"We don't want dice to override the characterization that a player is bringing to their character." Thank you for this quote, Jeremy! I see this issue coming up a lot in the D&D subreddits and the victim always feels like their character has been taken advantage of and the game cheapened because of it.
I had the exact opposite reaction. I view the rules as a path to player agency, and stating that the rules shouldn't influence characterization or player/player relationships deeply undermines what I love to do at the table. I want the actions of the other players to influence me, to convince me, and I want the rules to step in and make that true. I've seen far too many games devolve into an endless spiral of player characters having in-fiction arguments. With no rules application to step in and say what happens next, players can (and do) just argue until exhaustion sets in. I want, and many other players want, something to step in and say "okay, you've stated your feelings, now lets see what happens." Rules tell us what happens next. The fun is in interpreting at the table what that means for our characters and the world around us.
@@MPOSullivan I have the impression that written rules rather lead to such discussions in the first place. Endless rules layering. A good DM might step in with a third party or an event that tips the result of a catch 22 discussion to notch it in a direction were it is both resolved and leads to a good story. So not even necessarily to a satisfying 'I was right' moment for one of the parties. If I want solid rules dictating everything I can just play a computer game, where it is that way out of necessity.
I have a problem with this. In essence what Jeremy is saying is if you have a group where 1 person is great at acting then no roll needed or they get a bonus while another player at the table who isn't is made to rely on their dice rolls. Gotta be consistent and that's why you have rules to keep you consistent.
I've had *several times* where my character is completely *useless* with persuasion, but I, as a bard at heart, end up making my arguments *WAY* better than they should be. So I'm very happy to hear Jeremy Crawford cover that lol
I liked very much how Jeremy talk about the game, let me curious about, and always make me see for the view and decisions of the Dev. Really amazing guys!
Just started first campaign as DM with first time player friends. So in the Cragmaw Hideout (as part of The Lost Mine of Phandelver) after taming the wolfs and wiping out everything (including the sorceror one shotting the bugbear after it one shot the paladin) except from the room with the goblin 2nd in command and the imprisoned Sildar Hallwinter, two players stumbled in at the end of a long session. So next session the goblin 2nd Yeemik offers to talk and swap the prisoner for the players killing Klarg and leaving them alone. The warlock loundly proclaims that HE one-shotted Klarg and procedes to convert the goblins into followers of his lovecraftian patron. He then almost ballsed it up by kicking up, but now those goblins are friendly, building a shrine and also preparing a play (because I gave Yeemik a treasure map leading to random buried treasure, which included a play script. That's a thing now. Also the barbarian willingly swapped the 40gp statue for waaaay less valuable cheap booze with him because he's an alcoholic)
The only point I ever feel disappointed with, is being skilled in Persuasion and Deception takes the same character resources as being skilled in Perception or Investigation... and playing in a game where those social skills are ignored or meaningless when the latter two are used continuously feels unfair
For better or worse, the game master determines which skill checks arise and which ones don't. The same goes for class features like thieves' cant. Most game masters never provide situations where it's useful.
There is always room for player input, though. You can push the narrative toward information gathering that relies on people. You can discuss imbalances with the DM and provide ideas (put together a list beforehand, the DM will love you) that the DM could use to bring your character into appropriate focus.
I've just shared this with everyone I play D&D with, I treasure this topic so much and I wish for people to understand the beauty behind role-playing social interactions and how the story told by the players including the DM is far more important than trying to exploit "winning" whatever winning could be to someone.
I have my qualms about social interactions in D&D. It's really weird for the game designers to call social interactions a *pillar* of their game when there are no real mechanics for it. It is not encouraged, it is not needed, it is not structured, it's 100% up to the players to play D&D with or without social interactions. You cannot call that a pillar of the game.
Yeah I try to bring this up for new players especially. You don't have to be a script writer and an actor and improv professional here. Just let the DM know the gist of what you're trying to do and they can sort out an appropriate roll. But if you want to play it in character that's fine too, have fun with it.
I think that D&D actually has some interesting built-in mechanics that can make NPC social rolls a useful tool. You can't make the players act a certain way - that's no fun for anyone. So you can't roll persuasion to make the players choose an alternate course of action. But, for example, it's already common to have players to roll Insight as a contested roll against an NPC's deception, because it leaves room for doubt. You could have an NPC roll persuasion to award advantage on performing a task, or disadvantage on doing something that an NPC 'persuaded' you not to. This seems like something that would come up rarely, but I think it could work in certain situations. You could also have a particularly frightening enemy roll Intimidation against a Willpower save to give the PC disadvantage on their next attack against that target. Something to use sparingly, and emphasize that an enemy is especially frightening. I have played a lot of games, some very rules-heavy and some very loose and freeform. I think there's room for both. I'm just saying that I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that social skills are meant for PCs. I wouldn't use them the same way with NPCs, because maintaining a sense of freedom and choice for the players is important, but using these skills as a way to add flavor and complications to situations is fine.
One question I have is, I agree that if someone RPs well, they should get an advantage on their social check's. I have a player who had a stroke and can only use sign language with one hand. She will not go in to elaborate speeches do to it takes so long for her to spell out her words. She does have a text telling speech app, which does help. How does she get those advantages without the other players feeling cheated, and roles reversed? Thanks for the help, loving your videos.
Capt Nugatory I have to say reading this comment was an eye opener. I was unaware and ignorant of the obstacles people face just trying to play this awesome game.
My favorite application for performance is building lore master wizards to sneak verbal spell commands into average conversation to hide their illusion casting in plain sight.
Funny that he didn't mention insight checks. I love insight checks. Also, if anyone is interested in how you might incorporate rules into a social interaction, just as a guide for structure for social encounters or challenges, check out page 244 in the Dungeon Master's Guide
I was honestly surprised that he didn't mention insight as it is more heavily used in social interactions. In fact insight and deception are 2 skills that most people can agree upon how they work in regards to players using those social skills on each other since those are contested checks. I mean the only time it wouldn't come into play is if your character has evidence to the contrary. Even if one character is always suspicious of the other, most the time you still do the contested check just to see if the suspicious character is able to confirm this time around or not.
you get to know what your character should not know, then you dont accidentally let your character say or act like they do, but also you get to play the game and make your character silly (less of a player insert, and more of an entertaining chess piece).
He played an elderly Goliath woman in Matt Mercer's Critical Role, campaign one. It was a single sit in. I feel like the character really represented the kind of characters Perkins seems to find interesting: that is to say broken characters, who by their own failings or in action have produced their own problems.
The issue there is that if a player is more shy/less inclined towards voice-acting and "performing", as it were, then it seems a little unfair that their DCs will always be higher. (Or from the other perspective: for those more inclined towards performance/dramatics, their DCs will always be lower.) As long as the player can describe *how* the character convinces or intimidates the NPC in the scene, and can do so well, then I think it's fine to adjust the DC based on that.
Sure, describing and role-playing could have the same effect. At the same time, I don't think there is anything wrong with rewarding people for being good at role-playing, just like you would reward someone for being good at combat or creative problem-solving.
DabIMON personally, as a DM, I try to get a feel of my players' personalities and abilities and take that into account when determining dcs for social interactions. The shy newcomers don't have to improvise an elaborate tale, whereas I expect my experienced charismatic players to come up with something.
You have to be careful because if you have a charismatic player who's always on point, they can just use Charisma as the dump stat every time and suffer minimal penalty for it.
That's a bad way to do it, you're limiting what the player character can do based on real world limitations of the player. It's the exact opposite off what the game is for.
How would you guys handle a situation where two players are going to fight between themselves? (Context- Warlock of the raven queen has found out that his teammate is a revenant)
Fabius Maximus I’m thinking of arranging an arena-like situation where the two can duke it out... do you think it could work? Ones a revenant and so can’t die, but I’m worried about the Warlock
Two players got into a fight via their characters. I let them have it out, they cast thunder wave at each other so I rolled some nice... six owlbears were attracted to the sound of the commotion. Players stopped attacking each other to fight the OBs. If players are getting into fights with each other it's something you might need to attempt to resolve out of game if it becomes a frequent occurrence.
Character knowledge vs player knowledge. I know what a zebra is, my character knows it is a horse with stripes. Character ends up with donkey, painted with horizontal green stripes for an upcoming bluff check.
All these people in the comments want more rules and rolls in social interactions... that would obviously end up being limiting to those who actually want to roleplay freely. And dont give me that 'this is a game, so it needs structure' noise- the ONE thing that makes DnD and other ttrpgs different than a video game is that it ISNT rigid all the time and allows for the freedom to not overthink something like talking. Just TALK
this is a very old issue in D&D that predates even modern video game RPGs. There have always been players who prefer a hack and slash tactical combat game to role playing and narrative. I think that’s ok, as long as no one claims that their preference is the only way to play.
Just a side note on the video: whatever camera you are using is set to a very fast "auto-focus" mode. Every time he pushes his glasses up the camera refocuses to his hand. Consider this problem for your next video.
make a combat encounter, take away the combat, if the players resort to combat , punish them. you can have a social encounter with the big bad boss wizard, and the nice kind king in the same room if the wizard simply says "i could destroy this whole kingdom with one word if i so choose, but i am here to talk today. this will be over quickly and painlessly as long as we can act civilly, now, lets negotiate."
i really take issue with this much hands off design when it comes to social interaction in d&d, because its not hands off deign, its just not deign anything. everything said in this video is great for informing people how to play social scenes and interactions in d&d, sure, but next to none of it is written in the PHB or the DMG, rules, sidebars, advice, or suggestions about how to get your players to do any of this. if you want social interaction to be a pillar of your game play, write a chapter, or even just a couple pages, about how to get players to do it. when to roll,, when not to roll, example dcs, actually bringing up how important it is, anything other than 5 or 6 paragrpahs which are mostly just quotes from your playtest session in a 300 page book that most players are going to skim through at best after the character creation section.
WizBro is dead to me. For now on, it's OSE and DCC. BTW what you're saying is spot on, but the 5e rules as written discourage that behavior in practice. More people would play that way if you had less rules/checks.
For critical interactions i have my players roll. But i also ask them what they say. If they say nothing ie "i use deception" automatic +5 DC if they say something, regular DC. And exceptional roleplaying is a -5 DC. This goes for all my skill rolls actually. Try it and watch your powergamers suddenly become better actors.
I mean, unless you tell your players that that's how it works, it won't necessarily encourage any more roleplaying from your players - it'll just make them less inclined to even try to negotiate rather than get into a fight. In my limited DM experience, when my players just say "I use Intimidation" or something like it, I won't let them roll until they tell me what their character is doing to intimidate/persuade/deceive the other character.
I personally use advantage and disadvantage when a player goes off the deep end or doesn't rp and the group gets frustrated. It's harsh actually. The DC adjustment seems kind and a little more subtle. Not that I'm going to stop.
man this guy repeats him-self over and over and over again. beating a dead horse down. we get it from the 1st 2 mins. everything else is BLAH BLAH BLAH
You have to go into all the aspects. Just knowing the big picture doesn't mean you truly understand its details. You're not cool acting like an obstinate child.
i mean, he is actually one of the better minds on these subjects IN DND AND WIZARDS ONLY. is that true if we broaden that to book and stories in general. no. that said, alex isnt completely wrong, but they also have to pander to the ... er, lowest denomination of viewers who DO need stuff repeated. if you want GOOD advice, it isnt often freely given on youtube, sadly, and you can see that reflected in the quality in the products.
Really kinda... irked? by the way he says that the social pillar was designed not to have "rules," aka, game mechanics. I know I'm not the first to say this, but D&D is the "g" in the "rpg," and if there's no game, we're essentially just playing make believe- which is great! but it's not an rpg. We want rpgs to be a game that helps us to tell stories better, and if there's no mechanics, if there's no "game" in that rpg, we chose poorly because if we really just want to tell stories to each other akin to Baron Munchausen, let's do that and stop pretending that we're playing a structured game. D&D is great at that action and adventure questing style of heroics... but there is very little in the PHB to support one of the supposed three main pillars of D&D. And he says that's by design. Yeah, he done triggered me. Sigh.
tjn74 but he literally spent over 1/3 of the video talking about the mechanics available to be used in social encounters? The thing is, they don't need that many rules in the book because most social encounters need improvised rules based on what players are saying, what the situation is, who they are talking to, etc. There are too many variables to lay down hard rules especially when what is available works just fine for every group I've been in.
"intimidation, in its worst case, bullying someone." bruh, people have been doing much worse in the most basic interrogations of even goblins and kobolds.
If you're physically harming them, I'd say it transcends a simple Intimidation check... it'd just be a damage roll and an automatic success of the Intimidation.
"We don't want dice to override the characterization that a player is bringing to their character."
Thank you for this quote, Jeremy! I see this issue coming up a lot in the D&D subreddits and the victim always feels like their character has been taken advantage of and the game cheapened because of it.
I had the exact opposite reaction. I view the rules as a path to player agency, and stating that the rules shouldn't influence characterization or player/player relationships deeply undermines what I love to do at the table. I want the actions of the other players to influence me, to convince me, and I want the rules to step in and make that true.
I've seen far too many games devolve into an endless spiral of player characters having in-fiction arguments. With no rules application to step in and say what happens next, players can (and do) just argue until exhaustion sets in. I want, and many other players want, something to step in and say "okay, you've stated your feelings, now lets see what happens."
Rules tell us what happens next. The fun is in interpreting at the table what that means for our characters and the world around us.
@@MPOSullivan I have the impression that written rules rather lead to such discussions in the first place. Endless rules layering. A good DM might step in with a third party or an event that tips the result of a catch 22 discussion to notch it in a direction were it is both resolved and leads to a good story. So not even necessarily to a satisfying 'I was right' moment for one of the parties. If I want solid rules dictating everything I can just play a computer game, where it is that way out of necessity.
I have a problem with this. In essence what Jeremy is saying is if you have a group where 1 person is great at acting then no roll needed or they get a bonus while another player at the table who isn't is made to rely on their dice rolls.
Gotta be consistent and that's why you have rules to keep you consistent.
I've had *several times* where my character is completely *useless* with persuasion, but I, as a bard at heart, end up making my arguments *WAY* better than they should be. So I'm very happy to hear Jeremy Crawford cover that lol
I usually award advantage with flowing wordplay. I think of it as a sort of negotion with the roll.
I liked very much how Jeremy talk about the game, let me curious about, and always make me see for the view and decisions of the Dev. Really amazing guys!
Just started first campaign as DM with first time player friends. So in the Cragmaw Hideout (as part of The Lost Mine of Phandelver) after taming the wolfs and wiping out everything (including the sorceror one shotting the bugbear after it one shot the paladin) except from the room with the goblin 2nd in command and the imprisoned Sildar Hallwinter, two players stumbled in at the end of a long session. So next session the goblin 2nd Yeemik offers to talk and swap the prisoner for the players killing Klarg and leaving them alone. The warlock loundly proclaims that HE one-shotted Klarg and procedes to convert the goblins into followers of his lovecraftian patron. He then almost ballsed it up by kicking up, but now those goblins are friendly, building a shrine and also preparing a play (because I gave Yeemik a treasure map leading to random buried treasure, which included a play script. That's a thing now. Also the barbarian willingly swapped the 40gp statue for waaaay less valuable cheap booze with him because he's an alcoholic)
I'd love to have Liam Neeson at my table, because he's great at improvisational comedy.
I really wish he'd actually play a game on a stream even if it's just a sit in for one episode.
95% of what happens in the campaign im playing in would fall under the "absurdities" category. Just a constant eb and flow of shenanigans.
The only point I ever feel disappointed with, is being skilled in Persuasion and Deception takes the same character resources as being skilled in Perception or Investigation... and playing in a game where those social skills are ignored or meaningless when the latter two are used continuously feels unfair
For better or worse, the game master determines which skill checks arise and which ones don't. The same goes for class features like thieves' cant. Most game masters never provide situations where it's useful.
There is always room for player input, though. You can push the narrative toward information gathering that relies on people. You can discuss imbalances with the DM and provide ideas (put together a list beforehand, the DM will love you) that the DM could use to bring your character into appropriate focus.
Can you give an example of how this looks in your game?
I've just shared this with everyone I play D&D with, I treasure this topic so much and I wish for people to understand the beauty behind role-playing social interactions and how the story told by the players including the DM is far more important than trying to exploit "winning" whatever winning could be to someone.
I once played a character with a charisma of 3. There even was one time she succeeded in her deception roll.
I have my qualms about social interactions in D&D. It's really weird for the game designers to call social interactions a *pillar* of their game when there are no real mechanics for it. It is not encouraged, it is not needed, it is not structured, it's 100% up to the players to play D&D with or without social interactions. You cannot call that a pillar of the game.
Yeah I try to bring this up for new players especially. You don't have to be a script writer and an actor and improv professional here. Just let the DM know the gist of what you're trying to do and they can sort out an appropriate roll. But if you want to play it in character that's fine too, have fun with it.
Reoh However, people are very surprised when you are.
I think that D&D actually has some interesting built-in mechanics that can make NPC social rolls a useful tool.
You can't make the players act a certain way - that's no fun for anyone. So you can't roll persuasion to make the players choose an alternate course of action.
But, for example, it's already common to have players to roll Insight as a contested roll against an NPC's deception, because it leaves room for doubt.
You could have an NPC roll persuasion to award advantage on performing a task, or disadvantage on doing something that an NPC 'persuaded' you not to. This seems like something that would come up rarely, but I think it could work in certain situations.
You could also have a particularly frightening enemy roll Intimidation against a Willpower save to give the PC disadvantage on their next attack against that target. Something to use sparingly, and emphasize that an enemy is especially frightening.
I have played a lot of games, some very rules-heavy and some very loose and freeform. I think there's room for both. I'm just saying that I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that social skills are meant for PCs. I wouldn't use them the same way with NPCs, because maintaining a sense of freedom and choice for the players is important, but using these skills as a way to add flavor and complications to situations is fine.
One question I have is, I agree that if someone RPs well, they should get an advantage on their social check's.
I have a player who had a stroke and can only use sign language with one hand. She will not go in to elaborate speeches do to it takes so long for her to spell out her words. She does have a text telling speech app, which does help. How does she get those advantages without the other players feeling cheated, and roles reversed?
Thanks for the help, loving your videos.
Capt Nugatory I have to say reading this comment was an eye opener. I was unaware and ignorant of the obstacles people face just trying to play this awesome game.
Such good DM knowledge here 👏
My favorite application for performance is building lore master wizards to sneak verbal spell commands into average conversation to hide their illusion casting in plain sight.
Funny that he didn't mention insight checks. I love insight checks.
Also, if anyone is interested in how you might incorporate rules into a social interaction, just as a guide for structure for social encounters or challenges, check out page 244 in the Dungeon Master's Guide
I was honestly surprised that he didn't mention insight as it is more heavily used in social interactions. In fact insight and deception are 2 skills that most people can agree upon how they work in regards to players using those social skills on each other since those are contested checks. I mean the only time it wouldn't come into play is if your character has evidence to the contrary. Even if one character is always suspicious of the other, most the time you still do the contested check just to see if the suspicious character is able to confirm this time around or not.
I wish he would've clarified Insight a bit. That skill is never satisfying to use or interpret as a DM or as a player.
the ol' dilemma of when should you roll to chat up a wench lol classic
really expected Mearls to talk on this subject since he’s always talking about derailing the campaign with his characters
Being a fairly bright academic and playing an INT 7 barbarian can be interesting/frustrating when I see stuff well before my PC should...
But kudos to you for staying in character
This... the struggle is real.
you get to know what your character should not know, then you dont accidentally let your character say or act like they do, but also you get to play the game and make your character silly (less of a player insert, and more of an entertaining chess piece).
Who else wants to see Chris Perkins as a player, especially after everything he puts the WaffleCrew through?
only seen it once - he played drizzt on acq inc. I wanna see an original perkins character though
He played an elderly Goliath woman in Matt Mercer's Critical Role, campaign one. It was a single sit in. I feel like the character really represented the kind of characters Perkins seems to find interesting: that is to say broken characters, who by their own failings or in action have produced their own problems.
ahhh i did hear about that i think. just can't sit through crit role :( even s2 is not for me. thanks!
Episode number please? I'd love to see this, just for Perkins.
Episode 55 -- "Umbrasyl" -- at about the one hour and twelve minute mark.
I think the performance of the player should influence the DC of the roll
The issue there is that if a player is more shy/less inclined towards voice-acting and "performing", as it were, then it seems a little unfair that their DCs will always be higher. (Or from the other perspective: for those more inclined towards performance/dramatics, their DCs will always be lower.) As long as the player can describe *how* the character convinces or intimidates the NPC in the scene, and can do so well, then I think it's fine to adjust the DC based on that.
Sure, describing and role-playing could have the same effect.
At the same time, I don't think there is anything wrong with rewarding people for being good at role-playing, just like you would reward someone for being good at combat or creative problem-solving.
DabIMON personally, as a DM, I try to get a feel of my players' personalities and abilities and take that into account when determining dcs for social interactions. The shy newcomers don't have to improvise an elaborate tale, whereas I expect my experienced charismatic players to come up with something.
You have to be careful because if you have a charismatic player who's always on point, they can just use Charisma as the dump stat every time and suffer minimal penalty for it.
That's a bad way to do it, you're limiting what the player character can do based on real world limitations of the player. It's the exact opposite off what the game is for.
How would you guys handle a situation where two players are going to fight between themselves? (Context- Warlock of the raven queen has found out that his teammate is a revenant)
Fabius Maximus combat fighting lol
Fabius Maximus I’m thinking of arranging an arena-like situation where the two can duke it out... do you think it could work? Ones a revenant and so can’t die, but I’m worried about the Warlock
Two players got into a fight via their characters. I let them have it out, they cast thunder wave at each other so I rolled some nice... six owlbears were attracted to the sound of the commotion. Players stopped attacking each other to fight the OBs. If players are getting into fights with each other it's something you might need to attempt to resolve out of game if it becomes a frequent occurrence.
Decide. Describe. Roll. React.
Character knowledge vs player knowledge. I know what a zebra is, my character knows it is a horse with stripes. Character ends up with donkey, painted with horizontal green stripes for an upcoming bluff check.
There should be more about social interactions in the PHB and DMG
All these people in the comments want more rules and rolls in social interactions... that would obviously end up being limiting to those who actually want to roleplay freely. And dont give me that 'this is a game, so it needs structure' noise- the ONE thing that makes DnD and other ttrpgs different than a video game is that it ISNT rigid all the time and allows for the freedom to not overthink something like talking. Just TALK
Great talk!
So many people in these comments that don't want to roleplay in their roleplaying games but just want to play video games.
That's their prerogative. DnD rules aren't very static nowadays
this is a very old issue in D&D that predates even modern video game RPGs. There have always been players who prefer a hack and slash tactical combat game to role playing and narrative. I think that’s ok, as long as no one claims that their preference is the only way to play.
What i would give to play in a circle with these guys...
Just a side note on the video: whatever camera you are using is set to a very fast "auto-focus" mode. Every time he pushes his glasses up the camera refocuses to his hand. Consider this problem for your next video.
this was/is a good one
As a DM, how can i write an ipotetical social encounter in my plot pre-session? Or is it only improv?
make a combat encounter, take away the combat, if the players resort to combat , punish them. you can have a social encounter with the big bad boss wizard, and the nice kind king in the same room if the wizard simply says "i could destroy this whole kingdom with one word if i so choose, but i am here to talk today. this will be over quickly and painlessly as long as we can act civilly, now, lets negotiate."
please turn up jeremy's mic next time. very quiet compared to todd ad im having a hard time hearing him even with my volume all the way up
I agree with everything, but I think we could use a more engaging social system for DnD
i really take issue with this much hands off design when it comes to social interaction in d&d, because its not hands off deign, its just not deign anything. everything said in this video is great for informing people how to play social scenes and interactions in d&d, sure, but next to none of it is written in the PHB or the DMG, rules, sidebars, advice, or suggestions about how to get your players to do any of this. if you want social interaction to be a pillar of your game play, write a chapter, or even just a couple pages, about how to get players to do it. when to roll,, when not to roll, example dcs, actually bringing up how important it is, anything other than 5 or 6 paragrpahs which are mostly just quotes from your playtest session in a 300 page book that most players are going to skim through at best after the character creation section.
WizBro is dead to me. For now on, it's OSE and DCC. BTW what you're saying is spot on, but the 5e rules as written discourage that behavior in practice. More people would play that way if you had less rules/checks.
Social contract? I wasn't aware that there was one in DnD.
It's quite jarring at the end of these videos to swap from Jeremy's clear enunciation to Todd's slurry mess.
For critical interactions i have my players roll. But i also ask them what they say. If they say nothing ie "i use deception" automatic +5 DC if they say something, regular DC. And exceptional roleplaying is a -5 DC. This goes for all my skill rolls actually. Try it and watch your powergamers suddenly become better actors.
I mean, unless you tell your players that that's how it works, it won't necessarily encourage any more roleplaying from your players - it'll just make them less inclined to even try to negotiate rather than get into a fight. In my limited DM experience, when my players just say "I use Intimidation" or something like it, I won't let them roll until they tell me what their character is doing to intimidate/persuade/deceive the other character.
they know how i calculate dc. i never tell them the actual dc but they have a decent idea
I personally use advantage and disadvantage when a player goes off the deep end or doesn't rp and the group gets frustrated. It's harsh actually. The DC adjustment seems kind and a little more subtle. Not that I'm going to stop.
man this guy repeats him-self over and over and over again. beating a dead horse down. we get it from the 1st 2 mins. everything else is BLAH BLAH BLAH
You have to go into all the aspects. Just knowing the big picture doesn't mean you truly understand its details. You're not cool acting like an obstinate child.
i mean, he is actually one of the better minds on these subjects IN DND AND WIZARDS ONLY. is that true if we broaden that to book and stories in general. no. that said, alex isnt completely wrong, but they also have to pander to the ... er, lowest denomination of viewers who DO need stuff repeated. if you want GOOD advice, it isnt often freely given on youtube, sadly, and you can see that reflected in the quality in the products.
Really kinda... irked? by the way he says that the social pillar was designed not to have "rules," aka, game mechanics. I know I'm not the first to say this, but D&D is the "g" in the "rpg," and if there's no game, we're essentially just playing make believe- which is great! but it's not an rpg.
We want rpgs to be a game that helps us to tell stories better, and if there's no mechanics, if there's no "game" in that rpg, we chose poorly because if we really just want to tell stories to each other akin to Baron Munchausen, let's do that and stop pretending that we're playing a structured game.
D&D is great at that action and adventure questing style of heroics... but there is very little in the PHB to support one of the supposed three main pillars of D&D.
And he says that's by design. Yeah, he done triggered me. Sigh.
tjn74 but he literally spent over 1/3 of the video talking about the mechanics available to be used in social encounters? The thing is, they don't need that many rules in the book because most social encounters need improvised rules based on what players are saying, what the situation is, who they are talking to, etc. There are too many variables to lay down hard rules especially when what is available works just fine for every group I've been in.
any recommendations for RPGs like that? I'd love to look at something new. Also maybe an example of where those extra rules come in handy?
its not a bug its a feature :) oldest line in the book
God his references are so cheesy.... THIS ISN'T THE 80's! Who quotes unoriginal non-action movie one-liners or hard-refs fantasy?
"intimidation, in its worst case, bullying someone." bruh, people have been doing much worse in the most basic interrogations of even goblins and kobolds.
If you're physically harming them, I'd say it transcends a simple Intimidation check... it'd just be a damage roll and an automatic success of the Intimidation.
Ryan Smith Couldn't have said it better