This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.

Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.

When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?

A lot of times I wouldn't ask a Player to roll it at all... just assume folks are going to favor the guy with high CHA and want to please him and support him, take his side.
My current Pathfinder PC was made using straight random rolls and has fairly blah stats but a stellar Charisma. He's flamboyant and can muster men to his side (he's already won 1 fight that way)... his speech inspires people. His stupid plans just seem better somehow.
He's only had to roll when he's really pushing it. He's naturally charming but he can 'turn it to 11' if necessary... asking for something that's against the self-interest of an NPC or buttering up someone who's pre-disposed to dislike him... or when he's trying really hard to make a great first impression on an important functionary. In those situations the GM called for a roll right up front... and a second when he finally popped the question... such as asking the widow to sell him one of her daughters (which he planned to use as bait to catch a demon).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.

Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.

When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?

Get them to roll at the begining of a social situation and then tailor your responses to the roll. So you still talk it through but you allow their roll to have an effect. IF they see things aren't going well allow them , if they think of it to "change tack" can try a second roll. You can continue down this track adding disadvantage to subsequent rolls if you wish.

This means you combine the stat/skills the PC may have with roleplaying at the table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.

Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.

When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?

I use it in two manners.

First, I may roll CHA as a reaction roll, if I am not sure about the first impression a PC will make on an NPC. I don't do this with every new NPC, though.

When it comes to using social skills, I will roleplay the dialogue up until the moment a decision needs to be made. Then I will roll the dice and resolve the situation accordingly. If a PC it's the target of the skill, I will still let the player decide what he/she wants to do, but if he decides to go against the roll I will adjudicate some penalty.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560This doesn't apply to just D&D but RPGs with a charisma stat in general, but as a GM I find myself wondering when exactly we are supposed to ask for a check on this stat.

Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.

When exactly do you look for a charisma check? Suppose player A is trying to convince NPC B of something. You could technically roll a charisma check at any point during the discussion, but what exactly would prompt it?

I like some of the above suggestions. When I GMd I would do dialogue between the PCs/NPCs and roll for CHA. If the roll was a fail, then the PCs would have a hell of a time sweet talking the NPC. IF they succeeded then they could put their foot in their mouth and still get away with it. It kind of worked out of sight of the players.

Mind you, depending on the situation, the NPC, the roll, the behaviour of the PCs and so on, the roll may be impacted and modified by their RP choices. A situational approach rather than one size fits all.

So yes, GM fiat dressed up as a random roll based on what was happening at the time! That does sound bad, doesn't it.

Same reason why there are INT rolls, when the player and the character have very different abilities.  
I will let the players roleplay it first but if the rp is really very good or really bad and lazy and uninspired, I let them roll. With an appropriate modifier.

Some players like to do a CHA check and then act on what they got based on the roll and their character.

So a low CHA character gets a really good roll theyd have then perhaps be more polite or courteous than they usually are. Those moments of eloquence anyone can get at the oddest moments.

Normally I just let the players talk and do their thing then roll for NPCs and monsters to see if they buy all that or not. Basically the character might think they are a great orator, party guy or liar. But they arent.

I do the initial reaction roll first to set the baseline posture. That'd be the engagement, the introduction.

Then I let players interact, choosing how much roleplay they want, or feel they can handle. That'd be the negotiation, the banter.

Some admit their natural capacity is lower than their character and we just talk plain summaries of each party's sought goals. Others want to hash it out then and there and flow with the vicissitudes (which could leak more information that way — or they could trust the dice on an Insight equivalent).

Whatever it is, you don't garner more information than what you seek at the table (that's for special powers). And negotiations can be cut short by pushing for more onto the table than wanted (that's asking too much and being pushy). By clearly defining what the desires, limits, & stakes are it is easy to just transfer it into a roll. However, I do admit that a good roleplay has flexibility to tip more from my GM hand, as info freebies often are parcel of social niceties.

My best gauge is that conversational intensity, the electricity in the air. That's when roleplay banter got someone hooked. You'll notice a shift in one's seat, a focus to one's eyes, a shift longer into 1st person, etc. But you must be kind to your players, too. Some burn out from that faster, as that is not a strongly familiar state of play for them. When the room's energy wanes, shifting to 3rd person rapid negotiation summaries and rolling off allows them to recharge.

I often get players to roll, but they get considerable bonuses if they roleplay it out in an interesting way, or at least describe what their character is saying and how.

I kind of refuse to let a social interaction be handled solely with dice, and I want to let the players who invested into social skills get to have fun rolling dice too.

In some Basic Roleplaying derivatives, there's a stat called either Charisma (CHA) or Appearance (APP). Here are some ways to use that stat:

- to get someone's attention when it's too far away to talk ("I smile and see if she'll notice me", "Okay, make a Charisma roll")
- when someone's trying to convince/charm someone and language isn't an option ("They don't speak any language you know, and they look suspicious", "Hmmm... I try to smile and show them I don't mean any harm, using nonthreatening body language and a reassuring expression. "Okay, make a Charisma roll.").
- to intimidate someone without words or an obvious physical threat ("I give him a scowl and glare at him to  keep him out of the way." "Okay, make a Charisma roll.")

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;787560Normally you can just roleplay out a dialogue without any rolls at all. But then, since there is a CHA stat, you want it to actually be useful rather than a dump stat; that means that there should be situations where rolling it would be required, or at last some situations where it is the appropriate move instead of just talking it out.

In combat there are tactics and there is the mechanics. You can do everything perfect tactics wise but blow all your rolls and win up losing. You can do the exact same tactics and with average dice rolls come out ahead and win the battle. Or you can use poor tactics and manage to win with exceptionally good dice roll.

Charisma works the same way with roleplaying. The roleplaying are the "tactics" portion of the encounter, and the dice rolls is to see how well you did.

Like combat mechanics a person tactics could be such that the results are obviously. For example slitting a dead guys throat with no other opponent attacking. It going to happen.

The same with roleplaying, a player acting as his character is so compelling or so far off the mark that there is no roll required. The results are obvious.

But for everything else a Charisma roll determines how well the player's roleplaying characters did. Just like a to hit roll determines how well a weapon strike did.

I use the following to judge the roleplaying of a player as character.

• The content of what he is saying. Is it relevant? Does push an NPCs hot button? Or caters to a NPC's like.
• How sincere is the effort?

While I appreciate good acting by a player these criteria allow a wider range of players to roleplay a high charisma character in my campaign.

Quote from: estar;787617In combat there are tactics and there is the mechanics. You can do everything perfect tactics wise but blow all your rolls and win up losing. You can do the exact same tactics and with average dice rolls come out ahead and win the battle. Or you can use poor tactics and manage to win with exceptionally good dice roll.

Charisma works the same way with roleplaying. The roleplaying are the "tactics" portion of the encounter, and the dice rolls is to see how well you did.

Like combat mechanics a person tactics could be such that the results are obviously. For example slitting a dead guys throat with no other opponent attacking. It going to happen.

The same with roleplaying, a player acting as his character is so compelling or so far off the mark that there is no roll required. The results are obvious.

But for everything else a Charisma roll determines how well the player's roleplaying characters did. Just like a to hit roll determines how well a weapon strike did.

I use the following to judge the roleplaying of a player as character.

• The content of what he is saying. Is it relevant? Does push an NPCs hot button? Or caters to a NPC's like.
• How sincere is the effort?

While I appreciate good acting by a player these criteria allow a wider range of players to roleplay a high charisma character in my campaign.

Well said. I also prefer mixed methods.

I like using the CHA ability score modifier for heroic banter. As a non-lethal, verbal attack/taunt so to say, which the opponent has to roll against.

The answer, for me, is the same as with all dice rolls: when you don't already know the answer.

If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a self-defeating fool not to agree with, and the PC hasn't offended the NPC to such an extent that they'd wreck a perfectly good deal just to spite the PC, then the NPC says "yes".

If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a guileless fool to agree to, and the PC doesn't already have so much influence over the NPC that they'd jump off a cliff if the PC told them to, then the NPC says "no".

If a particular response is strongly suggested by what I already know about that NPC, I go with that response.

If I really don't know what the NPC is going to do, that's when the dice help me.

Quote from: Warthur;787660The answer, for me, is the same as with all dice rolls: when you don't already know the answer.

If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a self-defeating fool not to agree with, and the PC hasn't offended the NPC to such an extent that they'd wreck a perfectly good deal just to spite the PC, then the NPC says "yes".

If the PC has said something that the NPC in question would be a guileless fool to agree to, and the PC doesn't already have so much influence over the NPC that they'd jump off a cliff if the PC told them to, then the NPC says "no".

If a particular response is strongly suggested by what I already know about that NPC, I go with that response.

If I really don't know what the NPC is going to do, that's when the dice help me.

This misses a trick though I think. There are people who can sell sand to arabs and convince their girlfriends that Stacey is one of the guys at the office sending texts just for a laugh.
What seems to a regular senible person to be insanity can seem supremely rationale if it comes from the right person who knows the buttons to press.

There are numerous real world examples from Sobraj (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3867791.stm) to Frank Abagnale and Helg Sgarbi, not to mention from the fantasy genre Locke Lamora, Silk and Gandalf (everyone beleives everything he says just cos he has a beard...)