Paid Sponsor Link: thedeckofmany.... (link isn't set up yet but it should take you to the site) There's an actual system for social encounters in the DMG and nobody uses it. My patreon: / zeebashew
@@Rabijeel Not sure about 3.5 proper... Pathfinder is very different though. Diplomacy shifts their attitude (on a 5-notch scale), Bluff gets them to agree to a one-off thing, Intimidation temporarily makes them pretend to like you. Then how much they like you determines if they'll help (except for Bluff which is magic mind control).
One of my favourite moments in the original Sherlock stories is when Sherlock notices the betting page of a paper is popping out the pocket of a guy he wants information from (a very hostile guy at that)- so he comes up with this story about a bet he needs to win and boom the guy is hooked and spills all the beans. It's so simple but such a fun and smart way to take advantage of someones flaws!
@@ratholin I don't recall how accurate it is to the books, but in the Granada series,' Blue Carbuncle episode, at one point they are trying to inquire from a goose salesman where a particular lot of geese came from and the salesman is belligerent and tells them to piss off. So Holmes makes up a story with Watson that they are having a bet as to whether the goose was city bred or country bred, and as soon as the salesman hears it's a bet and that Holmes is going to lose the bet, he shares every single detail he can to rub it in to Holmes that he lost the "bet". The joke kicker is that after Holmes and Watson walk away with smirks on their face, the seller yells at Holmes that he lost the bet and has to "pay the man now", and Watson smirks at Holmes as Holmes begrudgingly pays Watson off for the fake "bet" so they can keep up the pretense.
@@BTheBlindRef Yup that's pretty much how it goes in the original! Sometimes I noticed that Granada would adapt it word for word so it's probably very similar if not the same!
This is cool, but it has the same common issue of a lot of things: If the DM described the page sticking out of the pocket when they described the NPC, then the player will automatically know the page is important, but if the DM didn't of course then the player doesn't know it exists. There are ways around this (think up multiple clues, make the clues' utility ambiguous, gate them off behind an insight or other skill check), but I find things can get awkward.
"You said you bring and offering of bread, but that doesn't sway a lord of the undead. Instead it has to be said, step up to me and my ghouls are getting fed" So like this?
The way I do it is that instead of basing off a roll, I ask what the player wants to say or how to convince, and I use that as a base for their DC. If the speech they gave was amazing, the DC is lower because they are basically already persuaded. If they gave a really bad one, the DC is higher because your credibility already sucks and they are gonna be much harder to convince. If it's good or bad enough, I don't even ask for a roll, I just let the NPC do the talking.
Had a DM who was like: Player: I want to buy food. DM: Roll a d20 Player: Wait... Why? I mean, why and which attribute/skill am I checking? DM: JUST ROLL A D20! Player: *rolls* Nat 1. DM: The merchant becomes super angry at you and stabs you in the eye. You die.
5e was always like that. People often thinks rolls can save them too much. Thats because of 3e skill system which was just that rolling and get slaves because 50+ deception !!!
@@rey1242 That's just a shit DM. I had one like that too. DM: The person that looks like the Employer comes into the tavern. Me: I walk up to talk to him. DM: Roll Charisma Me: Do I get to say anything first? DM: No Me: Rolls 14 DM: You have to speak in broken common. Me: What, why? DM: Because that's what you rolled. For context, that night, the DC to succeed anything, from walking down the stairs to speaking normally was 15. On top of that, we were still figuring stuff out, so we didn't add our modifiers. In other words, you had to roll 15 or higher without mods to succeed any basic interaction.
Man the animation quality in this one's really up there. Lot of subtle slight head turns. What's funny is I literally just found out about these rules last night while looking up something regarding intimidation.
It's fun to see so many people in the comments having a similar experience to Zee "Wait, these rules.. they're good. They've been there the whole time?"
Well, the DMG is poorly ordered. World-building guidelines in the front of the book, despite that only being relevant if your homebrewing a campaign setting, and even then it's only useful before running the game, but rules and guidelines for things that happen in nearly every session of the game, like social interactions or skill checks, were put towards the back of the book. And the regular rules of the game aren't even in the book, so anytime a DM needs to check the rules of the game, they have to look in a PHB, rather than being able to flip through their own book to check. The PHB ends up being more useful to the average DM than the DMG, and the DMG ends up being more used by players to look up magic items than the DM. More DMs would know about these rules if they were prioritized to the beginning of the book. The basics of actually running the game should be first, since that is what the DM is going to be doing every session, followed by the rules of the game, because that is what the DM is going to be using while running the game, and also, variant rules could maybe be in boxes in the margins of some of those pages, so their right their near the rules they modify or replace, makes them more handy. And then the next section can dip into basics of combat encounter balancing and the CR system as well as addressing how the action economy is affected by numbers and how the action economy affects the effective challenge. Followed by a section on building encounters and challenges and some suggestions for structuring adventure sessions, then a section on the basics of starting a campaign, which should start with talking about a starting town, and plot hooks and seeds for potential adventures that can be fleshed out between sessions. Then, it can talk about world building after that. Oh, and have more charts for things like NPC traits and what not. Or maybe those should be somewhere in with the section on designing an adventure, yeah. Anyways, the DMG as it is has a lot of sections in reverse order of how relevant they are.
That makes sense. I'm generally partial to rules that turn dice into a tool that determines the specifics of a situation otherwise determined by roleplay, rather than "THE DICE GODS HAVE SPOKEN" device that contradicts the roleplay. Also, I love how you incorporated the recording blooper into the actual animation at the end :D
I'd like to think the dice control everything but the players. If they give a great speech but roll low, then a carriage passed by and the NPC just didn't hear the speech or misheard it into something bad or that the speaker just has spinach in their teeth and it's hard to pay attention. If the Barbarian jokingly said something and rolled high, maybe they are just the NPC's type and they are too busy ogling that hunk of muscle lady to view their joke as anything but genius and insightful persuasion. I also change the DC depending on how good the speech is, so good equals lower DC, bad equals higher DC.
@@MrJoeyWheeler lots of pointless stuff if you ignore homebrew worldbuilding, but there are some honestly good systems in there for survival mechanics, tips for running dungeon crawls, social encounters, downtime rules, MAGIC ITEMS, in-depth break down of what ability scores are used when (there's a great description of Intelligence(Investigation) vs Wisdom(Perception) for spotting and identifying traps and secrets), a great breakdown of the DC system, a description of how and when to apply advantage and disadvantage, and quite a bit more.
@@stm7810 Not really that fun, some 20 and 1 can ruin a campaign or your plans and this make the game way less serious, also 20 and 1 are supposed to be automatic succes/failure only in combat.
@@comicknightzero A fourth guideline: DC is based on what you try to do. Trying to polevault the narrowest part of a chasm is lower DC than trying to backflip across the widest part. Your argument sets the DC. Also also; some rolls simply may not be possible. I'm not seducing that gay nun.
@@mitigatedrisk4264 Sounded like a large war vehicle with bronze wheels, and/or a pneumatic hammer or hammer-drill. That's a heck of a thing to be hammering with!
That's a good substitute, but given that roleplay is supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay, I like the DMG rules (p.244). I'm going to start using them. They provide a lot more structure for anyone who's not sure where to begin, they bring Investigation and Insight checks into relevance, and they give a good number of examples that you can take inspiration from.
Not necessarily. Social interaction rules are a framework for the social pillar. It allows people with in game social abilities to better effect the outcome rather than a lucky persuasion role. You don't have to be a good roleplayer for this. You simply have to understand the mechanics for influencing a creatures attitude, by appealing to it's bond, flaw, or ideal in order to shift it's attitude, then role a charisma check to for the desired result.
Its not just the DC. Each disposition earned by roleplay has a minimum and maximum effect, making it a far better and more immersive system. I don't even like 5e much but the social rules presented here sound great honestly.
@@PhyreI3ird These are the social rules presented in the Dungeon Master Guide. It is RAW and RAI, not variant rules. The sections on social interaction as well exploration (the tracking section) should be included in the players hand book for transparency. Social interaction rules are glossed over because players, and DMs for that matter, generally don't read the DMG with the same stringency as the PHB. Social spells like charm, calm emotions, and friends are balanced around these rules. The social interaction rules are an intended mechanic of the game, and much as obscurement rules are for vision.
I've used this in a situation where members of the party were hired as temporary executioners for an upcoming holiday in which criminals would be killed in a certain way to appease Tyr the god of justice. Part of the execution ritual was that the executioners had to "Make peace" with the convicts which involved having a conversation in which they were meant to comfort them. The convicts had their own ideals flaws and personality quirks. My first player did quite poorly as not only did they refuse to answer any of the criminal's questions but when they talked to them but also conflicted with the convict ideal of secrecy by threatening to tell the guard the threats the convict had told him. This resulted in him being tackled to the floor in the jail cell and ultimately reduced pay. My other player managed to do quite well playing of his conflicts ideals of a good story by promising a single clean blow during the execution.
Every time I see something like this, I'm reminded why experienced DMs laud reading through the DMG so much. I've always just cherry-picked what I thought I'd need.
The beginning part also showcased another mistake I've been trying not to make lately- you gotta have them roll FIRST if you're basing their huge speech on a roll, so that you're not invalidating their roleplay. After their success or failure in the check is established, THEN they elucidate how their speech went. Don't let them give a beautiful monologue arbitrarily attached to a 1.
You could also scrap this and invert the premise. That is, interpret their role as being the range of responses the NPC would give to whatever specific speech the player made. So 1 is the worst response the NPC might make to that given speech, and 20 is the best.
Eh, I prefer to set the DC, and occasionally offer advantage/disadvantage, based on the roleplay of the speech. Which as far as I understand from this, is how the rules are intended to work. It's not invalidating their roleplay if their speech lowered the DC from 15 to 10, but the NPC's just weren't receptive due to a 1 (which *reminder* is not an automatic failure, player skill bonuses could still eke out success from a 1 with a low enough DC). Remember, dice rolls are *also* about in-game luck. Maybe, despite their rousing speech, the NPC has a prior engagement and can't help, even if they wanted to.
Oh this video is life saver. I'm a new DM and I wasn't expecting my PCs to be into socialising but they try talking to most creatures so I'm definitely using this for my next session
So can we just talk about how freaking smooth and good that animation was? The jiggle of the beard, the lighting, the little movements with the hands, just wow. *Edit:* Like... I'm someone who went through an animation course (granted, I feel like I botched it, since my main job was fetching other resources) and that's way better than any animation I saw from the school. *_period_* *Edit Numero dos:* Ok, so _WOW_ , did not expect this many likes to this comment.
IMHO, you could adopt 3 different styles: - as-is, treat the player's speech as "what the character wanted to say" but the roll gives "what the audience actually heard." - have the players roll first, then have them describe the result. Failure and they describe how badly they stammered and stuttered, success and they either give or describe the most rousing locker room speech they've ever given. - have the players perform the persuasion attempt first, give bonuses/lower DC for particularly convincing speeches that are well within character's abilities and current knowledge (i.e. don't have the barb with 7 charisma recite the Gettysburg Address)
I really need to get better at juggling Ideals/Bonds/Flaws, it’s a clever little system but earlier editions have instilled some bad, brute-force habits for social encounters.
It helps to make a social tendency chart (theirs ideals/bonds/Flaws, how they will relate to players, and how difficult it is to switch attitudes) for important NPCs, and for less important NPCs you can use a blank chart and just track their current position on it. Also, players don't need to know the entire process you are going through. If they don't even notice how structured the social encounter was then you did a really good job. Remember that the 0,10, and 20 thresholds are just a suggestion and you can make characters more or less stubborn within specific attitudes. Having a social tendency chart also gives you quick access to information that you can give out for insight checks.
Depending on the edition, this is not necessarily true, in the TSR era games, there was the reaction roll done with 2d6 which gave the different intelligent creatures a random reaction from instantly hostile to friendly modified by the pcs charisma. This could of course result in things like a orc squad passing by the party ignoring them (rolling indifferent reaction) or a group of gnome miners running and bashing the pcs kneecaps in (hostile reaction) and the party (and dm) could decide to figure out why if they wanted. How much this was used is an other story but the rules for different reactions has always been there and could be narrowed to the same as in fifth with modifiers (or splitting the table up) so it has been there for use for quite a while. Know this since I've used this as both a player and dm in ad&d and b/x. edit: spelling
@@classywolf6024 3.5 also had the attitude system for social encounters, in fact it had five attitudes: Friendly, Helpful, Indifferent, Unhelpful, Hostile. Helpful and Unhelpful were for people like town guards, whom it's normally not hard to get basic help from because it's their job but they don't actually have positive relations with you, and similarly unhelpful didn't usually mean enmity it just meant they didn't want to help you out with things.
I can see a deception check taking a disposition from hostile to friendly if you can swing a "I'm wearing the other guy's uniform because your boss wanted me to infiltrate" sort of thing
A great look into a set of tools so rarely used! I'm utterly convinced the DMG is the least read of any of the 5th Edition books, despite being one of the most owned. D&D did a number of videos with Jeremy Crawford looking at little-used or frequently misunderstood parts of the PHB a while ago, I think a series on 'Stuff you missed in the DMG' is long overdue. Also wow, this is a marked improvement in body language and use of animation elements (is that the name for it, when you break up a character into discrete parts and animate each independently?). Great work!
I've read through these before and decided I wouldn't follow them too closely because I didn't want to remember all that, but this was a really good summary and actually makes it seem workable.
Ah this reminds me of a semi-argument I had with a Player that was using a Rogue. He wanted to pet a Giant Dessert Ant that was frothing in the mandibles with rage due to being held captive against its will in a pet shop owner of questionable morals. The playered rolled a Nat 20 in his Animal Handling and went to pet it. The Ant still bit him, but at disadvantage because it was confused. The Player was pissed off at me saying he rolled high for his Animal Handling, and my counter-arguments were: - Did you give the Giant Angry Dessert Any any food or distraction? - Did you just walk up and pet it on the head like you would a dog? - Did you look into how the Ant was treated in its cage and how it was responding to everyone around it? - Do you think a creature with an Intelligence of 1 is going to understand what you are trying to do to it? He remained silent after telling me it was dumb and wanted to shoot the captive insect. Another player, A Chunky Fighter with lots of Health, decided to allow the Ant to bite him, multiple times, while soothing it with fresh water and sweets. After multiple rolls, and half his health munched on, the Fighter managed to at least make the Ant **NOT** bite him on sight. The fighter decided to buy the Ant and have it as a companion pet. I repeated this sort of encounter with another party in a campaign and the same results happen. First a player would just roll high and do something like pet or outright grab the Giant Ant. Then the other player would take extra measures to 'court' the Ant's friendship from Hostile to Indifferent and some cases Friendly. I do not believe I did this wrong at all, but what say you fellow DMs? Did I do this encounter wrong?
That's how it should be --- but you should make your expectations clear beforehand. If you find yourself explaining the rules of your world _after_ someone has assumed things would work differently and suffered for it, that's a problem.
@@tomc.5704 That is true, though I did made it clear on those rules well before this incident happen. It is just rough when players still think that high roll results equal instant results, friendship, or other things that defy common sense. Reminds me of another situation that a Sorcerer just blatantly cast a Subtle Metamagic Charm Spell on one of the King's attendants and expected the attendant to lead him and the party int othe King's private chambers.
@@MarkATorres1989 Yeah, Charm grants you advantage on Charisma checks (and with these DMG social interaction rules, an instant Friendly attitude). It's not mind control. Suggestion would get closer to the effect they wanted, but "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." Is escorting strangers into the King's private chambers reasonable? I'm not sure it is. It's explicitly against the attendant's training. At the very least, when someone questioned where they were going and the attendant replied, "I am brining these people to the King's private chambers" the party would quickly have to convince this new NPC that everything was fine. Now if they had cast Charm first, and then Suggestion, you'd be suggesting that he bring friends into the private chambers -- much more reasonable, and the attendant would assure the NPC they met in the hallway that everything was fine, don't worry. Even then though, the party would run into problems because with Suggestion, "the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do." I see the scene playing out like this: As soon the attendant finished showing them into the room, he would pause and look around, slightly confused. Then he would turn toward with a concerned look on his face and say, "Oh, we really shouldn't be in here." If the party does nothing to convince him otherwise, he'd quickly move towards "I'm sorry, but we have to leave." And then it would be on the party to persuade him, distract him long enough to do what they needed to, or simply knock him out and put him in a closet. Bottom line, it's not easy to get into a King's private chambers. If they want mind control, that's a 5th level spell. As far as the "Expecting a high roll to instantly work," I have a house rule I like for those scenarios. RAW, impossible things can't happen and a Natural 20 only means instant success on attack rolls. But that's not what most people think DnD is---most people instinctively try to apply Natural 1's and 20's to all rolls and they like the excitement and randomness that brings. It's a constant uphill battle to fight that tendency, and it leaves people feeling disappointed. So I like to allow critical success and failures on skill checks and saving throws, but only if you confirm the crit. You don't need to confirm crits on attack rolls, because it makes sense that you could have a 5% chance to get a lucky hit with your sword. But can a unskilled lockpicker open a challenging lock on their first try? Not likely. Not 5%. And if they fail a DC 7 check, they'll break their lockpick. But if they crit and confirm it, I'll allow the incredibly improbable to happen on a 1 in 400 chance. On the other hand, if they roll a Natural 1 and confirm it, they might get their finger stuck in the lock.
Completely justifiable, though perhaps you should have added that even with the animal handling the ant still seems tense and perhaps touching it right now still isn’t a great idea.
My old system was to let players roll before saying a word, then decide what to say knowing in advance whether it will succeed or fail. It helped preserve the roleplay but still had its downsides. This sounds better.
I do the same, give intention to dm, roll, rp accordingly, but the attitude system doesnt supersede that way if doing things, its just another layer to add verisimilitude to a social encounter
This, this all day long. We don’t make you shoot a bow or swing a sword then go well you suck at that so your character gets disadvantaged on his attack.
Construction? More like a baby Tarrasque on the loose. (Who's a cute little, world-eating terror? You are! Who's a cute little, world-eating terror? You are! Who's a cute little, world-eating terror? You are!)
Zee, I watch all your stuff and I'm always entertained, but this might be the single most influential piece of DM advice I've received in a year. Also, I dig the rising production value. The effort is evident!
Super happy to see this finally brought up by somenone! I've been running with these rules since 3.5 and can say the they've always been there, lurking in the background. most people just don't realize! Cheers! love your stuff brother!
I think an issue people have with the DMG is that it sticks a bunch of world and campaign building stuff first. It makes it hard if you just want to run an adventure, because you feel you have to put all this effort into it, and obscures actual rules that exist that players don't necessarily know about
I kept telling my groups this but no one ever read the DMG. Now whenever people don't know I can just redirect them to this video. Because why read when someone could explain it with prettt colors.
Hmmmm well as a house rule I designate the difficulty and advantage/disadvantage based on how well the player interacts with the npc (and I see "how well" as what makes more sense in that context, and not "who have the most beautiful way to use words") and what he's asking for the npc. I also had something in mind like friendly and unfriendly. I'm not really sure if it's a good way, but it's my way of encouraging my players into roleplaying their pcs. I didn't know there was a guide in the rules to do it, thanks Zee
I want a video where all these new characters come together. We have the rogue, barbarian, and now wizard. If I had to guess, I'd say that leaves a ranger or a bow fighter to be released.
The term "social encounter" always brings me to a concept that I wanted to explore farther then "make an insight check" or "ok, roll persuasion". The rules presented here work for 90% of the game... they are light weight, quick and adaptable enough to just use them on most encounters... but... What if you wanted to give your socially adept characters the time to shine the same way your blastermage or Axewirling Uberbarbarian do during combat ? - what if you designed a pivotal point in your adventure as a "social encounter" in which the characters have to really work to get the outcome they want and which could hurt them if they bungle it ? A banquett with hidden plots and side dealings they have to navigate, dealing and calling in favors to get to the right person to talk to or foil that nefarious antagonist across the table that they can't just polymorph into a toad. Obviously, you'ld need the right kind of group for such an interlude or you'ld waste time better spent inventing colorful insults for your next vicious mockery while you'r chopping up foes in a dungeon, but with the right combination of players, putting them in a situation where your spells and weapons are not the right tools to fight with would certainly make for an interesting interlude.
It makes them doubly useful! Because now you get to have advantage on Charisma checks against someone who has a Friendly attitude towards you. In the case of Charm Person, it goes all the way to "Friendly Acquaintance" which is better than Friends which technically doesn't say anything about changing their attitude.
@@tomc.5704 It doesn't say it explicitly because it really shouldn't have to. If someone mind-controlled you or overly shifted your thoughts to make you help them, are you saying you would stay friends with that person after it wore off? Or not become hostile to that person? Hell, Charm Person even explicitly states the target is aware they were charmed by you after the fact. The nice thing about 5E is that not absolutely every minute possibility is spelled out perfectly, because there are some things that can be inferred, and it allows flexibility on the DM's part to interpret them. And I don't need it to spell out that being charmed by someone would make an NPC change their attitude towards that person in a negative way.
My personal rule is if someone is convincing enough I will let the succeed depending on the DC. I may even give them advantage. This way roleplaying feels less cosmetic and more rewarding.
Late, but this is how our DM runs things as well. I once stumbled my way through a (rigged on both sides) drinking contest using nothing but role-play. We had rigged the contest using a Tankard of Sobriety whose magic was concealed with Nondetection, while our opponents who we were stealing an artefact from, had an orc join mid contest meaning he was completely fresh while I was (supposed to be) at least a little tipsy. We kept up the charade until our main opponent in the contest, their wizard leader, was dead drunk, then the rest of my group staged some distractions around the inn, drawing attention before I swiped the artefact we were after. Despite only pretending to be drunk our DM did not ask for a roll as long as I myself role-played my supposed drunkenness convincingly.
If the *argument* is convincing enough, sure. But it shouldn't matter how well the *player* delivers the argument at the table. If the DM requires the *player* to be charismatic, then they're preventing players in an RPG from roleplaying a character more charismatic than they are. One of the points of the game is to allow us to imagine ourselves with different abilities than we have in real life. That is much of the fun! If you wouldn't expect a player to be able to somersault in the air in order for their character to succeed on an Acrobatics check, then you understand that it is unfair and impractical to expect players IRL to meet the same requirements their characters need to meet in the game.
When it comes to rolling charisma skills to convince and whatnot, we generally just roll the skill first and THEN act it out. Which, honestly is how it should be done. Imagine combat where the player goes "Okay, so I swing my sword, hitting the enemy in the stomach, spraying blood and viscera all over the flagstones." and THEN roll their attack.
Say that to JC 5e's Rule Designer, but his interaction in roleplaying is neat, mouth farts are not arguments even if you role a nat20. And combat is much more than swinging and missing and tanking all the damage.
See but no one even does that for social encounters. What you did was describe the players action (swinging the sword and hitting) and then the NPC's reaction (bleeding everywhere) What'd be more appropriate if it was like the social interactions people usually do would be Player: 'I swing my sword and hit him in the chest' Dm: 'roll' Player rolls and gets below the enemies AC DM: 'you hit him but your sword fails to penetrate his armour' (or) 'you swing your sword and get him right in the chest, but at the last second the NPC steps back, you barely nick him' both of those outcomes don't invalidate what the player said and allowed for the dice (and the NPCs stats i.e tank vs dex based AC) to impact the actual outcome.
I'm kinda surprised that this wasn't done by most DMs until I played as a player, and they had those magic Persuasion checks that made the murderous goblins decide to unionize and help the party overthrow the dragon. These rules have been around _forever,_ and is why I really never got all those "ChArIsMa cHeCkS aRe BaD" rants.
Zee I really needed this today. Love where your animation is going. Also, I have talked about this subject so many times with my group--that Charisma is a tough nut to crack in general, given the nature of actual roleplaying, i.e. words being said, conversations being had, winks being given, etc... but especially because a "rousing speech" to an NPC that would have otherwise been moved and persuaded by said speech, fails due to a poor or even substandard roll. And as you mentioned, an off-handed goof paired with a nat20 has sometimes meant the DM must be creative to "solve" a nonsensical success haha. Obviously, nonsense has its merits, especially in a fun, loose game where everyone is agreeing to suspend disbelief, but I do have some trouble parsing Charisma in general in a more grounded game where we're dealing in both dice-directed outcomes AND spoken narrative. Simply, roleplay can feel less like roleplay when it's hard to be believed and is determined without player or even DM autonomy.
This just opened up so many news doors for a enchantment wizard, something ive dabbled in as my first D&D character. If i join a new game ill talk to the DM about this system so a insight and charisma based enchantment wizard would work better
Holy crap, you animation has always been great but you really knocked it out of the park this time. Thanks for the videos theyre always a pleasure to watch
I always love hearing that people have thought in depth about these topics, and I love diving into them, but its just so easy to roll once and move on lol.
I’ve gotten to a point where none of my dm’s ask me to roll for social encounters anymore unless it really is up in the air how they would react. I have been told it’s because I roleplay pretty well (I don’t actually believe that but all have said it and none of them know each other so obviously they see something I don’t see). Heck, I had a low charisma character go in at one point, under a disguise self, pretend to be a prisoner but like, a young one who had the misfortune to get caught and manage to wheedle the location of the strong hold from the leader’s captured son because they skirted around actual lying and just let the npc assume they were exactly as they appeared to be. The npc didn’t find out until later when my character, pissed, returned in disguise, told the guy his father was dead and that, even if he escaped, he should never return home because a coupe had successfully taken over. Then dropped the disguise and said it was all this guys fault his own father was dead. Just left after that. Like I said, my character was very angry. That prisoner’s father? We had a friendly npc of ours go down and we were unable to revive them. Had a funeral and then my character did this because they were so angry their friend was dead. But yeah, that’s one example of my dm never having me roll. I have had a few others like me pretending to be the stoic and disinterested but professional bodyguard of our monk (who leaned on his old bloodthirsty mercenary reputation to get in good with these really bad news pirates), I have thrown off a playboy mercenary necromancer npc (bad news) by leaning into my character’s past as being part of a merchant family (customer service smile~) and their current occupation which was a linguistics scholar. The necromancer lost interest and labeled my character a bookworm despite my character having a strength build and three longswords strapped to their belt. Dm said that I played the angle so well that he felt it fit too much to ask for a roll. Oh! And another is when I was asked for a roll but the dm let me bypass anyway because he didn’t think the roll made sense with the situation and how I roll played it. This was when I was pretending to be a hired hunter of a cultist group I had infiltrated (the rest of the party had too but got caught) and some scouts stopped me and questioned me, even contemplating stealing my mount and cart. I had, in a disdainful tone name dropped the quartermaster and how I would love to see them explain to her how they brought back property that was already the cult’s. I also pointed out that the longer they delayed me, the less likely they were getting meat tonight with dinner and to basically buzz off. All the name dropping apparently had them let me pass without stealing anything. I managed to meet up with my party and pick them up and heal them (they got chased by guard drakes) and we headed back to town. Largely a successful mission even though some of us got caught there at the end. But yeah, pretty much a very successful mission and apparently this is how my dm’s have also said I make some good allies for them to pull in later. Like a time we caught a thief, and I, after we retrieved and returned the stolen goods he had, escorted him out of the camp, gave him enough rations, and a pie I had picked up earlier that day, and told him he was better off going south and asking for honest work instead of stealing. Told him such a thing would get him caught sooner than later by people just as skilled if not more than us and they probably wouldn’t be as kind. But, the people in the towns south had just been attacked and were recovering. They would need laborers, even unskilled ones and if he dropped the party’s name in one of those towns, it would get him hired. Dm had the npc thief thank me profusely and then ran off to join his sister. As for why I did that, the thief admitted to having run away from home with his sister because of a terrible home life and he was stealing to keep him and his sister alive. Also, I gave him all those rations because my character has good berry, some apples, and flour, not to mention is a skilled hunter and cook. I figured the rations were worth giving this guy. And, not once was I asked to roll. I did some insight checks on the guy, asking for if he showed any tics that would cue my character into him lying, and what part he was lying about, but he was actually truthful (he was very scared of our cleric who is a very intimidating woman, and actually evil aligned, it’s kinda hilarious how good and evil the party is but also how well we all get along). Anyway, yeah, not much rolls as far as dice go. In all honesty, I don’t have to roll insight much either. I mostly take the skill so I can justify my real skill at reading the dm and how they are playing the npc. I don’t think about how it works. For me it’s like a mental click and “oh hey, that’s what that person is doing and probably thinking.” Even with the lying, I clue in quick. I don’t think about how or why this skill is so accurate for me. I just know it is. But I digress. Insight is probably one of the main social encounter skill I use but even that one is rare. What can I say, I like rp and I am told I’m good at it and I get a nice boost from my irl insight skill. Really, the main skill my dm’s worry about is how often I take the perception skill and max it. That usually is how I get most of my information about those npcs and what is important enough to zero in on and figure out the motives of.
I love that you did this video, and I would go a step further by adding that the rules cover a single "social interaction." The way that I run stuff - and it's just my way, which may or may not be interesting to others - I think of a true "Social Encounter" as made up of several social interactions, probably three "rounds" of them, and it shouldn't and doesn't always have to be your PCs making demands of the NPCs. The inverse should be equally true. That roll at the end of the interaction is essentially you phrasing your question/demand/lie: you are rolling "to hit" and create a Bond. Your target is essentially either the NPC's Ideals or their Flaws. And the end of that interaction can single the end of that round of combat. And whether the character succeeds or fails, the NPC should - in almost every case - get a crack at it too. Play out another round where the NPC targets someone by exploiting their ideal or flaws and tries to force a Bond onto them - a real thing that their character has to think about when they make decisions in the world. If possible, make it a request that isn't *counter* to the party's goals, but *is* in opposition to one of the party's existing bonds. This is how you "deal damage" in a social encounter. It's less about sowing discord between party members (unless that's your table's thing) and much more about creating tension between their goals and how they're going to get there. It's also how you can convince them to waste spells or spend time arguing to run the clock down on important spells the participants (including the NPCs) are running. I generally treat each "social interaction" - as defined in this video, the roleplay before the ask - as happening over a period of several minutes, often mapping to a real-world clock but sometimes, if I'm not in an improv-heavy group, more esoterically as taking roughly 5 to 10 minutes. That means that each time someone rolls "to hit" in the "social interaction", time is ticking away on spells and effects they or their enemies are utilizing. For example, Zones of Truth, Detect Thoughts, Friends, Suggestions, etc. Above all, I try to remember that in Social Encounters - just like in combat encounters - the NPCs Know What They're Doing (TM?).
What I have found to work best is have the player roll their social skill before roleplaying the part, and go based on how they rolled. I think it makes more sense that way, considering that is how most other skill roles work.
Love the new animation style! I'd like to point out something that Cody from Taking20 noticed a while ago: we do social interactions backward from most other checks. Most of the time, we roll first and then fill in what happened based on the roll (yes, there are times that I will ask players how they are doing things to see if it lowers the DC, but most of the time the roll comes first). This could be a problem for people who have social anxiety issues or lack social skills but their character may have a lot of charisma. We don't expect a fighter to be able to physically accomplish (or know how to accomplish) a feat of strength or a Monk/Rogue to do some acrobatic check.
I don't use those exact tables but i do make successes and failures more drastic as needed and i make the ease of social encounters based on how much the npc likes them.
this system is a big part of social interaction, in at least chapter 6 of Out of the Abyss, where you need to sway the opinion of the whole of the Svirfneblin settlers in Blingdenstone. Can't wait to see how my group might mess things up or make things take a fortunate turn lol
