no stakes, by all means, go with direct speech, but it's not necessary.

[Pex]

It's not necessary for a player to go for an Academy Award. That's just fun for the sake of having fun. It's enough for a player to state his idea. At its most basic a player could say "I use Persuasion" and roll, but it can feel like the game becomes a glorified boardgame. The player should at least be prompted to say what idea he's trying to convey. No need for a Shakespearean soliloquy, but at least give an outline of the information you want to say to make your influence. That's still more than not asking how you swing your sword when making an attack. It's an inherent bias of a roleplaying game that differentiates it from a boardgame. We have to accept that, but we don't need to be Hugh Jackman however much cool it would be to play a game with him.

[Alucard89]

Well, I can tell one thing from my experience as both player and DM.

You can't really roleplay Charisma or Intelligence. If you are not charismatic person - your character also won't be. If you are not intelligent person - you won't roleplay one (like solving puzzles or logical problems etc.). You can "roleplay" that with mechanic, so you give a "speech" (best as you as person is able to) and you can roll for charisma.

But to truly roleplay Charisma or Intelligence - you need to be charismatic or intelligent. Charisma is harder though.

I bet a professional actor with good script behind him could pull it off. But we are talking about average people that need to improvise when they roleplay.

So I wouldn't worry about that. I have played tons of characters in my life in RPGs - and even my half-orcs/orcs with 8 CHA (or equivalent in other systems) were much more charismatic and social than other players characters with 20 CHA. Why? Cause they (as persons) are totally not charismatic, and I am in real life (not to brag, just a fact), therefore speeches, social interactions, leading, inspiring etc. is natural for me. For them it's pain to try to roleplay as one. Same for me and intelligence- I have poor analytic skills, I hate puzzles, math and I am not that intelligent as person. I won't roleplay that - I mean I can pretend I am intelligent but once it will come to me having to solve something - I will just ask DM for a roll cause I have no idea how to do it :D.

So I would just speak with DM and tell him that I will try my best and rest we will resolve with mechanics - because that is why mechanics, persuasion, deception, charisma etc. exist.

[prabe]

The comparison between physical actions and (in this case) social ones is ... not exactly apples-to-apples. Physical actions are (usually) more objective, more measurable: You jump over the chasm, or you don't, and it's obvious which; you open the lock, or you don't, and it's obvious which. Social actions are (potentially) less obvious: You talk to the merchant, trying to get information about who else has shopped there, and ... he either tells you about other customers, or he doesn't, and if you want to find out if he's being straight with you you need another check. I think it's easier to accept the physical things as "just a die roll" than (again, in this case) social things, and that's leaving out the ... pressure, I guess, to just roleplay it out--certainly the option to Do The Thing without dice exists for social tasks in a way it doesn't for physical ones (unless you want to make a LARP out of it, I guess ...) and some people prefer that.

As to roleplaying a mental stat you don't have: I don't want to rehash the recent thread about this, but I think it's possible to roleplay more of a mental stat than you have. You can simulate (somewhat) being smarter than you are; you can simulate (again, somewhat) being more personable or more sensible than you are. The simulation can be in the form of prep, or in mechanics, or in finding a piece of yourself more in line with the character you're roleplaying. I think the upper limit of what you can simulate, though is going to be defined by your capabilities. For example, the group I play with that has among the six of us at least eight advanced degrees, all but two of them in hard sciences, probably has a higher-than-normal upper limit when it comes to playing intelligent characters. A gaming group with a bunch of actors in it would probably have a higher-than-normal upper limit when it came to social interactions (at least when it came to projecting; actors can be ... self-involved).

For what it's worth, I find that people tend to have lower limits, as well. It's hard to get a really intelligent person to roleplay dumb; it's hard to get a naturally outgoing person to roleplay shy. But that's another thread (probably).

[follacchioso]

Playing a character with high charisma is difficult, but there are books that you can read to help you with that.

My favourite is a classic, "how to make friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie. You can also search for "Conflict Resolution" videos and courses online.

In general, a high Charisma character listens to the other characters, and has an interest in their story. This is the best thing that you can do to RP in general in D&D. Most players put a lot of efforts in building intricate and tragic storylines; but then, nobody listens to them, because all the other people at the table are doing the same.

If you want to emulate a high Charisma character, just ask the other people in your party about their story. Encourage them and make the feel like heroes. That will make respected by everybody, as a true charismatic character should be. By the way, you can learn something to apply to real life as well.

[Alucard89]

You can simulate (somewhat) being smarter than you are; you can simulate (again, somewhat) being more personable or more sensible than you are.

It's hard to get a really intelligent person to roleplay dumb; it's hard to get a naturally outgoing person to roleplay shy. But that's another thread (probably).

Yup, you can only somehow simulate you are more social/charismatic then you really are. But for example you won't suddenly be able to run your DM into corner in every conversation, being able to overwhelm him with your rhetoric and oratory skills - something for example I can do easly which drives many DMs mad when their "charismatic" NPCs meets my characters and they lose "social battle" every time. Because I am natural and they (DMs) have to tryhard mostly to roleplay charistmatic people, but if they don't have it - they can only simulate it "that far".

And it's true about roleplaying something opposite to you. I tried many many times to roleplay non-charismatic characters in RPGs (low CHA barbarians, silent assassins, idiotic brutes, ugly enforcers etc.) but in the end I always end up somehow as party face or my character is just way more charistmatic or social than he should be.


Why? Because I have no idea what does it mean to be not charistmatic. I mean - I get the concept, but I have no idea how to be like that one all the time. It's like staying on alert 24h - it's impossible.

Same like clever/intelligent person won't really be able to fully roleplay dumb character. He can somehow simulate him but he will (instincively) in the end make decisions and give advice that is way more clever than his character should be. That's just how it works.

[Reevh]

So my first full campaign I played with my current group, I played a 9 Charisma Half Orc Cleric of Erathis. I tried to roleplay his low charisma by having him not really understand how social interaction works, always putting his foot in his mouth etc. I was told afterwards by the DM that because IRL I'm a high charisma person, my force of personality tends to shape the party and the story even when I'm trying to play a low charisma character.

[Man_Over_Game]

The difference between Charisma vs other checks is that Charisma is a back-and-forth game while other skills are a hit-or-a-miss.

Those other checks don't need feedback from both sides at once, and get complicated when they do.

But conversation has to be back and forth, unless you want to deliver monologues that are "successful" or not. I've done that when I first started, and it was terrible.

Conversation wasn't designed well in DnD 5e, and it never really has in any version.


The best solution I've found is to have players roll first, and then role their roll. So now your players know they're going to succeed/fail and can incorporate that mentality into their conversation.

Maybe the Bard rolled a 5, so he acts drunk from a barhop an hour before. Or the Barbarian rolled a 20 so he acts firm and wise on an issue. It allows your players to lean into their successes/failures rather than something stupid that caused them to fail.

This helps players know exactly what they could say or do rather than rolling to accommodate those things retroactively.

You've all been there. Rolled a 2 after a great monologue. "The king heard your plea, but was distracted by the strand of snot dripping from your nose.". But if you rolled a 2 before your attempt, your attempt can now be attempting to threaten the king to give you help, which another team member can intervene before it gets out of hand.

Consider those two scenarios and ask yourself which you'd rather see at the table.

Enough of failure from dumb s*** that the DM comes up with to justify a roll. That's not against the DM, just against the system.

[GlenSmash!]

For me taking the descriptive approach, "I try to persuade the guard to let us pass" should be just as viable as acting it out. Both are roleplaying in my eyes.

[Onos]

Unless it's a purely RP interaction I absolutely do not require any sort of "charismatic" RP. If my players tell me the gist of what they want, it goes to a roll. I certainly encourage it, and have in-character dialogue etc, but by and large I treat it like swearing or other in-character knowledge (if a player refers to "the" moon or something in conversation with an NPC I don't correct them unless it's a major plot point. That sort of thing) because it's a *role-playing* game and not an *acting* game.

[Alucard89]

The best solution I've found is to have players roll first, and then role their roll. So now your players know they're going to succeed/fail and can incorporate that mentality into their conversation.

Maybe the Bard rolled a 5, so he acts drunk from a barhop an hour before. Or the Barbarian rolled a 20 so he acts firm and wise on an issue. It allows your players to lean into their successes/failures rather than something stupid that caused them to fail.

This helps players know exactly what they could say or do rather than rolling to accommodate those things retroactively.

You've all been there. Rolled a 2 after a great monologue. "The king heard your plea, but was distracted by the strand of snot dripping from your nose.". But if you rolled a 2 before your attempt, your attempt can now be attempting to threaten the king to give you help, which another team member can intervene before it gets out of hand.

Consider those two scenarios and ask yourself which you'd rather see at the table.

Enough of failure from dumb s*** that the DM comes up with to justify a roll. That's not against the DM, just against the system.

That is good solution. I know what you are talking about. I had a situation like that about year ago. We were stoped by city guards and took to local prince. He wanted to imprison us. But I started to talk. I had good arguments, very good reasons, long and very impressive speech + I flatered him between lines. Everything was great. I am Lore Bard with +10 to Persuasion and 20 CHA. DM was impressed and gave me advantage on roll.

I got 1 and 2... Then I used Lucky for another roll. 2 again.... And my whole speech was wasted and DM had to really thing hard how the hell it did not work.

So your solution is good

[Waterdeep Merch]

There's little shame in describing what you're trying to convey or do. Using the 'you don't roleplay physical actions' scenario, you likewise don't usually go up to a wall and just roll a dice and report your result. You explain exactly what it is you're hoping to do- climb it, bust it down, listen to it, hide behind it, etc.

You can do the same thing with mental and social things. Narrate what you're trying to do. If you're no genius but you're playing one, and you're at a puzzle that has you stumped? Say that you think back to any books or weird trivia you might know that could help, then roll your History. Trying to convince the guard to let your party pass? Say you explain that the party isn't even remotely dangerous and subtly hint at a bribe, then roll your Persuasion (Deception?). You're still playing your role and helping tell the story.

[MoiMagnus]

That's the kind of question where there is an answer per person, some of them incompatible.

Some players play RPGs because they want to use their personal skill (at tactics, at persuasion, at quick thinking, ...) in a context where there some extraordinary challenges but no real life consequences. They will take great pleasure at convincing the DM (not the NPCs) that they are right, or outsmarting the tactics build by DM for its creatures.

Some players play RPGs because they want to experience the life of someone having the skills they don't have in real life. And while the nerd demographics make that it is usually a "shy person that play a high Cha extravert character", in some rarer situations that could also be "someone that isn't able to craft a better tactic than 'running forward and smashing the enemy with everything we have' but wants to play a competent master tactician".

So every table probably have a different "perfect solution".

I'd note that Stealth in an exception at "physical skills that might require player competence". I'm sure some tables probably had a discussion along the line of
Player: "I use my stealth to go around him undetected."
DM: "How do you plan to do that? That's far from obvious as there is no covert."
Player: "I don't know, I have a high stealth skill, so my character is probably able to find a solution."
DM: "The stealth skill doesn't make you magically invisible, you need a plan to use it."
Player: "But I have no idea."
DM: "Then you can't use it."
Player: "But that's the core concept of my character of being very stealthy!"

[On another subject, I remember reading an "horror story" of someone coming to a life-size RPG to discover that the organisers expected peoples that chose "lock-picking" as a skill to be actually skilled at it and come with real tools, and not fake ones like he did.]

[Poe]

A lot of great conversation going on here! So many different perspectives and philosophies! :)



The best solution I've found is to have players roll first, and then role their roll. So now your players know they're going to succeed/fail and can incorporate that mentality into their conversation.

Actually, that's a very good option that I never thought of! It's certainly very annoying giving some amazing, triumphant speech worthy of The Doctor, only to have the roll be poor and the NPC walk away! At least this way you can tailor that into account. That being said, it would sometimes be funny if the PCs *did* give an amazing speech, only to not be heard by the NPC or something. But those situations should probably be rare, and for comedic effect.

[Poe]

I'd note that Stealth in an exception at "physical skills that might require player competence". I'm sure some tables probably had a discussion along the line of
Player: "I use my stealth to go around him undetected."
DM: "How do you plan to do that? That's far from obvious as there is no covert."
Player: "I don't know, I have a high stealth skill, so my character is probably able to find a solution."
DM: "The stealth skill doesn't make you magically invisible, you need a plan to use it."
Player: "But I have no idea."
DM: "Then you can't use it."
Player: "But that's the core concept of my character of being very stealthy!"

I think in that case the DM should grant the player at least a chance of using the skill. I mean, it's probably not all that difficult for the player to say something like "I look for shadows and tiptoe", but then stealth is also about the *way* you walk. Someone who is highly trained in stealth would probably understand things beyond the typical person, if their stealth was high enough. Most of us are rookies at it and just happen to roll when those times we succeed! Even something as simple as trying to avoid wooden floors that might creak, or having an idea which branch might support their weight and not break. But if a player simply said "That's the core concept of my character", I'd probably let them do it this time, but add that I expect them to at least spend some time thinking of ways to describe their core concept. If it's their core concept, it should be important enough to spend time thinking about.


[On another subject, I remember reading an "horror story" of someone coming to a life-size RPG to discover that the organisers expected peoples that chose "lock-picking" as a skill to be actually skilled at it and come with real tools, and not fake ones like he did.]

Haha! Funny that you mention that! While in COVID isolation, I ordered myself a lockpick set and have learnt some very rudimentary lockpicking. Lately I've actually been considering bringing it to the sessions for my rogue character. ;)

[Yakmala]

That being said, sometimes it can be very hard to roleplay if the character has skills or abilities you just don't possess. If I make a very persuasive bard or rogue character with a super high charisma, I just won't have the ability to pull that off successfully. I have a stutter, and am nowhere near as eloquent as I'd like. Definitely not as eloquent as that 18 charisma flirtatious charmer.

I had the opposite problem in a game a few months back.

I'm very comfortable with public speaking and I'm fairly quick witted, so I have no problem acting out social encounters and responding to NPC banter. Most of the other players at my table were more introverted than myself and hesitant to speak up in roleplaying situations so I ended up being the one to do it. I didn't try to hog the limelight, but if no one else stepped up, I'd do so myself.

But I wasn't playing a high charisma character at the time [Rogue/Thief with Healer Feat: Dex > Wisdom > Con]. He wasn't an uncultured dolt, but he wasn't a charisma based class either. So, after speaking out in my character's voice and saying clever things, when it came time to actually make my Persuasion or Deception checks, I'd often fail.

My fellow players suggested I switch up the character's stats to boost Charisma and switch my Expertise skills to Persuasion and Deception. And with the DM's blessing, I did, tweaking my character's background a bit in the process so it all made sense.

It wasn't what I set out to play, but it's what the party needed, since nobody else wanted to be "the talker".

[MaxWilson]

I had the opposite problem in a game a few months back.

I'm very comfortable with public speaking and I'm fairly quick witted, so I have no problem acting out social encounters and responding to NPC banter. Most of the other players at my table were more introverted than myself and hesitant to speak up in roleplaying situations so I ended up being the one to do it. I didn't try to hog the limelight, but if no one else stepped up, I'd do so myself.

But I wasn't playing a high charisma character at the time [Rogue/Thief with Healer Feat: Dex > Wisdom > Con]. He wasn't an uncultured dolt, but he wasn't a charisma based class either. So, after speaking out in my character's voice and saying clever things, when it came time to actually make my Persuasion or Deception checks, I'd often fail.

My follow players suggested I switch up the character's stats to boost Charisma and switch my Expertise skills to Persuasion and Deception. And with the DM's blessing, I did, tweaking my character's background a bit in the process so it all made sense.

It wasn't what I set out to play, but it's what the party needed, since nobody else wanted to be "the talker".

For similar reasons, I dislike playing PCs with Int below 12--it makes it feel inappropriate to use my brain during combat or exploration. Especially if I play an Int 6-8 character, the only way I can do it justice is to play some kind of tanky class like a Barbarian or Moon Druid and just rush directly at the biggest threat and try to kill them in melee. Even something like "charge but Dodge and threaten opportunity attacks while the other PCs do the killing" feels kind of inappropriate for someone barely smarter than a gorilla. (For an Int 10 character I'd be okay with the charge-and-Dodge tactics but not with paying close attention during combat and inventing tactics on the fly.)

[Aimeryan]

So, I've been reading and commenting on a thread today about the impact of stats, and it made me ponder something that I ponder from time to time. I didn't want to post this on that group, as I figured it was a little too off-track for that thread, so decided to start a new one, and get people's thoughts on it.

...[snip]...

I will probably not comment too much on this post (at least I'll try to restrain myself, unless I think it'll add to the discussion or people ask me direct questions) as I genuinely want to hear your views, more so than convincing anyone of my own. :)

I find Charisma far less problematic here than Intelligence or Wisdom.


Charisma

Charisma is pretty obvious when the situation demands it; trying to persuade? Charisma; trying to intimate? Charisma; trying to establish friendly relationships to further some goal? Charisma. So, thing is, theoretically any time the Charisma stat should be used (and any associative skill) it should be obvious and it should use the character's stats, not the player's. Sure, there is fun in role-playing it the best you can, however, it should have no actual impact.

If the player is consistently lazy and merely says "I attempt to convince them, *rolls dice*" then either accept that flaw in the player and hopefully they make up for it elsewhere or don't play with them - at least they aren't taking up much time! If the player is simply not that charismatic but tries, they will probably have more fun if they are not punished for it (and will probably improve with practice).

Even with a DM who is not very charismatic and a player that is not very charismatic a charismatic character can be played functionally in game exactly as they should.


Intelligence and Wisdom

Intelligence, has a far bigger problem: it is not obvious when it should be used by the character and the sheer amount of such checks to emulate it would be overwhelming. Does your character figure out the big picture from the pieces of information they already have? Do you make an appropriate roll for this with every little piece of new information?

How do you as an intelligent player easily keep track of what your less intelligent character has figured out? And how do you know what the character would have figured out to begin with? How can the DM know that you are not using your intelligence to avoid interpretable danger rather than having coincidentally avoided such danger? This may be somewhat mitigated by more intelligent characters being able to advise the less intelligent character (thus allowing the more intelligent player to play with their own intelligence by proxy), however, it should be noted that unless a lot of trust has been established between such characters then less intelligent characters should not always act on such advise. Just look at the COVID-19 response by the general public here in England!

On the reverse, how does a less intelligent player accurately play out the intelligence of a highly intelligent character? The DM or other players may be able to do this for such a player (if that doesn't end up coming off as patronising, which it very much can do), however, this requires at least one person is highly intelligent (and charismatic enough not to aggravate the other player, too!).

If part of the game is for the player to make decisions, how does that not automatically override the Intelligence stat of the character?

~~~

Wisdom, a highly perceptive and insightful character should gather more information, however, how do you know what information should be noticed without being told about that information by the DM? You are highly dependent on the DM playing that part of your character for you, which means a highly perceptive character with a not-very-perceptively-minded DM loses a lot of value. To put it another way, if your DM is not Sherlock Holmes neither is your character, no matter how much Wisdom that character has.

If everyone has a low Wisdom character then this problem is largely not in play, however, it may spur the DM to give out more information than the characters should have perceived if the DM has put a lot of time into crafting the world and wants to show this.

~~~

Essentially, for Intelligence the player has a large impact, and for Wisdom the DM has a large impact, and in either case that impact is very difficult to shift to the character instead of the player and/or DM.


Conclusion

Role-playing Charisma for fun is great. If the DM is giving or deriving the resultant gameplay on the role-play, rather than the character's abilities, then naturally the character's Charisma stat (and associative skills) are redundant and being treated differently to the physical skills - however, this is a self-created problem, not an inherent one with the game.

Role-playing Intelligence and Wisdom, on the other hand, is always in play by its very nature and yet is very difficult to accurately do by most players. Unfortunately, it is also very difficult to separate the result of the role-play by the player or even DM from what the character should be capable of. This problem is not created by the players or DM and is instead inherent to the game as currently established.

Theoretically, a very capable DM would be able to constantly detangle the Intellect and Wisdom knots; portraying highly Wisdom characters as capable as they should be, accurately establishing what characters of varying Intelligence would have been likely to work out, accurately calling out players when acting more intelligent than their character should be capable of. However, that does not change the fact that the Intellect and Wisdom problem is not really at the feet of the player or DM, but of the game.

[Pex]

When playing an 8 IN character, first I accept he's not a blubbering idiot. He's ignorant of many things, but he can learn. Therefore he knows his class. Usually a warrior, he knows how to fight. He knows combat tactics. That's what he's trained for. In backstory it may have taken him longer to learn than others, but by the time play begins he's learned. When it's combat related I can talk confidently I know what I'm doing and offer suggestions. Outside of combat I let others do the thinking - deciding where to go, with whom to speak, how we approach solving a problem. I still have an opinion and can agree or disagree with a course of action; I'm just not the one to offer an option. Once in a while I'll slip and initiate an option because as a player I think it's a good one. I justify it in my head that I rolled an imaginary Natural 20.

[Bigmouth]

Great conversation about what I feel is a pretty important topic in role-playing.

I've long been a proponent of roll before the roleplay, though I must confess I don't actually use it very often. But after some extensive online text RP I got pretty tired of seeing people who were great writers writing amazing posts about their skills, only later to discover that they were the least skilled people in a given challenge. (often tragically under-skilled) Getting the rolls out first prevents this. It works great...but...it does seem to truncate RP when used. You know the results, so it seems that people put less effort into the actual RP.

INT and CHA---I find I don't really monitor how people RP these. I don't care. I think it is fine for someone with a low INT to rp intelligently. Chalk it up to animal cunning or whatever you want. CHA is the same. You might speak eloquently but still have the magnetism of wet toast. Just make people roll and give them the effects of those rolls. Especially if there is another character who actually invested in those areas. If that's the case, then I am rather draconian about the rolling.

[Man_Over_Game]

Great conversation about what I feel is a pretty important topic in role-playing.

I've long been a proponent of roll before the roleplay, though I must confess I don't actually use it very often. But after some extensive online text RP I got pretty tired of seeing people who were great writers writing amazing posts about their skills, only later to discover that they were the least skilled people in a given challenge. (often tragically under-skilled) Getting the rolls out first prevents this. It works great...but...it does seem to truncate RP when used. You know the results, so it seems that people put less effort into the actual RP

There IS a mechanic in the game to fix that: Inspiration.

Reward it when they RP a bad roll, too. Hell, make the punishment for failure worth less than the Advantage that Inspiration would give you. Now players will do reckless and dramatic things regularly, since they're better off doing so than being boring.

[MaxWilson]

There IS a mechanic in the game to fix that: Inspiration.

Reward it when they RP a bad roll, too. Hell, make the punishment for failure worth less than the Advantage that Inspiration would give you. Now players will do reckless and dramatic things regularly, since they're better off doing so than being boring.

No way. Advantage on one die roll is not enough incentive to make me do something dumb like stand next to the rest of the party when four Mind Flayers and a Balor are all in the room with us.

I may choose to deliberately do dumb things because they make roleplaying sense, but don't insult me with miniscule carrots like Inspiration for doing so.

[Tanarii]

Read the DMG on Social Interactions. It explains how to handle it properly.

[MoiMagnus]

On the reverse, how does a less intelligent player accurately play out the intelligence of a highly intelligent character?

That direction has a somewhat working solution for a lot of cases: time and discussion.
How do you simulate a master tactician able to craft clever tactics in the few seconds of a combat round? Take 10 minutes or more of preparation instead, with other peoples (DM included) pointing out the flaws in the plan.
How do you play a very clever wizard that know each of its spells in every single details while you don't? You take the time each round to go through your spell list and see which is interesting and which is not, possibly with some inputs of the other players on what kind of effect would be useful.

(Obvious problem of this solution: it kills the pacing of the game, and not every player has the patience to do it, let alone wait when somebody else is doing it. But since some tables like doing 4 hour long combats, that's not a problem for everyone.)