D&D 5E When To Roll Persuasion?

[robus]

Are the "roll and narrate" supporters saying that the DM should always call for roll? The outcome is always uncertain?

 

[Jester David]

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.

If someone isn't RPing then that doesn't change. For someone who is RPing, they know what they should be RPing. They're acting out a failed diplomatic effort rather than a potentially successful one. They get to narrate how they fail.

Most of the time you don't fail the attack because you bumbled. The enemy dodged or absorbed your blow. No difference here.

And the skilled diplomancer bard never commits a social faux pas or trips over their words. But their words DNA fail to sway someone.

 

[Harzel]

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?

My personal preference is to use the first method, but still allow the roll to drive the narration without retroactively changing or embellishing the PC's declared actions. The way (or one way) to do this is to take advantage of the fact that even a world built with great attention to detail will inevitably be greatly underspecified; that is, there is much about the world that has not been determined. The DM's job in this view is to invent new state for the world that is consistent with what has already been determined, including the PC's declared actions, but also is consistent with and explains the result of the die roll**. Ideally, the explanation also makes the world a more interesting place and adds to the story.

This new information about the world may be explicated in the narration through the reaction of an NPC or some other environmental factor, or it might only be hinted at, or it might for the moment remain purely a part of the DM's notes - something for the PCs to work at discovering if they are curious about the fact that, for instance in a social interaction, they said all the 'right' things (based on what they knew at that point), but still failed to get the result that they wanted.

Doing this well is hard, or at least it seems that way to me, and I do not by any means claim that I do it well. I just think it is an interesting thing to shoot for.

** At least in the case that the die roll points to a result that an observer (particularly the PCs) would consider unlikely, which is what I think the OP was identifying as problematic.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

The players need to tell me their "Persuasion Approach" before any rolls. After all, the approach might be guaranteed to succeed/fail. Only when the result is uncertain, a persuasion roll is done. I guess here it can be reasonable to let the player first roll and then narrate.

 

[Shiroiken]

While I understand the premise, I gotta go against it. Most players aren't going to want to roleplay out failure. I would, but that's because I normally DM and am used to it.

For social situations, I simply RP out the scene. If the NPC needs to make a decision, that's when I call for the check. I set the DC based on the hazards and resource cost for the NPC vs. the expected rewards (modified by the NPC's bonds, traits, and flaws). I don't normally grant advantage or bonuses for good RP, mostly because I feel it gives too much advantage to socially skilled players.

 

[S'mon]

I generally have the check made after the speech, with the DC affected by how good the speech was, normally within the 10-20 range. So a player who is a good speaker gets a lower DC but a player who is a poor speaker can compensate if they have a high persuasion modifier. In some cases a good speech may obviate a roll if there is no logical reason the NPC would refuse - I only roll if the outcome is in doubt, eg the NPC has reason to refuse the suggestion.

The analogy is with combat - high combat stats make success easier, but player tactical skill still affects the outcome. A high Persuade skill makes success easier, but player diplomatic skill still affects the outcome.

I don't accept "I diplomatise him" but I might accept "I try to persuade the merchant to cut us a deal".

 

[iserith]

To me, it's simple. This is the formula:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

The ability check, if there is one, happens between 2 and 3, when the DM determines there is uncertainty as to the outcome of what the players described in Step 2. So the players have already done their part in the attempt at persuasion. They do have to deal with the aftermath of their attempt as described by the DM in Step 3 and anything else established as the DM loops around to Step 1, but otherwise, they don't get to narrate the results. If they tried to be persuasive, then they do as they described, whether they acted it out or plainly stated a goal and approach - it just fell short of success on a failure. They don't suddenly do something they didn't initially describe instead.

Is it being suggested that we go to the below formula instead?

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players ask to make an ability check.
3. The DM accedes to the request for some reason and sets a DC despite knowing what the PCs are doing exactly.
4. The players narrate the result with the DM's input.

If so, I would have some issues with this. One, as a player, I do NOT want to roll the dice. They are not my friend. I want to succeed outright, so asking to make a check is not desirable. Further, asking to make an ability check is not the same as describing what you want to do. It does imply certain things, but that leaves far too much assumption on the table in my view. And without knowing with reasonably specificity what the players' goal and approach is, I don't see how the DM decides on success or failure, certainty or uncertainty, or difficulty.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Are the "roll and narrate" supporters saying that the DM should always call for roll? The outcome is always uncertain?

What? No.

How did you get to that?

 

[Guest 6801328]

The players need to tell me their "Persuasion Approach" before any rolls. After all, the approach might be guaranteed to succeed/fail. Only when the result is uncertain, a persuasion roll is done. I guess here it can be reasonable to let the player first roll and then narrate.

I think that's where we differ. I inherently don't believe in approaches that are guaranteed to succeed/fail, unless they are inextricably tied to predefined plot devices that I don't want to (or can't think of a way to) change. I like to let my players fully participate in the fiction. If I've dropped in a new minor NPC (e.g. a guard) and the player wants that person to be a secret religious zealot with a speech impediment and a sister who is a famous courtesan who just happens to know the player's cousin...because all that makes his idea for the narration of the failed skill roll possible...I'm fine with that.

 

[robus]

What? No.

How did you get to that?

So for "roll then narrate" procedure the player still does their best to persuade and the DM might still say you succeed or fail outright. Correct?

Then if the DM is uncertain as the success of the result (this determination based on the preamble attempt above), the DM asks for a roll. And then the player has to narrate why their roll is successful or not?

Assuming I have that correct....

This seems to put an awful lot on the player? And it also stops the DM from having the NPC resist the persuasion (on a failed check) but offering perhaps a new opening (such as the bribe is laughable, opening up the opportunity for a bigger bribe to perhaps be successful...)

I guess I don't see how roll and narrate helps the narrative exchange between the DM and the players?