D&D 5E When To Roll Persuasion?

[Sunseeker]

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.

I guess my issue then is that I don't see all but the most dedicated RPers being interested in doing that. I talked this out with my wife a bit and she seems to like the idea of getting instruction on on good or what kind of argument she should be making after the check. I on the other hand think rolling before RPing takes away some of the suspense/surprise of knowing if your argument worked or not.

 

[Corwin]

Most players aren't going to want to roleplay out failure.

Huh. That's an interesting perspective. One I wouldn't bet on. I wonder if that's a regional thing? Or maybe more common based on the kinds of RPG systems a group has played?

 

[guachi]

I think there is a fundamental difference...tricky to articulate. The natural flow of person-to-person dynamics – at my table – when handling roleplaying works against Method #2 (Roll and then Act Out Your Roll). Preserving that natural flow of dialogue – at my table – is more desirable than modeling the dice/rules precisely. The thought of rolling doesn't even occur to me until it's clear there's something being negotiated, something in question.

<Quote edited to focus on the above>

In my better sessions (whether as player or DM), the game flows like the above. I'm trying to recall, but when I had the party face in my favorite campaign I don't recall ever approaching a social situation with the intent to roll dice. I would talk to the NPC and let the DM tell me if dice needed to be rolled.

In the natural flow of the game, the interaction will eventually taper off or it will become clear that one party wants something and then a roll will probably be necessary. It's often not immediately apparent that the situation even warrants a check until the PCs have been talking to an NPC for a few minutes to take stock of what they might even wish to accomplish and, therefore, might need to roll for.

In other words, when the DM and PCs are immersed in the game the mechanics can naturally be set aside.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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?

Oh, I see.

No, there's no "persuading" of the DM that your approach will work. Whether or not a skill test is required depends on whether or not there's impact on the game. If the success of your adventure depends on getting through the town gate RIGHT NOW, then a roll is going to be required, not matter how brilliant the plan (see below). If you're just roleplaying the town guard questioning visitors because that adds environmental flavor, then no roll will be required.

Whether or not the roll is required, the player is free to narrate how they tried to persuade the guard. (In my opinion, if they can't really think of something novel/interesting that will contribute to the game, don't waste precious game minutes forcing them to. Accept the roll and keep going.)

Now, let's say the player rolls a natural 20 AND has all kinds of bonuses. By definition it was brilliant persuasion. So now, no matter what crazy narration he concocts, it's "brilliant". If he used some far-fetched excuse, then my response (as the DM) would be to say, "As it just so happens, by strange coincidence..." and then explain how that was actually the perfect argument to use with this particular guard.

That's "roll then narrate". It could also be "don't roll then narrate" (if no roll is needed). First resolve success by the mechanical rules, then retroactively add the fluff.

EDIT: I'll add that I realize this won't sit right with some people. Some of you probably think that a great plan, or great acting, or whatever, should somehow alter the odds of success. I also have played that way a lot, and sometimes still do, but overall I think I prefer to be the neutral arbiter, not the evaluator of how good somebody's plan/acting is.

 

[Quickleaf]

<Quote edited to focus on the above>

In my better sessions (whether as player or DM), the game flows like the above. I'm trying to recall, but when I had the party face in my favorite campaign I don't recall ever approaching a social situation with the intent to roll dice. I would talk to the NPC and let the DM tell me if dice needed to be rolled.

In the natural flow of the game, the interaction will eventually taper off or it will become clear that one party wants something and then a roll will probably be necessary. It's often not immediately apparent that the situation even warrants a check until the PCs have been talking to an NPC for a few minutes to take stock of what they might even wish to accomplish and, therefore, might need to roll for.

In other words, when the DM and PCs are immersed in the game the mechanics can naturally be set aside.

Yes, well said. Not every table is into that kind of immersion, but games at my table have been the better for it.

[MENTION=37579]Jester David[/MENTION] One thing I think is worth pointing out – Having some dialogue before calling for a roll is actually desirable because it allows the stakes/conditions/what's at risk to be set. That can help the DM how to interpret success or failure in the particular circumstances. It actually reminds me of This Old Rule: Diplomacy wherein after dialogue modifiers were determined including relationship & risk vs. reward judgment. While I don't think anything so formulaic is needed (and numerical modifiers are greatly minimized or cut in 5e), it does illustrate how I think about things as DM when adjudicating whether something succeeds automatically, has advantage/disadvantage, or requires a normal roll.

 

[abirdcall]

That's not incompatible with roll then narrate. Player declares intent, DM asks for a skill check, player narrates the resulting scene, in either 1st or 3rd person.

It's also not apple.

I was answering the question, 'when do you roll persuasion?'

 

[robus]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION], I think that approach (ha!) just changes the play style too much for my liking. We'll have to agree to disagree but I appreciate you taking the time to break it down.

 

[77IM]

I solved this problem by changing what "Success" and "Failure" mean based on the context of what was said. The player always rolls but "success" does not mean the NPC cooperates (if there's no way they'd ever do it) and "failure" does not mean the NPC refuses. This effectively turns the check result into a degree-of-success or degree-of-failure mechanic.

Here's how it works:
1. If the NPC is definitely going to cooperate, roll anyway, and on a success, they go above and beyond and do their best work; on a failure, they just do the basics, or maybe even cooperate only grudgingly.
2. If the NPC really isn't sure whether to cooperate or not, roll for typical success or failure.
3. If the NPC is definitely not going to cooperate, roll anyway, and on a success, they give the PCs some sort of "consolation prize." A really good prize is telling the PCs why they won't cooperate, or what the PCs would need to do to earn their cooperation. This turns a simple "no" into a "no, but..."

I like this system because players like rolling dice and because Charisma should matter. But it turns out that scenario 2, in which the NPC really isn't sure whether to cooperate or not, is actually really rare. I'd say 80% of the time it's pretty obvious how the NPC will respond to the PC's social interaction. So I roll in all the scenarios, and interpret the results as above.

I do similar things with knowledge skills and movement skills. Sometimes it's not about whether you succeed but by how much (or by how much do you fail...).

 

[ThunderDM]

You roll the Persuasion skill when your character is trying to persuade and NPC of something
>goes back to practicing cursive

 

[discosoc]

IMO, persuasion is horribly misused. Players almost always want to roll persuasion (or the GM asks them to) in an effort to change the actions/thoughts/intentions/beliefs/etc of an NPC in a very short amount of time (right then and there). The problem is people don't work like that. People are stubborn and most aren't going to have their minds changed on a whim -- especially from a random stranger. Here are a few examples of how persuasion gets used and why it's usually wrong (but possibly correct):

1(a). Player wants to persuade the guard to let them into the party. This is just stupid because guards/bouncers/police/etc aren't generally going to make a random exception for some adventurers without a *very* good reason. The player simply saying "pretty please" isn't going to cut it, even if they're rolling in the 20's or 30's.
1(b). But what if the player is a well-known hero or other important person? Then they would have received an invitation. As far as the guard is concerned, the mixup is above his pay grade and his job isn't to personally vet random people asking to join the party.
1(c). But what if the player tries to convince the guard that they should have been invited? Then the guard may very well empathize with the player's situation, but -- again -- it's not really his job to vet random people asking to join the party. The persuasion check succeeds and the player is still left out in the cold.
1(d). But what if the player claims to have lost the invitation? Then it would be a deception check. Even then, the guard would still be unlikely to let the player in, regardless of any empathy he feels about the unfortunate circumstances.
1(e). What if the player has a fake invitation? Deception again, with the added bonus of possibly gaining access to the party since the guard would believe it was real.
1(f). What if the player threatens the guard's family if they aren't let in? Intimidation.
1(g). What if the player politely threaten's the guard's family while asking "pretty please?" Still intimidation.
1(h). What if the player has the City Guard background? Persuasion might actually work in this case, as a "professional courtesy" or maybe a favor that the guard is comfortable with.
1(i). What if the player knows the guard? This could also work. People often do bend the rules for friends, and this could easily get worked into an actual infiltration plan where the player intends to gain access to the party by befriending one of the guards beforehand.
1(j). What if the player is blackmailing the guard? That would be intimidation, and possibly deception if the blackmail attempt is fake. Definitely not a persuasion check.
1(k). What if the player wants to bribe the guard? That could work, either as an auto success or a fairly easy persuasion check to convince the guard that this isn't an IA setup. On the other hand, some people are simply never going to be bribed on the spot, so it's kind of up to the GM to figure out who can be bought, and that information is unlikely to be obvious to the player unless they've been investigation the guard beforehand.
1(l). What if the player is trying to save the guard's life? Persuasion might work here, but this could easily dip into deception or intimidation territory as well. It just depends on what the player is claiming (the King is clearly insane and I'm just trying to put a stop to it all!), if they are telling the truth (is the King's insanity an open secret?), and if it's worded as an ultimatum (stand aside or be cut down with the mad King you serve!). Still, there's potential for an actual persuasion check here, but it would obviously need to be a bit more involved than "I want to try and persuade the guard to let me in..."

Notice the theme here? Successful persuasion checks generally don't result in short-term benefits (such as getting what you want), unless the attempt comes with another short-term benefit for the target (such as a bribe, or favor owed, debt paid). Intimidation and deception will. If you don't believe me, try "persuading" a bartender to give you a free drink the next time you're out. Even if they empathize with you, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll get it. Basically, we need to stop treating persuasion as some kind of "social attack roll" that results in the character getting what they want on a success (and simply walking away from the RP on a failure).

So what *is* persuasion really good for? Getting information from people will very likely involve persuading them to some degree, assuming the information isn't just outright common-knowledge. Maybe you can't persuade the guard to let you into the party, but you could very possibly get him to talk about the guests that have already arrived or maybe get him to let slip that the guard watching the side entrance was out drinking the night before and is clearly not fit for duty.

Anyway -- food for thought. This is just something that's always bugged me about how people approach persuasion in all kinds of RPG's.