How to win friends and influence people.
This article forms part of a series looking at how the operation of the six statistics in D&D affect player experience. You can read them in any order. Part 1 covered both Strength and Dexterity, part 2 looked at Constitution part 3 tackled Intelligence and, you guessed it, part 4 was dedicated to Wisdom.
Charisma governs your force of personality and ability to influence others. A Charismatic character might be domineering or empathetic, likeable or fearsome and we regulate all of these things with Charisma.
More than any other stat, the player’s own qualities and traits impact upon the area of play that is governed by Charisma.
Where Player meets Character
Table-top roleplaying games are at their heart conversations; a structured one perhaps, but at some point the DM has to ask ‘What do you do?’ with no defined list of responses. Anything can happen or be attempted and isn’t that at the core of why we love them?! But when a character is speaking to an NPC, when a conversation is taking place within the game world as well as at the game table, a player’s own communication skills and personality come to the fore. Your own squat personal best has no impact upon your character’s attempt to kick a door in but your personality and communication style is unavoidably linked to how your character presents.
Sure, if you’re playing an immoral rogue, the decisions you make on behalf of the character could be completely different to the decisions you would make in reality. But whether you’re forthright or circumspect will affect your character – we role-play as best we’re able but none of us are Oscar winners and even Robert De Niro has the benefit of a script and a director. But it’s not just the player’s personality that matters here. The DM’s own personality is extremely relevant also and the wider dynamic within the group. How we as players interact and who we most gel with affects how our characters are perceived within the emerging narrative of the game. I’m not suggesting this is a problem or that there is an approach to address it; merely that it is something a DM can usefully be aware of.
A freeform structure
Charisma is most often resorted to in social interaction scenes. Combat is tightly structured with an initiative sequence and defined speeds, amount of actions and bonus actions for each character. But social interaction scenes and challenges are more fluid and this is for good design reasons. Regulating conversations in the same way as melee stops them from feeling natural. How much emphasis and mechanical rigour a particular game or DM places on this aspect of play can vary immensely. When a player says their character is going to sneak past a bandit camp, you and I probably have a similar response and it’s likely to be ‘Roll Stealth’ and the DC is probably connected to the bandits’ Perception scores. The player has a fair guess at their chances of success.
When a player becomes their character and speaks to the bandits, offering them a bribe for information as to what lies ahead, you and I might have entirely different responses. Perhaps my bandits are not confident or maybe we just had a big combat scene and for game reasons I feel a social scene would make for better game pacing. Maybe that isn’t your style at all and your bandits are desperate and whether there was a combat scene earlier in the session doesn’t affect how you run this scene at all. I might conduct a few conversational exchanges before I call for an ability check but you might do so straightaway. I might set the difficulty class to convince the bandits at DC 10, you might reasonably set it at 15. For many reasons, the chances of success and type of gameplay that follows are harder for the player to predict when they are choosing what to do and this can impact on how much agency they feel they have in that moment.
Compare it to attacking the bandits. The players can probably take a fair guess what their AC is and if they roll high enough they will do the damage as stipulated on their character sheets; much more dependable. This is one way in which players can be cultured into being ‘murder-hobos’, characters that seek to resolve every situation with combat. Combat allows them to feel in control because it’s one of the most predictable resolution systems in the game. Food for thought.
I have to say this stat’s break down has been the hardest to confine to a single article. Because of the overlap between a player’s own personality and qualities and the aspects of the game governed by Charisma checks, there is a lot that can be said on the topic that digresses beyond the scope of this post.
Skills and Ability Checks
Over fifty years the game has moved away from its dungeoneering roots into something with a broader scope of play. Once upon a time Dungeons & Dragons was more focused upon exploring dungeons and fighting dragons than it is now. Modern games are more likely to include significant elements of social interactions in city and town based settings that form a challenging game environment
This all adds to the rich choices open to DMs and players. You and I are more likely to run a combat encounter in a similar fashion than we are to run a social interaction challenge in the same way. For this reason, however you do it, consistency and clarity of approach has an added importance to moments of Charisma focused play. If a character tries to pick a lock they get instant feedback on whether they succeeded; the lock is undone or it isn’t. Same with lifting a log, climbing a wall, deciphering ancient runes or whatever. But when a player makes a Persuasion check and gets, say a 15 and earns part but not all of they wanted from the exchange, that could be a total win and the NPC just doesn’t know more, a total failure and the NPC was going to tell them that anyway or maybe they might be able to get a better result with a different approach. It’s hard to tell.
In this I think that the DM needs to gauge the right balance for each group between a character focused play and a player focused method. (‘Roleplay vs Roll Play’ if you like.) If a player offers an articulate, funny or well-acted presentation of what their character said that might incline you towards setting a lower DC than if the player fumbled through it. How much you emphasise the player’s own roleplaying or acting over the numbers on their sheet is very personal I suppose. There are good arguments for each way of doing it but luckily it’s not an on/off switch and you can even use different gauges for different players. My only suggestion is to pay attention to it so you can make a decision rather than defaulting into a habit. I am a professional voice actor and trained public speaker. I’ve played games where my Charisma 8 character was able to talk his way through problems because I am able to act up well. (I made sure I played him as objectionable … and a bit farty and gross to counter this).
If the orator at your table is playing the bard, you’ve got no problem but when a more reserved player is running the high charisma character it can be a useful thing to have in mind.
Equally, there is a gauge we can fiddle with as to how ‘gamey’ or natural we make social interaction scenes. Too much reliance on some sort of progress tracker or breaking from the in game conversation makes it feel stilted and ruins the chance for players to ‘become’ their characters. On other hand, if players don’t know what they said that led to a check, don’t know if it was a high or low DC and don’t know if they really passed or failed it’s possible to lose the sense of it being a game instead an improv acting group. I think the right point is different for each group and game and as long as you pay attention to it and choose and approach rather than just defaulting you won’t go far wrong.
Charisma is the spellcasting statistic of more classes than any other stat. Bards, sorcerers, warlocks and paladins all depend upon Charisma for their magic so you are likely to have a high Charisma score somewhere in the group and maybe more than one. As this article focuses on how those stat numbers affects the players’ experience this becomes important.
When only one player has a high number in a given stat they have more chances to shine and take the limelight. If you have a bard and a warlock in your party and the bard’s Persuasion mod is +10 and the warlock’s is only +7 the group can easily gravitate to letting the bard take the lead in social challenges and the warlock player feeling “I’m not the best at anything”. This might not be an issue at all in your game but by paying careful attention to your players you can spot when you have a player who feels marginalised and structure and design your challenges accordingly; requiring more than one person to convince the bandits, for example.
Deception
I can find Deception a bit confusing as a skill area. To me it feels like the counter-point of Persuasion; as if Persuasion is used if the character is telling the truth but Deception is used if they are lying. In the vast array of stuff and nonsense that can come out of a player’s mouth it’s not always clear how much is truth, as their character sees it, and how much is a lie. Sometimes the players have a clear and complete deception to sell to an NPC, usually as the result of a specific plan. Other times, there are mixed aspects of truth and lie, economies taken with the full truth and it can be more confusing for everyone concerned.
But is the Depception check to determine if their lie is believed? I don’t allow my players to make ‘lie detector’ rolls using their Insight mod. In my games they may get a read on whether an NPC seems evasive or nervous but whether a person is lying is a matter I like to leave to the players, rather than their characters deducing it with a check. I guess it’s different because the players exist and the NPCs don’t. I, as DM, know if they are lying so a Deception check creates a result that isn’t just determined by me. Even then, I’d let them just lie with no check unless the NPC had clear reason not to believe them, e.g. when they’re caught red handed or otherwise seem like people not to be trusted.
Imagine a guard at the gate between the poor and rich districts of a city. He’s not supposed to let anyone into the rich district that doesn’t belong there. He lets all the nobles and well-to-do merchants through in their expensive clothes and also their servants, who have writs to allow them through the gate. It’s his call as to who gets through but he’ll get in trouble if the wrong sort of person is admitted. The adventurers, with their weapons and lack of permanent residence, are definitely the wrong sort of people. The adventurers want to get into the rich district because they suspect one of the nobles is part of an evil cult and the high-priest has tasked them with investigating this cult.
How is this likely to play out at your table? My experience is two or more players speak to the guard and make mixed demands including reference to being on a mission for the priest (true), being a friend of the noble in question (lie) and promising not to cause any trouble and be good (which they genuinely intend but clearly isn’t true).
It can get messy fast.
If you have a player who has invested in a solid Deception mod they’ll likely have a good time if you present situations that challenge them on this asset. (Good advice generally; challenge their strengths more than their weaknesses).
Here are just few thoughts on how to do that;
- Deception checks often work best in response to an accusation from an NPC rather than waiting for a player to cook up a lie.
- Social scenes that focus upon things in the past and the events of earlier play can be easier to administer than scenes where the players have to speak of their future intents. We can all change our minds after all.
Intimidation
It’s not torture. Personally, I often have that one player that wants to turn an interrogation into a distasteful torture scene. I don’t think it’s out of ghoulish fantasy but more commonly rooted in a completionist style of game play. The player who wants to explore every room in the dungeon, find every item of treasure and uncover every secret feels as though they’re missing out if they don’t wring every truth from an NPC they have at their mercy.
How much this is tolerated is careful matter for each group and I’m not going into the safe areas and red flag to this sort of action that should be covered in a session zero so no-one is placed in an uncomfortable position. As a DM managing the challenges my games, I don’t tolerate a player refusing to accept failure by escalating a questioning of a captured enemy into increasingly imaginative non-combative violence. Most games work best with the player characters being basically the good guys – morally grey, do what it takes types perhaps but basically on the side of good intent. Violence towards someone who cannot flee or fight is just not needed for a good game. Aside from whether the content is distasteful or not, it can break down to a player refusing to accept that they have failed to get the answer that they want
In fantasy stories, some characters just withstand torture, whether this be realistic or not and in the real life I am given to understand that torture tends to make people tell all they know as well as making up a lot of nonsense just to make it stop.
But it’s usually pretty easy to gloss over such attempts with ‘he gabbles meaningless nonsense until he dies’ and just move the game on.
Interrogation scenes can be a good place to engage characters with lower Charisma scores. A burley barbarian can be required to a make a Strength [Intimidation] check and play and active role in this most role-play focused aspect of play when during smooth talking scenes, they could feel locked out. Still, as mentioned above, to avoid murder-hoboism, it can be useful not to pander too far to the ‘fight first, ask questions later’ approach.
I get a lot of mileage from allowing Intimidation checks to control the battlefield. The character’s war cries and shouted threats can influence who gets attacked, allowing the tanky characters to draw fire. An orc might choose to charge the biggest, baddest fighter out of martial pride whilst goblins may flee from a furious charge.
Neither does it need to be physical intimidation. It can be subtle and based on the threat of displeasing a powerful noble.
My overall experience is players are usually full of ways to leverage Intimidation as it allows them to indulge the power fantasy of being a bad ass.
Performance
It’s perhaps easy to relegate Performance to thespian and musical displays and yet it can also feel like a ‘must take’ proficiency for a bard. There is certainly an overlap between Deception and Performance when it comes to pulling off a disguise (not to mention Disguise Kit tools proficiency). I don’t think it matters which you resort to as long as you’re consistent. Or it might be you allow the player to choose which of the two skills to use so they don’t feel cheated out of a chance to use a bog mod they have invested in.
Like Intimidation, Performance can have a combat application, however. Cowering to feign weakness or shows of strength can influence which characters the enemy target. Insults and goading can draw them on cause them to over commit and give up position. The options are limited only by your imagination. If you are receptive to such attempts the players will soon start to experiment with what they can achieve.
The real beauty of this is the opportunity it give you as a DM to illustrate how orcs differ from drow beyond just their stats. Roleplaying doesn’t stop when initiative is rolled and players, NPCs and monsters acting suitably when the dice are rolling thick and fast can create some of the most vivid and memorable scenes.
Persuasion
Persuasion can end up being the default Charisma proficiency. When a player says something with a clear intent that could fail and it isn’t a lie, isn’t brow-beating or threatening, and isn’t theatrical then Persuasion can seem the way to go.
I guess it depends on how much you structure your social interaction challenges but I find it helps to remember that attempts to convince an NPC are no different to any other course of action. Just as a rogue cannot sneak past a guard that’s looking right at them and the barbarian cannot run through a castle wall, the bard cannot convince an NPC to act completely out of character. This can be important because with bards often hit big mods in this field, by level 8 +11 is not uncommon. In such circumstances it’s easy to fall into the trap of inflating the DCs to unrealistic levels. This can ruin the sense of realism and it undermines the player’s most important choice; that of what character to play. Finally, it locks the other players out of social interaction challenges. In the past I fell into the trap of calling for a check when the player’s intent was not possible to achieve. If you call for a check, and the bard rolls a natural 20 for an score of thirty or more, it’s hard to back out!
I try to include an element of player focus in social scenes – such as ‘the guard can only be convinced to let the players through if he is bribed’ or ‘the priest will only help if the characters show him due respect and flatter his ego’. This allows any player with a clever approach to engage meaningfully as well as engaging PCs with solid Insight mods in attempts to read clues as how is best to handle the scenario.
Saves
Charisma gets a minor save and is can easily be ignored unless you’re in the habit of casting banishment on your players (I wouldn’t recommend casting ‘Boringment’ on a player. It’s a rubbish way to get locked out a combat. Leave this as a player spell.)
Still, having a massive mod and never getting to roll it can leave a player feeling cheated; so moans one of my paladin players at any rate. I don’t know – you just can’t please some people.
Saves are used to resist a negative rather than achieve a positive and bearing this in mind there are a few ways you can silence your whinging paladin … not that I’m bitter. When a character tries to haggle to get a lower price on a healing potion, you might ask them to take a Charisma save to avoid getting upsold on an better tasting healing potion for an extra five gold pieces. The player doesn’t get to taste it but their character does – if the regular healing potions taste like cat piss I might fork out on one that tasted of orange juice. Or make the party take such saves to avoid buying trinkets. You can argue it brings things to life a bit more … perhaps!
I rest my case.
There is certainly a lot more to say about how to leverage and manage the use of Charisma at your table perhaps because it’s so changeable. Some groups and games are combat heavy, others soaked in intrigue. Whether you create robust structures for your debates and arguments or whether you keep it loose depends of the type of play you and your players enjoy. All I’d say is the choice is yours and if you make it deliberately, rather than just defaulting into a way of doing it, then you’ll have a powerful tool in your DM arsenal.
Thanks for reading, and remember;