Thank you for watching! Looking forward to many comments about THAC0. Play Superheroes in CLAIM THE SKY by Monte Cook Games: www.montecookgames.com/claim-the-sky/ Join our Patreon: www.patreon.com/webdm
As an old school player/DM. Back in the day social interactions were not that important and players were not hyper-focused in that area. Players more or less explained what they were doing, and the DM decided how it went. Now players instantly roll a die. A DM allows the player to change the monsters, opinion or instantly sleep with the woman. This isn't how I roll but I don't always DM.
I really like your methods for running social interaction! I'll have to try them out in my own game. Always important to remind players that Persuasion checks aren't Dominate Person!
I've never understood the issue people have with thac0. When I started with B/X there were tables to look at, which thac0 eliminated the need for. That said, ascending ac is pretty cool too
@@5Dworld you have a number based on your class and level(it's on a chart) You subtract your d20 roll from the number, the result is the AC your attack roll hits. So if your THAC0 is 18 and you roll a 15 you hit AC 3 or higher. So like I was saying, less math but still definitely math.
Well THAC0 is less math, for the player, yeah. But more Math for the DM. It essentially requires that the DM knows your THAC0 and applies it himself. Which honestly is probably slower than just adding in an extra bonus.
Super good episode! Ive been needing to brush up on this for awhile but didnt realize it. Without firm mechanical rules for social encounters, my social combats always end up with the players talking to the npc for like 20 minutes and the conversation gets away from me. Then i get all flustered and i just think "oh whatever, ill just have the party face do a persuasion check or something". The structure of progression clocks and 2d6 rolls really helps streamline the interaction right from the get go.
Some of the absolute finest D&D content ever made in my opinion. These are the people I always hope i will run into in some random game store I wander into and then I just spend the day talking and listening to them talk about games. I hope everyone is doing well!
I wish persuasion was more like diplomacy. If you want someone to listen to you and have a conversation you roll diplomacy. Friendly DC 0: they will always like to talk and help Friendly DC 20: they will take major risk Indifferent DC 10: people like to talk to you and are willing to give information, perform small favors, and make deals Hostile DC 20: the enemy will be willing to negotiate peace if certain demands are met. NPCs shop keeper will never give you gear for free but with persuasion you could exchange favors instead of gold. You can still talk your way out of conflict but always at a cost. Persuasion shouldn't be mind control, it should just make people listen to what you have to say without being ignored.
For prepping an NPC, I highly recommend brainstorming 2 things that it wants to guide GMing social interactions. Persuasion is all about convincing someone that taking an action is in their best interests. In my experience, rooting social interactions in NPC interests makes judging when to call for charisma rolls, setting DCs, and adjudicating results fairly intuitive.
Love the advice as always Jim, charisma locking has always been a problem. Best way to deal with it has always been fleshing out the ideals, bonds, etc of characters especially if they are key to the story. The worst has been charisma locking other pcs
descent into avernus has a really interesting bit of advice about handling diplomatic situations. when the pcs first get into avernus proper, they are advised to seek out a particular npc. this interaction is advised to be an example of how to format situations like it; the pcs have something this npc wants and this npc has something the pcs want. the way it’s explained, it can be handled on a scale of 1 to 10. they start off the interaction at 5, in which the npc is fairly neutral to them and will give them a bit of aid as long as they give her what she wants. it gives various examples of things they can do to either win her and her gang’s favor or piss them off. if they win more of her favor then she offers them extra aid; if they do more to piss her off she’ll offer them less aid until it’s absolutely the bare minimum and if they do enough then she can throw them out, steal from them, or try to kill them at your (the DM’s) discretion. Granted, I have yet to actually try this system out but it really made sense to me on paper. I think it could totally be useful for several situations in-game; have the npc’s wants figured out and an idea of things players could do to make them happy or angry, figure out where the players are starting this interaction from, and go from there (without necessarily getting too hung up on exactly what number they’re on with that 1-10 scale, from my understanding it’s just a way to visualize it)
Always love when a video on a core mechanic like this comes out, I have a game in a couple days and it's great to be able to compare what's mentioned with what I regularly do to improve how I dm
Favourite D&D channel on RU-vid unfortunately I don't get to play at all these days but still love watching. Keep it up jim you're doing great and the new format is great
Does anyone else love Jim just rambling on? I wasn't sure how I'd feel about the changes because I've listened since almost the start and just got so used to the dynamic, but I love Jim just getting to go.
The Idea/Problem/concept of separating player from character is a fascinating one. I love playing Int based characters (thank god for artificer because i cant stand full casters) I also have very good control about the monsters that exists in 5e. I will never out and out say what a monsters does without asking the dm for a roll, but I will express concern (knowing to fear a metal bull versus blurting out that it petrifies). I go back and forth on being talking completely in character and narrating, and my awareness of that has stopped me from playing CHA-characters in the past, but it also raises a weird concern. You dont expect the player with the barbarian character to be able kick a door off his hinges, but people (not necessarily you) always want to be convinced in character with a speech.
This is a big problem in our game in the other direction. The bard who has charm person and the warlock with suggestion and fiendish bonus don't do as well with persuasion and deception as my cleric does with no social skills. I'm just more extroverted and the GM ignores their skill proficiency and spell effects. My explanations just sounds better. Their character builds are essentially a waste. Its really tough to balance between I'm game characteristics and out of game role playing.
Yeah it's not really fair. In d&d if you're weak you can roleplay someone who is strong, if you're slow you can roleplay someone who is agile, but if you're socially inept you can't roleplay someone charismatic. It's a weird unwritten rule everyone abides by for some reason. We accept dice rolls for every other stat except charisma. "No no you have to show me just how persuasive you are"
@@lifeinthebog Mental stats transfer from player to character unlike physical stats. Neither intelligence, charisma, nor wisdom can be all that effectively role-played without those attributes to begin with. One can pretend to have high stats, but to come up with intelligent plans or devise a convincing argument or speak profound wisdom requires the player themselves having those respective stats to a degree as well. It's not an unwritten social rule, it's a consequence of the nature of the dynamic A DM has to go out of their way to reward less skilled players for less impressive role-playing. Naturally reacting based on performance quality leads to higher skilled players getting more advantage in-game
My system was inspired by iaijutsu and quickdraw rules from various oriental and western systems. Basically a series of contested rolls that drain the participants "will" to engage. Works for groups by creating a pool. Works for blackmail, persuasion (when you're trying to convince them it's in their best interest), intimidation (direct or implicit), seduction, etc.
Hi Web DM! Just wanted to say that although I do miss Pruitt I think I actually prefer the new chilled out style of these videos - please make more like these! Also it’s great to have the music a bit softer for this video so I can hear Jim better. Thanks!
The chart of pg 238 with DC is also on the provided DM screen, I use that every session and is the only part of the screen I use that much. A+ usefulness.
I played 2nd edition and then didn't play D&D until 5th edition and one of the things that I loved about 5th edition was how they changed the system so that everything had a DC and you rolled and added modifiers to overcome that dc. I hope to God they do not go back to THACO. I just remember you constantly having to look things up on tables and didn't make sense you just had to memorize it or constantly look things up. With the current system it all makes sense and it's all consistent.
Fun tip for if you ever go back to 2e, apply newer D&D mechanics to it, change AC to 5e AC where 0 = 20 in 2e to 5e conversion and make THAC0 just another + to hit e.g. a level 4 fighter wants to hit a creature of AC 4, so make AC 16 then calculate the bonus to hit, THAC0 17 = +3 to hit, then add str bonus then spec/mastery then any other modifiers.
Immediately clicked like when I saw the name of the video 🤣 TBH, I feel the misunderstanding about charisma based skill checks (skill checks in general, for that matter) started as a joke that a became paradigm.
Lately, when I've been a player, I've been finding myself wanting to make Insight checks before charisma checks. And, this can also take the form of having a conversation with the GM. Looking for information on how they handle authority can help me decide whether to come across as intimidating or persuasive. Discovering what they value could reveal something my character could offer in a negotiation that would sweeten a deal. That sort of thing.
I really enjoyed this because charisma checks just break the norm. It's not the "I want to go x", "then roll y" if a roll is needed. I generally ignore the idea of DC for charisma checks but let the interaction decide success and the roll decides effectiveness. Sometimes though it bogs my game down because PCs be random. Also, the idea of exchange and a cost is not something I focus on unless it's a planned event. This was very helpful, thank you!
I feel like there should be a social mechanism similar to physical combat. Str - Cha Con - Wis Dex - Int Charisma would be arguments of pure emotion, Intelligence would need finesse and cunning to properly utilize, and Wisdom would be a modifier for the resolve of the individual. Would make social spells and feats more impactful, someone may actually use the Friends Cantrip.
I am totally going to start using the 2d6 reaction tables for social as well as combat interaction. The progress clocks are a pretty nice idea. I may steal some old trivial pursuit tokens (pie pieces and holders) to use to represent that. All in all great video!! Also THAC0 was not as bad as it is made out to be (as a player).
Awesome advice on handling one of the real challenges in the art and skill of refereeing the game. This is an excellent example of how really good this channel is for the hobby and why Jim Davis is such a treasure! Priceless. And we get to view this vid for free!
good points here. I’ve seen people play dice resolution games n things that make no sense. Like the NPC wanted to do this, part of the same family, same faction, giving support would improve their position and safety; there was a roll and it was bad, that roll was made them look mentally ill more than anything else.
They should work like all other skill/ability checks, you dont ask the player with the barbarian to lift a car before try the athletics check, so you shouldn't force someone that is playing a charismatic character to be as charismatic as the character, just like the intelligence on the wizard can conceive him some data as a character even if the player dont have idea what the character knows I meet a lot of players that are introverts and shy playing charismatic characters and as a DM i allow them to say the idea of what they want to accomplish and make the roll for the check and then if they allow me, as a DM, i peoceed to narrate what their character say or do accordimg with the result Remember: we play this to roleplay as someone that is not necesarilly us
This. I can not abide the idea that a charismatic player can just talk though an encounter with no regard for the character’s skill. If I had a ballerina player, the character would not auto pass agility checks. To my mind if a low charisma character is giving standing ovations level speeches then the players is failing at role playing not succeeding.
@@rowdienights9136 I don't exactly agree on your part of the player failing at role playing. To me no words from the player are actually the words a character says. At least, because the language of the people in most role playing settings are NOT the language with which each player speaks, and we know that most of the time, translations are not perfect superposition of words. I usually give a bonus for roleplay if my player gives an incredible speech, but aside from that, if he fails, his character didn't find its words etc... Or he was lucky and like, he reminds his interlocutor of an old friend with one of its habit etc...
@JustDev there’s definitely rules for off attribute checks. Really though what you’ve done is take the example of playing a low charisma character as high charisma and reduced that to a single instance. Which was never the argument. You’ve reframed the discussion. Out of the usual instances can be quite dramatic, the quite unassuming kid suddenly having enough of a situation and delivering the speech that brings the fractured group back together is well worn. I would say how that comes about is not that the theater major channels George c Scott so we don’t make a roll. The roll is first. The player decides I gotta take this chance, the dice gods shine on him And he rolls very well. Maybe he’s held that inspiration dice, maybe this is the first time he’s used his battle master ability to get the extra dice roll. His dice combo is 22! Even with his neg two mod he’s a 20. Now the player can cut lose. The sheet and the dice have advised the situation and high charisma player cashes in.
I love NPC charisma proficiencies as basically DM inspiration for how that character will tend to act. Can they roll persuasion against a player? No. But they might be persuasive in their discussions and make good points that could accomplish the same thing. Or how well they can influence other NPCs ;)
The particular absurdity of "I roll persuasion. What happens?" is just a specific case of what happens to the RP in your game when you start letting players call for rolls. Players. Do. Not. Call. For. Rolls. Players ask for information (usually to clarify a description the DM has previously given), and they declare actions (what their PC is trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it; intent and approach). The DM decides whether a roll is necessary and, if so, bases the DC and any advantage/disadvantage on how likely they think the approach is to achieve the intent. The whole idea is to get your players to stop gazing at their character sheets like the skills were buttons on a vending machine and engage with the game world like it is a real place and their PCs are real people in it.
Well stated. I prefer to run social interactions without rolls at all whenever possible. I acknowledge that this downplays Charisma stats, but I just internally consider the natural persuasiveness of the character in the interaction and let it impact the result of the dialogue. I think skill checks are better suited for determining how much information PCs glean with their senses (which the players are cut off from) rather than the communication given by the PCs (which the players are in direct control of with their dialogue or described actions). So I would rather have players roll for Perception to figure out a character's reaction to them and what they possibly want rather than "I roll to persuade them to do X." The best persuasion skill checks I've ever experienced didn't involve rolls.
@@danielpayne1597 I don't eliminate CHA checks entirely, but to get one the player must state what they are doing to influence the NPC. There are circumstances where I would resolve the action without a roll. The player might come at the situation with such a great approach that I think there's no way it could fail. They might come at the NPC with such an idiotic approach that I think there's no way it could succeed. But if there's a chance it could succeed _and_ a chance it could fail, you're going to need a roll.
Right. Rolls are used to determine the outcome when an action is uncertain. Sometimes when you try something, the outcome is already known. The barbarian can pick up his sword without a strength check, but he can never lift an entire castle no matter what he rolls on a check. When he tries to force a door open, then he may or may not succeed and you roll the dice. Persuasion rolls are the same way.
I'm really intrigued by these progress clocks. Reminds me of how I ran a dungeon based campaign. I had random encounter tables for each level and when a certain number of encounters or fewer of a specific encounter, an event would occur. It was fun because I knew what could happen, but didn't know what was going to happen. Best of all my players really loved it... Until the wand of Orcus tore the party apart (no roles were necessary)
I love the episodes with Pruit but i also love this new format. Keep it coming^^. I like the even more "casual" hey let`s talk about this sort of feel to the video
This makes me picture a social "combat" system that loosely indexes Cha, Int, and Wis to Str, Dex, and Con... with something like hit points...? Conditional immunities and resistances based on ideals and bonds, maybe some vulnerabilities based on flaws... Totally cumbersome and impractical, but fun to think about.
Ha. Maybe a little. :) We all know combat is slow, but I feel like adding it to social interaction is probably a little heavy handed. Fun thought exercise though. The "three pillars" are kind of asymmetrical by nature, I guess.
@@foghammer9767 Not by nature, I think, but by design. There just aren't many engaging rules for exploration and travel; doesn't mean that there can't be. I personally don't like D&D much, so my take may be a bit out there, you know?
If you add all your bonuses to hit and subtract it from the monsters AC, you basically have thac0, it's easy to figure out exactly what you need to roll to hit without math once you figure a monsters AC out.
this definitely gives me a lot of ideas for starting my own campaign. For me, it's hard wanting to hard enforce charisma checks for a lot of things, because that just limits who can viably talk at any given moment. But at the same time, you don't want to completely invalidate someone and their build. It's also something that as a player I suck with because my dice curse is so bad it honestly shocks DMs i've played with. So from my perspective, forcing charisma rolls all the time means I'm excluded from really even *trying* to do conversation or arguments from a character to character standpoint. I feel like there should be inclusion at the table to engage as many people as possible into interacting, and a lot of the time I think that means setting down the dice until those tenser, more neutral positions come up (for social stuff that is.) This vid really helps give some ways to not totally invalidate those Charisma based player characters, without making it so no one else can ever really talk
THAC0 comment as requested. I dont get the math comments about THAC0. There used to be a table of two rows at the bottom of the character sheets. The top row usually were filled out with the numbers going from 10 to -9 , and below 0 you'd put your thac0, then fill in numbers counting up towards the right side and down towards the left. So we We rolled the die, added the appropriate bonus, look up the result on the bottom, and above it would be the AC you hit. Then adjust the table if the THAC0 changed at a new level. Small difference in time during actual play to 5e's system, at least for players.
Have you had this same type of discussion around the Insight skill? It's amazing what real people can figure out from just a few words in conversation -- shows like Criminal Minds come to mind for me. The insight skill, for me, is just as important as the social skills when dealing with people.
THAC0 is great. I really enjoy the 2d6 mechanic, I've used it a lot over the last year or so and it really adds to my ability to make the encounters more interesting (to me at least)
My comment on THAC0 is this: THAC0 hate, like most hate, says more about the hater than the object of the hate. This concept, like THAC0 itself, may take a bit of effort to wrap one's head around, but there is an "ah-ha" or epiphany moment when we "get it".
Good video. I often notice that my players will decide to engage with a minor NPC who I have not put any thought into the mentality of. So they wind up being "me with a fuzzy beard" or "me but with pointy ears." Part of me regrets that so many NPCs are so two-dimensional, the other part says, "you get what you paid for."
I feel like Charisma-related rolls and checks seem to be seen or treated as different from all the other skill and ability checks. In any tabletop, I feel it to be customary to ask the player to explain what it is they’re doing BEFORE the roll takes place. If someone describes a specific way to climb a wall or investigate the scene of a crime that would be more efficient or more effective than what might be achieved by simply asking if you could roll to climb a wall, it should make the check easier in some way or fashion. However, from what I’ve seen, this practice is unusually reserved exclusively for Charisma rolls. On a different note, though, is that one failure on a roll shouldn’t be the total determining factor for resolving a situation. Just like how one failed Persuasion check doesn’t totally end the conversation, usually I try not to create situations that are made or broken by one poor roll, especially if the player has put in the extra effort to outline what they considered the best course of action. If my player unfortunately fails the first stealth roll to start ambushing an enemy encampment after laying a nearly foolproof plan, I’m not going to jump straight to combat. I might say a lone detachment goes to investigate the sound of a twig snapping under their weight, or that the enemy starts calling out for the interloper to identify themselves. I feel like combat should be the absolute last resort, since it generally removes the role playing from the table given my players, and that’s usually the main reason we're playing a TTRPG in the first place. Just my two cents on the matter, haha.
I play SOTDL so the system already has mechanics for leveraging equipment and pulling the die rolls towards your favor by being clever as the boons system can give up to a +6 bonus towards a skill check. The ways I always try to work it is by phrasing things like this. "I'd like to persuade the guard to let me go. I'll leverage the fact it's late by offering him a hot meal and drink." "I'd like to pry the window. I'll leverage it with a crowbar nice and slow." "I'd like to look out for enemies while everyone else rests. Would climbing a tree give me a boon?" You can really do that in any system as the DM should be ready and willing to lower the DC for anything if you can leverage something in your favor tbh.
It's most important for charisma rolls because the intent isn't always obvious. When you pick a lock or climb a wall, the desired result is usually something known. With persuasion, or any other social skill like intimidation, you have to know what specifically the character is asking for to set the DC (or to decide if the roll is even possible). It can happen in other checks too potentially as there's a difference between "I use strength to roll the boulder off my friend to free him" and "I use my strength to pick up the boulder and toss it at the giant."
This tends to be applied to Charisma rolls because 3rd edition specifically called out bonuses for "logical arguments from the player" (I'm paraphrasing). My issue with that is that it heavily favors players who are also charismatic, and penalizes players who aren't (but are playing a character who is). This is why I encourage rolling first, and letting that outcome frame the social interaction. Roll terribly? Great! Now you have stage directions to really botch that conversation. Roll amazingly? Perhaps now is a good time to launch into an inspiring speech. It takes some practice, but I encourage rolling first then describing rather than the inverse to keep the playing field even and let the characters be center stage rather than the players.
@@JohnHegner The problem with that is that when you roll first, you have no idea how to set a difficulty. Because the "logical arguments" here are not natural charisma but rather the conversation strategy the player is using. And strategy is important if you want any kind of believability to your narrative. So if you're trying to convince the guards that you're one of the new laborers sent to work on the castle's expansion, it's going to matter if you're decked out in full plate armor with a magic greataxe in your hand. The DM would totally be in his rights to say your bluff automatically fails. But if your lie is instead that you're a knight from a foreign land, then your bluff may work. And depending on which foreign land you say you're from, you may be highly distrusted or accepted as a friend. And all those options make for a cool narrative with advantages and disadvantages, but if you roll first without a strategy, you lose all that. All conversation strategies are not equal. Trying to appeal to the evil king's greed is a good idea, but trying to appeal to his kindness to save the orphans because he's a good caring person is going to be a difficult sell indeed.
I don't know why but listening to this made me think about a character who rolls too well on insight, and the things they have to say hit too close to home. "Look, I know that you're having a hard time trusting us because you come from a broken home but..." "I'm going to need you to roll initiative."
I often have to reverse engineer scenes with my players. They describe the vibe they are going for. And we roll, then I try to set them up for more of an improve excess. We have a lot of fun with bad rolls
I love what Pathfinder did in War for the Crown adventure path. Everyone is useful, no one is useless. You have wizard with his knowledge (arcane) - go influence that person, you have fighter with ride? Oh, that warrior lady loves horseplay. Someone took Perform (sing)? She can impress nobles on the floor and grant others bonuses! Sleight of hand - that creepy clown halfling has some useful info! Those who are good at roleplay but don’t have maxed out diplomacy / bluff / sense motive can roleplay their skills, not stand in corner letting skillmonkey do all the work. Those who are more inclined to roll-play are happy too and in my opinion are encouraged to grow somewhat and open a little.
It's worth noting that rolls for persuasion/deception/intimidation can also be based on other stats. So an academic argument might be based on INT, spiritual discourse on WIS, a high STR might be intimidating "I break his spear over my knee". Also what CHA means depends on relevant social standing: a charismatic performer or market trader has one type of sway, a charismatic king or ruler quite another. The formal social game mechanics, though, are to put it kindly underdeveloped in D&D.
My method is that the roll doesn't necessarily represent success/failure in social interaction but rather how positively or negatively the attempt is received. For example the bard makes an outlandish attempt at seducing the queen, rolls charisma and persuasion a good roll might result in her being flattered, a bad roll might result in a night in jail. Another example might be the fighter attempting to intimidate the Bandit Leader when they are surrounded and hopelessly outmatched, a bad roll might result in combat, a good roll might result in a good laugh but a more positive disposition. I like to tally the positive and negative interactions and give advantage or disadvantage accordingly.
I think Dungeon World handles this very well with the move; if you want to change an NPC's behavior, first you need some kind of leverage - threat, bribe, favor, etc.
Savage Worlds handles this well, having you persuade by degrees. It’s not “You hate me?” *rolls* We friends now!”, which I enjoy. I add or subtract penalties (or use Advantage/Disadvantage) to reflect good/poor talking points. Another awesome social system is in Genesys, which handles it with robust mechanics. I’d like to see “social combat” be more of a thing and will let an opponent gain Disadvantage (in combat) due to things like stress and indecision. Out of combat, I use Wisdom as “social AC” and your “attack” stat’s modifier as damage. At half one side capitulates with caveats. At zero the loser gives in completely. A 20 doubles damage or heals the the attacker, and a 1 can either “heal” the target by the attacker’s damage or the damage the attacker by the same.
I agree with THACO (to-hit armor class 0) completely. Or well, mostly. Ultimately, you're just modifying the threshold for the test, rather than the outcome of the die roll. Then factoring in armor. You could even factor in an NPC's armor class, and then give the threshold to the players ... or not. One neat advantage of THACO is you don't have to give away the AC directly outside of narrative hints (okay, you can do this without THACO, but I find the players are more aware of such a tactic when THACO is used). For example, if by the third round the assumed posh fop of an enemy duelist has, "effortlessly parried every blow the six of you have thrown at him, smiling slightly all the while, and seemingly enjoying himself the whole time," you might be in a little trouble, and might want to consider a social resolution to this one. In systems where you thrown a number of dice, like Shadowrun, Tunnels and Troglodytes, or After Sundown, you modify the threshold up/down or the number of dice thrown down/up. I find the former easier on my table, but the latter can be more intuitive, viz. you get to throw more dice at the problem.
The biggest challenge is charisma just works differently for pcs and npcs. Which makes it hard. You can tell a player "you are knocked down by the bat." But "you believe CMOT Dibbler is selling tasty sausages!" Is harder or "you really think you should buy that chain saw" or "you trust the succubus."Without a player group that wants to. And that's not wrong. But it makes it easier to get stuck. I run into this issue trying to explain being scary and charisma on intimidate to players. A 12 foot troll doesn't roll intimidate to scare an office worker. But they might to make them not trigger pure fight or flight. Or to do something after the troll leaves. But not to scare. On the other hand Vicious terrifying Faye in the opera box is probably charisma. He poses no obvious physical threat. This is why I give no bonuses for str or looking scary. But it might affect the TN. Or leadership. You don't need high leadership to lead by example and win undying loyalty. But to convince someone you don't know to trust you? Yes.
I don't know if you saw my comment on a previous video but I really like what you did with the music. It no longer competes with Jim. And, you had me at THACO!
I mean, when I'm playing I'm not the one calling for rolls, the DM is. I decide my actions and the DM decides if a roll is needed, or if it would even affect the outcome. When I'm DMing, the player doesn't get to call for rolls, I do. They decide their actions and I decide wether a roll is needed, or if it would even affect the outcome.
Oh shit! I have that same hoodie, I wore it to work one day and the oldest lady in the office who I've never talked to before came up to me and gushed over it. I never wore it again.
There has to be a middle ground between OSR were social encounters rarely work because the DM is uncooperative and 5e where the characters just press the win button. Warhammer Fantasy did a pretty good job with the Gossip skill check. Any character can gossip with or charm another character. Social class matters, but it's not brutal. The odds are modified by the difficulty of the question. The better your dice roll the more information you get. It's empowering without being overpowering.
I have several players that roll persuasion as of it we’re mind control, even on each other. I as they dm have had to explain to them that just because they roll a nat 20 on an npc, it only means that the best possible outcome will come from it. As an example: they try convincing a shop owner to get things for free, they roll a nat 20, but The shop owner will just give them a discount.
Rule 0 of calling for a roll (social interactions or not, D&D or not) : "Never call for a roll if you don't know what the possible outcomes of this roll are, or if the possible outcomes that you see make no sense to you."
Big fan of how Persuasion works in the old Rules Cyclopedia, where the Persuasion skill represents your ability to convey authentic sincerity and honesty. It is not the ability to change an opinion or get someone to agree with something, it is just how good a character is at proving their earnestness. It's a nice middleground.
I'm interested in more about your npc playsheet, what it means, how you use it. I have been looking at great dms OGAS NPC AI/ character thumbnail system of occupation, goal, attitude and stake/investment/intensity
One way I like to see it: the DMG table suggests that a "NEARLY impossible" task is a 30 DC. An impossible task doesn't have any DC, because it is simply not possible, by definition
It requires more work on the DM's part, but the absolute best way to mitigate Eloquence bards rolling 35s and higher on Charisma checks is to give NPCs bonds, ideals, flaws, and personality traits. And then track those things as the game goes. Every NPC in the game world should have some driving motivation, unless they're a modron or celestial without desires or actual character. If the players nail zero traits bonds etc... in their charisma check they fail without a roll. If they incorporate at least one in the wording of the check they get to roll and see what happens. If they nail 3 or 4 traits they probably don't need to roll to get at least the bare minimum of what they wanted from the NPC.
I believe strongly in the merits of THAC0. Honestly, I feel people over think, and unintentionally, convolute the mechanics. The inherent advantage to THAC0 being, it’s natural deterrent to power creep. As with any system, it can be exploited. I still feel it kept attack ranges tighter, and lessened the impact of level gap.
But is it so bad that some players want to be power gamers? Not all players like to play your everyday man, mainly because we all ARE your everyday man. I don't really see impact of level gap as a bad thing. It really depends on the players/table.
@@noobiwan101 I think it is kind of a cycle thing. Like, 20-25 or so years ago, a lot of tabletop games that were distributed were about an actual powerful character (I love D&D 3/3.5/pathfinder and the true powerfulness you can feel at higher levels, especially as a caster), and for a good time I've known players to play vampire dark ages instead of masquerade, where you can play realy low generation vampires. I feel like the vibes in the later years has been towards playing more realistic characters and having more complex vilains, just like in movies etc... But to be honest, EVERY vilain doesn't have to be complex and all characters don't need to be like you said fields and farmers. I get that some people want to play at a local scale some unpowerful characters BUT there should also be a place for players who want to play demigods, like some actors probably like to see themselves doing so in some of their films.
I mean, just changing to THAC0 wouldn't make a system more or less exploitable. Lets say an AC of 20 in 5e is AC 0. Instead of a +5 to hit, you have a THAC0 of 15. Items and abilities that affect attack rolls or AC now just subtract from, rather than add, to them, but it isn't more or less exploitable than it was before. You're just doing different math, but it hasn't fundamentally changed the system in any way. Jim's argument is that THAC0 lets you do that math ahead of time, which can be true. If you know a 13 or higher hits somebody with AC 2, then you know that, but the same could be said about knowing a 13 or higher hits an AC of 18. There's less fiddling around with modifiers during the actual rolling, especially if you have a THAC0 chart. Which is a good point, but I couldn't be bothered to make all my players understand that all or change every monster stat block just because it's a little more convenient. Especially because I run and play all my ttrpg games digitally anyways. THAC0 isn't the incoherent mess a bunch of people like to make it out to be, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna use it.
Social encounters are some of the most difficult scenarios to run in D&D, for all the reasons and more mentioned here. I appreciate the insight on how you handle this and will add this to my tool set as a DM. However, could it be considered that we handle these ‘rolls’ differently than any other in the game. Instead of the player announcing their intent to persuade an NPC then rolling the dice to determine the outcome and then describing the outcome. Too often I have experienced or witnessed players launching into a conversation with the intent of persuading an NPC, making an amazing argument or not so good, only to have it fall apart on the die roll which sends the social encounter in the opposite direction. It would be like a player describing the heroic way they slay a beast with their sword, then rolling the dice to find out they missed. Hopefully that makes sense.
Theres a meta discussion here too. Charisma rolls from the player (not the character) can influence the character's god in a way that does bend the rules lol This is why Elan from OOTS has prescient meta-knowledge about how the game plays out. One who is skilled in storytelling is massively powerful inside of a story The disappointing disconnect for me is how common it is for charisma rolls to convince anyone of anything, but also how common it is for illusion spells to to absolutely nothing. In my experience DMs who play RAW often underreward illusion magic, but charisma gets a free pass even though its pretty much the same thing It is possible to separate player skill and character skill, though maybe not with the setup we have now. If you were to lose all your memories before playing, and then start from a baby, you could play without previous knowledge getting in the way. The more advanced D&D gets the more it seems like an ideal game of D&D would just be reincarnation into a perfectly believable world. It prompts the question, is this D&D already? lol
