Some of my players are really charismatic, but I feel like the things they want are a little outrageous. For example, persuading someone they just met to abandon their life and join the party. To which my players will say, "But I got a 24 on my persuasion role," I want to run social encounters more than just walking up and rolling to see if it works. How do others DM's handle it.
The short version is that there's 5 levels of reactions to the player's requests:
Oppose them (possibly taking risks)
Neither harm nor help
Accept their request as long as it's risk-free (or cost-free).
Accept a small amount of risk.
Accept a significant amount of risk.
A hostile NPC defaults to opposing the players, an indifferent NPC neither harms nor helps and a friendly NPC will help as long as it's risk-free. A DC 10 persuasion check will improve their response by 1 step; a 20 or more will improve the response by 2 steps.
The thing about this system is that results above 20 are meaningless, and you'll never get a hostile NPC to take even small risks to help you, or an indifferent NPC to big risks.
I use the guidelines the DMG has laid out, which InquisitiveCoder has mentioned above, but I add a second layer of... let's call it resistance, against being convinced to do things that they view as particularly unacceptable.
For some examples: you can't convince an uninterested person into having sex with your character no matter how high your charisma check happens to be; your grandma is not coming on the adventure with you because she thinks that's a genuinely crazy idea; it doesn't matter how much money you offer me or how charismatic you are, I'm not killing anyone for you; and so on.
Regardless of dice roll, that charisma check is only there to modify/indicate a person's general attitude towards a suggestion. Unless the NPC is on the fence about a decision (or are particularly gullible or dishonest); as Aaron says (sort of), some things are not going to happen however charismatic the person suggesting them are. Otherwise James Franco could sort out most of the problems in the world by having a quiet chat (one on one) with the world's leaders. A good roll can indicate that the NPC will go some way towards fulfilling the suggestion (Aaron's Granny sends him in her place, or Aaron decides to not call the cops when you offer him a contract (or maybe his granny has a secret history as a government sponsored assassin and he give you her number...) ) A failed roll when suggesting something unlikely could lead to the NPC blowing the whistle, blackmailing you, warning your associates about you, secretly spitting on your burger... or maybe they follow the suggestion and then betray you at the first chance... ...in short, things that might make a player think twice before reaching for the dice to solve a problem.
Leading to the question - should the DM roll the persuasion check secretly?
Important NPCs and their motives are too complex to boil down to a single d20 roll.
Whenever a player puts this sort of logic forward I remind them that there are magic spells and items that can coerce a person to do things they don't want to. A persuasion check does not trump magic. It just means you are persuasive to the point that people may consider something outside their normal behavior. Within limits.
i.e. Even if you roll a 50, the King isn't going to open the treasury and let you take all his gold. He's going to chuckle and respond favorably without being stupid. "That's a bold request, truly you are a fearless hero. I'm a bit fond of the treasury and use that coin to fund the kingdom. I would be willing to part with a fair amount of it though - provided you rescue my daughter. She's been kidnapped by a dragon and is sequestered in a tower in a nearby land called Tropia. Rescue her and I might be willing to give you tree fiddy gold if you rescue her and return her home safely!"
Where as a poor roll on the same request would anger the king and possibly get a character jailed.
Don't treat DnD as strictly a numbers game. The framework is there to fit the story nicely, and that's (as far as I'm concerned) the main point of the rolls. Just because someone nat20'd a jump check doesn't mean they spring an extra 15ft up, just because someone nat1'd a perception check doesn't mean they don't notice the glowing lamp in the dark room.
It's about telling the story together. If someone can come up with a good enough pickup line/ argument telling an NPC to join AND they rolled well, I don't see why it should be a problem. But if they just roll the dice and then look at you with a blank expression, then fold your hands and say "okay, you rolled a 24. Explain to me how you convince them"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some of my players are really charismatic, but I feel like the things they want are a little outrageous. For example, persuading someone they just met to abandon their life and join the party. To which my players will say, "But I got a 24 on my persuasion role," I want to run social encounters more than just walking up and rolling to see if it works. How do others DM's handle it.
The DMG has good social interaction guidelines.
The short version is that there's 5 levels of reactions to the player's requests:
A hostile NPC defaults to opposing the players, an indifferent NPC neither harms nor helps and a friendly NPC will help as long as it's risk-free. A DC 10 persuasion check will improve their response by 1 step; a 20 or more will improve the response by 2 steps.
The thing about this system is that results above 20 are meaningless, and you'll never get a hostile NPC to take even small risks to help you, or an indifferent NPC to big risks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I use the guidelines the DMG has laid out, which InquisitiveCoder has mentioned above, but I add a second layer of... let's call it resistance, against being convinced to do things that they view as particularly unacceptable.
For some examples: you can't convince an uninterested person into having sex with your character no matter how high your charisma check happens to be; your grandma is not coming on the adventure with you because she thinks that's a genuinely crazy idea; it doesn't matter how much money you offer me or how charismatic you are, I'm not killing anyone for you; and so on.
Regardless of dice roll, that charisma check is only there to modify/indicate a person's general attitude towards a suggestion. Unless the NPC is on the fence about a decision (or are particularly gullible or dishonest); as Aaron says (sort of), some things are not going to happen however charismatic the person suggesting them are. Otherwise James Franco could sort out most of the problems in the world by having a quiet chat (one on one) with the world's leaders.
A good roll can indicate that the NPC will go some way towards fulfilling the suggestion (Aaron's Granny sends him in her place, or Aaron decides to not call the cops when you offer him a contract (or maybe his granny has a secret history as a government sponsored assassin and he give you her number...) )
A failed roll when suggesting something unlikely could lead to the NPC blowing the whistle, blackmailing you, warning your associates about you, secretly spitting on your burger... or maybe they follow the suggestion and then betray you at the first chance... ...in short, things that might make a player think twice before reaching for the dice to solve a problem.
Leading to the question - should the DM roll the persuasion check secretly?
Important NPCs and their motives are too complex to boil down to a single d20 roll.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Whenever a player puts this sort of logic forward I remind them that there are magic spells and items that can coerce a person to do things they don't want to. A persuasion check does not trump magic. It just means you are persuasive to the point that people may consider something outside their normal behavior. Within limits.
i.e. Even if you roll a 50, the King isn't going to open the treasury and let you take all his gold. He's going to chuckle and respond favorably without being stupid. "That's a bold request, truly you are a fearless hero. I'm a bit fond of the treasury and use that coin to fund the kingdom. I would be willing to part with a fair amount of it though - provided you rescue my daughter. She's been kidnapped by a dragon and is sequestered in a tower in a nearby land called Tropia. Rescue her and I might be willing to give you tree fiddy gold if you rescue her and return her home safely!"
Where as a poor roll on the same request would anger the king and possibly get a character jailed.
Don't treat DnD as strictly a numbers game. The framework is there to fit the story nicely, and that's (as far as I'm concerned) the main point of the rolls. Just because someone nat20'd a jump check doesn't mean they spring an extra 15ft up, just because someone nat1'd a perception check doesn't mean they don't notice the glowing lamp in the dark room.
It's about telling the story together. If someone can come up with a good enough pickup line/ argument telling an NPC to join AND they rolled well, I don't see why it should be a problem. But if they just roll the dice and then look at you with a blank expression, then fold your hands and say "okay, you rolled a 24. Explain to me how you convince them"
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?