Do you have a Twitter Zee?

Isn't that already done this way in 3.5? At least I know it that way....

@@Rabijeel Not sure about 3.5 proper... Pathfinder is very different though. Diplomacy shifts their attitude (on a 5-notch scale), Bluff gets them to agree to a one-off thing, Intimidation temporarily makes them pretend to like you. Then how much they like you determines if they'll help (except for Bluff which is magic mind control).

... I feels like this system may slow things down some. I would use it but probably modify it some.

Thought he was gonna say brought to you by among us

Oo I didn’t think I would see you here 👀

I feel like I see you everyone now

man every friday omg

so much beard swinging

What are you doing here? 👀

omfg

How... Why... What? A rap battle? With a litch?

"You say "Vecna"! I say, "Heck, Nah"! Vec! Nah! Heck! Nah!"

"You said you bring and offering of bread, but that doesn't sway a lord of the undead. Instead it has to be said, step up to me and my ghouls are getting fed" So like this?

I heard that story once before, was indeed a marvelous spectacle

The way I do it is that instead of basing off a roll, I ask what the player wants to say or how to convince, and I use that as a base for their DC. If the speech they gave was amazing, the DC is lower because they are basically already persuaded. If they gave a really bad one, the DC is higher because your credibility already sucks and they are gonna be much harder to convince. If it's good or bad enough, I don't even ask for a roll, I just let the NPC do the talking.

Had a DM who was like: Player: I want to buy food. DM: Roll a d20 Player: Wait... Why? I mean, why and which attribute/skill am I checking? DM: JUST ROLL A D20! Player: *rolls* Nat 1. DM: The merchant becomes super angry at you and stabs you in the eye. You die.

5e was always like that. People often thinks rolls can save them too much. Thats because of 3e skill system which was just that rolling and get slaves because 50+ deception !!!

@@rey1242 That's just a shit DM. I had one like that too. DM: The person that looks like the Employer comes into the tavern. Me: I walk up to talk to him. DM: Roll Charisma Me: Do I get to say anything first? DM: No Me: Rolls 14 DM: You have to speak in broken common. Me: What, why? DM: Because that's what you rolled. For context, that night, the DC to succeed anything, from walking down the stairs to speaking normally was 15. On top of that, we were still figuring stuff out, so we didn't add our modifiers. In other words, you had to roll 15 or higher without mods to succeed any basic interaction.

Just have this the thousandth like. Satisfying

Yeah cold reading is what I always picture on insight checks. As compared to hot reading with wisdom checks.

@@ratholin I don't recall how accurate it is to the books, but in the Granada series,' Blue Carbuncle episode, at one point they are trying to inquire from a goose salesman where a particular lot of geese came from and the salesman is belligerent and tells them to piss off. So Holmes makes up a story with Watson that they are having a bet as to whether the goose was city bred or country bred, and as soon as the salesman hears it's a bet and that Holmes is going to lose the bet, he shares every single detail he can to rub it in to Holmes that he lost the "bet". The joke kicker is that after Holmes and Watson walk away with smirks on their face, the seller yells at Holmes that he lost the bet and has to "pay the man now", and Watson smirks at Holmes as Holmes begrudgingly pays Watson off for the fake "bet" so they can keep up the pretense.

@@BTheBlindRef Yup that's pretty much how it goes in the original! Sometimes I noticed that Granada would adapt it word for word so it's probably very similar if not the same!

This is cool, but it has the same common issue of a lot of things: If the DM described the page sticking out of the pocket when they described the NPC, then the player will automatically know the page is important, but if the DM didn't of course then the player doesn't know it exists. There are ways around this (think up multiple clues, make the clues' utility ambiguous, gate them off behind an insight or other skill check), but I find things can get awkward.

@@joshuawinestock9998 Insight or perhaps Perception to see the page at all perhaps?

Insert Zargon getting revived noise

Just need some erratic hammering

@@edendemarlo I was just coming to make this comment

@@SkylerLinux you can have the next hour after im done

Well, the DMG is poorly ordered. World-building guidelines in the front of the book, despite that only being relevant if your homebrewing a campaign setting, and even then it's only useful before running the game, but rules and guidelines for things that happen in nearly every session of the game, like social interactions or skill checks, were put towards the back of the book. And the regular rules of the game aren't even in the book, so anytime a DM needs to check the rules of the game, they have to look in a PHB, rather than being able to flip through their own book to check. The PHB ends up being more useful to the average DM than the DMG, and the DMG ends up being more used by players to look up magic items than the DM. More DMs would know about these rules if they were prioritized to the beginning of the book. The basics of actually running the game should be first, since that is what the DM is going to be doing every session, followed by the rules of the game, because that is what the DM is going to be using while running the game, and also, variant rules could maybe be in boxes in the margins of some of those pages, so their right their near the rules they modify or replace, makes them more handy. And then the next section can dip into basics of combat encounter balancing and the CR system as well as addressing how the action economy is affected by numbers and how the action economy affects the effective challenge. Followed by a section on building encounters and challenges and some suggestions for structuring adventure sessions, then a section on the basics of starting a campaign, which should start with talking about a starting town, and plot hooks and seeds for potential adventures that can be fleshed out between sessions. Then, it can talk about world building after that. Oh, and have more charts for things like NPC traits and what not. Or maybe those should be somewhere in with the section on designing an adventure, yeah. Anyways, the DMG as it is has a lot of sections in reverse order of how relevant they are.

@@Tiyev If only there were a table of contents or something!

@@johnriverdavis3497 Dear god, imagine the horror!

that's the DMG for you

this just concludes my theory that nobody actually reads the books. (As a DM i'm the most guilty of that, but we'll skip this part)

I'd like to think the dice control everything but the players. If they give a great speech but roll low, then a carriage passed by and the NPC just didn't hear the speech or misheard it into something bad or that the speaker just has spinach in their teeth and it's hard to pay attention. If the Barbarian jokingly said something and rolled high, maybe they are just the NPC's type and they are too busy ogling that hunk of muscle lady to view their joke as anything but genius and insightful persuasion. I also change the DC depending on how good the speech is, so good equals lower DC, bad equals higher DC.

"THE DICE GODS HAVE SPOKEN" can be fun, if everyone agrees that's the kind of game they wanna play.

@Ezra If you do it like that then the players having a particularly good plan/idea/pitch doesn't help, though.

But Nat 20 as reality bending in your favour and 1 turning you into Wile E Cyote is fun.

I have a player that would contest that nat 20 thing. Kinda annoying.

A little louder for those in the back please! I can't stress enough how important these three guidelines are.

@@stm7810 Not really that fun, some 20 and 1 can ruin a campaign or your plans and this make the game way less serious, also 20 and 1 are supposed to be automatic succes/failure only in combat.

@@comicknightzero A fourth guideline: DC is based on what you try to do. Trying to polevault the narrowest part of a chasm is lower DC than trying to backflip across the widest part. Your argument sets the DC. Also also; some rolls simply may not be possible. I'm not seducing that gay nun.

Same I love it it’s so good

so do I ... but the "scrappier" style of the older videos is still preferred imho

@@OviD11111 Yeah, I also kind of like the flat unshaded style better, but this animation is still REALLY good.

the new beard is magnificent

@@freakymoejoe2 I was gonna say. Look at that thing sway side to side.

You never know what you'll be famous for.

For a second, that noise made me think that his room was suddenly and randomly in the belly of a dragon! lol

It was just skenk mcgenk casting erratic hammering

@@mitigatedrisk4264 Sounded like a large war vehicle with bronze wheels, and/or a pneumatic hammer or hammer-drill. That's a heck of a thing to be hammering with!

Yes... Nobody... Anyways imma go cry in a corner for no reason whatsoever

Eh, it's a big book with a lot of pointless stuff in it.

@@MrJoeyWheeler example of "pointless" please

Alot of the rules people say are missing from 5e are in the DMG.

@@MrJoeyWheeler lots of pointless stuff if you ignore homebrew worldbuilding, but there are some honestly good systems in there for survival mechanics, tips for running dungeon crawls, social encounters, downtime rules, MAGIC ITEMS, in-depth break down of what ability scores are used when (there's a great description of Intelligence(Investigation) vs Wisdom(Perception) for spotting and identifying traps and secrets), a great breakdown of the DC system, a description of how and when to apply advantage and disadvantage, and quite a bit more.

This is important. ^^

You could also scrap this and invert the premise. That is, interpret their role as being the range of responses the NPC would give to whatever specific speech the player made. So 1 is the worst response the NPC might make to that given speech, and 20 is the best.

Eh, I prefer to set the DC, and occasionally offer advantage/disadvantage, based on the roleplay of the speech. Which as far as I understand from this, is how the rules are intended to work. It's not invalidating their roleplay if their speech lowered the DC from 15 to 10, but the NPC's just weren't receptive due to a 1 (which *reminder* is not an automatic failure, player skill bonuses could still eke out success from a 1 with a low enough DC). Remember, dice rolls are *also* about in-game luck. Maybe, despite their rousing speech, the NPC has a prior engagement and can't help, even if they wanted to.

Underrated comment

That's a good substitute, but given that roleplay is supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay, I like the DMG rules (p.244). I'm going to start using them. They provide a lot more structure for anyone who's not sure where to begin, they bring Investigation and Insight checks into relevance, and they give a good number of examples that you can take inspiration from.

Not necessarily. Social interaction rules are a framework for the social pillar. It allows people with in game social abilities to better effect the outcome rather than a lucky persuasion role. You don't have to be a good roleplayer for this. You simply have to understand the mechanics for influencing a creatures attitude, by appealing to it's bond, flaw, or ideal in order to shift it's attitude, then role a charisma check to for the desired result.

Its not just the DC. Each disposition earned by roleplay has a minimum and maximum effect, making it a far better and more immersive system. I don't even like 5e much but the social rules presented here sound great honestly.

@@PhyreI3ird These are the social rules presented in the Dungeon Master Guide. It is RAW and RAI, not variant rules. The sections on social interaction as well exploration (the tracking section) should be included in the players hand book for transparency. Social interaction rules are glossed over because players, and DMs for that matter, generally don't read the DMG with the same stringency as the PHB. Social spells like charm, calm emotions, and friends are balanced around these rules. The social interaction rules are an intended mechanic of the game, and much as obscurement rules are for vision.

That's how it should be --- but you should make your expectations clear beforehand. If you find yourself explaining the rules of your world _after_ someone has assumed things would work differently and suffered for it, that's a problem.

@@tomc.5704 That is true, though I did made it clear on those rules well before this incident happen. It is just rough when players still think that high roll results equal instant results, friendship, or other things that defy common sense. Reminds me of another situation that a Sorcerer just blatantly cast a Subtle Metamagic Charm Spell on one of the King's attendants and expected the attendant to lead him and the party int othe King's private chambers.

@@MarkATorres1989 Yeah, Charm grants you advantage on Charisma checks (and with these DMG social interaction rules, an instant Friendly attitude). It's not mind control. Suggestion would get closer to the effect they wanted, but "The suggestion must be worded in such a manner as to make the course of action sound reasonable." Is escorting strangers into the King's private chambers reasonable? I'm not sure it is. It's explicitly against the attendant's training. At the very least, when someone questioned where they were going and the attendant replied, "I am brining these people to the King's private chambers" the party would quickly have to convince this new NPC that everything was fine. Now if they had cast Charm first, and then Suggestion, you'd be suggesting that he bring friends into the private chambers -- much more reasonable, and the attendant would assure the NPC they met in the hallway that everything was fine, don't worry. Even then though, the party would run into problems because with Suggestion, "the spell ends when the subject finishes what it was asked to do." I see the scene playing out like this: As soon the attendant finished showing them into the room, he would pause and look around, slightly confused. Then he would turn toward with a concerned look on his face and say, "Oh, we really shouldn't be in here." If the party does nothing to convince him otherwise, he'd quickly move towards "I'm sorry, but we have to leave." And then it would be on the party to persuade him, distract him long enough to do what they needed to, or simply knock him out and put him in a closet. Bottom line, it's not easy to get into a King's private chambers. If they want mind control, that's a 5th level spell. As far as the "Expecting a high roll to instantly work," I have a house rule I like for those scenarios. RAW, impossible things can't happen and a Natural 20 only means instant success on attack rolls. But that's not what most people think DnD is---most people instinctively try to apply Natural 1's and 20's to all rolls and they like the excitement and randomness that brings. It's a constant uphill battle to fight that tendency, and it leaves people feeling disappointed. So I like to allow critical success and failures on skill checks and saving throws, but only if you confirm the crit. You don't need to confirm crits on attack rolls, because it makes sense that you could have a 5% chance to get a lucky hit with your sword. But can a unskilled lockpicker open a challenging lock on their first try? Not likely. Not 5%. And if they fail a DC 7 check, they'll break their lockpick. But if they crit and confirm it, I'll allow the incredibly improbable to happen on a 1 in 400 chance. On the other hand, if they roll a Natural 1 and confirm it, they might get their finger stuck in the lock.

If the player that wants to engage with the encounter is walking away from the encounter frustrated, you're usually doing something wrong

Completely justifiable, though perhaps you should have added that even with the animal handling the ant still seems tense and perhaps touching it right now still isn’t a great idea.

Looks like a new technique, a bit of 3D animation I think?

@@antimattercarp2720 wouldn't quite say 3D, looks too flat, but maybe there's some automated tweening for details like the beard.

Though the beard does distract me a little. A lot.

This is cool, and mostly looks good, but I'm a little weirded out by the beard.

Where's the lie? >:^)

@@potato4dawin1 exactly, colors like that in nature usually indicate poison, toxins or aggression. It usually ends up being true for people too.

Thought the same when I saw it

It helps to make a social tendency chart (theirs ideals/bonds/Flaws, how they will relate to players, and how difficult it is to switch attitudes) for important NPCs, and for less important NPCs you can use a blank chart and just track their current position on it. Also, players don't need to know the entire process you are going through. If they don't even notice how structured the social encounter was then you did a really good job. Remember that the 0,10, and 20 thresholds are just a suggestion and you can make characters more or less stubborn within specific attitudes. Having a social tendency chart also gives you quick access to information that you can give out for insight checks.

Depending on the edition, this is not necessarily true, in the TSR era games, there was the reaction roll done with 2d6 which gave the different intelligent creatures a random reaction from instantly hostile to friendly modified by the pcs charisma. This could of course result in things like a orc squad passing by the party ignoring them (rolling indifferent reaction) or a group of gnome miners running and bashing the pcs kneecaps in (hostile reaction) and the party (and dm) could decide to figure out why if they wanted. How much this was used is an other story but the rules for different reactions has always been there and could be narrowed to the same as in fifth with modifiers (or splitting the table up) so it has been there for use for quite a while. Know this since I've used this as both a player and dm in ad&d and b/x. edit: spelling

@@classywolf6024 3.5 also had the attitude system for social encounters, in fact it had five attitudes: Friendly, Helpful, Indifferent, Unhelpful, Hostile. Helpful and Unhelpful were for people like town guards, whom it's normally not hard to get basic help from because it's their job but they don't actually have positive relations with you, and similarly unhelpful didn't usually mean enmity it just meant they didn't want to help you out with things.

@@Erik_Dz This is probably in the DMG and I'll feel dumb, but do you have an example of this chart?

Earlier editions didn't do that, in fact its basically the same damn rules. Its just that no one reads the rules.

Of course he isn't a wizard, he's a sorcerer.

HNNNGGG

I do the same, give intention to dm, roll, rp accordingly, but the attitude system doesnt supersede that way if doing things, its just another layer to add verisimilitude to a social encounter

This, this all day long. We don’t make you shoot a bow or swing a sword then go well you suck at that so your character gets disadvantaged on his attack.

I remember when I was getting into D&D 5 years ago, I was told that I didn't need the DMG. I got the DMG anyway.

I think an issue people have with the DMG is that it sticks a bunch of world and campaign building stuff first. It makes it hard if you just want to run an adventure, because you feel you have to put all this effort into it, and obscures actual rules that exist that players don't necessarily know about

Haha you are the fist comment

The clothes on Zee's avatar appear to be like a witch hunter, maybe. But wizard also makes sense...

It makes them doubly useful! Because now you get to have advantage on Charisma checks against someone who has a Friendly attitude towards you. In the case of Charm Person, it goes all the way to "Friendly Acquaintance" which is better than Friends which technically doesn't say anything about changing their attitude.

@@tomc.5704 It doesn't say it explicitly because it really shouldn't have to. If someone mind-controlled you or overly shifted your thoughts to make you help them, are you saying you would stay friends with that person after it wore off? Or not become hostile to that person? Hell, Charm Person even explicitly states the target is aware they were charmed by you after the fact. The nice thing about 5E is that not absolutely every minute possibility is spelled out perfectly, because there are some things that can be inferred, and it allows flexibility on the DM's part to interpret them. And I don't need it to spell out that being charmed by someone would make an NPC change their attitude towards that person in a negative way.

Late, but this is how our DM runs things as well. I once stumbled my way through a (rigged on both sides) drinking contest using nothing but role-play. We had rigged the contest using a Tankard of Sobriety whose magic was concealed with Nondetection, while our opponents who we were stealing an artefact from, had an orc join mid contest meaning he was completely fresh while I was (supposed to be) at least a little tipsy. We kept up the charade until our main opponent in the contest, their wizard leader, was dead drunk, then the rest of my group staged some distractions around the inn, drawing attention before I swiped the artefact we were after. Despite only pretending to be drunk our DM did not ask for a roll as long as I myself role-played my supposed drunkenness convincingly.

If the *argument* is convincing enough, sure. But it shouldn't matter how well the *player* delivers the argument at the table. If the DM requires the *player* to be charismatic, then they're preventing players in an RPG from roleplaying a character more charismatic than they are. One of the points of the game is to allow us to imagine ourselves with different abilities than we have in real life. That is much of the fun! If you wouldn't expect a player to be able to somersault in the air in order for their character to succeed on an Acrobatics check, then you understand that it is unfair and impractical to expect players IRL to meet the same requirements their characters need to meet in the game.

Glad to hear you got better

Oof 😆

NECROMANCY! BACK YE UNDEAD!

@@EzekiesAcheron no. He got better

@@cheeselord3655 "she turned me into a NEWT!"

Dated jokes

Say that to JC 5e's Rule Designer, but his interaction in roleplaying is neat, mouth farts are not arguments even if you role a nat20. And combat is much more than swinging and missing and tanking all the damage.

See but no one even does that for social encounters. What you did was describe the players action (swinging the sword and hitting) and then the NPC's reaction (bleeding everywhere) What'd be more appropriate if it was like the social interactions people usually do would be Player: 'I swing my sword and hit him in the chest' Dm: 'roll' Player rolls and gets below the enemies AC DM: 'you hit him but your sword fails to penetrate his armour' (or) 'you swing your sword and get him right in the chest, but at the last second the NPC steps back, you barely nick him' both of those outcomes don't invalidate what the player said and allowed for the dice (and the NPCs stats i.e tank vs dex based AC) to impact the actual outcome.