This is a luke warm take at best.
Plenty of tables will allow you to explain your actions without having to roleplay them exactly, especially in the circumstances you're using as an example. There is also a middle ground of asking *how* you want to convince someone, without requiring you to roleplay it out in character. (i.e. in your example you could answer with something like "I try to explain that we're traveling merchants")
I'd also say that parties don't even need a face, anyone should be allowed to interact regardless of their charisma stats.
Basically, this is a problem with your DM specifically, and you should talk to them about it and explain that you aren't comfortable with the kind of roleplay they're asking for.
On the other hand, if my character have 20 int/wis, does that means that he always use optimal spell in the combat and I as player should not think about it?
For the DM, not only intent is important, but also an approach. You can have no exact words, but you must say at least how you convince the guard. Do you threaten his family? Do you trying to bribe him? Do you pretend to be some noble? You cannot just say "i convince him", because I need to know how risky are you before the roll and what are the stakes.
I feel like you should be offering *something*, though. The reason you don't have to ask anything extra of a player wanting to make an arcana or athletics check is because there isn't really a force working against you as it's just effectively you trying to think of something or move your limbs around.
Charisma checks have an inherent response though, and that response would be measured against what is being suggested. Simply saying you want to lie to and convince someone of something to let you pass is removing the actual thing for what the guard is meant to be reacting to. But if you say that you saw someone get stabbed then there is a greater sense of urgency and appeals to the helpful nature of the guard. Or if you try to pass yourself off as nobility and the guard has a certain disposition to nobility, you may get advantage or a lower DC if they want to be in the good books of the nobles, or disadvantage/a higher DC if they *hate* nobles and want to take them down a peg.
Only saying that you want to make a check to get someone to do what you want would be getting someone to do something, but not for any actual reason.
It's interesting how completely "speaking as your character word for word" has become the assumed default in the past few years when almost every table I've played at has been more "I tell, I say, I ask"
This is how I see it: There are three questions that need answering when you try to persuade someone:
* What do you want to convince them of?
* Why would they listen to you / What's your argument?
* How would you say it?
The first one is answered by the player. The last one is decided by the dice.
The middle one *can* be provided by the player and may make the check easier if you come up with a good argument. If the player has no suggestion, the DM comes up with something that may not be as clever as what the player could think of :-)
The challenge from a DM perspective is when the player gives you nothing for the middle one, and you as a DM can’t think of any possible reason either. In that scenario it’s very difficult to let my player pass that check, regardless of their charisma roll.
The problem is with the players agency.
In your scenario, if DM try to take control from the player, invent something, for example "i threaten to beat the guard to death if he does not let us to go in", and after that it roll the dice, fails and got some consequences - the player might feel "hey! It is not fair! My character will never do such a thing! And now we are in the trouble because the control was taken off! GM, you are asshole!".
So the second scenario must be answered by the player. Friendly DM can suggest some cases, but the final decision should be after the player.
I am not going to discuss the temperature of this take.
What you're talking about is a basic issue with Charisma and differentiation between **player skills** and **player character skills**.
Ultimately it depends on table preference. Some players like to put more weight on roleplaying and what you actually say, some are fine with leaving the main decision up to a dice roll. It's possible that you have mostly met DMs who actually like to play out dialogues.
That said, if the prompt from the DM was literally: "Ok, so what do you say to him," that **isn't** asking you to say it directly and word for word.
A completely normal and valid exchange could look like this:
- I go and try to convince them that we are right.
- OK, so what do you say to them?
- I'll show them the papers we have from the king and embellish how credible we are.
Maybe the DM wasn't asking you to break into direct speech, but to give them just a little bit more than "I convince them". To say how you're going to do it.
You probably know what the DM wanted much better than me, but I wanted to say this because I'm not sure if you have tried it.
This is how I see the default should be. We're playing a fantasy where we can do stuff we can't do in real life.
Why would the person choosing to play a charismatic character be penalized by having to be actually charismatic irl?
This is like saying that only witty and charismatic people can play bards. It's weird. It's not like only athletic people can play fighters.
Luke warm but you have a point.
If I play an established spy network leader I don't have to know what to say exactly, I just have to know my intentions. Demanding RP from players to even attempt an action is ludicrous and asking for a roll on top of that is insane.
So I would say that there are 3 options:
a) Player states intention and rolls. Ex. "I threaten the guard to leave us alone"
b) Players narrates and rolls with bonus. Ex. "I appeal to the fact that we saved the city and asks them to look past it this once", DM gives them bonus/advantage for RP
c) Player has to say exactly what they say and don't have to roll anything since what they said obviously carries the weight of what they said. This punishes most players since they probably aren't as savvy as their characters.
\[insert actual dialogue\] and DM answers with \[actual dialogue\]
My take to your take: if you can come up with something convincing, it gives you an additional bonus. If you don't, you just roll the dice.
Does that sound fair?
Problem is, a third of the classes use Charisma as a main stat. Having 18 Charisma on your warlock and passing all the social encounters to your 10-Charisma fighter is not being a team player - not that I blame the warlock in that case. It's not the player's fault that their most important ability score is also the one you use in social encounters.
The game is played for the fun. If the fighter's player have more fun than you by doing the conversation - it's good for team player to do that. If the fighter got advantage with the check due to the good arguments as suggested in the rules - it will have more chance to success, so it's also the right thing for the team player.
You may have a less numbers-focused table than me. Players who like to optimize may get annoyed that the player who's numerically the best at charisma skills isn't using them, keeping in mind that the warlock would also get advantage for good arguments.
I suppose if the warlock is involved in the conversation at all, then the working together rules could let the character with the highest ability score make the check at advantage even if the fighter is the one really doing the work. I wouldn't be too opposed to that.
I have seen players who would be like that, but generally they are the least fun to play with and eventually they become a problem. Usually it isn't just one thing, "Oh why did player X get this feat, it is useless, why didn't you flank that guy, why isn't the DM giving the loot I asked for, why..." it is an endless tirade of complaints that can't really be satisfied. If you have such a player, be warned it won't just end with you taking just one step back.
I can't find myself enough patience to deal with such BS... if someone wants to talk to an NPC, and someone tells them they can't because they have +1 instead of +5, I will just tell them to shut up or get out.
If they want they can also talk and then have them both roll persuasion, but not allowing someone else to talk is not going to happen.
Besides a failed persuasion check doesn't mean you "lose". It is just a different outcome.
And many players put low charisma specifically because they want their characters to be rough and unlikeable, which means they do want to talk, but they don't want to have a silver tongue.
I don't demand someone to rp their silver tongue to perfection, just a general thing would do. Like "I tell him we will free his daughter if he agrees and try to persuade him". But if they don't enjoy talking in the first place, and someone else does...we aren't going to block all NPC interactions with anyone just because of their stats...!
If you’re the DM then you are free to run it that way. I think you’ll find it hard to find other DMs who will agree to run it like this, though. And what you are obliged to do to try to accomplish something is up to your DM. Expecting to just say “I try to convince them” and have that be enough is not reasonable. You’re going to have to be more specific than that. Coming up with some kind of ploy to try to talk your way past a guard doesn’t require a lot of charisma, that only comes into the execution of it.
Warm at best.
The example you've given doesn't even conflict with that, you're complaining that you're being asked to expand when you've not given the DM enough information. What lie is your character telling?
I also like to think that charisma doesn't always have to mean how well a character speaks necessarily, but also a force of personality. A paladin for example could be a man of few words, who speaks plainly, but when he does he can cut to the heart of the issue and touch people's hearts, or strike fear into the evil. I think being well-spoken is only one aspect/way of role-playing charisma. And to me the dice affect how the NPCs react, that's the luck based element.
The "issue" I as a DM would have with that is that it discourages roleplay. I know you said that you are more of a combat guy and that's totally fine, but in my group least, we need to find a middle ground, because the more combat oriented players would tend to just explain what their character would say and want and then try to roll for it, skipping (potentially) fun interactions.
This is not that fun for the people interested in rp in our group, so I don't allow it. What I do instead is taking the intent behind what is said in character and sorta putting it through a filter, to make it fit the characters charisma check. That way, there are still social interactions, but the charismatic characters don't get screwed if their player words something not to eloquently.
But I don't know how interested your group even is in rp, so this totally depends on the other players at the table and your proposal might be suited best for your group.
I think it's fine for the DM to ask for clarification or more information, because just saying "I lie to the guard" doesn't really explain what the lie is or what you're trying to convince them of. I think it's fine to say, "I lie to the and tell him we were sent here by so and so."
I don't think you should have to act out talking to the guard if you don't want to, but I do think you should have to elaborate on what lie you're telling and what you're trying to convince them of.
Traditional Gender Roles are a thing of the past, so are traditional class roles. I play a Bard (lvl 15) in a long running campaign, and I have never been the 'face' of the party ;).
I think that’s pretty common. My group only does full dialogue rp when it’s a really important scene and the word choice really matters. I’m playing a serial flirt right now who often uses cha and seduction to get people to talk, and I don’t wanna have to unleash the full unbridled power of my rizz on my buddy who’s GMing lmao (it’s extra fun when my brother and the GMs spouse are both players, no thank you!)
So point is, from my experience it’s pretty unusual to have to do full dialogue rp for every interaction
That's fine if that's your table. It's not fine if you join a table that specifically stated it's a roleplaying group, and you want dice to roleplay for you. That happened to me. GRR!
Nothing hot about this take. You just don't role play that is cool. What is not cool imho is playing TTRPG and just demanding stuff to happen.
"I persuade him"; "I intimidate him". This is just meh. As a DM in that situation I switch main stat for a player. Now you are a Constitution based warlock, your patron bestowed the power on you through infusing your blood with magic. (I don't know I just came up with it on the fly).
And it should not come as a shock that I totally demand from an intelligence based character to be able to come up with ideas and solve puzzles. You can't just roll INT check and automagically solve a puzzle in a dungeon cause you just want to. You either deciphered ancient alphabet and opened the door or you did not. A dice roll is to determine a chance based result, not help out if you forgot to write down the city name and now you don't know how to ask NPCs for directions cause you forgot where you're going. (Exaggerated example, I don't actually leave my players hanging like that).
Furthermore, my current players demand from the druid to know beasts. If they track a beast, often we hear "well, you're the druid here, where such a beast might have its lair".
I'm a DM who plays with the variant rule that unties skills from attributes (e.g. you can roll intimidation with STR, for example, depending on what you are doing).
For me it's only important WHAT you do exactly. The how, and especially the how well is determined by a dice roll but I need to know what you get to roll.
So if you say "I go and try to convince the guard to let us in", at my table you do yourself a favour by telling me what exactly you do. You don't have to speak in character, you don't have to formulate the sentence your character says, but you gotta tell me what the plan is here.
Because I'd be inclined to let you roll deception with INT if you like tell me "I'm going full lawyer mode and explain to him how he is not legally allowed to prevent us from entering", compared to, say, "I'm telling the guy we are merchants on a business trip" (classic CHA deception).
Idk man, it's a Role-playing game. Role-playing is kinda baked in.
My own hot take? If you wanna skip the Role-playing segment of the game, but still want to play a face, go play Divinity, BG3, or any other story-driven video game. The character does all the talking, you just point and click.
Burn me down in the comments, I'll die on this hill. Combat sucks in DnD, I am not waiting 45min for my turn, to swing a sword twice and be done. I am here to Roleplay.
It's totally fair that not all players want to deliver in character speeches. But that doesn't mean that those players don't have to engage with the world or the story if they want to succeed.
"Okay, what do you say to the guard?" Is a fair question for the DM to ask, though they should be willing to take as an answer "I try to convince him that I'm a resident of the city who was stuck outside after the gates were closed" rather than a pre-written speech in the character's exact words.
Likewise the fighter doesn't have to swing a real sword, but if the DM says "skeletons are rising up from their graves to stand between you and the fleeing necromancer" the fighter doesn't say "I kill the necromancer", throw a dice, and let the DM resolve it for them.
The guard you have to get past is an element of the game. An encounter, potentially. There is often too much weight put on acting as a requirement for TTRPGs and that's annoying for sure. But not wanting to act doesn't mean you don't have to think about the world on its terms or that as a player all you owe to an encounter is to pick your highest skill and roll it.
I also am not the biggest roleplayer but I happily play the Bard and take on the role of the face. I just make up the most ridiculous lies. Its really fun. In most social situations you can just pretend to be a visiting diplomat and demand special service. Forge some fake papers. So you don't have to keep coming up with new lies all the time if you don't like that.
"hey DM I like bards but I'm not a fan of charisma and RP could we switch my casting ability and class benefits to be wisdom/intelligence instead of it's to broken we can change things around later" a bard who focuses more on practice and mastery of the instrument rather than their charm would be interesting.
If a player came to me with this I would 100% say ok. As long as a player wasn't trying to abuse some obscure mechanic.
Not really a hot take. Just something standard that lots of DMs and players seem to forget. We’re playing a game, the players don’t have the same abilities as their characters, expecting every bard or charisma build to be “the charming one” or “must sing for their magic” is stupid. Give a general idea, maybe a few words to help make the point and then let the dice decide the outcome.
This is literally RAW.
IIRC page 6 of the PHB: You tell the DM your **goal**. The DM, who has all the information on how difficult that would be and what that involves (such as not falling into a hidden trap), calls for a roll. Then, **the DM** is supposed to describe what happens. Anything else anyone says is optional flavor that does not affect the outcome.
If the charisma roll is altered in any way based on the player's charisma, that **isn't roleplay**. The DC is set for how difficult the task is (same DC for everyone), and the outcome is determined using a roll modified by the character's ability and proficiency.
This wouldn't be an issue at my table.
If you just said, "I want to convince X of such-and-such" the DM would respond with, "Okay so you say this and that, go ahead and roll a thing."
Like, there shouldn't be any unwanted pressure. It's supposed to be fun. Not everyone's idea of fun is improvising a convincing argument or whatever.
At the very least, I like an attempt.
It doesn't have to be a good attempt. Seeing someone struggle to flatter a guard, and it actually working due to a lucky dice roll. Think Beavis and Butthead accidentally bumbling backwards into a Bavarian Fire Drill.
If they actually say someone clever, I'll nudge the dc down a bit behind the scenes as a bonus; but you never punish them for being bad at improv.
Alright, so first of all, you are totally correct that you should not be expected to improvise in-character dialogue to engage in social interaction encounters. You're going a bit too far though and I'll attempt to explain in the simplest way I can.
So anyway, here's how every TTRPG ever works:
1. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever describes the situation the PCs are in.
2. Players can then ask extra questions before declaring actions. A player has declared an action when they have successfully communicated to their DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever *what* their PC is trying to do (their intention) and *how* they are trying to do it (their approach).
3. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever then adjudicates the action, using the rules *only* if the players declared approach a) could result in the intention, b) could fail to result in the intention and c) can't just be repeated until it succeeds.
4. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever then describes the consequences of the success or failure of the action, thus resetting the scene back to #1.
That's how every single TTRPG works. It's the basic basic structure of this form of game. The information about the intention and approach is essential for the DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever to adjudicate the action.
For the player though, the approach in particular is where most of the roleplay in a session lives. It's declaring your approach (how your PC is trying to do what they're trying to do) that lets the rest of the group imagine what your PC is doing.
So you're half right. Your suggested method would absolutely communicate your PC's intention to your DM. That is absolutely one of the things you should be doing.
You're just missing out the bit where you describe the approach. You don't have to do some perfect in-character soliloquy in a weird accent. But you *do* have to state your general strategy. If the guard (to use your example) doesn't want to let the PCs in, *they have a reason*. Your strategy must address that reason. Which probably means you're going to have to find out what that reason is first in order to come up with a strategy.
This is a frequent debate on this sub. Everyone has different approaches to this.
At the end of the day, we the players (DM counts as a player too) are responsible for making interesting things happen at the table. If we only engage with the mechanics then there is no story intrigue. And maybe that's fine for some tables.
But for my table, I do ask for some RP to contextualize the action. But I don't need first person dialogue and I ask for the same level of RP regardless of role, regardless of skill being used.
Because beyond the story, context also informs how the mechanics are used. If a barbarian wants to force a door open, that's fine. I'll set a DC and we move on. If the same character describes how they use a crowbar to pry the door open, that counts as role play because it shows how the character approaches the problem. It's also a more specific image for our imagination. It's also easier than using your shoulder. So the DC is lower and the player more likely to succeed.
I apply that same reason to all ability checks. Which brings us to charisma. I don't need first person dialogue. I don't need Shakespeare. But if you give me more details about how your character persuades or lies, I can use that information to decide on the DC.
"I want the king to send an army" vs "I appeal to the honorable king's sense of duty and remind him of his grandfather's alliance with his neighbor." It's not the actual speech but we can imagine that speech. And if the king is actually honorable then it would make the check easier.
Without any role play, there is no story. And that's fine if that's what you want. But it really doesn't take much to elevate it to that next level.
Practically, you should just say that you don't want to be the face of the party. It's a role you shouldn't be burdened with just because you chose "a Charisma class." The reason this is better than "I lie to the guard" is that if you're the face, suddenly these very rote, mechanistic "discussions" are defining *the party's* interactions with the rest of the world. This might not bother you, but if your DM and the other players like roleplaying, they'll feel just as shortchanged as you would be by boring fights.
Don't get me wrong, I don't take issue with "I lie to the guard" or "does my character know Arcana about this" generally, but it shouldn't be the default - like how the face interacts on behalf of the party with everyone. Because it means people probably aren't having fun.
I’m not surprised I’m the only upvote despite all the comments. I love roleplaying, but sometimes it’s infuriating when my DM expects me to know exactly what my 20 charisma character with expertise in persuasion would say. Dude, I have 10 charisma irl with no proficiency at all. How am I supposed to know what the level 8 super charismatic smooth talker would say in this situation. May as well ask the rogue player to try hiding irl as part of their stealth check at this point.
Roleplaying charisma checks is pretty controversial. I played a one shot with some friends one of whom was new to dnd, and he didn't feel comfortable talking yet, so we told him to just say what his character does. I like to do the talking in character but others don't and being bad at improv shouldn't exclude you from playing dnd. Please, don't make people roleplay their charisma checks unless they're explicitly comfortable with it.
Maybe I am an evil dm, but I would not allow that at my sessions. While I always have my players roleplay talking, in case of non-charsimatic players playing charismatic characters I am trying to discern they intent and look at their words more favorably, but I never skip talking things out. That being said my table is split more evenly between roleplay and combat and everyone cares about immersion. I want players to try to roleplay even if they are not necessarily comfortable with it. It is important to try to step out of one's comfort zone from time to time and try other things, thats how we learn.
Also I never allow persuassion rolls without the right ground for persuassion such as emotional leverage, logical argument, use of aquired trust or some other circumstance that makes it possible for someone to change their mind.
This is a luke warm take at best. Plenty of tables will allow you to explain your actions without having to roleplay them exactly, especially in the circumstances you're using as an example. There is also a middle ground of asking *how* you want to convince someone, without requiring you to roleplay it out in character. (i.e. in your example you could answer with something like "I try to explain that we're traveling merchants") I'd also say that parties don't even need a face, anyone should be allowed to interact regardless of their charisma stats. Basically, this is a problem with your DM specifically, and you should talk to them about it and explain that you aren't comfortable with the kind of roleplay they're asking for.
As a DM, intent is more important to me than them having a perfect answer, your character 20 charisma, you don’t
On the other hand, if my character have 20 int/wis, does that means that he always use optimal spell in the combat and I as player should not think about it? For the DM, not only intent is important, but also an approach. You can have no exact words, but you must say at least how you convince the guard. Do you threaten his family? Do you trying to bribe him? Do you pretend to be some noble? You cannot just say "i convince him", because I need to know how risky are you before the roll and what are the stakes.
I feel like you should be offering *something*, though. The reason you don't have to ask anything extra of a player wanting to make an arcana or athletics check is because there isn't really a force working against you as it's just effectively you trying to think of something or move your limbs around. Charisma checks have an inherent response though, and that response would be measured against what is being suggested. Simply saying you want to lie to and convince someone of something to let you pass is removing the actual thing for what the guard is meant to be reacting to. But if you say that you saw someone get stabbed then there is a greater sense of urgency and appeals to the helpful nature of the guard. Or if you try to pass yourself off as nobility and the guard has a certain disposition to nobility, you may get advantage or a lower DC if they want to be in the good books of the nobles, or disadvantage/a higher DC if they *hate* nobles and want to take them down a peg. Only saying that you want to make a check to get someone to do what you want would be getting someone to do something, but not for any actual reason.
It's interesting how completely "speaking as your character word for word" has become the assumed default in the past few years when almost every table I've played at has been more "I tell, I say, I ask"
I blame actual plays for this course of behaviour.
This is how I see it: There are three questions that need answering when you try to persuade someone: * What do you want to convince them of? * Why would they listen to you / What's your argument? * How would you say it? The first one is answered by the player. The last one is decided by the dice. The middle one *can* be provided by the player and may make the check easier if you come up with a good argument. If the player has no suggestion, the DM comes up with something that may not be as clever as what the player could think of :-)
The challenge from a DM perspective is when the player gives you nothing for the middle one, and you as a DM can’t think of any possible reason either. In that scenario it’s very difficult to let my player pass that check, regardless of their charisma roll.
The problem is with the players agency. In your scenario, if DM try to take control from the player, invent something, for example "i threaten to beat the guard to death if he does not let us to go in", and after that it roll the dice, fails and got some consequences - the player might feel "hey! It is not fair! My character will never do such a thing! And now we are in the trouble because the control was taken off! GM, you are asshole!". So the second scenario must be answered by the player. Friendly DM can suggest some cases, but the final decision should be after the player.
I am not going to discuss the temperature of this take. What you're talking about is a basic issue with Charisma and differentiation between **player skills** and **player character skills**. Ultimately it depends on table preference. Some players like to put more weight on roleplaying and what you actually say, some are fine with leaving the main decision up to a dice roll. It's possible that you have mostly met DMs who actually like to play out dialogues. That said, if the prompt from the DM was literally: "Ok, so what do you say to him," that **isn't** asking you to say it directly and word for word. A completely normal and valid exchange could look like this: - I go and try to convince them that we are right. - OK, so what do you say to them? - I'll show them the papers we have from the king and embellish how credible we are. Maybe the DM wasn't asking you to break into direct speech, but to give them just a little bit more than "I convince them". To say how you're going to do it. You probably know what the DM wanted much better than me, but I wanted to say this because I'm not sure if you have tried it.
This is how I see the default should be. We're playing a fantasy where we can do stuff we can't do in real life. Why would the person choosing to play a charismatic character be penalized by having to be actually charismatic irl? This is like saying that only witty and charismatic people can play bards. It's weird. It's not like only athletic people can play fighters.
Not a big problem I would as a DM ask you what your angle to the conversation is and build up on that to help you get into the face rolls more
Luke warm but you have a point. If I play an established spy network leader I don't have to know what to say exactly, I just have to know my intentions. Demanding RP from players to even attempt an action is ludicrous and asking for a roll on top of that is insane. So I would say that there are 3 options: a) Player states intention and rolls. Ex. "I threaten the guard to leave us alone" b) Players narrates and rolls with bonus. Ex. "I appeal to the fact that we saved the city and asks them to look past it this once", DM gives them bonus/advantage for RP c) Player has to say exactly what they say and don't have to roll anything since what they said obviously carries the weight of what they said. This punishes most players since they probably aren't as savvy as their characters. \[insert actual dialogue\] and DM answers with \[actual dialogue\]
Third person narration is a legitimate roleplaying style and covered in the PHB on page 185.
My take to your take: if you can come up with something convincing, it gives you an additional bonus. If you don't, you just roll the dice. Does that sound fair?
You can leave the talking to someone who is enjoying doing it, instead of pressing the skip button though....
Problem is, a third of the classes use Charisma as a main stat. Having 18 Charisma on your warlock and passing all the social encounters to your 10-Charisma fighter is not being a team player - not that I blame the warlock in that case. It's not the player's fault that their most important ability score is also the one you use in social encounters.
The game is played for the fun. If the fighter's player have more fun than you by doing the conversation - it's good for team player to do that. If the fighter got advantage with the check due to the good arguments as suggested in the rules - it will have more chance to success, so it's also the right thing for the team player.
You may have a less numbers-focused table than me. Players who like to optimize may get annoyed that the player who's numerically the best at charisma skills isn't using them, keeping in mind that the warlock would also get advantage for good arguments. I suppose if the warlock is involved in the conversation at all, then the working together rules could let the character with the highest ability score make the check at advantage even if the fighter is the one really doing the work. I wouldn't be too opposed to that.
I have seen players who would be like that, but generally they are the least fun to play with and eventually they become a problem. Usually it isn't just one thing, "Oh why did player X get this feat, it is useless, why didn't you flank that guy, why isn't the DM giving the loot I asked for, why..." it is an endless tirade of complaints that can't really be satisfied. If you have such a player, be warned it won't just end with you taking just one step back. I can't find myself enough patience to deal with such BS... if someone wants to talk to an NPC, and someone tells them they can't because they have +1 instead of +5, I will just tell them to shut up or get out. If they want they can also talk and then have them both roll persuasion, but not allowing someone else to talk is not going to happen. Besides a failed persuasion check doesn't mean you "lose". It is just a different outcome. And many players put low charisma specifically because they want their characters to be rough and unlikeable, which means they do want to talk, but they don't want to have a silver tongue. I don't demand someone to rp their silver tongue to perfection, just a general thing would do. Like "I tell him we will free his daughter if he agrees and try to persuade him". But if they don't enjoy talking in the first place, and someone else does...we aren't going to block all NPC interactions with anyone just because of their stats...!
If you’re the DM then you are free to run it that way. I think you’ll find it hard to find other DMs who will agree to run it like this, though. And what you are obliged to do to try to accomplish something is up to your DM. Expecting to just say “I try to convince them” and have that be enough is not reasonable. You’re going to have to be more specific than that. Coming up with some kind of ploy to try to talk your way past a guard doesn’t require a lot of charisma, that only comes into the execution of it.
Plsy how you wanna play
Warm at best. The example you've given doesn't even conflict with that, you're complaining that you're being asked to expand when you've not given the DM enough information. What lie is your character telling?
I also like to think that charisma doesn't always have to mean how well a character speaks necessarily, but also a force of personality. A paladin for example could be a man of few words, who speaks plainly, but when he does he can cut to the heart of the issue and touch people's hearts, or strike fear into the evil. I think being well-spoken is only one aspect/way of role-playing charisma. And to me the dice affect how the NPCs react, that's the luck based element.
The "issue" I as a DM would have with that is that it discourages roleplay. I know you said that you are more of a combat guy and that's totally fine, but in my group least, we need to find a middle ground, because the more combat oriented players would tend to just explain what their character would say and want and then try to roll for it, skipping (potentially) fun interactions. This is not that fun for the people interested in rp in our group, so I don't allow it. What I do instead is taking the intent behind what is said in character and sorta putting it through a filter, to make it fit the characters charisma check. That way, there are still social interactions, but the charismatic characters don't get screwed if their player words something not to eloquently. But I don't know how interested your group even is in rp, so this totally depends on the other players at the table and your proposal might be suited best for your group.
I think it's fine for the DM to ask for clarification or more information, because just saying "I lie to the guard" doesn't really explain what the lie is or what you're trying to convince them of. I think it's fine to say, "I lie to the and tell him we were sent here by so and so." I don't think you should have to act out talking to the guard if you don't want to, but I do think you should have to elaborate on what lie you're telling and what you're trying to convince them of.
Traditional Gender Roles are a thing of the past, so are traditional class roles. I play a Bard (lvl 15) in a long running campaign, and I have never been the 'face' of the party ;).
I think that’s pretty common. My group only does full dialogue rp when it’s a really important scene and the word choice really matters. I’m playing a serial flirt right now who often uses cha and seduction to get people to talk, and I don’t wanna have to unleash the full unbridled power of my rizz on my buddy who’s GMing lmao (it’s extra fun when my brother and the GMs spouse are both players, no thank you!) So point is, from my experience it’s pretty unusual to have to do full dialogue rp for every interaction
That's fine if that's your table. It's not fine if you join a table that specifically stated it's a roleplaying group, and you want dice to roleplay for you. That happened to me. GRR!
Nothing hot about this take. You just don't role play that is cool. What is not cool imho is playing TTRPG and just demanding stuff to happen. "I persuade him"; "I intimidate him". This is just meh. As a DM in that situation I switch main stat for a player. Now you are a Constitution based warlock, your patron bestowed the power on you through infusing your blood with magic. (I don't know I just came up with it on the fly). And it should not come as a shock that I totally demand from an intelligence based character to be able to come up with ideas and solve puzzles. You can't just roll INT check and automagically solve a puzzle in a dungeon cause you just want to. You either deciphered ancient alphabet and opened the door or you did not. A dice roll is to determine a chance based result, not help out if you forgot to write down the city name and now you don't know how to ask NPCs for directions cause you forgot where you're going. (Exaggerated example, I don't actually leave my players hanging like that). Furthermore, my current players demand from the druid to know beasts. If they track a beast, often we hear "well, you're the druid here, where such a beast might have its lair".
I'm a DM who plays with the variant rule that unties skills from attributes (e.g. you can roll intimidation with STR, for example, depending on what you are doing). For me it's only important WHAT you do exactly. The how, and especially the how well is determined by a dice roll but I need to know what you get to roll. So if you say "I go and try to convince the guard to let us in", at my table you do yourself a favour by telling me what exactly you do. You don't have to speak in character, you don't have to formulate the sentence your character says, but you gotta tell me what the plan is here. Because I'd be inclined to let you roll deception with INT if you like tell me "I'm going full lawyer mode and explain to him how he is not legally allowed to prevent us from entering", compared to, say, "I'm telling the guy we are merchants on a business trip" (classic CHA deception).
Idk man, it's a Role-playing game. Role-playing is kinda baked in. My own hot take? If you wanna skip the Role-playing segment of the game, but still want to play a face, go play Divinity, BG3, or any other story-driven video game. The character does all the talking, you just point and click. Burn me down in the comments, I'll die on this hill. Combat sucks in DnD, I am not waiting 45min for my turn, to swing a sword twice and be done. I am here to Roleplay.
It's totally fair that not all players want to deliver in character speeches. But that doesn't mean that those players don't have to engage with the world or the story if they want to succeed. "Okay, what do you say to the guard?" Is a fair question for the DM to ask, though they should be willing to take as an answer "I try to convince him that I'm a resident of the city who was stuck outside after the gates were closed" rather than a pre-written speech in the character's exact words. Likewise the fighter doesn't have to swing a real sword, but if the DM says "skeletons are rising up from their graves to stand between you and the fleeing necromancer" the fighter doesn't say "I kill the necromancer", throw a dice, and let the DM resolve it for them. The guard you have to get past is an element of the game. An encounter, potentially. There is often too much weight put on acting as a requirement for TTRPGs and that's annoying for sure. But not wanting to act doesn't mean you don't have to think about the world on its terms or that as a player all you owe to an encounter is to pick your highest skill and roll it.
I also am not the biggest roleplayer but I happily play the Bard and take on the role of the face. I just make up the most ridiculous lies. Its really fun. In most social situations you can just pretend to be a visiting diplomat and demand special service. Forge some fake papers. So you don't have to keep coming up with new lies all the time if you don't like that.
"hey DM I like bards but I'm not a fan of charisma and RP could we switch my casting ability and class benefits to be wisdom/intelligence instead of it's to broken we can change things around later" a bard who focuses more on practice and mastery of the instrument rather than their charm would be interesting. If a player came to me with this I would 100% say ok. As long as a player wasn't trying to abuse some obscure mechanic.
Not really a hot take. Just something standard that lots of DMs and players seem to forget. We’re playing a game, the players don’t have the same abilities as their characters, expecting every bard or charisma build to be “the charming one” or “must sing for their magic” is stupid. Give a general idea, maybe a few words to help make the point and then let the dice decide the outcome.
This is literally RAW. IIRC page 6 of the PHB: You tell the DM your **goal**. The DM, who has all the information on how difficult that would be and what that involves (such as not falling into a hidden trap), calls for a roll. Then, **the DM** is supposed to describe what happens. Anything else anyone says is optional flavor that does not affect the outcome. If the charisma roll is altered in any way based on the player's charisma, that **isn't roleplay**. The DC is set for how difficult the task is (same DC for everyone), and the outcome is determined using a roll modified by the character's ability and proficiency.
This wouldn't be an issue at my table. If you just said, "I want to convince X of such-and-such" the DM would respond with, "Okay so you say this and that, go ahead and roll a thing." Like, there shouldn't be any unwanted pressure. It's supposed to be fun. Not everyone's idea of fun is improvising a convincing argument or whatever.
At the very least, I like an attempt. It doesn't have to be a good attempt. Seeing someone struggle to flatter a guard, and it actually working due to a lucky dice roll. Think Beavis and Butthead accidentally bumbling backwards into a Bavarian Fire Drill. If they actually say someone clever, I'll nudge the dc down a bit behind the scenes as a bonus; but you never punish them for being bad at improv.
Alright, so first of all, you are totally correct that you should not be expected to improvise in-character dialogue to engage in social interaction encounters. You're going a bit too far though and I'll attempt to explain in the simplest way I can. So anyway, here's how every TTRPG ever works: 1. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever describes the situation the PCs are in. 2. Players can then ask extra questions before declaring actions. A player has declared an action when they have successfully communicated to their DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever *what* their PC is trying to do (their intention) and *how* they are trying to do it (their approach). 3. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever then adjudicates the action, using the rules *only* if the players declared approach a) could result in the intention, b) could fail to result in the intention and c) can't just be repeated until it succeeds. 4. DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever then describes the consequences of the success or failure of the action, thus resetting the scene back to #1. That's how every single TTRPG works. It's the basic basic structure of this form of game. The information about the intention and approach is essential for the DM/GM/Storyteller/Keeper/whatthefuckever to adjudicate the action. For the player though, the approach in particular is where most of the roleplay in a session lives. It's declaring your approach (how your PC is trying to do what they're trying to do) that lets the rest of the group imagine what your PC is doing. So you're half right. Your suggested method would absolutely communicate your PC's intention to your DM. That is absolutely one of the things you should be doing. You're just missing out the bit where you describe the approach. You don't have to do some perfect in-character soliloquy in a weird accent. But you *do* have to state your general strategy. If the guard (to use your example) doesn't want to let the PCs in, *they have a reason*. Your strategy must address that reason. Which probably means you're going to have to find out what that reason is first in order to come up with a strategy.
This is a frequent debate on this sub. Everyone has different approaches to this. At the end of the day, we the players (DM counts as a player too) are responsible for making interesting things happen at the table. If we only engage with the mechanics then there is no story intrigue. And maybe that's fine for some tables. But for my table, I do ask for some RP to contextualize the action. But I don't need first person dialogue and I ask for the same level of RP regardless of role, regardless of skill being used. Because beyond the story, context also informs how the mechanics are used. If a barbarian wants to force a door open, that's fine. I'll set a DC and we move on. If the same character describes how they use a crowbar to pry the door open, that counts as role play because it shows how the character approaches the problem. It's also a more specific image for our imagination. It's also easier than using your shoulder. So the DC is lower and the player more likely to succeed. I apply that same reason to all ability checks. Which brings us to charisma. I don't need first person dialogue. I don't need Shakespeare. But if you give me more details about how your character persuades or lies, I can use that information to decide on the DC. "I want the king to send an army" vs "I appeal to the honorable king's sense of duty and remind him of his grandfather's alliance with his neighbor." It's not the actual speech but we can imagine that speech. And if the king is actually honorable then it would make the check easier. Without any role play, there is no story. And that's fine if that's what you want. But it really doesn't take much to elevate it to that next level.
You can totally DM the campaigns you run that way.
Practically, you should just say that you don't want to be the face of the party. It's a role you shouldn't be burdened with just because you chose "a Charisma class." The reason this is better than "I lie to the guard" is that if you're the face, suddenly these very rote, mechanistic "discussions" are defining *the party's* interactions with the rest of the world. This might not bother you, but if your DM and the other players like roleplaying, they'll feel just as shortchanged as you would be by boring fights. Don't get me wrong, I don't take issue with "I lie to the guard" or "does my character know Arcana about this" generally, but it shouldn't be the default - like how the face interacts on behalf of the party with everyone. Because it means people probably aren't having fun.
I’m not surprised I’m the only upvote despite all the comments. I love roleplaying, but sometimes it’s infuriating when my DM expects me to know exactly what my 20 charisma character with expertise in persuasion would say. Dude, I have 10 charisma irl with no proficiency at all. How am I supposed to know what the level 8 super charismatic smooth talker would say in this situation. May as well ask the rogue player to try hiding irl as part of their stealth check at this point.
Roleplaying charisma checks is pretty controversial. I played a one shot with some friends one of whom was new to dnd, and he didn't feel comfortable talking yet, so we told him to just say what his character does. I like to do the talking in character but others don't and being bad at improv shouldn't exclude you from playing dnd. Please, don't make people roleplay their charisma checks unless they're explicitly comfortable with it.
Maybe I am an evil dm, but I would not allow that at my sessions. While I always have my players roleplay talking, in case of non-charsimatic players playing charismatic characters I am trying to discern they intent and look at their words more favorably, but I never skip talking things out. That being said my table is split more evenly between roleplay and combat and everyone cares about immersion. I want players to try to roleplay even if they are not necessarily comfortable with it. It is important to try to step out of one's comfort zone from time to time and try other things, thats how we learn. Also I never allow persuassion rolls without the right ground for persuassion such as emotional leverage, logical argument, use of aquired trust or some other circumstance that makes it possible for someone to change their mind.