Persuasion vs insight: how to

[The Shadowdove]

Hey folks,

Just to be clear on the rules to persuade someone of something I was hoping you'd indulge me a bit.

I want my characters and NPCs to be able to appropriately persuade or not persuade people to/not to do/agree with things/etc.

Through the course of a conversation I imagine this would either happen at multiple points or after having made your specific argument.

1) How do you determine difficulty of persuading someone?
2) what do contending rolls determine/depict?
3) what do high/low/close results mean?
4)anything else you'd be willing to share.

Thank you in advance,

Dove.

[lunaticfringe]

I make the DCs up as I go along. It really depends on what the character says or does during the attempt. Half assed attempts increase the DC, good roleplay lowers it. Not every npc can be persuaded. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Same goes for Intimidate.

[Dachimotsu]

The DMG (245) has a section on what NPCs would be willing to do for the PCs based on hostility level. Even has a list of DCs.

[MBControl]

On tougher events, I don't always see it as a single check to persuade. I have the players make a few attempts to convince the target. A crit will auto succeed, and a botch will auto fail, but in between will move the dial up and down. If they are able to string two or three success in a row, they will pass. The opposite is true for failures. Close rolls will simply not work, but not impede their ability to continue attempting to persuade the target. This will stretch out the encounter, and seem more realistic in RP terms.

If the players do something "extra" in the RP I will often award advantage.

[JellyPooga]

One thing I'll advise is to roll the dice before the RP. When a player gives some long-winded, heartfelt speech, inevitably ending in "FREEDOOOOM!" and the dice comes up a natural 1, the result simply doesn't match the input. Yes, you can grant advantage or a bonus for good RP as MBControl advocates, but I see that as being a penalty for players that aren't so socially inclined, moreso than a bonus for those who are. The point of roleplaying, to some extent, is excapism; if I'm a fumble-tongued shut-in sort of person and I'm playing a charismatic character, I shouldn't be disadvantaged compared to another player, who is supposed to be playing a non-charismatic one but whose player has a silver tongue. No roleplaying game rewards a player who's a great swordsman in in-game combat; social scenarios should be no different.

Rolling the dice before the "big speech" (or what-have-you) allows that "big speech" to incorporate elements of the result as well, giving the player the opportunity to narrate the reaction of the crowd to a degree. One of the rules from the Lord of the Rings roleplaying game The One Ring that I like to incorporate into D&D games I run is that if the Player succeeds, they get to narrate the outcome, but if they fail, the GM does. It might feel intrusive or whatever to be playing out the result of a character you don't directly control, but it really does work, especially in social scenes. It obviously won't work with a player that is looking to abuse the rules to his/her advantage, but I wouldn't play with such a player (personally).

Another approach that might be useful to you (in agreement with MBControl this time) is to break down the interaction into a series of tests, rather than a single opposed roll. Three successes before the opponent gets three or three successes before you get three failures (like Death Saves), for example, might be a good way to model a lengthy debate or haggle. You can narrate the response after each roll, allowing for some tense moments (especially in situation where, to use the 3 vs.3 example, you have a 2:2 situation and everything hangs on a single roll of a die). Thsi approach also allows you to use different skills; you might start with a Persuade check, followed by a Religion test, then finish on a Deception...as long as the player can justify a skill being used, allow it. Don't limit yourself (or your players) solely to the "social" skills of Persuade, Deception, Insight, Intimidation and Performance; "lore" skills (Arcana, History, Nature and Religion) are the most obviously applicable, but other skills like Animal Handling or Investigation could also come into play quite easily (consider the social impact of a "lion tamer" or Sherlock Holmes type character), as can "physical" skills, like Athletics as a show of strength to impress can also be used. Mix it up and be permissive of your players creativity; a Charisma (Acrobatics or Sleight of Hand) check to impress a crowd with some slick moves, before using Deception or Persuasion to sell them Snake Oil, is a hammy but legitimate tactic used by many a smooth operator or con man, for example.

[djreynolds]

I like that, yes roll the dice before the conversation

Its really tough for some players to play there skills/abilities and not themselves, the kid playing a bard has no idea.. he's there with his dad and thinks the bard is a rock star. And the dad is playing an ape of fighter, but speaking like Grodd the Gorilla.

Unless it is imperative in the module that this success or failure of this conversation can change the game's outcome... just go with it... no dice.

[Shimi43]

I just wing it. If it seems like they rolled a reasonable number than I count it as good.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I just wing it. If it seems like they rolled a reasonable number than I count it as good.

And as an added bonus, you teach players that the words and numbers on their character sheets just aren't that defining or empowering! (Sarcasm, sorry.)