I don't know of an argument that would convince this NPC, but I'm pretty sure my character would

>I don't know of an argument that would convince this NPC, but I'm pretty sure my character would

How would this fly at your table?

not at all

Sure would, on a passed check vs corresponding DC.

As long as you make an attempt and clearly convey your intent/goal to me, you get to make a roll. If your attempt is sufficiently good, I might give you a bonus or bypass the mechanical portion of it altogether. As long as you try though, I'm sympathetic to your aims to trigger mechanics because that's why you made a character.

If they have the social stats for it, sure.

I would talk to them, about any vague concept or angle they'd like to take, try and tease something more out of them, and I wouldn't give them any sort of bonus to the roll. But I'm not going to apply a stupid double standard to skill checks. I don't ask someone to demonstrate a knowledge of mechanical engineering when they roll to disarm a trap.

It makes sense. You can roleplay as the best gunman in the west, why not the cunning man with a silver tongue?

Do most nerds have high charisma or wisdom?
They can still play characters like that
Just try to say something and get a good roll as GM I will try to make it happen.

I require the key idea behind an action a PC is doing, but otherwise i don't demand a player to give me every detail (though they can if they want to). I wouldn't need the full argument in this case, but I would at least need the general tactic such as intimidation, fact-checking, kissing ass, etc. I do base the difficulty of the roll based on how much the player gives me so more is generally better, but the minimum standard will usually at least give you a chance. Otherwise everyone would be required to play a character with 10s across the board and maybe a 12 in one or two stats. That all said, simply saying your character would know better without at least explaining how or why would almost certainly result in a failure with no chance to roll.

>That all said, simply saying your character would know better without at least explaining how or why would almost certainly result in a failure with no chance to roll.
At that point, you have a player that can't formulate their idea, and it's up to the GM to pull it out of them because the other players need to know what the score is.
Saying that they would fail the roll, when it's likely true the pc would have an idea and be able to bring it across, does little besides shit on the player.

>Just try to describe to me what you're saying it effects the roll

Pretty much. They'd at least need to provide reasoning as to why their character would, and then some kind of sweet/spicy/sour stage direction for me to formulate an NPC response based on.

No, you roleplay social interactions. If you cannot convince me, the GM, then you can't convince the NPC.

So none of your players ever invest any points in charisma scores or social skills?

>I want to make charisma even more useless than it already is. Is that acceptable?
No

This. You can go "c'monnn" and we'll roll to see if that works, but fucking say something.

I like to reward players for investing in he game. The harder they try the more I give them. OP's scenario seems like a lazy player to me and I'm not going to reward them equally to the players that at least try to play their character as best they can. To be fair however, I've never had this problem. My group always give me something to work with even if it is obviously not all that good in which case I worked with them to expand and/or improve upon their concept. I try yo balance guiding them without playing for them.

Would it make for good roleplaying? If so sure, I might even hand wave it if you roleplayed the argument well.

>using mental/social stats in a game that doesn't have built-on mechanics for mental/social combat
top kek

Roll it... it's gonna have to be high.

This is the right way to do it.

"What makes you think that?"