D&D 5E When To Roll Persuasion?

[Jester David]

When the DM should ask for a Charisma (Persuasion) or Diplomacy check?

The method I've seen most often in play is that the player makes an argument and then the DM calls for a Persuasion check. Or Intimidation/ Bluff depending on how the interaction is presented.
Occasionally,the DM will modify the DC based on the results of the roleplaying that occurred before the check was made. Which is tricky as it adds two points of failure: you either do a bad job or roleplaying and the DC goes up, or the roll is bad. And occasionally you get the situation where they character says all the right things and does a beautiful speech but then rolls a "1".

The alternative tends to drop the roleplaying and acting and just has the character declare they're making the check and rolling.

It occurs to me that we're doing this backwards. That the second method is closer to the desirable course of play. We should roll the Charisma check first and then act out the actual discussion. We should find out the result of the check and then roleplay based on how well we rolled. If the player rolls terribly, they should modify what they were going to say based on that result. But in a good roll, they can really try and say something memorable, possibly with prompting by the rest of the table.
Or even the DM. Instead of the DM modifying the DC of the check, they should give cues and modify how the player is roleplaying at the table, suggesting taking points.

Thoughts?

 

[Hriston]

IMO, the dice are there to resolve player actions, not determine them. The approach you're proposing would seem to reduce social interaction to a simulator of which the players are spectators rather than participants.

 

[Corwin]

Or, unless the outcome is uncertain for some reason, just roleplay it out. If the party face is being reasonable, I generally just go with it and respond appropriately. If the uncouth barbarian insists on speaking up, I generally know how my NPCs would respond to such a thing. I'm not one to call for a roll for every interaction.

For me, the roll is ususally best called for when a player is attempting to get something out of the adventure (i.e., a mechanical benefit or a "plot card", so to speak). Or they are attempting to engage an NPC from a direction counter to their assumptions or inclinations.

I've also used your "roll informs the narrative" approach on occasion as well, to great affect. Makes for some interesting results and subsequent stories. More so when it lead to failure. We love coming up with reasons why the eloquent bard just insulted the king, or whathaveyou.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think I've said this before: but the dice is the lens through which the players perceive the game, and the game perceives the players.

A "social check" occurs when a player wants an NPC to do something for them, and doesn't want to use violence to make them do it. The DC is based on how unlikely the NPC is to do that thing.

I don't require my players to RP their social checks, but I do encourage it, they have to at least tell me what they want the NPC to do for them. If their dice roll is incongruent with their RP, it does not affect the DC (at my table). Instead, the roll modifies how the NPC perceives what the player is saying. So if they roll well but RP badly, the NPC still acts like the PC just made a persuasive argument. If the player rolls badly but RPs well, the NPC still acts like the PC just make a bad argument.

The idea that someone should "RP to the quality of the roll of the dice" I think is the wrong direction to take. Not everyone is an actor and not everyone is going to be able to RP a 19, even with group input. The player should be allowed to RP things in the way they want to the best of their abilities, and the game mechanics should be used to determine the NPCs reaction to that.

 

[Ristamar]

Since I'm not a big proponent of the "X successes before Y failures" skill challenge model in social encounters, I tend to lean on social checks more for simple interactions with barebones NPCs or when the players start pushing buttons outside the lines I've internalized for key NPCs. They're also useful for adjudicating gradient results when the PCs requests are likely higher than what the other party is willing to bear.

Otherwise, I'm more apt to roll with the natural conversation and keep the dice out of it until absolutely necessary.

 

[iserith]

The check comes when the DM determines what the player describes has an uncertain outcome. That necessarily means the players must offer a goal and approach first. How that goal and approach is communicated can be a straightforward statement of what you're doing and what you hope to accomplish. Or it can be acted out (as you say).

In my view, whether you act it out or whether you plainly state the goal and approach should have the same uncertainty and DC, assuming the goal and approach boils down to the same in either way of communicating it. In other words, your acting ability or way with words obviously adds to the play experience, but otherwise has no effect on the mechanics.

The DM then narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. I would add a further limitation on the DM here in that he or she cannot in the narration of the outcome state what the character is doing outside of what the player has already established.

Typically, when I need to resolve an outcome on a player's stated action, I call for an ability check. Then the players decide which of their skill proficiencies, if any, apply.

 

[MarkB]

Like an attack roll, a Persuasion check doesn't determine how competent the player is at persuasion - their proficiency bonus does that. What the die roll does is to introduce the factors of opposition, environment and sheer random chance that affect the potential outcome.

If a player rolls poorly on a Persuasion check, it doesn't mean their character became an uncouth cretin - it just means that for some reason their line of argument didn't work. Maybe the NPC didn't like the look of them, maybe their well-reasoned argument happens to be the same one presented by a con artist yesterday, maybe there are extenuating circumstances they're unaware of that make their suggestion untenable.

Asking the player to roleplay the outcome of a failed check as a sudden loss of competence on their part is missing the point of the interaction.

 

[robus]

First the NPC attempting to be persuaded has to be able to be persuaded. Not possible? No roll. Player fails.

If the NPC can be persuaded do they have a reason to resist? If no, no roll. Player succeeds.

Is the Player via their character giving a good reason why the NPC should be persuaded? Yes? No roll. Player succeeds.

Is the player via their character kind of persuading the NPC but not decisively? Ask for a Persuasion roll. The dice determine success or failure.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

When the DM should ask for a Charisma (Persuasion) or Diplomacy check?

Thoughts?

Whenever I feel that I don't have a solid idea on how the NPC would react to what the PC's are/arn't doing.

If the PC's are trying to convince a guard to let them through the gate after dark, and the PC's just waltz on up and say "Hey, let us out. We need to go"...I don't roll because the guards orders easily override this "No. Nobody enters/leaves until sun up".

If the PC's say "Hey, sir? Can we be let out please? We are adventurers and need to get to the Lost Dungeon of Sloshy by the end of today"...I wouldn't roll. The guard may be sympathetic, but he's not going to risk disobeying a direct order just for some murder-hobo's... "Hmmm....no. Sorry! Nobody gets out until sun up. There's the Horses Head inn just over there that has a 24-hour tavern. Maybe hang out there for the next 6 hours?".

If the PC's say "Hey, sir? We are on an important quest that lies deep within the Lost Dungeon of Sloshy. We need to get there by the end of today or a great evil will be released...as you would be helping us in this quest, it's only fair that we pay you. How does 10 gold sound for your part in this just and goodly quest? Hmmm...?" Ok. NOW I'll let the player roll a Diplomacy/Charisma check. The guard probably wants to help, but his orders and all that...but he has been given a reason, an excuse he can use about helping the greater good and all that, and 10gp's to boot. That's a lot of positives in favour of the PC's. Enough that I, as DM, don't have enough info on the guard NPC to make a definitive RP call. So this is where the dice come in; to help me decide on a course of action.

For the players that are not really into RP'ing...

Player: I offer him 10 gold to open the door.
Me (DM): No.
Player: Ok, 50gp's.
DM: He seems to want it, but still says no.
Player: OK, 100gp's.
DM: Roll a Diplomacy.

Meaning...yes, I do base my 'roll or not' on RPing...and yes, this means that the 'poor' RP'ers in the group get a bit of the stinky end of the stick, but it balances out in the long run. The Non-RP'ing type players are typically the ones with the more "combat oriented" characters, so in hard combats, it's the RP'ers who didn't/don't focus on combat that get the stinky end of things.

If a player is good at all three Pillars and enjoys them all? That's just a superior player. Somebody that doesn't care about any of it and is just here because their boyfriend/girlfriend talked them into joining? That's just a poor player.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Morrus]

Checks are used when you are unsure of the outcome. Pick up a book? No check. Lift a log? Str check. Asking directions? No check. Convincing the guard to release you? Check.

If the player went all out and gave an amazing argument, maybe grant advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World