Our DM never lets me roll for persuasion and I don't understand why.
He always wants me to explain what my character is going to say and if it doesn't convince him I'm not allowed to try it.
In our last session I wanted to convince a merchant to give me 5 gold pieces to carry some barrels for him and my DM didn't let me do it. Meanwhile someone else in our group tries to sell a statue for more than double the price it's worth and he is allowed to roll for persuasion.
I just don't get it. What am I doing wrong? It's starting to get really frustrating.
There are no requirements for using persuasion, but players don't ask for ability checks. You describe what you want to do, and your DM - if there's a chance to succeed or fail - will ask for an appropriate roll.
So just because you want to try and persuade the merchant to give you 5 gold pieces for moving some barrels, doesn't mean that you get to.
If you want to use more of your skills, think of realistic ways that might call for a check. Ask the merchant if there's any work to be done, if the answer is 'no', then don't just say: 'I want to persuade him.' Actually try and persuade him - roleplay it out. If there's a chance of changing the merchant's mind, the DM can ask you for a persuasion roll.
I didn't just say "I want to do a persuasion check" we found these barrels in a cave full of orcs and were kind enough to bring the barrels back to the merchant. He was really ungrateful and wanted me to carry the 10 barrels for him whitout payment. So I said something along the lines of "Well ,these are some heavy barrels. I think some kind of payment would be appropriate..." The merchant was just mad at me and I didn't think 5 gold would be too much to ask. A minute later someone else said "What only 20 gold for the statue? The other merchant wanted to give us 45 gold." and the DM wanted him to roll for persuasion.
This isn't the only time this happened just the most recent example.
When I try to intimidate the last standing Goblin by doing a warcry or threatening him otherwise the DM just goes on like I didn't do anything at all. When I try to persuade the leader of a bunch of raiders to let the hostage go he doesn't even let me try.
I always roleplay what my character says but recently I don't see the point of saying anything at all since I can't influence the outcome. The only time I was able to roll for it was the one time I literally said "I try to convince them" and didn't specify what my character says at all but it never worked after that one time which wasn't even about something important.
I just meant that my characters ability to persuade or intimidate someone is depending on my own ability to be persuasive enough to convince my DM.
Thanks for clarifying and expanding on your issue.
If you think your DM is being unfair, or singling out individual players for preferential treatment, the best thing to do is, at the end of a session (not during), chat to other players - see if they feel the same. Have a chat with your DM too, but present it in a way that shows you want to use more of your skills. Chat to him about how you're feeling. Ask him specifically about the session, and what happened.
Thank you for your quick reply. I will try talking to him about it but he seems to be really stubborn.
I actually talked to someone in our group who had problems with him (ironically the guy with the statue). He used to play as a chaotic evil character but had to give it up since he was never allowed to do something evil. He agrees with me but I think the others don't care enough about it.
Yes, my character is proficient in persuasion. I tought it would be appropriate for a paladin. He is also proficient in intimidation due to the fact that he is a half-orc.
To me it sounds like your DM is maybe more interested in telling a specific story than letting the PCs do their thing! I think it's really important to highlight player's proficiencies and let them use those regularly. It might be worth talking to the DM, either after a session or between sessions and just saying something like "I've noticed you never really have me roll to persuade or intimidate, but those are both things my character is supposed to be good at. Is there a reason why you don't have me roll them? I feel like I'm not getting to use my abilities to their fullest and frankly I feel kind of left out when I see other players getting to do the things that I for some reason don't."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder) Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
You're stuck, you have a DM who, for some reason, feels that he doesn't have to give credit where credit is due.
I have seen this type of thing all too often, and it's a matter that is hard to resolve. The DM seems to have it stuck in their head that whatever the player is trying to do is never quite able to meet with some arbitrary expectation. A rogue never succeeds on acrobatics, a paladin misses on their intimidation, a bard never kills it with their performance. It really ruins the flavor of a character, especially when it's an RP thing rather than purely mechanical. The choices from here are 3: give up and stop using those skills, continue to express your discontent with the DM, or try different approaches to make your actions match your goal in the eyes of the DM.
Personally I'd wrap all 3 into one and make it all happen in game.
Talking to another player: "Oy, I suck at this persuasion stuff, it never seems to work. Since you always succeed when trying to persuade people, you do this."
if the DM tries to make you do it anyhow:
"I'm sorry, I have failed so many times at simple persuasion moments I'm not comfortable doing this. I break down into sweats at the mere thought of it and have an anxiety attack. I just can't seem to speak up."
Ham it up and drive the point home all in character. I'm a bit on the spiteful side with stuff like this so take of this what you will.
Just so we are clear with those giving out the advice of "roleplay it out", and this is something you should mention to you DM:
While it is great to RP where you can - you should not have to. Your character has the charisma and lifetime of honing persuasiveness, you may not. It is not up to the player to make the convincing argument or inspiring speech or sing the song, or whatever. That's the whole point behind why you have a system for rolling it. We are not our characters, we do not have their skills.
Remind the DM you are not actually your character and you dont have to be convincing with your own words, you want to use your character's skill not your own which is what the dice are for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Just so we are clear with those giving out the advice of "roleplay it out", and this is something you should mention to you DM:
While it is great to RP where you can - you should not have to. Your character has the charisma and lifetime of honing persuasiveness, you may not. It is not up to the player to make the convincing argument or inspiring speech or sing the song, or whatever. That's the whole point behind why you have a system for rolling it. We are not our characters, we do not have their skills.
Remind the DM you are not actually your character and you dont have to be convincing with your own words, you want to use your character's skill not your own which is what the dice are for.
Just as a person can't act smarter than they are, you may have a high school education but a 20 INT is smarter than, or as smart as, Einsteing/Hawkings...lets see you RP that out...
This wouldn't be the first time there's a DM who completely ignores mundane social rolls in their game. You're might just to have to accept that, unless you're using an ability that specifically allows you to frighten or charm someone (berserker barbarian or swashbuckler rogue, for non-spell examples), that your rolls won't affect the game that much. And I can kind of see where the DM is coming from - I certainly wouldn't be happy if I had a dragonborn with the fear aura feat and was rendered redundant by someone just rolling regular Intimidate. It can be a bit frustrating to feel like your actions have no impact, but this might very well be a case of your DM feeling your character is reaching beyond the effects of a mundane roll. Or perhaps your DM is balancing your actions based on perceived archetype of your character and is making calls based on unintentional bias.
Social-fu is always tricky in table top games. If this is the only issue, I would just chalk it up to differences in playstyle. Unless and until D&D actually creates a social interaction subsystem beyond "roll to hit DC XX" we really can't say that its wrong to do it that way your DM is doing.
To be perfectly honest, in the examples given, I can see a point where the DM is doing the right thing. Merchant getting mad at you for trying to get some gold? Its a merchant. They lie, cheat, steal, fake anger all to get extra coin. That's literally their job. You might have been dealing with someone less interested in fair trade and more in getting everything he can from you. The merchant's reaction might very well all be within the appropriate roleplaying character for this NPC. Trying to intimidate the last goblin standing? Your party just killed all his friends. Why shouldn't the goblin be mad with grief and rage? Why should a raider let a hostage go? That's their leverage.
This honestly sounds like a roleplaying style clash. You both have different expectations.
This wouldn't be the first time there's a DM who completely ignores mundane social rolls in their game. You're might just to have to accept that, unless you're using an ability that specifically allows you to frighten or charm someone (berserker barbarian or swashbuckler rogue, for non-spell examples), that your rolls won't affect the game that much. And I can kind of see where the DM is coming from - I certainly wouldn't be happy if I had a dragonborn with the fear aura feat and was rendered redundant by someone just rolling regular Intimidate. It can be a bit frustrating to feel like your actions have no impact, but this might very well be a case of your DM feeling your character is reaching beyond the effects of a mundane roll. Or perhaps your DM is balancing your actions based on perceived archetype of your character and is making calls based on unintentional bias.
Social-fu is always tricky in table top games. If this is the only issue, I would just chalk it up to differences in playstyle. Unless and until D&D actually creates a social interaction subsystem beyond "roll to hit DC XX" we really can't say that its wrong to do it that way your DM is doing.
To be perfectly honest, in the examples given, I can see a point where the DM is doing the right thing. Merchant getting mad at you for trying to get some gold? Its a merchant. They lie, cheat, steal, fake anger all to get extra coin. That's literally their job. You might have been dealing with someone less interested in fair trade and more in getting everything he can from you. The merchant's reaction might very well all be within the appropriate roleplaying character for this NPC. Trying to intimidate the last goblin standing? Your party just killed all his friends. Why shouldn't the goblin be mad with grief and rage? Why should a raider let a hostage go? That's their leverage.
This honestly sounds like a roleplaying style clash. You both have different expectations.
I can kind of see your point about the merchant but that is what dc 30s are for. Everyone has the moments where they do something abnormal. That's why we roll perception and an active 5 beats passive 17. You goofed and when you are normally observant, today you just got a little absent minded.
It was an attempt and by straight up saying no, it's forcing a nat1 which is absolute bull in a chance based rpg.
In the situation with the goblin, not only should that have been a roll, that goblin should have already been running. Goblins are pack creatures and cowards. They flee to warn the others all the time. In happens like 3 times in the first part of mines of phandelver alone.
Without those rolls, the DM is more or less saying, you can roleplay this out or sit there and do nothing. It all ends in the same result. High DCs accommodate for the near impossible. But dont discourage your players from playing. That's what they are there for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Since I didn't see the session it is really impossible for me to say what is going on.
However, you listed some examples ...
- convince a merchant to pay you for moving barrels AFTER you did something to irritate him (i.e. demand payment instead of ask nicely) ... so the DM might decide that the character would just not turn around and offer you some money or maybe the merchant was chaotic greedy and simply didn't see any point in paying someone for work that they had already done without being asked ... its a freebie, why pay? The behaviour could well have been in character for that NPC.
- trying to intimidate the last goblin standing. Depends on the goblin but I'd say that having killed all the rest of his buddies there isn't much you can do to be more intimidating than you already are. Also, is the goblin expected to believe that you would spare their life after you slaughter all their friends? The goblin might just decide they don't have any choice but trying to get in some damage on their way down.
- convincing a leader of raiders to let the hostage go ... if the raiders went to the effort of taking a hostage ... WHY would they ever let them go? Just because you asked nicely?
Yes the character possesses the skills you don't ... but in general I find that the DM will need some basis or a reason to allow for a skill check.
In your other example where a skill roll was allowed ... the player was selling an item to an NPC merchant, the merchant offered 20gp and the player says the other merchant offered 45gp. The player doesn't need to be convincing or believable ... but the character can be and so they get a dice roll to see if the merchant believes that there is another merchant offering 45gp AND perhaps another roll to decide whether the merchant can discern the true value of the item.
Basically, there is often a test of reasonableness in NPC interactions.
1) What is the NPCs character? Are they good/evil lawful/chaotic? Are they greedy or generous? Do they believe in charity or conserving every coin? Are they smart or stupid? Do they have a single track mind? Can they imagine losing or is it something that will never enter their minds?
2) What is the PC trying to get the NPC to do? Is it reasonable under the circumstances? Is there some reason the NPC would believe or do what the PC is asking? Often this reason has to be supplied by the player ... you can't usually just say that my character tries to convince the raider to release the hostage without giving some reason to do so. For example, my party is bigger than yours ... let the hostage go and we won't kill you ... OR ... you want a fight? then lets put the hostage out of the way and the winner can keep them ... OR ... lol .. you think a hostage will save you?
If you want to use a skill to try to accomplish something you often need to supply the justification and the DM will decide which skill might be appropriate.
3) The DM resolves the interaction. If there is a chance that the course of action taken by the player might succeed with the specific NPC and task then he may ask for a skill check to see if the action succeeds.
Anyway, since we weren't at the session ... I can't say whether the DM is just ignoring you or whether you are just trying to influence situations where you likely never had a chance of success ... like intimidating the last goblin standing .. is he supposed to get even more afraid? Intimidation at that point might be more likely to harden his resolve to fight to the last moment. Alternatively, if you had called for his surrender in a language he could understand since he could clearly see that you had killed all of his friends ... he might agree since he wouldn't see any other likely path to survival and might jump at the chance ... which might be resolved by a persuasion check where intimidation would simply fail.
I can kind of see your point about the merchant but that is what dc 30s are for. Everyone has the moments where they do something abnormal. That's why we roll perception and an active 5 beats passive 17. You goofed and when you are normally observant, today you just got a little absent minded.
It was an attempt and by straight up saying no, it's forcing a nat1 which is absolute bull in a chance based rpg.
In the situation with the goblin, not only should that have been a roll, that goblin should have already been running. Goblins are pack creatures and cowards. They flee to warn the others all the time. In happens like 3 times in the first part of mines of phandelver alone.
Without those rolls, the DM is more or less saying, you can roleplay this out or sit there and do nothing. It all ends in the same result. High DCs accommodate for the near impossible. But dont discourage your players from playing. That's what they are there for.
Sorry, but this comes off as you telling someone they're playing wrong. The DM gets to call when rolls are made, or if something is either utterly impossible, or trivially easy. Its entirely within her/his purview to not call for a roll if the DM decides its impossible. Saying that they should have called for a DC 30 roll is just forcing your style of play on someone else. And that's not right.
Neither your nor I are at the table, nor are we mind readers. We don't know what the DM is "more or less saying." We have one person's point of view, and that's not nearly enough to get anything resembling an accurate picture of what's actually happening. Could the DM have handled things better? Sure, that's very probable. But we don't know. Without context that's impossible to get in this case, there's nothing we can definitively say. Hells, for all we know? All these issues might simply be the case of miscommunication of intent.
To be clear, most DMs will apply disadvantage or advantage on the Persuasion roll based on the player's roleplaying and how reasonable the request is. But there should be a roll.
Thank you all for your answers. I'm not used to so much rationality on the internet.
I have the feeling I need to clarify my examples a bit.
The one with the goblins was in our first session. We were attacked by a bunch of goblins and the rouge of our group persuaded the last one of them to stop fighting. So I thought "Wow you can do that?" During our next battle I try to intimidate the last goblin by saying something like "You can't win! Drop your weapon and we might let you live!" and suddenly I killed all his friends so I can't do that. Correct me if I'm wrong but goblins don't strike me as very brave or loyal.
The situation with the raiders wasn't much different. We fought a group of raiders and suddenly the leader disappears to get the hostage. We didn't even kow they had a hostage. He came back to see the last one of his men fall.
2) What is the PC trying to get the NPC to do? Is it reasonable under the circumstances? Is there some reason the NPC would believe or do what the PC is asking? Often this reason has to be supplied by the player ... you can't usually just say that my character tries to convince the raider to release the hostage without giving some reason to do so. For example, my party is bigger than yours ... let the hostage go and we won't kill you ... OR ... you want a fight? then lets put the hostage out of the way and the winner can keep them ... OR ... lol .. you think a hostage will save you?
If you want to use a skill to try to accomplish something you often need to supply the justification and the DM will decide which skill might be appropriate.
That is literally everything I said. We were five guys against one raider leader with low health so I said "We are five against one. Let him go and no one needs to die." Not convincing enough to roll. He seemed determined to continue the fight so I said "You still want to fight? Then get the hostage out of the way you coward!" Not convincing enough. He was the last one standing so I said "We killed your entire group. Do you really think a hostage will save you?" Not convincing enough. Like I said, I couldn't even roll the dice but everything I tried was what my character said so I just pissed him off.
I just don't understand what my DM wants from me. I will try talking to him next time I see him.
I hope it doesn't look like I'm just whining about my DM. He is just as new in all of this as me and he does a got job for the most part. It's just this one aspect that bothers me... well and the thing about our chaotic evil ranger that was never allowed to do something evil... but I can sort of understand that.
I'd love to sit in on your session and figure out what's going on. As others have said, it's really hard to get a feel for your DM, without being part of the interaction.
Does your DM usually allow you to do utilise your skills outside of combat? Is it only these persuasion instances that you've felt railroaded?
I think an honest, out-of-session conversation with your DM is the best way to go. If he's not interested in discussing ways you can get more involved with your character, seems resistant to you trying innovative approaches, or creativity in your play, then he's probably unwilling to have a carefully laid plan disrupted by the players. Which would be a shame.
As you've mentioned he's a new DM, this is actually fairly common. DMs can spend a lot of time planning the next session, preparing for what the players will do, and setting up cool encounters, story hooks and moments - but no plan survives the players - and this might be a case of your DM floundering when you do something he didn't plan for. This could be because he doesn't know the rules, isn't comfortable improvising, or -really- wants the players to follow his plan. Unfortunately, this comes across as frustrating railroad, where players feel like they don't have any agency.
Hopefully he explains his methods in a more constructive way, discusses his reasoning behind previous decisions, and explores how you might be able to get more involved with skills and abilities outside of combat, and you can find yourself on the same page.
Let us know how you get on! Why not encourage your new DM to spend some time on these forums, particularly in the 'Dungeon Masters Only' section, where he can learn, improve, and ask questions?
Maybe. And after a conversation, the DM might call for more. Maybe the DM is railroading, maybe not. But without being there, none of us can say for certain what should or should not have happened.
I hope it doesn't look like I'm just whining about my DM. He is just as new in all of this as me and he does a got job for the most part. It's just this one aspect that bothers me... well and the thing about our chaotic evil ranger that was never allowed to do something evil... but I can sort of understand that.
No, but its important to keep in mind that there's always at least two sides to every story, and you're only one side. Its easy to go into these conversations assuming that you're in the right, which can make the other side defensive and lead to further issues.
I might be playing devil's advocate here, but its important to keep in mind that in most people's minds, they're not in the wrong. Its someone else. Or that dealing with social stuff might be outside the DM's wheelhouse. I've played in games where there were otherwise great GMs that had some blind spot where they floundered, or suffered from unconcious bias, or just couldn't deal with certain tendencies. I know lots of GMs that loath information gatherers, because it "ruins their stories." I know some that insist on ignoring social-fu (and will deny they are, even to themselves) and push towards physical alterations as the solution, which is a trend in the rpg and video game industry.
And, like I said, it doesn't help that the rules for dealing with social stuff in D&D is beyond bare bones. This is not a spot that the game as a whole is good at dealing with - there's no shades of grey, just "I succeeded" or "I failed." Such "social combat" basically becomes petty mind control abilities, which is bad for the game as well.
Our DM never lets me roll for persuasion and I don't understand why.
He always wants me to explain what my character is going to say and if it doesn't convince him I'm not allowed to try it.
In our last session I wanted to convince a merchant to give me 5 gold pieces to carry some barrels for him and my DM didn't let me do it. Meanwhile someone else in our group tries to sell a statue for more than double the price it's worth and he is allowed to roll for persuasion.
I just don't get it. What am I doing wrong? It's starting to get really frustrating.
There are no requirements for using persuasion, but players don't ask for ability checks. You describe what you want to do, and your DM - if there's a chance to succeed or fail - will ask for an appropriate roll.
So just because you want to try and persuade the merchant to give you 5 gold pieces for moving some barrels, doesn't mean that you get to.
If you want to use more of your skills, think of realistic ways that might call for a check. Ask the merchant if there's any work to be done, if the answer is 'no', then don't just say: 'I want to persuade him.' Actually try and persuade him - roleplay it out. If there's a chance of changing the merchant's mind, the DM can ask you for a persuasion roll.
I didn't just say "I want to do a persuasion check" we found these barrels in a cave full of orcs and were kind enough to bring the barrels back to the merchant. He was really ungrateful and wanted me to carry the 10 barrels for him whitout payment. So I said something along the lines of "Well ,these are some heavy barrels. I think some kind of payment would be appropriate..." The merchant was just mad at me and I didn't think 5 gold would be too much to ask. A minute later someone else said "What only 20 gold for the statue? The other merchant wanted to give us 45 gold." and the DM wanted him to roll for persuasion.
This isn't the only time this happened just the most recent example.
When I try to intimidate the last standing Goblin by doing a warcry or threatening him otherwise the DM just goes on like I didn't do anything at all. When I try to persuade the leader of a bunch of raiders to let the hostage go he doesn't even let me try.
I always roleplay what my character says but recently I don't see the point of saying anything at all since I can't influence the outcome. The only time I was able to roll for it was the one time I literally said "I try to convince them" and didn't specify what my character says at all but it never worked after that one time which wasn't even about something important.
I just meant that my characters ability to persuade or intimidate someone is depending on my own ability to be persuasive enough to convince my DM.
Thanks for clarifying and expanding on your issue.
If you think your DM is being unfair, or singling out individual players for preferential treatment, the best thing to do is, at the end of a session (not during), chat to other players - see if they feel the same. Have a chat with your DM too, but present it in a way that shows you want to use more of your skills. Chat to him about how you're feeling. Ask him specifically about the session, and what happened.
Is your character proficient in persuasion?
Thank you for your quick reply. I will try talking to him about it but he seems to be really stubborn.
I actually talked to someone in our group who had problems with him (ironically the guy with the statue). He used to play as a chaotic evil character but had to give it up since he was never allowed to do something evil. He agrees with me but I think the others don't care enough about it.
Yes, my character is proficient in persuasion. I tought it would be appropriate for a paladin. He is also proficient in intimidation due to the fact that he is a half-orc.
To me it sounds like your DM is maybe more interested in telling a specific story than letting the PCs do their thing! I think it's really important to highlight player's proficiencies and let them use those regularly. It might be worth talking to the DM, either after a session or between sessions and just saying something like "I've noticed you never really have me roll to persuade or intimidate, but those are both things my character is supposed to be good at. Is there a reason why you don't have me roll them? I feel like I'm not getting to use my abilities to their fullest and frankly I feel kind of left out when I see other players getting to do the things that I for some reason don't."
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I tried to tell him but all he says is stuff like "What you said didn't sound very convincing."
You're stuck, you have a DM who, for some reason, feels that he doesn't have to give credit where credit is due.
I have seen this type of thing all too often, and it's a matter that is hard to resolve. The DM seems to have it stuck in their head that whatever the player is trying to do is never quite able to meet with some arbitrary expectation. A rogue never succeeds on acrobatics, a paladin misses on their intimidation, a bard never kills it with their performance. It really ruins the flavor of a character, especially when it's an RP thing rather than purely mechanical. The choices from here are 3: give up and stop using those skills, continue to express your discontent with the DM, or try different approaches to make your actions match your goal in the eyes of the DM.
Personally I'd wrap all 3 into one and make it all happen in game.
Talking to another player: "Oy, I suck at this persuasion stuff, it never seems to work. Since you always succeed when trying to persuade people, you do this."
if the DM tries to make you do it anyhow:
"I'm sorry, I have failed so many times at simple persuasion moments I'm not comfortable doing this. I break down into sweats at the mere thought of it and have an anxiety attack. I just can't seem to speak up."
Ham it up and drive the point home all in character. I'm a bit on the spiteful side with stuff like this so take of this what you will.
Just so we are clear with those giving out the advice of "roleplay it out", and this is something you should mention to you DM:
While it is great to RP where you can - you should not have to. Your character has the charisma and lifetime of honing persuasiveness, you may not. It is not up to the player to make the convincing argument or inspiring speech or sing the song, or whatever. That's the whole point behind why you have a system for rolling it. We are not our characters, we do not have their skills.
Remind the DM you are not actually your character and you dont have to be convincing with your own words, you want to use your character's skill not your own which is what the dice are for.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Just as a person can't act smarter than they are, you may have a high school education but a 20 INT is smarter than, or as smart as, Einsteing/Hawkings...lets see you RP that out...
This wouldn't be the first time there's a DM who completely ignores mundane social rolls in their game. You're might just to have to accept that, unless you're using an ability that specifically allows you to frighten or charm someone (berserker barbarian or swashbuckler rogue, for non-spell examples), that your rolls won't affect the game that much. And I can kind of see where the DM is coming from - I certainly wouldn't be happy if I had a dragonborn with the fear aura feat and was rendered redundant by someone just rolling regular Intimidate. It can be a bit frustrating to feel like your actions have no impact, but this might very well be a case of your DM feeling your character is reaching beyond the effects of a mundane roll. Or perhaps your DM is balancing your actions based on perceived archetype of your character and is making calls based on unintentional bias.
Social-fu is always tricky in table top games. If this is the only issue, I would just chalk it up to differences in playstyle. Unless and until D&D actually creates a social interaction subsystem beyond "roll to hit DC XX" we really can't say that its wrong to do it that way your DM is doing.
To be perfectly honest, in the examples given, I can see a point where the DM is doing the right thing. Merchant getting mad at you for trying to get some gold? Its a merchant. They lie, cheat, steal, fake anger all to get extra coin. That's literally their job. You might have been dealing with someone less interested in fair trade and more in getting everything he can from you. The merchant's reaction might very well all be within the appropriate roleplaying character for this NPC. Trying to intimidate the last goblin standing? Your party just killed all his friends. Why shouldn't the goblin be mad with grief and rage? Why should a raider let a hostage go? That's their leverage.
This honestly sounds like a roleplaying style clash. You both have different expectations.
I can kind of see your point about the merchant but that is what dc 30s are for. Everyone has the moments where they do something abnormal. That's why we roll perception and an active 5 beats passive 17. You goofed and when you are normally observant, today you just got a little absent minded.
It was an attempt and by straight up saying no, it's forcing a nat1 which is absolute bull in a chance based rpg.
In the situation with the goblin, not only should that have been a roll, that goblin should have already been running. Goblins are pack creatures and cowards. They flee to warn the others all the time. In happens like 3 times in the first part of mines of phandelver alone.
Without those rolls, the DM is more or less saying, you can roleplay this out or sit there and do nothing. It all ends in the same result. High DCs accommodate for the near impossible. But dont discourage your players from playing. That's what they are there for.
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Since I didn't see the session it is really impossible for me to say what is going on.
However, you listed some examples ...
- convince a merchant to pay you for moving barrels AFTER you did something to irritate him (i.e. demand payment instead of ask nicely) ... so the DM might decide that the character would just not turn around and offer you some money or maybe the merchant was chaotic greedy and simply didn't see any point in paying someone for work that they had already done without being asked ... its a freebie, why pay? The behaviour could well have been in character for that NPC.
- trying to intimidate the last goblin standing. Depends on the goblin but I'd say that having killed all the rest of his buddies there isn't much you can do to be more intimidating than you already are. Also, is the goblin expected to believe that you would spare their life after you slaughter all their friends? The goblin might just decide they don't have any choice but trying to get in some damage on their way down.
- convincing a leader of raiders to let the hostage go ... if the raiders went to the effort of taking a hostage ... WHY would they ever let them go? Just because you asked nicely?
Yes the character possesses the skills you don't ... but in general I find that the DM will need some basis or a reason to allow for a skill check.
In your other example where a skill roll was allowed ... the player was selling an item to an NPC merchant, the merchant offered 20gp and the player says the other merchant offered 45gp. The player doesn't need to be convincing or believable ... but the character can be and so they get a dice roll to see if the merchant believes that there is another merchant offering 45gp AND perhaps another roll to decide whether the merchant can discern the true value of the item.
Basically, there is often a test of reasonableness in NPC interactions.
1) What is the NPCs character? Are they good/evil lawful/chaotic? Are they greedy or generous? Do they believe in charity or conserving every coin? Are they smart or stupid? Do they have a single track mind? Can they imagine losing or is it something that will never enter their minds?
2) What is the PC trying to get the NPC to do? Is it reasonable under the circumstances? Is there some reason the NPC would believe or do what the PC is asking? Often this reason has to be supplied by the player ... you can't usually just say that my character tries to convince the raider to release the hostage without giving some reason to do so. For example, my party is bigger than yours ... let the hostage go and we won't kill you ... OR ... you want a fight? then lets put the hostage out of the way and the winner can keep them ... OR ... lol .. you think a hostage will save you?
If you want to use a skill to try to accomplish something you often need to supply the justification and the DM will decide which skill might be appropriate.
3) The DM resolves the interaction. If there is a chance that the course of action taken by the player might succeed with the specific NPC and task then he may ask for a skill check to see if the action succeeds.
Anyway, since we weren't at the session ... I can't say whether the DM is just ignoring you or whether you are just trying to influence situations where you likely never had a chance of success ... like intimidating the last goblin standing .. is he supposed to get even more afraid? Intimidation at that point might be more likely to harden his resolve to fight to the last moment. Alternatively, if you had called for his surrender in a language he could understand since he could clearly see that you had killed all of his friends ... he might agree since he wouldn't see any other likely path to survival and might jump at the chance ... which might be resolved by a persuasion check where intimidation would simply fail.
Sorry, but this comes off as you telling someone they're playing wrong. The DM gets to call when rolls are made, or if something is either utterly impossible, or trivially easy. Its entirely within her/his purview to not call for a roll if the DM decides its impossible. Saying that they should have called for a DC 30 roll is just forcing your style of play on someone else. And that's not right.
Neither your nor I are at the table, nor are we mind readers. We don't know what the DM is "more or less saying." We have one person's point of view, and that's not nearly enough to get anything resembling an accurate picture of what's actually happening. Could the DM have handled things better? Sure, that's very probable. But we don't know. Without context that's impossible to get in this case, there's nothing we can definitively say. Hells, for all we know? All these issues might simply be the case of miscommunication of intent.
To be clear, most DMs will apply disadvantage or advantage on the Persuasion roll based on the player's roleplaying and how reasonable the request is. But there should be a roll.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
Thank you all for your answers. I'm not used to so much rationality on the internet.
I have the feeling I need to clarify my examples a bit.
The one with the goblins was in our first session. We were attacked by a bunch of goblins and the rouge of our group persuaded the last one of them to stop fighting. So I thought "Wow you can do that?" During our next battle I try to intimidate the last goblin by saying something like "You can't win! Drop your weapon and we might let you live!" and suddenly I killed all his friends so I can't do that. Correct me if I'm wrong but goblins don't strike me as very brave or loyal.
The situation with the raiders wasn't much different. We fought a group of raiders and suddenly the leader disappears to get the hostage. We didn't even kow they had a hostage. He came back to see the last one of his men fall.
That is literally everything I said. We were five guys against one raider leader with low health so I said "We are five against one. Let him go and no one needs to die." Not convincing enough to roll. He seemed determined to continue the fight so I said "You still want to fight? Then get the hostage out of the way you coward!" Not convincing enough. He was the last one standing so I said "We killed your entire group. Do you really think a hostage will save you?" Not convincing enough. Like I said, I couldn't even roll the dice but everything I tried was what my character said so I just pissed him off.
I just don't understand what my DM wants from me. I will try talking to him next time I see him.
I hope it doesn't look like I'm just whining about my DM. He is just as new in all of this as me and he does a got job for the most part. It's just this one aspect that bothers me... well and the thing about our chaotic evil ranger that was never allowed to do something evil... but I can sort of understand that.
I'd love to sit in on your session and figure out what's going on. As others have said, it's really hard to get a feel for your DM, without being part of the interaction.
Does your DM usually allow you to do utilise your skills outside of combat? Is it only these persuasion instances that you've felt railroaded?
I think an honest, out-of-session conversation with your DM is the best way to go. If he's not interested in discussing ways you can get more involved with your character, seems resistant to you trying innovative approaches, or creativity in your play, then he's probably unwilling to have a carefully laid plan disrupted by the players. Which would be a shame.
As you've mentioned he's a new DM, this is actually fairly common. DMs can spend a lot of time planning the next session, preparing for what the players will do, and setting up cool encounters, story hooks and moments - but no plan survives the players - and this might be a case of your DM floundering when you do something he didn't plan for. This could be because he doesn't know the rules, isn't comfortable improvising, or -really- wants the players to follow his plan. Unfortunately, this comes across as frustrating railroad, where players feel like they don't have any agency.
Hopefully he explains his methods in a more constructive way, discusses his reasoning behind previous decisions, and explores how you might be able to get more involved with skills and abilities outside of combat, and you can find yourself on the same page.
Let us know how you get on! Why not encourage your new DM to spend some time on these forums, particularly in the 'Dungeon Masters Only' section, where he can learn, improve, and ask questions?
Maybe. And after a conversation, the DM might call for more. Maybe the DM is railroading, maybe not. But without being there, none of us can say for certain what should or should not have happened.
No, but its important to keep in mind that there's always at least two sides to every story, and you're only one side. Its easy to go into these conversations assuming that you're in the right, which can make the other side defensive and lead to further issues.
I might be playing devil's advocate here, but its important to keep in mind that in most people's minds, they're not in the wrong. Its someone else. Or that dealing with social stuff might be outside the DM's wheelhouse. I've played in games where there were otherwise great GMs that had some blind spot where they floundered, or suffered from unconcious bias, or just couldn't deal with certain tendencies. I know lots of GMs that loath information gatherers, because it "ruins their stories." I know some that insist on ignoring social-fu (and will deny they are, even to themselves) and push towards physical alterations as the solution, which is a trend in the rpg and video game industry.
And, like I said, it doesn't help that the rules for dealing with social stuff in D&D is beyond bare bones. This is not a spot that the game as a whole is good at dealing with - there's no shades of grey, just "I succeeded" or "I failed." Such "social combat" basically becomes petty mind control abilities, which is bad for the game as well.