I had a scenario where my players encountered an NPC who, in the plot, was tired and wanted to die after countless times of being revived by an evil boss. (Used like a puppet) The only thing that can truly kill him is a concocted potion specifically for him that the players have.
My players then wanted to persuade him to not do so. So I asked one of them to roll a persuasion check and even had a DC of 15 for it. The player rolled 12. I described how the NPC couldn't be swayed with his words. But the players were still trying to convince the NPC in character. And they made some really good points. I asked the another player to roll. Rolled a natural 1. Due to the roll fail, my players panicked and kept convincing in character again. I described how the NPC just unsheathed a knife and slit his own throat and die. But some of my players suddenly get angry about it and say how dumb and unfair it was because they were constantly persuading him. I told them it was because of the persuasion fail, but they still argue that they made good points and should've been able to roll persuasion again.
In the end, I stood on my point and they didn't say anything after that. (They still didn't like it and became very passive-aggressive throughout the session). I'm not sure whether I've done anything wrong. As I depended on the dice rolls. Should I have asked another different player to roll another persuasion roll? They're my friends and I know they aren't sensitive to any 'heavy/morality' stuff. But they still get mad about this situation when I talked to them one on one out of the game. :( Is there anything I should've done?
I'll begin by saying that you didn't do anything wrong, however this scenario highlights a couple of ways of doing Persuasion rolls differently:
Roll first, then roleplay the result. Good arguments can often be brought low by dice rolls. If you roll first you can then roleplay the argument, rather than the NPC's unwillingness to hear it, it might a bad Persuasion roleplayer (such as myself) more able to make a decent enough case or a good roleplayer can have their character experience humility and have stumble over their words.
Provide Advantage/Disadvantage or Lower the DC. These are ways wherein you can reward a well roleplayed argument, that have tangible results.
Don't do them. In this scenario I wouldn't have the players roll at all because there's no way the NPC is going to change their mind. No amount of pep talk is going to cheer up our dour NPC after the unending torment they've suffered. Alternatively, the argument could've been so good that the dice roll was unnecessary.
The only mistake I think you really made was having the NPC kill themselves, undoing the point of the plot device you'd created and any efforts the players went to specifically to get it. Perhaps they'll revive later and become useful or become a burden like a recurring enemy. That potion might come in handy when it comes to dealing with this Oath of Vengeance Paladin your characters are responsible for creating...
Don't let their anger get to you, and if needs be don't play with them. You can still be friends without playing D&D, some activities just don't mesh with some people.
Keep up the good work, you did the right thing to ask!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
You could have given them advantage for their good points but other then that Nope. Also they could have tried to stop him from committing sepoku without persuading him.
I admit that it was a mistake on my part for killing the NPC, I just feared during the moment the conversation might kept continuing in circles and had to come up with a quick ultimatum after that natural 1 roll. But the NPC will definitely be revived later on.
I'll keep those points in mind and try them in future sessions.
Make a single Persuasion roll at the end of the discussion
The real error here was in showing the players that as long as they kept arguing, they were entitled to more Persuasion rolls. That's not how any skill check should work. You get 1 go at it, unless something major changes (e.g. a Charm spell is used - not just better arguments). Otherwise, you are giving the PCs a 100% chance of success, as they will eventually roll high enough to beat the DC.
If they roleplay well, give them advantage. Otherwise, it's a lot easier to mess up the roles.
Remember, they may fail the check and it goes how it goes. By setting up a DC, you provide them both a chance at success and failure.
This is rarely used (I think) in 5e, but some people who want to eliminate the luck aspect don't have the players roll and just go by the most likely result based off their actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Even if the players are very convincing in their verbal arguments, if the dice rolls low then it might be because there's some internal reason for the target to dislike the party (regardless of what they said - maybe the target dislikes magic users, or some other internal reason that they haven't expressed).
There is nothing wrong in having character talk and use Charisma (Persuasion) check to see if the arguments made are compelling enought to convince the NPC. You can either determine the result or rely on the dice to do so.
But if you decide the NPC isn't convinced or set a DC for it that end up unbeaten, then you should stick to the outcome regardless if the players are complaining. They have to respect your call as DM even if they disagree.
Here is how I try to run it, bearing in mind that in the moment I often panic and all of this is out the window.
If I intend for the NPC to be swayed, I let the PCs role play it out, then they roll and I decide it was a successful roll. If they roll really badly, I may have to alter the NPCs personality. Maybe they're tipsy and and talking too much, etc..
If I do not intend for the NPC to be swayed I let teh PCs role pay it out then roll against the NPCs Perception. I may increase the DC if I really don't want the NPC to talk, but if the PCs succeed, then I give them some information but not enough to do anything with.
Main points; always roll and never let the PCs know the DC. Even if the roll doesn't matter, they don't need to know that.
If they make good points and role play well then you don't have to make them roll at all.
This is one school of thought. You might also call for a roll regardless of how well the players do, because characters are not players.
I've been in a game where a player who was a master manipulator always took 8 CHA yet expected that his characters would always succeed at persuasion-type activities because he himself was charming and persuasive. Just because a player is skilled at something doesn't mean their character is. The reverse also applies - I don't have to know how to use a sword to have a character that does.
In the situation above, I would have said something like, "After some conversation, you realise that this person is resolute in their desire. You won't be able to convince them otherwise." If the players keep trying, I'd tell them, "He is not listening to you any more. He takes out a knife. What do you do?"
Also, you could establish with your players that a failed roll makes the DC for the check go up by 5 for each failure (so they are aware that their chances are limited and that they should choose carefully who should roll for what). If they fail within 5 of the actual DC, maybe it's more of a partial failure. With a partial failure, you could still give them something in exchange for their attempts, even if it's not the outcome they're actually asking for. Maybe the NPC provides information, or a "I heard a rumour that this quest item could help but I don't have much hope."
That said, I would be careful to take actions which go against the fun of your players. They want to feel like they have some measure of control, not like they're helpless. Even if you don't consider your players sensitive, it is a highly sensitive topic and you don't always know what something like that may trigger. There are people that put on a brave face, but can feel a bit more emotionally attached to the situation, especially when they're trying to save something/someone. Dnd is more personal than watching a movie, as it's based on decisions which are sparked (usually) by emotion.
Give them insight checks to clock the mood, perception checks for the weapon, ask them what they're attempting to do to stop what they anticipate could happen from happening, then give them a roll to try to prevent the outcome. If they're helping each other (think the Help action), the player that rolls could roll with advantage.
You also didn't have to have the character do that in front of the players whilst they're actively trying to help, maybe next time (since there will be a next time as you seem to plan to use the character again) the bad guy controls them and the players see why the NPC has lost hope. The players have an opportunity to try to directly save the character. Maybe the NPC develops hope that life can be different as a result of the fight. It actually doesn't make logical sense (to me) for the NPC to do so when what they want (true death, not momentary death) belongs to the party. Maybe it's even something that they will fight the party for?
Maybe you let the players consider that if they destroy the BBEG, the NPC will want to live out the rest of their life in peace, helping people who need it. (Which is the outcome your friends seem to want.)
That said, another player did this to me in a game once (their character (who my character wouldn't fight against because they were allied) killed a helpless NPC my character was protecting and had already used a spell to take out of battle). It was really triggering and so my bias might show in my reply to you. I had to scratch it from my memory as best as I could otherwise I would have needed to drop the game.
Hello! Beginner DM here!
I had a scenario where my players encountered an NPC who, in the plot, was tired and wanted to die after countless times of being revived by an evil boss. (Used like a puppet)
The only thing that can truly kill him is a concocted potion specifically for him that the players have.
My players then wanted to persuade him to not do so.
So I asked one of them to roll a persuasion check and even had a DC of 15 for it.
The player rolled 12.
I described how the NPC couldn't be swayed with his words. But the players were still trying to convince the NPC in character. And they made some really good points.
I asked the another player to roll.
Rolled a natural 1.
Due to the roll fail, my players panicked and kept convincing in character again. I described how the NPC just unsheathed a knife and slit his own throat and die. But some of my players suddenly get angry about it and say how dumb and unfair it was because they were constantly persuading him.
I told them it was because of the persuasion fail, but they still argue that they made good points and should've been able to roll persuasion again.
In the end, I stood on my point and they didn't say anything after that. (They still didn't like it and became very passive-aggressive throughout the session).
I'm not sure whether I've done anything wrong. As I depended on the dice rolls. Should I have asked another different player to roll another persuasion roll?
They're my friends and I know they aren't sensitive to any 'heavy/morality' stuff. But they still get mad about this situation when I talked to them one on one out of the game. :(
Is there anything I should've done?
I'll begin by saying that you didn't do anything wrong, however this scenario highlights a couple of ways of doing Persuasion rolls differently:
The only mistake I think you really made was having the NPC kill themselves, undoing the point of the plot device you'd created and any efforts the players went to specifically to get it. Perhaps they'll revive later and become useful or become a burden like a recurring enemy. That potion might come in handy when it comes to dealing with this Oath of Vengeance Paladin your characters are responsible for creating...
Don't let their anger get to you, and if needs be don't play with them. You can still be friends without playing D&D, some activities just don't mesh with some people.
Keep up the good work, you did the right thing to ask!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
You could have given them advantage for their good points but other then that Nope. Also they could have tried to stop him from committing sepoku without persuading him.
Thanks so much for replying!
I admit that it was a mistake on my part for killing the NPC, I just feared during the moment the conversation might kept continuing in circles and had to come up with a quick ultimatum after that natural 1 roll. But the NPC will definitely be revived later on.
I'll keep those points in mind and try them in future sessions.
If they make good points and role play well then you don't have to make them roll at all.
The real error here was in showing the players that as long as they kept arguing, they were entitled to more Persuasion rolls. That's not how any skill check should work. You get 1 go at it, unless something major changes (e.g. a Charm spell is used - not just better arguments). Otherwise, you are giving the PCs a 100% chance of success, as they will eventually roll high enough to beat the DC.
If they roleplay well, give them advantage. Otherwise, it's a lot easier to mess up the roles.
Remember, they may fail the check and it goes how it goes. By setting up a DC, you provide them both a chance at success and failure.
This is rarely used (I think) in 5e, but some people who want to eliminate the luck aspect don't have the players roll and just go by the most likely result based off their actions.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Even if the players are very convincing in their verbal arguments, if the dice rolls low then it might be because there's some internal reason for the target to dislike the party (regardless of what they said - maybe the target dislikes magic users, or some other internal reason that they haven't expressed).
There is nothing wrong in having character talk and use Charisma (Persuasion) check to see if the arguments made are compelling enought to convince the NPC. You can either determine the result or rely on the dice to do so.
But if you decide the NPC isn't convinced or set a DC for it that end up unbeaten, then you should stick to the outcome regardless if the players are complaining. They have to respect your call as DM even if they disagree.
The DMG has a handy chapter about this: LINK
Zee Bashew has a video about it, too
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Here is how I try to run it, bearing in mind that in the moment I often panic and all of this is out the window.
If I intend for the NPC to be swayed, I let the PCs role play it out, then they roll and I decide it was a successful roll. If they roll really badly, I may have to alter the NPCs personality. Maybe they're tipsy and and talking too much, etc..
If I do not intend for the NPC to be swayed I let teh PCs role pay it out then roll against the NPCs Perception. I may increase the DC if I really don't want the NPC to talk, but if the PCs succeed, then I give them some information but not enough to do anything with.
Main points; always roll and never let the PCs know the DC. Even if the roll doesn't matter, they don't need to know that.
This is one school of thought. You might also call for a roll regardless of how well the players do, because characters are not players.
I've been in a game where a player who was a master manipulator always took 8 CHA yet expected that his characters would always succeed at persuasion-type activities because he himself was charming and persuasive. Just because a player is skilled at something doesn't mean their character is. The reverse also applies - I don't have to know how to use a sword to have a character that does.
In the situation above, I would have said something like, "After some conversation, you realise that this person is resolute in their desire. You won't be able to convince them otherwise." If the players keep trying, I'd tell them, "He is not listening to you any more. He takes out a knife. What do you do?"
Also, you could establish with your players that a failed roll makes the DC for the check go up by 5 for each failure (so they are aware that their chances are limited and that they should choose carefully who should roll for what). If they fail within 5 of the actual DC, maybe it's more of a partial failure. With a partial failure, you could still give them something in exchange for their attempts, even if it's not the outcome they're actually asking for. Maybe the NPC provides information, or a "I heard a rumour that this quest item could help but I don't have much hope."
That said, I would be careful to take actions which go against the fun of your players. They want to feel like they have some measure of control, not like they're helpless. Even if you don't consider your players sensitive, it is a highly sensitive topic and you don't always know what something like that may trigger. There are people that put on a brave face, but can feel a bit more emotionally attached to the situation, especially when they're trying to save something/someone. Dnd is more personal than watching a movie, as it's based on decisions which are sparked (usually) by emotion.
Give them insight checks to clock the mood, perception checks for the weapon, ask them what they're attempting to do to stop what they anticipate could happen from happening, then give them a roll to try to prevent the outcome. If they're helping each other (think the Help action), the player that rolls could roll with advantage.
You also didn't have to have the character do that in front of the players whilst they're actively trying to help, maybe next time (since there will be a next time as you seem to plan to use the character again) the bad guy controls them and the players see why the NPC has lost hope. The players have an opportunity to try to directly save the character. Maybe the NPC develops hope that life can be different as a result of the fight. It actually doesn't make logical sense (to me) for the NPC to do so when what they want (true death, not momentary death) belongs to the party. Maybe it's even something that they will fight the party for?
Maybe you let the players consider that if they destroy the BBEG, the NPC will want to live out the rest of their life in peace, helping people who need it. (Which is the outcome your friends seem to want.)
That said, another player did this to me in a game once (their character (who my character wouldn't fight against because they were allied) killed a helpless NPC my character was protecting and had already used a spell to take out of battle). It was really triggering and so my bias might show in my reply to you. I had to scratch it from my memory as best as I could otherwise I would have needed to drop the game.
Or have it adjust the DC, I have done that before allowed for good roleplay to amend a high Social DC I had set initially.