A player's grandiose monologue is the characters intent, what they said in their head. The die roll is how well the character actually delivered it. That is an absolutely beautiful and simple explanation to a very common problem at the table.
When a player rolls bad on a social check (deception, fast talk, intimidate, persuasion…) I will usually ask something like "what is your tell" so they can share some insight on their character's personality and help me build the scene
This is why I prefer reaction rolls. The characters charisma matters but they'll never walk up and say "I persuasion check the guard" I actually think both perception and persuasion skills, while being nice concepts, have a tendency to promote a weird meta game with the way a player interacts with the game world.
@@TA-by9wv To encourage more of the "in character" thinking, I usually ask players to describe what they are doing without saying the name of the skill - I call it "the Taboo rule" Having a description allows to make it more organic and force other players to describe how they will be helping each other (for advantage or for pushing a roll)
Yet players who want to only role play social interaction without modifiers, generally just want to min-max their adventuring skills like fighting and magic and get charisma as close to 3 without consequences as they can. That way they can optimise groovy stuff like combat feats and spells and blag it through social skills. Terrible role playing.
That charm versus intimidation scene was great- many GMs would have just made the player roll intimidate there without giving them the option to rethink, and that can make things less fun. Just saying "would you like to go with that or would your character try a different approach?" is so refreshing to see! It emphasizes the role of the GM as facilitator rather than adversary. This is why I love this channel! When you're worried you might get forced into a check you didn't think about (maybe just by getting carried away in the scene without thinking about stats, which ought to be a good thing because it's fun) you have to be really guarded in how you play, which ends up discouraging trying to play in first person voice at all because we're not professional improv actors and saying the wrong thing suddenly has much higher stakes. Or only the character with the highest Charisma talks at all because everyone else is afraid they'll screw things up and they don't see a way to contribute. Edit: brilliant outro, broke my brain a little having you argue with yourself in other voices about how you're bad at voices...
In my younger days I was more of a, "You said that's what you were doing, so roll Intimidate." Then the player is angry and grumbling how I made them roll a Skill they aren't good at, and I'm angry at them for being angry at my correctly ruling that they were trying an Intimidate, and everyone around the table is feeling this tensions, and no one in the room wins. Then one day I simply decided to explain my rationale of why I'd call it an Intimidate, followed by, "So with that in mind, would your character actually do that, or would you approach it another way instead? and the result was amazing. All of a sudden players were open to coming up with a creative way to overcome the in-game obstacle. It's more of a "GM is working with the players, not against them," approach. I hadn't even thought about my doing that as being a learned trick until you pointed it out.
This is why, as a player in 5e, I like to list my skill proficiencies separately, rather than use the long list of bonuses you see on most character sheets. I see proficiencies partly as role-playing guides, and having them listed separately encourages me to use the skills that my character would mostly rely on, rather than the ones with the highest numbers attached. E.g. my fighter had -1 charisma but proficiency in deception, so he lied reflexively even though he wasn't that good at it. It helps to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings, because I won't often try to use a skill that isn't in my "toolbox". It really relies on a shift in the players' perspective though, not something the GM can do much to encourage.
@@evanhoffman7995 GM's CAN encourage "sub-optimal play" by allowing for adaptations as the situation deteriorates... It's more fun than a "one and done" mindset to rolls, in my opinion. Obviously, it takes a little gift (or skill) at glibness to dance from one foot (of intimidation) to the other (charm/persuasion) in the same conversation... BUT it can be done, and as a GM it helps to be able to demonstrate. BE the Player you want to RP with, in the shortest terms... AND some explanation from time to time can teach them without encouraging too many shenanigans all at once... Obviously a failed roll has to count, too. No consequences means no agency, and that's not what this is. BUT say a Player starts with intimidation, fails... so the GM decides to "give him a chance at recovery" and lets the NPC start laughing... The Player can take the hint, and treat it as a joke, and try turning up the charm next... at least buying a second attempt for whatever the goal before NEEDING another PC to step in for "the rescue" or losing the situation entirely. I rather enjoy (and I think most of us do) watching someone's mental gymnastics and flailing as they try desperately to patchwork a situation back together for a recovery while it's falling apart around them... This obviously puts us in situations where we go directly against Seth's advice about "ONE roll per conversation"... BUT it's a Role Playing Game, NOT Chess. FUN is my top priority, and occasionally even takes the precedent over so-called "progress" on the adventure or Campaign. ;o)
Ok, the end-credit scene was funny as hell and proves that Seth is in fact very good at doing character voices, and so are his players too. They crack me up. :)
Sometimes it's really hard to remember that each of 'the Gang' is actually Seth... My mind doesn't even question anymore that they're each individual people.
@@MonkeyJedi99 I occasionally have to remind myself that each member of 'the Gang' -Todd, Dweebles, Jack, etc...- aren't individual people, they're just characters that Seth acts out brilliantly. He really does a great job breathing life into those roles!
Threatening with Strength or other things is also in the rules for 5e. It says, that the DM can decide to use another base attribute if appropriate. This is why it's not an "Intimidation" but an "Intimidation (Cha)" check regularly. It's a bit clumsily communicated but the intend is exactly the flexibility one should have for things like this.
"Give me your kingdom!" the player says to the king! I would call for a roll. While impossible, at this point, a high roll means the king laughs it off as a joke, on a low roll? He may anywhere from warn them gravely to consider their next words, or just call for their head.
@@bigblue344 Oh Session 0 cures that. Nat 20 only means something on attack rolls in my game. Outside of that, it means the best possible OUTCOME. So in my prior example, a nat 20 means the King takes a liking to your confident comedy, a nat 1? He calls for the guards and headsman.
@@bigblue344 I don't use those rules for auto hits OR auto misses... if a 1 doesn't miss to begin with then the encounter isn't worth rolling for to begin with and if a 20 can't hit normally then the encounter is effectively impossible and ALSO shouldn't have happened
Agreed. If a Nat 20 can't succeed or a Nat 1 won't fail, then there's no need to roll. I saw some internet grumbles about the new D&D playtest rules saying that a '1' is always a failure, and people saying how that's not fair, but my thought was simply, "If you succeed even on a 1, why are you bothering to roll?". Haven't looked at the new D&D rules, but if that's in there, it seems weird people take offense to it. That said, I'm also of the Nat 20 simply means the best possible outcome, even if it's a graceful failure. But those kinds of clearly impossible rolls are usually proceeded with the GM asking, "Are you sure you want to try this?"
I've always played it with rolling the dice then role-playing the result. It's a great challenge to role-play a losing roll and - frankly - absolutely hilarious to role-play a fumble!
Seth, you have inspired my to run my first ever session as a keeper. I ran the Haunting at your recommendation! Although it was messy in some parts for me (that just comes down to learning the rules and being more competent as a keeper) thank you for your tips and inspiration! I’ve been a fan for 5 years now! Keep up the awsome work.
Don't sweat it if it's a little rough the first time you run a new game. That's a totally normal and expected part of the learning curve. I just hope you all had fun with it despite the bumps.
As long as it didn't end with them.burning the house down at the end and turning the next 3 sessions into GTA trying to avoid the cops, I'd argue it probably went fine.
On D&D using Charisma for Intimidate: That is only the default, but in the rules it is already designed that the DM can ask for a different attribute to be used for any of the skills. Just that most of the time, nobody does.
@@sufficientlyadvancedplagiarism I can see all of the stats being used in an intimidation situation, depending on the target. Tie a rapier into a knot - scary strong. Juggle hand grenades - scary dexterous Chug down a pitcher of iocaine - scary constitution Recite the thesis that breaks down all of the errors in a plan - scary intelligent. Make an analysis of the possible moral and mortal outcomes of the baddies' plan - scary wise
In the new version of The Fantasy Trip, the Sex Appeal can be used with Strength, Dexterity, or IQ because you COULD use any of the three so seduce someone. It depends on how you approach the seduction.
I do all the time. More than half the skill checks I call for use different stats than what the sheet asks for; gives a lot of variability to their skills, and it encourages players to be more descriptive in their roleplaying than just saying "can I roll a persuasion check"
As someone sadly lacking the Gift of Gab on both sides of the GM screen, social encounters have always been an area of headache. This way of doing it seems great and will certainly try it out.
Regarding Intimidation and Charisma, having been often "intimidated" by abject doofuses with no charisma in real life, I know very well how being big and strong is not actually threatening if you don't actually know how to look and feel actually intimidating. Sure they beat you up but they failed hard and looked like idiots. Someone using high school bully tactics as adults, especially against people who have any kind of power themselves, doesn't work. BUUUUUUT being big and physical is a huge *advantage*. So I do it like they do in Shadowrun : It's a charisma skill BUT you have massive situational bonuses/penalty depending on the physical/social class/look/reputation etc. which works both ways. So if you can stack your deck and trash your opponent's opposing dice... then your CHA doesn't matter as much. (Similarly being strong and powerful shouldn't matter much when you're trying to intimidate an Orc or an Ogre. You're still a tiny little baby in comparison, so it's a lot more about your ability to effectively push their buttons. Similarly you can be a gnome pornomancer with infinite CHA if you're just too puny to be effectively threatening in any way and your words hold no stakes you'll never get anywhere that way) TL;DR - Charisma is the only element that will be present in every possible intimidation event, while everything else is the situation context that defines what kind of bonuses/penalties you get for the roll
6:32 I think it would almost be impossible to make a single trained sentinel, who wa assigned to guard a door or something, to leave and have it unguarded. It would be more than unprofessional and it would usually have dire consequences for a guard to fail his duty. He might call for a replacement or give the character(s) some hint where to find help.
Good point. Or the guard might be really compassionate with a hero complex (but not very bright or adaptable) in a town with a nasty toad problem! And maybe the characters will later get to see the guard being cruelly punished as a result of the deception… and they feel the crushing guilt of their manipulation of one of the best people in this gods forsaken town.
Joan Jett is the best person to use as an example for a bad reputation. You don't have to worry about offending her because she doesn't give a damn about her bad reputation! ... So, Seth, about telling jokes that go over flat, any tips on surviving them? 😅
About reputation. The Root RPG has this really cool Reputation stat that tracks your reputation with the different factions in the woodland, plus the common folk. I use it in all my political intrigue games, as it works super well for seeing how people of different factions react to your character.
Okay, I normally don't comment until the end of the video but - THIS ONE TIME - I will break that rule. Seth, you win One Full Internet for the full and proper use of Joan Jett in this video. I literally had carbonated beverage come through my nose on that... Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.
I've watched a lot of your videos and I just have to say that you are hilarious and give some of the best advice I've gotten. I've played roleplaying games for 2 decades and came across you when I was deep in my second decade and you've really changed how I play the game and I thank you for that! Also when you talked about system switching, I felt that in my soul! God I start one system up and then start looking hungrily at the next... Well I'm rambling now but I really just wanted to say, thank you for excellent quality sketches and advice!
I think the best way to resolve Charisma rollplay vs roleplay is to think of what the player says as the prep work and the roll as the execution of the plan. If players want to climb a wall, they could just roll athletics or acrobatics, but if they tell you they want to pile up some crates to make a ladder, thats going to increase their chance of success. If the player walks up to a guard and gives them a convincing reason to let the party pass, that should make getting a successful roll easier.
It took me way too long to learn on my own to just summarize some conversations. Had lots of awkward, meaningless character interactions over mundane things like getting a room at an inn that didn’t have any fun value but wasted lots time. Brevity is the soul of wit. If you’re new to tabletop and watching this you’re a lucky bastard! These tips 100% make games more enjoyable, I wish I had em years ago
A fast and easy trick is that players dont ask for rolls nor roll before asked. I present the obstacle "a guard in the entrance" and see what the player does. If they are not doing something physical they Will talk, and when I've heard enough I ask the appropriated skill. I'm ok with negotiating a reaproach.
My theory is you don't have to act it out in a special voice, but you do at least have to tell me what your arguments are. Roleplaying is when you make decisions about what your character does and says. So you have to figure out WHAT IT IS you are saying, the roll determines HOW WELL or POORLY you said it. Just like in Strength or Dex activities, you still have to figure out what the character would do - they still have to come up with I'll carry a huge log and lay it like a bridge across the ravine and THEN the roll determines whether they can do it or not.
The two situations rarely end up equal. You usually have a decent chance of getting that huge log placed as a bridge across the ravine. But the social encounter... You want to ask if you can buy micro-fusion-cells around here... Even if you say you ask nicely... You are decently dressed... You are ordinarily well groomed... And you offer a drink for the answer... You have decent social stats and skills... Then, even if the dice decide "success", you quite often end up with a failure anyway, as you get a piece of useless information instead, like: There are snotlings in the forest.
For me, it all comes down to players declaring - and GMs resolving - actions correctly in the first place. Players don't call for rolls. They declare what their character is trying to do (intention) and how they are trying to do it (approach). Then the GM decides whether a roll is needed and - if so - what kind of roll. The intention determines what success and failure look like. The approach determines the difficulty (ie. how likely the GM thinks it that the approach will result in the intention). Social interaction is no different. The player tells the group what their character is trying to do and how they are trying to do it. Whether it's third-person, first-person or in-character, it doesn't matter. The action will not be ruled upon until the player has communicated their intention and their approach.
@@larsdahl5528 My characters usually have strength as their dump stat so I can tell you I’m more likely to gain useful information out of a conversation than to successfully carry that log 😂
A useful thing to keep in mind is that social encounters are two-way streets, and it is not just the players adjusting their approach to the situation. The players should be aware that the GM is likely changing the way the NPC approaches the social encounter, based on what their perception of the PC is. The guards give way to nobility, the street urchins look at street legends in awe, etc. All these can be factored into the what kind of a roll is needed in the first place, or if it is necessary at all.
Regarding Strength or Intelligence affecting intimidation, that's something Pathfinder offered through Feats. A particularly strong character who is also a bit of a bully might take Intimidating Prowess to add their strength modifier in addition to their charisma. The strength of this system is that it helps focus the character some - some very strong people definitely do not have an intimidating persona.
I think people get too focused on the idea that a savage should just be able to scream and scare everyone off automatically, while D&D, for example, acknowledges that even a beanpole who knows how to stand, to drill in eye contact, what words to use, body language, and radiate hostility, is extremely capable of being intimidating. After all, a strong man can just as easily be a bumbling lout who makes a fool of himself stamping feet or whatever, lacking any degree of tact.
Thank you for making this video. A lot of players both old and new seem to have a hard time understanding that charisma is a lot more than just what you want to say but body language also and other social cues the character does and not the player. Also charisma checks are not mind control, thank you!
Anyone else want to learn more about this plot hook about how all the mayors in this city are related? Love snippets of random game play Seth comes up with!
HOLY FUCK THIS CHANNEL IS GOLD! Hope you get the attention you deserve man, the editing and roleplay examples make things fun and simple to understand. Great work!
I wanna know about the mysterious stranger who bought the Rudecker house! Is it haunted? Are the Gillwraiths casting some kind of illness on people so they can be in charge of the city? Or is one of the Rudeckers still living deep below the house in some subterranean cathedral, getting his revenge on the other families of the city for destroying the Rudecker name?
As a veteran DM with a new-to-roleplaying group of players for the first time in decades, I was struggling with how to engage them better in social encounters. I have gotten used to running games for players who understand TTRPGs and are confident in roleplaying / engaging the story world in less-combat-focused ways, and so I was having trouble pinpointing what I wasn't giving this new group to help them find their footing in social-focused encounters. This video was EXTREMELY helpful, so thank you :) Also, great job with the video itself. Well-written, and well-delivered.
Wow, this is the single-best essay I've ever seen about social encounters. I'm going to put this on my calendar to rewatch once a year just to glean a little more from it and make my game that much better.
Great video, Seth! My two main takeaways are 1. the distinction between roleplaying and theatrics, 2. specifically for CoC, the "second attempt is always a pushed roll, even if it's by a different character"
I tell my players that they tell me what they are saying and what their desired outcome is, the roll determines how confident and articulate their character is when saying it. If the person saying all the suave and charming stuff is sweaty, trembling, and stuttering they are going to seem suspicious and not very believable. No matter how good the words they are saying sound. The player gives the what. The dice give the how. Same as combat. The player says what they are trying to do. The dice say how well they actually do it. I don’t have my players roll to execute a prisoner the same way I don’t have them roll every time they ask a simple question to an NPC.
@@MonkeyJedi99don’t feel bad, a lot of things are impossible to see from one perspective and obvious from others. We all have cognitive blind spots. Being able to identify you have/had one is admirable.
This! I hate that social and mental rolls get a pass while physical are straight D20. I’ve never met a 18 INT or CHA in my life. Why do those rolls get a pass because of role playing?
@@pauljones5407 They should... at least any time it's a "feat" being attempted. Tying your shoes isn't a feat, but DOES require a skill of knot tying to do so properly and neatly... Deftly slipping a figure-8 to your climbing rope as your sliding down an icy glacier and digging into the ground with a grapnel just before you go over the edge to save yourself and your party IS a feat of knot-tying prowess under the duress of imminent and horrible death... SO you better roll whatever knot-tying related ability you have for that... Likewise, understanding a chess board's positions and the tactics of each player down to how many moves the game will probably last SHOULD NOT require a roll against your PC's Chess Skill AS LONG AS he's not directly involved in the game, just standing aside and with plenty of time to study the board (say a long distance game by mail/notation in a corner of a scene)... The PLENTY of time allowed to study and think detaches any angst or involvement and thus makes the assessment no longer a "feat" of intellect... However, your Cyberpunk PC taking on the reincarnation droid of Bobby Fischer WOULD require rolls against his Chess Skill because defeating the digital rebuild of Fischer's ability IN AN ACTUAL GAME is a "Feat of Chess Legend"... The GM can "fiat" whatever mod's depending on the general consensus of how far Chess has been advanced and studied by the time your PC hits the scene... BUT it's still a roll. YOUR ability to play can help setup a few of those mod's, at least allowing you to argue in advocacy of your PC's advantage with an articulate and knowledgeable basis... Fischer's been featured in books already, so while we might understand his "school of thought" it also gives your PC insight to his "charicature on the board"... etc... BUT blanket allowing skills of PC's to be replaced by skills of Players isn't how the mechanic is supposed to function. Charisma skills are often best described as "mental chess", each participant engaged in ferreting out the other's true intentions and whether or not they're trustworthy or a cunning and actual enemy... SO should require a roll, though the Player/GM conversation ends up becoming a mix of references to the subject matter in conversation AND the psychology or "coded terms" or "double-speak" employed behind the scenes. The books often specify a difference in calling for rolls between something taken on at leisure versus something done "when on the spot" such as in combat or during emergencies and crises. ;o)
Notes from a Sadly Forever GM; This is an interesting take on an old debate at my table and I love the separation between theatrics and Role-playing & agree 💯 on it. As for myself; if a player fails at a Social encounter, I'll have the NPC start getting really suspicious and increase the difficulty number by a small amount....as a recent example of this: I just got done running a Star Trek Adventures game where our Role-player Captain had to negotiate for some info from Tasha Yar's Daughter. He failed a Social Encounter against her, so she was gonna get what she wanted either way(and she did later on in the game session), but I still gave my RPer what he wanted, just with a caviat or two. He knew he failed, but he still got it.... Inspector Trevelyan signing off, Keep smiling!
In White Wolf games I'll generally have social skills count as free redoes in case they say something that wouldn't fly. For example having 3 dots of Etiquette has me remind them that you say "Your Majesty" when you meet the Vampire Prince, not " Yo m'dude"
I have what the players plan out and say help determine the dc. Just like picking how to climb a wall with nothing vs with rope and a harness changes that dc. This also makes the benefits somewhat hidden
Yes, but let us just be honest about it: The two tasks rarely end up equal difficulty-wise. The difficulty of a conversation almost always ends up at "nigh on impossible". Whereas scaling the wall gives a somewhat decent chance of success. It is another reason why many dump "Charisma"; in many systems, the chance of getting the needed "critical success" do not increase with higher stat.
@@larsdahl5528 That's just players having poor planning for who they need to convince with social checks. Its no different than a player asking to scale a sheer cliff free hand.
@@larsdahl5528 Why should it be nigh on impossible? This is a weird assumption, and I think it tells more about your GM than anything else. If a character proposes a reasonable deal then it should have a good chance of success, and vice versa.
This Reminds me of an old D&D 3.5 war story. The party was charged by the town guard to arrest some bad guys. Our gnome sorcerer has dancing lights going like cops siren, and we took these guys by surprise. We surrounded the bag guys, and they basically gave up without a fight. We did this by a combo of my barbarians intimidate check, and the Gnome's diplomacy. So the Gnome goes I am going to order them to face the wall, and take off all their stuff. Obviously they meant for Bad Guys to drop their weapon & armor. The Gnome’s player rolls, and it’s a Nat 1 The DM smiles,and looks the Gnome’s player in the eyes “You order them to face the wall, which they do, and at the top of your lungs you yell at them to get naked.” It was at that point their compliance ended and the fight began.
Roll a die. High option A, low option B. The big guy starts chuckling. "First time?" "Hey Joe. VIRGINS"! Joe now starts grinning. Both turn around and the big guy begins to empty his Entire arsenal into the counter. It takes him a good ten minutes before he even starts undressing. It doesn't take Joe nearly as long. Two minutes and his dayglow behind is glowing in the florescent lights. You handcuff them in the corner of the room. Big Jo says " I see I need to teach you how to properly bind someone too." He then winks at you and blows you a kiss. What the PC's don't know is while big Jo was doing his theatrics, little Joe had pressed the silent alarm. The PC's are now walking into a trap. Have fun 😊.
I sometimes ask a player, if I think the player has a good comeback (my GM that also plays in my game is great at this) if they have a way to explain their failure, letting them act as an ape themselves, othertimes, if I don't have any idea how a fail happens, I just show them the NPCs reaction, like being outrageous if a charm check fails.
As someone who mostly ran games like D&D and Pathfinder for years and recently started running Vampire: The Masquerade (which is a lot more socially focused), this was super useful.
Great video but I dont really agree with not having a roll if the task is impossible. When you ask the guard to hand over their weapons for example you can still have a range of failure, rolling low might land you into trouble while the guard might just laugh it off and buy you a drink when he sees you in the tavern afterwards if you roll high. Both of which are failures.
Welcome to the channel. Already covered ways of redefining failure for Clearly Impossible Tasks and making it a spectrum of failure - th-cam.com/video/rBARR3ipqNA/w-d-xo.html
Thank you again. I was literally pacing back and forth trying to overhaul my social rules for my campaign and then I see a notification from your vid drop.
Me too! I have been thinking about this for a year and come to almost identical conclusions to Seth. “Operationalising”’it is the hard part. Imho having a procedure is key, even if sometimes you roll and sometimes you arbitrate. The only difference I have is I think deception is a form of persuasion so should be part of that skill l.
Legend of the Five Rings has the best social encounter rules of any system I've played. At the base level, you don't have concrete characteristics like strength or intelligence, you have the five rings which represent different temperaments and ways of going about things. Which ring you use in conjunction with which skill informs the Approach (the mechanical term) for how you're going about what you're doing. Accordingly, a Fire check to convince someone to do something would be inspiring and motivating them to do it, while an Air check might be tricking them into thinking it was their idea all along. This system allows whole parties to all be using the same skill, but in different ways and with different techniques that reflect their character's temperament and personality as much as it represents their skills.
Ever since I was a teenager playing Morrowind for the original XBox, I was fascinated by building a character around charisma and other non combat skills. Approaching and solving problems by avoiding combat appeals to me as a player, and is something that gives me difficulty in D&D, because that games is combat focused at its core.
Great advice overall, especially when you focus on the difference between roleplaying and "being theatrical," and how some players who are good at the former may not be comfortable with the latter. This video gets saved for later reference.
useful and well presented. I don't make the players speak in funny voices or anything but, I look for moments in the game that have the potential for something memorable/funny happen, and there, I might ask them to play it out a bit like: "Everything's fine, we're all fine down here..." "Who is this? what's your operating number!?!" I want every game I have to have at least one meme-worthy exchange happen.
The section on how the PCs appear reminds me: The campaign I just finished playing had me playing a gnome entertainer who is secretly (ish) a rogue who sometimes works for the thieves' guild, and one of my teammates was a proper knight. A common excuse was that my character is simply his character's traveling jester, and this was a very effective way of getting my character ignored.
What brilliant advice, thanks! I love the “try again but if you fail the consequences are worse” rule. It’s like a simple, quick and dirty way of controlling the stakes the way you do with “position and effect” in Blades in the Dark.
I would say you should roll and then play according to that roll you got. If you rolled good - then give it your all and do your characters best. If you rolled bad - let them blunder, play them at their worst. Great video anyways - and a still divisive topic for sure.
While I like that in concept, I feel only big "Actor-Roleplayers" being the only ones to really enjoy that. A lot of players will simply feel deflated or even angry having to play out their character's inevitable failure. In the end it's personal preference, and if that's what your group enjoys, then by all means that's how you should do it. Personally, I prefer the intended dialogue first, mostly because of the GM needing to know what skill to use (if the game uses different social skills) and because certain things the PC says might help or hinder the roll. Rolling first and then playing it out makes it impossible to judge in their planned approach would have made a significant difference in the result.
One of my players is still learning to be more vocal with Roleplay. Her most memorable characters don't always speak but they've got special attitudes when they speak that make them unique. In a recent new game, set in Candlekeep, she branched into doing an accent, and while it's not Oscar Worthy, it's actually adorable and it feels as unique as her other 2 characters. I'm happy for her growth and look forward to more.
This is great! I would suggest you get players to tell you what they want (I want the guard to let me through the gate) AND what their tactic is (I'm going to convince them I live in there). This latter is what in-character dialogue can replace. Also, I usually try to think of social rolls as affecting what the NPC FEELS about the player. So a high deception roll doesn't necessarily mean they believe you. It means they think you're a very trustworthy person. They're more likely to believe you if they have not reason to believe the contrary, but if you're trying to convince them of something they know to be false, a high roll means they think you've made an honest mistake, or that they must've misunderstood what you were saying (This is the Gate of Skulls! No one lives in here! You must have gotten turned around... The gate of swords is right over there.) It's still not true, but you couldn't have been LYING to them.
That mono(?)logue at the end reminds me of every time I have to do multiple NPCs having a conversation. Sometimes when getting ready for a session I try to rehearse the voices and I'm glad my wife knows about my hobby or there would be deeper concern festering in our marriage with her spouse breaking into conversation with mostly no one else around.
In a D&D 3.5 campaign I ran, there was a Bardick Skald named Danzig vum Beethoven. He ended up being the leader of the party, though it wasn’t really his choice… now whenever he went to make a big decision on how to handle a situation tactically, he would consult his profession(soldier) skill, and asked me questions. Like, “wouldn’t my character know where a good captain would put guards and when they might schedule guard changes?” It was a great way for a player who lacked confidence in their leadership and choices to have their character roll on making a plan
I like to watch those audit the police videos and try and work out as I watch weather they failed their charm intimidation persuasion or deception check.
Over the last few years this channel has quickly become part of my tool box for running tabletop, both as a GM and providing aids for players new and old alike! A hearty like, sub and share from me!
My own way of handling these kinds of Charisma/Intelligence rolls is very similar to how Seth described his way of handling this. Though Many of the things he brought up were really good ways to handle this kind of playstyle that I had never thought of. The way of the awesome player speech being kneecapped by a shit roll being handled as a coming out horribly; letting players re-approach a situation based on the kind of skill they want to use; Breaking up an otherwise impossible action ("I convince the king to give me his kingdom") into multiple skill checks spread over a long time to be attainable (You can be the king's loyal servant and eventually become next in line for the throne). I'm going to be adding these stuff to my own DMing. This video was really helpful.
I've been running OSE a lot lately and I've really been enjoying the idea that players want to interact with the world in a way that makes it so they don't need a dice roll. Like bribing the guard so he lets them in or finding out a way to black mail someone for more info. For each I would make a reaction roll for the NPC to see how they respond to the players action, giving possible bonuses or penalties depending on how the players initially interact with the NPC.
I like how Obsidian Entertainment has approached this in their RPGs by having thresholds for skills. If your character meets a threshold, then they have an appropriate dialogue for success, and if they don't, then they have a different dialogue (often but not always funny too). Some people don't like having such an auto success feature, but I like how it rewards different builds. I guess it also works as a single player RPG, versus having a party of skill monkeys who can solve every problem as a team.
I like to use the success by degrees method. If the player tries to deceive a guard and they barely succeed the roll, the guard may say “ok, but I’m watching you”. Conversely, if they easily pass the check, the guard just opens the door and apologizes for wasting their time.
I honestly am bad at social encounters but after switching to Cyberpunk I've grown a lot in only a couple months of playing. This video definitely helps even more. Thanks Seth.
I really appreciate the timing of this video. I have been following your Traveller game on Glass Cannon, and many of these thoughts crossed my mind during the last session.
Three things: Regarding reputation: it will be easier (usually) for PC to succesfully interact with npc of similar background. In traveler for example someone with couple terms of military career will have easier time dealing with military and in fantasy setting dwarf will have easier time dealing with dwarves, just because PC knows how things are done in that culture. And other thing: support. You mentioned it when talking about insight to determine angle of approach, I use it wider: Hulk of a PC can roll strength to support intimidate by other pc. And related: relevant skills. In conversation it may be important for PC to know what they are talking about. I use 'roll lower' rule from savage worlds, when for example pcs are discussing battle plans with allies they will roll lower of persuade (or what is relevant skill for their approach) and tactics.
Not gonna lie Seth, I busted a gut laughing when you showed Joan Jett as an example of "Bad Reputation". Probably only a handful of us get the joke. xD
In my game, a player that makes EI great effort doing the role-play as opposed to the ROLL-play, will often get advantage on the roll as a reward. If they do a dynamite job I will also give them an inspiration for wowing us. My players are not typically good at the role-play as much as they are at building broken characters, so I HEAVILY reward them when they both give us a great effort and delivery.
For me it comes down to the fact that in a game with more than one social stat (traditional Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy for instance) -- what the player SAYS will influence what roll they make. A player saying "Can I make a diplomacy check?" will immediately get a "That depends, what do you say?" from me. But ultimately if you're a wallflower I'm not going to make you put on a big performance. Some games do reward this with advantage (World of Darkness games come to mind) but I've never really penalized or rewarded players with a bonus for a good/bad performance.
First, I love the channel, my man and congrats on your silver play button. Mad respect. In terms of your definition of roleplaying, I disagree. Roleplaying is acting out the behavior of your character when possible, especially in social encounters. As a GM, and really for everyone around the table, how someone says something is just as important as what they say and will (and should) affect the charisma or social check depending on what game you're playing. High level roleplaying is not just theatrics. It's informative as well for everyone around the table. It gives people the data they need to formulate their character's action in response. This is where we cross roads a bit. Where we depart is in requiring roleplaying. I require it. It's not about doing it well, it's about doing it period, because...uh... it's a roleplaying game. However, I agree that you need both low level rollplay and high level roleplaying. If you have just low level rollplay, it's boring as dirt, and you're always having to ask clarifying questions that could be answered in high level roleplaying. However, if all you have is high level roleplaying, it's chaos. There's no structure, no cohesive story, and it ends up being a group of characters pursuing their own arbitrary, ego-driven goals without respect to the others around the table - normally. You need them both. My philosophy, however, gives priority to high level roleplaying. Keep on keeping on, my man. Much love. Peace and hair grease! 🙂👊🏿 Happy gaming!
06:36 How professional is the guard? "Help! Help! A giant toad has come up from the sewer and swallowed a small boy!" The guard yells over his shoulder, "Flying Watch to the North Gate!" and then charges to the rescue. As the gate gets reenforced by two guards, the PC suddenly realizes that he needs to find someplace to hide.
First off, that was a PERFECT selection for the Intimidation screen shot! On a more serious note, I enjoy re-roleplaying failed social rolls as a sort of, "so this is what really happened." Dramatic delivery! Wait! Rewind! /facepalm
Another thing to consider about low-charisma characters attempting charisma checks is to view it as a feature, not a bug. Han Solo is a character who thinks he's far more charming than he actually is. Like...yeah, he's charismatic but whenever he tries to fast-talk himself out of a situation it fails hilariously. Yet he tries it again and again.
Playing a character consistently according to the character's personality, values, quirks, shortcomings, mood of the day etc is a great point (on I added some fluff there) which is often confused. This applies to all areas of the game, social, combat etc. I've preferred the bonus to the die roll approach when the description supports it. The randomness might also come from the factor of how the recipient takes it individually on that moment. There's lots the character attempting the influencing doesn't know. Maybe the guard is super loyal or dutiful.
❤️ this video! i have had some bold player expectations with high rolls…only to have the guards arrest them! based on clothes, age, behavior, culture. “But i commanded them with a 24! they should think i am a general. They have to do as i say” “yr character is 13 and wearing a uniform 3 sizes to big with a blaster mark on its back. plus you have spiky blonde hair…in star wars.”
Cool new shirt, but, oh man, poor Dweebles! Please tell me that he didn't take the 10% rating too hard. (Side note: I had to take a double take, but Joan Jett at 11:36 made me laugh for real)
Requiring the player and the Dm to know the pc's intent before a roll is pretty much how I've run my game all along, even in combat! It's cool to hear that method is being used elsewhere. Great video!
I actually saw someone giving "build advice" on the internet a couple months ago and they actually said something in the lines "aways dump your charisma, because your GM will let you roleplay social encounters anyway". And my experience with people that thinks roleplaying is making voices is their characters have one personality when they are talking and then a totally different personality during the rest of the game. ... I never encountered a player on the other side of this problem tho.
Now, a GM insisting on having the player do the talking (instead of their character) is not the only reason to dump the character's (charisma) stats. Another widespread reason for that dumping of stats is that those stats make no difference (even when it is the character doing it).
A player's grandiose monologue is the characters intent, what they said in their head. The die roll is how well the character actually delivered it. That is an absolutely beautiful and simple explanation to a very common problem at the table.
When a player rolls bad on a social check (deception, fast talk, intimidate, persuasion…) I will usually ask something like "what is your tell" so they can share some insight on their character's personality and help me build the scene
Yoink I'm stealing that.
Cool idea!!
This is why I prefer reaction rolls. The characters charisma matters but they'll never walk up and say "I persuasion check the guard"
I actually think both perception and persuasion skills, while being nice concepts, have a tendency to promote a weird meta game with the way a player interacts with the game world.
That’s gold Pedro, gold!
@@TA-by9wv To encourage more of the "in character" thinking, I usually ask players to describe what they are doing without saying the name of the skill - I call it "the Taboo rule"
Having a description allows to make it more organic and force other players to describe how they will be helping each other (for advantage or for pushing a roll)
Players who treat Charisma checks like a mind control spell probably also treat Intelligence like a solve puzzle spell
Yet players who want to only role play social interaction without modifiers, generally just want to min-max their adventuring skills like fighting and magic and get charisma as close to 3 without consequences as they can. That way they can optimise groovy stuff like combat feats and spells and blag it through social skills. Terrible role playing.
Real life conversation is a stumbling meandering string of small talk.
So true.
Thanks for the recognition that Theatrics and Role-playing are separate entities. They work great together but theatrics is the lesser partner.
That charm versus intimidation scene was great- many GMs would have just made the player roll intimidate there without giving them the option to rethink, and that can make things less fun. Just saying "would you like to go with that or would your character try a different approach?" is so refreshing to see! It emphasizes the role of the GM as facilitator rather than adversary. This is why I love this channel!
When you're worried you might get forced into a check you didn't think about (maybe just by getting carried away in the scene without thinking about stats, which ought to be a good thing because it's fun) you have to be really guarded in how you play, which ends up discouraging trying to play in first person voice at all because we're not professional improv actors and saying the wrong thing suddenly has much higher stakes. Or only the character with the highest Charisma talks at all because everyone else is afraid they'll screw things up and they don't see a way to contribute.
Edit: brilliant outro, broke my brain a little having you argue with yourself in other voices about how you're bad at voices...
All it was missing was Jack
In my younger days I was more of a, "You said that's what you were doing, so roll Intimidate." Then the player is angry and grumbling how I made them roll a Skill they aren't good at, and I'm angry at them for being angry at my correctly ruling that they were trying an Intimidate, and everyone around the table is feeling this tensions, and no one in the room wins. Then one day I simply decided to explain my rationale of why I'd call it an Intimidate, followed by, "So with that in mind, would your character actually do that, or would you approach it another way instead? and the result was amazing. All of a sudden players were open to coming up with a creative way to overcome the in-game obstacle. It's more of a "GM is working with the players, not against them," approach.
I hadn't even thought about my doing that as being a learned trick until you pointed it out.
Seth, the outro cracked me up. Nice one!
This is why, as a player in 5e, I like to list my skill proficiencies separately, rather than use the long list of bonuses you see on most character sheets. I see proficiencies partly as role-playing guides, and having them listed separately encourages me to use the skills that my character would mostly rely on, rather than the ones with the highest numbers attached. E.g. my fighter had -1 charisma but proficiency in deception, so he lied reflexively even though he wasn't that good at it. It helps to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings, because I won't often try to use a skill that isn't in my "toolbox". It really relies on a shift in the players' perspective though, not something the GM can do much to encourage.
@@evanhoffman7995 GM's CAN encourage "sub-optimal play" by allowing for adaptations as the situation deteriorates... It's more fun than a "one and done" mindset to rolls, in my opinion.
Obviously, it takes a little gift (or skill) at glibness to dance from one foot (of intimidation) to the other (charm/persuasion) in the same conversation... BUT it can be done, and as a GM it helps to be able to demonstrate. BE the Player you want to RP with, in the shortest terms... AND some explanation from time to time can teach them without encouraging too many shenanigans all at once...
Obviously a failed roll has to count, too. No consequences means no agency, and that's not what this is. BUT say a Player starts with intimidation, fails... so the GM decides to "give him a chance at recovery" and lets the NPC start laughing... The Player can take the hint, and treat it as a joke, and try turning up the charm next... at least buying a second attempt for whatever the goal before NEEDING another PC to step in for "the rescue" or losing the situation entirely.
I rather enjoy (and I think most of us do) watching someone's mental gymnastics and flailing as they try desperately to patchwork a situation back together for a recovery while it's falling apart around them... This obviously puts us in situations where we go directly against Seth's advice about "ONE roll per conversation"... BUT it's a Role Playing Game, NOT Chess.
FUN is my top priority, and occasionally even takes the precedent over so-called "progress" on the adventure or Campaign. ;o)
Ok, the end-credit scene was funny as hell and proves that Seth is in fact very good at doing character voices, and so are his players too. They crack me up. :)
Doing voices while doing voices is some next level shit :D
Sometimes it's really hard to remember that each of 'the Gang' is actually Seth... My mind doesn't even question anymore that they're each individual people.
@@witchdoctor1394 Wait. What?
@@MonkeyJedi99 I occasionally have to remind myself that each member of 'the Gang' -Todd, Dweebles, Jack, etc...- aren't individual people, they're just characters that Seth acts out brilliantly. He really does a great job breathing life into those roles!
hard disagree. i skip those parts of the video.
“I approach him and … 24 on the deception.” Hahaha classic move!
Threatening with Strength or other things is also in the rules for 5e.
It says, that the DM can decide to use another base attribute if appropriate. This is why it's not an "Intimidation" but an "Intimidation (Cha)" check regularly.
It's a bit clumsily communicated but the intend is exactly the flexibility one should have for things like this.
"Give me your kingdom!" the player says to the king!
I would call for a roll. While impossible, at this point, a high roll means the king laughs it off as a joke, on a low roll? He may anywhere from warn them gravely to consider their next words, or just call for their head.
You have to be careful of those people that insist it works anyway because they rolled a "nat 20!"
@@bigblue344 Oh Session 0 cures that. Nat 20 only means something on attack rolls in my game. Outside of that, it means the best possible OUTCOME. So in my prior example, a nat 20 means the King takes a liking to your confident comedy, a nat 1? He calls for the guards and headsman.
@@bigblue344 I don't use those rules for auto hits OR auto misses... if a 1 doesn't miss to begin with then the encounter isn't worth rolling for to begin with and if a 20 can't hit normally then the encounter is effectively impossible and ALSO shouldn't have happened
Agreed. If a Nat 20 can't succeed or a Nat 1 won't fail, then there's no need to roll. I saw some internet grumbles about the new D&D playtest rules saying that a '1' is always a failure, and people saying how that's not fair, but my thought was simply, "If you succeed even on a 1, why are you bothering to roll?". Haven't looked at the new D&D rules, but if that's in there, it seems weird people take offense to it.
That said, I'm also of the Nat 20 simply means the best possible outcome, even if it's a graceful failure. But those kinds of clearly impossible rolls are usually proceeded with the GM asking, "Are you sure you want to try this?"
@@SSkorkowsky And usually the player confidently stating "yes". :) Not always, but mostly.
I've always played it with rolling the dice then role-playing the result. It's a great challenge to role-play a losing roll and - frankly - absolutely hilarious to role-play a fumble!
Seth, you have inspired my to run my first ever session as a keeper. I ran the Haunting at your recommendation! Although it was messy in some parts for me (that just comes down to learning the rules and being more competent as a keeper) thank you for your tips and inspiration! I’ve been a fan for 5 years now! Keep up the awsome work.
Don't sweat it if it's a little rough the first time you run a new game. That's a totally normal and expected part of the learning curve. I just hope you all had fun with it despite the bumps.
As long as it didn't end with them.burning the house down at the end and turning the next 3 sessions into GTA trying to avoid the cops, I'd argue it probably went fine.
Great! Really helpful even for experienced GMs, I think this is one, if not THE most difficult thing in TTRPGs. Sensible and well explained.
Bravo!
On D&D using Charisma for Intimidate: That is only the default, but in the rules it is already designed that the DM can ask for a different attribute to be used for any of the skills. Just that most of the time, nobody does.
And using Strength for Intimidate is the classic example for using a non-standard attribute.
@@sufficientlyadvancedplagiarism I can see all of the stats being used in an intimidation situation, depending on the target.
Tie a rapier into a knot - scary strong.
Juggle hand grenades - scary dexterous
Chug down a pitcher of iocaine - scary constitution
Recite the thesis that breaks down all of the errors in a plan - scary intelligent.
Make an analysis of the possible moral and mortal outcomes of the baddies' plan - scary wise
In the new version of The Fantasy Trip, the Sex Appeal can be used with Strength, Dexterity, or IQ because you COULD use any of the three so seduce someone. It depends on how you approach the seduction.
I do all the time. More than half the skill checks I call for use different stats than what the sheet asks for; gives a lot of variability to their skills, and it encourages players to be more descriptive in their roleplaying than just saying "can I roll a persuasion check"
Which makes sense, a huge size Goliath would be way more intimidating than a squishy gnome
The Keanu Reeves / Joan Jett reputation slide was amazing!!
The end skit really got me XD
Sometimes when I listen to Seth's videos with just the audio, I legit forget that it's all the same person
As someone sadly lacking the Gift of Gab on both sides of the GM screen, social encounters have always been an area of headache. This way of doing it seems great and will certainly try it out.
Regarding Intimidation and Charisma, having been often "intimidated" by abject doofuses with no charisma in real life, I know very well how being big and strong is not actually threatening if you don't actually know how to look and feel actually intimidating. Sure they beat you up but they failed hard and looked like idiots. Someone using high school bully tactics as adults, especially against people who have any kind of power themselves, doesn't work. BUUUUUUT being big and physical is a huge *advantage*. So I do it like they do in Shadowrun : It's a charisma skill BUT you have massive situational bonuses/penalty depending on the physical/social class/look/reputation etc. which works both ways. So if you can stack your deck and trash your opponent's opposing dice... then your CHA doesn't matter as much. (Similarly being strong and powerful shouldn't matter much when you're trying to intimidate an Orc or an Ogre. You're still a tiny little baby in comparison, so it's a lot more about your ability to effectively push their buttons. Similarly you can be a gnome pornomancer with infinite CHA if you're just too puny to be effectively threatening in any way and your words hold no stakes you'll never get anywhere that way)
TL;DR - Charisma is the only element that will be present in every possible intimidation event, while everything else is the situation context that defines what kind of bonuses/penalties you get for the roll
This is true. Negotiations can often pivot on a single, well pointed observation
6:32 I think it would almost be impossible to make a single trained sentinel, who wa assigned to guard a door or something, to leave and have it unguarded. It would be more than unprofessional and it would usually have dire consequences for a guard to fail his duty. He might call for a replacement or give the character(s) some hint where to find help.
Good point.
Or the guard might be really compassionate with a hero complex (but not very bright or adaptable) in a town with a nasty toad problem!
And maybe the characters will later get to see the guard being cruelly punished as a result of the deception… and they feel the crushing guilt of their manipulation of one of the best people in this gods forsaken town.
Ah, new Seth Skorkowsky video, always a great day when that happens!
Seth, where's Jack D'AnnPeeSee? What have you done with him? Ohhh... If you've hurt him, there will be hell to pay.
Joan Jett is the best person to use as an example for a bad reputation.
You don't have to worry about offending her because she doesn't give a damn about her bad reputation!
...
So, Seth, about telling jokes that go over flat, any tips on surviving them? 😅
About reputation. The Root RPG has this really cool Reputation stat that tracks your reputation with the different factions in the woodland, plus the common folk. I use it in all my political intrigue games, as it works super well for seeing how people of different factions react to your character.
Found out about Root a couple of days ago, Looks awesome
Definitely recommend Root if you like Redwall-like stories, it has become my favorite game to run.
@@tuomasronnberg5244 redwall? Sorry I’m not familiar
the Root board game is also awesome, highly recommend it for everyone who hasn't tried it yet.
@@jeluenhayo2410 my pals love it!
Okay, I normally don't comment until the end of the video but - THIS ONE TIME - I will break that rule.
Seth, you win One Full Internet for the full and proper use of Joan Jett in this video. I literally had carbonated beverage come through my nose on that...
Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.
Hear, hear!
You were literally bubbling over with joy...!
Would thy kindly tell us mere mortals where how and what?
@@gendor5199 11:36, That's Joan Jett opposite Reeves. Awesome rocker who had a hit with the song "Bad Reputation"
edit spelling
I've watched a lot of your videos and I just have to say that you are hilarious and give some of the best advice I've gotten. I've played roleplaying games for 2 decades and came across you when I was deep in my second decade and you've really changed how I play the game and I thank you for that! Also when you talked about system switching, I felt that in my soul! God I start one system up and then start looking hungrily at the next...
Well I'm rambling now but I really just wanted to say, thank you for excellent quality sketches and advice!
Happy to help. My goal is that if I can't be helpful, I can at least be entertaining. It's always nice when I manage to pull of both.
I think the best way to resolve Charisma rollplay vs roleplay is to think of what the player says as the prep work and the roll as the execution of the plan.
If players want to climb a wall, they could just roll athletics or acrobatics, but if they tell you they want to pile up some crates to make a ladder, thats going to increase their chance of success.
If the player walks up to a guard and gives them a convincing reason to let the party pass, that should make getting a successful roll easier.
It took me way too long to learn on my own to just summarize some conversations. Had lots of awkward, meaningless character interactions over mundane things like getting a room at an inn that didn’t have any fun value but wasted lots time. Brevity is the soul of wit.
If you’re new to tabletop and watching this you’re a lucky bastard! These tips 100% make games more enjoyable, I wish I had em years ago
A fast and easy trick is that players dont ask for rolls nor roll before asked. I present the obstacle "a guard in the entrance" and see what the player does. If they are not doing something physical they Will talk, and when I've heard enough I ask the appropriated skill. I'm ok with negotiating a reaproach.
My theory is you don't have to act it out in a special voice, but you do at least have to tell me what your arguments are. Roleplaying is when you make decisions about what your character does and says. So you have to figure out WHAT IT IS you are saying, the roll determines HOW WELL or POORLY you said it. Just like in Strength or Dex activities, you still have to figure out what the character would do - they still have to come up with I'll carry a huge log and lay it like a bridge across the ravine and THEN the roll determines whether they can do it or not.
The two situations rarely end up equal.
You usually have a decent chance of getting that huge log placed as a bridge across the ravine.
But the social encounter... You want to ask if you can buy micro-fusion-cells around here... Even if you say you ask nicely... You are decently dressed... You are ordinarily well groomed... And you offer a drink for the answer... You have decent social stats and skills... Then, even if the dice decide "success", you quite often end up with a failure anyway, as you get a piece of useless information instead, like: There are snotlings in the forest.
For me, it all comes down to players declaring - and GMs resolving - actions correctly in the first place.
Players don't call for rolls. They declare what their character is trying to do (intention) and how they are trying to do it (approach). Then the GM decides whether a roll is needed and - if so - what kind of roll.
The intention determines what success and failure look like. The approach determines the difficulty (ie. how likely the GM thinks it that the approach will result in the intention).
Social interaction is no different. The player tells the group what their character is trying to do and how they are trying to do it. Whether it's third-person, first-person or in-character, it doesn't matter. The action will not be ruled upon until the player has communicated their intention and their approach.
@@larsdahl5528 My characters usually have strength as their dump stat so I can tell you I’m more likely to gain useful information out of a conversation than to successfully carry that log 😂
A useful thing to keep in mind is that social encounters are two-way streets, and it is not just the players adjusting their approach to the situation. The players should be aware that the GM is likely changing the way the NPC approaches the social encounter, based on what their perception of the PC is. The guards give way to nobility, the street urchins look at street legends in awe, etc. All these can be factored into the what kind of a roll is needed in the first place, or if it is necessary at all.
Regarding Strength or Intelligence affecting intimidation, that's something Pathfinder offered through Feats. A particularly strong character who is also a bit of a bully might take Intimidating Prowess to add their strength modifier in addition to their charisma. The strength of this system is that it helps focus the character some - some very strong people definitely do not have an intimidating persona.
I love those feats, but I also love the variable that Travaller does, where depending on the stats, so you can change it on the fly.
@@skyguy713 WoD also changes it on the fly.
I think people get too focused on the idea that a savage should just be able to scream and scare everyone off automatically, while D&D, for example, acknowledges that even a beanpole who knows how to stand, to drill in eye contact, what words to use, body language, and radiate hostility, is extremely capable of being intimidating. After all, a strong man can just as easily be a bumbling lout who makes a fool of himself stamping feet or whatever, lacking any degree of tact.
Thank you for making this video. A lot of players both old and new seem to have a hard time understanding that charisma is a lot more than just what you want to say but body language also and other social cues the character does and not the player. Also charisma checks are not mind control, thank you!
Seth's flex on ability to do character voices at the end, all while saying he can't do them is hilarious. Well done good sir.
Anyone else want to learn more about this plot hook about how all the mayors in this city are related? Love snippets of random game play Seth comes up with!
Seth’s voice changing and his eyes checking the horizon every so often..... he rolls Intimidate + 20%....... !
"Hello, internet. Seth Skorkowsky." Pretty sure this has become one of my comfort phrases.
HOLY FUCK THIS CHANNEL IS GOLD!
Hope you get the attention you deserve man, the editing and roleplay examples make things fun and simple to understand. Great work!
Thank you very much. Welcome to the channel.
I wanna know about the mysterious stranger who bought the Rudecker house! Is it haunted? Are the Gillwraiths casting some kind of illness on people so they can be in charge of the city? Or is one of the Rudeckers still living deep below the house in some subterranean cathedral, getting his revenge on the other families of the city for destroying the Rudecker name?
As a veteran DM with a new-to-roleplaying group of players for the first time in decades, I was struggling with how to engage them better in social encounters. I have gotten used to running games for players who understand TTRPGs and are confident in roleplaying / engaging the story world in less-combat-focused ways, and so I was having trouble pinpointing what I wasn't giving this new group to help them find their footing in social-focused encounters. This video was EXTREMELY helpful, so thank you :)
Also, great job with the video itself. Well-written, and well-delivered.
Wow, this is the single-best essay I've ever seen about social encounters. I'm going to put this on my calendar to rewatch once a year just to glean a little more from it and make my game that much better.
Great video, Seth! My two main takeaways are 1. the distinction between roleplaying and theatrics, 2. specifically for CoC, the "second attempt is always a pushed roll, even if it's by a different character"
I tell my players that they tell me what they are saying and what their desired outcome is, the roll determines how confident and articulate their character is when saying it.
If the person saying all the suave and charming stuff is sweaty, trembling, and stuttering they are going to seem suspicious and not very believable. No matter how good the words they are saying sound.
The player gives the what. The dice give the how.
Same as combat. The player says what they are trying to do. The dice say how well they actually do it. I don’t have my players roll to execute a prisoner the same way I don’t have them roll every time they ask a simple question to an NPC.
That is such an obvious explanation. I am kicking myself for not figuring out for myself over the last 40 years of playing RPGs...
@@MonkeyJedi99don’t feel bad, a lot of things are impossible to see from one perspective and obvious from others.
We all have cognitive blind spots. Being able to identify you have/had one is admirable.
This! I hate that social and mental rolls get a pass while physical are straight D20. I’ve never met a 18 INT or CHA in my life. Why do those rolls get a pass because of role playing?
@@pauljones5407 They should... at least any time it's a "feat" being attempted. Tying your shoes isn't a feat, but DOES require a skill of knot tying to do so properly and neatly... Deftly slipping a figure-8 to your climbing rope as your sliding down an icy glacier and digging into the ground with a grapnel just before you go over the edge to save yourself and your party IS a feat of knot-tying prowess under the duress of imminent and horrible death... SO you better roll whatever knot-tying related ability you have for that...
Likewise, understanding a chess board's positions and the tactics of each player down to how many moves the game will probably last SHOULD NOT require a roll against your PC's Chess Skill AS LONG AS he's not directly involved in the game, just standing aside and with plenty of time to study the board (say a long distance game by mail/notation in a corner of a scene)... The PLENTY of time allowed to study and think detaches any angst or involvement and thus makes the assessment no longer a "feat" of intellect... However, your Cyberpunk PC taking on the reincarnation droid of Bobby Fischer WOULD require rolls against his Chess Skill because defeating the digital rebuild of Fischer's ability IN AN ACTUAL GAME is a "Feat of Chess Legend"... The GM can "fiat" whatever mod's depending on the general consensus of how far Chess has been advanced and studied by the time your PC hits the scene... BUT it's still a roll. YOUR ability to play can help setup a few of those mod's, at least allowing you to argue in advocacy of your PC's advantage with an articulate and knowledgeable basis... Fischer's been featured in books already, so while we might understand his "school of thought" it also gives your PC insight to his "charicature on the board"... etc...
BUT blanket allowing skills of PC's to be replaced by skills of Players isn't how the mechanic is supposed to function. Charisma skills are often best described as "mental chess", each participant engaged in ferreting out the other's true intentions and whether or not they're trustworthy or a cunning and actual enemy... SO should require a roll, though the Player/GM conversation ends up becoming a mix of references to the subject matter in conversation AND the psychology or "coded terms" or "double-speak" employed behind the scenes.
The books often specify a difference in calling for rolls between something taken on at leisure versus something done "when on the spot" such as in combat or during emergencies and crises. ;o)
Notes from a Sadly Forever GM;
This is an interesting take on an old debate at my table and I love the separation between theatrics and Role-playing & agree 💯 on it. As for myself; if a player fails at a Social encounter, I'll have the NPC start getting really suspicious and increase the difficulty number by a small amount....as a recent example of this: I just got done running a Star Trek Adventures game where our Role-player Captain had to negotiate for some info from Tasha Yar's Daughter. He failed a Social Encounter against her, so she was gonna get what she wanted either way(and she did later on in the game session), but I still gave my RPer what he wanted, just with a caviat or two. He knew he failed, but he still got it....
Inspector Trevelyan signing off,
Keep smiling!
In White Wolf games I'll generally have social skills count as free redoes in case they say something that wouldn't fly. For example having 3 dots of Etiquette has me remind them that you say "Your Majesty" when you meet the Vampire Prince, not " Yo m'dude"
I have what the players plan out and say help determine the dc. Just like picking how to climb a wall with nothing vs with rope and a harness changes that dc.
This also makes the benefits somewhat hidden
Yes, but let us just be honest about it:
The two tasks rarely end up equal difficulty-wise.
The difficulty of a conversation almost always ends up at "nigh on impossible".
Whereas scaling the wall gives a somewhat decent chance of success.
It is another reason why many dump "Charisma"; in many systems, the chance of getting the needed "critical success" do not increase with higher stat.
@@larsdahl5528 That's just players having poor planning for who they need to convince with social checks. Its no different than a player asking to scale a sheer cliff free hand.
@@larsdahl5528 Why should it be nigh on impossible? This is a weird assumption, and I think it tells more about your GM than anything else.
If a character proposes a reasonable deal then it should have a good chance of success, and vice versa.
This Reminds me of an old D&D 3.5 war story. The party was charged by the town guard to arrest some bad guys. Our gnome sorcerer has dancing lights going like cops siren, and we took these guys by surprise. We surrounded the bag guys, and they basically gave up without a fight. We did this by a combo of my barbarians intimidate check, and the Gnome's diplomacy. So the Gnome goes I am going to order them to face the wall, and take off all their stuff. Obviously they meant for Bad Guys to drop their weapon & armor. The Gnome’s player rolls, and it’s a Nat 1 The DM smiles,and looks the Gnome’s player in the eyes “You order them to face the wall, which they do, and at the top of your lungs you yell at them to get naked.” It was at that point their compliance ended and the fight began.
Nat 1 on skill checks is omega cringe and super stupid.
Roll a die. High option A, low option B.
The big guy starts chuckling. "First time?" "Hey Joe. VIRGINS"! Joe now starts grinning. Both turn around and the big guy begins to empty his Entire arsenal into the counter. It takes him a good ten minutes before he even starts undressing. It doesn't take Joe nearly as long. Two minutes and his dayglow behind is glowing in the florescent lights. You handcuff them in the corner of the room. Big Jo says " I see I need to teach you how to properly bind someone too." He then winks at you and blows you a kiss.
What the PC's don't know is while big Jo was doing his theatrics, little Joe had pressed the silent alarm. The PC's are now walking into a trap.
Have fun 😊.
I sometimes ask a player, if I think the player has a good comeback (my GM that also plays in my game is great at this) if they have a way to explain their failure, letting them act as an ape themselves, othertimes, if I don't have any idea how a fail happens, I just show them the NPCs reaction, like being outrageous if a charm check fails.
As someone who mostly ran games like D&D and Pathfinder for years and recently started running Vampire: The Masquerade (which is a lot more socially focused), this was super useful.
"Weapons Inspector. Please hand over your weapon for inspection."
"I'm with the FBI... The Fantasy Blade Inspectors"
Great video but I dont really agree with not having a roll if the task is impossible. When you ask the guard to hand over their weapons for example you can still have a range of failure, rolling low might land you into trouble while the guard might just laugh it off and buy you a drink when he sees you in the tavern afterwards if you roll high. Both of which are failures.
Welcome to the channel.
Already covered ways of redefining failure for Clearly Impossible Tasks and making it a spectrum of failure - th-cam.com/video/rBARR3ipqNA/w-d-xo.html
Really like the idea of the dice roll reflecting just how well a social skill was applied, independent of what the player said.
Thank you again. I was literally pacing back and forth trying to overhaul my social rules for my campaign and then I see a notification from your vid drop.
Me too! I have been thinking about this for a year and come to almost identical conclusions to Seth. “Operationalising”’it is the hard part. Imho having a procedure is key, even if sometimes you roll and sometimes you arbitrate. The only difference I have is I think deception is a form of persuasion so should be part of that skill l.
My immersion was so strong that when the camera was on Todd I was looking for the other two players hands on either side. Well done.
Legend of the Five Rings has the best social encounter rules of any system I've played. At the base level, you don't have concrete characteristics like strength or intelligence, you have the five rings which represent different temperaments and ways of going about things. Which ring you use in conjunction with which skill informs the Approach (the mechanical term) for how you're going about what you're doing. Accordingly, a Fire check to convince someone to do something would be inspiring and motivating them to do it, while an Air check might be tricking them into thinking it was their idea all along. This system allows whole parties to all be using the same skill, but in different ways and with different techniques that reflect their character's temperament and personality as much as it represents their skills.
Ever since I was a teenager playing Morrowind for the original XBox, I was fascinated by building a character around charisma and other non combat skills. Approaching and solving problems by avoiding combat appeals to me as a player, and is something that gives me difficulty in D&D, because that games is combat focused at its core.
Great advice overall, especially when you focus on the difference between roleplaying and "being theatrical," and how some players who are good at the former may not be comfortable with the latter. This video gets saved for later reference.
useful and well presented. I don't make the players speak in funny voices or anything but, I look for moments in the game that have the potential for something memorable/funny happen, and there, I might ask them to play it out a bit like: "Everything's fine, we're all fine down here..." "Who is this? what's your operating number!?!" I want every game I have to have at least one meme-worthy exchange happen.
Seeing Dweebles bouncing up and down at the bottom of the frame of your shot made me chuckle. XD
Seth? It is videos like this which make me respect your views so much. Well considered from many points of view and on a topic many GMs tend to avoid.
The section on how the PCs appear reminds me: The campaign I just finished playing had me playing a gnome entertainer who is secretly (ish) a rogue who sometimes works for the thieves' guild, and one of my teammates was a proper knight. A common excuse was that my character is simply his character's traveling jester, and this was a very effective way of getting my character ignored.
What brilliant advice, thanks! I love the “try again but if you fail the consequences are worse” rule. It’s like a simple, quick and dirty way of controlling the stakes the way you do with “position and effect” in Blades in the Dark.
I would say you should roll and then play according to that roll you got. If you rolled good - then give it your all and do your characters best. If you rolled bad - let them blunder, play them at their worst.
Great video anyways - and a still divisive topic for sure.
While I like that in concept, I feel only big "Actor-Roleplayers" being the only ones to really enjoy that. A lot of players will simply feel deflated or even angry having to play out their character's inevitable failure. In the end it's personal preference, and if that's what your group enjoys, then by all means that's how you should do it.
Personally, I prefer the intended dialogue first, mostly because of the GM needing to know what skill to use (if the game uses different social skills) and because certain things the PC says might help or hinder the roll. Rolling first and then playing it out makes it impossible to judge in their planned approach would have made a significant difference in the result.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
"I don't know what to say but my character would" is something of a catchphrase of mine at the table.
One of my players is still learning to be more vocal with Roleplay. Her most memorable characters don't always speak but they've got special attitudes when they speak that make them unique. In a recent new game, set in Candlekeep, she branched into doing an accent, and while it's not Oscar Worthy, it's actually adorable and it feels as unique as her other 2 characters. I'm happy for her growth and look forward to more.
This is great! I would suggest you get players to tell you what they want (I want the guard to let me through the gate) AND what their tactic is (I'm going to convince them I live in there). This latter is what in-character dialogue can replace.
Also, I usually try to think of social rolls as affecting what the NPC FEELS about the player. So a high deception roll doesn't necessarily mean they believe you. It means they think you're a very trustworthy person. They're more likely to believe you if they have not reason to believe the contrary, but if you're trying to convince them of something they know to be false, a high roll means they think you've made an honest mistake, or that they must've misunderstood what you were saying (This is the Gate of Skulls! No one lives in here! You must have gotten turned around... The gate of swords is right over there.) It's still not true, but you couldn't have been LYING to them.
The Keanu/Joan Jett graphic had me laughing. Well done.
That's probably the best end card you've ever done.
Got a hearty chuckle out of me at least.
That mono(?)logue at the end reminds me of every time I have to do multiple NPCs having a conversation. Sometimes when getting ready for a session I try to rehearse the voices and I'm glad my wife knows about my hobby or there would be deeper concern festering in our marriage with her spouse breaking into conversation with mostly no one else around.
Love the Marcus Licinius Crassus, Antoninus, Batiatus conversation slide. Nicely Chosen. 🤟
In a D&D 3.5 campaign I ran, there was a Bardick Skald named Danzig vum Beethoven. He ended up being the leader of the party, though it wasn’t really his choice… now whenever he went to make a big decision on how to handle a situation tactically, he would consult his profession(soldier) skill, and asked me questions. Like, “wouldn’t my character know where a good captain would put guards and when they might schedule guard changes?”
It was a great way for a player who lacked confidence in their leadership and choices to have their character roll on making a plan
I like to watch those audit the police videos and try and work out as I watch weather they failed their charm intimidation persuasion or deception check.
Over the last few years this channel has quickly become part of my tool box for running tabletop, both as a GM and providing aids for players new and old alike! A hearty like, sub and share from me!
My own way of handling these kinds of Charisma/Intelligence rolls is very similar to how Seth described his way of handling this. Though Many of the things he brought up were really good ways to handle this kind of playstyle that I had never thought of. The way of the awesome player speech being kneecapped by a shit roll being handled as a coming out horribly; letting players re-approach a situation based on the kind of skill they want to use; Breaking up an otherwise impossible action ("I convince the king to give me his kingdom") into multiple skill checks spread over a long time to be attainable (You can be the king's loyal servant and eventually become next in line for the throne). I'm going to be adding these stuff to my own DMing. This video was really helpful.
I've been running OSE a lot lately and I've really been enjoying the idea that players want to interact with the world in a way that makes it so they don't need a dice roll. Like bribing the guard so he lets them in or finding out a way to black mail someone for more info. For each I would make a reaction roll for the NPC to see how they respond to the players action, giving possible bonuses or penalties depending on how the players initially interact with the NPC.
I like how Obsidian Entertainment has approached this in their RPGs by having thresholds for skills. If your character meets a threshold, then they have an appropriate dialogue for success, and if they don't, then they have a different dialogue (often but not always funny too).
Some people don't like having such an auto success feature, but I like how it rewards different builds. I guess it also works as a single player RPG, versus having a party of skill monkeys who can solve every problem as a team.
I like to use the success by degrees method. If the player tries to deceive a guard and they barely succeed the roll, the guard may say “ok, but I’m watching you”. Conversely, if they easily pass the check, the guard just opens the door and apologizes for wasting their time.
Perfect timeing! I have a huge social game to run tomorrow with some GOT type diplomacy between two rival towns with my players caught in the middle!
I honestly am bad at social encounters but after switching to Cyberpunk I've grown a lot in only a couple months of playing. This video definitely helps even more. Thanks Seth.
I really appreciate the timing of this video. I have been following your Traveller game on Glass Cannon, and many of these thoughts crossed my mind during the last session.
Three things:
Regarding reputation: it will be easier (usually) for PC to succesfully interact with npc of similar background.
In traveler for example someone with couple terms of military career will have easier time dealing with military and in fantasy setting dwarf will have easier time dealing with dwarves, just because PC knows how things are done in that culture.
And other thing: support. You mentioned it when talking about insight to determine angle of approach, I use it wider: Hulk of a PC can roll strength to support intimidate by other pc.
And related: relevant skills. In conversation it may be important for PC to know what they are talking about. I use 'roll lower' rule from savage worlds, when for example pcs are discussing battle plans with allies they will roll lower of persuade (or what is relevant skill for their approach) and tactics.
Haha, I gigglesnorted at the juxtaposition of Connery's Bond vs. Zardoz.
Great advice, as usual!
Not gonna lie Seth, I busted a gut laughing when you showed Joan Jett as an example of "Bad Reputation". Probably only a handful of us get the joke. xD
In my game, a player that makes EI great effort doing the role-play as opposed to the ROLL-play, will often get advantage on the roll as a reward. If they do a dynamite job I will also give them an inspiration for wowing us.
My players are not typically good at the role-play as much as they are at building broken characters, so I HEAVILY reward them when they both give us a great effort and delivery.
I love the fact that you're wearing a shirt with your own face (three different ways) on it!! Lol!
I love the outro about the special voices :-D
For me it comes down to the fact that in a game with more than one social stat (traditional Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy for instance) -- what the player SAYS will influence what roll they make.
A player saying "Can I make a diplomacy check?" will immediately get a "That depends, what do you say?" from me. But ultimately if you're a wallflower I'm not going to make you put on a big performance.
Some games do reward this with advantage (World of Darkness games come to mind) but I've never really penalized or rewarded players with a bonus for a good/bad performance.
Good in head, bad when it comes out, this defined my day today, as a high school teacher.
That ending was AWESOME!
First, I love the channel, my man and congrats on your silver play button. Mad respect.
In terms of your definition of roleplaying, I disagree. Roleplaying is acting out the behavior of your character when possible, especially in social encounters. As a GM, and really for everyone around the table, how someone says something is just as important as what they say and will (and should) affect the charisma or social check depending on what game you're playing.
High level roleplaying is not just theatrics. It's informative as well for everyone around the table. It gives people the data they need to formulate their character's action in response. This is where we cross roads a bit.
Where we depart is in requiring roleplaying. I require it. It's not about doing it well, it's about doing it period, because...uh... it's a roleplaying game.
However, I agree that you need both low level rollplay and high level roleplaying. If you have just low level rollplay, it's boring as dirt, and you're always having to ask clarifying questions that could be answered in high level roleplaying.
However, if all you have is high level roleplaying, it's chaos. There's no structure, no cohesive story, and it ends up being a group of characters pursuing their own arbitrary, ego-driven goals without respect to the others around the table - normally. You need them both. My philosophy, however, gives priority to high level roleplaying.
Keep on keeping on, my man. Much love. Peace and hair grease! 🙂👊🏿
Happy gaming!
06:36 How professional is the guard? "Help! Help! A giant toad has come up from the sewer and swallowed a small boy!" The guard yells over his shoulder, "Flying Watch to the North Gate!" and then charges to the rescue. As the gate gets reenforced by two guards, the PC suddenly realizes that he needs to find someplace to hide.
First off, that was a PERFECT selection for the Intimidation screen shot!
On a more serious note, I enjoy re-roleplaying failed social rolls as a sort of, "so this is what really happened."
Dramatic delivery! Wait! Rewind! /facepalm
Another thing to consider about low-charisma characters attempting charisma checks is to view it as a feature, not a bug.
Han Solo is a character who thinks he's far more charming than he actually is. Like...yeah, he's charismatic but whenever he tries to fast-talk himself out of a situation it fails hilariously.
Yet he tries it again and again.
Playing a character consistently according to the character's personality, values, quirks, shortcomings, mood of the day etc is a great point (on I added some fluff there) which is often confused. This applies to all areas of the game, social, combat etc.
I've preferred the bonus to the die roll approach when the description supports it. The randomness might also come from the factor of how the recipient takes it individually on that moment. There's lots the character attempting the influencing doesn't know. Maybe the guard is super loyal or dutiful.
❤️ this video! i have had some bold player expectations with high rolls…only to have the guards arrest them! based on clothes, age, behavior, culture. “But i commanded them with a 24! they should think i am a general. They have to do as i say” “yr character is 13 and wearing a uniform 3 sizes to big with a blaster mark on its back. plus you have spiky blonde hair…in star wars.”
Cool new shirt, but, oh man, poor Dweebles! Please tell me that he didn't take the 10% rating too hard.
(Side note: I had to take a double take, but Joan Jett at 11:36 made me laugh for real)
Requiring the player and the Dm to know the pc's intent before a roll is pretty much how I've run my game all along, even in combat! It's cool to hear that method is being used elsewhere. Great video!
The ending skit really sold me to like the video!
Never stop doing those little exchanges at the end of your videos Seth
This was great. Every GM should watch this. I bet your table is a blast to play at.
I actually saw someone giving "build advice" on the internet a couple months ago and they actually said something in the lines "aways dump your charisma, because your GM will let you roleplay social encounters anyway".
And my experience with people that thinks roleplaying is making voices is their characters have one personality when they are talking and then a totally different personality during the rest of the game.
... I never encountered a player on the other side of this problem tho.
Now, a GM insisting on having the player do the talking (instead of their character) is not the only reason to dump the character's (charisma) stats.
Another widespread reason for that dumping of stats is that those stats make no difference (even when it is the character doing it).