Charisma Checks?

[Cheesegear]

Though acting is hard to do for a lot of people. (Don't get me started on the "do voices" bit).
However, on the topic of playing yourself...

Now that's a funny, but keen observation of how people are.

But that's what I mean when I say that I actually don't even care if you're playing yourself, with a sword. I know a lot of people can't act. But almost everyone should be able to...Be themselves?

What did you say when you went to that job interview?
How did you act when you wanted a raise/promotion at work?
Remember that time you were nice to the service staff and they gave you 10 chicken wings instead of 6?
How did you convince your current landlord to let you stay in the house?
When you were 10, how did you lie to your parents to not go to school or do assignments?
When you were 16, how did you justify skipping 5th period and just leaving school early to go to the arcade? (Okay, Boomer, what's an arcade?)
How did you convince that person to give you a 1st date? 2nd? 3rd? Wait...You're in a long-term relationship? How did that happen!?
When you didn't have bus fare that time, how did you convince the driver to just let you on anyway?

I'm not asking you to act. Acting is hard. It's not for everyone.

I am, however, at minimum, asking you to be yourself. Whatever you would do in this particular situation, do that. Say that.

Roleplaying, is being a person. Even if that person, is just you. Because we all roleplay, all the time, all throughout our lives.

[Telok]

There is a reason that the lead dev suggests you don't ask for a dice roll when failure isn't interesting. The most obvious benefit is that it keeps the game from being boring when it shouldn't be, but the other benefit is that it encourages players to take risks and stay interactive with the world. If you want them to take risks, it has to be worthwhile, so worthwhile that it seems obvious.

Who decides what's "interesting" matters.

If I DM and feel like being funny then prat falls, exploding toilets, & food fights might get counted as interesting. Then its players rolling to fall down stairs to get to the bottom faster, or fireballing a corn field to suffocate monsters under a ton of popcorn. I've played under DMs who though hit point damage was interesting and had you roll a climbing check every time because failure is falling, falling is damage, and damage is interesting because its a resource drain during the dungeon. I've played with DM who followed modules like holy script and made you roll in there was a printed DC because "this was made by professional writers and they know whats good for this game".

[Unoriginal]

IMO, an ability check shouldn't be affected by someone acting/RPing or not.

If you say "my character tells the duke about how he should reconsider leading his army personally, because it would benefit his hated enemy the Chancellor more than him, and he should ask his general to do it instead", you shouldn't get a worse result than saying "my character says 'my liege, I understand why you wish to lead your army personally, but think about it: you leaving the capital now will only benefit the Chancellor. Your general can lead the army, but only you can stand at the court."

The same idea should have the same difficulty, regardless of how it is expressed. Same way that "my fighter attacks the orc" is the same as "with a dashing flourish, I attempt to bypass the orc's amateurish guard and hit him in the neck."

Now it's not the same as two different things having different results. To go to the example above: "my character tells the duke about how he should reconsider leading his army personally, because it would benefit his hated enemy the Chancellor more than him, and he should ask his general to do it instead" isn't the same as "my character tells the duke about how his hated enemy the Chancellor could have manipulated events to make him think he needs to leave", because the duke could think that the Chancellor would never do anything that'd put the realm at risk no matter how deep their mutual hatred runs. Or he could think that the Chancellor is actually just the kind of person to do that, and so the second idea could make it easier to convince him. Point it, it's a different argument, and so it could lead to different things, unlike the same argument being acted out in one case and not acted out in the other.

Inspiration is the mechanic that rewards someone doing great acting/RPing.

[Burley]

When I play a charisma-check based character, I roll for Charisma, and then roleplay the result.
Maybe I roll well and I'm now on the hook to RP a good argument to convince the captain of the guard to let the rogue go this time.
Maybe I roll poorly and I get to "accidently" insult the town guard's big, dumb nose.

[strangebloke]

Anyway, humorous anecdote. My first DM was a university football player, a running back for my school's (terrible) team. He was fond of staring you down when you were making a deception or persuasion check, and if you stuttered or broke eye contact, *BAM* instant failure.

Hope we can all agree there are ways NOT to run Charisma Checks.

Inspiration is the mechanic that rewards someone doing great acting/RPing.

Inspiration is for playing to your own traits/bonds/flaws.

advantage is for playing to the audience's traits/bonds/flaws

IMO anyway.

[Man_Over_Game]

Who decides what's "interesting" matters.

If I DM and feel like being funny then prat falls, exploding toilets, & food fights might get counted as interesting. Then its players rolling to fall down stairs to get to the bottom faster, or fireballing a corn field to suffocate monsters under a ton of popcorn. I've played under DMs who though hit point damage was interesting and had you roll a climbing check every time because failure is falling, falling is damage, and damage is interesting because its a resource drain during the dungeon. I've played with DM who followed modules like holy script and made you roll in there was a printed DC because "this was made by professional writers and they know whats good for this game".

Who decides what "fun" means? What's the meaning of life? What is love? (Baby, don't hurt me)


Personally, I make a guess as to whether failure would cause something that forces the players to change their strategy. If players would have to repeat the check without any new elements (like climbing something when there is no interference or distractions), or if the check is the only thing the players could reasonably do for that kind of scenario (such as using a History Check to decipher the pictographs on the wall), just give it to them.

A better way to look at it: When succeeding would cause the players to think and interact more than failing, just give it to them. Give them challenges when they matter.

If you still want them to roll (to keep their specialties relevant), despite failure not really adding much to the scenario, make it so that they're rolling to determine how successful they are with the DC for a basic success being 1.

[Psyren]

Anyway, humorous anecdote. My first DM was a university football player, a running back for my school's (terrible) team. He was fond of staring you down when you were making a deception or persuasion check, and if you stuttered or broke eye contact, *BAM* instant failure.

Hope we can all agree there are ways NOT to run Charisma Checks.

Agreed, that sounds terrible.

When I play a charisma-check based character, I roll for Charisma, and then roleplay the result.
Maybe I roll well and I'm now on the hook to RP a good argument to convince the captain of the guard to let the rogue go this time.
Maybe I roll poorly and I get to "accidently" insult the town guards big, dumb nose.

I'm fine with this - and if you roll well but can't think of something witty this is a great opportunity for the rest of the group to help out (and have fun in the process).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd wager if you polled a bunch of GMs, the plurality would want to reward the "rousing speech" version over the brief third-person one in some way, even just with a point of Inspiration. It's just human nature to be more drawn to folks who demonstrate being as into your campaign world as you are.

Yep.

When I play a charisma-check based character, I roll for Charisma, and then roleplay the result.
Maybe I roll well and I'm now on the hook to RP a good argument to convince the captain of the guard to let the rogue go this time.
Maybe I roll poorly and I get to "accidently" insult the town guard's big, dumb nose.

it's a great DM technique, but I'll prefer players to do their thing and the the roll will come (and in some cases if the approach and delivery was brilliant, the roll dispensed with entirely).

[Cheesegear]

but I'll prefer players to do their thing and the the roll will come (and in some cases if the approach and delivery was brilliant, the roll dispensed with entirely).

But that's the crux of the thread entirely:

1. The DM wants to encourage roleplaying, for the players to be just as invested in the world or their characters as they are. The DM rewards creativity, puzzle solving and actual charisma, on the player's part. There is a tangible reward to 'roleplaying', especially in social encounters, because that's what drives the...World. Not only that, but if the players actually engage, the DM can create a more fulfilling NPCs, deeper lore, and all 'round just a more interesting story. If the DM does homebrew, is it 100% in the DM's interest to have the players socialise and roleplay as hard and as often as possible, because roleplaying hard into the paint creates ascended NPCs.
(It's less-important in published modules where the NPCs tend to have a script)

2. Inspiration just isn't enough. Yeah, to get to make a single roll at some point, with Advantage. Once. You can only get one Inspiration per session, and if you don't use it, it's gone. Inspiration is worthless if it comes towards the end of the session, and of course, even with advantage, you can still fail rolls. And of course, there are many, many, many other ways to get Advantage on things. Like normal Bardic Inspiration, or even Bless, or similar. Sometimes you just don't need anything because your dice are rolling fire.

Furthermore, because you can only have one Inspiration point at a time, what's the point in continuing to roleplay after the DM has already handed you, yours? Somebody earlier mentioned that in some of their sessions, the only reason for mechanical-minded players to roleplay is because the DM rewards it, not because they actually care...Does that matter? The fact is that they are engaging in the world. Even if it doesn't necessarily immerse themselves, it can definitely immerse the other players at the table, and it keeps your world - the DM's world - revolving. Inspiration is, well, that. But then the incentive to roleplay, stops, at the first point of Inspiration.

3. Thus, the DM has to continue to reward players for roleplaying, on a regular basis, if the intent is to get them to roleplay and tell a story, and cooperate with the DM to tell their story. But this makes players who aren't smart, wise or charismatic, and can't contribute meaningfully to the 'story', butthurt. This can be especially problematic for some players, because fact is, if a player, IRL, isn't smart, wise or charismatic, there's a good chance that their IRL might not be so great, which may actually be a factor for why that player is playing D&D in the first place. Not only does the player have a bad life in general, but even in their power fantasy roleplaying game, they're still overshadowed by the players who already smart, wise and charismatic. Nothing ever changes, not even in their imagination.

Ultimately giving the following question:
Do I reward roleplayers, for roleplaying?
Or do I reward non-roleplayers, because they can't roleplay?

[PhoenixPhyre]

But that's the crux of the thread entirely:

1. The DM wants to encourage roleplaying, for the players to be just as invested in the world or their characters as they are. The DM rewards creativity, puzzle solving and actual charisma, on the player's part. There is a tangible reward to 'roleplaying', especially in social encounters, because that's what drives the...World.

2. Inspiration just isn't enough. Yeah, to get to make a single roll at some point, with Advantage. Once. You can only get one Inspiration per session, and if you don't use it, it's gone. Inspiration is worthless if it comes towards the end of the session, and of course, even with advantage, you can still fail rolls. And of course, there are many, many, many other ways to get Advantage on things. Like normal Bardic Inspiration, or even Bless, or similar. Sometimes you just don't need anything because your dice are rolling fire.

Furthermore, because you can only have one Inspiration point at a time, what's the point in continuing to roleplay after the DM has already handed you, yours? Somebody earlier mentioned that in some of their sessions, the only reason for mechanical-minded players to roleplay is because the DM rewards it, not because they actually care...Does that matter? The fact is that they are engaging in the world. Even if it doesn't necessarily immerse themselves, it can definitely immerse the other players at the table, and it keeps your world - the DM's world - revolving. Inspiration is, well, that. But then the incentive to roleplay, stops, at the first point of Inspiration.

3. Thus, the DM has to continue to reward players for roleplaying, on a regular basis, if the intent is to get them to roleplay and tell a story, and cooperate with the DM to tell their story. But this makes players who aren't smart, wise or charismatic, and can't contribute meaningfully to the 'story', butthurt. This can be especially problematic for some players, because fact is, if a player, IRL, isn't smart, wise or charismatic, there's a good chance that their IRL might not be so great, which may actually be a factor for why that player is playing D&D in the first place. Not only does the player have a bad life in general, but even in their power fantasy roleplaying game, they're still overshadowed by the players who already smart, wise and charismatic. Nothing ever changes, not even in their imagination.

Ultimately giving the following question:
Do I reward roleplayers, for roleplaying?
Or do I reward non-roleplayers, because they can't roleplay?

Maybe not all players are as so totally motivated only by mechanical goodies as you are? That's the attitude I'm seeing, that only mechanical benefits matter and there's no point in doing anything that doesn't have a number attached. Incentives matter, but numerical incentives aren't the only ones out there.

I've got players who are waist deep in the lore and roleplaying, to the point where they often conduct separate, text-based sessions that are entirely roleplay. And I'm totally fine with people roleplaying (in this context "speaking in character and speaking exact words") as much or as little as they want. I'm listening for the keys that indicate:
* Approach
* Intent
* Pertinent details that alter the difficulty.
Those could be delivered in summary fashion ("I sweet talk the king into sending troops by leaning on his honor") or as a full speech. Either way, it doesn't matter. And they're involved in the check the whole way; both are roleplaying (making decisions for a character based on that character's context). And neither is actually delivering the real words the NPCs hear or in that intonation--translation convention is in full effect. And cultural translation as well (which the characters may or may not know, depending on background, history, etc).

I also try to focus the spotlight on people who I know want to talk but are easily stepped-on by more aggressive players. They'll be put into situations where those other players can't, in keeping with the fiction, move things along. Whereas if you don't want to talk (which there are a bunch of those out there), I'll give you opportunities to get involved in other ways. It's still roleplay, it's still involvement.

And I've found that the absolute most important (almost entirely sufficient by itself, in fact) factor in immersion and lore-involvement is having living lore that the DM is excited about. Believing they can actually change the facts on the ground and having the DM be excited about this world make all the difference, mechanics notwithstanding. In fact, I've found that mechanics are actually the least important thing in most cases. Numbers don't matter unless people decide they do. And when they decide that, they generally have less fun overall, no matter the game.

[Demonslayer666]

It comes down to how much you have the RP count for.

1. For example, a well structed and effective RP could lower the DC, while a rude/illogical RP would increase the DC.
   
2. Other times you can have it split into two check, or a set of optional checks before the final charisma check, where the RP is about altering the NPC attitude
   
   Spoiler: Zee Bashew covers this section of the DMG on the topic

   Show
   
   
3. And then finally is the RP has no impact on the DC, which makes doing the RP before the roll functionally pointless, while doing so after the roll is performing to a set outcome.

I'm fond of either 1 or 2, not a fan of 3

3 works when you reward good roleplaying attempts with inspiration.

[Darth Credence]

2. Inspiration just isn't enough. Yeah, to get to make a single roll at some point, with Advantage. Once. You can only get one Inspiration per session, and if you don't use it, it's gone. Inspiration is worthless if it comes towards the end of the session, and of course, even with advantage, you can still fail rolls. And of course, there are many, many, many other ways to get Advantage on things. Like normal Bardic Inspiration, or even Bless, or similar. Sometimes you just don't need anything because your dice are rolling fire.

Furthermore, because you can only have one Inspiration point at a time, what's the point in continuing to roleplay after the DM has already handed you, yours? Somebody earlier mentioned that in some of their sessions, the only reason for mechanical-minded players to roleplay is because the DM rewards it, not because they actually care...Does that matter? The fact is that they are engaging in the world. Even if it doesn't necessarily immerse themselves, it can definitely immerse the other players at the table, and it keeps your world - the DM's world - revolving. Inspiration is, well, that. But then the incentive to roleplay, stops, at the first point of Inspiration.

Nothing in the DMG talking about inspiration says that it expires, or that it can only be given out once per session. I think that may be how Adventure League handles it, but it certainly isn't stated that way in the rules. The only thing is they don't stack, so you can't get more if you didn't use the one you have.

[Cheesegear]

Maybe not all players are as so totally motivated only by mechanical goodies as you are?
[...]
I've got players who are waist deep in the lore and roleplaying, to the point where they often conduct separate, text-based sessions that are entirely roleplay.

But here's the thing. Here's the entire thread;

We're not talking about people who are good at, and/or want to roleplay. Those people are not the problem.

That's not what this thread is about.

If everyone at your table is roleplaying, you don't have a problem. The dice may get in the way sometimes. But as previous posters have already mentioned, if someone has a good idea, you give them modifiers, advantage, or just ignore the dice. I like the idea, and I occasionally do it. Even if it does step on some of the other players.

If everyone at your table is roleplaying, except for one person, the one person is the problem, because you should want to have them involved. That person should want to be involved. But they're not involved. They're disengaged and they don't care. But they're still at the table because reasons. You can single out or ignore that person, at your will. In a roleplaying encounter, if they're quiet, there's no problem. If you call upon them to make a choice in the scene, and they make a choice without even looking up from their phone (indicating that they are in fact, listening to the entire table, even if they don't care), then there's no problem. It's one player. There are 4-5 more you can go to to move the scene along. It's fine.

If half the people at your table are roleplaying, and the other half aren't (like my tables)...You have a real big problem. Because the dynamics of the group are ****ed, and what can the DM do, to make sure everyone is on the same page?

Do you reward the half who don't roleplay, and say what they do doesn't matter, and just to roll dice at NPCs? By the book.
Or do you punish the half who want to roleplay, and say what they do doesn't matter, and just to roll dice at NPCs? By the book.

If everyone at your table isn't roleplaying, do you just play it by the book and have 'dice do the talking'?

I think that may be how Adventure League handles it, but it certainly isn't stated that way in the rules.

That may be where I got it from. I DM AL games occasionally.

[PhoenixPhyre]

@Cheesegear, you're doing it again. You're conflating "things that matter" with "things that make mechanical differences to the chance of success on the roll". And conflating not getting those mechanical differences with punishment/reward. That's a conflation I absolutely reject.

What the players say matters. But only because I can't adjudicate the check until they give me Intent, Approach, and Details (if any). How they do so is utterly irrelevant for both sets of people. The Actors who want to pull full speeches? That's their fun. Changing the mechanics doesn't make that more fun or less fun unless they're munchkins[1]. The non-Actors who just want to give a 3rd-person summary of the salient bits? That's fine as well. But I can't call for a check until I know Intent, Approach, and any relevant details. The function just doesn't have enough input.

Also, I think your definition of roleplay is really really cramped. Roleplay is "to make decisions for a fictional character as if you were that character, taking its individual personality and context (knowledge, etc) into consideration."

This definition is central to every piece of D&D--if you don't want to roleplay by this definition, you don't want to play D&D or any other RPG. At all. In any way. Combat? That's roleplay. Character creation? That's roleplay. Exploration? That's roleplay. If you don't want to make decisions for your character as if you were that character, you want to play a board game. Which is fine. But that's not D&D.

Roleplay is not talking in character, especially in 1st person while worrying about exact wording. Or even fancy narration. That's acting. And D&D doesn't need any acting at all. If you want to, go ahead. But too much acting can be harmful to a table's flow--insisting on narrating out every feint and footing change drags combat to a halt, for instance.

Beyond that, translation convention. What the player says =/= what the character says. For many reasons, including language (Common is not English nor any other Earth language), culture (which the character knows but the player would not), context, etc. It's only relevant if someone wants to say it to keep themselves happy. It's not roleplay, it's not anything mechanical. Nor should it be. Nor should the lack of doing so affect anything mechanically.

And this is all spelled out in the DMG, with discussion about the various types of players and DMs and the benefits/costs of each.

[1] only doing something because it has favorable mechanical weight/not doing something that has adverse mechanical weight for that reason only, despite it otherwise being in character is the essence of munchkinry. D&D is not a game about winning. Or even about succeeding. It's a game about role play. Making decisions for your character based on the character.

[Cheesegear]

What the players say matters. But only because I can't adjudicate the check until they give me Intent, Approach, and Details (if any). How they do so is utterly irrelevant for both sets of people.

The player doesn't care. They follow the rest of the party. They say nothing. They don't give Intent, Approach or Details because they don't want to be doing this at all. They're in the scene, but they have no input. But, if something happens, maybe, they'll be there for it.

I roll Insight. The NPC is non-violent and amicable.
My intent is that I would like to Persuade.
Their Approach is that they will use Persuasion.
The Details is that I roll a d20 and add my Persuasion modifier.

If you're talking about something other than that, then you don't have the players I'm talking about.

Also, I think your definition of roleplay is really really cramped. Roleplay is "to make decisions for a fictional character as if you were that character, taking its individual personality and context (knowledge, etc) into consideration."

Wait...What do you think my definition of roleplaying is, if not exactly the same as yours?

Combat? That's roleplay. Character creation? That's roleplay. Exploration? That's roleplay. If you don't want to make decisions for your character as if you were that character, you want to play a board game. Which is fine. But that's not D&D.

Okay. You included combat in roleplaying. Now we differ. When I say roleplaying, I mean 'Any time your character does or says anything that isn't related to combat or a puzzle.' Some of my players, don't care about anything that isn't a combat or a puzzle, and during social or exploration scenes, they will just do whatever everyone does, on autopilot, until a combat happens.

That being said:
A lot of players want to play board games. Hence the adventure grid, and miniatures.
Hence the hyper-fixation on numbers, mechanics and the character sheet.
There are hundreds of guides on good and even powerful character builds. A not-small part of the player-base is interested in power-gaming damage output. They're not hard to find.

If you don't have those kinds of players, you are not on the same page as me.

I'm talking about players who see D&D as an IRL video game; The kinds who press 'x' to skip dialogue, and look up guides on the internet, and how you're supposed to DM that kind of table. More importantly, I'm talking about DMing a table where you have those players and the ones who watch Critical Role, and pop-D&D tiktoks 25 hours day, at the same table.

[Unoriginal]

But here's the thing. Here's the entire thread;

We're not talking about people who are good at, and/or want to roleplay. Those people are not the problem.

That's not what this thread is about.

If everyone at your table is roleplaying, you don't have a problem. The dice may get in the way sometimes. But as previous posters have already mentioned, if someone has a good idea, you give them modifiers, advantage, or just ignore the dice. I like the idea, and I occasionally do it. Even if it does step on some of the other players.

If everyone at your table is roleplaying, except for one person, the one person is the problem, because you should want to have them involved. That person should want to be involved. But they're not involved. They're disengaged and they don't care. But they're still at the table because reasons. You can single out or ignore that person, at your will. In a roleplaying encounter, if they're quiet, there's no problem. If you call upon them to make a choice in the scene, and they make a choice without even looking up from their phone (indicating that they are in fact, listening to the entire table, even if they don't care), then there's no problem. It's one player. There are 4-5 more you can go to to move the scene along. It's fine.

If half the people at your table are roleplaying, and the other half aren't (like my tables)...You have a real big problem. Because the dynamics of the group are ****ed, and what can the DM do, to make sure everyone is on the same page?

Do you reward the half who don't roleplay, and say what they do doesn't matter, and just to roll dice at NPCs? By the book.
Or do you punish the half who want to roleplay, and say what they do doesn't matter, and just to roll dice at NPCs? By the book.

If everyone at your table isn't roleplaying, do you just play it by the book and have 'dice do the talking'?



That may be where I got it from. I DM AL games occasionally.

Having a good idea is not the same has roleplaying. At all. It is not the same as acting as your character either. And neither of those things are the same as being engaged with what's happening around the table during social encounters or during combat.

Having Jessie the player says "Remember, folks, the wizard who hired us said he wanted a large amount of rubies for his spell research, so my barbarian is going to ask the guy who captured us if he wants to know how he can ruin the wizard's day in exchange for our freedom." is the same idea as Jessie the player saying "I look at the ruffian through the bars of the prison and gruffly tells him 'I know you hate Erroneous the Spellbinder much more than you want us dead. Wanna know how to ruin his day?'", and so there is no reason to "reward" one more than another in term of how difficult it is to convince the NPC.

I'm talking about players who see D&D as an IRL video game; The kinds who press 'x' to skip dialogue, and look up guides on the internet, and how you're supposed to DM that kind of table. More importantly, I'm talking about DMing a table where you have those players and the ones who watch Critical Role, and pop-D&D tiktoks 25 hours day, at the same table.

No amount of rules will ever fix an out-of-game problem.


Having players with different expectations and playstyles from the DM's and the other players', while being unhappy about that state of affair, is an out-of-game problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The player doesn't care. They follow the rest of the party. They say nothing. They don't give Intent, Approach or Details because they don't want to be doing this at all. They're in the scene, but they have no input. But, if something happens, maybe, they'll be there for it.

I roll Insight. The NPC is non-violent and amicable.
My intent is that I would like to Persuade.
Their Approach is that they will use Persuasion.
The Details is that I roll a d20 and add my Persuasion modifier.

If you're talking about something other than that, then you don't have the players I'm talking about.

In those cases, I'm going to do my job and ask more questions. Because that's not enough of an intent. Intent is "what do you want out of the conversation" (ie what do you want the other person to do, ie "what is success?"). Approach is relatively fine, but I'd rather that they be more descriptive. And that's not details--details can be null if you don't need anything special.

So "I ask them to move aside" is totally enough to resolve the action. Intent: move aside. Approach: Ask (implying not aggressive). Details: Null. --> If there's a substantial chance of failure and failure was interesting, then a DC X (depending on who they're talking to and what moving aside would mean for them) Charisma (Persuasion) check.

Wait...What do you think my definition of roleplaying is, if not exactly the same as yours?

Okay. You included combat in roleplaying. Now we differ. When I say roleplaying, I mean 'Any time your character does or says anything that isn't related to combat or a puzzle.' Some of my players, don't care about anything that isn't a combat or a puzzle, and during social or exploration scenes, they will just do whatever everyone does, on autopilot, until a combat happens.

That being said:
A lot of players want to play board games. Hence the adventure grid, and miniatures.
Hence the hyper-fixation on numbers, mechanics and the character sheet.
There are hundreds of guides on good and even powerful character builds. A not-small part of the player-base is interested in power-gaming damage output. They're not hard to find.

If you don't have those kinds of players, you are not on the same page as me.

I'm talking about players who see D&D as an IRL video game; The kinds who press 'x' to skip dialogue, and look up guides on the internet, and how you're supposed to DM that kind of table. More importantly, I'm talking about DMing a table where you have those players and the ones who watch Critical Role, and pop-D&D tiktoks 25 hours day, at the same table.

Yes? Had that pretty frequently when I was playing at the school. Fewer of the mechanics obsessed people, because those people generally play video games instead. The key I found is to always circle back to the character where possible. And find places to engage them if I can. And if I can't and they seem to be having fun? That's totally cool as well. Let the actors (I had lots of theater kids as well) act, let the mechanics types do that. As long as they give me enough to decide what the resolution is, that's fine. And if they don't give me enough, the game loop stops until I can get them to give me enough. What I don't accept is "I roll persuasion at them." Because that's not enough to decide what will happen if they fail (or succeed) or even what the DC should be. And after a few times of me stopping them and reminding them that only the DM calls for checks and seeing that what they do actually matters in game, you know what? They tend to change and be more cooperative. Sure, they never end up becoming the actor-type, but that's fine. That's their source of fun.

The actors will act whether you give them mechanical boons or not--that's just who they are. The non-actors generally won't respond to "incentives" to act. So let them be them.

Edit: And none of this is specific to non-combat stuff. Puzzles and combat work just the same. If I don't know your Intent and Approach, I can't resolve your action. Once I know your Intent and Approach, I don't need anything else. Sure, you can do it, but that's for your own fun. I may respond differently (be more hammy with the hams, more laconic and mechanical to those that want that), but the actual action resolution path is unchanged. You don't get lower AC or special effects on enemies for describing how you go for their eyes; you don't have penalties if you don't. As long as you tell me who you're attacking (Intent) and with what (Approach), the resolution is the same. And it's all roleplay, all identically.

[False God]

But that's what I mean when I say that I actually don't even care if you're playing yourself, with a sword. I know a lot of people can't act. But almost everyone should be able to...Be themselves?

What did you say when you went to that job interview?
How did you act when you wanted a raise/promotion at work?
Remember that time you were nice to the service staff and they gave you 10 chicken wings instead of 6?
How did you convince your current landlord to let you stay in the house?
When you were 10, how did you lie to your parents to not go to school or do assignments?
When you were 16, how did you justify skipping 5th period and just leaving school early to go to the arcade? (Okay, Boomer, what's an arcade?)
How did you convince that person to give you a 1st date? 2nd? 3rd? Wait...You're in a long-term relationship? How did that happen!?
When you didn't have bus fare that time, how did you convince the driver to just let you on anyway?

I'm not asking you to act. Acting is hard. It's not for everyone.

I am, however, at minimum, asking you to be yourself. Whatever you would do in this particular situation, do that. Say that.

Roleplaying, is being a person. Even if that person, is just you. Because we all roleplay, all the time, all throughout our lives.

Knowing yourself, like, really knowing yourself is IMO, a higher bar than pretending to be someone else.

[Toadkiller]

I’ve played with some of the same folks through 3-5 DMs now over the last 5 years or so, it varies for each member of a core group. Sometimes because one of them was DMing.

Anyhow, throughout that time we have had a variety of levels of comfort with role play. One player is a great guy - but social interactions real or imagined aren’t his jam. He knows that and tends to not play face characters. But sometimes interaction is what is happening. So that’s what he does. He typically does it in third person (maybe always) and it is frequently mixed in with some comments of “I’m not real good at this”. Across multiple DMs it’s been fine- he’s our friend. We know him. We adjust our play style to fit him just like we adjust it to fit the wannabe actor and the professional storyteller. We all know there is a bit of a varied landscape - we have a frequent player who needs a minute to remember what their spells do because they don’t have time for D&D except when they can actually play.

It’s fine. It’s just a game. If we fudge it so everyone has a good time then…everyone hopefully has a good time. A system this complicated is simply going to have to be adjusted on the fly to fit the people using it.

[Tanarii]

In those cases, I'm going to do my job and ask more questions. Because that's not enough of an intent. Intent is "what do you want out of the conversation" (ie what do you want the other person to do, ie "what is success?"). Approach is relatively fine, but I'd rather that they be more descriptive. And that's not details--details can be null if you don't need anything special.

Approach needs more details because while it may allow me to figure out outcome looks like ("you succeed in persuading them") it almost certainly does not allow me to figure out consequences. Yeah sure, you persuade them, but what is the long term fallout (good, bad, or interesting) based on your actual approach to persuading them?

"I {skill name}" occasionally can be, but is usually not, a sufficient amount of information to qualify as an approach, and never enough as qualify as intent, for a declared action/activity.

Conversely, acing (often incorrectly called "RP") occasionally can, but is usually does not, contain sufficient information on approach or intent.

[KorvinStarmast]

I’ve played with some of the same folks through 3-5 DMs now over the last 5 years or so, it varies for each member of a core group. Sometimes because one of them was DMing.

Anyhow, throughout that time we have had a variety of levels of comfort with role play. One player is a great guy - but social interactions real or imagined aren’t his jam. He knows that and tends to not play face characters. But sometimes interaction is what is happening. So that’s what he does. He typically does it in third person (maybe always) and it is frequently mixed in with some comments of “I’m not real good at this”. Across multiple DMs it’s been fine- he’s our friend. We know him. We adjust our play style to fit him just like we adjust it to fit the wannabe actor and the professional storyteller. We all know there is a bit of a varied landscape - we have a frequent player who needs a minute to remember what their spells do because they don’t have time for D&D except when they can actually play.

It’s fine. It’s just a game. If we fudge it so everyone has a good time then…everyone hopefully has a good time. A system this complicated is simply going to have to be adjusted on the fly to fit the people using it.

Give this poster a cigar. We have at least one table where that situation fits multiple palyers.