The solution for this issue and for many other skill system issues is already in place but rarely used: Passive skill scores. Take the system known from perception and insight and apply it to the other scores. In social interactions I let the player RP out their argument or their persuassioin attempt and then I will evaluate between how compelling I think their attempt has been and their passive score. A character with a higher passive persuassion score thus needs a much less thorough argument to convince an npc compared to a uncharismatic character. Yes, this can be hard to judge as a DM and requires me to be aware of the players skill scores but it also retains the "I have a high score I am good at this despite me not being so irl" wish fulfillment while letting social interactions retain a lot of rp. The only time I really use social skill checks is when I want to fast forward past a social encounter of little narrative importance.
I do this too. The only 'problem' with it is that it steps on a higher level rogue class ability. It's just too elegant of a solution to not use though.
Why not do the Deus Ex reboot one. Your passive skills pick up on the logic and analyze what the person said. So it helps to generalize what should be said. Just watch it when Adam argues with his boss to rediscover his past. 10/10
I was hoping you were going to address the "Automatic Lie Detector" skill as well (Sense Motive in 3.5e, Insight in 5e) I've had players spam that every time he run into a new NPC. And once a particular player doesn't get an expected positive answer, the rest of the players do the same thing.
Thank you for this topic. You have distilled my dissatisfaction with social skill rolls and given me a road map for how to change my approach while encouraging players to roleplay. I definitely find myself lacking as a GM in this area now that Im running an OSR game for the first time. Lots to think about!
Something that I have been learning watching your videos is that my players and I have a very interesting relationship being relatively newer to the hobby like we are. By that I mean, for as much as I am learning about running the game thanks to watching excellent videos like yours in-between sessions, my players do not have much in the way of deeper videos and discussions on how to play it seems (certainly many videos that cover the mechanical basics), thus it is my responsibility to "tutorial-ize" and demonstrate these ideas to them. We have in the past done on the "I don't know how, but can I persuade them because I have a high persuasion skill," trap which left me wanting more from interactions. As I have fleshed out my NPCs this has certainly happened less, but I have also rewarded my players for thinking creatively and roleplaying more too, shocker! Greatly appreciate people like you putting videos out like this, it really helps out advancing my GM skills!
Your comment reminds me of a "problem" that I've noticed in the ttrpg community at large, which is that virtually all of the advice for how to play the *game* is directed at GMs, where player facing advice is focused on mechanical "builds". Player builds are so incredibly not important in regards to the game being played. I would argue foundational things players need advice on surrounds the concept of the social contract that the game is structured around. Once players have learned about these concepts, as well as advice on improvisation and character tropes and stories, then you can start looking at your mechanical builds. But so much responsibility for determining if a game is good or not is put squarely on the DM, which is absolutely bullshit. Just like dancing and fighting, it takes more than one to tango (possibly even two). Diatribe over, thank you so much for you comment! Glad your group is having a blast! Also having a reference like Earthmote is so valuable. Even if I'm not "learning" something, these videos always make me think and get excited again about running my own games!
Yes! Don't roll until I ask for a skill check. I hate it when my players throw skill check numbers at me, roll high, and expect mind control results. Even when a player rollplays instead of roleplaying it out, I still ask them what they are doing/saying to try and persuade them. That way I can determine a DC or say it automatically works or fails. I still use the skill checks, because I really dislike an actor roleplaying extremely well when their character has a 8 Charisma and no training in Persuasion. It just doesn't work like that.
Overall, I agree with everything here! I usually do the hybrid approach; the voracity of the roleplay drives the main thrust of the scene, but I allow some sort of Skill Check where it makes sense and particularly for players that fall into the category below, which I have interacted with many, many times. I do, however, dislike how swingy the d20 can be for such things! Something to consider is that using a Skill Check (or similar codified, mechanical system) is helpful for players that lack the social or argumentation skills that their character would have. For example, someone who is very shy and has social anxiety in real life may have made a charismatic character with a strong personality. They have chosen options to represent that, and would prefer to let their dice (and their Skills) do the talking, because the pressure of being put "on the spot" like that can be tough for 'em. It's a situation I've seen at tables, particular in public games (Adventure League, conventions). I've also seen the reverse occur: the 8 Charisma 8 Intelligent Barbarian is played by a highly intelligent, persuasive person who is able to out-perform the character that has better social skills, simply because the DM has not utilized a Skill Check to determine the efficacy of a character's argumentation. So we'd have a scene where the brute of a barbarian is making eloquent argumentation and the charismatic, brilliant sorcerer is relegated to the sideline, simply because the players have very different social skills in real life. Being good at argumentation, debate, and socializing is absolutely a skill that people can train for in real life, after all! 🤠
Yeah, that is definitely an argument that comes up a lot in these debates (player skill vs. character skill). Which is why I try to define and emphasize roleplaying in terms of thinking how your character would. You don't need to give me an eloquent speech or even talk in 1st person. Simply saying "I'd like to try to persuade the guard to let us pass by bribing him with 5 gold" is roleplaying and thinking like your character! For me, that's good enough.
For the Q&A: Have your sandbox campaigns included traveling to other planes of existence? Would you have any tips for running planar travel & letting your players loose on a reality independent of their own? Love the channel!
This is a solid video and view. I think on the other side is the framing that says what makes the social interactions transactional is that it is a game-and culturally a story telling game at that, pressuring the encounter to have a purpose or else be considered a waste of time. Additionally, the other element that skill checks simulate is the fantasy of being competent at a thing. The counterbalance to that is that some people will bow out of doing a thing others can do better (not unlike any story or even real life scenario where relative professionals are working together on a task-in this case ‘adventuring’). Creating a set of circumstances where someone with poor social stats can have a reason to engage is necessary whether the system exists or not, considering there are people uninterested in role play in the first place. The system allows those people to engage with the game, though people that want everyone to role play don’t like them relying on the system. I think changing the stat system to dramatically increase a group’s willingness to role play evenly represents a desire for a style of play more than a flaw in a system that allows people uninterested in role play to play in a game with people who love it. Altering that system (as in done in more role play heavy rule sets) will only reduce the number of players in the hobby, concentrating a particular style of play.
Hey Randall, First off, I have really enjoyed your videos this past year. They have been a great help with running my first home game. I would love to hear your best/worst experience playing at the table. Is there anyones work in the current ttrpg space you admire? Excited for the Q&A. Take care, James
Love it! I feel like some of the CHA based skills don't flow well in 5e for a lack of a better word. I'd throw insight in that category, too. Random side note- with headphones on I can hear you tapping on your desk. A shockmount might help (or be conscious about avoiding it).
Social "skill" checks were better when handled with reaction rolls or morale checks. A check was still made, but it was not always the player that had the best "Persuasion" making the check. It was a good compromise between DM fiat/Roleplaying and pure dice rolling.
I try to avoid requiring skill checks for dialogue unless I'm uncertain on an outcome. Just like with the players and their characters, I'm not my NPCs. The die roll helps me determine their reaction when I can't think of one off the top of my head. But yeah I agree overall. Nothing deflates me faster than making what I feel like is a compelling argument or whatever, only to get undermined and blocked off because I rolled a 4.
If a player makes a compelling argument, and they role-play this in line with their character (high charisma, social background, etc) I often skip the roll. But occasionally, I let them roll. A low result would be a 'Yes, but...' and a high result 'Sure, and take this, too'.
@@michaelguth4007 Yeah that's pretty much how I play it. But sometimes people aren't moved by compelling arguements for a variety of reasons (dont like them, irrational person, etc), and the randomness of the roll determines if/how much they listen.
I dunno, take any of these: Do your games pretty much skew toward OSR? Or are there some differences from the stereotypical template that you've come to enjoy? What other styles of running roleplaying games work that you've seen, despite them not quite aligning with OSR style play? How often do languages wind up featuring in your game, and to what extent? Can you imagine an OSR game that was even more stripped down and based on player choice, like doing away with attributes altogether? Congratulations on your first anniversary, this is one of my favorite RPG channels
I think that in a sense you are saying that there is a right way, and a wrong way, for players to carry out social interactions. The same system also lets players who play fighters just say “I’m going to attack,” and just rile the dice. Or wizards to say “I cast fireball.” Also, the system as is allows people who are shy, or just not interested in acting or role play. Good points, and I think if it works for the table, play how you want
The essence of a game is choice. Even in games with high randomness (poker for example) the most successful players are the ones that make the best decisions relative to the play objectives over time. Mechanics only function to adjudicate choice when the outcome should be in question, i.e. entailing risk. Reflexive rolling of d20s in lieu of interacting with virtual decision points undermines the point of the game.
10:01 i mention this in my other commenr, but first players should never ask for checks. Theh paint a picture and the DM calls for a roll. If you don't want to do first person dialogue, then tell me the approach of the argument. "Well he seems really well dressed. I'll flatter him and appeal to his sense of style before i try to ask him for [insert pc goal]". You can still call for a Persuasion roll there. The DC is based on the case they make and the NPC's personality matrix
For the Q&A: How do you deal with players with very different goals and interests in the game? If Alice wants to hear the life story of every NPC, and Bob wants to kill, kill, kill, e.g.
The "first" group i tried to make was a Exploration, Social and Action only players. Luckly it broke up cuz i said "I wish you were a girl" comment. Crazy ass people 😂
Screen and filter the players before the game starts. If everyone has wildly different expectations for the game it's going to be a painful experience.
I think it's some interesting points to keep in mind. I don't think I'd ever go completely away from the charisma skill checks though. This is because I feel like it pushes the skill check onto the players too much, and those who aren't as charismatic in real life can then get pushed out instead of still having a chance with the dice. Some really good things to keep in mind that you raised but
The skill system for social encounters does, however, represent the "illogical" mind many people have. I mean we just have to look at modern days sceptics when it comes to science to realize that humans very often do not follow logical arguments. So the skill role does represent the chance that the npc might just not be interested in that logic. As a GM I have many friends who (let's be honest) can outdebate me quite easily. Falling back on the skill role allows me to a certain freedom from that situation. Not saying that it's better. But it comes down to the old question: If you have to logically convince the NPCs by words why can you just roll a die to climb a mountain/wall, whatnot? Or to hit an enemy? I believe in a mixture: you play or explain how you want to convince somebody and the skill role will then be easier or maybe even harder if your arguments sound reasonable or unreasonable. I know some players who just love to roll a die and others who would rather just play it out. I try to allow for both so each player can have fun.
D&D 5e Persuasion blows chunks because players treat it as a mind-control check. D&D 3e, however, had the Diplomacy skill, not the Persuasion skill. Diplomacy was used to improve an NPC's disposition, not to get them to do stuff for you. An NPC's disposition is what determines what is possible within the scope of transaction that didn't rely on deception or intimidation. Unless that NPC's disposition was considered Helpful or Fanatical (from the Epic Level Handbook), you'd most likely need to offer something in exchange, which would only require a die roll if the GM was on the fence. As for social skill checks in general, this is definitely one area where degrees of success/failure would make much more sense than a binary pass/fail response if you wanted to represent a PC's social proficiency to take the player's intention and filter it accordngly. What the player says as their PC absolutely still matters, as that lets the GM know which social skill check to call for. If they build their PC with high persuasion, it'd behoove them to speak persuasively (as opposed to threateningly) in order to employ their Persuasion skill. What the PC does in the game world is what determines which game mechanics get used in the session.
I agree those are possible dangers to skill systems, but if properly used (and you suggest the answers in your video), those dangers are mostly avoided or at least mitigated. The problems with no skill system is how to do resolve an argument where the sides are evenly balanced? If the answer should be a clear yes or not then that's easy - GM just decides (whether you have skills or not). But if evenly balanced, do you rely on GM fiat? Cha check? Something other roll/randomisation? If using a Cha check you are basically using a skill system anyway (2e non-weapon proficiencies by way of example). There are downsides to either approach. And I guess some folks just dont like the social pillar; they'd rather briefly describe in the third person what their Cha 18, maxed out Deception bard is trying to do, the GM makes a ruling or calls for a check, and on they go.
I could be misinterpreting what you mean by evenly balanced in this scenario, but I think there is two outcomes you might be talking about. If they are balanced in that both sides have something the other wants, then I would say the encounter is resolved favorably for the party (and the NPC). If the sides are balanced in the sense that they have reached an impasse (but are both making solid arguments) then it seems clear that the deal couldn't be resolved and they'd both go their separate ways.
@@Earthmote Ah yes that's a good way to do it - if the arguments are finely balanced, then neither party does what the other wants. Nice :) What a skill check would allow is to have a winner/loser when finely balanced, instead of both losers.
I think a nice balance does the trick. The DM can ask for social checks to keep themselves unbiased, but it should not be overused, and the DM can give advantage or disadvantage depending on how good the argument was presented. Additionally, this is yet another reason why I like the new DC20 system by The Dungeon Coach. The Influence and Intimidation skills are directly used for combat purposes such as taunting and inflicting the intimidated condition, so players can still fill rewarded for buffing those skills even if the DM doesn't use so much in actual social encounters. To summarize, I don't mind social skills, but I don't necessarily like the way modern DnD editions uses them. But I think there's an underlying problem of newer DMs just not understanding how to use the skill system correctly. I certainly didn't when I first started DMing.
Good video. But you didn't reference the Reaction Roll modified by Charisma . Interestingly the Rules Cyclopedia allows a +3 on the table if you have an 18 Cha. !!!!
I love me a reaction roll! I thought about including it, but I decided against it for a couple reasons: First, reaction rolls are optional. If you have a sense on how your NPC would play, then you don't necessarily need to make one (you can of course). Secondly, while I didn't explicitly call it out, the reaction roll definitely falls under the NPC's "Disposition" that I talked about in understanding what you need to run an encounter. So in my mind, the reaction roll directly informs that piece of information you need to run your social encounter.
A 1 in combat means one missed attack. I think even people who want to drastically reduce the length, complexity and number of rolls of combat would balk at reducing an entire combat to a single roll deciding victory or defeat. And yet, in social situations, a single 1 can mean everyone hates you now, while a single 20 can mean you're handed the keys to the kingdom. I think it should be possible to retain social skill rolls if they are understood as part of a series of rounds of interaction ('social combat'), in which a single 1 represents a faux-pas which might mean a setback, or prevent an ideal outcome, but could still be compensated for by better results on other rolls.
When doing persuasion/deception skill checks, it can be interesting to have a poor roll to a resolved issue just make your character talk as bluntly as possible or maybe even stumble over their words dumbfoundedly. The penalty might just be looking stupid for a minute rather than a direct or indirect fail. Or even if the argument is very poor, then an amazing roll could mean the character worded the argument in a way that makes it seem like the NPC is winning in the deal; basically using it as a rubber band mechanic.
7:02 Well, you can still achieve this with skill rolls. You just need to approach what they're for correctly. If my players don't make a good case at all, they may not even get a chance to roll and it will just be a no. If they correctly play to the bonds, ideals, and/or flaws, of the NPC, make a good case, and think about what they are saying, they may just auto-succeed or get advantage and a much lower dc. They definitely know not to be flippant 😁
As an old school DM, I use the die roll as a fall back position when the player does not have the social skill of their character or when the NPC has some reason to resist the player's offer or argument. Good role playing is always a blessing to a DM, but some players do not have the social skills (especially the younger ones) yet, or will never have them. Thus the die roll makes it possible to succeed. I just watched a vid on solving riddles and puzzles. Do we DMs expect the players to solve or allow them to roll? Same problem, different situation.
I like rolling skill checks for socials. Makes sense to me. You, the GM, can think the players made a good argument and that is why you allow it. But the npc has some will of their own, and that is what the skill check represents. A good argument simply might no resonate with the npc. That way you as the GM can also be surpriesed and I feel that makes the game flow more naturaly. And vice verca also works. You might think the argument your players have made is crap, but with a good roll it might pass, meaning it was a good enough argument for the npc. The skill check also adjusts for player skills, a player with bad imporve can still play a persuasive character.
Of course youtube got rid of my comment. 😢 But basically tell me a good reason why the npc should do X + bonus for good critital thought + D20 to see if the npc gets it.
I don't mind having my players roll the persuasion check at the beginning of the ecounter. As with most improvisation your are given a prompt to act upon, in this case the result of the roll is the prompt. If it's a bad roll I might improvise a fake rumor about the party or if the players have an idea we start from there. Then the discussions and arguments start, we might roll new checks if we feel like it or get stuck. The first roll is about setting up the scene for the ecounter the same way stealth rolls do for a combat encounter. But yeah sometimes a roll is unecessary because the party did the work before the encounter.
If we had no skill checks for social encounters, I would totally abuse the friend spell however. Sure its utterly useless given that all social checks are unavailable... But lets say the goal was to antagonize an individual, but you dont want to sacrifice your social standing or come across as a slimy individual? Friend spell with subtle spell metamagic! Proceed with a pleasant conversation amongst the NPCs while targeting who you intend to antagonize. Reasonably act concerned when suddenly someone either attacks you. Verbally or physically. "But dude, what possible situation would require something like this?" Well... Causing a guard captain who is prosecuting you during a drawn out trial to suddenly lose composure and either make an ass of himself, or heavens forbid draw a weapon and attempt an execution! Either the trial is delayed, or charges are dropped due to the miscarriage of justice.
Also if they declare you hexed them... Subtle spell meta magic. Should be quite the game changer when it comes to manipulating people. Also the effect of making said guard captain in the example could be painted as duplicitous if during the effect, he closed the gap before drawing a dagger or losing his composure seemingly out of nowhere.
I think friends should be a spell on yourself that attempts to "spellcheck" and make you say stuff to get your point across. Or like a magical text to speech that tried to get your point across. Doe ironically friends as is good for like rogues and such "I use friends, i get close to him.. and i roll to kick in him in the junk with advantage." 😂
6:33 Why not? It's not the players, but the characters that they're RPing as, that's interacting with the NPC. Social gafts, mistakes in cultural significance, poor body language, timing, etc can all play a role that's not necessarily covered in pure arguments. How is it different from a mis-aligned strike, or a poorly executed feint in combat in how it abstracts the details away? How does a player that wants to play the face of the party, but doesn't necessarily have the argumentative know how to navigate a social interactions to their advantage play such a role? Will they have to play a side character until they've mastered a silver tongue and five-year planning in real life? Or at least, able to rival the DM, who's also improving as they play. Now the other players can give them ideas, and help that one player. However, then he's not doing it through his own ideas and skills. And this solution also solves one of the issue you bring up, of only one player being the de-facto face, as the other players can still chime in to influence the player's decisions. They're just acting collectively through the face character in the end. This is the hardests idea of ORS for me to accept, because it doesn't jive with me. If we ignore the mental abilities of the character, then each "character" is really only you wearing a costume. To me it breaks the immersion that you're an adventurer, and pulls your real life aspects into the character. My best illustration of this is if you've watched The Gamers: Dorkness Rising; a player named Gary plays a female sorceress named Luster. In the movie they'll switch to Gary in drag whenever his own personality traits come out during the adventure, and switch back to the female character whenever aspects of his character's traits affect the story. It's works as a comedic relief, but not everyone wants their story to be a comedy.
Like having people just try to sway your mind is a Party game. TTRPG's arent that kind of party games. You got the Character and you, it should be a fusion of your character in world knowledge and your outsidr knowledge and wisdom. I swear the ttrpg crowd is weird.
5:12 100%, this is one thing that bugs the hell out of me. Every GM does this to a small degree at minimum and I'm no exception, but if it's really bad it either feels like the narrative doesn't matter, just the dice, OR the dice don't actually matter cause the result is the same either way. TBH, I'm not really a fan of charisma as an ability itself, with most of the social skills being tied to it. I think I'd rather see a system where these skills are actually tied to other attributes and spread more evenly--Cloudbreaker Alliance for instance gives each of its 4 ability scores 3 skills, and each one has 1 'social' skill (save for empathy which has 2). The end result is EVERYONE has at least one social option that they'll be good at, and prevents one player from handling all social interactions by virtue of having the highest modifier. It still is skill-driven, so it doesn't avoid the problem entirely, but at the very least it's more evenly distributed so all players have an incentive to step in for a social encounter at certain points. I'm not in favor of *no* rolls for social interactions, but I think they should definitely be used intelligently and sparingly, such as trying to get a bit more out of an interaction than otherwise, rather than the center of the success/failure. But even better, they can be more useful for providing players with more information instead--rolling to remember knowledge and clues about the topic, observations about the other person, etc., stuff that can be provided to players and used in their arguments rather than a replacement for the interaction itself.
Hey! Love the channel but you should really pull down this video and read the new 5.5e rules. Everything you are talking about have been fixed up in about two paragraphs. Seriously, this vid is a bad look for your expertise. Please ask if you any questions. I’m happy to explain
Removing the skill system makes the CHARACTER'S success dependent on the PLAYER'S skill. THAT is extremely bad right design. I promise you that nobody at the table can actually represent 20 charisma or 20 intelligence, let alone a 20 dexterity or 20 strength. The idea that you're singling out social skills, but make no mention of the rest of the skills, further shows that you haven't thought through any of this. Overall, you seem to lack awareness of what a GAME is.
It's a question of automation. Should my character have a higher strength than I have in real life? Should my myncharacter be tougher than I am in real life? Should my character be more dextrous than I am in real life? Where it gets weird is when ppl who are not naturally intelligent, wise or charismatic do things where skill checks replace their stupid decisions. This is why disadvantage exists.
I am not convinced by your video. Dice rolls are to be employed to determine uncertain outcomes. If you ask for a check and think even on a low result they should get what they want, do not ask for a roll. Give it to them straight. Same goes for situations where the opposite is true, when players roll while their propositions are shitty. If you allow that as a Dm without modifying the outcome than you are employing the system wrong. If you just leave it to roleplaying, you will penalize uncharismatic players and reward suave players. You are encouraging to play themselves. It's a simple fact that some people can walk into the room ask for the same thing with the same arguments talking to the same person and get a different outcome than other. This what the skill is for. Are afraid that there will be a party face? Well maybe bring up from time to time some NPC that are opposed to the party face. The merchant that hates the Tiefling bard because he is a racist. The king that will not talk to paladin since his son run away to serve some stupid holy war. It's pretty much the opposite of the racial affinity example you brought up. Make the background matter. A character has the noble background. Give him advantage on navigating the etiquette of court etc.
Because it's a role playing game not a combat game. Play "Riddle of Steel" for combat. Secondly, no one is asking you to be good at the wordy words, only that you lay out an argument to your CM as part of the RP.
@@b0therme"Just play a different system" That the argue i say to that in jest. 😂 I was friends with a guy that could be "whatever" but normally only said around 5 words or less. Who knows.. maybe just let people decide how they want to play cuz who it going to hurt?
Rolling for social encounters is a crutch for lazy DMs who don't flesh out their NPCs, and clueless players, who know nothing else. If you want the dice to determine everything, you can just roll up 4 or 5 characters, and play by yourself. Players certainly don't need to give some kind of Oscar-worthy performance, but they need to be able to effectively communicate their intentions, not handicap their RL social skills further, by leaving the result up to a "system."
Speech skills are for video games
great point that d20 systems made almost all NPC interactions transactional in nature
The solution for this issue and for many other skill system issues is already in place but rarely used: Passive skill scores. Take the system known from perception and insight and apply it to the other scores. In social interactions I let the player RP out their argument or their persuassioin attempt and then I will evaluate between how compelling I think their attempt has been and their passive score. A character with a higher passive persuassion score thus needs a much less thorough argument to convince an npc compared to a uncharismatic character. Yes, this can be hard to judge as a DM and requires me to be aware of the players skill scores but it also retains the "I have a high score I am good at this despite me not being so irl" wish fulfillment while letting social interactions retain a lot of rp. The only time I really use social skill checks is when I want to fast forward past a social encounter of little narrative importance.
I do this too. The only 'problem' with it is that it steps on a higher level rogue class ability. It's just too elegant of a solution to not use though.
Why not do the Deus Ex reboot one.
Your passive skills pick up on the logic and analyze what the person said.
So it helps to generalize what should be said. Just watch it when Adam argues with his boss to rediscover his past. 10/10
I was hoping you were going to address the "Automatic Lie Detector" skill as well (Sense Motive in 3.5e, Insight in 5e) I've had players spam that every time he run into a new NPC. And once a particular player doesn't get an expected positive answer, the rest of the players do the same thing.
Thank you for this topic. You have distilled my dissatisfaction with social skill rolls and given me a road map for how to change my approach while encouraging players to roleplay. I definitely find myself lacking as a GM in this area now that Im running an OSR game for the first time. Lots to think about!
Glad it was helpful!
Something that I have been learning watching your videos is that my players and I have a very interesting relationship being relatively newer to the hobby like we are. By that I mean, for as much as I am learning about running the game thanks to watching excellent videos like yours in-between sessions, my players do not have much in the way of deeper videos and discussions on how to play it seems (certainly many videos that cover the mechanical basics), thus it is my responsibility to "tutorial-ize" and demonstrate these ideas to them. We have in the past done on the "I don't know how, but can I persuade them because I have a high persuasion skill," trap which left me wanting more from interactions. As I have fleshed out my NPCs this has certainly happened less, but I have also rewarded my players for thinking creatively and roleplaying more too, shocker! Greatly appreciate people like you putting videos out like this, it really helps out advancing my GM skills!
Glad you find it helpful, thanks for sharing!
Your comment reminds me of a "problem" that I've noticed in the ttrpg community at large, which is that virtually all of the advice for how to play the *game* is directed at GMs, where player facing advice is focused on mechanical "builds".
Player builds are so incredibly not important in regards to the game being played. I would argue foundational things players need advice on surrounds the concept of the social contract that the game is structured around. Once players have learned about these concepts, as well as advice on improvisation and character tropes and stories, then you can start looking at your mechanical builds.
But so much responsibility for determining if a game is good or not is put squarely on the DM, which is absolutely bullshit. Just like dancing and fighting, it takes more than one to tango (possibly even two).
Diatribe over, thank you so much for you comment! Glad your group is having a blast! Also having a reference like Earthmote is so valuable. Even if I'm not "learning" something, these videos always make me think and get excited again about running my own games!
Yes! Don't roll until I ask for a skill check. I hate it when my players throw skill check numbers at me, roll high, and expect mind control results.
Even when a player rollplays instead of roleplaying it out, I still ask them what they are doing/saying to try and persuade them. That way I can determine a DC or say it automatically works or fails.
I still use the skill checks, because I really dislike an actor roleplaying extremely well when their character has a 8 Charisma and no training in Persuasion. It just doesn't work like that.
"Can I make a perception check?"
FOR WHAT
Overall, I agree with everything here! I usually do the hybrid approach; the voracity of the roleplay drives the main thrust of the scene, but I allow some sort of Skill Check where it makes sense and particularly for players that fall into the category below, which I have interacted with many, many times. I do, however, dislike how swingy the d20 can be for such things!
Something to consider is that using a Skill Check (or similar codified, mechanical system) is helpful for players that lack the social or argumentation skills that their character would have. For example, someone who is very shy and has social anxiety in real life may have made a charismatic character with a strong personality. They have chosen options to represent that, and would prefer to let their dice (and their Skills) do the talking, because the pressure of being put "on the spot" like that can be tough for 'em. It's a situation I've seen at tables, particular in public games (Adventure League, conventions).
I've also seen the reverse occur: the 8 Charisma 8 Intelligent Barbarian is played by a highly intelligent, persuasive person who is able to out-perform the character that has better social skills, simply because the DM has not utilized a Skill Check to determine the efficacy of a character's argumentation.
So we'd have a scene where the brute of a barbarian is making eloquent argumentation and the charismatic, brilliant sorcerer is relegated to the sideline, simply because the players have very different social skills in real life.
Being good at argumentation, debate, and socializing is absolutely a skill that people can train for in real life, after all! 🤠
Yeah, that is definitely an argument that comes up a lot in these debates (player skill vs. character skill). Which is why I try to define and emphasize roleplaying in terms of thinking how your character would.
You don't need to give me an eloquent speech or even talk in 1st person. Simply saying "I'd like to try to persuade the guard to let us pass by bribing him with 5 gold" is roleplaying and thinking like your character! For me, that's good enough.
For the Q&A: Have your sandbox campaigns included traveling to other planes of existence? Would you have any tips for running planar travel & letting your players loose on a reality independent of their own?
Love the channel!
This is a solid video and view. I think on the other side is the framing that says what makes the social interactions transactional is that it is a game-and culturally a story telling game at that, pressuring the encounter to have a purpose or else be considered a waste of time.
Additionally, the other element that skill checks simulate is the fantasy of being competent at a thing. The counterbalance to that is that some people will bow out of doing a thing others can do better (not unlike any story or even real life scenario where relative professionals are working together on a task-in this case ‘adventuring’). Creating a set of circumstances where someone with poor social stats can have a reason to engage is necessary whether the system exists or not, considering there are people uninterested in role play in the first place. The system allows those people to engage with the game, though people that want everyone to role play don’t like them relying on the system.
I think changing the stat system to dramatically increase a group’s willingness to role play evenly represents a desire for a style of play more than a flaw in a system that allows people uninterested in role play to play in a game with people who love it. Altering that system (as in done in more role play heavy rule sets) will only reduce the number of players in the hobby, concentrating a particular style of play.
Hey Randall,
First off, I have really enjoyed your videos this past year. They have been a great help with running my first home game. I would love to hear your best/worst experience playing at the table. Is there anyones work in the current ttrpg space you admire? Excited for the Q&A.
Take care,
James
Great perspective! ❤
Love it! I feel like some of the CHA based skills don't flow well in 5e for a lack of a better word. I'd throw insight in that category, too.
Random side note- with headphones on I can hear you tapping on your desk. A shockmount might help (or be conscious about avoiding it).
Big fan of the channel, keep it up!
Social "skill" checks were better when handled with reaction rolls or morale checks. A check was still made, but it was not always the player that had the best "Persuasion" making the check. It was a good compromise between DM fiat/Roleplaying and pure dice rolling.
I agree! I use reaction rolls (and morale checks) all the time.
I try to avoid requiring skill checks for dialogue unless I'm uncertain on an outcome. Just like with the players and their characters, I'm not my NPCs. The die roll helps me determine their reaction when I can't think of one off the top of my head.
But yeah I agree overall. Nothing deflates me faster than making what I feel like is a compelling argument or whatever, only to get undermined and blocked off because I rolled a 4.
If a player makes a compelling argument, and they role-play this in line with their character (high charisma, social background, etc) I often skip the roll.
But occasionally, I let them roll. A low result would be a 'Yes, but...' and a high result 'Sure, and take this, too'.
@@michaelguth4007 Yeah that's pretty much how I play it. But sometimes people aren't moved by compelling arguements for a variety of reasons (dont like them, irrational person, etc), and the randomness of the roll determines if/how much they listen.
@@negative6442 Yes, the agenda and personality of the NPC should always be considered, too, good point.
I dunno, take any of these:
Do your games pretty much skew toward OSR? Or are there some differences from the stereotypical template that you've come to enjoy? What other styles of running roleplaying games work that you've seen, despite them not quite aligning with OSR style play? How often do languages wind up featuring in your game, and to what extent? Can you imagine an OSR game that was even more stripped down and based on player choice, like doing away with attributes altogether?
Congratulations on your first anniversary, this is one of my favorite RPG channels
Totally agree. The system won’t prevent bad a player/dm from being a jerk and if everyone is acting right you don’t need the system.
🎉
I still will never get the people who act like Pathfinder has any power to prevent bad people from being bad.
I think that in a sense you are saying that there is a right way, and a wrong way, for players to carry out social interactions. The same system also lets players who play fighters just say “I’m going to attack,” and just rile the dice. Or wizards to say “I cast fireball.”
Also, the system as is allows people who are shy, or just not interested in acting or role play.
Good points, and I think if it works for the table, play how you want
The essence of a game is choice. Even in games with high randomness (poker for example) the most successful players are the ones that make the best decisions relative to the play objectives over time. Mechanics only function to adjudicate choice when the outcome should be in question, i.e. entailing risk. Reflexive rolling of d20s in lieu of interacting with virtual decision points undermines the point of the game.
I like the skill system in D&D far more than I did in the 90’s.
10:01 i mention this in my other commenr, but first players should never ask for checks. Theh paint a picture and the DM calls for a roll. If you don't want to do first person dialogue, then tell me the approach of the argument.
"Well he seems really well dressed. I'll flatter him and appeal to his sense of style before i try to ask him for [insert pc goal]".
You can still call for a Persuasion roll there. The DC is based on the case they make and the NPC's personality matrix
For the Q&A: How do you deal with players with very different goals and interests in the game? If Alice wants to hear the life story of every NPC, and Bob wants to kill, kill, kill, e.g.
You have to cater to both, and balance that with the type of game you want to run.
The "first" group i tried to make was a Exploration, Social and Action only players.
Luckly it broke up cuz i said "I wish you were a girl" comment. Crazy ass people 😂
Screen and filter the players before the game starts. If everyone has wildly different expectations for the game it's going to be a painful experience.
OSE box set spotted LFG
I think it's some interesting points to keep in mind. I don't think I'd ever go completely away from the charisma skill checks though. This is because I feel like it pushes the skill check onto the players too much, and those who aren't as charismatic in real life can then get pushed out instead of still having a chance with the dice. Some really good things to keep in mind that you raised but
The skill system for social encounters does, however, represent the "illogical" mind many people have. I mean we just have to look at modern days sceptics when it comes to science to realize that humans very often do not follow logical arguments. So the skill role does represent the chance that the npc might just not be interested in that logic. As a GM I have many friends who (let's be honest) can outdebate me quite easily. Falling back on the skill role allows me to a certain freedom from that situation. Not saying that it's better. But it comes down to the old question: If you have to logically convince the NPCs by words why can you just roll a die to climb a mountain/wall, whatnot? Or to hit an enemy?
I believe in a mixture: you play or explain how you want to convince somebody and the skill role will then be easier or maybe even harder if your arguments sound reasonable or unreasonable. I know some players who just love to roll a die and others who would rather just play it out. I try to allow for both so each player can have fun.
I think theyre talking game logic and not conventional logic.
D&D 5e Persuasion blows chunks because players treat it as a mind-control check.
D&D 3e, however, had the Diplomacy skill, not the Persuasion skill. Diplomacy was used to improve an NPC's disposition, not to get them to do stuff for you.
An NPC's disposition is what determines what is possible within the scope of transaction that didn't rely on deception or intimidation. Unless that NPC's disposition was considered Helpful or Fanatical (from the Epic Level Handbook), you'd most likely need to offer something in exchange, which would only require a die roll if the GM was on the fence.
As for social skill checks in general, this is definitely one area where degrees of success/failure would make much more sense than a binary pass/fail response if you wanted to represent a PC's social proficiency to take the player's intention and filter it accordngly.
What the player says as their PC absolutely still matters, as that lets the GM know which social skill check to call for. If they build their PC with high persuasion, it'd behoove them to speak persuasively (as opposed to threateningly) in order to employ their Persuasion skill. What the PC does in the game world is what determines which game mechanics get used in the session.
I agree those are possible dangers to skill systems, but if properly used (and you suggest the answers in your video), those dangers are mostly avoided or at least mitigated. The problems with no skill system is how to do resolve an argument where the sides are evenly balanced? If the answer should be a clear yes or not then that's easy - GM just decides (whether you have skills or not). But if evenly balanced, do you rely on GM fiat? Cha check? Something other roll/randomisation? If using a Cha check you are basically using a skill system anyway (2e non-weapon proficiencies by way of example). There are downsides to either approach. And I guess some folks just dont like the social pillar; they'd rather briefly describe in the third person what their Cha 18, maxed out Deception bard is trying to do, the GM makes a ruling or calls for a check, and on they go.
I could be misinterpreting what you mean by evenly balanced in this scenario, but I think there is two outcomes you might be talking about. If they are balanced in that both sides have something the other wants, then I would say the encounter is resolved favorably for the party (and the NPC). If the sides are balanced in the sense that they have reached an impasse (but are both making solid arguments) then it seems clear that the deal couldn't be resolved and they'd both go their separate ways.
@@Earthmote Ah yes that's a good way to do it - if the arguments are finely balanced, then neither party does what the other wants. Nice :) What a skill check would allow is to have a winner/loser when finely balanced, instead of both losers.
I think a nice balance does the trick. The DM can ask for social checks to keep themselves unbiased, but it should not be overused, and the DM can give advantage or disadvantage depending on how good the argument was presented. Additionally, this is yet another reason why I like the new DC20 system by The Dungeon Coach. The Influence and Intimidation skills are directly used for combat purposes such as taunting and inflicting the intimidated condition, so players can still fill rewarded for buffing those skills even if the DM doesn't use so much in actual social encounters.
To summarize, I don't mind social skills, but I don't necessarily like the way modern DnD editions uses them. But I think there's an underlying problem of newer DMs just not understanding how to use the skill system correctly. I certainly didn't when I first started DMing.
Could just play Pathfinder 2e, the game he took this intimidation rules from
Good video. But you didn't reference the Reaction Roll modified by Charisma . Interestingly the Rules Cyclopedia allows a +3 on the table if you have an 18 Cha. !!!!
I love me a reaction roll! I thought about including it, but I decided against it for a couple reasons:
First, reaction rolls are optional. If you have a sense on how your NPC would play, then you don't necessarily need to make one (you can of course). Secondly, while I didn't explicitly call it out, the reaction roll definitely falls under the NPC's "Disposition" that I talked about in understanding what you need to run an encounter. So in my mind, the reaction roll directly informs that piece of information you need to run your social encounter.
A 1 in combat means one missed attack. I think even people who want to drastically reduce the length, complexity and number of rolls of combat would balk at reducing an entire combat to a single roll deciding victory or defeat.
And yet, in social situations, a single 1 can mean everyone hates you now, while a single 20 can mean you're handed the keys to the kingdom. I think it should be possible to retain social skill rolls if they are understood as part of a series of rounds of interaction ('social combat'), in which a single 1 represents a faux-pas which might mean a setback, or prevent an ideal outcome, but could still be compensated for by better results on other rolls.
When doing persuasion/deception skill checks, it can be interesting to have a poor roll to a resolved issue just make your character talk as bluntly as possible or maybe even stumble over their words dumbfoundedly. The penalty might just be looking stupid for a minute rather than a direct or indirect fail. Or even if the argument is very poor, then an amazing roll could mean the character worded the argument in a way that makes it seem like the NPC is winning in the deal; basically using it as a rubber band mechanic.
7:02 Well, you can still achieve this with skill rolls. You just need to approach what they're for correctly. If my players don't make a good case at all, they may not even get a chance to roll and it will just be a no. If they correctly play to the bonds, ideals, and/or flaws, of the NPC, make a good case, and think about what they are saying, they may just auto-succeed or get advantage and a much lower dc.
They definitely know not to be flippant 😁
As an old school DM, I use the die roll as a fall back position when the player does not have the social skill of their character or when the NPC has some reason to resist the player's offer or argument. Good role playing is always a blessing to a DM, but some players do not have the social skills (especially the younger ones) yet, or will never have them. Thus the die roll makes it possible to succeed. I just watched a vid on solving riddles and puzzles. Do we DMs expect the players to solve or allow them to roll? Same problem, different situation.
I like rolling skill checks for socials. Makes sense to me. You, the GM, can think the players made a good argument and that is why you allow it. But the npc has some will of their own, and that is what the skill check represents. A good argument simply might no resonate with the npc. That way you as the GM can also be surpriesed and I feel that makes the game flow more naturaly. And vice verca also works. You might think the argument your players have made is crap, but with a good roll it might pass, meaning it was a good enough argument for the npc. The skill check also adjusts for player skills, a player with bad imporve can still play a persuasive character.
how would you use dnd system in a video game for a arpg
Of course youtube got rid of my comment. 😢
But basically tell me a good reason why the npc should do X + bonus for good critital thought + D20 to see if the npc gets it.
I don't mind having my players roll the persuasion check at the beginning of the ecounter. As with most improvisation your are given a prompt to act upon, in this case the result of the roll is the prompt.
If it's a bad roll I might improvise a fake rumor about the party or if the players have an idea we start from there. Then the discussions and arguments start, we might roll new checks if we feel like it or get stuck.
The first roll is about setting up the scene for the ecounter the same way stealth rolls do for a combat encounter. But yeah sometimes a roll is unecessary because the party did the work before the encounter.
If we had no skill checks for social encounters, I would totally abuse the friend spell however. Sure its utterly useless given that all social checks are unavailable...
But lets say the goal was to antagonize an individual, but you dont want to sacrifice your social standing or come across as a slimy individual?
Friend spell with subtle spell metamagic! Proceed with a pleasant conversation amongst the NPCs while targeting who you intend to antagonize. Reasonably act concerned when suddenly someone either attacks you. Verbally or physically.
"But dude, what possible situation would require something like this?"
Well... Causing a guard captain who is prosecuting you during a drawn out trial to suddenly lose composure and either make an ass of himself, or heavens forbid draw a weapon and attempt an execution! Either the trial is delayed, or charges are dropped due to the miscarriage of justice.
Also if they declare you hexed them... Subtle spell meta magic. Should be quite the game changer when it comes to manipulating people.
Also the effect of making said guard captain in the example could be painted as duplicitous if during the effect, he closed the gap before drawing a dagger or losing his composure seemingly out of nowhere.
I think friends should be a spell on yourself that attempts to "spellcheck" and make you say stuff to get your point across. Or like a magical text to speech that tried to get your point across.
Doe ironically friends as is good for like rogues and such "I use friends, i get close to him.. and i roll to kick in him in the junk with advantage." 😂
6:33 Why not? It's not the players, but the characters that they're RPing as, that's interacting with the NPC. Social gafts, mistakes in cultural significance, poor body language, timing, etc can all play a role that's not necessarily covered in pure arguments. How is it different from a mis-aligned strike, or a poorly executed feint in combat in how it abstracts the details away?
How does a player that wants to play the face of the party, but doesn't necessarily have the argumentative know how to navigate a social interactions to their advantage play such a role? Will they have to play a side character until they've mastered a silver tongue and five-year planning in real life? Or at least, able to rival the DM, who's also improving as they play.
Now the other players can give them ideas, and help that one player. However, then he's not doing it through his own ideas and skills. And this solution also solves one of the issue you bring up, of only one player being the de-facto face, as the other players can still chime in to influence the player's decisions. They're just acting collectively through the face character in the end.
This is the hardests idea of ORS for me to accept, because it doesn't jive with me. If we ignore the mental abilities of the character, then each "character" is really only you wearing a costume. To me it breaks the immersion that you're an adventurer, and pulls your real life aspects into the character.
My best illustration of this is if you've watched The Gamers: Dorkness Rising; a player named Gary plays a female sorceress named Luster. In the movie they'll switch to Gary in drag whenever his own personality traits come out during the adventure, and switch back to the female character whenever aspects of his character's traits affect the story. It's works as a comedic relief, but not everyone wants their story to be a comedy.
Like having people just try to sway your mind is a Party game. TTRPG's arent that kind of party games.
You got the Character and you, it should be a fusion of your character in world knowledge and your outsidr knowledge and wisdom.
I swear the ttrpg crowd is weird.
Welcome aboard the Ad-mote
Gotta pay them bills somehow
5:12 100%, this is one thing that bugs the hell out of me. Every GM does this to a small degree at minimum and I'm no exception, but if it's really bad it either feels like the narrative doesn't matter, just the dice, OR the dice don't actually matter cause the result is the same either way.
TBH, I'm not really a fan of charisma as an ability itself, with most of the social skills being tied to it. I think I'd rather see a system where these skills are actually tied to other attributes and spread more evenly--Cloudbreaker Alliance for instance gives each of its 4 ability scores 3 skills, and each one has 1 'social' skill (save for empathy which has 2). The end result is EVERYONE has at least one social option that they'll be good at, and prevents one player from handling all social interactions by virtue of having the highest modifier. It still is skill-driven, so it doesn't avoid the problem entirely, but at the very least it's more evenly distributed so all players have an incentive to step in for a social encounter at certain points.
I'm not in favor of *no* rolls for social interactions, but I think they should definitely be used intelligently and sparingly, such as trying to get a bit more out of an interaction than otherwise, rather than the center of the success/failure. But even better, they can be more useful for providing players with more information instead--rolling to remember knowledge and clues about the topic, observations about the other person, etc., stuff that can be provided to players and used in their arguments rather than a replacement for the interaction itself.
Hey! Love the channel but you should really pull down this video and read the new 5.5e rules. Everything you are talking about have been fixed up in about two paragraphs.
Seriously, this vid is a bad look for your expertise.
Please ask if you any questions. I’m happy to explain
Removing the skill system makes the CHARACTER'S success dependent on the PLAYER'S skill.
THAT is extremely bad right design. I promise you that nobody at the table can actually represent 20 charisma or 20 intelligence, let alone a 20 dexterity or 20 strength.
The idea that you're singling out social skills, but make no mention of the rest of the skills, further shows that you haven't thought through any of this.
Overall, you seem to lack awareness of what a GAME is.
Sounds like you just suck at roleplaying lmao
It's a question of automation.
Should my character have a higher strength than I have in real life?
Should my myncharacter be tougher than I am in real life?
Should my character be more dextrous than I am in real life?
Where it gets weird is when ppl who are not naturally intelligent, wise or charismatic do things where skill checks replace their stupid decisions.
This is why disadvantage exists.
No silly voice? that's preposterous !!
I am not convinced by your video. Dice rolls are to be employed to determine uncertain outcomes. If you ask for a check and think even on a low result they should get what they want, do not ask for a roll. Give it to them straight. Same goes for situations where the opposite is true, when players roll while their propositions are shitty. If you allow that as a Dm without modifying the outcome than you are employing the system wrong.
If you just leave it to roleplaying, you will penalize uncharismatic players and reward suave players. You are encouraging to play themselves.
It's a simple fact that some people can walk into the room ask for the same thing with the same arguments talking to the same person and get a different outcome than other. This what the skill is for.
Are afraid that there will be a party face? Well maybe bring up from time to time some NPC that are opposed to the party face. The merchant that hates the Tiefling bard because he is a racist. The king that will not talk to paladin since his son run away to serve some stupid holy war. It's pretty much the opposite of the racial affinity example you brought up. Make the background matter. A character has the noble background. Give him advantage on navigating the etiquette of court etc.
I don’t want to have to be good at words. I don’t have to be good at fighting to be a warrior, so why do I have to be good at words to be a bard
Because it's a role playing game not a combat game. Play "Riddle of Steel" for combat. Secondly, no one is asking you to be good at the wordy words, only that you lay out an argument to your CM as part of the RP.
@@b0therme"Just play a different system"
That the argue i say to that in jest. 😂
I was friends with a guy that could be "whatever" but normally only said around 5 words or less. Who knows.. maybe just let people decide how they want to play cuz who it going to hurt?
@@b0thermeI’d say clearly failed your persuasion check there
@@kevoreilly6557 But I made the effort to play the role, and "The play's the thing"!😁
Rolling for social encounters is a crutch for lazy DMs who don't flesh out their NPCs, and clueless players, who know nothing else. If you want the dice to determine everything, you can just roll up 4 or 5 characters, and play by yourself.
Players certainly don't need to give some kind of Oscar-worthy performance, but they need to be able to effectively communicate their intentions, not handicap their RL social skills further, by leaving the result up to a "system."
Bit harsh IMHO